Burning/Disabled tanks -1 reply

Please wait...

McGibs

FHdev

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

4,064 Posts

0 Threads

#11 16 years ago

no no, its just being tweaked to iron out some innacuracies in armor values. Most people probly wont even notice.




Aequitas

aka [SHEEP]BrotherMaynard

50 XP

8th February 2001

0 Uploads

489 Posts

0 Threads

#12 16 years ago

Definatly a good thing that the tanks are being tweaked. Are things like the cannon projectile drop and turret traverse speed being tweaked too?

Yea, the biggest problem I had with this was that you could possibly see a whole bunch of tanks burning on the battlefield, and the enemy won't kill them to give them back.

Only two solutions I thought of were make it so the tank will only burn for a minuite or so MAX before blowing, that way it would be back before long.

The other thing.. which may be COMPLETELY impossible, would be to treat burning tanks like dead ones. What I mean is, normally, when a tank is dead, it triggers a new one to spawn. What would be nice, is if a tank is burning, the game would recognize it as dead, and trigger a new one to spawn. Only problem then, is you could possibly have twice the number of tanks out on the field at once. No more tho, because I'm sure the first tanks will have burnt out before the second ones are destroyed. I dunno, just a thought.

The only thing I'm not sure about, are how exactly to put it all togother. Let's have a vote. Should the tanks, when burning:

Not be able to move turret, gun not functional, tank cannot move, cannot be repaired WHEN BURNING driver takes damage

or

turret can move slowly cannon can fire tank cannot move can be repaired when burning driver does not take or takes very little damage

Or ANY other combination of such. It would be best to be able to have it different depending on each situation and damage, but alas, we would have to pick one that would work the best for all situations.

I forgot what else I was going to say, so carry on.




[BFE]projecTile

I'm way too cool to Post

50 XP

7th February 2004

0 Uploads

163 Posts

0 Threads

#13 16 years ago

yeah lets set this vote up, I would vote the second one though ;)




Aequitas

aka [SHEEP]BrotherMaynard

50 XP

8th February 2001

0 Uploads

489 Posts

0 Threads

#14 16 years ago

Well, I think there are too many options to actually set up a poll, but I'd like to hear what everybody prefers.




Rathole

Take one for the team

50 XP

23rd March 2004

0 Uploads

117 Posts

0 Threads

#15 16 years ago

In conjunction with this idea, why not set the immobilize damage threshold higher?

I don't know the particulars right now, but I'm guessing as it exists that at about 5 percent, the tank is immobilized and turret rotation is slowed. Why not bump the number up, so tank is immobilized at about 40 percent damage (or whatever is acceptable)? I would recommend not affecting the turret traverse while doing this, but just affecting movement. This might be one way to reflect wheel, track, non-fatal engine hits. Once the damage gets down to 5-10 percent, then add in the turret effects. Just a thought, not even sure if this is possible with the BF1942 engine. JTM p.s. One other related thought...why not slow down the wrench effectiveness for armor (and planes, too while we're at it)? The wrench is basically worthless for ships now, with a very slow repair rate. Rather than ditching the wrench altogether (a very common suggestion), why not just nerf it so it can't repair tanks and planes as quickly?




Kingrudolf

Fan FH Mapper

50 XP

8th October 2003

0 Uploads

1,345 Posts

0 Threads

#16 16 years ago

I agree with Aequitas.

I have suggested a similar idea plenty of times, it's great. But I don't think you should be able to take damage when hit, when the tank has pleny of hitpoints left. Only if the tank is "disabled" and someone is trying to board it. Those disabled tanks should NOT be able to be repaired! It's only the lame ass tank "stealers" who want to repair disabled tanks. Ignore them. Disabled tanks should not be usable anymore, after all, it IS "disabled". I'd say let the tank burn for five seconds, just to give the players inside the tank a good chance to bail out.

Then it would be PERFECT.

Really looking forward to this implentment.




General Taskeen

FH Betatester

50 XP

24th November 2002

0 Uploads

659 Posts

0 Threads

#17 16 years ago

I would also be nice, in some instances if smoke would appear from a tank that is on "fire," and billow out high into the sky.

When tanks are in the process of being damaged (taking hits), they shoudn't have that little smoke stuff coming out of the back :uhm:. If a tank is smoking at all from the inside, the crew would not stay in there...




Aequitas

aka [SHEEP]BrotherMaynard

50 XP

8th February 2001

0 Uploads

489 Posts

0 Threads

#18 16 years ago

General TaskeenI would also be nice, in some instances if smoke would appear from a tank that is on "fire," and billow out high into the sky.

When tanks are in the process of being damaged (taking hits), they shoudn't have that little smoke stuff coming out of the back :uhm:. If a tank is smoking at all from the inside, the crew would not stay in there...

Couldn't that smoke possibly be coming directly from the engine and out the vents in the back?

Oh, and I agree with burning tanks pumping out more smoke into the sky. This ant no cedar log campfire, it's burning oil and flesh.




General Taskeen

FH Betatester

50 XP

24th November 2002

0 Uploads

659 Posts

0 Threads

#19 16 years ago

If that were the case, then the engine would be severly hindered. I mean, we are talking about something that EA/Dice put it to make tanks appear to have "damage." It shoould be taken out or possibly only appear when the tank is at 0 health.




Aequitas

aka [SHEEP]BrotherMaynard

50 XP

8th February 2001

0 Uploads

489 Posts

0 Threads

#20 16 years ago

Yea, that's true. But, then you would be completely without any indication if a tank is severely damaged or not.