Making Tank Crews

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Hicks58]

You could just create a secondary effect upon using the bail about ability where after a 4 second timer of the crew disembarking, it spawns a demo charge with 0.1 AoE radius and something silly like 2000 damage with full friendly fire.

So have two sub actions, one that is 8 seconds and has the crew then dismount, and a second one that happens at exactly the same time for say 13 seconds which spawns the 0.1 AoE radius demo charge. It'd still have the big explosion visual effect and look all proper, and it'd justify the crew taking so long to get out the tank.

And for clarity, call the bail out ability "Scuttle vehicle".

EDIT: Talk to Nikomas or Volsky about the MU drain per second concerns btw.

[Scotzmen]

I'll try and explore the option. I could make it like the para drop meds ability where it spawns the demo charge instead of meds. Means it would have to be a prop. I'll see how the commando demo charge works and see if its akin.

my other way was just giving the vehicle/tank the ability that had a modifier that would just minus its healthpool by 9999 and it would be destroyed. But the explosion would look cooler tbh

Yeah, was going to name it that

[tank130]

I would really rather see the repair ability implemented first. It will have a greater impact on a larger number of units.

Are you not able to use the same repair mechanic that the bergitiger uses?

[Scotzmen]

I could totally make it like the bergtiger. But then what  would be the point in transferring the repair ability from a tank to a engineer crew? They would do the same job?

[nikomas]

my other way was just giving the vehicle/tank the ability that had a modifier that would just minus its healthpool by 9999 and it would be destroyed. But the explosion would look cooler tbh

You're making it overly complicated, just giving it a delayed death critical should do it. If explosions must occur and you want to be chinese about it, I direct you towards a certain remote controlled bomb's self destruct ability.


*
Not that tank crews would fit in without throwing balance out of whack, can't say I'd support it without it being very solidly planned first.

[Tachibana]

I could totally make it like the bergtiger. But then what  would be the point in transferring the repair ability from a tank to a engineer crew? They would do the same job?

Not everyone has berg. For tank hunters, berg is far more survivable than engineers.

[tank130]

I could totally make it like the bergtiger. But then what  would be the point in transferring the repair ability from a tank to a engineer crew? They would do the same job?

Damn, I wish I knew what the doc ability was called but I don't. We have an ability were the kitty collects munitions in game so the Bergitiger can perform the repairs.
If I am not mistaken, you can stop the berg from doing the repair and continue later.

Could you not use that same mechanic in theory? Use the engineer instead of the Berg. The engineer purchases the munitions for repairs in the launcher instead of the kitty collecting wreaks.

The point of giving it to engineers instead of bergs is Engineers are available in all factions and they can be killed easier making it more of a strategy play.

[nikomas]

Damn, I wish I knew what the doc ability was called but I don't. We have an ability were the kitty collects munitions in game so the Bergitiger can perform the repairs.
If I am not mistaken, you can stop the berg from doing the repair and continue later.

I don't think you can continue the repairs, or at the very least, you do not get refunded. You basically buy a repair kit you can use on a tank for 50 or 100 muni in a batch that repairs a set number of HP. If we have to swap repair system, I vastly prefeer that style to being able to start and stop at will with no additional costs.

Being able to repair, starting and stopping without much risk other than losing the engineers is to damned flexible, it will also partially eliminate one of the primary ways to deal with heavies, hitting them while they're repairing.

[tank130]

I don't think you can continue the repairs, or at the very least, you do not get refunded. You basically buy a repair kit you can use on a tank for 50 or 100 muni in a batch that repairs a set number of HP. If we have to swap repair system, I vastly prefeer that style to being able to start and stop at will with no additional costs.

Being able to repair, starting and stopping without much risk other than losing the engineers is to damned flexible, it will also partially eliminate one of the primary ways to deal with heavies, hitting them while they're repairing.

Agree 100%. If you want to stop your repair to save your ass, then you loose the repair is the way it should be. If you want to spend another repair to keep going after that's fine.

There has to be some kind of penalty for having the ability to stop the repair and run.

[Tachibana]

*scratch that.*

[Hicks58]

Sticking with the current repair system whilst you're all aiming for batshit balance (That's terminology, not an insult FYI, batshit balance is when you literally balance OP vs OP all over the show) with the doctrines will cause some serious issues for vehicles. You'll be using a static repair system in an environment that has moved from careful hair-pin balance (Which static repairs are currently based around) to using them in an environment where anything and everything is suddenly extremely lethal.

Static repairs in an environment where you've got AB with mines that can just drop in and fuck your day on a whim? It's really not gonna work out well for vehicles at all, and that's just a single example.

Flipping the docs on their head, and then trying to convince yourselves that overhauling the repair system to match would be a bad idea is a complete half-measure.

[Scotzmen]

So if we implement tank crews, do we really need to change the repair system? 

[Hicks58]

Technically speaking, in the current environment, you do not need both items. Both items proposed CAN work just fine if thoroughly tested and ironed out one at a time.

BUT.

If doctrine is going to keep on it's current course heading to the land of OP vs OP balance? Vehicles will need some serious redesign on their repair and retreat mechanics. The static repair system is balanced for the current model. Infantry are fine as-is because they've always had their oh-shit button for when things go south with constant sprint and massive defensive buffs as they peg it away. Vehicles though? They work out in the current environment because outside of a few gimmicky builds (Which technically aren't supposed to be there in the current balance system) your shit is only liable to instantly die if the user fucks up.

[tank130]

Sticking with the current repair system whilst you're all aiming for batshit balance (That's terminology, not an insult FYI, batshit balance is when you literally balance OP vs OP all over the show) with the doctrines will cause some serious issues for vehicles. You'll be using a static repair system in an environment that has moved from careful hair-pin balance (Which static repairs are currently based around) to using them in an environment where anything and everything is suddenly extremely lethal.

Static repairs in an environment where you've got AB with mines that can just drop in and fuck your day on a whim? It's really not gonna work out well for vehicles at all, and that's just a single example.

Flipping the docs on their head, and then trying to convince yourselves that overhauling the repair system to match would be a bad idea is a complete half-measure.

Why are you assuming the new doctrines will be OP vs OP or "batshit balance" as you put it?

[nikomas]

Why are you assuming the new doctrines will be OP vs OP or "batshit balance" as you put it?

Because the two new doctrines selected are in fact, batshit op, nobody gave you that memo? It's why I hate them.

41 range handhelt at? lolkgoodjoke.
Fire up for everyone! I dont even...

[Hicks58]

Cause those doctrine layouts that I sat back and watched happen are exactly that.

You'll also notice that my posts have accounted for both the OP vs OP route and taking on the current more standard route. The standard route wouldn't need any kind of overhauling, and these kinds of implementation (Crew bailing, new repair system) would be optional (Yet possible).

[tank130]

My bad.....

I have been ignoring the selected doctrines because there is a high probability we are changing the doctrine system and those drafts we be useless.

But, even if we did decide to stick with the current system, I do believe it has been noted several times that the chosen drafts would need to be balanced and changed to work. It is my understanding the concept was chosen, not the exact content.

[GrayWolf]

41 range handhelt at? lolkgoodjoke.

Have I ever told you the definition of insanity? Pick up Shreck mate. Enemies will schmell death with extra spicy explosives.

Anyway, this thread was derailed without Shab's help. Someone should clear this mess.

[Scotzmen]

So after an eternity of testing and testing and testing. I finally have it working.

When the squad is loaded, you will not be able exit the vehicle unless you scuttle it. If the tank blows up, crew dies. Simple.

[AlphaTIG]

so do you have to scuttle, then bail, or does the crew automaticly bail after they light the fuse?