Exiting Vehicles - Come to a Full Stop

[Zekeen]

With MBTs using a secondary gunner instead of designated, I noticed a REALLY big problem that could appear. This is something I am INCREDIBLY guilty of in other FPS titles. Jumping in and out of a vehicle to avoid death and maximize K/D ratio.

The problem is this. With no designated gunner, people will jump into the secondary gunning spot on a tank for a ride, and for easy defended kills. But when the tank starts taking too much damage, they jump out and rocket the enemy within a flash. I do this ALL the time in BF3, and I don't think it'll fit in PS2.

With aircraft, jumping out in a flash makes sense, you're not combat ready till you hit the ground, and probably not till a little later. With a ground vehicle though, you can just leap out and start firing whatever big gun you got on ya.

PS1 didn't have this problem, you had enter/exit animations. You had to COME TO A COMPLETE STOP to exit. If PS2 allows leaping out, it takes out the tactical approach of just stopping.

Now, I dunno if they have vehicles set to let you jump out on the go, or when you stop first, but think on it. If we can jump out on the go, a Sunderer NEVER has to stop, you just have people jumping out, no clue as to when or where to look for the troop load.

So this is why I say - REQUIRE A VEHICLE TO COMPLETELY STOP BEFORE SOMEONE CAN EXIT!

With this, you don't have jumpers firing a tank round on a move, and ditching it before you can fire back. If they want to avoid that final shot, they gotta jump sooner by spending time stopping and not spend time trying to get you back first. This keeps things much more fair and balanced.

The devs have already given us a start up on a vehicle to keep it balanced where our old animations are no longer preventing speed take offs, so I am calling attention to this to make sure it doesn't get overlooked. In order to prevent ditching in mid travel and firing, and to keep it far more fair for the other person.

I also think a good idea is adding in a small, 2 second delay for ditching, a sort of counter -start up. Just to ensure it stays more tactical.

Edit: I didn't really think to specify, but ATV should still permit bailing, since it is a mobile scout craft, and it makes sense. If the Harasser ever gets back in with the open design, I suggest that it be allowed to bail too, as it is an open design. If people wanna bail with a tank, let them cert an EJECTION SEAT! Swoosh! Right into the sky!

[Pyreal]

'Please remain seated until the vehicle comes to a complete stop.'

While your reason for this suggestions seems honorable, I think the mechanic itself is antiquated and will leave an artificial aftertaste with anyone who dines on it.

This is going to be a shoot 'em up game, not a field trip to the History Museum to see old, worn out restrictions on play.

Remember, Higby is aiming for the FPS audience, and a hallmark of FPS games is Fast action. Forcing a player to come to a complete stop like a bus driver at a railroad crossing before exiting is an unnecessary and grossly artificial mechanic.

You mentioned fairness. It is fair if both parties have the same options, and they will in PS2. If one party utilizes the game's features to a higher degree than the other, he rightly wins.

[Bags]

I don't think kids these days are that ADHD, pyreal.

[Zekeen]

'Please remain seated until the vehicle comes to a complete stop.'

While your reason for this suggestions seems honorable, I think the mechanic itself is antiquated and will leave an artificial aftertaste with anyone who dines on it.

This is going to be a shoot 'em up game, not a field trip to the History Museum to see old, worn out restrictions on play.

Remember, Higby is aiming for the FPS audience, and a hallmark of FPS games is Fast action. Forcing a player to come to a complete stop like a bus driver at a railroad crossing before exiting is an unnecessary and grossly artificial mechanic.

You mentioned fairness. It is fair if both parties have the same options, and they will in PS2. If one party utilizes the game's features to a higher degree than the other, he rightly wins.

Higby is aiming for the PS FPS audience, and trying to gather "twitchers" to the concept of a much more fullfilling game. Back in PS1, you could ditch an aircraft at any time. This causes a GIGANTIC amount of anger towards the function. As a result, all aircraft prevented ejected after receiving a set amount of damage, forcing them to land to allow the player to get out. This prevented the attacker from losing out on a kill when their target just bailed out of combat.

Same thing with a tank. If I jump out before you can deal the finishing blow, and while on the move, then you lose out on a kill. If I have to take the time to stop to bail out, I'm a sitting duck, if I escape, it makes more sense. And it makes more sense for a truckload of soldiers to have to stop to let them all off, instead of them just jumping out along the way. It made a lot more sense in PS1 than in games like BF3. Felt a lot better too.

[Toppopia]

Or maybe when you press the bail out button, your vehicle loses all power and control till it has stopped. (Not for aircraft) so that you are at a severe disadvantage if you want to bail early. Could apply to aircraft unless you have an ejection seat or jetpack.

[Zekeen]

Or maybe when you press the bail out button, your vehicle loses all power and control till it has stopped. (Not for aircraft) so that you are at a severe disadvantage if you want to bail early. Could apply to aircraft unless you have an ejection seat or jetpack.

I think aircraft are getting that as a mod actually.

[captainkapautz]

It made a lot more sense in PS1 than in games like BF3.

But I can bail from a ground vehicle in PS1.

I don't see the problem, if someone ditched his tank in BF3 while I was shooting it, then I just shot the guy instead.

[Toppopia]

I think aircraft are getting that as a mod actually.

I know they are getting that, you misread what i said or i misworded it. Mis-communication :lol:

[Warborn]

In PS1 this wasn't really such a big deal as it took a few seconds to exit a vehicle, and vehicles had enough of a blast radius when destroyed that you'd often get killed trying to exit.

Either way though avoiding death is incredibly lame. It's no fun to be fighting someone and then not get a kill despite beating them in their vehicle. This goes for aircraft and land vehicles. A kill ought to be a kill. I don't think bailing from aircraft pilot/gunner seats or being able to instantly hop out of land vehicles contributes to the game in any way.

[Graywolves]

I don't see anything wrong with infantry jumping out of sunderer while it's moving.


A few restrictions giving depth could be interesting. Say a full speed vehicle can't properly eject passengers/operators without doing some harm if at all.

A vehicle going under a certain speed will let passengers out no problem, delay for operator.

A vehicle at complete stop will let everyone out fine.

The variables being speed, vehicle, occupants, and customization options (ejection seats?).



But this could just be a trivial thing too.

[Shade Millith]

I don't see anything wrong with infantry jumping out of sunderer while it's moving.


A few restrictions giving depth could be interesting. Say a full speed vehicle can't properly eject passengers/operators without doing some harm if at all.


A transport designed to transport infantry and deposit them while under fire is completely different from a MBT with gunner.

[Warborn]

I don't see anything wrong with infantry jumping out of sunderer while it's moving.

Passengers fine, drivers/gunners not fine. Being able to use an APC to rapidly deploy guys while moving sounds fine to me.

[Shogun]

i don´t want to see any megaretarded bf3 bazooka 1337 loopjumping going on in planetside!

there need to be restrictions!
possibilitys:
1. vehicle boarding animations (or at least delay until animations are ready)
2. absolutely NO ENTERING of moving vehicles. full stop required to enter (driver and gunnerseats)
3. bailing from a moving vehicle causes damage to the bailer
4. after bailing you need a few seconds before you can take up your ironsight (bail with holstered weapon and have to touch the ground before you can aim again. doesn´t apply to light assault, because of the jetpack and the lack of heavy av weapons on that class)

[Mechzz]

i don´t want to see any megaretarded bf3 bazooka 1337 loopjumping going on in planetside!

there need to be restrictions!
possibilitys:
1. vehicle boarding animations (or at least delay until animations are ready)
2. absolutely NO ENTERING of moving vehicles. full stop required to enter (driver and gunnerseats)
3. bailing from a moving vehicle causes damage to the bailer
4. after bailing you need a few seconds before you can take up your ironsight (bail with holstered weapon and have to touch the ground before you can aim again. doesn´t apply to light assault, because of the jetpack and the lack of heavy av weapons on that class)

Number 3 would get my vote. No others needed. Maybe the bailer should be given the same percentage health the vehicle had at the point he bailed?

So if you bail with your magrider at 30% health, then you hit the ground with only 30% of your health. Reflects the idea that you've been in a vehicle that's under heavy assault.

Now there's an idea!

Edit: but the bailer would only take the health hit if they bail. This gives them an incentive to try and get that "miracle kill" - you know, the one we all remember where we scraped back to base with our magrider smoking and full of holes.

[Sturmhardt]

I dont know it we need that many restrictions, but it would just water down the whole "real war" experience when everyone jumps out of fast moving vehicles... so I hope there will be some kind of mechanic to prevent that.

[Thomas]

Maybe don't allow people to jump out of vehicles going above 20mph but below that then you can jump out at anytime. Having to wait till you come to a full stop would be tedious and troublesome.

[Zenben]

Could also make the explosion of a destroyed vehicle do significant damage: I'm shooting your tank and I'm winning, so you decide to jump out to rocket me? I keep shooting your tank, and it blows up in your face as you hop out.

Edit: Had another thought: You can't exit your vehicle until after you've gone a period of time without taking damage, say 3 seconds?

[Noivad]

Roll with an organized squad or outfit, and you will not have a problem with people jumping out unless told to do so. PS1 had no problems with people jumping out. Some vehicles allowed even the driver to jump out. Hopefully PS2 will be the same. :evil:

[Canaris]

On ground vehicles I've no problem with passengers able to bail out freely, drivers and gunners should have a delay or require the vehicle to be stationary or very slow to exit.

[JHendy]

So if you bail with your magrider at 30% health, then you hit the ground with only 30% of your health. Reflects the idea that you've been in a vehicle that's under heavy assault.

Now there's an idea!


And a damn fine one at that. This seems like a pretty good solution to me.

[Thomas]

And a damn fine one at that. This seems like a pretty good solution to me.

It doesn't make sense that someone in a heavily armoured tank is suddenly almost dead when coming out.

[Shepherdx]

A few ideas I read here that I like:

1. Enter/Exit animations (ideally about three to four seconds each)

2. Inability to exit a vehicle if you have taken damage in the last three to four seconds


As fun as BF3 is, I have never liked the ability to instantly pop into and out of vehicles. I think having an animation showing your character having to open a hatch, enter, and sit at the controls of a tank before you can operate it is the best choice.

[Mechzz]

It doesn't make sense that someone in a heavily armoured tank is suddenly almost dead when coming out.

Have to say I think it does. The vehicle has been taking heavy hits, you've been knocked around, banged your head. Not one to puff my own ideas, but this one has grabbed me.

It gives the occupants a fair choice - try and finish the fight in a smoking wreck (and gain another "planetside moment" for the memory banks) or try and bail and gain a different planetside moment by AV'ing or AA'ing your killer from a low health position.

[Hmr85]

I see nothing wrong with this. Bailing out of vehicles at speed is a legit tactic. :D I know I caught a few unsuspecting TR/VS by doing that when they thought they had that free kill.

[Mechzz]

I see nothing wrong with this. Bailing out of vehicles at speed is a legit tactic. :D I know I caught a few unsuspecting TR/VS by doing that when they thought they had that free kill.

Hmm.

"I beat his tank to a pulp, woohoo"
*driver bails @ 100%* (despite sitting in a flaming wreck)
battle starts again.

Nah, when bailing from a damaged vehicle, the bailer should take some portion of the damage the vehicle took.

[sylphaen]

Why allow the driver of a tank to bail on the move ?

Ground vehicle wise PS1 had it well balanced IMO.

Gunners cannot be forced to stay in a vehicle since they could be held hostage by the driver. However, for the driver, I don't see why he should be allowed to bail on the move just because aircraft players can.

The driver bought the tank, he drives it, he has the main gun, he knows the risks.

[ArcIyte]

PS1 had the correct bailing mechanisms for ground vehicles

You could jump out of open-topped vehicles. Tanks required you to stop, get out, and had a big explosion radius when they blew up.

Anything less than that is dumbed down and a step backwards.

[Pyreal]

I don't think you are looking at this from all perspectives.

It's ringing 'Meme, I hit first. I win.'
Really, forcing a player in a battle to completely stop in order to bail is signing a death warrant. The 'E' button might as well be labeled 'Self Destruct.'

Regardless of how PS1 functioned, new players are going to expect to be able to bail out of their damaged vehicle at speed because it is the standard. Anything less will be seeing as outmoded and restrictive.

[Pyreal]

PS1 had the correct bailing mechanisms for ground vehicles

You could jump out of open-topped vehicles. Tanks required you to stop, get out, and had a big explosion radius when they blew up.

Anything less than that is dumbed down and a step backwards.

Which system allows for more flexibility in play style, more tactical options, more uncertainty in the midst of battle?
It is the 'dumbed down and a step backwards' system.

[roguy]

Or maybe when you press the bail out button, your vehicle loses all power and control till it has stopped. (Not for aircraft) so that you are at a severe disadvantage if you want to bail early. Could apply to aircraft unless you have an ejection seat or jetpack.

Hopefully this'll work without having any passenger-that-hits-the-eject-button take away control of the driver and force my Deli to stop in front of 5 enemy MBTS...

God i HATED that! :mad:

[ArcIyte]

You are in a main battle tank. You are much stronger than someone on foot or in a transport. You have a great advantage, and should be committed to being a tank. Getting out in the middle of a fight should be trickier than hitting your "g" key.

Please spare us the bullshit "it offers more tactical options" argument. Instant vehicle exit is going to be used for one thing only: jumping out of the tank right before your enemy fires the last shot.

[sylphaen]

Really, forcing a player in a battle to completely stop in order to bail is signing a death warrant. The 'E' button might as well be labeled 'Self Destruct.'

Regardless of how PS1 functioned, new players are going to expect to be able to bail out of their damaged vehicle at speed because it is the standard. Anything less will be seeing as outmoded and restrictive.

Then don't get your vehicle damaged too much before retreating ? do not overextend ? Prepare your exit routes before jumping into battle ? do not sign the death warrant and die with your tank ? prepare your move if you really plan to exit the vehicle ?

Nothing prevents you from trying to escape instead of choosing to exit the vehicle. Nothing prevents you from taking a chance at exiting the vehicle knowing the risks involved. It's just that it involves a choice with calculated risks. At some point, one has to look at the situation and accept his fate: once your tank is low-health in hostile grounds, bailing or not, you have already lost the tank fight and are in a dire situation.

Not being able to bail from a tank instantly is about knowing when you have lost. It forces a choice between:
- keep doing damage on the enemy tank and go down with the ship. Maybe survive (but it's too late to bail if you realize you won't)
- do less damage on the enemy for a chance to run away on foot. Maybe survive, your tank is lost.
- try to escape with your tank. You won't have a chance to bail if it fails.

With instant bailing, the game is dumbed down to option 1: you can just always bail at the last moment or the instant there is an opportunity to jumpjet away on a hill or base buildings. I do not see why you should have a no-brainer option that involves zero risk/cost to escape a situation which you got yourself in because you failed to see something coming or to prepare for it appropriately.

Non-instant bailing for heavy ground vehicles also offers a balance mechanism vs. light vehicles (buggies, flash/atv). You trade armor for escape options. With a tank, you should have lower chances of using your extra health bar (i.e. you as a soldier). With a low armor vehicle, you should be able to bail more easily to use that soldier health bar.

That's how PS1 was balance and I agree with that vehicle balance decision. Not because it was PS1 but because I believe it was a nice mechanic.

EDIT: and just FYI, I support what ArcIyte said 100%.

[Gandhi]

Regardless of how PS1 functioned, new players are going to expect to be able to bail out of their damaged vehicle at speed because it is the standard. Anything less will be seeing as outmoded and restrictive.
That's just your opinion though. I get the feeling that lots of people feel frustrated when their opponent jumps out of his vehicle to avoid death and would love to see this "feature" removed. Sure it might benefit them too from time to time, but on the whole most people recognize it's inherently a bullshit mechanic. It's all in how you look at it.

[Hmr85]

Hmm.

"I beat his tank to a pulp, woohoo"
*driver bails @ 100%* (despite sitting in a flaming wreck)
battle starts again.

Nah, when bailing from a damaged vehicle, the bailer should take some portion of the damage the vehicle took.

I'm not saying he shouldn't.... However, I completely disagree that the vehicle has to come to a complete stop before you can exit. It wasn't really a issue in PS1. I don't see it being that big of a issue in PS2 even though some on here are trying to make it out to be.

If the gunner/driver manages to bail out before it explodes and kills the op4 holding the rocket launcher that's their problem for not being prepared. Always plan for every scenario...

[KTNApollo]

Instant bail is bad. One way to fix it is to have enter/exit animations which they said they won't do at the moment. The other way is to prevent you from bailing until you come to a complete stop. It's unrealistic and stupid to jump out of a tank going 50 miles per hour. This should be a one-way argument, honestly. Catering to "new player" audiences by implementing easy-mode instant bail is not the way to secure a large player base. The way to secure a large player base is to have good game mechanics, and instant bail is not good game mechanics.

[Pyreal]

Then don't get your vehicle damaged too much before retreating ? do not overextend ? Prepare your exit routes before jumping into battle ? do not sign the death warrant and die with your tank ? prepare your move if you really plan to exit the vehicle ?

Nothing prevents you from trying to escape instead of choosing to exit the vehicle. Nothing prevents you from taking a chance at exiting the vehicle knowing the risks involved. It's just that it involves a choice with calculated risks. At some point, one has to look at the situation and accept his fate: once your tank is low-health in hostile grounds, bailing or not, you have already lost the tank fight and are in a dire situation.

Not being able to bail from a tank instantly is about knowing when you have lost. It forces a choice between:
- keep doing damage on the enemy tank and go down with the ship. Maybe survive (but it's too late to bail if you realize you won't)
- do less damage on the enemy for a chance to run away on foot. Maybe survive, your tank is lost.
- try to escape with your tank. You won't have a chance to bail if it fails.

With instant bailing, the game is dumbed down to option 1: you can just always bail at the last moment or the instant there is an opportunity to jumpjet away on a hill or base buildings. I do not see why you should have a no-brainer option that involves zero risk/cost to escape a situation which you got yourself in because you failed to see something coming or to prepare for it appropriately.

Non-instant bailing for heavy ground vehicles also offers a balance mechanism vs. light vehicles (buggies, flash/atv). You trade armor for escape options. With a tank, you should have lower chances of using your extra health bar (i.e. you as a soldier). With a low armor vehicle, you should be able to bail more easily to use that soldier health bar.

That's how PS1 was balance and I agree with that vehicle balance decision. Not because it was PS1 but because I believe it was a nice mechanic.

EDIT: and just FYI, I support what ArcIyte said 100%.

SandyBrown: Your statement leads to the conclusion that bailing is irrelevant to your circumstance: "you have already lost the tank fight and are in a dire situation."
If the situation is identical regardless of 'bailing or not', what's the issue?


Red: How is forcing a player beneficial to the game?

Bailing is irrelevant, but don't allow it. :rolleyes:

[ArcIyte]

Enter/exit animations can be put in later, it's not the issue. We really should have an enter/exit progress bar in the meantime.

[sylphaen]

Red: How is forcing a player beneficial to the game?

Bailing is irrelevant, but don't allow it. :rolleyes:

You oversimplified what I said and did not get my point so let me try again for the sake of discussion.

Having rules in a game IS forcing a player to certain mechanics. Are you saying rules are not beneficial ?
:confused:

Let's ask it another way: why should a player be forced to play without unlimited ammo, unlimited jetpacks, unlimited HP, etc... ? Well, simply because not having those restrictions and rules makes the game not challenging and not entertaining.

Forcing rules on bailing is not about griefing players, it's about offering balanced choices and let the player choose the best depending on his situation. What's the point of having A, B or C if B is always the best choice in all situations ?

The underlying assumption about offering choices is that better players will usually take better decisions and good decision making should be rewarded.

Edit:
SandyBrown: Your statement leads to the conclusion that bailing is irrelevant to your circumstance: "you have already lost the tank fight and are in a dire situation."
If the situation is identical regardless of 'bailing or not', what's the issue?
What I am trying to say is that once you are bound to lose your tank, the issue about bailing is about how dire your situation should be when you lose your tank and how the transition to grunting should play out.

Edit2: btw, thanks for having read my post and taking the time to reply.

[sylphaen]

Enter/exit animations can be put in later, it's not the issue. We really should have an enter/exit progress bar in the meantime.

Once again, I agree 100% with this opinion. Thanks for being so accurate. I am too verbose.
:)

[Zulthus]

You should be able to bail out of any open top vehicle at any speed, but take fall damage equal to the % of your speed. However, you should not be able to bail out of tanks. It doesn't make any sense and there's no good use to it. You need to be at a complete stop to open the hatch and clamber in, and at a complete stop to get out. As someone said, spare the more tactical options bullshit argument, the only thing bailing will be used for is escaping death last second.

[Hmr85]

You should be able to bail out of any open top vehicle at any speed, but take fall damage equal to the % of your speed. However, you should not be able to bail out of tanks. It doesn't make any sense and there's no good use to it. You need to be at a complete stop to open the hatch and clamber in, and at a complete stop to get out. As someone said, spare the more tactical options bullshit argument, the only thing bailing will be used for is escaping death last second.

You can clamber out of the top of a M1 Abraham now at speed if you really wanted to. Its not advisable, but you can. It should be allowed as a option but with a % dmg at speed. Restricting it to having to stop in all honesty is stupid.

[Pyreal]

You oversimplified what I said and did not get my point so let me try again for the sake of discussion.

Having rules in a game IS forcing a player to certain mechanics. Are you saying rules are not beneficial ?
:confused:

Let's ask it another way: why should a player be forced to play without unlimited ammo, unlimited jetpacks, unlimited HP, etc... ? Well, simply because not having those restrictions and rules makes the game not challenging and not entertaining.


Those rules are standard and an accepted part of FPS gaming, and have been for a long time. Weapons use up ammo in one form or another. It's a fact of reality when it comes to weapons.
But being in a vehicle with a door but not being able to use that door except under a certain criterion is not.

When I say 'fact of reality' I am taking about the facts of reality that exist upon Auraxis. Auraxis is based in a world of natural laws and consequence.


Forcing rules on bailing is not about griefing players, it's about offering balanced choices and let the player choose the best depending on his situation. What's the point of having A, B or C if B is always the best choice in all situations ?

Now who's oversimplifying? ;)
How about this: If you remove B, A or C then becomes the best choice in all situations. That's not quite true either.

The situation (terrain, your health, enemy health, enemy vehicle, proximity of other enemies, proximity of allies) and the player's playstyle determine the best choice, and those things are always in flux. There's no way to know the best choice because it is subjective.



The underlying assumption about offering choices is that better players will usually take better decisions and good decision making should be rewarded.

Isn't that a good thing for the player? If a player wants to invest thought into tactics, wouldn't the broadness of options make for more interesting a game because it broadens the options?

Aren't options for the sake of options a sufficient goal?



What I am trying to say is that once you are bound to lose your tank, the issue about bailing is about how dire your situation should be when you lose your tank and how the transition to grunting should play out.


Assuming that a player becomes irrelevant after exiting a vehicle, why is the manner in which he becomes irrelevant important?
Or are you advocating a fight to the death (which it seems to be already)?

[Zulthus]

You can clamber out of the top of a M1 Abraham now at speed if you really wanted to. Its not advisable, but you can. It should be allowed as a option but with a % dmg at speed. Restricting it to having to stop in all honesty is stupid.

It worked wonderfully in the first game. We didn't have noobs bailing out left and right just trying to escape death. Do you know how damn annoying it will be to have every tank you shoot at the people bailed out and you don't get xp for the kill? :lol:

[Hmr85]

It worked wonderfully in the first game. We didn't have noobs bailing out left and right just trying to escape death. Do you know how damn annoying it will be to have every tank you shoot at the people bailed out and you don't get xp for the kill? :lol:

You and I both know in the middle of some of the huge battles that took place and the insane amount of fire flying around you typically died almost instantly and never knew where your kill shot came from. Bailing out was also a death sentence in PS1 mainly due to the shear amount of people chasing after you trying to get that finishing shot.

Since this topic is covering all vehicles. Yes, bailing should be allowed. If you died because some noob bailed out and killed you then in all honesty...you have no one else to blame but yourself for being terribad and good kill to the noob.

[Zulthus]

Why is that wrong?

I didn't say it's necessarily wrong, but I was referring to Pyreal's statement that it offers up a wealth of tactical options, which we all know is absolute bullshit. There is only one use for it, escaping death last second. I don't care if you do in a buggy, ATV, etc, but it's completely retarded being able to have a second life after having your TANK destroyed. The thing is a massively powerful tool with extreme killing capability, and you shouldn't get a free life by pressing 'E'.

[Soothsayer]

PS1 had the correct bailing mechanisms for ground vehicles

You could jump out of open-topped vehicles. Tanks required you to stop, get out, and had a big explosion radius when they blew up.

Anything less than that is dumbed down and a step backwards.

Agree. This will be even more valid when they include entry/exit animations after launch.

The balance to exiting the vehicle to deny a kill is the explosion radius. It anything at all, the damage and size of the explosion should be more punitive.

[Soothsayer]

I didn't say it's necessarily wrong, but I was referring to Pyreal's statement that it offers up a wealth of tactical options, which we all know is absolute bullshit. There is only one use for it, escaping death last second. I don't care if you do in a buggy, ATV, etc, but it's completely retarded being able to have a second life after having your TANK destroyed. The thing is a massively powerful tool with extreme killing capability, and you shouldn't get a free life by pressing 'E'.

Not entirely true. I close distance and bail from my fury with a shotgun when I come across a sniper or phoenix user in the wild. It's part of a skill based process that requires a bail from an open cockpit vehicle.

I'm willing to take a compromise though, if aircraft have to put a vehicle spec that allows them to bail then, by all means, open cockpit ground vehicles should have to as well.

[Pyreal]

I didn't say it's necessarily wrong, but I was referring to Pyreal's statement that it offers up a wealth of tactical options, which we all know is absolute bullshit.

It takes two more hits to kill my tank. You fire. I immediately bail and sprint to your position (close proximity is obviously required for this), lay C4 at any position around your weakened vehicle and blow your ass up, or if time does not permit, kill us both. Either way I proceed with an amused chuckle at your expense, whilst you rage at crappy game mechanics and 'b00bs', the new name for 'bailing n00bs'.


There is only one use for it, escaping death last second. I don't care if you do in a buggy, ATV, etc, but it's completely retarded being able to have a second life after having your TANK destroyed.

Of course I could always use that time to win the fight on foot against a superior enemy, but that doesn't fall within the constraints of your impenetrable logic birthed declaration that there is 'only one use for bailing'.

Also, it would technically be before your tank was destroyed, not after. See, if you're in the tank when it explodes, you die.


The thing is a massively powerful tool with extreme killing capability, and you shouldn't get a free life by pressing 'E'.

Why not?

[Mechzz]

I'm not saying he shouldn't.... However, I completely disagree that the vehicle has to come to a complete stop before you can exit. It wasn't really a issue in PS1. I don't see it being that big of a issue in PS2 even though some on here are trying to make it out to be.

If the gunner/driver manages to bail out before it explodes and kills the op4 holding the rocket launcher that's their problem for not being prepared. Always plan for every scenario...

Sorry I didn't mention that in my scheme I would allow a bail when the vehicle was moving, to not do so would be too restrictive.

But I do think that all occupants should take a share of the damage the vehicle has taken if they decide to jump. Seems a very fair solution to me. I get to jump, if I'm in the tank, but I need to think more about defence than offence which is the price to pay for not fighting to the last HP of my vehicle.

[Zulthus]

It takes two more hits to kill my tank. You fire. I immediately bail and sprint to your position (close proximity is obviously required for this), lay C4 at any position around your weakened vehicle and blow your ass up, or if time does not permit, kill us both. Either way I proceed with an amused chuckle at your expense, whilst you rage at crappy game mechanics and 'b00bs', the new name for 'bailing n00bs'.

You just bailed out of your tank because you were about to die. If there were say, 5 shots left, you would have continued shooting me with your tank instead of running to me with C4. You just reinforced what I said about bailing to get a free life. (Any driver with half a brain would blow your ass up to kingdom come before you got near them)

Of course I could always use that time to win the fight on foot against a superior enemy, but that doesn't fall within the constraints of your impenetrable logic birthed declaration that there is 'only one use for bailing'.

Again, see above...

Also, it would technically be before your tank was destroyed, not after. See, if you're in the tank when it explodes, you die.

:chill:

Why not?

So what you're telling me is you've never fired at a vehicle in any FPS, they bail out before you destroy the vehicle denying you any experience when you clearly should've killed them, and you never care? Because it was a tactical move? Alright buddy. It's your opinion, after all.

[Mechzz]

Oh, and while we're on the subject of occupants bailing at speed, I do hope the devs avoid the BF lameness where some derp can stick C4 on my tank when I'm rolling by at 40-60 mph. Feckers.

[Hmr85]

You just bailed out of your tank because you were about to die. If there were say, 5 shots left, you would have continued shooting me with your tank instead of running to me with C4. You just reinforced what I said about bailing to get a free life. (Any driver with half a brain would blow your ass up to kingdom come before you got near them)


./agree, Which is why I see no problem with people bailing. I am even in favor of SOE putting it cert tree somewhere farther up the line for tanks only.

The thing most people seem to not understand is even with bailing in the game. Some people become really attached to their vehicles. "All man this thing made it through the last 5 or 6 engagements. Look at all the bullet holes and damage on this thing." I am going to want it to last. Which means I am going to try and keep it alive even if bailing was put in as a option for tanks specifically. Reasoning because I have history with that vehicle.

[Shamrock]

PS1 had the correct bailing mechanisms for ground vehicles

You could jump out of open-topped vehicles. Tanks required you to stop, get out, and had a big explosion radius when they blew up.

Anything less than that is dumbed down and a step backwards.

Totally agree, anything less and it will be heavily exploited.

[PeteHMB]

http://youtu.be/FOaGhE_sejI

http://youtu.be/UJurYPXA_uw

[dm Akolyte]

It takes two more hits to kill my tank. You fire. I immediately bail and sprint to your position (close proximity is obviously required for this), lay C4 at any position around your weakened vehicle and blow your ass up, or if time does not permit, kill us both. Either way I proceed with an amused chuckle at your expense, whilst you rage at crappy game mechanics and 'b00bs', the new name for 'bailing n00bs'.



Of course I could always use that time to win the fight on foot against a superior enemy, but that doesn't fall within the constraints of your impenetrable logic birthed declaration that there is 'only one use for bailing'.

Also, it would technically be before your tank was destroyed, not after. See, if you're in the tank when it explodes, you die.



Why not?

It's incredibly obvious you've never played PS1.

[PeteHMB]

It's incredibly obvious you've never played PS1.

+1 :lol: Good luck with that C4 dude...

[Shanesan]

You guys are really silly.

Light assault units driving and then bailing out will not effect your battle in any way. They bail out, you kill them. It's not like they're going to pull a random rocket launcher out of their bag. They're drivers. Light Assault. Without their armored vehicle against yours, they're as good at dead.

[Fuse]

It worked wonderfully in the first game. We didn't have noobs bailing out left and right just trying to escape death. Do you know how damn annoying it will be to have every tank you shoot at the people bailed out and you don't get xp for the kill? :lol:

Or jumping in to moving vehicles right before you finish them off.

I agree, I loved the system in PS1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Rolling armor was a choice in PlanetSide, something you were some-what committed to. This also kept randos from hopping in your turret just for a quick lift only to bail when the shooting started, without having to lock the vehicle all together.

I'm going to miss the animations simply because they added a lot to the immersion and sense of scale I got from the vehicles.

[Jimmuc]

if i can't bail from my c4 strapped ATV to send it into groups or off the cliff into a base then i'll be pretty mad lol

[Fuse]

if i can't bail from my c4 strapped ATV to send it into groups or off the cliff into a base then i'll be pretty mad lol

This is also a good reason this mechanic needs to be added.
It can be a lot of fun, but it really weakens armor in general. Seems to move the game more towards Battlefield, where noobs pile in tanks to die, than PlanetSide, where armor meant more than just waiting for a respawn; you have invested certs and some times a couple minutes of travel time. Only to get blown up by a zergling with ATV and CE speccd? No thanks.

[Toppopia]

if i can't bail from my c4 strapped ATV to send it into groups or off the cliff into a base then i'll be pretty mad lol

But...but... this is fun to watch my brother do, imagine seeing a tank column in a narrow canyon, then hearing your leader say. "Push the ATV's!!!" Then seeing 30 ATV's fly down towards the unsuspecting tank column and watch then explode.

[Slib]

Instantly getting in and out of vehicles has a bigger impact on gameplay than many people realize.

If it takes time to get in and out, it forces you to find a safe place to load and unload. You can't just drive by at max speed, stop for a split second, have 10 soldiers suddenly APPEAR next to a Sunderer, then have it drive away immediately.

Plus, by the gods, did it ever look cool to see an entire Galaxy or Sunderer empty of troops... All the doors opening and everyone climbing out at the same time.

It just makes more sense for the pace of this game. This is supposed to be a marriage of tactical and traditional FPS elements, not simply one or the other.

The extremes need to be looked at, then a balance needs to be struck.

On one hand, we have BF3; hop into a helicopter, take off almost immediately... maybe a 3 second delay.

On the other hand we have Project Reality (a very aptly named game); get into a helicopter (with the correct pilot's kit, mind you), and you need to wait for the rotors to get up to speed. It took 30 to 90 seconds, depending on the type of helicopter, before you could actually take off.

I understand we're dealing with futuristic VTOLs and not helicopters in PS2, but they could still use a warm up time to keep things from feeling too "arcadey".

A mosquito or other light aircraft could take 3 to 5 seconds to warm-up.
A liberator, 5-10 seconds.
A galaxy, up to 15 seconds.
(Obviously these are just numbers I'm throwing out to get an idea of the sense of balance I'm thinking of).

I completely understand why the devs want to "trim the fat" of the original PlanetSide experience, but it's a fine line to walk.
Time spent not fighting (traveling, repairing bases, patrolling, scouting, etc), makes a nice contrast between engagements, and makes combat, when it does erupt, more satisfying (this is why CoD and BF get boring... You're immediately spawning and dying over and over again. Death is practically meaningless when you respawn 15 feet away in 10 seconds).
Getting rid of all of these things completely would drastically change the pace, and therefore feel, of the PlanetSide we know and love (I fully understand they could change it for the better, and that's what I'm seeing so far in their decisions, but it's all too easy to "trim the fat" so much that you lose some of the details that made the first game so compelling.

[Zulthus]

Yeah ^, on the taking off speed part, it felt really weird watching them take off instantly at speed as soon as they hopped in. I feel as if there should be a 2-5 second startup sequence to replace the enter/exit animations since they aren't making it in. Instant takeoff feels way too arcade.

[Serpent]

Yeah ^, on the taking off speed part, it felt really weird watching them take off instantly at speed as soon as they hopped in. I feel as if there should be a 2-5 second startup sequence to replace the enter/exit animations since they aren't making it in. Instant takeoff feels way too arcade.

I have to agree with this whole idea, BF3 jets take off within a 3-4 second time window. It makes it much more realistic. Unless using the afterburners could warrant instant takeoff with an acceleration debuff to pay for it?

[Pyreal]

It's incredibly obvious you've never played PS1.

The only thing that is incredible is the lack of anything useful to add to this discussion on your part.

:brow:

[Pyreal]

+1 :lol: Good luck with that C4 dude...

Thanks, old man. :D

[PeteHMB]

Thanks, old man. :D

:huh: dammit that's my line. I'm the youngster around here...usually. :lol: seriously though...I don't think ground troops bailing at the last minute is anything whatsoever to worry about considering whatever vehicle YOU'RE in just killed their MBT. Meaning, you can one shot them once they're running around outside it. If you're any kind of competent as a gunner, it's a non issue. And even if you're not, vehicle combat isn't usually close enough for someone to C4 the attacking vehicle without taking several shots in their direction.

edit - just realized you may have been referring to my avatar...if you don't know who that is, I feel sorry for you. You're truly missing out. No joke.

[Jimmuc]

This is also a good reason this mechanic needs to be added.
It can be a lot of fun, but it really weakens armor in general. Seems to move the game more towards Battlefield, where noobs pile in tanks to die, than PlanetSide, where armor meant more than just waiting for a respawn; you have invested certs and some times a couple minutes of travel time. Only to get blown up by a zergling with ATV and CE speccd? No thanks.

i'll put it out that i'm not condoning (as you assume) insta-bail from tanks but i do advocate bailing from the atv since there is nothing preventing me from physically jumping off the vehicle. if need be let me take damage from bailing while moving. bailing from open-topped vehicle like an atv isn't a move towards battlefield but common sense, most of the solutions in this thread seem to put a broad ban on bailing from land vehicles. yes it makes sense to make vehicles such as tanks and transports stop to get out since their enclosed but it makes no sense to have an atv stop to let someone get out.

besides i'm NC we're all about unconventional warfare :p

[Furber]

Please not for Sunderers, I'm indifferent as far as that goes for tanks

[Pyreal]

edit - just realized you may have been referring to my avatar...if you don't know who that is, I feel sorry for you. You're truly missing out. No joke.

I've got no clue. And unless he makes really cool music, or sends out free Kitkat bars, or tickets to Scotch tastings in Scotland... not too concerned about it.

I make awesome peanut butter cookies, btw.

[IMMentat]

A delay between pressing the exit button and leaving the vehicle is something I would like.
OTOH if you want reliability in your driver/gunner play with a squad/outfit.

Stopping to exit a vehicle will just make a lot of players avoid getting into public vehicles, no one wants to be totally at the mercy of someone they have never met.

[Soothsayer]

I guess one thing that we've seen in videos that would soften the injury is that there is kill xp and there is vehicle destruction xp.

So people can bail and the person who go the best of them will at least get something.

Still, I like the conventions put in place by the original, open air vehicles can be bailed from, others need to be stopped to exit.

[Fuse]

i'll put it out that i'm not condoning (as you assume) insta-bail from tanks but i do advocate bailing from the atv since there is nothing preventing me from physically jumping off the vehicle. if need be let me take damage from bailing while moving. bailing from open-topped vehicle like an atv isn't a move towards battlefield but common sense, most of the solutions in this thread seem to put a broad ban on bailing from land vehicles. yes it makes sense to make vehicles such as tanks and transports stop to get out since their enclosed but it makes no sense to have an atv stop to let someone get out.

I don't know why you think that comment was directed at you personally.

I'm not arguing realism or not. If PlanetSide 2 were real I would assume most of the doors could be blown off a vehicle in an emergency, at the very least. I'm arguing that it has a dramatic impact on the way a game plays, in dozens of ways, and I don't think that it would work well in PlanetSide. It takes very little time to stop a quad in PlanetSide if you need to get off.

[Zekeen]

i'll put it out that i'm not condoning (as you assume) insta-bail from tanks but i do advocate bailing from the atv since there is nothing preventing me from physically jumping off the vehicle. if need be let me take damage from bailing while moving. bailing from open-topped vehicle like an atv isn't a move towards battlefield but common sense, most of the solutions in this thread seem to put a broad ban on bailing from land vehicles. yes it makes sense to make vehicles such as tanks and transports stop to get out since their enclosed but it makes no sense to have an atv stop to let someone get out.

besides i'm NC we're all about unconventional warfare :p

You are absolutely right, maybe I should edit the main post to reflect the allowance of ATV bailing.

[PeteHMB]

I've got no clue. And unless he makes really cool music, or sends out free Kitkat bars, or tickets to Scotch tastings in Scotland... not too concerned about it.

I make awesome peanut butter cookies, btw.

George Carlin. Google him. Here, I'll even help you out. Hilarious comedian, raw, upfront, in your face "tell it like it is" style.

The Best of George Carlin Pt 3 (http://youtu.be/6iKQwBenxiI)

The Best of George Carlin Pt 4 (http://youtu.be/3niNKuuGUuE)