Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Where did you come from?
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
View Poll Results: Do you want disabling? | |||
No | 73 | 64.04% | |
Yes, exactly per BF3 | 3 | 2.63% | |
Yes, but no burning | 3 | 2.63% | |
Yes, but it shouldn't happen until 20-25%, not 50% | 24 | 21.05% | |
Other yes | 9 | 7.89% | |
Other (completely different idea) | 2 | 1.75% | |
Voters: 114. You may not vote on this poll |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2012-04-18, 10:55 AM | [Ignore Me] #16 | |||
Sergeant
|
I'm pretty sure it would just be irritating in PS2. I would support hitboxes for knocking out the treads, but that's about it. |
|||
|
2012-04-18, 11:09 AM | [Ignore Me] #18 | |||
Brigadier General
|
A disabled vehicle should be obviously burning and disabled, while a destroyed vehicle should be burnt out with pieces missing and blown off of it. With no advanced targeting type of thing, it should be pretty obvious visually whether you have just destroyed a vehicle, or merely disabled it. With something like advanced targeting, you would simply see the new disabled status health bar appear once the enemy vehicle became disabled. You would also be able to use advanced targeting to guess how likely your target was going to be destroyed or disabled by your next shot. The whole idea is that your regular health bar show you how long you have to live, just like your health bar does as a foot soldier. The only reason I even bring up a health bar for after it is disabled is because I think it would be good if you could still attempt to repair a disabled vehicle and, thus, the enemy should also have a chance to finish it off for good. Obviously you could also do this with a singular health bar. Perhaps if there was a part of the health bar that was marked in a different color, like yellow instead of green, at which point you would know the vehicle would become completely non operational but not instantly blow up yet. I would only support this if it were 5% to 15% of the total health of the vehicle. --- Another option would be to have two health bars that are always active, sort of like the armor/health of PS1 or the shield/health of PS2. The first bar would be armor (which would not regenerate), the second bar would be for the internal systems. The armor would absorb all damage until it got to say 25%. At 25% or below, the armor would start allowing some damage to seep through and damage the internal systems. The more damage those internal systems took, the less effective the tank would function (firing slower, driving slower, etc), until the tank finally become unable to move or shoot at all once the internal systems reached 50%. Now the internal systems would START taking damage at 25% armor, but I figure that the armor would only let a tiny fraction of the damage through until it started getting a lot lower, like 10%, so even though you would only have to get the internal systems down to 50% to fully disable the tank, it probably wouldn't happen until the armor was significantly compromised. The vehicle would be fully destroyed and explode when either the armor OR the internal systems reached zero, whichever came first. In this situation, a vehicle with 50% internal systems or lower would take burn damage, but the damage would only eat away at the internal systems health, doing no additional damage to the armor. Just some thoughts on how to include an interesting system while improving it to not suck quite so bad. |
|||
|
2012-04-18, 11:20 AM | [Ignore Me] #20 | ||||
First Lieutenant
|
EDIT: doh semi-ninja'd by Xyn. Xyn, I'd much rahter have one single two-color bar than have a second one appear once the vehicle got disabled. I think it'd throw ppl off a bit too.
And it sucked for exactly the reason Malorn mentioned. It was hard to tell on the armour bar at what exact point you'd lose control, so often you'd think you still had a little "life" left when suddenly one stray bullet would cause you to lose control. It felt like the game was almost taunting you since if you had just a tiny bit more health you could've escaped. But once you lost control you were as good as dead since in PS1 a stationary vehicle is a dead vehicle. Losing control just prolonged the agony, largely due to the uncertainly of being able to tell at what point you'd actually get disabled. Last edited by Erendil; 2012-04-18 at 11:27 AM. |
||||
|
2012-04-18, 11:23 AM | [Ignore Me] #21 | ||
Master Sergeant
|
Keep like PS1.Throw a jammer at a Vanguard disable there weapon system.Allow them to move and all but no firing.
__________________
Smed doesn't care about players.If it's fun to him it doesn't matter to players. YT: http://www.youtube.com/user/rainbowwarriorguy |
||
|
2012-04-18, 11:36 AM | [Ignore Me] #22 | |||
Brigadier General
|
There is no reason you couldn't have a PS1 system where jammers disabled weapons but allowed the vehicle to drive away, while additionally having vehicles stop being able to drive once they took a certain amount of damage. If they do have disabling, I just hope that it is clearly marked in some way (differen't colored part of the health bar, etc), and that it is only when the vehicle has lost the vast majority of it's health already. |
|||
|
2012-04-18, 11:50 AM | [Ignore Me] #24 | ||
Second Lieutenant
|
I like the concept of disabling and realistic vehicle damage, but I LOVE all the narrow escapes that came with Planetside's "unrealistic" damage model -- 1% health left and racing over a hilltop and out of harm's way as tank shells and AV rounds whipped past you.
I say keep it the same as Planetside! |
||
|
2012-04-18, 12:00 PM | [Ignore Me] #25 | |||
Brigadier General
|
I'd be fine with it being the same as Planetside though. Either way, just so long as it isn't that you suddenly drive slower at 50% health. That shit is just poorly implemented. |
|||
|
2012-04-18, 12:15 PM | [Ignore Me] #26 | ||
Private
|
The primary benefit of the disabling system in Battlefield 3 is that it helps to prevent situations where a tank is able to retreat from a battle with extremely low health at an unrealistic speed.
I'd agree though that the percentage at which this effect is applied should be pretty low, otherwise it's too damaging to the concept of retreating. |
||
|
2012-04-18, 12:17 PM | [Ignore Me] #27 | |||
Colonel
|
And SOE, I can tell you a lot of BF players don't like this disabling and don't want it. DICE is catering excessively to infantry players. Last edited by Stardouser; 2012-04-18 at 12:19 PM. |
|||
|
2012-04-18, 12:27 PM | [Ignore Me] #30 | ||
Brigadier General
|
Heh, yeah maybe my parts of the thread should have been in the idea vault. But then again, I generally post ideas that I really think could be good for the game in there, not just speculation about how a mediocre system from another game could be done better in this one.
I just get tired of the knee jerk reactions people have to certain ideas just because they have been done shitty elsewhere. Just because Battlefield fucked and idea up doesn't make the idea bad, just the implementation. Just because PS1 had something good going doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, to make something even better. If everyone throughout history went with the whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, we wouldn't have 90% of the technologies that we do today, fewer since almost everything we have is based on prior technological advancements. If it isn't broken, don't retool it and use the new version without making sure it isn't worse than the old version. Not as catchy, but more accurate. Last edited by Xyntech; 2012-04-18 at 12:28 PM. |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|