Exiting Vehicles - Come to a Full Stop

[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]

Originally Posted by Pyreal

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]

Originally Posted by Pyreal

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]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

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]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Pyreal

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

Bailing is irrelevant, but don't allow it.

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 ?


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:

Originally Posted by Pyreal

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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 ?


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.

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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.

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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?

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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]

Originally Posted by Hmr85

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?

[Hmr85]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

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?

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]

Originally Posted by elfailo

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'.