Tailspin from damage - Page 4

Luieburger · 2012-06-20, 08:09 PM

Perhaps rather than going into a tailspin from damage, one of the rare death animations for flying vehicles (1 in 1000 chance or something) should be to tailspin until crashing on the ground, and of course doing damage to whatever it lands on.

Fun no?

Wayside · 2012-06-20, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Luieburger

Perhaps rather than going into a tailspin from damage, one of the rare death animations for flying vehicles (1 in 1000 chance or something) should be to tailspin until crashing on the ground, and of course doing damage to whatever it lands on.

Fun no?

I'm in favor of any number of "if you get this low" damage states that effectively force the pilot to focus on landing as safely as they can. You get down to 10% or 5% hp (which would be a rare place to end up, not something you can just make happen given the random nature of tons of people firing at aircraft with so many different types of weapons) and the game makes it very clear that you're just about dead.

Tail spin, engines going out, windshields bursting with glass going everywhere and crazy loud ass wind noises and blurred vision for the pilot, whatever. Would be much more interesting then endless repeats of "now you're alive, now you're dead". This also seems more fair, for lack of a better word, considering just how many lives are wrapped up in something like a Galaxy. Giving the pilot that clear and unmistakable indicator that they really, really need to put that aircraft on the deck right now gives their passengers that added chance of survival.

super pretendo · 2012-06-20, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Luieburger

Perhaps rather than going into a tailspin from damage, one of the rare death animations for flying vehicles (1 in 1000 chance or something) should be to tailspin until crashing on the ground, and of course doing damage to whatever it lands on.

Fun no?

This isn't the point of the suggestion; my point is that there SHOULD be effects of damage that are between being perfectly functional and being dead, so skilled pilots should be able to mitigate out-of-control aircraft situations caused by damage, and skilled players could try to prevent aircraft from function with precise hits. Breaking up the visual monotony is just icing on the cake.

To balance this, we could only let controls malfunction at under 40%; if an aircraft is under 40%, it is vulnerable to control-debilitating hits, but if it is above 40%, it is invulnerable to this.

Khrakhan · 2012-06-21, 09:55 AM

40% is still way too high for an aircraft to start losing control. Would just make players avoid piloting because they know that just a couple hits and theyre basically screwed, what a waste of almost 50% of a vehicle/resources

xnorb · 2012-06-21, 10:16 AM

Realistic damage model.

BF3's disable mechanic is the most stupid thing ever.

One of your engines is destroyed ? You're in trouble, you only got 50%
engine power - you should get a repair.

One of your wings is missing ? Uhoh - better use the emergency eject.

Tracks of your tank were destroyed by a mine/C4/rocket/tank shell ?
Sorry, no more movement for you sir !

The tires of your jeep are full of holes from bullets ?
Well, you can still drive, but don't expect it to go fast and have nice manueverability.

THAT's how it should be like.
If you disable at a certain percentage ... pff ... no ... bad mechanism.

Either 0% -> blow up
or a somewhat realistic damage model.
Everything else simply sucks.

MrKWalmsley · 2012-06-21, 10:22 AM

Love the idea of losing a lot of control when health gets to a certain percentage. I'm imagining people clearing the area as the aircraft tries to land on a pad to get repairs, and jerks forward and is smashed up against the side of a tower. Love it

Neksar · 2012-06-21, 10:30 AM

The aircrafts in Planetside are VTOL, so I can support a system where vehicles lose maneuverability at properly low HP. I love the feeling of salvaging a chopper by landing and fixing the thing, despite having reduced control over its flight.

I don't know that a system like that should be thrown in verbatim, because it implies a similar damage system should exist for tanks, and I'm somewhat against that. I could certainly support locational damage for aircraft, though. They already have it for tanks, if I'm not mistaken (weaker rear armor).

Do remember, though, that there's little in the way of targetting aircraft aside from "turn the sky around it into a fiery hell," since most ways of dealing with aicraft are fire-and-forget missiles or flak.

Otleaz · 2012-06-22, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by xnorb

Either 0% -> blow up
or a somewhat realistic damage model.
Everything else simply sucks.

Why not have both?

At 0% your craft is disabled and starts diving. At -5% you blow up. I think people are getting too caught up in the numbers. You aren't somehow going to die faster just because you dive at a certain percentage instead of blowing up.

It even gives you a chance to use that ejector seat or try and aim at some enemy troops to take some out with you on your way out.

Boogere · 2012-06-23, 08:38 AM

The reason why SOE doesn't want locational damage on vehicles and aircraft in particular, is because it will make air battles more decisive. Once the air battle is decided then who ever won it will decide the ground battle through their control of the skies. The sooner it's decided the sooner that what ever tactics or strategy used by the ground troops becomes irrelevant, because now pilots have a shooting gallery consisting of what amounts to sitting ducks, but if the fight in the air takes a long time to sort it self out then this gives either side on the ground time to win the fight using tactics and strategy and the reason why the fight on the ground will end the fight in the air? Because the contested base will switch hands and now one side has little to no reason to keep fighting for a base that's already lost.