| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rafgas first
BetaMax.
18
   |
Posted - 2012.07.07 20:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
If the maingunner is turning the turret counter clockwise, the secondary gunner can not turn clockwise fast enough to outspeed the maingunners turret turning speed.
This makes for awfully frustrating gameplay sometimes. imagine the maingunner is working on dude at site B on current map, but i am looking towards site A, i see a guy, but at the same time, maingunner sees a guy, we both start to turn turrets to shoot at targets, but i either get a huge speed boost to my turret turning and might overshoot the target, or cant turn fast enough.
seriously, check out how BF3 does it, we dont have to reinvent the wheel on this one. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 21:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
What you describe is realistic and how it should be handled. That said, there are issues, and ways to mitigate them. Please see my thread on the subject of indicating range of motion and current facing here. The issue you describe will also be largely mitigated once proper grouping is implemented, so you can ensure you have voice comms with the team you work with, especially in a crew-served vehicle like a tank. |
Rafgas first
BetaMax.
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 21:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
fun gameplay > realism.
Like i said, i think bf3 have it nailed pretty solidly how tracking, turning and limiting works, and also indicating, which the linked post you made talks about.
for vehicle controls, bf3 has a pretty good bead on things, we should not strive to reinvent the wheel just because we can. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 08:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Rafgas first wrote:fun gameplay > realism.
Like i said, i think bf3 have it nailed pretty solidly how tracking, turning and limiting works, and also indicating, which the linked post you made talks about.
for vehicle controls, bf3 has a pretty good bead on things, we should not strive to reinvent the wheel just because we can.
I agree, and I'm also not reinventing the wheel. PlanetSide had crew-served vehicles (the NC Vanguard MBT had a driver seat and a gunner seat, you needed the gunner to shoot, but damn was that cannon powerful).
Tanks not being proper crew-served vehicles in BF3 is one of my main gripes when using them (and it's not because I suck with them, they're my best weapon next to sniping in BF3). I should have one guy worrying about driving, another guy manning the main gun, and a third guy manning a machine gun.
Proper teamwork IS fun gameplay, and the fact that it's realistic just adds to it.
EDIT:
Should also be pointed out, once we have proper grouping and people get on voice comms, you can use that ability to rotate the tank body and main turret to increase your rotation speed to your advantage. This is a far better solution that making them magically freefloating and ignore the vehicle's motion. It adds a strategic, teamwork, and skill-based aspect to using those weapons platforms. I'm strongly in favor of keeping it and having people learn to use it to their advantage, rather than dumbing it down and actively removing a skill-based aspect that can make a large difference between a skilled and coordinated team, vs. an unskilled or uncoordinated one. Teamwork and skill as a player should always provide the greatest advantages, and what we see here is a perfect example of how teamwork and skill as a player can provide a very significant advantage. Provided, of course, that we get proper range-of-motion and facing indicators, like I mentioned in my thread. |
Hasek Tokugawa
HavoK Core
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 14:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
"free floating" shouldn't be an issue we have turret stabilization on most modern heavy tanks and infantry fighting vic's no reason a people who have mastered faster then light travel could put 2 separate systems on the same vic |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 16:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hasek Tokugawa wrote:"free floating" shouldn't be an issue we have turret stabilization on most modern heavy tanks and infantry fighting vic's no reason a people who have mastered faster then light travel could put 2 separate systems on the same vic
Stabilization != ignoring the motion of the vehicle. The turret is still limited by its maximum speed of rotation, and it still moves with the body of the tank.
There's no logical, technical, or gameplay reason to do what you want, other than to dumb things down. Let's get some range-of-motion indicators, line-of-fire indicators, and learn how to actually use these things to their best advantage. Don't just dumb them down so any idiot can climb in and use it equally well, because there's no strategy to their use beyond poke out, shoot, hide, repeat.
They work perfectly fine as they are now, we just need indicators for where everyone is facing, and what their range of motion is, so we can properly position and move to put the maximum amount of hurt on target. |
Rafgas first
BetaMax.
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 18:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Also, id like turret turning speeds to be higher, and for secondary gunners, both in the HAV, LAV and drop ship, they need to be seriously higher imo.
And like someone said, eve technology has stealth and faster than speed of light traveling, independent systems of turrets shouldnt be impossible ;) |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 18:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rafgas first wrote:Also, id like turret turning speeds to be higher, and for secondary gunners, both in the HAV, LAV and drop ship, they need to be seriously higher imo.
And like someone said, eve technology has stealth and faster than speed of light traveling, independent systems of turrets shouldnt be impossible ;)
And as i said, doing that would serve no purpose other than to dumb tanks down. there's no need or reason for a sci-fi-magic cop-out on this. Tying them together, as they are, is both realistic, and provides a mechanic to learn and use to improve your performance. it puts unskilled players at a disadvantage until they learn it. this is not a bad thing
doing what you want dumbs it down and moves a realistic skill element. that's two negative points with no legitimate positive points.
Turn speec also feels fine. I would favor increasing the turn speed on small blasters, though, as they are effectively machineguns for anti-personnel use. they should turn quickly. the heqvier workings and nature of rails and missiles, however, warrant their current turn-speeds, and i think the main turret should stay the same either way, due to it having to move that whole large mechanism.
There's also hte potential later for ammo to be introduced like ir was in planetside and in eve. in eve, different ammo can affect trade-offs of range, tracking speed (turn-speed), damage, and capacitor use. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |