Page 2 of 2

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-02-23 13:53
by PatrickLA_CA
winject wrote:as much as I respect you devs, please don't bring this argument.
I could start listing everything that makes the game unrealistic right now,but the only difference is that you get the last word on it by deciding whether to code it or not.
But they are totally right on this one. Adding that option will give a great advantage that armored vehicles in PR shouldn't have.

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-02-23 15:31
by ALADE3N
PatrickLA_CA wrote:But they are totally right on this one. Adding that option will give a great advantage that armored vehicles in PR shouldn't have.
Yes , the fact that the current state and features of the MBTs and Vehicle assets are quite remarkable. 3rd seat for them will be more OP for INF squads

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-03-15 14:19
by FlyingR
Dr_Death wrote:Dropping my 2 cents here. i HIGHLY doubt IRL tank crews shut the engines off. At best get their heads out of the tank but never shut off the engine. You aren't supposed to use a tank as a ninja stationary killing platform metal gear. Its a loud armored thing that works as, get this:


-INFANTRY SUPPORT-

If you are using a heavy APC or tank alone without infantry to cover and you aren't looking for an enemy armored vehicle to kill you are just using the entire asset wrong.
Wow! I'm sure the assetwhores will change the way they play now!

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-03-15 16:26
by DavviZ
Is there any possibility to have the heavy vehicles engines turned on all the time, even with no crewmen inside it? This would remove the "hearing for information" -gameplay and replace it with using communication/recon to locate enemy threats. This could in my opinion improve both Armour gameplay and buff communications.

Tanks, IFVs and APCs in PR spends most of the time being used and do not stay parked in main for very long. Also, most Infantry and other players do not spend any noticable time in main.

I do not know anything about modding/code so Im not aware if this is something that is possible/impossible to do.

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-03-17 00:14
by FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON
Dr_Death wrote:Dropping my 2 cents here. i HIGHLY doubt IRL tank crews shut the engines off. At best get their heads out of the tank but never shut off the engine. You aren't supposed to use a tank as a ninja stationary killing platform metal gear.
this is actually incorrect all modern tanks incorporate a battery system so the tank can function with the engine off.

speaking from experience, diesel engines are turned off often especially in defensive environments and only turned on when the battery needs charging or the vehicle is moving. the Abrams turbine I have no experience with how often it was turned off due to the fact it took alot of fuel and maybe time to start back up.

the fourth seat seems like an acceptable workaround for the inability to turn off your engine, although the ability to hear outside should be muffled.

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-03-17 02:18
by Arab
FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON wrote: the fourth seat seems like an acceptable workaround for the inability to turn off your engine, although the ability to hear outside should be muffled.
Each Seat can be muffled separately through the sound obstruction code, though with the way the Commander View weapon works, it doesn't apply to it obviously.

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-03-17 18:44
by Murphy
So sitting in the cupola is no longer safe enough? I think sitting in F3 seat is what we are on about, but somehow people want to be invulnerable while listening. This change is not needed and anyone who thinks it is important just wants a crutch.

Leave Armour as it is, if people are having issues playing submarine with other tanks that's a player issue and not really something to bark up the devs tree for.

I'd be all for Armour having idle sounds were the Military Advisers think it is warranted, but giving the tank crew even more invulnerability is pretty sad.

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-03-23 17:20
by deadpixels
Dr_Death wrote:Dropping my 2 cents here. i HIGHLY doubt IRL tank crews shut the engines off. At best get their heads out of the tank but never shut off the engine. You aren't supposed to use a tank as a ninja stationary killing platform metal gear. Its a loud armored thing
When they arrive at a position they will hold that is exactly what they do, most armoured vehicles have battery systems for keeping the turret active without the engine running. I was in an armour unit and speak from my own experience. Unless you have something solid like your training in an armoured unit, you shouldnt be dropping 2 cents any where

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-03-26 15:11
by Hemulenssis
Dr_Death wrote:Dropping my 2 cents here. i HIGHLY doubt IRL tank crews shut the engines off. At best get their heads out of the tank but never shut off the engine. You aren't supposed to use a tank as a ninja stationary killing platform metal gear. Its a loud armored thing that works as, get this:


-INFANTRY SUPPORT-

If you are using a heavy APC or tank alone without infantry to cover and you aren't looking for an enemy armored vehicle to kill you are just using the entire asset wrong.
Im sorry but your words and the quote just crakked me up too much i had to express my feelings here. :)

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-07-10 21:00
by Coalz101
UTurista wrote: the tank should always keep the engine sound, either with the driver or gunner in it but I don't believe this is possible.
It is possible, if you look at the avenger for an example, while the gunner is in you hear the audio of the active turret engine or whatever it is, is it could be an option. Also having a 'start up delay' should actually be implemented, this would nerf 'sound checking' but add the extra seat which allows the engine to be slightly lower audio, or have the person in the seat hear from longer distances, like a phone tap or something like that.

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-07-11 01:53
by Mostacho
Or you guys could spice things up and do just like the opposite, make the engine still run also while there is a gunner to ruin far sound checks

Not sure if it will make the gameplay any "better" though :lol:

I can see the appeal of cas ideia other than the invulnerability, some times you die bugged on the turrent doing the sound check, and that is pretty annoying.

but armored vehicles are OP enough already, i mean you can effectively shoot down jets and helicopters with proper angle.

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2018-07-17 14:27
by CAS_ual_TY
Coalz101 wrote:It is possible, if you look at the avenger for an example, while the gunner is in you hear the audio of the active turret engine or whatever it is, is it could be an option. Also having a 'start up delay' should actually be implemented, this would nerf 'sound checking' but add the extra seat which allows the engine to be slightly lower audio, or have the person in the seat hear from longer distances, like a phone tap or something like that.
I actually really like this idea of doing the engine sound like it is done with the avenger gunner seat. Or is that sound only played in 1p? I dont actually know thinking about it

Re: Another Seat for 2-manned Vehicles

Posted: 2021-11-20 23:55
by Coalz101
Another Nerf Idea. Slower turret slew rate when driver is absent. Slow as or slower than current ww2 tank turrets