Page 2 of 4
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 03:34
by Bringerof_D
yeah it bugs me how ever since VBF2 everything destroyed seems to have gone through an incinerator., i say less black, keep the material mostly the same minus some scratching and dents and holes. that way too you'll be spooked everytime you enter through a field of destroyed APCs and Tanks, lol one of them just might turn around and shoot you
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 07:52
by cyberzomby
Yeh nice suggestion! That way you can blockade important supply lines and force ambushes on people!
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 08:10
by TAW_Cutthroat
WildBill1337 wrote:
another suggestion:
heli wrecks also seem to have a nice asthetic feel to them. maybe make it so that AA missiles do enough damage to light the helis on fire, but not completely obliterate them, so when the live burning chopper crashes, the wreck model doesnt end up falling from a height and exploding when it hits the ground. to do that though, youd have to make it so when a vehicle lights on fire, the engine stops. thatd be interesting. youre in a heli, and a missile hits, but instead of the immediate black screen of death, youre along for the ride for a bit. i can already imagine the VOIP in a situation like that.
Occasionally it happens to me. If you're flying low you generally won't notice it, but if you're high you'll start falling and falling. The key thing to consider is that this rarely happens because people obliterate the things before they hit the ground. It happens in planes too, which only happened for the first time yesterday
. I love it when the engine cuts out and the rest of your squad in the back is shouting sh*t! sh*t!!! I'd like to have that blackhawk down moment too, spinning through the air but not really going anywhere, dropping slowly, but I don't suppose the BF engine would be able to do that.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-12 21:29
by goguapsy
Bumpidy-bump-bump
Over 2 years, no?
How about this suggestion (summary of the OP):
-Wrecks are not easily destroyed, so taking cover as infantry behind them would be interesting.
I like that!
As stated in the 1st page, currently (and 2 years ago), if you wish to take cover behind a wreck, you might as well stay inside it and blow up together.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-12 22:12
by whatshisname55
The problem is that not destroying wrecks will increase the amount of objects on the map which in turn increases the lag. Iirc it's a problem with the BF2 engine...so maybe for PR:ArmA2.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-12 22:31
by goguapsy
whatshisname55 wrote:The problem is that not destroying wrecks will increase the amount of objects on the map which in turn increases the lag. Iirc it's a problem with the BF2 engine...so maybe for PR:ArmA2.
Well, I just figured that we already have wrecks that last some time... Why not make them harder to destroy?
EDIT:
NVM about this suggestion.
Forgot wrecks could walk
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-12 23:18
by badmojo420
The one thing I dislike about the wrecks is the inability to move them. For example, a civ car blows up in the road, shouldn't another car of the same(or bigger) size to be able to push that wreck out of the way?
Of course I don't want to see a tank wreck being pushed aside with a humvee, but wrecks seem like they are attached to the ground at the moment.
But, I do agree with the suggestion to not be able to destroy them with gunfire. That's just silly.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-12 23:39
by goguapsy
^A HMMVV vs a civi car, maybe.
Civi car vs Civi car = both would get messed up.
But perhaps that's hardcoded?
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 01:06
by Shovel
I think that wrecks destroying over time is fine, just increase that by a few minutes. But one thing that has to be addressed is health of wrecks. I think that this should be heavily increased, so that a few seconds of 50 cal fire cannot clear it.
This would open some good possibilities, just think of all of the black hawk down scenarios.....
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 05:09
by Bringerof_D
definitely, the time wrecks last now is fine, what needs changing is how well they stand against damage. Make them only only destroyable by either 2 incendiaries, 1 C4 or similar explosive, or HE tank shells.
That said i still think the destroyed models should maintain more of their undestroyed form. meaning less burnt and less fu*ked up. Tanks in particular should look about the same as before besides a few big dents, broken tracks and maybe a bent barrel and a few holes.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 05:48
by Sgt.BountyOrig
The only real wreck problem, (and thats not to say remove them) is that some of them manically bounce around (UK Truck for example), and have the ability to kill otherwise happy, unfrustrated and useful players.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 12:09
by mockingbird0901
afaik, they stay there for 5 min, witch I think is the maximum time possible, just like when you get wounded. But I do agree that they should be harder to destroy.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 16:03
by Mellanbror
Support this suggestion. I.e to be able to take cover behind wrecks and it not vanishing so easy.
Also, not having them blow up all the time would be desirable on my part. Helps with the bailing of vehicle and using it as cover.
Small arms fire could just render vehicle useless? RPG etc would/could still cause it to blow up.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 16:11
by goguapsy
Mellanbror wrote:Small arms fire could just render vehicle useless? RPG etc would/could still cause it to blow up.
This, but I don't think that's doable (ie. a small arm can only damage a car up to a POINT is not codable).
Or so I believe.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 17:57
by badmojo420
goguapsy wrote:^A HMMVV vs a civi car, maybe.
Civi car vs Civi car = both would get messed up.
But perhaps that's hardcoded?
Unless a car is a complete piece of ****, it can push a wrecked car of similar weight. Of course there will be some front end damage if there is no push bar, but it's still going to be a viable option when in combat.
Cops do it sometimes to move wrecked cars off the road after an accident. They wouldn't do it if it messed up their cars in the process.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 19:39
by rushn
goguapsy wrote:This, but I don't think that's doable (ie. a small arm can only damage a car up to a POINT is not codable).
Or so I believe.
tanks cants be damaged with small arms
maybe give vehicles a
lot of health
but make the cars become useless after say 60 percent
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 19:56
by goguapsy
rushn wrote:tanks cants be damaged with small arms
maybe give vehicles a lot of health
but make the cars become useless after say 60 percent
The suggestion was to make small arms fire to be effective up to a point. This, I believe, is hard coded.
badmojo420 wrote:Unless a car is a complete piece of ****, it can push a wrecked car of similar weight. Of course there will be some front end damage if there is no push bar, but it's still going to be a viable option when in combat.
Cops do it sometimes to move wrecked cars off the road after an accident. They wouldn't do it if it messed up their cars in the process.
Not necessarily. A wrecked car such as depicted in the game would have a stronger resistance force against a pushing force.
Cops are pushing cars with bumpers (yes, that makes things MUCH easier on the car) and on asphalt.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 20:47
by badmojo420
goguapsy wrote:Not necessarily. A wrecked car such as depicted in the game would have a stronger resistance force against a pushing force.
Cops are pushing cars with bumpers (yes, that makes things MUCH easier on the car) and on asphalt.
I am aware of the increased resistance.
And yes, a push bar makes things MUCH easier. In fact they do it with no damage to their cruisers most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that it could be done without the push bar, on most surfaces. Of course you're not going to be pushing much on beach sand, or mud. But, surface traction isn't much of a issue in bf2, everything has the grip of asphalt.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2011-05-13 23:42
by goguapsy
badmojo420 wrote:I am aware of the increased resistance.
And yes, a push bar makes things MUCH easier. In fact they do it with no damage to their cruisers most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that it could be done without the push bar, on most surfaces. Of course you're not going to be pushing much on beach sand, or mud. But, surface traction isn't much of a issue in bf2, everything has the grip of asphalt.
Hmm, I figured everything was actually harder to move than asphalt (you can't move anything at all in-game XD).
If we are to move things around with vehicles (which could be AWESOME for BH moments), we would first need to fix the weird statics properties the game has, because right now you basically explode XD