Page 1 of 4
Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 19:42
by AnRK
Couldn't think of a better way of phrasing this, was gonna go for "make wrecks more durable", but that sounds a little silly in context if you ask me.
Anyway, on with the context, probably occured to other people that wrecks that are destroyed with a few .50cal rounds aren't exactly realistic, and if you ask me the only thing that should be able to clear wrecks is explosives from whatever source you care to use. The amount of times I've seen a blocked road been cleared with a machine gun is a bit ridiculous, so is there any way of making wreck vehicles a little more hardy? Wrecks don't really add anything to tactical situations like they should, and it'd be cool if a tank destroyed at a chokepoint in a road would actually cause some major tactical problem to hummers/vodnicks/command trucks or anything that can't blow the wreck up.
Did a search, but the closest thing I saw was making wrecks stay on map longer, which is in game (although I'm not sure to what extent, whatever it is it should be longer!

). Can imagine it might be a *****/impossible to code though, and is likely why it's probably not already in game.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 19:46
by Rhino
not a bad suggestion, most likly needs some material tweaks.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 19:54
by AnRK
The English A word is off-limits then eh? Nevermind.
Yeah not exactly a revelation or anything, wrecks do obviously get in the way a little - for instance a crashed jet does a fair amount of harm, just seems like they could get in the way a bit more then they currently are doing. Would be quite nice if the varying wrecks of varying vehicles had varying amounts of damage you needed to incur to get rid of them too... varying on where you hit them perhaps, and varying on what you hit them with, varying on whether you want to get rid of them at all that is

Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 19:59
by ReadMenace
Yes, bailing out of your vehicle and trying to hide behind it should be a viable option. Currently, you might as well stay inside and burn with it.
-REad
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 20:07
by AnRK
Never thought of that as a possibility, that'd be much better.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 20:28
by Spec
Mh... object limit? Lag?
I mean, I'm not against it, just thought it might cause some problems.
(unless they are still self-destructive... which would be quite strange)
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 20:57
by Rhino
Spec_Operator wrote:Mh... object limit? Lag?
I mean, I'm not against it, just thought it might cause some problems.
(unless they are still self-destructive... which would be quite strange)
wrecks already stay around for long periods of time without blowing up on there own. what this topic is on about is that they are very easy to get rid of where in r/l if a tank wreck is blocking a narrow road in r/l its very hard to get around it. Just think of Operation Market Garden in r/l, the tanks where going down very narrow lanes, first tank in the row got shot, and the wreck blocked the path for ages delaying there reinforcements.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 21:45
by Rhino
ie, what I said on my first reply?
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 21:49
by hx.bjoffe
great!
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 22:10
by Spec
Is it possible to have smoke or some other indicator showing the wreck is about to be destroyed? Just so you know if its worth taking cover behind it or if it will disappear soon. Would make me feel a lot safer
Oh, and I'd make the civilian cars still be destructible relative easily, just for realism reasons - I doubt they'd be safe cover. Could be wrong though.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-27 22:19
by TAW_Cutthroat
If this actually happened you could make proper road blocks^^ I support this
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 00:01
by Rudd
I want to use wrecks as cover alot of time time, I support the OPs suggestion
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 00:24
by WildBill1337
supported.
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.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 00:40
by Tirak
WildBill1337 wrote:supported.
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.
I'd imagine it'd go something like this:
"Oh f***, f***, f***, F***!" (Crash)
OP suggestion has my vote, adds strategic elements to where to destroy the enemy.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 00:50
by DeltaFart
I am a fart and I support this message
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 02:09
by WildBill1337
Tirak wrote:I'd imagine it'd go something like this:
"Oh f***, f***, f***, F***!" (Crash)
OP suggestion has my vote, adds strategic elements to where to destroy the enemy.
yeah, rather than the usual,
"what the hell was that?"
"i think it was an AA missile."
"no it mustve been that vodnik."
"no i saw a tank."
"theres no tank on Muttrah you moron."
"i meant that wheeled thing that shoots big bullets."
"thats an apc you noob."
"technically its an IFV."
"whatever. just shut up and stop arguing and spawn at carrier."
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 02:36
by Cobhris
What would be even better is that sometimes the chopper would go down and NOT explode, and there would be some survivors. The trick would be to try and guide it down so it doesn't flip and blow up when it touches the ground, and then get out safely before it turns into a smoldering wreck. And then you will most likely be greeted by a search party coming to kill the survivors, having to fight your way to safety so that you can be extracted back to friendly lines.
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 02:47
by DeltaFart
that would be hard to do
Re: Making wrecks more of a pain in the booty
Posted: 2008-10-28 02:54
by WildBill1337
Cobhris wrote:What would be even better is that sometimes the chopper would go down and NOT explode, and there would be some survivors. The trick would be to try and guide it down so it doesn't flip and blow up when it touches the ground, and then get out safely before it turns into a smoldering wreck. And then you will most likely be greeted by a search party coming to kill the survivors, having to fight your way to safety so that you can be extracted back to friendly lines.
ive actually see that happen to a chopper i hit with a LAT. then i took out 3/4 of the survivors with my G3