Page 1 of 1
Extended "Blow Up" time
Posted: 2006-05-20 14:58
by [T]Terranova7
How about extending the time it takes for a vehicle to blow up after being caught on fire. I share an interest in alot of vehicles civilian and military alike, and have seen many turn on fire. However I doubt that within 5 seconds of the engine catching fire the vehicle would suddenly explode.
If possible, how about the vehicle disables or slows down while on fire. If the vehicle continues to be hit during this "on fire phase", then the blze will eventually catch the gas tank or something and the vehicles will blow up. However while on fire, players have the oppurtunity to perhaps "fix" the damage of sorts. Dependings on the damage will determine if the vehicle would be disabled or useable.
I don't if thats really possible but I just thought it would be a neat little idea.
Posted: 2006-05-20 15:36
by Cerberus
I absolutely love that idea. Extending the time (before explosion) would be extremely useful for transport helicopters that come under fire.
Posted: 2006-05-20 15:42
by eggman
Yeah there is sme tweaking that can be done there.
Right now .. imo .. the vehicle combat dynamics in PR are not very good. We need to do more work on it.
With the changes in 0.3 the intent was that a Heavy Jeep (Hummer, Vodnik, Nanjing) that gets hit by an AT weapon will catch fire and explode within 5 to 10 seconds.
The reason it has to "explode" in such a short time is to actually create a threat to the crew, but not make them a complete 1 shot kill (6 guys in a hummer hit by an RPG there's a decent chance there will be survivors). I have read a few (unfortunate) accounts of hummers being hit with an RPG. While the vehicle is completely destroyed and there are immediate casualties and total chaos breaks out.... there are often survivors and often they are just shaken up.
So we're tying to get it where the crew who is paying attention has a chance to bail out and survive an RPG type weapon hit.
EDIT: same can be said for Helo's. I'd much prefer if a single AA hit to a Helo gave the pilot some opportunity to touch down and get to safety. I've also seen video and read accounts of helos hit with RPGs and even when the thing drops 100m from the sky onto rocks, there are survivors.
We'll continue to work on it.
egg
Posted: 2006-05-20 15:52
by Pence
'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']Yeah there is sme tweaking that can be done there.
Right now .. imo .. the vehicle combat dynamics in PR are not very good. We need to do more work on it.
With the changes in 0.3 the intent was that a Heavy Jeep (Hummer, Vodnik, Nanjing) that gets hit by an AT weapon will catch fire and explode within 5 to 10 seconds.
The reason it has to "explode" in such a short time is to actually create a threat to the crew, but not make them a complete 1 shot kill (6 guys in a hummer hit by an RPG there's a decent chance there will be survivors). I have read a few (unfortunate) accounts of hummers being hit with an RPG. While the vehicle is completely destroyed and there are immediate casualties and total chaos breaks out.... there are often survivors and often they are just shaken up.
So we're tying to get it where the crew who is paying attention has a chance to bail out and survive an RPG type weapon hit.
EDIT: same can be said for Helo's. I'd much prefer if a single AA hit to a Helo gave the pilot some opportunity to touch down and get to safety. I've also seen video and read accounts of helos hit with RPGs and even when the thing drops 100m from the sky onto rocks, there are survivors.
We'll continue to work on it.
egg
Egg, what about tanks?
They should be seriously hard to kill
BUT there should be differences in tanks such as:
T-90 MBT - Speed, Low Armour (Easyest to destroy but a fast tank)
Abrams - Good all rounder, Medium Armour (Not easy to destroy and relitivly fast)
ZTZ-98 - Same as the Abrams but because of its active defence system make it harder for missiles to destroy.
Challenger 2 - Speed, Toughest Armour (Fastest off road tank and the most hevily armoured)
Posted: 2006-05-20 16:16
by bfn42
Pence wrote:Egg, what about tanks?
They should be seriously hard to kill BUT there should be differences in tanks such as:
T-90 MBT - Speed, Low Armour (Easyest to destroy but a fast tank)
Abrams - Good all rounder, Medium Armour (Not easy to destroy and relitivly fast)
ZTZ-98 - Same as the Abrams but because of its active defence system make it harder for missiles to destroy.
Challenger 2 - Speed, Toughest Armour (Fastest off road tank and the most hevily armoured)
I don't like that idea. I don'tknow where you come off thinking the challenger 2 is "so" much better than the abrams in armor. The T-90's kontak-5 when fitted to the t-90 is almost about the same level of armor protection as any western tank. And the ZTZ-98? Well we don't know, but we know the chinese are expected to put ERA on it to make it a little better.
Posted: 2006-05-20 16:27
by Solitas
If you want cars to flame longer, could it be possible to damage people INSIDE the car I.e. from the fact the humvees on fire
Posted: 2006-05-20 16:35
by Pence
At David 2999 and bfn42:
The Challenger 2 is the fastest off road MBT out of the four and the 2nd Generation Chobham makes it the most superior armoured tank in the world.
'Stillbrew' ERA is effective against squash head rounds, saboted rounds have a decent chance of breaking through.
The Abrams is about par with the Challenger 1 (Less so when you see how sloped the Challenger's armour is), They both use the first generation Chobham plate, a hard to manufacture solid impact deflective armour, the first generation Chobham was a failure in its intended reaction to a shell impact but it was superior to any armour at the time so it was adopted.
2nd Generation Chobham makes use of meany materials, from plastics to metals to make a solid layer, the secondary layers obsorb the shock of an impact so the first solid layer stays strong and in perfect form, this in turn deflects the shell better than any other armour by far.
Posted: 2006-05-20 16:46
by trogdor1289
Not going to get involved in a this tank is better than that tank war. But will say that the veichels do need to flame for longer before blowing up giving the crew and chance to get out and the transport helos defientaly need the chance to get to ground instead of just blowing up in mid-air from a couple of at rounds.
Posted: 2006-05-20 16:49
by bfn42
. Ever heard of the m1a2 Sep? You're telling me it's on par with the challenger 1 one in armor? Please post TRUE facts. No false opinions. Could a C1 take direct APFSDS rounds? nope....Actually in gw2 there was instance of a chally 2taking out another one....and it was COMPLETELY destroyed.Theres been several instances of blue on blue with the abrams. Destroyed? No.Disabled? yes.but not destroyed......Heh....chobam 1 huh? you realized that was in gw1 right? You realize that m1a2 seps have very heavy DU Plating?
Posted: 2006-05-20 16:51
by Pence
bfn42 wrote:Heh, yes becuase you know "everything" an abrams. Yes...haha. Ever heard of the m1a2 Sep? You're telling me it's on par with the challenger one in armor? Please post TRUE facts. No false opinions. Could a C1 take direct APFSDS rounds? nope....Actually in gw2 there was instance of a chally 2taking out another one....and it was COMPLETELY destroyed.Theres been several instances of blue on blue with the abrams. Destroyed? No.Disabled? Heh....chobam 1 huh? you realized that was in gw1 right? You realize that m1a2 seps have very heavy DU Plating right?
I do not need to argue with you, your statements are wrong.
Posted: 2006-05-20 16:54
by JuniperM40
Um, discussions about IRL vehciles is irrelevant. The discussion here is about extending the blow-up time of PRMM vechicles - pros/con's and the like. Pls keep it on topic.