• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
dre21

One more call for Visual damage on ATG

79 posts in this topic

Need something visual definately. 

I've no noticable wtf, not dead atgs using panzers but I have when inf......shoot them in the head/back, go to move on and its still firing. Either terrible lag or he was bleeding out and kept pressing that button. Go back and empty a Luger clip into them, still firing. I gave up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, rotsechs said:

Need something visual definately. 

I've no noticable wtf, not dead atgs using panzers but I have when inf......shoot them in the head/back, go to move on and its still firing. Either terrible lag or he was bleeding out and kept pressing that button. Go back and empty a Luger clip into them, still firing. I gave up.

Yup been there too. 

Not only that but the Allied player base forgets we have 2 Tanks that don't have a turnable turret , but where the whole unit needs to move one or the other direction. Opening up the all so desired flank shot. 

So I'll argue that point all friggen day long . 

Visual dmg It's needed no question doubt about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎01‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 11:23 PM, Pittpete said:

Wow, you'e so wrong on this its unreal:huh:

OK Pittpete, explain the error in my logic? It's unassailable I believe, as it essentially mandates continuing to fire at an ATG until it despawns, prior to which, it is prudent to consider it undamaged. What part of that do you consider in error? Seems perfectly sensible to me, by way of a precaution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps i didn't understand what your point was. 

It's possible as an ATG to stop firing and pretend you're dead only to start firing again when the player focuses on another target.

I don't understand why you'd be against showing visual damage on ATG's?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pittpete said:

Perhaps i didn't understand what your point was. 

It's possible as an ATG to stop firing and pretend you're dead only to start firing again when the player focuses on another target.

I don't understand why you'd be against showing visual damage on ATG's?

 

 

Strangely enough they do to some extent.
Its unimportant damage mostly, if you wreck the tires or some part of the frame, they smoke.
Kind of weird but.

I usually put an AP right through the gunshield into the gunners torso, he isn't doing much useful after that, he might push away but that's ok.

Bout the only useful thing since an atg will probably at most lose a tire (unless you exploded it) would be to maybe have the crewman flop over?
But depending on your view of it, you may not see that still?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd assume it would be difficult to code each individual crewman.

I'd suggest a damaged state if BOTH and only both crewman were dead. Keep firing until you see the ATG destroyed state.

At least some kind of visual confirmation would give piece of mind and allow you to switch targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pittpete said:

Perhaps i didn't understand what your point was. 

It's possible as an ATG to stop firing and pretend you're dead only to start firing again when the player focuses on another target.

I don't understand why you'd be against showing visual damage on ATG's?

 

 

I'm not, beyond the fact that it's a pointless drain on dev-time. As for ATG's "playing-possum" , guile and deceit in warfare, surely not!

If you fire at the bugger until he's despawned, the need for a "fix" disappears. If you don't, you deserve to get bushwhacked. Remember that all infantry were taught at least the rudiments of operating ATG's within their battalion, so that such guns could be operated by anyone if the gun was undamaged, but the crew wounded, dead or missing. This is not the case, for example, with a tank attached to their unit. Moreover, the nominal crew for a 6pdr was more than the two men currently modelled, so it's not unreasonable to rationalise the fact that a gun continues to fire that it's other members or the crew, or indeed nearby infantry assisiting, enabling it to continue firing.

Which brings me back to: Fire until it despawns, and please don't waste time fixing it, when there's so many other aspects more worthy of dev-time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, fidd said:

I'm not, beyond the fact that it's a pointless drain on dev-time. As for ATG's "playing-possum" , guile and deceit in warfare, surely not!

If you fire at the bugger until he's despawned, the need for a "fix" disappears. If you don't, you deserve to get bushwhacked. Remember that all infantry were taught at least the rudiments of operating ATG's within their battalion, so that such guns could be operated by anyone if the gun was undamaged, but the crew wounded, dead or missing. This is not the case, for example, with a tank attached to their unit. Moreover, the nominal crew for a 6pdr was more than the two men currently modelled, so it's not unreasonable to rationalise the fact that a gun continues to fire that it's other members or the crew, or indeed nearby infantry assisiting, enabling it to continue firing.

Which brings me back to: Fire until it despawns, and please don't waste time fixing it, when there's so many other aspects more worthy of dev-time.

 

Ever sit in a Stug3b or Stug3g?

With the limited load out , missing MG , lack of a Turret , a unit that needs to move to engage targets cause the gun has a limited side to side movement.

Your fire at the bugger till he despawns theory is sorry to say idiotic.

On both of these platforms the Ammo count is very crucial and every round not spend is life saving . So to say fire till he despawns is just not right but down right wrong beyond believe.

Also these ATG have been in game since the beginning visual dmg is very much so needed not just for the confirmation but for the overall feel of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that going toe to toe, in a tank, against an anti-tank gun (the clue is in the name) one should necessarily expect a felicitous outcome. I reckon the Stug, especially with the short 75, is one of the hardest units in the game to play. In a way, it can't fufill it's role well until the HE audit, for reasons ypu give. However, that's really a fault with the HE aspect, not the damage-model on the ATG. The simple fact is that as soon as you're in the reach of an ATG you're in a world of pain, period.

Were a damage model for ATG's to be coded, then I'd like to see it done in two ways, not one:

1. A Crew damage-model where the gun is operational but crew visibly dead. (HE or AP/MG with direct hits), as a persistant crewless gun, lasting an hour, afterwhich the gun is lost.

2. A disabled gun model, where the gun is visibly wrecked. (AP or bomb only)

If the crew only are dead, the gun can be brought back into action by any infantry joining it, which would cause them to respawn at that location as the gun crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how many times in the past i've intentionally not despawned just to keep the enemy fixated on me?

Visual damage is/should be modeled and isn't a waste of Dev time in my opinion.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumeably you've done it in your Stug numerous times too, because there's no "visual damage model" for a de-gunned stug either.  Why should you have the special benefit of a visual damage model v ATG's, but not insist on the same for a de-gunned tank? Seems rather partisan to me. Obviously if your tank is brewed-up then that's that, but if merely de-gunned then you're more or less on the same footing as the ATG.

Like I said, the visual damage model for ATG's/Flak is a waste of dev-time, and quite reasonably couldn't stop there, there'd need to be similar treatment of all vehicles with weapons, making it a monumental waste of dev-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Pittpete said:

I'd assume it would be difficult to code each individual crewman.

I'd suggest a damaged state if BOTH and only both crewman were dead. Keep firing until you see the ATG destroyed state.

At least some kind of visual confirmation would give piece of mind and allow you to switch targets.

Since from a target standpoint all you care about is the gunner, you could probably just do his damaged state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh huh. Consider a 6pdr - or even a 2pdr. At a thousand yards all you would be able to see is the gunner's helmet and part of his face, now even at a 1000 yards the 6pdr will happily take your Stug to pieces. Which means that unless the gun is physically destroyed, you stand no chance, whatsoever, of telling by sight if his crew are all dead around the gun, are hiding, or are still unperforated and about to do your stug some mischief. Which means that the damage-model you espouse would only provide useful visual indications of damage at ranges far far shorter than the effective range of the gun, and then typically if the gun is destroyed by something capable of taking off the shield or otherwise dismounting the gun.

Still think this is worthwhile?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fidd.

Shoot at aircraft. See impacts. See bits come off.

Shoot at tanks, trucks, armoured cars. See impacts. See tracks drop. See smoking engine. See fire. See explosion. See wheels go foraging alone.

Shoot at infantry. See blood splats. See him fall. Hear him scream.

Shoot at/bomb buildings, ai pits. See buildings collapse, ai vanish.

Shoot at aaa/atg. With anything. See nothing.

Worthwhile to have a bit of the customers money spent on a model where a wheel comes off or blood splats on aaa and atg? Yes it it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2017 at 11:05 AM, fidd said:

I'm not sure that going toe to toe, in a tank, against an anti-tank gun (the clue is in the name) one should necessarily expect a felicitous outcome. I reckon the Stug, especially with the short 75, is one of the hardest units in the game to play. In a way, it can't fufill it's role well until the HE audit, for reasons ypu give. However, that's really a fault with the HE aspect, not the damage-model on the ATG. The simple fact is that as soon as you're in the reach of an ATG you're in a world of pain, period.

Were a damage model for ATG's to be coded, then I'd like to see it done in two ways, not one:

1. A Crew damage-model where the gun is operational but crew visibly dead. (HE or AP/MG with direct hits), as a persistant crewless gun, lasting an hour, afterwhich the gun is lost.

2. A disabled gun model, where the gun is visibly wrecked. (AP or bomb only)

If the crew only are dead, the gun can be brought back into action by any infantry joining it, which would cause them to respawn at that location as the gun crew.

Are you serious or just trolling?

U know how often in this game Tanks encounter ATG?  It doesn't matter if u sit in a Stug or any other tank. 

I mentioned the Stug for a reason cause of the low  load out it has .

You know how often I have taken out a ATG cause I can range them with the commander  before they even  knew I was there . Yes visual dmg would be great cause I and any other Tanker can save ammo and scan for new Targets and not have to use more Ammo ( have I mentioned Ammo on a Stug is limited)

Also when a Truck tows a few guns am I supposed to let them pass me by ? 

Let them get to the front and then camp a AB . 

U know a well placed HE round and it gives me visual dmg let's me know exactly which out of the 4 ( example) ATG I need to target now.

In your system any Tanker is kinda screwed cause hey they might be all dead or only 2 or none.

How could we actually how can we tell right now,We can't it's spray and shoot till they all despawn. 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're.... not...... going.....to....see....this.......most.......of......the......time 

Because:

1. He got you first

2. He's far too far away to see a blood-stained arm hanging over the gun-shield, or, for that matter, if his crew are still behind said shield.

3. He's in a bush

4. You've fired MG at him which of course wouldn't show much in any case.

5. His mate got you.

6. You're over 50 and couldn't see the gun, much less whether it has a wonky wheel.

7. Whilst you shecking the distant ATG, you got sapped.

8. It's so far away you don't realise he's actually on your side, and that therefore you could sheck him till Doomsday without effect.

9. He's in one of the bazillion ATG positions now littering the countryside.

10. What you took to be distant ATG is actually a road-sign, bush and tree-branch.

and so on.

In short, damage models on ATG's only possible point is the one you havn't advanced: namely that it would very very occasionally be useful to know that a friendly ATG has been knocked out.

Still an utter waste of time. As it's one of the few items in game without an obvious damage model, it's almost as if CRS must have hought about it before and decided it is <drumroll>

"A waste of time"!

(and to "Dre21")

It's a failing of email  and indeed UBB boards that it's hard to convey intent. No, I'm not trolling in the least. I just don't think those advocating this have really thought this through. If faced with an ATG that hasn't seen you - or is otherwise busy with closer targest it  is permissible to withdraw, or to forestall advancing further until the ground ahead has been swept by friendly infantry.

. Something a lot an awful lot of us tankies frequently forget - myself included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just put AP round through gunshield roughly in the place the gunners torso should be.
MG is hit and miss, the gunshield blocks it, as it should, AP not so much.

HE not a great option, at least until HE audit rolls in.
into the shield, most likely not going to hut him unless its so close it manages to pen the shield.
And dropping beside/behind, the shrapnel just isnt enough, will probably miss.

An AP in the belly pretty much effects a game over on that spawn for the AT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learned never to shoot ATGs above the waist, their heads don't even take damage if I recall, I always aim for their butts, I think it was modeled this way early on (my opinion) to increase their survivability, if they died right away from any bullet to the head nobody would use them, it's a way of simulating them ducking behind the shield since the crew doesn't actually move

 

btw I agree a visible damage state would be great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KMS said:

I've learned never to shoot ATGs above the waist, their heads don't even take damage if I recall, I always aim for their butts, I think it was modeled this way early on (my opinion) to increase their survivability, if they died right away from any bullet to the head nobody would use them, it's a way of simulating them ducking behind the shield since the crew doesn't actually move

 

btw I agree a visible damage state would be great

 

The heads take damage.
Play an ATG and you learn that real fast when some lil guy with a pistol sneaks up on you and you loose the circle dance.


The old ATG models, the DM was moving out of sync with the visual and the guys head kind of wound up in his shoulders or something a bit anatomically correct like that.
I thought that got addressed some time ago though?

But fixed or not the head is little, at 800m i might miss it.

Fidd does have somewhat of a point.
Probably 80% of the time, i wont see the visible damage, wont see the gunner laid out on his back behind the bushes.
And i think i rarely shoot an ATG in such a manner as would result in catastrophic gun damage.

I think that 99% of atg's people shoot simply die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If modeling separate damage states is too much work, then look at way to apply the red puff damage sprite to the ATG crewmen hit boxes. Use the same sprite that displays when infantry get hit. It might look a little gamey but seeing red will be some visual indication.

 

Also unless something changed since I lasted tested, the hitboxes on some ATG crewmen change position when deployed vs. undeployed, and the 1st and 3rd person views are reversed on some guns. Those are some quirks aggravate this ATG problem.

Edited by david01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to those who are seeing  what I've been driving at with this. It's not that it can't  be done, it's just that it seems to me it would  be a lot of dev-time spent on something that  perhaps most of the time wouldn't help. And there may be better solutions out there. For example, it's reasonable to suppose that normal rates of fire for an ATG are diminished if the gun-screen is being hit by HE splinters or bullets. So, if ATG's had a variable reload-time, with reload speeds greatly reduced if the gun is being hit, this would be consistent with typical behaviour. If that reload speed was further diminished by the numbers of nominal crew receiving fatal hits, one might start to have ATG's exhibiting fairly realistic capabilities as they're degraded by fire both non-fatal and fatal.

Example: Lets say that a 6pdr has a nominal crew of 5. Only two bodies are modelled, but that doesn't matter. Unengaged it has, say, a reload speed of 1 round every 2.5 seconds. When hit by non-damaging, non-lethal fire, this (say) doubles to 1 round every 5 seconds for (say) 20 seconds before reverting to 1 round per 2.5 seconds again. Now lets suppose 2 crewmen are then killed.  If we assume that each crewman's contribution was .5 second (x5 for 5 men), then it'd be reasonable to add 1 second to the basic reload-speed, again (say) doubling from that value if under suppressing-fire. So, our 6pdr, now with only 3 of the 5 crew left would do no better than 1 round per 3,5 seconds.

The numbers in the above example are completely arbitrary, but they shew the principle, and all by changing a fixed reload rate to one that's variable, and dependant on the number of surviving crew, and whether or not it is under meaningful amounts of suppressing fire. Now, imho, we're now gone from a relatively dev-time intensive solution - visual damage models - which are by their nature of questionable benefit, to one where players encountering an ATG will have to treat in a more realistic way, and conversely, an ATG will be more easily suppressed by fire than perhaps is the case now. And all with some relatively simple changes in terms of coding changes.

Now, I do not think for one moment that the above is necessarily the optimal solution, but I do believe, for reasons previously stated, visual-damage models are far  from the panacea thought, and worse, would require a ton of work to implement. What's needed, imho, is simple mechanism for reducing the capabilities of an ATG under-fire, and for a short period afterwards, and one that also degrades the gun as (more realistic) crew complements are killed. Consider how this mechanism would work in combination with ATG positions...

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, fidd said:

Thanks to those who are seeing  what I've been driving at with this. It's not that it can't  be done, it's just that it seems to me it would  be a lot of dev-time spent on something that  perhaps most of the time wouldn't help. And there may be better solutions out there. For example, it's reasonable to suppose that normal rates of fire for an ATG are diminished if the gun-screen is being hit by HE splinters or bullets. So, if ATG's had a variable reload-time, with reload speeds greatly reduced if the gun is being hit, this would be consistent with typical behaviour. If that reload speed was further diminished by the numbers of nominal crew receiving fatal hits, one might start to have ATG's exhibiting fairly realistic capabilities as they're degraded by fire both non-fatal and fatal.

Example: Lets say that a 6pdr has a nominal crew of 5. Only two bodies are modelled, but that doesn't matter. Unengaged it has, say, a reload speed of 1 round every 2.5 seconds. When hit by non-damaging, non-lethal fire, this (say) doubles to 1 round every 5 seconds for (say) 20 seconds before reverting to 1 round per 2.5 seconds again. Now lets suppose 2 crewmen are then killed.  If we assume that each crewman's contribution was .5 second (x5 for 5 men), then it'd be reasonable to add 1 second to the basic reload-speed, again (say) doubling from that value if under suppressing-fire. So, our 6pdr, now with only 3 of the 5 crew left would do no better than 1 round per 3,5 seconds.

The numbers in the above example are completely arbitrary, but they shew the principle, and all by changing a fixed reload rate to one that's variable, and dependant on the number of surviving crew, and whether or not it is under meaningful amounts of suppressing fire. Now, imho, we're now gone from a relatively dev-time intensive solution - visual damage models - which are by their nature of questionable benefit, to one where players encountering an ATG will have to treat in a more realistic way, and conversely, an ATG will be more easily suppressed by fire than perhaps is the case now. And all with some relatively simple changes in terms of coding changes.

Now, I do not think for one moment that the above is necessarily the optimal solution, but I do believe, for reasons previously stated, visual-damage models are far  from the panacea thought, and worse, would require a ton of work to implement. What's needed, imho, is simple mechanism for reducing the capabilities of an ATG under-fire, and for a short period afterwards, and one that also degrades the gun as (more realistic) crew complements are killed. Consider how this mechanism would work in combination with ATG positions...

So you number and % calculation is something you would like to see , but visual dmg on an ATG is a waste of DEV time ?

Boy oh Boy  there might be a reason why 4139 posts and only 16 likes compared to 419 posts and 61 likes.

 

It sure looks like the one has better ideas then the other .

U know I'm not only talking , Tank vs ATG I'm talking , INF vs ATG or AAA, Planes vs ATG or AAA , it sure would be nice for the other 2 units too that they knew they scored the kill or took the unit out of the fight . 

I don't know how many more examples I should or need to give u.

A SIMPLE SMALL EXPLOSION would DO. Visable if the guy hides in a Bush or not

U can see it from a far , Airplane ,INF and Armor alike when the gunner dies. Gunner is what counts . No player will stay in the game world when his main. Persona that makes the weapon worth while ( the gunner ) is KIA.

It's as simple as that , PERIOD

 

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not trolling in the least. I just don't think those advocating this have really thought this through. If faced with an ATG that hasn't seen you - or is otherwise busy with closer targest it  is permissible to withdraw, or to forestall advancing further until the ground ahead has been swept by friendly infantry.

*fingers on nose* gnnnnnnnnn

yup I'll let the ATG go cause there will be no other Friendly Tank that might take that route. Even when marked someone might miss it be on another mission etc etc etc. No friendly INF around . That Truck drove right into it as stated above , me backing out you say.

Well let's see he killed the 1st target while I'm trying to back out he finds me even at range and kills or tracks me. Compared to me taking him out with a confirmed visual kill , maybe saving the other players life and me advancing to the Target with a Friendly .

I'll take my option any day over what you came up with ,just saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You...wont....see...the....visual....damage...model... at... a... thousand... yards.. or.. more...

Last Campaign I had a 17pdr firing at 1700 yards to the bridge at Cochem, iirc , where I knocked out all 7 or so tanks that tried crossing the bridge towards me. As to what they were, I couldn't tell you beyond that they were "grey". I don't imagine a visual damage-model would have done them a happ'worth of good either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.