FB's being destroyed without damaging VEH

[Stu]

I've gone on a number of missions blowing FB's by myself and on some bases I've destroyed the entire FB by only placing 7-8 satchels on the INF spawn without touching the VEH spawn. I've checked before attacking too, It shows damage as INF: 0%, VEH: 0%

One I can point to in particular where this has happened was Montmedy-Orval (attacking as allied).

[timmy41]

I blew 3 FBs today and this didn't happen to me at all. Will post if it does.

[DOC]

need reliable method of replication to validate, our tests have not shown this to happen yet

[company0]

If you place the charges closest to the Veh tents on the inf tents, the resulting explosion can damage both the inf and Veh tents with a single charge.

[DOC]

that was true to varying degrees (based on the individual layouts which varied too) with the old HEAT destroy FB feature as well

[rote13]

i was kinda reporting the same in a different thread. this affects all fbs with the same layout, veh and inf tents close by each other, so you can blow the

whole fb without even touching the veh spawn in the way company0 described.

so long slpr

[GOPHUR]

What's happening is that now the HE satchel is the only weapon that can damage an FB, the concussion from the explosion is carrying over to the second object and recording two hits.

I haven't done a damage log on it but I'll bet my hat.

Not sure what we can do other than reduce the explosive in the thing. Have to talk to Oli when we see him.

[DOC]

I don't think we should do anything.

1. Reducing the explosive will have unintended consequences elsewhere, I don't want to have to debug (or even find!) every possible incidence of that, many of which may be unknown for quite some time.

2. Really ... what is so bad about some variety in explosive consequences against a terrain object ? I understand that people want to see the same thing in every single instance of a similar instance (I do this and that happens, and it never varies) but really ... a true simulation would allow it to rely on "I do this and OBSERVE what happens, then adjust according to that result" ... yes we have to temper things because gamers often don't undertsand why a simulation would have variety or results in what appear to be identical circumstances ... in this case I'd say not doing anything is by far the lesser of 2 evils.

You want to blow an FB ? You place demolition charges that you estimate/think/your-experience-tells-you will be sufficient, and after they go off you use the damage report tool to see how much damage you did. When you achieve 100% damage, it dissappears and you know you got the job done. All the nessesary tools are there to get it done, or to guage your progress at doing it.

This is much more simulation biased than if it was the same deal at every FB every time. Yes if we had that (same everywhere all the time) I would accept it, but we don't so I'm just making a case for why we probably shouldn't worry about it right now.

Personally I like that it takes something different in some cases to others. Keeps you involved in what you are doing and thinking about how to achieve it. Yeah I get that players sometimes go crazy over such "inconsistancies" but in reality, if they got an identical result every single time they would be bored a lot faster.

They just never think about that. Who really considers what is more long term involving or short term boredom inducing ? Unless it's something dreadfully obvious, not most players I'm sure of that. It seems to me that not changing anything at all is the best choice for now. Just my opinion.

[sssnake]

Besides, Varying the result will make the game more interesting anyway.

I agree with Doc-why change it?

There were some that were close together that did that before, and it's more of the same we've always had-no need to change.

(Lets go kill some FB's!!)

[rote13]

makes absolute sense DOC, i would also say leave this as it is, just wanted to be sure this is intended and not by random.

so long slpr

[pinche]

Agree leave as it is...

[fxmmauser]

I don't agree FB's can be taken out already too easily in most cases solo even if defenders outnumber attackers.

Keeping as it is will just make the game look broke to most players, its already a PIA checking damage status seeing that VEH is fully damage and moving just to cover INF then seeing it go down to satchels placed on the VEH

This wont help generating content for players and in terms of varition of gameplay we already have fb position, terrain, cover and position where VEH is facing...

If this can be easily fixed then it should be.

[Stu]

How it's dealt with doesn't matter much to me, justnreporting it so that if there is a bug it can be dealt with, and if it's not a bug, then it's simply a part of the game's character.

To note though, that Orval FB I mentioned, IIRC the vehicle and infantry spawns weren't right by each other.

I'll attempt to replicate this more in game and report on it again if it happens again.

[Stu]

I attempted to replicate the scenario yesterday, same unit, same FB's, etc. But it was back to normal.

[nozler]

I drove a squaddie to an FB earlier today where the tents were far from each other. After his 8th satchel on the INF. tents blew, the whole FB went down. I am not sure which FB it was ATM, however the tents were at least 50m from one another.

Also, we noticed that after the 4th satchel, it would show that the INF. tents were at 55% instead of 50%. Was anything changed on the amount of damage each satchel has on the tents?

[Slpr]

That's because we changed them to take joules damage so that the HE satchel would work. Previously they took a specific damge beacuse with the HEAT function actually not doing anything to a tent, we could have a line that faked it.

Now they just take joules. Maybe a whole lot, yes ... but there is no special function (HEAT) on which to hang a special event like there used to be. I little variation isn't nessesarily a bad thing. As a simulation, it is actually the way it SHOULD be, only as a game should anything happen exactly the same way every time.

Simulations should pretty much never do that. It's a conumdrum isn't it?

out of a different thread, this should answer your question.

so long Slpr

[Bierbaer]

It has to do with the repair function and is an old bug. It happens when, in this case, the VEH spawn was fully blown but the FB never has been finished aka changed ownership. FB will repair to 0% damage so you wont notice that it has been attacked and damaged before. You head out and sap INF and FB goes down because some data is telling that VEH is/was already down even tho .own said otherwise.

This should be easy to replicate - it just takes a lot of time to wait till FB is fully repaired.

bb

[GOPHUR]

@fx agreed but if they are already too easy then that should be addressed another way.

Looks like we need to do some more testing on this. Bigger fish today for me but I'll keep an eye on it.