TTK for Vehicles

[Peacemaker]

Couple months back I made a thread about the pace of PS2 being very important, as the pace of PS1 was awsome. When I say pace I basicly am talking about TTK. Unless in extreme close combat you normally had time to take cover when under fire. Obviously they have stated that the TTK has been reduced, and I hope it isn't what its like to play CoD. It will however make balancing weapons MUCH easier. This brings me to my next thought, what's the vehicle combat going to be like?

TTK on vehicles will be interesting to see, as in real life only a few cannon rounds can bring an aircraft down, and *most* tanks are disabled after taking a direct hit sometimes two. How will this happen in PS2?

If the TTK is too high they will SLAUGHTER infantry. Too low and it becomes pointless to even roll a tank, as one infantry with AV could presumeably rape a vehicle, and maybe before they even have a chance. Done right this could be awsome, hitting a reaver with 10 - 20 cannon rounds in a good high speed dog fight, or a tank fight where its decided in two or three shots. infantry that can make a tank pay for pushing too far forward and getting flanked (always found it frustrating having two guys with AV not able to kill a tank before it ran away).

Thoughts? Info?

[Bags]

I really like it in Planetside. They aren't invulnerable, but a few uncoordinated infantry won't take them down.

[Ranik Ortega]

Couple months back I made a thread about the pace of PS2 being very important, as the pace of PS1 was awsome. When I say pace I basicly am talking about TTK. Unless in extreme close combat you normally had time to take cover when under fire. Obviously they have stated that the TTK has been reduced, and I hope it isn't what its like to play CoD. It will however make balancing weapons MUCH easier. This brings me to my next thought, what's the vehicle combat going to be like?

TTK on vehicles will be interesting to see, as in real life only a few cannon rounds can bring an aircraft down, and *most* tanks are disabled after taking a direct hit sometimes two. How will this happen in PS2?

If the TTK is too high they will SLAUGHTER infantry. Too low and it becomes pointless to even roll a tank, as one infantry with AV could presumeably rape a vehicle, and maybe before they even have a chance. Done right this could be awsome, hitting a reaver with 10 - 20 cannon rounds in a good high speed dog fight, or a tank fight where its decided in two or three shots. infantry that can make a tank pay for pushing too far forward and getting flanked (always found it frustrating having two guys with AV not able to kill a tank before it ran away).

Thoughts? Info?

They have to start from the ground up in my opinion. Start with infantry TTK and balancing THEN worry about vehicles. This is something we can speculate on even less than infantry weapon balance as its dependent and layered on top of infantry combat.

[Quovatis]

Vehicles will have locational damage, so hitting it in a weak spot will do more damage than head-on. How it will work for lock-on weapons like the striker (if it exists) is an interesting question. So that complicates the TTK stuff. Of course, I'd like to see it where small arms do zero damage to tanks, but that's just me. Maybe I'm just embarrassed for my Mag being taken out by a repeater a few times. :)

[Aractain]

I really hope they make real use of the locational damage. That means you can have a tank take a lot of punishment in head on fights but if you lose ground you can be flanked and killed easily.

This really emphasises smart driving and situational awarness without having instagib vehicle experinces. Also lets hope there isn't many splash AOE anti-infantry weapons unless its designed specifically for that role, like a grenade launcher.

[Ranik Ortega]

Vehicles will have locational damage, so hitting it in a weak spot will do more damage than head-on. How it will work for lock-on weapons like the striker (if it exists) is an interesting question. So that complicates the TTK stuff. Of course, I'd like to see it where small arms do zero damage to tanks, but that's just me. Maybe I'm just embarrassed for my Mag being taken out by a repeater a few times. :)

I really hope they make real use of the locational damage. That means you can have a tank take a lot of punishment in head on fights but if you lose ground you can be flanked and killed easily.

This really emphasises smart driving and situational awarness without having instagib vehicle experinces. Also lets hope there isn't many splash AOE anti-infantry weapons unless its designed specifically for that role, like a grenade launcher.

Yeah in retrospect with locational damage included that complicates things more. Messing with TTK for vehicles seems a nightmare because of courtyard fights where AV infantry can spawn endlessly.

My list of ideas or suggestions if they shorten the TTK for vehicles would be


1: like Quovatis said, tanks have immunitry to small arms fire. All of it.

2: Distinction between AV weapons. Light AV weapons which can be easily maneuvered with and fired but don't do as much damage. And heavy AV weapons which actually are cumbersome to set up and fire. Basically if they shortened the TTK people could easily strafe with decimators and it would be horrifying.

3: Rely more on locational damage and proper scale of AV. Basically a light AV weapon could be used to drop a buggy or lightning. But to actually damage a MBT you would need something bigger.

This is all basically just thoughts on what having a vehicle in a courtyard would be like under a new system and shorter TTK so take it with a pile of salt. :p

[Bags]

Vehicles are already virtually immune to small arms fire in Planetside 1, I see no reason to change it if they are already designing it the same way in Planetside 2.

[Rbstr]

I hate that I can lob missile after missile at a single tank and he could drive into an out of my range without exploding. As it stands, even against a few AV units tanks stick around too long.

But it is a delicate balance against the idea of insta-sploding in a larger fight.
The class system helps here because it's likely that the number of AV weapons present on the field at any given time will be significantly lower.
I also get the feeling that the Hex system will tend to spread the population out over larger areas.
Location damage is where the real meat of vehicle damage should be. The front/sides should be able to shrug off an AV round or two, while one up the tailpipe is dangerous.

I think ~10 rounds from a phoenix style gun (That is, on the higher side of damage and fairly easily aimed) should end a tank if hit in the front/sides.
4/5 or so if it's hit on in the back/underside. 6-8 about on the top.
But that all depends on the kinds of AV weapons available. If a pheonix is going to be able to hit the back of a tank from any firing position, things will be unbalanced.

Basically, if a couple of AV dudes get behind a tank, the tank should be doomed. But if that tank minds its heavy armor and keeps it pointed where the damage is coming from, they'll tend to be OK.
It also makes turning tail a scarier prospect.

Keep tanks immune to rifles/HA, buggies/aircraft should feel AP ammo more than they do now. Anything spit-fire-esque should do less AV damage unless it's an AV-type.
The light vs. heavy AV thing is decent...but I would make the distinction less on setup times and annoyances but by class. AV troops get the big guns, Javelin analogue stuff. Heavy rifle-man/HA rexo-suit types or even light infantry that take an SMG get LAW/RPG kind of things.

[BorisBlade]

Vehicles are my fave part of the game by far. I hope the pacing is the same. If im gonna die super fast like in BF then thats prob the nail in the coffin for me. Locational damage is fine, but none of this one man can take you out with good hits on a weakspot with his 3 shot deci or whatever.

Honestly PS had it right, the AV weapons did well and allowed for a good way to fight back without being too strong. And again just like the infantry TTK which cant be lowered too much, there are gonna be 1000-1500 players out there which means a zillion AV weapons could be firing your way at any givin time so you need to be able to take some damage, BF damage models wouldnt work at all. Esp since you arent getting magically spawned vehicles that appear by themselves that anyone can drive and at spawn points next door to the fight. You have to travel atleast a little bit from your base and fast vehicel deaths would just be frustrating and boring.

This also ties in with the fact they arent really gonna have specialization of any consequence, so anyone can get the class with the AV and fight the tanks off. (yeah you may not get the bonuses but you still get the basic AV so it doesnt matter much.) Which again means more av will be available then it would if you had to specialize. Although prob not more than in PS1 since most everyone specs AV currently. So you will need the higher armor on the vehicles that PS1 currently has.

And dont do this "immunity to light arms" thing i see alot of tanks and other vehicles get in some other games, keep it simple with just low damage like it currently is, let em use some AP rounds if they want. Not great, in fact they dont to much at all, but it does somethin and immunities are just not fun.

[Ranik Ortega]

Stuff

Boris the points being theorized are with shortened TTK and locational damage. We don't need some dude with a jackhammer and AP ammo magically penetrating a MBT because he is shooting it in the ass. :D

And honestly between Rbstr and my ideas I think we have something workable :cool:

[Bags]

We don't need some dude with a jackhammer and AP ammo magically penetrating a MBT because he is shooting it in the ass. :D


Strawman. Nobody wants the Jackhammer to do significant damage to MBTs.

[Rbstr]

An addition:
Just because there are a zillion AV rounds out there doesn't mean they all or even any are even aimed at you.
Presumably, you aren't the only tank in existence. If 10 people all take aim at the same tank...its death should be rather quick.
This is the same argument in the infantry balance threads. Besides the 20,100,1000 players Shooting at you, there are 20,100,1000 players to be shot at.

[Quovatis]

Go up to any modern tank and shoot 10,000 rounds of 9mm at it. Tell when it blows up. Immunity to small arms fire DOES make perfect sense. IMHO the whole AP round thing was bad in PS1. Either you carry an AV weapon or you don't. AP Jackhammer did more damage over time than a decimator, and that's just crazy.

[Rbstr]

shhhh don't make the realism argument. Sci-fi can't be realistic, remember?

Honestly, I agree about AP ammo to some extent. It should do jack shit to tanks or other heavy vehicles.

It should help v. maxes, aircraft and buggy-like vehicles.

[Bags]

Go up to any modern tank and shoot 10,000 rounds of 9mm at it. Tell when it blows up. Immunity to small arms fire DOES make perfect sense. IMHO the whole AP round thing was bad in PS1. Either you carry an AV weapon or you don't. AP Jackhammer did more damage over time than a decimator, and that's just crazy.

No one is arguing it was realistic. No one ever had a problem with it either. Well, if you died to jackhammers in a MBT you did it wrong.

You're going to need a better reason than "it's unrealistic" to convince me to part with much of anything from Planetside 1.

[Peacemaker]

Honestly I'm with Rob. I always thought most vehicles took too much damage. Tanks took 10 or more hits to kill with another tank, and AV was pitiful unless it was in numbers. Love to hear something from a dev on this as we really won't know till beta and that could be a while.

[Ranik Ortega]

No one is arguing it was realistic. No one ever had a problem with it either. Well, if you died to jackhammers in a MBT you did it wrong.

You're going to need a better reason than "it's unrealistic" to convince me to part with much of anything from Planetside 1.

Will common sense work?

9mm bullets do not do shit to heavy armor = Common sense. :D

It's also not a meaningful argument to keep things UN-realistic "just because" , when it doesn't need to be at all. Small arms not hurting heavy vehicles won't change much.

[Raymac]

IMHO, the TTK for vehicles in Planetside now feels just right. I don't want to be able to hover in my Reaver and not worry about the first 5 shots from the Striker before I decide not to hover anymore. When I see 'Lock-On' I need to bug out, and fast. Thats the way it should be.

[Peacemaker]

Aye, aircraft seemed pretty good. I thought the gal gunship was a bit of both underpowered and overpowered though. It took a ton of damage, dished out a ton, but was too powerfull vs aircraft where it should have been vulnerable.

Liberator needed a reduction in armor as its primary defence shoulda been altitude while the vulture was too weak considering its roll.

The phantasm was just insane with the amount of damage it took for an invisible ship.

The reaver mossy wasp gal and lode were just right though. And yes for anyone bitching about reavers I didn't like rockets vs infantry, I always wanted a reaver with a center nose gun that did good AI damage and rockets that did no splash. And other than vs the phnx if you hovered, you died. The second you got locked you HAD to run.

[Death2All]

No one is arguing it was realistic. No one ever had a problem with it either. Well, if you died to jackhammers in a MBT you did it wrong.

You're going to need a better reason than "it's unrealistic" to convince me to part with much of anything from Planetside 1.

This.


Ugh, I don't know how many times I need to say this, but since when does realism in a VIDEO GAME = fun. This is a Futuristic Sci-Fi MMOFPS after all. If you want a game that accurately depicts the ins and outs of real war I suggest a simulation.

Maybe Battlefield 3 will be to your liking?

Common sense does not make a game fun either. Take Zelda for example. Link can carry dozens of items with him throughout his quest. Does it make sense that he can carry 30 bombs, 40 arrows, a magical leaf, a boomerang, 4 bottles, a slingshot, a bow, an ocarina and camera all at once? Nope, but it's fun as shit. If all games were based off real life and were realistic we'd all end up to be boring, miserable sadists such as yourselves.

A game doesn't have to make sense or be realistic to be fun. Stop trying to force that.

[Ranik Ortega]

This.


Ugh, I don't know how many times I need to say this, but since when does realism in a VIDEO GAME = fun. This is a Futuristic Sci-Fi MMOFPS after all. If you want a game that accurately depicts the ins and outs of real war I suggest a simulation.

Maybe Battlefield 3 will be to your liking?

Common sense does not make a game fun either. Take Zelda for example. Link can carry dozens of items with him throughout his quest. Does it make sense that he can carry 30 bombs, 40 arrows, a magical leaf, a boomerang, 4 bottles, a slingshot, a bow, an ocarina and camera all at once? Nope, but it's fun as shit. If all games were based off real life and were realistic we'd all end up to be boring, miserable sadists such as yourselves.

A game doesn't have to make sense or be realistic to be fun. Stop trying to force that.

Again Heavy tanks taking damage from small arms fire is not a matter of realism its a matter of surrealism.

You do not need to keep things silly when they play such a small part on the game. Small arms and AV ammo = effective vs light vehicles, not heavy vehicles does not equal realism it equals balance in a system where vehicles MAY HAVE SHORTER TTK AND LOCATIONAL DAMAGE

PAY ATTENTION TO THAT PART!!!!!!!

[Death2All]

Again Heavy tanks taking damage from small arms fire is not a matter of realism its a matter of surrealism.

You do not need to keep things silly when they play such a small part on the game. Small arms and AV ammo = effective vs light vehicles, not heavy vehicles does not equal realism it equals balance in a system where vehicles MAY HAVE SHORTER TTK AND LOCATIONAL DAMAGE

PAY ATTENTION TO THAT PART!!!!!!!

My post was directed towards the people who are obtrusive to any gameplay mechanic that couldn't be determined as "realistic", so I'm not sure where you're coming from. I wasn't arguing small arms localization damage, or whatever the fuck you're talking about. But if you want my two cents on the matter then of course small arms fire should be proportionate to the weapon you're using and the area in which your shooting.

I'm not sure where all this outcry is coming from in the first place. When you shoot a tank in PS1 with regular ammo you get fucking annihilated. Even with AP ammo you're not going to wreck tanks.

Of course shooting a tank with a pistol in side where it's least armored is going to do more damage, but it's not going to be as significant as a rocket launcher hitting it.

As Bags said, if you're getting killed with a Jackhammer in a tank then you're doing it wrong.

[Ranik Ortega]

My post was directed towards the people who are obtrusive to any gameplay mechanic that couldn't be determined as "realistic", so I'm not sure where you're coming from. I wasn't arguing small arms localization damage, or whatever the fuck you're talking about. But if you want my two cents on the matter then of course small arms fire should be proportionate to the weapon you're using and the area in which your shooting.

I'm not sure where all this outcry is coming from in the first place. When you shoot a tank in PS1 with regular ammo you get fucking annihilated. Even with AP ammo you're not going to wreck tanks.

Of course shooting a tank with a pistol in side where it's least armored is going to do more damage, but it's not going to be as significant as a rocket launcher hitting it.

As Bags said, if you're getting killed with a Jackhammer in a tank then you're doing it wrong.

Much of the changes suggested in this thread are under the assumption that vehicles MAY have shorter TTK and WILL have locational damage. Add those two together and some guy with small arms and AP ammo may potentially do unreasonable damage to a tank. Stop making it about realism and "oh you shouldn't have let that infantry guy behind you"

[Death2All]

Much of the changes suggested in this thread are under the assumption that vehicles MAY have shorter TTK and WILL have locational damage. Add those two together and some guy with small arms and AP ammo may potentially do unreasonable damage to a tank. Stop making it about realism and "oh you shouldn't have let that infantry guy behind you"

Expressing concern for a possible broken gameplay mechanic in a game that hasn't even come out yet is one thing. But obsessing over it to the extremities shown in this thread is another.

If you honestly believe someone going around with an AP weapon is going to have the potential to shoot the crab and it's weak point for massive damage essentially and slaughter hordes of enemy tanks, then I suppose to a degree that's a legitimate concern. But the likelyhood of it never being patched in the future is just absurd. The power bitching will show you the light.

[Ranik Ortega]

Expressing concern for a possible broken gameplay mechanic in a game that hasn't even come out yet is one thing. But obsessing over it to the extremities shown in this thread is another.

If you honestly believe someone going around with an AP weapon is going to have the potential to shoot the crab and it's weak point for massive damage essentially and slaughter hordes of enemy tanks, then I suppose to a degree that's a legitimate concern. But the likelyhood of it never being patched in the future is just absurd. The power bitching will show you the light.

As I said earlier courtyard fights are pretty brutal at times. And the ability to get behind enemy tanks is easy. (I've done it tons :D) Out in the field its not a concern at all , but in a close knock out drag out Courtyard fight maneuvering to weakspots will be pretty easy no matter how good the driver is and its a matter of worrying about the weakspots and shorter TTK.

[Rbstr]

Perhaps tanks simply shouldn't be all piled up in a courtyard given easily accessed weak points? Assuming courtyards even exist as such. An AP jackhammer would be the least of their worries, compared to someone pointing AV up their ass...exactly as it should be.

But the hypothetical of a Jackhammer blowing up a tank isn't really that important to the overall "How much punishment should a tank take?" discussion.
(though, who the fuck cares that much, no damage, minimal damage? I'm in favor of none with regular then minimal to heavy vehicles, decent to air and light vehicles [and maxes] with AP ammo)

I tend to agree that air is relatively well balanced, and also with peace's general assessment of aircraft damage, and a reaver's weaponry being more target specific. Hovering around should end in your death.

[Mightymouser]

Much of the changes suggested in this thread are under the assumption that vehicles MAY have shorter TTK and WILL have locational damage. Add those two together and some guy with small arms and AP ammo may potentially do unreasonable damage to a tank. Stop making it about realism and "oh you shouldn't have let that infantry guy behind you"


If someone is doing unreasonable damage well then, that's unreasonable, and I'm sure it'd get fixed in the beta. But there is a difference between doing unreasonable damage and doing no damage. If you have a tank in an enemy courtyard, and you are surrounded by enemy soldiers, you should go down pretty quick; be it from a guy with a shotgun who destroys part of your exhaust system, or a softy with explosives who knocks your treads off...

The counter to this is you shouldn't be a solitary tank in a courtyard full of enemy soldiers; you should have your own softies, plus other tanks, air, etc. watching your back...

[CutterJohn]

I don't mind bullets hurting tanks a bit. Lets you do at least something if you're about to die.

And if you die to bullets from a shotgun.. well.. you deserved it.

[Talek Krell]

Liberator needed a reduction in armor as its primary defence shoulda been altitude while the vulture was too weak considering its roll.

I disagree. The lib did have unusually heavy armor for an aircraft, but it was designed to attack masses of troops in heavy fortification, so it needed the added survivability. And altitude was no defense. You *could* use the lib like a B-52 but it was generally more effective to use it as a fighter bomber or a ground support aircraft, and I think that was always the intention. Flying high over a base just gave the NC time to unload a couple extra clips of sparrows at you, and those damn things will chase you for a couple of map tiles.


If you have a tank in an enemy courtyard, and you are surrounded by enemy soldiers, you should go down pretty quick

I agree with the sentiment of this but not the execution. Infantry already have grenades, emp grenades, boomers, grenade launchers (both emp and explosive), rocklet launchers, and the AV weapons that they're supposed to be using on vehicles. There's no particular reason that they also need to have armor piercing rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Those are for dealing with other infantry. Or the occasional buggy.

[Death2All]

I agree with the sentiment of this but not the execution. Infantry already have grenades, emp grenades, boomers, grenade launchers (both emp and explosive), rocklet launchers, and the AV weapons that they're supposed to be using on vehicles. There's no particular reason that they also need to have armor piercing rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Those are for dealing with other infantry. Or the occasional buggy.

They're supposed to be using vehicles when the terrain calls for infantry combat? So they should be completely defenseless against an idiot tank driver?

Note I said they should be able to defend themselves, not one man armies that can easily destroy tanks. I think the current TTK on vehicles vs. infantry works great. A tank will generally annihilate sofites unless they're skilled with Jammers or cover. That's the way it should be.


Do I need to start my "the more skilled player should always win" rant?

[Haro]

I think that AP ammo will most likely be taken out. In my limited but fairly extensive with PS way back when, no one ever bothered to carry it because the ttk was so huge. Any vehicle that you could reasonably destroy with it would be long gone before you could. Any vehicle that stuck around would likely wipe you off the map. Not to mention, the lack of grid inventories makes ap ammo a bit harder to implement (though not by much, from what I've seen in other games, but still.)

I like the idea of multiple classes of av-weapons. I'm guessing that any heavy machine gun and sniper rifles will have light stopping power against buggies and air vehicles, maybe apcs, but not tanks. If there are grenade launchers, either dedicated or mounted, they probably are a step up, medium for smaller vehicles, light for tanks. Maybe varying rounds, Anti-infantry, anti-vehicle, etc. Then a light AT. I liked the idea of the common pool, disposable decimator. Dumb-fire, destructive, etc. Nice and self-contained. Though the damage would get toned down a bit, this would be a good secondary weapon for certain classes. I'd also make it widely available, the idea being that anyone who wants to carry an AV weapon can get this. It won't be a tank buster. It shouldn't make tank drivers break out in sweat when they see one. But they could see five, six at once. Then they start to worry. I figure a ttk of 15-20 would be the upper limit for these.

Medium AT weapons would probably be what we are used to from PS one. These will be faction based, AV-weapons with a ttk of 10-15. They will be more dedicated weapons. You might get a light smg or rifle as a secondary, but this will define your role.

Heavy weapons. Another thread in the idea vault about gun emplacements made me think that a real, heavy-type AV weapon would be fun. Something that needs to be set up. I also think it could be an outfit-purchased item that represents an experimental weapon. These would be really out-there weapons that have low ammo and maybe slow rates of fire, but have long range and high power. Probably a ttk of 10 or less.

I'd also like to see placeable explosives that do high damage. I mean one or two should cripple. While someone before was complaining about AP Jackhammers doing large amounts of damage from behind up close. I actually like the idea, just not a shotgun. Tank drivers should be very careful that infantry don't get close, or they will get pounded. If there are any courtyard scenarios, I'd rather not see heavy tanks clogging it up, because that's when a demo class can get in and cause havoc.

As for how damage works, why stop with directional? Vehicles now should easily support part damage. Hits to treads decreasing speed or turning, hits to the turret damaging weapons and targeting, hits to the back doing more damage and possibly crippling the engine. I think ttk should be kept about as high as vehicles to make them feel powerful, but there should be more consequences to vehicles getting damaged. A hit to the side maybe should do only a little more damage than a hit to the front, but also does additional damage. I think lighter av weapons can also do good damage to parts but fairly low hull damage. TTK maybe 15-20 for light, but maybe 5 rockets can really hurt treads or knock out machine guns.

My main reason for this is, that at least for me, infantry av weapons never felt like that much of a threat against tanks. Sure, if a bunch of infantry have rockets, then it would be a problem, but that doesn't always happen, and then there were often multiple tanks. Ultimately, tanks were always best against tanks. With regional damage and heavier av weapons, infantry can feel like they are helping destroy tanks without doing more damage.

[Bags]

At BR 25 my friend never had AV and he always used a second MCG full of gold bullets and he killed quite a few mosquitos.

but I'm sure the gold ammo will be gone now...

[Talek Krell]

They're supposed to be using vehicles
Didn't say that.

when the terrain calls for infantry combat?
Or that. Also not sure why the courtyard apparently demands infantry only combat now.


So they should be completely defenseless against an idiot tank driver?

I think the half dozen different anti-vehicle options I listed should probably have them covered.

[Rbstr]

Deathrall I think you're arguing over a missunderstanding.

He says they should use the AV weapons against tanks, not AI weapons with AP ammo in them.
And that makes sense. If you don't have anything that's AV, you get fucked in the ass by a tank. If you do, you manage to get around behind it and fuck it in the ass...slightly more literally.

That's balance.

I think AP ammo (especially VS's ap mode) should remain, however, and be useful against buggies, low flying air, and maxes.

[Bags]

But you already do get fucked in the ass if you use AI weapons.

[Goku]

The current model in PS is perfect in my opinion. When you have massive fights your vehicle can die rather quickly if the driver does not know what they're doing. Even attempting to run through a zerg infantry area to pop off a few shots can result in death due to all the AV shooting you. That is the problem with making vehicles more susceptible to AV. With so many players on the battlefield having more damage done to vehicles will make all of them worthless. Even if the situation is a smaller encounter be smart and get another vehicle to kill your enemy, don't whine if you can't kill it with your repeater.

I am just hoping they do not include any type of damage that causes a tread to come off. I do not mind getting slow due to tread damage, but do not make my tank a sitting duck in the middle of a battle.

[Aractain]

Lets face it though guys, part of the problem is that almost everyone had AV (often to deal with the over abundance of MAXs).

If that is no longer the case because HA setups might not have viable anti-vehicle weapons (like a rocklet) then the game gets much better as AV focused teamplayers have a stronger duty to keep away the vehicles and thier weapons can feel more powerful.

[Goku]

That isn't going to be the case in PS2. Who would actually takes a HA outdoors in the current PS besides TR on occasion. People can still specialize in any area and I am sure many will pick up AV for outdoor use, even if the weapon is the most basic version on the tree. There is plenty of players out there that loved grunting out doors, so I doubt that will be any different in PS2. Higby said there would be at most a 20% difference between old vets and new players down the road. With that don't expect to see the most advanced AV doing twice the damage as the basic one.

[Aractain]

Im hoping something like this:

A rifleman 'class' that has access to the AV weapon tree, sveral steps up that tree you get the best AV weapon for your empire (which isn't so good agsint MAXs too unweildly).

Split between anti-max and AV minus the snipers/medics/engys and the people who don't have a rifleman/AV build (because they do mossie/HA - thats why I mentioned HA earlier) theres hopefully not that much AV.

Your thinking?

[Baneblade]

The only vehicle small arms fire should hurt is aircraft.

[Rbstr]

I really doubt a rifleman class is going to have access to the AV weapons. Seems more like a gun that goes to the AV Class...probably engineer or something.

When you have massive fights your vehicle can die rather quickly if the driver does not know what they're doing. Even attempting to run through a zerg infantry area to pop off a few shots can result in death due to all the AV shooting you.

These are exactly the things that should happen. A bunch of people shooting a tank at once should make it dead.

The problem is that, currently, a pair or even a few AV wielders can't take out a tank in any semblance of a timely manner, no matter how well they get the drop on it.

With location damage, it's entirely possible to make a tank survive more enemies doing frontal damage than it does now, as long as it minds the direction its ass-end is facing.

[Goku]

I don't think a pair of infantry should be able to take out a tank in a timely manner. Get a group with AV and damage like that you will not see any tanks on the battlefield. I felt PS was more of a vehicle vs vehicle outdoors more so then Infantry being the primary combatants. Seems that will be similar in PS2 as SOE stated there will be areas meant for certain types of warfare (infantry, air, or ground vehicles).

[Aractain]

You don't want to force infantry to ALL have AV in oder to play outside with the vehicles though.

Also this is where spliting AA and AV and Anti-Max weapons into different catagorys helps. You need a balance of weaponary and can't just stack one to dominate.

[Goku]

Even back during the time of BR 20 there was plenty of people with AV. If I was going solo with my gunner and hit into a group of players with AV I would be either hurting badly from running or dead. With there being a stronger focus on outdoor combat there will be plenty of players having AV anyway wanting to get more XP from killing tanks and to defend themselves.

I swear the reason a lot the infantry get killed is due to them not having any situational awareness. Every time I am going through a crowd of infantry often none of them are even know I am there. When I am out zerging I listen to my suorrundings and made sure to avoid tanks. Just like the people who can't stand OSes. Do not stay in one spot or listen and there is a good chance of running out of the AOE. Doing all that I rarely die to tanks or OSes.

Another major problem in PS was that the terrain had no proper coverage for infantry to hide. Thus it was a open playground for any vehicle to get easy kills. PS2 is going to correct that, so I do not see tanks or any vehicle for that matter being as much of an issue if infantry can take cover or hide properly.

[Bags]

Haha yeah, I love grunting because I rarely die to tanks; I'm usually one of the harder targets so they go for the easy ones.

[Rbstr]

The idea that there is going to be more AV weapons on the field compared to now just isn't certain, or even likely. The class system is certainly going to limit the kinds of AI weapons an AV soldier can take.
Do many people forgo an AI weapon in agile armor for an AV gun? No. If you were forced to take a Suppressor if you have AV, do you think it would be anywhere near as prevalent in the second slot?

In the extremes, your vision of insta-dead tanks is possible, it's just not likely. Even in BC2 where tanks go down in just a couple hits, they often stay around for very long times because of both repair efforts, aware driving and nobody being an engineer.

Also:
Nobody gives a shit about how good you are, Bags.

[Gandhi]

Personally I think the TTK for vehicles is fine right now, but obviously it'll have to be changed for PS2 to be in line with the TTK for infantry, the new class system and locational damage. So rather than speculate on that I just wanted to mention AV infantry and how annoying they are right now. Specifically the fact that everyone carries AV weapons when they're outside. It's easy to avoid dying to them, but if you're not careful they'll constantly cause you to retreat and repair. Not a real threat but definitely enough to put a dent in your plans, and more importantly a repairing tank is a useless tank until it can get back to the front line. And personally I think that's just where AV infantry should be, just enough to drive off attacking tanks and be a serious threat to light vehicles like Lightnings and Harassers.

If TTK for infantry vs vehicles is lowered then there better be some serious restrictions on carrying AV as infantry, because the kill statistics for them only tell half the story.

[Kietharr]

Headshots with certain guns will be weakened against infantry, I imagine locational damage with Infantry weapons will also be weaker than with vehicle weapons against heavy vehicles.

[Goku]

The idea that there is going to be more AV weapons on the field compared to now just isn't certain, or even likely. The class system is certainly going to limit the kinds of AI weapons an AV soldier can take.

Do many people forgo an AI weapon in agile armor for an AV gun? No. If you were forced to take a Suppressor if you have AV, do you think it would be anywhere near as prevalent in the second slot?

In the extremes, your vision of insta-dead tanks is possible, it's just not likely. Even in BC2 where tanks go down in just a couple hits, they often stay around for very long times because of both repair efforts, aware driving and nobody being an engineer.

Also:
Nobody gives a shit about how good you are, Bags.

If people get stuck with having a suppressor as a gun for going outdoors good luck seeing any guys with AV out there. I highly doubt SOE is going to limit AV use that much besides there is no correlation between what class AV is in or if it can be used in multiple classes. A lot of people in BC2 use the AV weapon to instagib infantry anyway, this will not happen in PS2.

I never said PS2 was going to have a BC2 style AV tank damage anyway. You referenced a pair of infantry wielding AV should be able to take on a tank.

[Talek Krell]

Even in BC2 where tanks go down in just a couple hits, they often stay around for very long times because of both repair efforts, aware driving and nobody being an engineer.

Let's not use BC2 as our model for vehicles. Please? The idea that my tank should be most effective when there's someone hiding behind it repairing the missile damage faster than AV can dish it out makes me sad.

[Aractain]

Let's not use BC2 as our model for vehicles. Please? The idea that my tank should be most effective when there's someone hiding behind it repairing the missile damage faster than AV can dish it out makes me sad.

Thats what we used to do to make prowlers useful against phenixes.......

[Rbstr]

What is with you guys and your persistent inability to see the difference between an example or analogue, opposed to a literal game mechanic?
BC2 provides an example of a game where tanks can go down quick against a couple of well placed infantry. That doesn't render them useless at all. Largely because getting hit in the front does a fraction of the damage. If it works in one game it can readily work, with modification, in another game that fits many of the same tropes. That doesn't mean it has to be identical or even function the same way in PS. Just that it could work that way.

Similarly giving AV troops a Suppressor is an example of the kind of thing they could do to help lower then number of AV if they become more effective.You and I both have NO idea what the class system will restrict. It could go either way. But when was the last time a class based game gave guys with rocket-launchers the full on rifle or better?

[Goku]

What is with you guys and your persistent inability to see the difference between an example or analogue, opposed to a literal game mechanic?

This is what you said:
The problem is that, currently, a pair or even a few AV wielders can't take out a tank in any semblance of a timely manner, no matter how well they get the drop on it.
When I read this I believed you wanted infantry to pull this off. You never mentioned BC2 or any other game when talking about this.

BC2 provides an example of a game where tanks can go down quick against a couple of well placed infantry. That doesn't render them useless at all. Largely because getting hit in the front does a fraction of the damage. If it works in one game it can readily work, with modification, in another game that fits many of the same tropes. That doesn't mean it has to be identical or even function the same way in PS. Just that it could work that way.

BC2 is at most 16vs16. The original PS had 133vs133vs133. See how many more troops could potentially be shooting you? You could have an entire hill of infantry numbering the size of one team on BC2 shooting your tank easily.

Similarly giving AV troops a Suppressor is an example of the kind of thing they could do to help lower then number of AV if they become more effective.You and I both have NO idea what the class system will restrict. It could go either way. But when was the last time a class based game gave guys with rocket-launchers the full on rifle or better?

This example cannot be used. The rocket in BC2 got one shot infantry, which gives them a viable weapon in addition to shotgun or small rifle. Higby said rockets will be not be used to one shot infantry in PS2 as that is what too many people would use. With that there would be need to be a better weapon for people carrying AV. In PS you can say HA/AV is OP carrying on Rexo, but MA/AV is acceptable. Thats why I do not see as far fetch being in PS2.



Above in red.

[Talek Krell]

I simply mean that I think BC 2 is a bad model. The vehicle TTK it uses is based partly on the fact that people can repair that quickly, while the vehicle is in motion, and that one person can drive, gun, and repair simultaneously with only a minor loss in effectiveness.

[Rbstr]

Goku, don't do that, it makes it impossible to requote without scrolling and copy/pasting back and forth. There's a reason you can have multiple quote tags in a post.

BC2 is at most 16vs16. The original PS had 133vs133vs133. See how many more troops could potentially be shooting you? You could have an entire hill of infantry numbering the size of one team on BC2 shooting your tank easily.

There are also many, many, more tanks on the field at any given time in planetside. In the end, I would wager the number of AV guns per tank/vehicle within any given draw distance is lower in PS than BF.
Ignoring that entirely, if there are 16 people on a hill shooting your tank at the same time time it should die instantly. Currently 16 people shooting one phoenix round wouldn't blow up either a prowler or vanguard from full health, with no shields.
That's ridiculous.

In PS you can say HA/AV is OP carrying on Rexo, but MA/AV is acceptable.
In the context of really ineffective AV weapons it doesn't really even matter that much.

[Goku]

Sorry, that is how I normally respond to others quite a few forums is all.

There maybe more tanks yes, but I do not agree with the ratio being higher for BF. Most infantry outside right now have AV I would wager (shame PS stats isn't around anymore <3 that site). I am not totally opposed to infantry doing more damage to vehicles I just want to avoid duo teams raping tanks. If tanks have to work in more of a team setting that is fine due to this being the focus of PS2. Solo crews will either have to be highly skilled or they will be scrap metal. You are right a hill worth of infantry should murder a tank if all are firing at it too.

Like I mentioned before I do not think this will be as much of an issue in PS2 due to the map changes. We will actually have dedicated forests and urban areas for infantry. That is where infantry will rein supreme, just like there being places for air and tanks. Even so there will be more coverage for infantry compared to PS today for the air and tank areas.