Headshots on MAXes

[Erendil]

So I was thinking..... We already know that headshots for softies will be in PS2, and that vehicles will have location damage/armour values as well. So it seems logical to infer from this that there will be something similar in place for MAXes. I was wondering what people's thoughts were about the possibility of getting headshots on MAXes.

I personally think it's a great idea. I wouldn't want OSOK MAX kills of course (heck I don't want that against softies either), but I certainly like the idea of being able to take one down by unloading a couple of AP bullet bursts to the head. It'd certainly help out the "light" classes that can't carry AV so they wouldn't be quite so easy XP for any MAXes wandering around. :cool:

And maybe we'd actually get a use for MA/Pistol AP rounds too for a change. I'd pay good money to be able to see SirAlydon -> *Beamer Headshot* -> Johnny ScatMAX in the killspam... :D

EDIT: I suppose going hand-in-hand with this would be a proposed change to how AP rounds work to begin with. Rather than AP just wearing down armour faster, it'd probably make more sense to do as Effect and others have suggested and let a little damage from AP rounds actually pierce the armour and do a little health damage each shot as well.

So what do you folx think?


EDIT #2: I added the below text from my post on page 2 since people seemed to be grossly overestimating the amount of damage I was thinking a headshot would do to a MAX:


For starters, I'm hoping that headshot multipliers in general will only be applied to the health damage that gets past the armour. It makes sense to me that a headshot wouldn't damage the armour any more than a shot to the body would. It's the head itself that's more susceptible to damage from trauma, not the helmet that protects it.

And remember, headshot multipliers are determined on a per weapon basis. Higby said on reddit that vehicle weapons probably won't have any headshot multiplier at all, so it's quite possible that Decimators for example won't have one either, so a missile to the face may not be any different than one to the body..

But like I said in my OP , I'd like the Devs to design AP weapons so that when used against MAXes, instead of having to eat through a MAX's entire armour before you do any health damage at all, you apply a small amount of the damage done by each shot to health instead. Say, 1 pt of damage goes to health for every 10 pts of base damage dealt. Then if they applied the standard headshot damage multiplier for the weapon in question to the health that got through, even headshots would only do a handful of health damage per shot.

Here's a completely arbitrary example: Let's say in PS2 that MAXes have 100 health and 1000 armour pts, and that a Cycler has a 1.5x headshot multiplier and its AP bullets do 20 base damage to MAXes. Using the 1:10 health:armour ratio, Here's what we'd have:

* All Shots to the Body: 18 armour & 2 health per shot. Death in 50 shots.
* All Shots to the Head: 18 armour & (2 x 1.5) = 3 health per shot. Death in 34 shots.
* STK reduction for AP headshots vs bodyshots w/ a weapon that has a 1.5x multiplier: 33%



See what I'm getting at? Doing something like this will still make MAXes a force to be reckoned with, but would also reward accuracy to softies using weapons that have accuracy in mind. Remember many classes will not be allowed to use AV weaponry at all, so this is designed to help them out a little as well.

[Bags]

I support beamer headshots.

[Draep]

Realistically, the visor or viewing window of the MAX unit could be weaker than the rest of the armor. First post.

[Zulthus]

First post.

:confused:

[Draep]

:confused:

My first post on these forums, didn't realize there isn't a postcount. My b

[Zulthus]

Ohhh... alright, was :confused:'d for a sec there

[Draep]

Yeah dude, I deffy caught that and tried to rescue from that there.

[Talek Krell]

I don't think I like. Seems like it sort of defeats the purpose of having maxes.

[Lokster]

Meh. I don't think I like it. Unless it was only like a 10-15% increase to damage if hit in the head.

[NewSith]

Anti-MAX knife (http://www.corkscrewsonline.com/images/king_can_opener.jpg) concept.

[Baneblade]

If MAXes were considered infantry and not vehicles, maybe.

[TerminatorUK]

Really depends on the agility / flexibility of the MAX unit. If they went for a more heavy armour / choose what weapon you want / fairly mobile Tribes 2 unit then I'd support this. If it is similar to a PS1 MAX then definitely not as it'd defeat the point of having the unit.

[CutterJohn]

I think shooting MAXs in the back would be better.

[Brusi]

or in the nuts

[FastAndFree]

I don't like this idea at all.

If shooting a MAX in the head with a couple of shots from a pistol would be a viable choice to dispose of them what would be the point of carrying AV indoors?

Or if it worked like this, would a missile to the face would instagib them? That would be so much fun for MAX operators

[Erendil]

I don't like this idea at all.

If shooting a MAX in the head with a couple of shots from a pistol would be a viable choice to dispose of them what would be the point of carrying AV indoors?

Or if it worked like this, would a missile to the face would instagib them? That would be so much fun for MAX operators

We have locational damage for all other types of units (softies, ground vehicles, aircraft) so it stands to reason that they'd be there for MAXes too. Why should they get special treatment? My suggestions wouldn't defeat the purpose of having MAXes if it's done right. Allowing a pistol to kill an undamaged MAX in a few shots would not be doing it right. :rolleyes: I just thought the killspam would be funny to see... :D

For starters, I'm hoping that headshot multipliers in general will only be applied to the health damage that gets past the armour. It makes sense to me that a headshot wouldn't damage the armour any more than a shot to the body would. It's the head itself that's more susceptible to damage from trauma, not the helmet that protects it.

And remember, headshot multipliers are determined on a per weapon basis. Higby said on reddit that vehicle weapons probably won't have any headshot multiplier at all, so it's quite possible that Decimators for example won't have one either, so a missile to the face may not be any different than one to the body..

But like I said in my OP, I'd like the Devs to design AP weapons so that when used against MAXes, instead of having to eat through a MAX's entire armour before you do any health damage at all, you apply a small amount of the damage done by each shot to health instead. Say, 1 pt of damage goes to health for every 10 pts of base damage dealt. Then if they applied the standard headshot damage multiplier for the weapon in question to the health that got through, even headshots would only do a handful of health damage per shot.


Here's a completely arbitrary example: Let's say in PS2 that MAXes have 100 health and 1000 armour pts, and that a Cycler has a 1.5x headshot multiplier and its AP bullets do 20 base damage to MAXes. Using the 1:10 health:armour ratio, Here's what we'd have:


All Shots to the Body: 18 armour & 2 health per shot. Death in 50 shots.

All Shots to the Head: 18 armour & (2 x 1.5) = 3 health per shot. Death in 34 shots.

STK reduction for AP headshots vs bodyshots w/ a weapon that has a 1.5x multiplier: 33%


See what I'm getting at? Doing something like this will still make MAXes a force to be reckoned with, but would also reward accuracy to softies using weapons that have accuracy in mind. Remember many classes will not be allowed to use AV weaponry at all, so this is designed to help them out a little as well.

[Graywolves]

I could see MAX's having spots that are weakly armored, I also see MAX operators able to train themselves to cover that armor.

[Draep]

Maybe it should be that the back armor is slightly weaker. The nutsack part would be especially protected.

[Infektion]

All those ideas are retarded... it's not a damn tank guys... really? "Shoot him in the back"?

I especially don't agree on max headshots, however, I do agree with a sniper spec "round" that will cause major damage to MAX's. Consider a sniper tree with a branch leading to ANTI-material as opposed to an ANTI-personnel... HOLY SHIT! That's a fucking GREAT idea.

[DviddLeff]

While I do agree that MAXs should take more damage from a head shot, the hit box should be smaller than on a regular grunt.

I dont want PS2s devs to even bother with AP rounds; just make the standard guns to the same damage as AP to armoured targets if you think that infantry need that ability; AP rounds are a hassle that many dont bother with, and confuses new players.

[Infektion]

While I do agree that MAXs should take more damage from a head shot, the hit box should be smaller than on a regular grunt.

I dont want PS2s devs to even bother with AP rounds; just make the standard guns to the same damage as AP to armoured targets if you think that infantry need that ability; AP rounds are a hassle that many dont bother with, and confuses new players.

How will it confuse? It's part of warfare... but, I must admit, I never agree'd in AP doing less damage to softies, but in a way I do understand, if their logic was to use the "tumble" effect of a soft round as opposed to AP, but I don't think they thought of it that way, it's just my dissection of the subject.

For example. Take either my 1938 8mm mauser and my tokarev vs 9mm Glock (of any kind would do) .

Mauser uses surplus FMJ (7.92x57) ammo [Will go through you, even with body armor]
Mauser uses softball ammo [will penetrate and spread ie: JACK YOU UP]

Tokarev --- Uses 7.62x25 FMJ -- will go through body armor, leave a nice wound, possibly die, depending on shot placement.
9mm pistol -- Uses 9mm Hollowpoint -- will not go through body armor, but soft clothes will penetrate and spread.


so for whichever, i'd rather use FMJ, e.g. we'll use FMJ for AP in this comparison.

[Malorn]

No, bad.

[Sirisian]

I agree with the shooting them in the back part. Having a place on their back that's weak would be nice for sneaking up on them. Like 30% more damage. Not a fan of headshots for the MAX though.

[Scow2]

I agree with the shooting them in the back part. Having a place on their back that's weak would be nice for sneaking up on them. Like 30% more damage. Not a fan of headshots for the MAX though.

I agree with this as well... Make MAX suits nigh-invulnerable from the front, vulnerable to Direct Rocklet/AV and Sniper rounds to the visor (Not head... you have to shoot them in the face), and extra vulnerable to AP rounds in the back.

It makes them better for head-on assaults or hold-the-line defense, especially with the higher lethality, but vulnerable to surprise attacks and outmaneuvering.

Not weak against the entire 180 degree back arc, though... just 60-90 degree window of vulnerability.

MAX Units fighting back-to back would be scary and awesome at the same time.

[Talek Krell]

I wonder if weak points will be specific to the Empire the MAX is a part of. Like the TR MAX has an obvious weak point in the head. The VS MAX has the face well armored but might be more vulnerable around the joints and back...

[Raka Maru]

What kind of weapon/armor designer would make a Max suit with a weak back side? Helmets should be the strongest part of any soldier armor.

How about face plate is vulnerable with special bullets and very small hitbox, but rest of helmet has extra protection?

[Furret]

I'm all for weak spots on MAX's, but also jacking up their health if you don't hit them in a weak point (ie. visor or joint).

I don't think weakening back armor is a good idea though, no sane engineer would put less armor on a spot that doesn't move anyway.

[Talek Krell]

I admit it doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, but on tanks they tend to load more armor on the front than the back. A tank can only carry so much armor total, so by shifting it to the front the tank can increase it's defenses by simply facing the enemy.

Ultimately it's the gameplay that's most important.

[Sirisian]

What kind of weapon/armor designer would make a Max suit with a weak back side?
Open vents for cooling and power and such. It can be explained away fairly easily. Or not. I mean it's more of a gameplay feature I'd prefer. I love the idea of component based damage on vehicles and adding them to a max would be nice since it gives them a weakness that can be exploited by skill.

I'd also like boomers to do very little on a max from the front. If you plant on on it though in the back it would take down like 75% of the armor.

[kaffis]

I agree with this as well... Make MAX suits nigh-invulnerable from the front, vulnerable to Direct Rocklet/AV and Sniper rounds to the visor (Not head... you have to shoot them in the face), and extra vulnerable to AP rounds in the back.

It makes them better for head-on assaults or hold-the-line defense, especially with the higher lethality, but vulnerable to surprise attacks and outmaneuvering.

Not weak against the entire 180 degree back arc, though... just 60-90 degree window of vulnerability.

MAX Units fighting back-to back would be scary and awesome at the same time.
I endorse this whole post.

What kind of weapon/armor designer would make a Max suit with a weak back side? Helmets should be the strongest part of any soldier armor.
The kind of weapon/armor designer who knows that MAXes are built for engaging to the forward arc, and also that armor is heavy and bulky. Given that the more armor you put on, the slower your available power source can power movement and maneuverability for the suit, I think there's plenty of justification to say "I have a limit in the amount of armor I can mount to this exoskeleton. Given that I can mount 1,200 pounds of armor to this suit, how should I distribute it? What do my specs say its role is?" and then choosing the distribution of armor to balance maximizing protection when in its primary role (frontal assault/defense, so all armor to the forward arc) with providing some protection from ricochets and flanking attacks.

I'd say having the front 225-270 degrees provide, say, twice the protection isn't an outrageous design decision at all.

[CutterJohn]

What kind of weapon/armor designer would make a Max suit with a weak back side? Helmets should be the strongest part of any soldier armor.

How about face plate is vulnerable with special bullets and very small hitbox, but rest of helmet has extra protection?

Logical weapon designers. You cannot simply add more and more armor. Beyond a certain point, it becomes excessive, and then actively detrimental because it weighs so much. So they prioritize. Armor the biggest weak spots, and the most likely avenues of attack. Seems pretty reasonable that a MAX would have a larger portion of armor up front, since that is the direction most threats would come from, whether defending a position or advancing on one.



I'm still trying to decide how much I'd like seeing snipers able to headshot MAXs. It seems appropriate, but.. Outdoors? MAXs were already pretty gimply outdoors in PS1. I wouldn't want to see it even easier to take them out.

[Raka Maru]

In PS1 I don't bother sniping maxes because of getting discovered unless armor is down. Perhaps with hitboxes (say in leg) can stop functions like mobility. When BFRs get targeted it seems random systems get slowed, but maybe it can be built upon this system.

Max on a hill, descend with phantasm, two bullets to back of neck (small hitbox) or faceplate.

[Heaven]

No way to head shots on MAX units I don't like that idea at all, there slow moving unless running and when running can't usually fire anyway so when they are shooting there going to be sitting ducks and big fat targets for all the snipers. This would be a game killer for me as I love to play MAX units I really don't think it should be implemented in the game what so ever!

[kidwithstick]

headshots shouldnt do more on MAX's.

[Accuser]

Seems pretty reasonable that a MAX would have a larger portion of armor up front, since that is the direction most threats would come from, whether defending a position or advancing on one.

Like any modern armored unit, this makes sense. Having a "weaker point" in the back would make perfect sense. I wouldn't expect you to one-shot a max by shooting the weak point, but you could certainly do +50% damage there.

[Brusi]

Current MAX Units in Planetside have a major weak point, it's called AV weapons.

I like the idea that an barely concentrating max should be more vulnerable to a guy with with a regular gun, but making it too easy to kill a max with a regular gun will scale pretty badly. If there are super hard AV counters to MAX Units in PS2 like there is in PS, then i wouldn't recommend creating too many new ones.

[Scow2]

I'm all for weak spots on MAX's, but also jacking up their health if you don't hit them in a weak point (ie. visor or joint).

I don't think weakening back armor is a good idea though, no sane engineer would put less armor on a spot that doesn't move anyway.
Why are modern tanks less armored in the back, then?

No sane engineer would put armor on a spot that isn't normally accessible to enemy gunfire. No sane engineer would waste space and tonnage on armor that is needed for critical systems such as the power supply and engines.

As far as face-shots go... Bolt-drivers and Rockets only.

On that note, Bolt-drivers should be able to pick apart vehicles.

MAX suits should also get a mobility boost when outdoors.

[Graywolves]

Why are modern tanks less armored in the back, then?

No sane engineer would put armor on a spot that isn't normally accessible to enemy gunfire. No sane engineer would waste space and tonnage on armor that is needed for critical systems such as the power supply and engines.

As far as face-shots go... Bolt-drivers and Rockets only.

On that note, Bolt-drivers should be able to pick apart vehicles.

MAX suits should also get a mobility boost when outdoors.



How are you aware of armor weakness in modern tanks which have classified armor?

[2coolforu]

It's a design philosophy that's been known for ever and ever, even plate armor was significantly thicker in vital areas/on the front than it was on the back. This philosophy is in every military vehicle, you concentrate protection in the vital areas.

Just as defensive tech increases the offensive tech increases and it's a lot easier to blow stuff up than it is to stop it getting blown up. From WW2 we've gone from 40-50mm weapons to 120-125mm weaponry with far more deadly ammunition. The only way to keep up is to concentrate armor in vital areas, in this case all the armor is poured on the front of the vehicle and on the turret as this presents the smallest area to the enemy as the front is low profile. The front is heavily sloped to increase armor thickness even more and the fundamental tenet of Armored combat is to preferably get hull down and never ever present your rear armor to the enemy. If a tank is being surrounded then it's definitely doing something wrong, the same design philosophy exists with a MAX, you shouldn't be getting surrounded. Just like a medieval knight the vast majority of the impacts should be coming from the front and the rear should be protected by friendly troops.

[Graywolves]

The contemporary operating environment rebukes the logic of rear weakness.

[2coolforu]

You can't have an affordable vehicle with acceptable ground pressure, size, mobility and fuel consumption and have the thing totally plated in 2ft of Chobham. Increasing armor means getting an engine that's exponentially more efficient in Wattage per kilo which is exponentially expensive. That means you have a massive increase in expense for a minor increase in protection.

Inevitably it simply becomes easier to just point the front towards the enemy and retain a good mobility and firepower as well as good armor. This has been a constant throughout history due to fundamental laws as well as inerrant truths. Wasn't the Maus and King Tiger kinda similar to this? They wanted an ultimate tank but in the end they just absorbed money and weren't nearly as effective as smaller tanks spammed en masse, for the price and resources it took to produce one king tiger the USSR could make 5 IS-2's or 20 T-34/88's and destroy it with ease. Even then all these 'ridiculous' tanks still stuck to the idea of stronger front armor.

The Russian philosophy is kinda the ultimate version of this, they have tens of thousands of tanks that are relatively light (40-50 tons) but have strong front armor and lack other protection. The result is they cost an incredibly small amount to produce but sacrifice some survivability. Sure you can have 2000 tanks with superarmor all the way around, but then your opponent can produce 20,000/30,000 of a tank with the same amount of front armor but less side and rear and merely keep facing towards you and adopt a doctrine that supports that tactic. Chances are with all that armor the tank is underpowered for its weight and is slow/inefficient/fuel hungry/has a small cannon relative to tonnage and therefore lacks range, requires huge and vulnerable fuel supplies and has massive maintenance costs and supply problems whereas a tank that sheds weight on the rear and side armors is more fuel efficient and can afford to carry a far larger gun that can outrange the 'fully' armored tank while keeping the same level of protection and using doctrine to replace armor. In fact it's probably even more armored than the other tank as it can afford to carry a larger gun which effectively nullifies the armor advantage of the 'all round armor' tank while its concentrated armor defends against the sub-calibre 'all round armor' tank.

[Talek Krell]

The contemporary operating environment rebukes the logic of rear weakness.
It's possible they've changed the armor distribution I guess. How old are most "modern" tank designs though?

[Vernam]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=7&pictureid=35

Even if you can't get a headshot on a MAX
I'd still probably aim for the only bare spot on the TR Max just for fun — right in the mouth.

[Sirisian]

Maxes have melee remember. If you get close now you probably die fast. It would be very risky getting or trying to get around them if they're facing you. The attacking in the back (especially if they run away) is sounds really nice.

Could be their shield generator also on the back that is exposed to generate the shield. I'm still not clear if maxes have health and armor and shields or just health and shields or health and armor. Would be nice if they had a shield that protected against sniper rounds. If you EMP them then they'd be open for ranged attacks.

[Traak]

Sure, if any max is a one-shot-kill against any infantry, at any range.

The whole headshot thing is, to me, dragging PS towards being BF or UT, or something similar. Apes on crank can find those games still on the shelves. Thinking humans, however, prefer Planetside.