Tank Combat.

[Chinchy]

Simple question will there be bullet physics for tanks and armor IE Will there be bounces for someone properly angling there armor or is it going to be like PS1 where every shot does the same amount of damage per hit?

[Xaine]

Tanks will take more damage if you hit them from behind or the sides, they take less damage if you hit them on the front.

As to shells bouncing off armour, I have no idea but I'd assume not.

[St0rmer66]

I doubt it would be anything like World of Tanks!

But anything a bit more advanced than PS1 has got to be good :) .

[sylphaen]

Rather than the boring front/sides/back hull damage model, I'd rather see something more original like weak spot.

They would be harder to hit from range and promote long-range fire since accuracy over long ranges would favor good gunners.

Getting behind a tank in a large fight is bound to happen so let's not make it absurdly weaker than front/side hulls if we want the fun of a tank fight to last a bit longer.

Kind of like how ttk for soldiers should not be stupidly low for a MMO... (by MMO, I do not refer to RPGesque habit of 1 million HP characters but instead to the f***ing massive amount of shells that will be flying around our little tanks)


In any case, if beta is right around the corner, we will know soon enough if what the devs want us to play is a BF3-Online.

Then again, as a BF3 copycat on a large scale, the devs take care of 2 birds in one stone:
- make a popular game
- make it harder for a future MMO-BF3 to steal customers from PS2 (since it will be essentially the same game)

[ThirdCross]

Rather than the boring front/sides/back hull damage model, I'd rather see something more original like weak spot.

What are you asking for here? Weak rear armor is a weak point system.

[Chinchy]

Rather than the boring front/sides/back hull damage model, I'd rather see something more original like weak spot.

They would be harder to hit from range and promote long-range fire since accuracy over long ranges would favor good gunners.

Getting behind a tank in a large fight is bound to happen so let's not make it absurdly weaker than front/side hulls if we want the fun of a tank fight to last a bit longer.

Kind of like how ttk for soldiers should not be stupidly low for a MMO... (by MMO, I do not refer to RPGesque habit of 1 million HP characters but instead to the f***ing massive amount of shells that will be flying around our little tanks)


In any case, if beta is right around the corner, we will know soon enough if what the devs want us to play is a BF3-Online.

Then again, as a BF3 copycat on a large scale, the devs take care of 2 birds in one stone:
- make a popular game
- make it harder for a future MMO-BF3 to steal customers from PS2 (since it will be essentially the same game)

That would require skill though and that's not what Bf3/PS2 is about. Its about using fire and forget homing shells and complaining the opposition has better weapons and vehicles. In the VS's case Pew pew direct fire no drop lasers.

[Chinchy]

What are you asking for here? Weak rear armor is a weak point system.

No he is talking about view ports ventilation holes under glacial armor oh and don't forget the radio man critical hit :) all he seems to be good for is dying. :P

(Oh please don't merge this thread it has nothing to do with the 1 man tank fiasco.)

[sylphaen]

I don't know, it's futuristic equipment. They could invent stuff.
:P

Like what Chinchy said, I referred to specific spots on the hull. If soldiers have headshot mechanics, why not the tanks ? They could be played by one guy like soldiers anyways... :rolleyes:

It's fun to have distinctions between the different hull sides, though. I do hope they will not go overboard with a difference like 25 shots if you hit the front and 2 shots if your tank gets hit in the back.

(and yes, no merge on this one please, tanks Hamma !)

[ThGlump]

Then again, as a BF3 copycat on a large scale, the devs take care of 2 birds in one stone:
- make a popular game
- make it harder for a future MMO-BF3 to steal customers from PS2 (since it will be essentially the same game)

Making it BF3 online would mean 2 things
- losing majority of ps1 vets and their support
- Bring endless flames on their head, and forums :)

[ThGlump]

More on topic.
No way they make bullet bounce or that angle of impact will matter. First it would be too much compute on that large scale. Second VS is using energy weapons how would they work? NC and TR will use explosive rounds so there every hit is damage.

But there will be localized damage. They even shown us mag with additional side armor to reduce damage from sides.
One thing i would like to see. Way to immobilize tank (atleast for a while). Shoot threads (hover mechanism for VS), or jammers, but i want them to stop. Hmm jammers as a special ammo for tanks/secondary gunners - that would be fun.

[sylphaen]

They did mention the vehicles used physics though, so we may get lucky with bounces in-game.
:thumbsup:

The VS energy based could also bounce... The problem is more that the Vanny and Prowler are squared like a square or rectangle boxes.
:rofl:


Maybe the vehicle modules will allow some extra driving mechanics like a radar scan, a 2-second projectile shield, a 4 second mine damage reduction shield, a passive no-radar-detection module, etc...

There could be plenty of ways to add depth to the tank gunfight. Kind of like PS1 implants for soldiers.
:)

[sylphaen]

Making it BF3 online would mean 2 things
- losing majority of ps1 vets and their support
- Bring endless flames on their head, and forums :)

They are definitely walking on eggs with us on the ready.
:p

But then, PS1 vets are not as many as potential BF players so we'll have to wait and see the choices made later.

[ThGlump]

Btw in that latest PC gamer article there is stated that they dont do anything like bullet penetration. So hit is hit.

[SniperSteve]

I think there will be no bounces. That would be an annoying mechanic, and require more computatoin. I also think basic weapon fire will damage tanks, like in PS1.

It would be really annoying if one tank could wipe out a potentially unbounded number of infantrymen that did not have AV, and do it all without getting a scratch.

[Hmr85]

I figure tank damage / fire will pretty much be identical to PS1. I don't see bounces being in game. The only advantage you will see is somebody who spec'd heavily in to the Tank line will have a customized vanguard with awesome ability's compared to somebody who is running around stock. I think that's where the difference will lye.

[Warborn]

I also think basic weapon fire will damage tanks, like in PS1.

It would be really annoying if one tank could wipe out a potentially unbounded number of infantrymen that did not have AV, and do it all without getting a scratch.

Infantry will have access to anti-armor weaponry in the heavy assault, MAX, and probably engineer classes. And you can pick any class on respawn. So a tank not having any reason to fear infantry probably won't be like reality.

[Erendil]

No he is talking about view ports ventilation holes under glacial armor oh and don't forget the radio man critical hit :) all he seems to be good for is dying. :P


I doubt there will be small weak spots in vehicle armour since it would probably be too hard to balance since I presume you'd have a much greater chance to hit them with guided weapons, and next to no chance with lockon (which will probably just hit something akin to center mass).

I'm also guess rounds won't bounce off with glancing blows given the above-mentioned penetration comment.

Infantry will have access to anti-armor weaponry in the heavy assault, MAX, and probably engineer classes. And you can pick any class on respawn. So a tank not having any reason to fear infantry probably won't be like reality.


I think he's more concerned about people choosing classes like Medic or Light assault to play out in the field and carrying a rifle of some sort but no AV. Those people would be completely defenseless against Tanks if they were immune to non-AV small arms fire. Although I suppose it's always possible there will be some way to deploy an equip term in the field so you could re-equip or change classes.

No saying this is a good or bad thing. It's certainly different than PS1 though where almost everybody carried AV, SA or at least had AP bullets.

[Rbstr]

I think he's more concerned about people choosing classes like Medic or Light assault to play out in the field and carrying a rifle of some sort but no AV.

Maybe a group of people with no antitank equipment should get raped by a tank. They are the ones, after all, that failed to prepare. It is a group game. Perhaps, your group should think "Hmmm, we might see a tank in this game that has tanks, we should prepare."

Just a thought.

(Also, in PS1, even an AV dude was at the mercy of a tank if he was alone...or even with an AV buddy. You can barely carry enough ammo to blow up a tank on your own)

[Warborn]

I think he's more concerned about people choosing classes like Medic or Light assault to play out in the field and carrying a rifle of some sort but no AV. Those people would be completely defenseless against Tanks if they were immune to non-AV small arms fire.

I'm not sure how making tanks vulnerable to small arms would change that. It isn't like you should expect to kill a tank using a cycler or something. You'll be just as dead one way as the other.

And anyway, again, tanks have either AV or AI weapons on their primary or secondary weapon slots from what we've seen. So at least in PS2 it may be possible to come across a tank which cannot kill masses of infantry without breaking a sweat.

[Erendil]

Maybe a group of people with no antitank equipment should get raped by a tank. They are the ones, after all, that failed to prepare. It is a group game. Perhaps, your group should think "Hmmm, we might see a tank in this game that has tanks, we should prepare."

Just a thought.

(Also, in PS1, even an AV dude was at the mercy of a tank if he was alone...or even with an AV buddy. You can barely carry enough ammo to blow up a tank on your own)


Yeah I was thinking that too. It comes down to a balance vs realism thing. It makes logical sense that a tank would laugh at bullets from small arms fire. But from a gameplay perspective players really don't like to die to something they felt they couldn't do any damage to at all, so that could be an issue if bullets do absolutely nothing.

But then, like you said, if there's a group of them how come none of them are carrying AV? :cool:


I'm not sure how making tanks vulnerable to small arms would change that. It isn't like you should expect to kill a tank using a cycler or something. You'll be just as dead one way as the other.

And anyway, again, tanks have either AV or AI weapons on their primary or secondary weapon slots from what we've seen. So at least in PS2 it may be possible to come across a tank which cannot kill masses of infantry without breaking a sweat.


It would change it if you drove near a base wall or tower that had a squad or two of soldiers sitting on top of it. Taking fire from one Cycler probably wouldn't matter at all. But what about 10 Cyclers? Or 20? Or 30? Given the potential scale of PS2 battles, taking fire from a squad or two of infantry may not be all that uncommon.

And AFAIK a MBT's primary cannon cannot be swapped out and will always be AV. However, IIRC one of the Devs stated that a direct hit from a vanguard shell would "kill most infantry in 1 shot." Given that it looks like MAXes are going to be considered infantry in PS2 and not the weird vehicle hybrid they were in PS1, "Most infantry" could mean anything Rexo and below.

In any case, I'm guessing a MBT will always have pretty decent AI capability regardless of the configuration. But yeah, it sounds like at least we won't have tanks instagibbing all troops in a 5m radius in 1 shot like we did in PS1. :cool:

[Warborn]

It would change it if you drove near a base wall or tower that had a squad or two of soldiers sitting on top of it. Taking fire from one Cycler probably wouldn't matter at all. But what about 10 Cyclers? Or 20? Or 30? Given the potential scale of PS2 battles, taking fire from a squad or two of infantry may not be all that uncommon.

Yeah, but this flies in the face of the original concern. The concern was that a medic wouldn't be able to defend himself against a tank. Whether small arms damage tanks or not, the medic would be a goner presumably. A tank would squash him or her flat. If you have 20 guys fighting a tank, the question no longer is "can a medic defend against a tank", unless you're suggesting all 20 guys are medics. When you have groups of infantry, you're bound to have at least one guy with a rocket launcher or whatever.

The question of whether large groups of infantry can defend against a tank isn't something I imagine is under dispute. And if they can't because it's 20 medics and small arms aren't effective against tanks, well, why is it that 20 infantry went out to go fight and nobody brought anti-armor weaponry? It's supposed to be a sort of combined arms game, right? Should the game be so forgiving as to allow 20 medics who didn't bother to bring a heavy assault/AV MAX/engineer with them to take out a tank? Isn't that more a question of poor class distribution? I'm not so sure people should be able to rely on small arms shooting tanks to drive them off. I sort of think there really ought to be a serious demand for people to use anti-vehicle weapons.

[Firefly]

I'm not so sure people should be able to rely on small arms shooting tanks to drive them off. I sort of think there really ought to be a serious demand for people to use anti-vehicle weapons.
This, exactly. Let's not pander to low-IQ drooling cocksuckers, here. I'm sorry, but clueless people need to experience a little Darwin's law - even in a video game which suspends a lot of realism.

There's no fucking way you (generally-speaking you) should walk into a gun fight with a tank, armed with your silly 9mm rifle, and come out the winner. Unless that tank driver is fucking stupid and incompetent, and/or gets out of the tank. There isn't a fucking modern MBT on the planet that gets seriously fucked up from small arms fire. If people are that dumb and the devs cater to it, they should be out of a job.

[StoneRhino]

What are you asking for here? Weak rear armor is a weak point system.

Yeah, well, you gotta kind of let that slide off into nothingness as he mentioned earlier in the post that "weak spots" would encourage long range fire, which would encourage better gunners.

That makes little sense as those that are able to snipe other tanks are always going to have an advantage against weaker gunners. Mag riders loved floating on the water at range because a lot of gunners could not hit. When they would get pounded at ranges they thought they were immune from return fire, they crapped themselves. They would do stupid things such as continue on driving the same way thinking it was a fluke, but by the time they realize it was not they had already lost most of their armor by the time they start to flee.

A good gunner is going to hammer targets before they can effectively fire back. They can lob shells all over the place, but not hit a damn thing. They can try and close, but they are going to make it even easier to hit them, add that to the damage they have already taken and you have an easy kill. If they get 2 brain cells to spark, they are going to turn and run, but its to late because they are still in the effective range of that gunner that has been kicking their ass, again resulting in an easier kill, but twice the laughs.

weak points on tanks will not encourage players to work on accurate, long range fire. Instead it is going to push players to rely upon short range shots. Shots that are much easier for them to hit because they won't have to adjust their fire for their tank's movement, the movement of the target, the terrain that each tank will be going over and through, as well as flight time of the shell and likely maneuvering of the opposing tank. Instead its point, click, boom, point click, boom, as there is no flight time of the shell past .25 seconds or less, and the target will not have moved enough to force the player to move their mouse to track the target because they are that damn close to each other.

Really, which do you think is going to get the most out of a weak spot system? The gunner that is crunching all the information to make accurate long range shots in hopes of hitting the target at all, or the guy that couldn't land such a shot on his best day but can hit the broadside of a barn that is half a foot in front of them? The accurate gunner is going to make use of those weakspots, but so can the weaker gunner, but the weaker gunner is bound to have a driver that is going to work hard to get into point blank range while the accurate gunner's driver is going to work on maintaining distance to take advantage of their gunner's skill. In short, weakspots is nothing more then a means for pathetic tank gunners to do as much damage as those that put in the effort to get good at it. Say no to fake weakpoints to give a big buff to weak gunners.

[StoneRhino]

As for groups of infantry being reamed by a single tank, that should be possible. If someone does something stupid, should they not get hit with the consequences? It is a lot like playing COD. A lot of these fools will run around with a rifle and a pistol, which is great until someone starts getting helicopter and AC130 support and start bombing the shit out of their team. They keep spawning with rifles and pistols, keep running out into the open, keep on dying and giving the other team more air support to blast them with.

That is until someone realizes that something is wrong and needs to be done about it. There is a reason why I get pissed at my random teams because I end up having to resort to using an LMG and stinger combo to clear the skies. Once in a while I will get mad because someone stole my ac130 kill, then it hits me, someone else actually got the idea to do the same damn thing for the same damn reason. They adjusted for the stupidity of their other team mates resulting in 2 of us busting out weapons to clear the air and stop the anal reaming that the team was getting and begging for more of.

People will adjust. Those that are to dim to make the adjustment should be easy pickings for others. It is how things should work, the idiots should be punished for being just that, and those that do something smart should be rewarded.

[polywomple]

I don't think ANYONE attempted to destroy a MBT with a rifle even with AP rounds in PS1, unless it was out of boredom

Mossies and reavers on the other hand, were a different story. 2 TR with MCG's and AP rounds could seriously fuck up mosq's and reavers, I'm surprised I didn't see more often.

[stordito]

Rather than the boring front/sides/back hull damage model, I'd rather see something more original like weak spot.

i would'nt call "original" that kind of system.it's in use since the 80's...
One day i would like to see a Digital Mulecular Matter war sim..that will be awesome..

[Mauser101]

StoneRhino makes a good point about weak spot armor penetration system having the counter intuitive effect of causing bad tactics of rushing armor player into point blank range become the norm.

Have any of you played World of Tanks? I really like the game but the penetration system causes some really unrealistic tactics to evolve. Particularly (before a recent patch) the Type 59 medium tank was a real knife fighter. The driver would rush in as fast as possible on a larger tank and basically circle strafe around the target looking aiming for the weak spots. A tactic that worked but was completely unrealistic and immersion breaking.

It is important to consider how players will respond to a given mechanic or set of mechanics and potentially break what you were trying to do. See old Surgile & bailing mossys in PS1 as one example. Obviously it's impossible to completely anticipate how players will respond but by now most things have been done in other games and it's possible to anticipate player response somewhat if you're familiar to what's been done before.

[sylphaen]

StoneRhino makes a good point about weak spot armor penetration system having the counter intuitive effect of causing bad tactics of rushing armor player into point blank range become the norm.

Agreed. Rhino has good arguments and I actually did not think about those apects.

I was wondering, with very weak side/back hulls, isnt it the same as having a large weak-spot on the vehicle ?

Assuming a tank can withstand 10 front/6 side/2 back AV hits:
On a large tank fight, we're bound to get flanked and prematurely get taken out of the fight with this type of mechanic. Would it be fun to lose tanks so easily as soon as shots start landing from behind ? Would you choose to pierce enemy lines if you cannot move back out because it will show your back ?

Along with drivers being main gunners (and thus main guns accuracy being scarificed for movement), I think we are headed towards static battles with tanks choosing less risky behaviours.

In the end, this is what makes me sad. We may not see a huge battle of vehicles intermingled with each other under a deluge of fire with the ballet of those entering the fight, those retreating, those chasing, etc...

Then, people ask for weaker spots (for realism or what not), so I'm wondering how fun vehicle-side will be in PS2.

[ringring]

I don't think ANYONE attempted to destroy a MBT with a rifle even with AP rounds in PS1, unless it was out of boredom

Mossies and reavers on the other hand, were a different story. 2 TR with MCG's and AP rounds could seriously fuck up mosq's and reavers, I'm surprised I didn't see more often.
I once destroyed a vanguard from full health with a sniper rifle, the gunner just sat there looking around wondering where the fire was coming from.
It took 34 shots.

[Warborn]

Then, people ask for weaker spots (for realism or what not), so I'm wondering how fun vehicle-side will be in PS2.

I think they added different armor values for different vehicle sides of their own volition. As for why it was added, no, it wasn't realism. It's about tactics and depth of gameplay. If you've ever played World of Tanks, you will appreciate how much of a gameplay impact directional armor can have. It will make using vehicles in general and tanks especially much more involved, and place a greater emphasis on team work so as to avoid enemies flanking you.

[Azren]

I don't think ANYONE attempted to destroy a MBT with a rifle even with AP rounds in PS1, unless it was out of boredom


Woot, I remember my tank being blown up by a sniper. *True story*

[sylphaen]

I think they added different armor values for different vehicle sides of their own volition. As for why it was added, no, it wasn't realism. It's about tactics and depth of gameplay. If you've ever played World of Tanks, you will appreciate how much of a gameplay impact directional armor can have. It will make using vehicles in general and tanks especially much more involved, and place a greater emphasis on team work so as to avoid enemies flanking you.

Let's hope it will still be exciting in PS2.

I'll still add that flanking in PS1 was already rewarding by giving your crew a lead, damage-wise.

[Warborn]

I'll still add that flanking in PS1 was already rewarding by giving your crew a lead, damage-wise.

That's true. Attacking where you're not expected is always helpful. But it really wasn't decisive as it should be. Getting to the side or rear of an enemy tank generally isn't easy, and as such its rewards should match the difficulty of the action. Hits being themselves more severe is a pretty good reward for exploiting the enemy's poor position or lack of cohesion.

[Traak]

What are you asking for here? Weak rear armor is a weak point system.

We already had that with BFR's. A cloaker could kill a BFR with a pistol, couldn't he?

No thanks to weak spots like some giant Japanese TV kid's show dragon.

[Azren]

We already had that with BFR's. A cloaker could kill a BFR with a pistol, couldn't he?

No thanks to weak spots like some giant Japanese TV kid's show dragon.

It is a good addition. If you don't like it, you can just add extra armor plating to the rear.

[Warborn]

A cloaker could kill a BFR with a pistol, couldn't he?

No, you'd never be able to kill a BFR with a pistol.

Weak spots don't mean "shoot your photon torpedoes into the ventilation tube and the thing instantly explodes". It means "you outmaneuvered the enemy and your shots will do bonus damage because you're awesome and a great person in general".

[sylphaen]

As long as it doesn't make the firefight boring, any system is fine with me.

I would take "exciting" over "methodical" gameplay any day.

[Firefly]

We already had that with BFR's. A cloaker could kill a BFR with a pistol, couldn't he?

No thanks to weak spots like some giant Japanese TV kid's show dragon.
No. Wrong. A cloaker could get inside a BFR's bubble and toss a Jammer at the little shield unit and disable that shield. If the pilot got out, then yes the cloaker could kill the BFR with a pistol, in the most technical sense that he killed the driver, rendering it inoperable.

The common tactic was to either Mossie-bail over a BFR (if the Mossie pilot was dumb enough to let it get close) and get inside its shield with a Decimator or something else AV, or to get an infantry squad to deal with it - with a cloaker chucking Jammers at it.

[Graywolves]

No, you'd never be able to kill a BFR with a pistol.


Wrong, I've done it.

[Warborn]

Nobody cares if you've done it. Killing a BFR with a pistol isn't any different than killing a tank or galaxy or any other big vehicle with a pistol is the point. Some random fluke occurrence isn't important.

[Graywolves]

Nobody cares if you've done it. Killing a BFR with a pistol isn't any different than killing a tank or galaxy or any other big vehicle with a pistol is the point. Some random fluke occurrence isn't important.

Other big vehicles don't have a shiny generator to shoot at.

[Traak]

It is a good addition. If you don't like it, you can just add extra armor plating to the rear.

You never played Planetside, or saw a BFR, I take it?