Hitbox on Tanks

[ParisTeta]

What do we officialy know about the hitboxes on tanks?

We know there are Front an Back Armor. It taken for granted somehow we have side armor too (though i don`t remember seeing a prove in a video).

What about the Top and the Bottom of the tank? What about the turrets (if exist...pooooooor maggi). To they have different armor values, to they have different hitboxes?

So how delicated is the hitbox/armor design on tanks (and proalby other vehicle).
Maybe a dev can tell or share a picture with actual ingame hitboxes? That would be cool.

[Canadian Vanu]

I would expect the turrets to have weak spots for the ones that rotate. So magrider may be a bit more powerful (defence wise) due to a fixed turret.

As for the bottoms and tops of the tank, I would also expect the bottom to be vulnerable and the top less so.

I really wish they use a detailed tank hit box, so we may get tank sim quality tank battles.

[Rodel]

All I've heard come from the devs is that Front=strong and back=weak side=medium. Dont know about top or empire specific variations.

[Deadeye]

I would expect the turrets to have weak spots for the ones that rotate. So magrider may be a bit more powerful (defence wise) due to a fixed turret.

As for the bottoms and tops of the tank, I would also expect the bottom to be vulnerable and the top less so.

I really wish they use a detailed tank hit box, so we may get tank sim quality tank battles.

Would like to see at least a little bit of World of Tanks type shell physics. Not the aim for weakspots thing but glancing blows should just ricochet rather than do any damage.

[Mauser101]

I'd love to see well modeled hitboxes on tanks. Here is an example of a player generated skin that shows various hit locations on an American tank in World of Tanks...

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t105/Bore2152/fire.png

I'm not calling for player skins, it's just used an example for how hitboxes work in WoT. The above skin is really mostly useful in WoT for those using High Explosive ammo which deals great locational damage but has shoddy penetration and overall hitpoints damage.

Now WoT does some things that I do not expect PS2 to do. You have serious locational damage which can cause part of your tank (tracks, gun, driver, commander, turret rotation, engine, engine fire, ammo...etc) to become damaged or be destroyed leading to decreases in effectiveness in a related area.

In WoT your tank commander will also holler, "We didn't penetrate there armor!" or some such when the round doesn't go through. It doesn't seem there will be any such thing as a weapon not penetrating in PS2 nor are you likely to have the auditory cue that you're not being effective...and without some sort of cue that you're hitting but not doing damage I don't see this as being fun in PS2.

What PS2 could easily have is, what it appears to already have, decreased damage degredation on various locations of the model. They could, I assume, add degredation amounts to the top (particularly to the top of the turret) and sides of the tank models.

[Arkanor]

Battlefield 3 had a simplified tank damage system (in relation to WoT) that seems like it would work for this style game. I wouldn't mind the WoT system of bounce/glance hits on poorly-angled shots though either.

In BF3, front armor shots did minimal damage (like 24/100 or something), side shots did more, rear shots did more. However, if your side shot was not angled at the 90 degree it would not do as much, glancing side shots at a 0-20 degree angle would do about the same damage as a front-armor shot, and that ramped up in steps to the maximum side damage allowed.

[Gugabalog]

^ That seems a reasonable system, though we have seen that front armor is immune to small arms but rear armor is not on tanks in PS2

[Turdicus]

Separate armor values for front side back bottom and top. Don't ask how I know this....I just know things

[Littleman]

Concerning the size of PS2, every hitbox is yet another factor for the server to crunch. Most games implement several hitboxes on their infantry for locational damage. Leg shots aren't as deadly as body shots for example. However, Planetside 2 is going to sport thousands of players going at it, things need to be simplified for the sake of lag and processing power wherever SOE can get away with it.

That said, I expect the turret on tanks to pretty much be medium armored from all sides, and taking a hit equals taking a hit, regardless of the angle of impact.

[opticalshadow]

id love for wot style hitboxes...as long as we dont have pen's with no dmg...

[Justaman]

Battlefield 3 had a simplified tank damage system (in relation to WoT) that seems like it would work for this style game. I wouldn't mind the WoT system of bounce/glance hits on poorly-angled shots though either.

In BF3, front armor shots did minimal damage (like 24/100 or something), side shots did more, rear shots did more. However, if your side shot was not angled at the 90 degree it would not do as much, glancing side shots at a 0-20 degree angle would do about the same damage as a front-armor shot, and that ramped up in steps to the maximum side damage allowed.

I think that at the least would be very nice.

[golfmasta34]

Concerning the size of PS2, every hitbox is yet another factor for the server to crunch. Most games implement several hitboxes on their infantry for locational damage. Leg shots aren't as deadly as body shots for example. However, Planetside 2 is going to sport thousands of players going at it, things need to be simplified for the sake of lag and processing power wherever SOE can get away with it.

That said, I expect the turret on tanks to pretty much be medium armored from all sides, and taking a hit equals taking a hit, regardless of the angle of impact.

^^This^^

I expect we'll have BF3 level tank hitboxes. That'll be fine for a game with such a large scope.

[Fanglord]

^ That seems a reasonable system, though we have seen that front armor is immune to small arms but rear armor is not on tanks in PS2

Tbf I think small arms should be pretty ineffective on any side on heavy armoured vehicles; I always thought that was stupid when you could finish off a badly damaged tank with pistols on certain games. :huh:

[EVILPIG]

It goes a little beyond Front/Side/Rear. It was explained a long time ago that tanks take the most damage from the low and behind.

[PlaceboCyanide]

Concerning the size of PS2, every hitbox is yet another factor for the server to crunch. Most games implement several hitboxes on their infantry for locational damage. Leg shots aren't as deadly as body shots for example. However, Planetside 2 is going to sport thousands of players going at it, things need to be simplified for the sake of lag and processing power wherever SOE can get away with it.

That said, I expect the turret on tanks to pretty much be medium armored from all sides, and taking a hit equals taking a hit, regardless of the angle of impact.

You said everything I was going to :D

[Gugabalog]

We're using futureistic guns and not all the tanks are professionally made so idk.,

[Deadeye]

Concerning the size of PS2, every hitbox is yet another factor for the server to crunch. Most games implement several hitboxes on their infantry for locational damage. Leg shots aren't as deadly as body shots for example. However, Planetside 2 is going to sport thousands of players going at it, things need to be simplified for the sake of lag and processing power wherever SOE can get away with it.

That said, I expect the turret on tanks to pretty much be medium armored from all sides, and taking a hit equals taking a hit, regardless of the angle of impact.

I don't think this is true at all. I think it's entirely possible to add a limited form of tank ballistics. There's already going to be tons of stuff on the server anyway, adding real hitboxes on tanks is not going to stress the server that much beyond what it already is.

I've seen a lot of developers leave out what could be cool features out of a lot of games citing "server lag" but I wonder if anyone has any empirical data to support any of this. Don't help developers make excuses for leaving things out of games.

[Klockan]

^ That seems a reasonable system, though we have seen that front armor is immune to small arms but rear armor is not on tanks in PS2
Can you give a source on tanks not being immune to small arms from behind?

[opticalshadow]

Can you give a source on tanks not being immune to small arms from behind?

as a matter of fact, as far as them being quite vurnable, id remind everyone that the reason tanks have machine guns is because soldiers are a huge threat.

in the battle of kurst (ww2, i spelled it wrong im sure) the germens rushed teh ferdinand tank destroyer out into battle, it did not have a machine gun, it was very common for a soldier to run up to the tank on foot, toss some explocives under it, and destroy the tank.


small arms fire, and hand grenades were detrimental to tanks in real life, i see no reason they shouldnt also be vulnderable on some level in ps2

[Deadeye]

as a matter of fact, as far as them being quite vurnable, id remind everyone that the reason tanks have machine guns is because soldiers are a huge threat.

in the battle of kurst (ww2, i spelled it wrong im sure) the germens rushed teh ferdinand tank destroyer out into battle, it did not have a machine gun, it was very common for a soldier to run up to the tank on foot, toss some explocives under it, and destroy the tank.


small arms fire, and hand grenades were detrimental to tanks in real life, i see no reason they shouldnt also be vulnderable on some level in ps2

Modern day tanks still carry machine guns to kill infantry but that's because of weapons like RPGs. It's one thing to keep a machine gun because people are running around with bombs, but really? Make tanks vulnerable to machine guns? Sorry but no. We past that point in armor back in WW2. The Armor in Planetside 2's day should not even be scratched by mere bullets.

[AzureWatcher]

Modern day tanks still carry machine guns to kill infantry but that's because of weapons like RPGs. It's one thing to keep a machine gun because people are running around with bombs, but really? Make tanks vulnerable to machine guns? Sorry but no. We past that point in armor back in WW2. The Armor in Planetside 2's day should not even be scratched by mere bullets.

Agreed. Only AT weapons and (maybe) AA weapons should do damage. Even then AA guns and grenades should do less damage than their anti-armor counterparts.

As far as hitboxes go, I'd love to see something similar to Battlefield 3's. Maybe leave out the angle of fire equation out if it causes too much stress on the server or if it would require too much time to implement.