Remove rear end double damage from tanks?

[Methonius]

Does anyone else think that tanks feel paper thin because of the damage to rear end of the tank makes you asplode in 1 sec. Only reason I mention this is because when I fly an ESF and shoot one in the back with pods they die super fast and the other night I was in my tank and a lib with a AV rotary chain gun ripped my tank in 1 sec flat while shooting me in the back end, literally couldn't do a thing against it. Just makes me want the tank battles I had from ps1 back. Does anyone else agree with this or have comments on how they could make tank battles better?

Another thing I thought of is in ps1 you could hear the bombs coming down from libs easily that high pitch sound of them falling gave you time to maneuver the hell out of the way that could help a lot.

[boogy]

:pDoes anyone else think that tanks feel paper thin because of the damage to rear end of the tank makes you asplode in 1 sec. Only reason I mention this is because when I fly an ESF and shoot one in the back with pods they die super fast and the other night I was in my tank and a lib with a AV rotary chain gun ripped my tank in 1 sec flat while shooting me in the back end, literally couldn't do a thing against it. Just makes me want the tank battles I had from ps1 back. Does anyone else agree with this or have comments on how they could make tank battles better?

The Magrider should be 2 shots all around, one shot on the bottom. Just kidding. I hate going up against that thing.

[Ghoest9]

Does anyone else think that tanks feel paper thin because of the damage to rear end of the tank makes you asplode in 1 sec. Only reason I mention this is because when I fly an ESF and shoot one in the back with pods they die super fast and the other night I was in my tank and a lib with a AV rotary chain gun ripped my tank in 1 sec flat while shooting me in the back end, literally couldn't do a thing against it. Just makes me want the tank battles I had from ps1 back. Does anyone else agree with this or have comments on how they could make tank battles better?


I agree in a world where tank buster aircrafter literally darken the skys of every fight you would out more armor on the ass end of a tank.

[Methonius]

:p

The Magrider should be 2 shots all around, one shot on the bottom. Just kidding. I hate going up against that thing.

Ya I get you there I tried other factions out and going up against the mag is a pain but in general though I feel all the tanks are paper thin when all you have to do is aim for the back of them and in an aircraft especially its very easy to do. I do understand the reasoning behind it to make infantry life a little easier but maybe they need to remove this for air attacks against tanks same for tank vs tanks.

[maradine]

Gods, why? Why would we dumb down the armor model?

[AThreatToYou]

No to removing it. I would support a certification to reduce the damage bonus to be on-level with a side or top hit.

[Methonius]

Gods, why? Why would we dumb down the armor model?

For the sake of armor battles. You don't find it rediculous that a lib can bring a tank down in 1 sec? or an ESF killing a tank in one volley?

[Ghost Runner]

Gods, why? Why would we dumb down the armor model?

Agreed Its not ridiculous ever watch real war footage tanks are at that very same disadvantage instead you should be asking can we get a side grade to cover our rears

[Methonius]

No to removing it. I would support a certification to reduce the damage bonus to be on-level with a side or top hit.

I could at least live with this if they added that I would be happy.

[maradine]

For the sake of armor battles. You don't find it rediculous that a lib can bring a tank down in 1 sec? or an ESF killing a tank in one volley?

No, I don't. If an ESF can get through my team's guard, into position behind me, close enough for the entire volley to hit, and low enough for all of them to hit rear face, then I call that a heck of an attack run. Last I checked, Zephs needed at least two volleys to do same, for the record.

[Ghoest9]

Gods, why? Why would we dumb down the armor model?

Ummm because it end up having nothing to do with tactics and instead is just a an even easier target for air.


If tanks mostly died to other tanks then it would be cool.

[Brusi]

Quick Q? How many people bother to cert Top armor for their tanks?

[Roderick]

No to removing the rear tank weakness.

[maradine]

Ummm because it end up having nothing to do with tactics and instead is just a an even easier target for air.

You're telling me, with a straight face, that you think managing armor facing in combat has nothing to do with tactics? :huh:

[Timealude]

oh god if beer beer sees this thread hes going to hate you..lol

eh i dont know, i think it might take the disadvantages out of driving a tank, they are pretty strong as is, the problem is aircraft atm not the tanks.

[Hmr85]

No, What needs to be fixed is the armor directional hit values. This is why it seems like you die so quickly.

302 Found
302 Found

[Canaris]

No the system works fine, just drive better

[Fara]

For the most part showing your backside to the enemy is inviting death also the game as alot of tank players already, removing the rear vulnerability would only encourage more people to tank all the time.

That being said, I wouldn't mind a trade off. Rear armour adding just enough (10%?) mitigation to survive an ESF rocket pod strafe or possibly a clip of Tank buster liberator fire.

[Hmr85]

updated post above with new video. Honestly imo that is the problem that needs to be fixed.

[Vashyo]

NO and I've spent more time inside a tank than on foot. I rarely get shot in the rear cause I avoid putting myself in situation where the rear shows to the enemy. I even unlocked the reverse speed tree instead of speed for my vannie, so I can move slightly faster out of danger without exposing my weakness.


Odds allready stack on the tanks favor against infantry, no reason to give them even bigger edge.

[PredatorFour]

Quick Q? How many people bother to cert Top armor for their tanks?

It doesn`t make a difference. I can still get one shotted by airchavs from behind. Its remarkable how in the future armour has little to no protection from behind and all them people saying your a bad driver ?? No thats not right at all. Its quite easy to get behind armour if you can fly and turn fast on the spot.

Hell even the first game had more protection for attacks from behind .... being this game is the sequel, why did they decide to change the armour from a lore perspective ??

Right now we got a food chain and it goes;

Airchavs --> Tanks --> Infantry

Note they wanted to attract people from CoD/Battlefield series, possibly even steal them away from their desired franchise. Because infantry get farmed so much in this they probably will dislike it and not play the game.

[Sunrock]

Does anyone else think that tanks feel paper thin because of the damage to rear end of the tank makes you asplode in 1 sec. Only reason I mention this is because when I fly an ESF and shoot one in the back with pods they die super fast and the other night I was in my tank and a lib with a AV rotary chain gun ripped my tank in 1 sec flat while shooting me in the back end, literally couldn't do a thing against it. Just makes me want the tank battles I had from ps1 back. Does anyone else agree with this or have comments on how they could make tank battles better?

Another thing I thought of is in ps1 you could hear the bombs coming down from libs easily that high pitch sound of them falling gave you time to maneuver the hell out of the way that could help a lot.

No tanks should be vulnerable in the rear. Gives the game a tactical dimension. If it was not there it would be too "easy mode".

[Sunrock]

It doesn`t make a difference. I can still get one shotted by airchavs from behind. Its remarkable how in the future armour has little to no protection from behind and all them people saying your a bad driver ?? No thats not right at all. Its quite easy to get behind armour if you can fly and turn fast on the spot.

Hell even the first game had more protection for attacks from behind .... being this game is the sequel, why did they decide to change the armour from a lore perspective ??

Right now we got a food chain and it goes;

Airchavs --> Tanks --> Infantry

Note they wanted to attract people from CoD/Battlefield series, possibly even steal them away from their desired franchise. Because infantry get farmed so much in this they probably will dislike it and not play the game.

This is not a game that is played 1 Vs 1. Never has been and never will be. If your tank got fucked in the ass was because your team/faction faild to protect it for you or you advanced too far a head of every one else.

PS: Tanks in PS2 works exactly like in BF3. BF3 tanks are very vunurable in the rear too and any engineer there with a RPG will "WTF P0wn" a tank if he comes up in the back. Also air craft in BF3 will instant kill tanks in 1 sec if attacked in the rare.

[PredatorFour]

If your tank got fucked in the ass was because your team/faction faild to protect it for you or you advanced too far a head of every one else.

No mate you are wrong. I play on miller, maybe playing on a different server allows you to make assumptions due to difference in play.

[JesNC]

It doesn`t make a difference. I can still get one shotted by airchavs from behind. [snip]

Way to exaggerate there. It still takes me at least 4 solid hits with Breaker Rockets to kill an MBT when firing on the rear armor, and it's pretty tough to score those hits when there's any kind of competent air cover around.

On the other side, I've yet to lose a tank to an ESF firing up my arse, some of them tried, but I always had enough time to manouver/turn to deny them the kill.

If you're in a MBT on your own away from the team, or not paying attention because you're too busy farming infantry - tough luck.


Really, tank drivers complaining about directional armor? What will they complain about next, AT mines? Oh, wait...

[Mavvvy]

Damage from aircraft should be a flat damage all over. But at launcher damage and damage from other tanks should stay as it is, if you get outflanked you should pay the price.

[PredatorFour]

Is there directional damage on the ESF`s ?? It would be nice if there was a decent level of armour surrounding the tank, or at least be able to cert it!

[igster]

I think the tactical aspect of armor not exposing their rear ends adds to the enemy is one of the biggest improvements in tank gameplay between PS1 and PS2. Quite rightly a tank shouldnt just drive through infantry without exposing themselves to being gibbed.

Learn to flank.

Get your tactics sorted - there are still so many tank drivers that do not consider their achilles heel.

+1 to kevmo and the PS2 team for putting this element to the gameplay.

[JesNC]

Is there directional damage on the ESF`s ?? It would be nice if there was a decent level of armour surrounding the tank, or at least be able to cert it!

Please, at least try to employ your empire's MBT's advantages before you cry nerf on anything that manages to kill you...


Get your tactics sorted - there are still so many tank drivers that do not consider their achilles heel.


+1 to kevmo and the PS2 team for putting this element to the gameplay.

This!

[Figment]

No, I don't. If an ESF can get through my team's guard, into position behind me, close enough for the entire volley to hit, and low enough for all of them to hit rear face, then I call that a heck of an attack run. Last I checked, Zephs needed at least two volleys to do same, for the record.

Are you saying that's hard?

updated post above with new video. Honestly imo that is the problem that needs to be fixed.

Good vid, shows how the directional damage is oversimplified. You just have to attack from a rear attack vector, not the rear itself.

Note that an angled shot like that hits relatively MORE armour than if it were a direct perpendicular hit.

[PredatorFour]

[QUOTE=JesNC;868605]Please, at least try to employ your empire's MBT's advantages before you cry nerf on anything that manages to kill you...



Cry nerf ?? wtf have you been smoking ? give me some!

[Figment]

As for the remainder of the topic, angling a tank is not a tactic, that's basic 101 tank positioning. Tactics is more like flanking, hull-down, etc. It's fine that the rear is weaker, doesn't have to be the case for every tank design btw, but imagine for a second that you could have different MBTs and tank destroyers with different hull values.

Tank destroyers could focus all their armour in front, some tanks could have all-round armour values with the same or slightly higher average but lower peaks as other tanks with weaker rears.



For instance, without armour bonus, you could have Frontal - Side - Rear armour of:


75mm - 50mm - 25mm (frontal heavy defender, Vanguard type), or 50mm - 50mm - 50mm (flanker, Prowler type). Or 100 - 25 - 25, TD, Magrider type).

These type of tanks would suit different play styles and each empire could have at least one of them in both single player and two-three crew (dedicated driver please!) class tanks.




And THAT is how you balance and trade-off tank play styles, rather than make them all solo-able.

[psijaka]

No No No; this game is dominated by vehicles as it is. Give infantry a chance!

I do think that air power in particular is too dominant, and that it is all too easy for a Lib to just sit overhead dealing out ridiculous damage against ground forces without much fear of a meaningful response. This is more of an issue than tanks being "paper thin" - they certainly aren't if you are the poor HA laying down your life trying to fend off a tank attack.

[PredatorFour]

For instance, without armour bonus, you could have Frontal - Side - Rear armour of:


75mm - 50mm - 25mm (frontal heavy defender, Vanguard type), or 50mm - 50mm - 50mm (flanker, Prowler type). Or 100 - 25 - 25, TD, Magrider type).

These type of tanks would suit different play styles and each empire could have at least one of them in both single player and two-three crew (dedicated driver please!) class tanks.




And THAT is how you balance and trade-off tank play styles, rather than make them all solo-able.

Going more in depth into the customization of vehicle armour like this would be amazing. Being able to choose how much armour and where would be a massive improvement over the `either top,sides,front` options we have now.

[Figment]

No No No; this game is dominated by vehicles as it is. Give infantry a chance!

I do think that air power in particular is too dominant, and that it is all too easy for a Lib to just sit overhead dealing out ridiculous damage against ground forces without much fear of a meaningful response. This is more of an issue than tanks being "paper thin" - they certainly aren't if you are the poor HA laying down your life trying to fend off a tank attack.

Infantry just needs EMP grenades, a few more rockets and improved defensive base design really. And probably a bit less effective High Explosive AoE spam (radius / rof).

[Figment]

Going more in depth into the customization of vehicle armour like this would be amazing. Being able to choose how much armour and where would be a massive improvement over the `either top,sides,front` options we have now.

This is something they should have played WoT for really. Turret armour is another thing, if you hit a turret currently, the damage dealt is not related with the angle to the turret. As Hrm85's video shows, currently the turret armour is related to the impact angle in relation to the hull, wherever it strikes. Which is of course a rather ridiculous simplification if you're going with directional damage.

The WoT mechanic (without bouncing shots, but a base level damage) would be better.

[Bags]

tanks are already op, no need to buff

[JesNC]

I also very much like the WoT damage model, but I think the damage calculations for every tank in a common PS2 battle would kill the game's performance.

IMO the current system is a tradeoff between an interesting/deep gameplay mechanic and performace limitations. That said, it works alright for me.



75mm - 50mm - 25mm (frontal heavy defender, Vanguard type), or 50mm - 50mm - 50mm (flanker, Prowler type). Or 100 - 25 - 25, TD, Magrider type).

IMO that's something we as the community should push for in future game updates. While right now the MBTs and their preferred armor and weapon upgrades lean towards one or the other, I think this is a concept that would be utilized the most by additional vehicles - each empire should keep having access to the 'default' effectiveness/protection MBT.

[Qwan]

I think with tanks in the game and in RL its pretty much the same, I mean being prior military and working around tanks, its were the thinnest part of the armor is, its were the engine is. I think they should just leave it the same, I mean every vehicle has a weakness, and the rear is a naturel weakness.

[Stanis]

Oh for classes and inventory.
Rock-Paper-Scissors is still a boring element of the game.


It doesn't matter if it's 50 tanks rolling over the horizon or 50 players - if you're getting camped, you're getting camped.

You can have 50 vehicles too. Or 10 vehicles to slow them, 30 HA with very effective lock on weapons and 10 medics/engineers to rearm and revive them.


Problem is base/game design.
TTK
Class variation
Area effect weapons
Lack of area denial
Poor intel
No concept of stealth


Not really so much the infantry or vehicles.

[Storn]

Ok you lose the weak spot in the rear then infantry get one shots on tanks. Tanks > Inf; Aircraft > tanks. Every tank has a weak spot... im going to say it... LEARN TO PLAY!!!!! :)

[Bags]

tanks > infantry
air > tanks
ground deters air

is current balance

[Dkamanus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y6fYkXmwVkI#t=1755s

This is why NO. Tactical terrain advantage is more favourable towards infantry then towards vehicles. If you take it out, you won't be able to deal as fast with a stupid vehicle as before and he will punish you a lot for it, even being a herp derp player.

This allows infantry to try and sneak behind tanks and destroy them quickly because everyone though not having infantry covering your tanks is stupid. This coming from a dedicated LA/MAX/Vanguard Driver.

[HiroshiChugi]

-shakes head- the creator of this thread is... hold the ears of your little ones.... A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DUMBASS!!!!! Every vehicle has its own weak spots!!! would you rather have thicker rear armor and have your engine overheat way too easily,combined with extreme drop in speed?or would you rather have the same specs,learn better tactics, learn to utilize hills and view points,etc.?
for example: if you park your tank behind a rock that just shows your turret,you can see more of the enemy tank AND hit more of them,but they can only see your turret and only hit your turret. come on people,look this stuff up before you cry about it!!! Good Lord! I applaud all the Planetside 1 vets that are eating this guy alive. Granted, I didn't play Planetside 1, but i do have one thing: common sense. and that tells me to take more cover behind buildings,rocks,hills,etc. to avoid being cannon fodder. Honestly,I'm getting tired of reading noobish threads that just complain about things that the player can easily fix themselves (in this case,learning better armour tactics). Please, for the love of all that is vodka and tits, learn to play better!! D:

[Dragonskin]

A lot of people that seem to complain about their tanks dying are the same people that don't cert armor upgrades or IR smoke... I honestly don't think that anyone has IR smoke. IR Smoke was pretty much manditory default for BF3... until they take my idea and make the AV rockets fire like Javelins I doubt people will both with it for PS2.

The youtube vids show that directonal armor hit detection can be better though. In general I think tanks are in a fairly good spot.

[maradine]

No - we gained somewhere on the order of 32x the available calculations per clock cycle, and now we can simulate things that, at the time, seemed idiotic not to account for. YMMV.

[JesNC]

This thread went from whinefest to borderline constructive and then back to whinefest at an amazing speed. :eek:

[Sunrock]

No mate you are wrong. I play on miller, maybe playing on a different server allows you to make assumptions due to difference in play.

And what server do you think I play on ::rolleyes:

[Methonius]

-shakes head- the creator of this thread is... hold the ears of your little ones.... A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DUMBASS!!!!! Every vehicle has its own weak spots!!! would you rather have thicker rear armor and have your engine overheat way too easily,combined with extreme drop in speed?or would you rather have the same specs,learn better tactics, learn to utilize hills and view points,etc.?
for example: if you park your tank behind a rock that just shows your turret,you can see more of the enemy tank AND hit more of them,but they can only see your turret and only hit your turret. come on people,look this stuff up before you cry about it!!! Good Lord! I applaud all the Planetside 1 vets that are eating this guy alive. Granted, I didn't play Planetside 1, but i do have one thing: common sense. and that tells me to take more cover behind buildings,rocks,hills,etc. to avoid being cannon fodder. Honestly,I'm getting tired of reading noobish threads that just complain about things that the player can easily fix themselves (in this case,learning better armour tactics). Please, for the love of all that is vodka and tits, learn to play better!! D:

LOL! Thanks for the constructive feedback... I love the way you describe to take more cover. I'm pretty sure everyone here already knows how to do this. The thing is it doesn't matter if your behind a tree or behind a hill a lib or ESF can still easily destroy you in split second. I've played from both sides and tanks are at a serious disadvantage against aircraft because of the weak spot in the rear. I think its good to have it for infantry but for aircraft it makes them op against tanks. No amount of cover is going to help you unless you manage to get your tank underneath a rooftop lol. Nice try though on your "constructive feedback".

[maradine]

The thing is it doesn't matter if your behind a tree or behind a hill a lib or ESF can still easily destroy you in split second.

This is hyperbole, and not helping your case.

I've played from both sides and tanks are at a serious disadvantage against aircraft because of the weak spot in the rear.

Of course tanks are at a serious disadvantage against aircraft. Aircraft are armor's natural predator. I'm sure the antelope thinks the lion is horrendously OP, too. The problem is that aircraft's natural predator is a bit toothless at the moment. Moving an armored column with bursters as the AAA layers is silly. Once the SG is a viable platform, this is a problem you and your team can solve yourselves.

[EVILoHOMER]

There is no logical reason to have it, why would these tanks be weak at the back? This isn't WW2.

[SixShooter]

If we're going to remove the MBT's only weak spot, why have hit boxes at all? Same thing goes for headshots. :eek::huh:

Removing the weak spot makes no sense and that's coming from someone that loves using Lightnings and Mags.
:cheers:

[Calisai]

Of course tanks are at a serious disadvantage against aircraft. Aircraft are armor's natural predator. I'm sure the antelope thinks the lion is horrendously OP, too. The problem is that aircraft's natural predator is a bit toothless at the moment. Moving an armored column with bursters as the AAA layers is silly. Once the SG is a viable platform, this is a problem you and your team can solve yourselves.

This. Nothing is wrong with the tanks, if anything they should be two-seat mandatory... but that is a different discussion.

The problem is with the mobile Anti-Air. The AA gun on the top of tanks is useless... and the lightning is a horrible AA platform. Bring back the two-seat AA buggy from PS1 and a lot of issues go away. (A proper skyguard behind the armor column will keep those rear shots to a minimum)

Oh, and fix the damn audio of a lib that sounds like small arms fire hitting your tank but takes 1/8 of your health down each hit. Makes me freak out anytime anyone with a pistol hits me.. thinking it's one of those stealth libs.

[sylphaen]

If we're going to remove the MBT's only weak spot, why have hit boxes at all? Same thing goes for headshots. :eek::huh:

Removing the weak spot makes no sense and that's coming from someone that loves using Lightnings and Mags.
:cheers:

I had more fun and challenge playing as ground armor in PS1 than I do in PS2. That's the only factor I consider.

FYI, I am not whining. I am stating a personal preference and I do not play much in vehicles anymore. Boooooring !

[maradine]

There is no logical reason to have it, why would these tanks be weak at the back? This isn't WW2.

You should tell that to GDLS; they'll be shocked to know that they unnecessarily designed a weaker rear face into the Abrams. How could they be so silly! Get Krauss-Maffei and Kartsev-Venediktov on the horn, too. The L2A7+ and T-90 are critically flawed.

Bury a time capsule; the land systems designers of the future will need to know that they can apply their super-dense neutronium plates evenly over their vehicles.

Or you could, you know, work under design constraints (such as weight) and apply the most protection to the place where the most fire's coming in ("danger front").

A world where armored vehicles aren't resource compromises is a world where there is no resource contention, and therefore no need for armored vehicles.

[Bags]

Please buff my mag rider so it is ubkillable. Going 225/2 is unacceptable.

[Dkamanus]

People need to understand that, THE same goes for MAX Units, Tanks aren't the Main Line of Attack, infantry ALWAYS is. First and foremost, they are cheaper. Second, very well armed for being so cheap. Any decent tank column that is attacking a target WILL have infantry supporting it in order to counter possible kamikaze infantry bum rushing just to plant C4/Mines and to see if anything is needed to be blown up on the road before the tanks can advance.

PS2 is an enviroment where the average player is always on this killing frenzy where only the most disciplined or leashed players can coordinate for a decent tank column. As of now, people think that a tank column is the same as a Zerg, hence a zerg will lose lots of tanks while moving forward with little to no care, while a real column tank will try to preserve the tanks it has while moving forward supporting while the infantry will make its push towards a target.

As people keep crying about, tanks are infantry killers. Yes, they are. That's why, unless its a 4 to 1 battle against your column, organization on the column will be MUCH better then a Zerg. The advantage of the back being a double kill shot is something that clever infantry also needs in order to stop a decent column formation.

Although Zergs are still kings, Smart play is starting to become a close second as people understand more and more the game. Tank drivers driving always concerned with their back sides, and infantry moving around trying to make a bigger damage.

[Methonius]

This is hyperbole, and not helping your case.



Of course tanks are at a serious disadvantage against aircraft. Aircraft are armor's natural predator. I'm sure the antelope thinks the lion is horrendously OP, too. The problem is that aircraft's natural predator is a bit toothless at the moment. Moving an armored column with bursters as the AAA layers is silly. Once the SG is a viable platform, this is a problem you and your team can solve yourselves.

Do you even know what a hyperbole is lol? The statement I made was not an exaggeration in the sleightest. If you fly an aircraft you can hit someone from any angle, its not hard to do you have no objects to avoid except other aircraft so its very easy to maneuver into position behind any object.

Regarding your other statement, I don't see why people like you always compare games to real life. If we are going that route you might as well make 1 bullet from every gun in the game one shot infantry. Also make aircraft spin out of control from a stray bullet hitting their intake. Fun stuff right... I thought so. Games are about the fun factor not realism.

[maradine]

Do you even know what a hyperbole is lol? The statement I made was not an exaggeration in the sleightest. If you fly an aircraft you can hit someone from any angle, its not hard to do you have no objects to avoid except other aircraft so its very easy to maneuver into position behind any object.

Regarding your other statement, I don't see why people like you always compare games to real life. If we are going that route you might as well make 1 bullet from every gun in the game one shot infantry. Also make aircraft spin out of control from a stray bullet hitting their intake. Fun stuff right... I thought so. Games are about the fun factor not realism.

Cripes, where to start?

1. I do, in fact, know what hyperbole is, and I consider "destroyed in a split second" intentional exaggeration.

2. Pray tell - what exactly is "people like me"?

3. Real life is an excellent model. It is not necessarily, however, sufficient in isolation to produce good gameplay. I firmly believe that a predation model is better gameplay than a homogeneous model. I have no desire for everyone to be equal. I do, however, have a desire for everyone to be singularly useful. The current model is tracking close to this, with a marked deficiency in the predatory air strategy. This guides my commentary. I hold the same view on armor facing, in that having a tactical decision to make regarding facing is a richer experience than not. Playing the realism card at this point in the argument is a strawman, as far as I'm concerned.

4. Since you asked, for the record, I consider granular catastrophic aircraft damage to be fun. I suspect I consider a great many things to be fun that you do not. Who's right?

[Methonius]

I guess we can agree to disagree then. I just figure if people are looking for the realism then play an fps that has the realism. Planetside 2 is a sci-fi shooter and putting realism in it just does not fit imo. You may have tanks now days that are weaker in the rear but in 2000 years in the future we could have impenetrable tanks. I just don't see the point in comparing weaponry from todays military objects to something far in the future.

[sylphaen]

You may have tanks now days that are weaker in the rear but in 2000 years in the future we could have impenetrable tanks.

Or there could be no tanks ? Or humanity could have collapsed and disappeared ?
:love:

Edit: oh wait ! Never mind... In the future, a Terran Republic would have formed up to save us from greed, tyranny and especially ourselves.
:D

[HiroshiChugi]

A lot of people that seem to complain about their tanks dying are the same people that don't cert armor upgrades or IR smoke... I honestly don't think that anyone has IR smoke. IR Smoke was pretty much manditory default for BF3... until they take my idea and make the AV rockets fire like Javelins I doubt people will both with it for PS2.

The youtube vids show that directonal armor hit detection can be better though. In general I think tanks are in a fairly good spot.

I use IR smoke and it's saved my ass enough times to pay for itself,plus its fun to play around with and make people go, "wtf is that? It's blocking my sights dumbass!" :P

[JesNC]

I guess we can agree to disagree then. I just figure if people are looking for the realism then play an fps that has the realism. Planetside 2 is a sci-fi shooter and putting realism in it just does not fit imo. You may have tanks now days that are weaker in the rear but in 2000 years in the future we could have impenetrable tanks. I just don't see the point in comparing weaponry from todays military objects to something far in the future.

Yes, impenetrable tanks that one-shot infantry.

What the hell?

Game balance would like to have a word with you -.-

[HiroshiChugi]

LOL! Thanks for the constructive feedback... I love the way you describe to take more cover. I'm pretty sure everyone here already knows how to do this. The thing is it doesn't matter if your behind a tree or behind a hill a lib or ESF can still easily destroy you in split second. I've played from both sides and tanks are at a serious disadvantage against aircraft because of the weak spot in the rear. I think its good to have it for infantry but for aircraft it makes them op against tanks. No amount of cover is going to help you unless you manage to get your tank underneath a rooftop lol. Nice try though on your "constructive feedback".

Ok, here it goes:

1. If you already knew how to take cover, then you wouldnt be complaining about rear double damage.

2. It may just be because I've played WoT a lot, but I already know to keep my FRONT facing the enemy, and to not allow them to even SEE my rear side.

3. It wasn't constructive criticism, it was me informing you on how to play armoured vehicles better.

4. If you think it's impossible to take cover from Libs then you obviously don't know how to play the game. Air platform buildings servefor great air cover for armour. Just get inside and VOILA! You're mostly safe from air cover since any reasonably sensible pilot would not DARE to get in the firing anglle of a tank.

5. All you're doing is bitching and complaining about the fact that you don't know how to play armour they it's SUPPOSED to be played! Come on guy, either learn to play Planetside 2 better or don't play it at all.

6. Everyone knows that in order to have a good tank, you need to have even armour plating thickness. A tank's armour plating is usually considerbly thicker in the front. It's common sense.

7. For any game to be fun, it has to have SOME kind of realism in it. Whether it's gravity, damage taken and damage given, or even the way things move in the world. Otherwise, it wouldn't really be sensible.

[Figment]

2. It may just be because I've played WoT a lot, but I already know to keep my FRONT facing the enemy, and to not allow them to even SEE my rear side.

That's all fine and dandy, but WoT is pretty darn sucky at dynamic combat because of that and in WoT flanking someone tends to be a bit harder, what with the limited paths available each being blocked by an E100 or so.


Btw, check the video HRM85 posted: directional damage is funky if only the vector with respect to the hull matters, rather than the vector with respect to the unit part hit.

[Gortha]

No - BUT tone it done to 150% Damage not 200 % or something it is right now...

[maradine]

Btw, check the video HRM85 posted: directional damage is funky if only the vector with respect to the hull matters, rather than the vector with respect to the unit part hit.

I do hope their cycle budget isn't so stretched that that's how they implemented it. Then again, seeing as I'm 100% CPU bound . . .

[Sunrock]

Moving an armored column with bursters as the AAA layers is silly. Once the SG is a viable platform, this is a problem you and your team can solve yourselves.

Well Higby have stated several times that they want air to be the best counter to air not ground AA.

So what you want to do really.... Is to deploy Germans WW2 tactic Blitzkreig. The Blitzkreig tactic in its basic form is to have mech. infantry protected by heavy tanks protected by air. So in other words Sundy with infantry protected by MBT protected by A2A ESF all move as a platoon.

[maradine]

I am aware of what Higby stated - this is one of the few places I think he's got it wrong. :)

That said, here we are.

[The Messenger]

Tank armor is fine, there used to be rear armor cert in beta but it was removed when people became too dependant on tanks.

What needs to be done is fixing the sound in this game. Aircraft aren't anywhere near as loud as they should be so it's easy for them to fly right up on the rear of anyone. The sound when being fired upon needs tweaking as well. Almost everything sounds like you're being hit by small arms, even when an ESF is hit by a prowler shot. Also, I don't get why some ESF's I can one shot with a HEAT lightning and others I can't? The composite armor isn't supposed to add defense to tank rounds. IMO, tank rounds and rockets should knock an aircraft out of control temoporarily (maybe not A2A). Aircraft that run into eachother spin around like a dervish but an explosive doesn't do anything.

[Methonius]

Ok, here it goes:

1. If you already knew how to take cover, then you wouldnt be complaining about rear double damage.

2. It may just be because I've played WoT a lot, but I already know to keep my FRONT facing the enemy, and to not allow them to even SEE my rear side.

3. It wasn't constructive criticism, it was me informing you on how to play armoured vehicles better.

4. If you think it's impossible to take cover from Libs then you obviously don't know how to play the game. Air platform buildings servefor great air cover for armour. Just get inside and VOILA! You're mostly safe from air cover since any reasonably sensible pilot would not DARE to get in the firing anglle of a tank.

5. All you're doing is bitching and complaining about the fact that you don't know how to play armour they it's SUPPOSED to be played! Come on guy, either learn to play Planetside 2 better or don't play it at all.

6. Everyone knows that in order to have a good tank, you need to have even armour plating thickness. A tank's armour plating is usually considerbly thicker in the front. It's common sense.

7. For any game to be fun, it has to have SOME kind of realism in it. Whether it's gravity, damage taken and damage given, or even the way things move in the world. Otherwise, it wouldn't really be sensible.

Here i'll even number it like you did so you can follow along,

1. Complaining and coming up with constructive things that could feasibly help the game is completely two different things. If I was complaining I would of just wrote something such as "OMG nerf aircraft, and buff tanks" to some degree.

2. Keeping your front facing the enemy is all fine and all but when an aircraft is against a tank they can get into position much faster than you can turn your tank back towards the direction they are attacking from.

3. I honestly don't need your opinion how to play the game I've been playing the planetside series since it was first released and many other shooters. Instead of accusing me of being a noob why don't you come up with an idea that can make the game more balanced.

4. I'll be sure to keep this in mind if there was tower platforms every 1000ft in the world lol.

5. You're repeating yourself on this one. Stating I'm a noob in your eyes for making this thread. I actually do fairly well in my tank so I'm not complaining I am getting peoples opinion on this aspect of the game.

6. Common sense to real life maybe. Who made a rule about common sense relating to real world objects has to relate to in game objects?

7. I agree with you on this to a certain extent just in the fact that these things are placed in games because its something we can relate with but it doesn't necessarily mean we have to confine ourselves to those restrictions.

[JesNC]

3. I honestly don't need your opinion how to play the game I've been playing the planetside series since it was first released and many other shooters. Instead of accusing me of being a noob why don't you come up with an idea that can make the game more balanced.


Low rear armor for MBTs actually is one of the balanced mechanics in the game, hence you coming off as a noob.

[Bierno]

Hell No

You see the zerg of tanks... 100s of tanks zerging.. every faction does it but its annoying as hell.. Wish there was a limit of Tanks/Aircraft per cont.

Seriously I came from Battlefield 3 so I am use to tanks and stuff but when there more than 3 tanks, the game becomes shitty.. and I been playing Planetside 2 heavily.. BR54

[james]

No, if you got shot in the butt you usually made a mistake as a tanker

[Quadron]

No, I don't. If an ESF can get through my team's guard, into position behind me, close enough for the entire volley to hit, and low enough for all of them to hit rear face, then I call that a heck of an attack run. Last I checked, Zephs needed at least two volleys to do same, for the record.

I agree with this. If an ESF can fly into enemy territory and come at a tank from the rear, it's a great bombing run and exceptionally hard to pull off in the heat of a battle. I could possibly see certs for increase armor on back somewhat, but only by 20-30% armor increase, so that it's at least harder to kill from behind, but still possible with all 12 rockets.

[HiroshiChugi]

Hell No

You see the zerg of tanks... 100s of tanks zerging.. every faction does it but its annoying as hell.. Wish there was a limit of Tanks/Aircraft per cont.

Seriously I came from Battlefield 3 so I am use to tanks and stuff but when there more than 3 tanks, the game becomes shitty.. and I been playing Planetside 2 heavily.. BR54

Your reactions to my statements prove your n00bish behavior :P see, unlike you, I can tell when someone is complaining about gameplay and when then are trying to get opinions. You clearly are complaining about gameplay. If you are getting hit in the ass by aircraft constantly, then you clearly need to get better A2G protection lol...

And if you aren't complaining, then show it lmfao xD

Edit: This was supposed to be a quote for Methonius' last post in this thread

[maradine]

Did we really need to necro this?

[HiroshiChugi]

Did we really need to necro this?

Sure, why not. :P

[RSphil]

well i never find this a problem. i position myself in such a way where my rear is protected. if not by my own faction/team mates then by environment like trees so its hard to see the rear or cliffs, buildings, hills another poor tank lol. it is all about situational awareness. yes i have been caught a few times from the rear but never one shot.

i thought there was a cert for rear armor or was that in beta and took out? sure i saw it at one point. but it is a weakness that should be in game and i dont mind it. everything should a weakness as do all vehicles in this day and age.

just watch your six and if need be keep that ass moving :)

[gunshooter]

Tanks have to be fragile considering the fact the only limitation on them is the timer.