Weak Spots

[Senyu]

There was one thing I kinda liked on the BFR's. There weak spots. Special areas when hit do a negative impact upon the vehicle. So what about applying this logic to the other vehicles?

Hitting certain spots on tanks, planes, buggies and more provide similar effects as such as the BFR had, slow turret speed, targeting sensors, movement speed and such.

Probably not as easy to hit and they wouldn't be highlighted or very big. It would add more depth to fighting and skilled shooters who can also recongize these spots would shine.

[opticalshadow]

i think one thing that holds that possibility back (assumeing things are similure to ps) tanks or other vehicles in general (with exception to galaxies and gunships, but thats kinda their point) went down pretty easy as it was. teh reason the bfr;s gained them was supose to be a counter to the fact they were nigh impenetrable.

while the ideas nice on paper, in practice i dont see a point to aiming to a specific weak spot, assumeing again armor went down the same way it did. the other problem with adding weak points is it can destroy the role of vehicles. if we add weak spots, it makes infantry able to easier to take down tanks, esp if they are given similure AV weapons (camera guided) or makes it un fair twords others (non camera guided are now not as good) but in general if infantry can destroy tanks because of weak points in defeats their pourpose of reason, which is, to counter infantry.

i like the idea, but i think it will create all kinds of balence issues.

[Senyu]

I could see rise to balance issues, so if it would be implemented it would need to be done so carefully as to not make it entirely op.

These weak points wouldn't be very big and at a distance very hard to hit. Also they wouldn't be that noticeable if at all. They would also not be a kill spot but more tactical to aim there.

And with the introduction of weak spots, Hard Spots could be implemented. Such as the sides of a Magrider. It visually has plates on its sides that look tougher than the rest. Why not increase the toughness its sides reducing the amount of armor it loses when hit there. This in all would provide more realism. But of course with that comes into question balance and gameplay issues. Such as how tough or how weak each spot is. But carefully looked at and tested I believe would add more depth to fights especially vehicles. Just because my lancer tip your tank on the edge it shouldn't do as much damage as hitting you directly. And with that I suggest we implement multiple hit boxes on vehicles.

[Logit]

Originally Posted by Senyu

I could see rise to balance issues, so if it would be implemented it would need to be done so carefully as to not make it entirely op.

Apparently you don't know who were dealing with.

SOE doesn't do "careful."

[2coolforu]

I'd like them to add in differential tank armor.

E.g. the glacis/turret is the thickest, front is thick, sides and rear are thinner.

It adds more tactics and skill to tank battles, flanking actually works. Similarly wheeled vehicles would have weak tires and engine blocks, APC's would also have weak side/rear armor

[Senyu]

Yes, definitely if not adding weak points add stronger sides such as front vs back armor.

But visually would the armor also support this? Such as the example I made of the Vanu Magrider. It has heavy plates on its sides. Should those be the stronger areas or keep it stale and static of just the front section regardless of whats there

[Traak]

No thanks.

[Senyu]

Nice



Well instead of the BFR type thing just Higher and Lower armor in specific areas.


Hitting weaker areas do a bit but not considerably more damage and hitting harder areas are fairly more resistent. Makes it more static and boring while adding a little more tactics and skill to the game

[opticalshadow]

Originally Posted by Senyu

Nice



Well instead of the BFR type thing just Higher and Lower armor in specific areas.


Hitting weaker areas do a bit but not considerably more damage and hitting harder areas are fairly more resistent. Makes it more static and boring while adding a little more tactics and skill to the game

a free game that does this pretty well is world of tanks. tank combat, but each tank has its own weak points. for example SPG's generally have sloped front ends witch deflect shells pretty well, but paper thin rears, while heavies have great hulls, but vulnerable tracks, and mediums generally have weak hulls and track but iron hard turrets (for hull down position) and of course each one has dominate sides (front normally being more armoed then sides or rear)

[Aractain]

This is not just a good idea. If stuff like this *isn't* in the game it will be a large game of UT. For interesting tactical depth this is a requirement.

[GTGD]

The only problem would be lock-on AV. How fair would it be to have a phoenix user snipe weak spots while your striker using friends are locked on to the toughest part? Plus the whole CSHD thing is a real pain for weak spots (especially against infantry...dear god...)

[Tikuto]

The frustration of trying to hit any weak spots like ass-of-vehicle or the classic headshot will only add to everything else happening, and thus a rage-festered flopping fail from it all. No fun from frustration. Games are suppose to be fun, right?

Entities of overwhelming significance like the favored aerial Cruiser ideas going around and like the old poorly-implemented BFRs could have weak spots without a problem. They're ideally a big singular significance affecting multiple players and so some sort of universal balance applied there is in order: multiple weak spots - tactical advantages.

A simplified PlanetSide, I still stand for. That "large game of UT" appeals to me.

[Rbstr]

I'd prefer weakspots on vehicles. The critical thing is that it needs to be harder to kill them than currently when you're not hitting the weakspots. Perhaps they go down a bit easier than now if you hit nothing but the spot.

I don't want Valkyria Chronicles style where you get one shot to the radiator, billion to the front.

This also adds balance nuance to homing-type weapons. It can do the same damage as the others but, as a price for not needing much aim, you're basically not going to hit the weaker spots on a moving target.

Originally Posted by Tikuto

A simplified PlanetSide, I still stand for. That "large game of UT" appeals to me.

And I'd much rather it be a large game of BF2142.
It's some kind of persistent global war. Cartoony damage models don't fit well IMO.

also:
"Turrent" Why do so many people type it? 'N' isn't even close to 'E' or 'T'. Do you actually pronounce it "Turrent?" in real life?

[Sirisian]

I like the idea of more weak spots. I do agree that lock-on weapons are going to have a problem with this idea though. I can easily shoot down planes with a lancer for instance. I notice most people using strikers have a hard time hitting them. If there was a weak point on a tank for instance in the back I could see myself just using my 12x zoom and easily hitting it with a lancer while phoenix and striker users complain.

This might just be a complaint that we need identical but differently skinned weapons though which is a different topic entirely.

[opticalshadow]

from the start i was wholy against this idea, i think it would add to much annoyence to the game more then anything, i know i stated examples, but i think it will just add to much complexity to the strightforwardness PS was, and what made it great.