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]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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]

Originally Posted by ThirdCross

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...

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 !)

[StoneRhino]

Originally Posted by ThirdCross

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.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by ThirdCross

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]

Originally Posted by Traak

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]

Originally Posted by Traak

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".

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Traak

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.

[Chinchy]

Originally Posted by 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)

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.

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

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.


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