Armor classes Idea

[Nereid]

I think maybe ground vehicular armor class should be split up into sub classes. MAXs are already getting their own armor class so I was thinking that vehicular could be split up into Light vehicular armor and Heavy vehicular armor. What I would sudjest that AV weapons could be buffed against the heavier armored vehicles of the game so they could be more usefull without becoming too powerfull for the lighter vehicles Because of right now it takes a very large amount of infantry to be any effect at all against the heavier vehicles in the game while as of now a single grunt with AV can challege the lighter vehicles. I'm not saying that a single grunt should be able to take out a Tank by himself but that if he was behind a rock or hiden somewhere where he could get the jump on a tank he could actually do some crediable damage to it instead of scratch its paint cause as of now it takes 36 striker rounds to kill an UNSHIELDED Vanguard. Another thought would be to make AP ammo more effective against light vehicles and less effective against heavy vehicles *who ever heard of small calibur bullets doing much damage to a tanks armor?*. Before you argue the point of realism the buff to AV would be enough to allow infantry to not need AP rounds for the larger vehicles. AP rounds could actually harm lightly armored vehicles such as buggys, and atvs with a damage buff for AP rounds against light armor. AV should take a SLIGHT nerf against light vehicles cause as of now they really just tear them apart in no time while at the same time taking forever to kill big targets. Heavy armor would take a lot less damage from AP bullets but more from AV weapons so that grunts actually cause harm to the larger tanks with their AV. Heavy armor would take the same amount of damage from AV weaponry from other vehicles such as the Lightning's 75mm would do the same amount of AV dmg to a tank as it does now but maybe a damage reduction from 12mm rounds since its made for killing infantry but allow 12mm to do more damage to light vehicles. I believe that AV MAX's should do about 30% more damage to light vehicles then what they do to vehicles now and that they do a hell of a lot more damage against heavy armor targets somewhere around 120% more and keep their current damage for against other MAX armors when they get their own armor class. Heres what vehicles classes I would sudjest.

Light vehicles: Basilisk, wraith, fury, harasser, empire specific buggys, skygaurd, Lightning *may argue the point that this is a tank but its still lightly armored at 1300 hp which is around how much the empire buggys have depending on what faction*, ANT, switchblade

Heavy vehicles: AMS, deliverer and varients, empire specific main battle tanks, sunderer, Flail, Router

If this was put in AV would be more usefull against heavier armored targets without causing imbalances against lighter vehicles such as empire buggys and Lightnings.

[ORANGE]

AP and non AP rounds already do damage to light vehicles

[Onizuka-GTO]

I find it rediculous that normal bullets do any damage to tanks or light scouts that should be negated at all. No damage what so ever, and same to MAXES.
AP rounds should do significate damage ot MAXES and slight and insignificate damage to larger vehicles.

[Nereid]

AP bullets do 10 damage to all armored targets from the wraith to the vanguard. Their is no armor difference between them just HP.

[Onizuka-GTO]

I mean you should not see a Magrider running away from a soldier who is using AP bullets with a Jackhammer (They can do serious damage with that triple shot!)
Anything over 9mm or AP bullets should register as a red damage signal. I think AP bullets should just do glancing hits on Tanks and APC only occasional one bullet out of 30 should register as a red damage just to simulate a round hitting though a visor, hitting the tires or outher vunerable places.

[Lartnev]

So let me get this straight, you want to kill heavier and better armoured targets QUICKER than the lighter tanks and buggies?

AV needs to be used in groups, and often it is.

[TheN00b]

Originally Posted by Lartnev

So let me get this straight, you want to kill heavier and better armoured targets QUICKER than the lighter tanks and buggies?

Not exactly. What he's saying, and I believe that he's correct, is that Anti-Vehicular weapons as they stand barely scratch things like Vanguards. So, he proposes that they deal more damage to MBTs and Lightnings, while receiving a slight damage nerf against Assault Buggies, Skyguards and ATV's. However, even with the proposed AP ammunition buff against Light vehicles, the AV weapons would still deal more damage against and kill more quickly light vehicles than AP rounds; he's just saying that there should be some chanegs made. And I agree 100%.

[Baneblade]

I hate taking cover behind my Enforcer only to have it blown up by a pesky Punicher...

If it dun explode it shouldnt hurt anything over say...1000 armor...

[Lartnev]

Why should AV weapons do more damage to hardened targets? it doesn't make sense. Again I reiterate that AV is meant to be used en masse, and are expected to be used en masse.

[Nereid]

I never said for AV to kill heavy armored targets QUICKER then light vehicles. I meant that AV would deal more then scratching damage to them. And light vehicles wouldnt get slaughtered as fast from a single AV weilding grunt as fast as they do now. Being that a single grunt wouldn't be completely helpless against a MBT with an AV weapon at the same time not owning a lightly armored vehicle so easily as they do now. This also allows for AVMAXs to be aloud to do a lot more damage to heavy vehicles without hurting the lighter vehicles at the same time even tho I believe AVMAXes should also do more damage to light vehicles as well but not as much as they would do to heavy vehicles. As it stands now they can't buff or nerf an AV weapon to be more effective against a Tank without making it that much more effective against light vehicles such as buggys and lightnings. Shields give a vehicle about 25% more durability I believe which would make a shielded vanguard take 45 striker missles to destroy and 35 to destroy an unshielded one while it only takes only 6 strikers to blow up an unshielded harasser and 7 to destroy a shielded one. The weapon couldnt be made more effective against a vanguard *which it needs I believe* without making it blow a harasser or *insert low HP vehicle here* to holy hell even faster with the current armor type system.

[Baneblade]

Wouldnt making all vehicles have the same armor do the same thing?

[scarpas]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Because of right now it takes a very large amount of infantry to be any effect at all against the heavier vehicles in the game while as of now a single grunt with AV can challege the lighter vehicles.

isnt that the point?

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I hate taking cover behind my Enforcer only to have it blown up by a pesky Punicher...

how many times has that actually happened to you?

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by scarpas

how many times has that actually happened to you?

Well since I spent 60% of my PS time in it, prolly about half the times it blew up. Its always some dinky weapon, whether from a Pulsar or what. Sure buttloads of bullets will make dents and prolly disable the vehicle, but not blow it up...

Personally I would be happy with the disabled vehicle threshold being only surpassable by a certain amount of dmg...

[Lartnev]

That's because it manages to get the last shot in, I've done similar things with the pulsar.

And again, I don't see why a heavily armed Vanguard will take more damage from any weapon than the enforcer. The point is it takes less, or at least a smaller percentage. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.