Are we going to get more vehicles with positional damage?

[Baneblade]

Or are MBTs alone stuck with that handicap?

Some normalization with that would be very appreciated. Either dump the concept entirely or make everyone deal with it. Obviously it would make barely any difference on a Flash, but it would be huge on a Sunderer. Not to mention the incoming new vehicles.

[Canaris]

I'd assume all ground vehicles bigger than the flash will have it

[Sturmhardt]

Agreed. Either use it on all "larger" vehicles (everything bigger than the flash) or just dump the concept.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Canaris

I'd assume all ground vehicles bigger than the flash will have it

Well, so far only MBTs have it.

[PredatorFour]

I agree too, either for all or dump it. The amount of AV on the battlefield makes it irrelevant that mbts have weak spots.

The amount of times people on here bring up the "its not 1 v 1 in PS 2 , it's combined arms involving lots of people... " which is a fair comment.. but like i said with the amount of 'combined AV' there is now weak spots just are not needed imo. So either for all or get rid, it's no longer fair it only apply's to mbts.

[CasualCat]

I'd prefer it gone and I don't even tank as much anymore.

I think it is one contributing factor as to why tank battles aren't as fluid as in PS1 for example.

Definitely don't want buggies to have it, because I don't want to see buggies being used like tanks are now.

Remove the rear armor from tanks making it the same as side armor. Leave the Sunderer blockade rear armor as is. (Sunder armor reduction values are the same until you get blockade and then the rear is strongest).

There is still advantage in flanking tanks because vehicles have such a crappy FOV.

[Canaris]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Well, so far only MBTs have it.

eh? Sunderers and Lightnings both have it and just to be clear you mean areas that have more or less % damage proctection like front, sides, top & rear

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Canaris

eh? Sunderers and Lightnings both have it and just to be clear you mean areas that have more or less % damage proctection like front, sides, top & rear

Oh right Lightnings, those little paper tanks that blow up fast no matter which end of it you light on fire.

The Sunderer doesn't have it natively. I'm talking about the feature that makes MBTs easy kills from the rear with its double damage arbitrary amplification. I'm not referring to certed upgrades that reduce damage.

I suppose the reality is all vehicles have it, it just has no effect on the non tanks since they are all equal valued in defense rating on all sides.

Certed defense upgrades are not what I'm talking about, just to be clear.

[JesNC]

I like positional damage very much, I think it gives vehicle combat some depth that it was lacking in PS1.

But on the other hand, I can't see how it would work out with small "skirmish/scout" vehicles like the Buggies - if a single shell/rocket to the rear kills or critically damages them, how would they be able to use their speed and manouverability to skirmish effectively?

IMO positional damage fits "line vehicles", like MBTs and the Sunderer more - I hope they fix it on the Sunderer /w Blockade Armor someday - and I think it should be present on any heavy combat vehicle they introduce in the future.

[Ruffdog]

I'm okay with the idea of positional bonus damage multipliers , but the current state of MBTs i.e. the rear, is way over the top. I feel I need combat chassis 3 just to keep my ass turned away from groups of HA at times.

[EVILPIG]

I'm shocked the VS have not flooded this thread with opposition. The ability of the Mag to fight and keep it's rear away is one of it's strengths.

[Baneblade]

Probably because even the VS realize that other MBTs are not what is most likely to exploit the Achilles Heel all MBTs have.

[Condolences]

The situational damage depends on the location you fire from, not were you hit them as far as I know.
So a guided rocket fired from the front of a tank, cannot do double dmg even when hitting it in the back.

Don't understand at all why dmg is calculated like this. Assume this will be changed to a more logical system.
Unless this already happened and this post is completely useless