Weak Spots - Page 2

Rbstr · 2011-05-22, 08:47 PM

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?

Baneblade · 2011-05-22, 11:10 PM

I think tanks should require more crew. Driver/Gunner duo is not enough imo. In addition to weak points, they should have more than one secondary gun. Like the Baneblade really.

Make tanks monsters, but make them take more damage at certain points.

Hamma · 2011-05-24, 03:56 PM

I remember people always saying Turrent in Tribes. I think it was just one of those silly words that stuck now people say it. I like Urban Dictionary's descriptions:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turrent

Rbstr · 2011-05-24, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I think tanks should require more crew. Driver/Gunner duo is not enough imo. In addition to weak points, they should have more than one secondary gun.

I'm all for Warhammer 40k lolturrets craziness.
If we got a Warhammer 40k MMO, because it would work with the rest of the insanity.

But not in Planetside. It's not supposed to snap suspension of disbelief like a twig under the rule of cool.
A given weapon type doesn't tend to evolve to be more complex and less practical for people. (Although the technology itself may become more intricate, that's not the same as the complexity of use)