Missile as physical objects.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Vash02

What about VS weapons? Cant blow up a sphere of pure destructive energy with bullets.

No but you probably could just stick large electromagnets around the base and render the whole VS arsenal inert

[Graywolves]

Could be interesting.

[Whalenator]

Uhm. MAYBE missiles.
Maybe. But tanks shells? What the hell. That's not possible. At all. If you want to block a tank shell find cover.

[Eyeklops]

Originally Posted by Whalenator

Uhm. MAYBE missiles.
Maybe. But tanks shells? What the hell. That's not possible. At all. If you want to block a tank shell find cover.

Agree, no way even a 50 cal would slow down a tank round any significant amount.

[Sirisian]

Bumping this since I feel it's an important concept that would really make Planetside 2 stand out. (Maybe it could be moved to the idea forum).

Originally Posted by Mastachief

A tank shell is a tank shell, it moves very very fast (some currently day shells 1,740 m/s).

Actually in Planetside 2 the tank shells move very slow allowing you to dodge them among other things. They're not implementing realistic speeds for them which I think is great for allowing things like people have mentioned in this thread.

[Senyu]

The only reason I see tank shells having armor is if it somehow incorporated its effects agaisn't objects and their armor. In regards of improving your shell to have more armor thus be stronger agaisn't other armor. But should be left alone.


Now missles having armor and destructable would be awesome. You can go into a whole range of missle upgrades and modifications to. I also want a flare type system in that messes with lock on missle weapons.

[EVILPIG]

Given that Higby plays Tribes Ascend, I'm surprised that this wasn't already planned. I'm sure it will make it in now.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Bumping this since I feel it's an important concept that would really make Planetside 2 stand out. (Maybe it could be moved to the idea forum).


Actually in Planetside 2 the tank shells move very slow allowing you to dodge them among other things. They're not implementing realistic speeds for them which I think is great for allowing things like people have mentioned in this thread.

Surely you speak of Planetside 1, not 2? You haven't even played it and in the footage we have seen, shells seem much faster.

[Saieno]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Surely you speak of Planetside 1, not 2? You haven't even played it and in the footage we have seen, shells seem much faster.

For quoting something it doesn't seem like you read it very well. He's definitely speaking of Planetside 2, since in reality rounds move at blindly fast speeds. They move slower in games to make it easier to dodge and for balance reasons. For example a sabot round, used against main battle tanks, travels close to 4,000 feet per second (or 2,700MPH). For a HEAT round, it's closer to 2000 fps (1,400MPH). During the War Between the States, a typical field artillery piece was ~1500 fps or (1,000MPH). Try dodging that.

[Hypevosa]

I would love it - my friends and I in halo 3 had fun dicking around by shooting rockets and grenades out of the air with a sniper rifle.... it was awesome.

[Hooah]

To shoot down arty with small arms would be in my opinion stupidly unrealistic... Would be as realistic as sinking the USS Nimitz with a canoe armed with a bow and arrow.

[Kran De Loy]

I'm all for being able to shoot down missles, but that's all.

Tank shells are much more durable and their very nature is to penetrate heavy armor before bursting so the idea of anything other than another tank shell being able to take one out is ludicrous. Since the only thing really capable of stopping a tank shell in midair is either a very hard surface or another shell then I see no point at all in burdening the servers with hit detections in that regard.

Same thing with Artillery shells. Neither of these things are usually designed to have self propulsion systems because they don't need to be light enough to fly as far as possible.

Missiles and rockets however, could be penetrated with heavy caliber ammunition like a .50 cal and while it's not realistic to be able to shoot one down normally it would be pretty bad ass and awesome. It's just they should need to take a severe beating before they blow. NC could get one or two lucky shots off and take it down with their high powered weaponry. TR would need to spam crap, but they would likely be the most reliable at taking down missiles locks. VS would be the mix between the two for obvious reasons.

As for taking down a VS Fission projectile, it's a mass of plasma with tracking systems somehow built in, right? Just say the plasma can only absorb so much additional mass before it drastically begins to lose it's integrity, which to me makes more sense than having a fast traveling ball of plasma that can track targets in the first place.

[Toppopia]

Isn't the point of games having slow travelling projectiles is so that you can see the tracer fly through the air and see where its going/coming from? I don't think shooting down tank shells would be good because as someone mentioned earlier they move at blindingly fast speeds and unless the shell is really far away a defense system wouldn't have time to track and shoot it down, i could imagine base defenses sometimes shooting down missiles with a nice fireworks display but realistically a player wouldn't beable to do it.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

Tank shells are much more durable and their very nature is to penetrate heavy armor before bursting so the idea of anything other than another tank shell being able to take one out is ludicrous. Since the only thing really capable of stopping a tank shell in midair is either a very hard surface or another shell then I see no point at all in burdening the servers with hit detections in that regard.

PhysX uses a rather nice spatial partitioning system. It wouldn't be that big of a deal for it especially with how it works. It might not be intuitive if you're not a programmer how certain operations can be trivial like sphere vs sphere collision compared to say a tank polygon object hitting a tree polygon object. I guess it's easy to explain it like that. A sphere is a really simple primitive for collision that PhysX is really good at handling. Especially for it's continuous collision detection stuff since a sphere is a special case. (It should also be mentioned the spatial partitioning culls most of the collisions down to a few pairs).

I think it would be cool to see if it can be done in a fair way where one projectile isn't collectively better at trumping another projectile in a fight. *cough* prowler rate of fire *cough* I'm more curious about random stuff like tank shell vs aircraft rocket or AI gun vs a player's AV. That kind of stuff sounds fun and really adds to the complexity of battle if you can have a gunner not just defending you by killing, but also taking down threats if he sees the person doing it.

Originally Posted by Toppopia

I don't think shooting down tank shells would be good because as someone mentioned earlier they move at blindingly fast speeds and unless the shell is really far away a defense system wouldn't have time to track and shoot it down, i could imagine base defenses sometimes shooting down missiles with a nice fireworks display but realistically a player wouldn't beable to do it.

It didn't look like the rockets moved that fast. What with say a lightning aiming at a plane already with its AA and letting off rounds it's not really about reaction time. If you're in a lightning and see a target and predict "hey this guy is going to try to use rockets" then you can just light him up with flak or whatever and if he launches his rockets a few might get hit by flak which is a reward for good precision and prediction. Obviously a pilot that dives from above wouldn't have such a problem. (Looks like the turret can't look up far). Opens up some more complexity that wouldn't exist otherwise.

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

PhysX uses a rather nice spatial partitioning system. It wouldn't be that big of a deal for it especially with how it works. It might not be intuitive if you're not a programmer how certain operations can be trivial like sphere vs sphere collision compared to say a tank polygon object hitting a tree polygon object. I guess it's easy to explain it like that. A sphere is a really simple primitive for collision that PhysX is really good at handling. Especially for it's continuous collision detection stuff since a sphere is a special case. (It should also be mentioned the spatial partitioning culls most of the collisions down to a few pairs).

I think it would be cool to see if it can be done in a fair way where one projectile isn't collectively better at trumping another projectile in a fight. *cough* prowler rate of fire *cough* I'm more curious about random stuff like tank shell vs aircraft rocket or AI gun vs a player's AV. That kind of stuff sounds fun and really adds to the complexity of battle if you can have a gunner not just defending you by killing, but also taking down threats if he sees the person doing it.


It didn't look like the rockets moved that fast. What with say a lightning aiming at a plane already with its AA and letting off rounds it's not really about reaction time. If you're in a lightning and see a target and predict "hey this guy is going to try to use rockets" then you can just light him up with flak or whatever and if he launches his rockets a few might get hit by flak which is a reward for good precision and prediction. Obviously a pilot that dives from above wouldn't have such a problem. (Looks like the turret can't look up far). Opens up some more complexity that wouldn't exist otherwise.

Cool about that programming stuff, I hope they use it.

As for the Lightning, it's said to have an 80 degree fireing arc (the standard AA/AV weapon I think) so a pilot coming at a Lightning from an greater than 80 degree intercept would be pretty much using their engines to fly strait at the ground. And the lightning is a fast vehicle, too so it could logically move enough to get it's AA into use quickly enough should it somehow spot the enemy aircraft.

Personally I would rather try coming in from between tree cover or low hills/structures.