Vehicle hard point system - Page 2

DviddLeff · 2011-02-06, 07:47 AM

The way I have it is that the vehicle chassis has the cert cost which grants you the default weapons we have currently. Then as the player earns Associated merits they can pick additional weapons to unlock for that chassis. Perhaps the vehicle could also have a few common pool weapons as well

Hamma · 2011-02-06, 12:04 PM

I don't think a hard point system is a bad idea per say. But I do have similar concerns as everyone else.

As mentioned, every vehicle has it's role to fill which means you need a variety of players to have a variety of different vehicles.

If a hard point system did exist it would need restrictions to the weapons you could place on it. Different guns for different types of encounters for example. Or as mentioned - maybe even different ammo types could fit that role.

I think it's an awesome idea, that adds some customizability to vehicles otherwise not customizable. But I do think it will need limits to keep vehicles from filling all roles.

CutterJohn · 2011-02-06, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

The way I have it is that the vehicle chassis has the cert cost which grants you the default weapons we have currently. Then as the player earns Associated merits they can pick additional weapons to unlock for that chassis. Perhaps the vehicle could also have a few common pool weapons as well

I must say I'm not a particular fan of merits. BEP is already there to limit what you can use. The merits just end up forcing you to do X for a period of time in order to qualify for the rather different Y, which is somewhat silly.

Bags · 2011-02-06, 05:30 PM

Merits should have as little impact as possible in game play. Achievements are ruining games now adays as everyone just focuses on getting them instead of playing.

Sifer2 · 2011-02-06, 06:34 PM

I always felt the reason Infantry got to choose weapon types was because they were more frail and always available. Vehicles were tougher to kill. So it made more sense for their role to be specialized. It's probably a large part of what BFR's did wrong since who ever designed them did not take this into account.

Just seems like when a vehicle can do anything that people will figure out which vehicle is the best an that's all you will see is it with different loadouts.

CutterJohn · 2011-02-06, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

I always felt the reason Infantry got to choose weapon types was because they were more frail and always available. Vehicles were tougher to kill. So it made more sense for their role to be specialized. It's probably a large part of what BFR's did wrong since who ever designed them did not take this into account.

Just seems like when a vehicle can do anything that people will figure out which vehicle is the best an that's all you will see is it with different loadouts.

But best is highly dependent on what you are trying to accomplish, terrain, and battle conditions. Were BFRs with AA better than skyguards? At surviving, perhaps. Or mobility, if you consider the FV. But they certainly weren't as lethal.

A deliverer with, say, AI grenade launchers(aurora) or AV rocket launchers(Thunderer) would probably not be preferable to a tank like the prowler or vanny for AI work. But it would certainly be preferable around a bridge.

And speaking as one who spent a disgusting amount of time in tank columns, vehicles aren't that hard to destroy, except for exposed infantry on open ground.

Evilmp · 2011-02-07, 05:55 AM

I don't agree with weapon hardpoints if the weapons do damage. Instead, let your implants augment the vehicle's abilities.

Firefly · 2011-02-07, 08:40 AM

I think a points system basically gets rid of the need for all but a handful of vehicles. I don't want to be running across a base courtyard only for some asshole in a Harasser to splash-damage me with a Vanguard main-gun.

Hamma · 2011-02-07, 10:06 AM

I agree, if it was to be done (as I said) it would have to get away from a jack of all trades mentality.

Krushiev · 2011-02-07, 11:52 AM

Instead of vehicle hard points, how about in open vehicles (Harasser, Skyguard, etc) the gunner could opt to use his personal weaponry, at an accuracy or RoF penalty cost, of course.

Something like out of an action film, where the gunner sticks half his body out of the passenger seat from a Harasser and uses his Striker instead of the mounted chain gun. To balance it out, if a bump is taken too hard... Ooopsie, gunner just fell out.

That would be the only middle ground that I can see to this topic, because there would definitely be a "jack of all trades" mentality that would develop if the players could switch weapon types for a vehicle.

Krush

CutterJohn · 2011-02-07, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

I think a points system basically gets rid of the need for all but a handful of vehicles. I don't want to be running across a base courtyard only for some asshole in a Harasser to splash-damage me with a Vanguard main-gun.

1. What if some asshole in a vanguard splashes you with the vanguards main gun?

2. Considering the vanny is a tank, and the harasser is at best a jeep, I doubt it would fit the same level of weaponry. Harasser has the 12mm. Suitable replacements for that would be things like the furys rocket launcher or the 75mm cannon.

Oh, one other thought. What if only the gunner could add these things? I.e. the gunner needs to be certed in the weapon system in order to pull it, while the driver needs the vehicle.

Traak · 2011-02-08, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

I don't think a hard point system is a bad idea per say. (THAT'S PER SE)

But I do have similar concerns as everyone else.

As mentioned, every vehicle has it's role to fill which means you need a variety of players to have a variety of different vehicles.

If a hard point system did exist it would need restrictions to the weapons you could place on it. Different guns for different types of encounters for example. Or as mentioned - maybe even different ammo types could fit that role.

I think it's an awesome idea, that adds some customizability to vehicles otherwise not customizable. But I do think it will need limits to keep vehicles from filling all roles.

Yeah, don't want a Reaver with rockets, bombs, OS cannon, DL-make-all-cloakers-glow pods (Plasmanades), EMP, AWACS, OMG, RQ and US.

Rage Quit and Unsubscribe were the last two.

Originally Posted by Evilmp

I don't agree with weapon hardpoints if the weapons do damage. Instead, let your implants augment the vehicle's abilities.

Oh, no, not that. The Cloaker Uber-Pistols on a vehicular scale.

Big, steaming dish of NO THANK YOU.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

And speaking as one who spent a disgusting amount of time in tank columns, vehicles aren't that hard to destroy, except for exposed infantry on open ground.

Which is stupid and should change. The reward for being in an armored column should be battlefield supremacy, not "sardine can for Reaver spam" crap that it is now, or even for Mossies to pick apart Scot-free.

Easy cure for Air Cav: One-shot-kill missiles. You hear the trilling of the one-shot missile, and it's either bug out, or die. I would pay 12 certs for that.

Evilmp · 2011-02-08, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

Oh, no, not that. The Cloaker Uber-Pistols on a vehicular scale.

Big, steaming dish of NO THANK YOU.

what are you talking about?

explain a little bit more as to how that situation would come about please

DviddLeff · 2011-02-08, 12:38 PM

If an aircraft gets hit by a tank shell it should die.

Sirisian · 2011-02-08, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

If an aircraft gets hit by a tank shell it should die.

Step back think about what you're saying. It's not that hard to hit a plane with a tank shell. Also only NC and TR have tank shells. Would the round from a lightning count? Would the energy shell from a Magrider count? I used to shoot planes out of the air all the time with the Magrider. If it was one hit that would take all the fun out of it.