Gameplay: Shaped Explosive Delivery System (Spare the Ride, Split the Driver) - Page 2

Hypevosa · 2012-05-19, 08:57 PM

Look, the burden of proof is on you - if you can find me some articles on real life Neutron Mines, go for it, but everything I see is from C&C or some other sci-fi game.

Baneblade · 2012-05-19, 08:59 PM

Okay, even though you are being obstinate, I'll bite.

Toppopia · 2012-05-19, 09:02 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

This is the closest you will find i think. Because Neutron Mines either comes with games, or that tv show about Jimmy Neutron.

Hypevosa · 2012-05-20, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Toppopia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

This is the closest you will find i think. Because Neutron Mines either comes with games, or that tv show about Jimmy Neutron.

Exactly. I'm not debating the existence of a neutron bomb, but the existence of a neutron mine - the neutron mine isn't hard science yet in my book.

EDIT: I'll also note that even the neutron bomb's highest radiation zone takes 2 days to kill people. It's not effective for the purpose proposed.

Baneblade · 2012-05-20, 09:11 AM

It's a fuckin game dude, we have tanks that float ffs.

Hypevosa · 2012-05-20, 11:12 AM

That's an issue of a power source, that's the one thing in sci fi that always needs to be fudged in order for the hard science to work. We already have the ability to create and use shaped charges - why use neutron mines instead of something simpler, safer, and real?

Baneblade · 2012-05-20, 11:42 AM

Because PS1 already had an extreme radiation weapon, so it isn't unprecedented. Not to mention your shaped charge would be an OSOK on drivers, which is hardly going to be fun.

Hypevosa · 2012-05-20, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Because PS1 already had an extreme radiation weapon, so it isn't unprecedented. Not to mention your shaped charge would be an OSOK on drivers, which is hardly going to be fun.

If the user has the ability to stab a fly with a screwdriver, or the driver is sitting still taking pot shots at people, and then the driver doesn't have the wherewithal to ditch after hearing the thud and beeping it's their own fault for getting killed. It also means you aren't playing well with others since no one bothered to shoot it off you. The user of the weapon has every chance to muck it up, and the driver has even more chances to muck it up for them - dying to this weapon means that you're really the only one to blame. It would be like standing still while you watch a rocket barrel towards you and fly up your nose.

EDIT: and from what I can tell, the Extreme Radiation Weapon from PS1 is a Vanu only weapon - by extension, so would the mine. While I intend to play Vanu, this weapon was meant for everyone to use.

Baneblade · 2012-05-20, 12:35 PM

It seems to me that what you really want is a cloaker weapon that is able to killwhore vehicle occupants.

Hypevosa · 2012-05-20, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

It seems to me that what you really want is a cloaker weapon that is able to killwhore vehicle occupants.

Which is exactly why it's proposed as a highly limited capacity item like a grenade, and why I proposed the other weapon be a MAX only weapon... because that's totally conducive to cloaker kill whoring... xD

Marinealver · 2012-05-22, 02:56 PM

PS1 did have radiators which did damage only to health to include passengers and drivers. No damage to vehicles or armor.

Me personally would be too complex because then you would need to physcally program a hole in the hull. Also not all armor penetrationg tank kills simply kill the people inside. True but if something has enough energy to punch through the armor then it has enough energy not also to incapacitate the crew but also as well be able to disentegrate the insturments, turn the engine into scrap metal, and start a fire to ignight the remaning ammunition often resulting in an explosion from inside the tank. That is why many destroyed tanks look like the turret has been popped off and flip upside down after a kill.

IF you want to get technical and or realistic there is 3 types of disabilities aka Kills for tanks and then destroyed. Firepower kill which destroys the main gun. Mobility kill which disables the vehicle from moving, crew kill which happens but is usually acompanied with other damage, and then there is straight up destroyed.

Gonefshn · 2012-05-22, 07:24 PM

revisiting this idea I think the main thing I still disagree with is the advantage and difference it makes that you don't destroy the vehicle.

To me, who cares? I'd rather it just destroy the vehicle honestly this just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm also of the opinion people should have to rely on one another to survive and win. Certain classes and players should be useless against tanks. That's part of the trade-off and it forces you to roll with team mates who are equiped for the job. To me if your alone is PS2 your failing. Instead of having a weapon for cloakers or LA to take out tanks why not just always run with a friend who has AV weapons? Or better yet, many friends in a huge squad and play as a team.

Metalsheep · 2012-05-22, 08:17 PM

I didnt read the whole post, but i'd like to see something similar for Anti Armor that replaces the C4. It never made sense to me that C4 could destroy a Tank. The Reactive Armor on a tank should, in theory, just laugh off a C4 charge. It cant peirce the armor and get into the vulnerable systems of a vehicle. It just explodes everywhere. But a Shaped Charge is designed to Pierce the armor of a vehicle and kill Crew/Vital Systems. Instead of the Shaped charge being a rocket-delivered system. (Since really, all Anti Armor rockets SHOULD be shaped charges... they wouldnt be effective if they werent.) You make it delivered like the C4. C4 could act more like Anti Personel or Anti Structure charges (For engi deployables and Turrets/Generators/Base stuff), and the Shaped Charge would be for the infantry that like to stick bombs to tanks. So that way infantry again get to choose what kind of capability they want, instead of letting every infantrymen carry a C4 that can jack up anything and everything.

Hypevosa · 2012-05-23, 10:20 AM

The idea only really has a place if tanks and other vehicles aren't taken down in just a few hits. If they're all fragile and end up going down in just 3 or 4 rocket hits, the idea is redundant, but if it actually takes 10 rockets to kill a heavy tank it becomes apparent where this idea is meant to shine. It also depends on if normal infantry actually has an AV option like rocket launchers (I was under the impression that all classes pretty much had some AV option, this was just meant to be another, or at least a special grenade option for the light infantry)

You don't need to program an actual hole in the tank - you can just have a nano-effect that makes it look like the small hole is quickly repaired.

The difference between rocket launcher shaped charges and this shaped charge does, is that this device guarantees the optimal space between the charge and the tank, and that the angle is perpendicular so the hole actually goes through. You can't do that with RPGs and the like, and that's why this is meant to be much more effective.

Talek Krell · 2012-05-24, 07:39 PM

I don't think I like this specific incarnation of the idea. If infantry were felt to need some more AV I would think along the lines of an anti-tank sticky grenade, but gibbing the driver and leaving the vehicle both seem pointless to me.