Headshots on MAXes - Page 3

CutterJohn · 2011-09-13, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Raka Maru

What kind of weapon/armor designer would make a Max suit with a weak back side? Helmets should be the strongest part of any soldier armor.

How about face plate is vulnerable with special bullets and very small hitbox, but rest of helmet has extra protection?

Logical weapon designers. You cannot simply add more and more armor. Beyond a certain point, it becomes excessive, and then actively detrimental because it weighs so much. So they prioritize. Armor the biggest weak spots, and the most likely avenues of attack. Seems pretty reasonable that a MAX would have a larger portion of armor up front, since that is the direction most threats would come from, whether defending a position or advancing on one.

I'm still trying to decide how much I'd like seeing snipers able to headshot MAXs. It seems appropriate, but.. Outdoors? MAXs were already pretty gimply outdoors in PS1. I wouldn't want to see it even easier to take them out.

Raka Maru · 2011-09-14, 03:58 AM

In PS1 I don't bother sniping maxes because of getting discovered unless armor is down. Perhaps with hitboxes (say in leg) can stop functions like mobility. When BFRs get targeted it seems random systems get slowed, but maybe it can be built upon this system.

Max on a hill, descend with phantasm, two bullets to back of neck (small hitbox) or faceplate.

Heaven · 2011-09-14, 07:39 AM

No way to head shots on MAX units I don't like that idea at all, there slow moving unless running and when running can't usually fire anyway so when they are shooting there going to be sitting ducks and big fat targets for all the snipers. This would be a game killer for me as I love to play MAX units I really don't think it should be implemented in the game what so ever!

kidwithstick · 2011-09-14, 08:24 PM

headshots shouldnt do more on MAX's.

Accuser · 2011-09-14, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Seems pretty reasonable that a MAX would have a larger portion of armor up front, since that is the direction most threats would come from, whether defending a position or advancing on one.

Like any modern armored unit, this makes sense. Having a "weaker point" in the back would make perfect sense. I wouldn't expect you to one-shot a max by shooting the weak point, but you could certainly do +50% damage there.

Brusi · 2011-09-14, 09:44 PM

Current MAX Units in Planetside have a major weak point, it's called AV weapons.

I like the idea that an barely concentrating max should be more vulnerable to a guy with with a regular gun, but making it too easy to kill a max with a regular gun will scale pretty badly. If there are super hard AV counters to MAX Units in PS2 like there is in PS, then i wouldn't recommend creating too many new ones.

Scow2 · 2011-09-16, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Furret

I'm all for weak spots on MAX's, but also jacking up their health if you don't hit them in a weak point (ie. visor or joint).

I don't think weakening back armor is a good idea though, no sane engineer would put less armor on a spot that doesn't move anyway.

Why are modern tanks less armored in the back, then?

No sane engineer would put armor on a spot that isn't normally accessible to enemy gunfire. No sane engineer would waste space and tonnage on armor that is needed for critical systems such as the power supply and engines.

As far as face-shots go... Bolt-drivers and Rockets only.

On that note, Bolt-drivers should be able to pick apart vehicles.

MAX suits should also get a mobility boost when outdoors.

Graywolves · 2011-09-16, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Scow2

Why are modern tanks less armored in the back, then?

No sane engineer would put armor on a spot that isn't normally accessible to enemy gunfire. No sane engineer would waste space and tonnage on armor that is needed for critical systems such as the power supply and engines.

As far as face-shots go... Bolt-drivers and Rockets only.

On that note, Bolt-drivers should be able to pick apart vehicles.

MAX suits should also get a mobility boost when outdoors.

How are you aware of armor weakness in modern tanks which have classified armor?

2coolforu · 2011-09-16, 11:29 PM

It's a design philosophy that's been known for ever and ever, even plate armor was significantly thicker in vital areas/on the front than it was on the back. This philosophy is in every military vehicle, you concentrate protection in the vital areas.

Just as defensive tech increases the offensive tech increases and it's a lot easier to blow stuff up than it is to stop it getting blown up. From WW2 we've gone from 40-50mm weapons to 120-125mm weaponry with far more deadly ammunition. The only way to keep up is to concentrate armor in vital areas, in this case all the armor is poured on the front of the vehicle and on the turret as this presents the smallest area to the enemy as the front is low profile. The front is heavily sloped to increase armor thickness even more and the fundamental tenet of Armored combat is to preferably get hull down and never ever present your rear armor to the enemy. If a tank is being surrounded then it's definitely doing something wrong, the same design philosophy exists with a MAX, you shouldn't be getting surrounded. Just like a medieval knight the vast majority of the impacts should be coming from the front and the rear should be protected by friendly troops.

Graywolves · 2011-09-16, 11:43 PM

The contemporary operating environment rebukes the logic of rear weakness.

2coolforu · 2011-09-16, 11:51 PM

You can't have an affordable vehicle with acceptable ground pressure, size, mobility and fuel consumption and have the thing totally plated in 2ft of Chobham. Increasing armor means getting an engine that's exponentially more efficient in Wattage per kilo which is exponentially expensive. That means you have a massive increase in expense for a minor increase in protection.

Inevitably it simply becomes easier to just point the front towards the enemy and retain a good mobility and firepower as well as good armor. This has been a constant throughout history due to fundamental laws as well as inerrant truths. Wasn't the Maus and King Tiger kinda similar to this? They wanted an ultimate tank but in the end they just absorbed money and weren't nearly as effective as smaller tanks spammed en masse, for the price and resources it took to produce one king tiger the USSR could make 5 IS-2's or 20 T-34/88's and destroy it with ease. Even then all these 'ridiculous' tanks still stuck to the idea of stronger front armor.

The Russian philosophy is kinda the ultimate version of this, they have tens of thousands of tanks that are relatively light (40-50 tons) but have strong front armor and lack other protection. The result is they cost an incredibly small amount to produce but sacrifice some survivability. Sure you can have 2000 tanks with superarmor all the way around, but then your opponent can produce 20,000/30,000 of a tank with the same amount of front armor but less side and rear and merely keep facing towards you and adopt a doctrine that supports that tactic. Chances are with all that armor the tank is underpowered for its weight and is slow/inefficient/fuel hungry/has a small cannon relative to tonnage and therefore lacks range, requires huge and vulnerable fuel supplies and has massive maintenance costs and supply problems whereas a tank that sheds weight on the rear and side armors is more fuel efficient and can afford to carry a far larger gun that can outrange the 'fully' armored tank while keeping the same level of protection and using doctrine to replace armor. In fact it's probably even more armored than the other tank as it can afford to carry a larger gun which effectively nullifies the armor advantage of the 'all round armor' tank while its concentrated armor defends against the sub-calibre 'all round armor' tank.

Talek Krell · 2011-09-17, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Graywolves

The contemporary operating environment rebukes the logic of rear weakness.

It's possible they've changed the armor distribution I guess. How old are most "modern" tank designs though?

Vernam · 2011-09-17, 01:30 AM

Even if you can't get a headshot on a MAX
I'd still probably aim for the only bare spot on the TR Max just for fun — right in the mouth.

Sirisian · 2011-09-17, 02:07 AM

Maxes have melee remember. If you get close now you probably die fast. It would be very risky getting or trying to get around them if they're facing you. The attacking in the back (especially if they run away) is sounds really nice.

Could be their shield generator also on the back that is exposed to generate the shield. I'm still not clear if maxes have health and armor and shields or just health and shields or health and armor. Would be nice if they had a shield that protected against sniper rounds. If you EMP them then they'd be open for ranged attacks.

Traak · 2011-09-17, 04:33 AM

Sure, if any max is a one-shot-kill against any infantry, at any range.

The whole headshot thing is, to me, dragging PS towards being BF or UT, or something similar. Apes on crank can find those games still on the shelves. Thinking humans, however, prefer Planetside.