TTK for Vehicles

Peacemaker · 2011-07-22, 04:22 PM

Couple months back I made a thread about the pace of PS2 being very important, as the pace of PS1 was awsome. When I say pace I basicly am talking about TTK. Unless in extreme close combat you normally had time to take cover when under fire. Obviously they have stated that the TTK has been reduced, and I hope it isn't what its like to play CoD. It will however make balancing weapons MUCH easier. This brings me to my next thought, what's the vehicle combat going to be like?

TTK on vehicles will be interesting to see, as in real life only a few cannon rounds can bring an aircraft down, and *most* tanks are disabled after taking a direct hit sometimes two. How will this happen in PS2?

If the TTK is too high they will SLAUGHTER infantry. Too low and it becomes pointless to even roll a tank, as one infantry with AV could presumeably rape a vehicle, and maybe before they even have a chance. Done right this could be awsome, hitting a reaver with 10 - 20 cannon rounds in a good high speed dog fight, or a tank fight where its decided in two or three shots. infantry that can make a tank pay for pushing too far forward and getting flanked (always found it frustrating having two guys with AV not able to kill a tank before it ran away).

Thoughts? Info?

Bags · 2011-07-22, 04:25 PM

I really like it in Planetside. They aren't invulnerable, but a few uncoordinated infantry won't take them down.

Ranik Ortega · 2011-07-22, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

Couple months back I made a thread about the pace of PS2 being very important, as the pace of PS1 was awsome. When I say pace I basicly am talking about TTK. Unless in extreme close combat you normally had time to take cover when under fire. Obviously they have stated that the TTK has been reduced, and I hope it isn't what its like to play CoD. It will however make balancing weapons MUCH easier. This brings me to my next thought, what's the vehicle combat going to be like?

TTK on vehicles will be interesting to see, as in real life only a few cannon rounds can bring an aircraft down, and *most* tanks are disabled after taking a direct hit sometimes two. How will this happen in PS2?

If the TTK is too high they will SLAUGHTER infantry. Too low and it becomes pointless to even roll a tank, as one infantry with AV could presumeably rape a vehicle, and maybe before they even have a chance. Done right this could be awsome, hitting a reaver with 10 - 20 cannon rounds in a good high speed dog fight, or a tank fight where its decided in two or three shots. infantry that can make a tank pay for pushing too far forward and getting flanked (always found it frustrating having two guys with AV not able to kill a tank before it ran away).

Thoughts? Info?

They have to start from the ground up in my opinion. Start with infantry TTK and balancing THEN worry about vehicles. This is something we can speculate on even less than infantry weapon balance as its dependent and layered on top of infantry combat.

Quovatis · 2011-07-22, 04:36 PM

Vehicles will have locational damage, so hitting it in a weak spot will do more damage than head-on. How it will work for lock-on weapons like the striker (if it exists) is an interesting question. So that complicates the TTK stuff. Of course, I'd like to see it where small arms do zero damage to tanks, but that's just me. Maybe I'm just embarrassed for my Mag being taken out by a repeater a few times.

Aractain · 2011-07-22, 04:45 PM

I really hope they make real use of the locational damage. That means you can have a tank take a lot of punishment in head on fights but if you lose ground you can be flanked and killed easily.

This really emphasises smart driving and situational awarness without having instagib vehicle experinces. Also lets hope there isn't many splash AOE anti-infantry weapons unless its designed specifically for that role, like a grenade launcher.

Ranik Ortega · 2011-07-22, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Vehicles will have locational damage, so hitting it in a weak spot will do more damage than head-on. How it will work for lock-on weapons like the striker (if it exists) is an interesting question. So that complicates the TTK stuff. Of course, I'd like to see it where small arms do zero damage to tanks, but that's just me. Maybe I'm just embarrassed for my Mag being taken out by a repeater a few times.

Originally Posted by Aractain

I really hope they make real use of the locational damage. That means you can have a tank take a lot of punishment in head on fights but if you lose ground you can be flanked and killed easily.

This really emphasises smart driving and situational awarness without having instagib vehicle experinces. Also lets hope there isn't many splash AOE anti-infantry weapons unless its designed specifically for that role, like a grenade launcher.

Yeah in retrospect with locational damage included that complicates things more. Messing with TTK for vehicles seems a nightmare because of courtyard fights where AV infantry can spawn endlessly.

My list of ideas or suggestions if they shorten the TTK for vehicles would be

1: like Quovatis said, tanks have immunitry to small arms fire. All of it.

2: Distinction between AV weapons. Light AV weapons which can be easily maneuvered with and fired but don't do as much damage. And heavy AV weapons which actually are cumbersome to set up and fire. Basically if they shortened the TTK people could easily strafe with decimators and it would be horrifying.

3: Rely more on locational damage and proper scale of AV. Basically a light AV weapon could be used to drop a buggy or lightning. But to actually damage a MBT you would need something bigger.

This is all basically just thoughts on what having a vehicle in a courtyard would be like under a new system and shorter TTK so take it with a pile of salt.

Bags · 2011-07-22, 05:00 PM

Vehicles are already virtually immune to small arms fire in Planetside 1, I see no reason to change it if they are already designing it the same way in Planetside 2.

Rbstr · 2011-07-22, 05:01 PM

I hate that I can lob missile after missile at a single tank and he could drive into an out of my range without exploding. As it stands, even against a few AV units tanks stick around too long.

But it is a delicate balance against the idea of insta-sploding in a larger fight.
The class system helps here because it's likely that the number of AV weapons present on the field at any given time will be significantly lower.
I also get the feeling that the Hex system will tend to spread the population out over larger areas.
Location damage is where the real meat of vehicle damage should be. The front/sides should be able to shrug off an AV round or two, while one up the tailpipe is dangerous.

I think ~10 rounds from a phoenix style gun (That is, on the higher side of damage and fairly easily aimed) should end a tank if hit in the front/sides.
4/5 or so if it's hit on in the back/underside. 6-8 about on the top.
But that all depends on the kinds of AV weapons available. If a pheonix is going to be able to hit the back of a tank from any firing position, things will be unbalanced.

Basically, if a couple of AV dudes get behind a tank, the tank should be doomed. But if that tank minds its heavy armor and keeps it pointed where the damage is coming from, they'll tend to be OK.
It also makes turning tail a scarier prospect.

Keep tanks immune to rifles/HA, buggies/aircraft should feel AP ammo more than they do now. Anything spit-fire-esque should do less AV damage unless it's an AV-type.
The light vs. heavy AV thing is decent...but I would make the distinction less on setup times and annoyances but by class. AV troops get the big guns, Javelin analogue stuff. Heavy rifle-man/HA rexo-suit types or even light infantry that take an SMG get LAW/RPG kind of things.

BorisBlade · 2011-07-22, 05:06 PM

Vehicles are my fave part of the game by far. I hope the pacing is the same. If im gonna die super fast like in BF then thats prob the nail in the coffin for me. Locational damage is fine, but none of this one man can take you out with good hits on a weakspot with his 3 shot deci or whatever.

Honestly PS had it right, the AV weapons did well and allowed for a good way to fight back without being too strong. And again just like the infantry TTK which cant be lowered too much, there are gonna be 1000-1500 players out there which means a zillion AV weapons could be firing your way at any givin time so you need to be able to take some damage, BF damage models wouldnt work at all. Esp since you arent getting magically spawned vehicles that appear by themselves that anyone can drive and at spawn points next door to the fight. You have to travel atleast a little bit from your base and fast vehicel deaths would just be frustrating and boring.

This also ties in with the fact they arent really gonna have specialization of any consequence, so anyone can get the class with the AV and fight the tanks off. (yeah you may not get the bonuses but you still get the basic AV so it doesnt matter much.) Which again means more av will be available then it would if you had to specialize. Although prob not more than in PS1 since most everyone specs AV currently. So you will need the higher armor on the vehicles that PS1 currently has.

And dont do this "immunity to light arms" thing i see alot of tanks and other vehicles get in some other games, keep it simple with just low damage like it currently is, let em use some AP rounds if they want. Not great, in fact they dont to much at all, but it does somethin and immunities are just not fun.

Ranik Ortega · 2011-07-22, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

Stuff

Boris the points being theorized are with shortened TTK and locational damage. We don't need some dude with a jackhammer and AP ammo magically penetrating a MBT because he is shooting it in the ass.

And honestly between Rbstr and my ideas I think we have something workable

Bags · 2011-07-22, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

We don't need some dude with a jackhammer and AP ammo magically penetrating a MBT because he is shooting it in the ass.

Strawman. Nobody wants the Jackhammer to do significant damage to MBTs.

Rbstr · 2011-07-22, 05:28 PM

An addition:
Just because there are a zillion AV rounds out there doesn't mean they all or even any are even aimed at you.
Presumably, you aren't the only tank in existence. If 10 people all take aim at the same tank...its death should be rather quick.
This is the same argument in the infantry balance threads. Besides the 20,100,1000 players Shooting at you, there are 20,100,1000 players to be shot at.

Quovatis · 2011-07-22, 05:34 PM

Go up to any modern tank and shoot 10,000 rounds of 9mm at it. Tell when it blows up. Immunity to small arms fire DOES make perfect sense. IMHO the whole AP round thing was bad in PS1. Either you carry an AV weapon or you don't. AP Jackhammer did more damage over time than a decimator, and that's just crazy.

Rbstr · 2011-07-22, 05:39 PM

shhhh don't make the realism argument. Sci-fi can't be realistic, remember?

Honestly, I agree about AP ammo to some extent. It should do jack shit to tanks or other heavy vehicles.

It should help v. maxes, aircraft and buggy-like vehicles.

Bags · 2011-07-22, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Go up to any modern tank and shoot 10,000 rounds of 9mm at it. Tell when it blows up. Immunity to small arms fire DOES make perfect sense. IMHO the whole AP round thing was bad in PS1. Either you carry an AV weapon or you don't. AP Jackhammer did more damage over time than a decimator, and that's just crazy.

No one is arguing it was realistic. No one ever had a problem with it either. Well, if you died to jackhammers in a MBT you did it wrong.

You're going to need a better reason than "it's unrealistic" to convince me to part with much of anything from Planetside 1.