Hitbox on Tanks

ParisTeta · 2012-07-29, 02:09 PM

What do we officialy know about the hitboxes on tanks?

We know there are Front an Back Armor. It taken for granted somehow we have side armor too (though i don`t remember seeing a prove in a video).

What about the Top and the Bottom of the tank? What about the turrets (if exist...pooooooor maggi). To they have different armor values, to they have different hitboxes?

So how delicated is the hitbox/armor design on tanks (and proalby other vehicle).
Maybe a dev can tell or share a picture with actual ingame hitboxes? That would be cool.

Canadian Vanu · 2012-07-29, 02:18 PM

I would expect the turrets to have weak spots for the ones that rotate. So magrider may be a bit more powerful (defence wise) due to a fixed turret.

As for the bottoms and tops of the tank, I would also expect the bottom to be vulnerable and the top less so.

I really wish they use a detailed tank hit box, so we may get tank sim quality tank battles.

Rodel · 2012-07-29, 02:27 PM

All I've heard come from the devs is that Front=strong and back=weak side=medium. Dont know about top or empire specific variations.

Deadeye · 2012-07-29, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Canadian Vanu

I would expect the turrets to have weak spots for the ones that rotate. So magrider may be a bit more powerful (defence wise) due to a fixed turret.

As for the bottoms and tops of the tank, I would also expect the bottom to be vulnerable and the top less so.

I really wish they use a detailed tank hit box, so we may get tank sim quality tank battles.

Would like to see at least a little bit of World of Tanks type shell physics. Not the aim for weakspots thing but glancing blows should just ricochet rather than do any damage.

Mauser101 · 2012-07-29, 02:29 PM

I'd love to see well modeled hitboxes on tanks. Here is an example of a player generated skin that shows various hit locations on an American tank in World of Tanks...

I'm not calling for player skins, it's just used an example for how hitboxes work in WoT. The above skin is really mostly useful in WoT for those using High Explosive ammo which deals great locational damage but has shoddy penetration and overall hitpoints damage.

Now WoT does some things that I do not expect PS2 to do. You have serious locational damage which can cause part of your tank (tracks, gun, driver, commander, turret rotation, engine, engine fire, ammo...etc) to become damaged or be destroyed leading to decreases in effectiveness in a related area.

In WoT your tank commander will also holler, "We didn't penetrate there armor!" or some such when the round doesn't go through. It doesn't seem there will be any such thing as a weapon not penetrating in PS2 nor are you likely to have the auditory cue that you're not being effective...and without some sort of cue that you're hitting but not doing damage I don't see this as being fun in PS2.

What PS2 could easily have is, what it appears to already have, decreased damage degredation on various locations of the model. They could, I assume, add degredation amounts to the top (particularly to the top of the turret) and sides of the tank models.

Arkanor · 2012-07-29, 02:47 PM

Battlefield 3 had a simplified tank damage system (in relation to WoT) that seems like it would work for this style game. I wouldn't mind the WoT system of bounce/glance hits on poorly-angled shots though either.

In BF3, front armor shots did minimal damage (like 24/100 or something), side shots did more, rear shots did more. However, if your side shot was not angled at the 90 degree it would not do as much, glancing side shots at a 0-20 degree angle would do about the same damage as a front-armor shot, and that ramped up in steps to the maximum side damage allowed.

Gugabalog · 2012-07-29, 02:54 PM

^ That seems a reasonable system, though we have seen that front armor is immune to small arms but rear armor is not on tanks in PS2

Turdicus · 2012-07-29, 03:17 PM

Separate armor values for front side back bottom and top. Don't ask how I know this....I just know things

Littleman · 2012-07-29, 03:21 PM

Concerning the size of PS2, every hitbox is yet another factor for the server to crunch. Most games implement several hitboxes on their infantry for locational damage. Leg shots aren't as deadly as body shots for example. However, Planetside 2 is going to sport thousands of players going at it, things need to be simplified for the sake of lag and processing power wherever SOE can get away with it.

That said, I expect the turret on tanks to pretty much be medium armored from all sides, and taking a hit equals taking a hit, regardless of the angle of impact.

opticalshadow · 2012-07-29, 03:48 PM

id love for wot style hitboxes...as long as we dont have pen's with no dmg...

Justaman · 2012-07-29, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Arkanor

Battlefield 3 had a simplified tank damage system (in relation to WoT) that seems like it would work for this style game. I wouldn't mind the WoT system of bounce/glance hits on poorly-angled shots though either.

In BF3, front armor shots did minimal damage (like 24/100 or something), side shots did more, rear shots did more. However, if your side shot was not angled at the 90 degree it would not do as much, glancing side shots at a 0-20 degree angle would do about the same damage as a front-armor shot, and that ramped up in steps to the maximum side damage allowed.

I think that at the least would be very nice.

golfmasta34 · 2012-07-29, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Littleman

Concerning the size of PS2, every hitbox is yet another factor for the server to crunch. Most games implement several hitboxes on their infantry for locational damage. Leg shots aren't as deadly as body shots for example. However, Planetside 2 is going to sport thousands of players going at it, things need to be simplified for the sake of lag and processing power wherever SOE can get away with it.

That said, I expect the turret on tanks to pretty much be medium armored from all sides, and taking a hit equals taking a hit, regardless of the angle of impact.

^^This^^

I expect we'll have BF3 level tank hitboxes. That'll be fine for a game with such a large scope.

Fanglord · 2012-07-29, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

^ That seems a reasonable system, though we have seen that front armor is immune to small arms but rear armor is not on tanks in PS2

Tbf I think small arms should be pretty ineffective on any side on heavy armoured vehicles; I always thought that was stupid when you could finish off a badly damaged tank with pistols on certain games.

EVILPIG · 2012-07-29, 06:30 PM

It goes a little beyond Front/Side/Rear. It was explained a long time ago that tanks take the most damage from the low and behind.

PlaceboCyanide · 2012-07-29, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Littleman

Concerning the size of PS2, every hitbox is yet another factor for the server to crunch. Most games implement several hitboxes on their infantry for locational damage. Leg shots aren't as deadly as body shots for example. However, Planetside 2 is going to sport thousands of players going at it, things need to be simplified for the sake of lag and processing power wherever SOE can get away with it.

That said, I expect the turret on tanks to pretty much be medium armored from all sides, and taking a hit equals taking a hit, regardless of the angle of impact.

You said everything I was going to