|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aighun
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
911
   |
Posted - 2014.07.24 18:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
After playing a lot of Warthunder recently I am in favor of more sophisticated damage models for vehicles.
For every weak-spot that any engineers eradicate from mobile armor, there is another one that engineers will design weaponry to take advantage of.
So arguments as to how those weak spots should work or if they are "realistic" or totally arbitrary design decisions are moot. Or, to put a more positive spin on it, both are worth considering. But are questions of specific implementation.
But definitely, without a doubt, more sophisticated damage model for vehicles is an important and worthwhile feature to build into legion.
One that will benefit both gameplay and can add heightened fidelity and realism. If vehicles are designed with shielding, hulls, chassis, wheels, treads, armor and interiors that all take damage differently that will give the designers a lot off opportunities to build more dynamic, engaging and fulfilling vehicle v vehicle and vehicle v infantry combat.
Imaging how much different Dust 514 would have been if you could disable a tank's treads so that it needed time to repair before it could move again? Or if infantry could damage the drive train or steering mechanism of an LAV. Or momentarily disable a turret giving your squad the chance to escape to safety or retaliate.
A more sophisticated damage model would also give vehicle builds more depth and modules more meaning and purpose. Would make proper positioning, use of cover, map awareness and teamwork as important as damage output.
Warthunder has its own issues. But it has been fun to learn the which ammunition works best for a specific encounter, how each tank handles and what each tanks strengths and weakness are.
I wouldn't go so far as making it possible to for a single mercenary with a militia AR to take down a madrugar by hitting that one special "weak spot." Or adding something like a "rodeo" move that infantry could use against vehicles. But it would be great if all tanks were, in certain circumstances, vulnerable to small arms fire and would take meaningful damage from infantry weapons. But before putting anything like that in game it is important for CCP to come up with AV weaponry for infantry that actually work as AV weapons.
|
Aighun
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
911
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 00:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:
In that case, let me shoot someone in the leg and force them to wait to get repairs for it. otherwise they are left laying on the ground.
small arms shouldn't be able to do much of anything to a vehicle. If they were able to disable vehicles in any way, EWAR (actual EWAR, not scanning) would be wholly useless, and it would make it that much easier to smash vehicles.
I do think it might be worthwhile to explore a more granular damage model for infantry. I actually like the idea of being able to shoot someone in the leg to limit their mobility.
I completely agree with your specifics, though, that turning all the small arms into AV weapons is not the best approach to Infantry vs. vehicle combat. Though I think doing something like the OP suggested coud add some flavor to the mix, I am not trying to argue that any small arms fire in and of itself should disable every vehicle.
If it were up to me (and if I were to take a moment to do some armchair game design) I would make small arms fire usually able to damage tanks in a couple of very specific situations. And only occasionally able to damage tanks outside of those situations.
First I would definitely have enter vehicle, exit vehicle animations. And a tank, for example, would be vulnerable to small arms fire when any crew were entering or exiting the tank. Something like, a tank would have to lower shields, and you could fire into the hatch when it was open for crew to enter and exit. Players could damage or kill tank crew or do some damage to systems.
Second, if a tank were already damaged to such an extent that shields were down, armor was severely damaged or destroyed, and vulnerable systems were exposed, small arms fire could further damage those systems.
Anyway, I like the OP's idea, that different vehicles should have different vulnerabilities to small arms fire. I don't agree to the point of making all weapons capable of destroying all vehicles. But it would make for more layered, nuanced, and interesting gameplay. For instance, maybe a tank could have a targeting camera that you could shoot and disable as shields went through a power cycle. The only damage this would do is disable the tank driver's ability to zoom in with the main gun for something like 15 seconds.
Anyway, even if all of this makes for a better Legion, it is much more of a priority to get the actual anti vehicle weaponry right. It is better to have anti vehicle weapons that actually work that to try to figure out a way to make every other weapon in the game an anti vehicle weapon. But it might be worthwhile to do both, if possible. The best way to do this is to implement a more sophisticated damage model for vehicles. |
Aighun
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
911
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 00:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:
lolwut? okay
Well, if you must have an answer it seems like you've misinterpreted, failed to grasp, or possibly even didn't really read through my post and then responded unfavorably to concepts or ideas I am not actually presenting. While I was trying to find common ground and further explore the ideas presented in the thread. I think EWAR should be important and having working EWAR mechanics should take precedence over figuring out how to add small arms fire vs. vehicle combat to the game. But designing a more sophisticated damage model for vehicles will only broaden the possibilities for deep and engaging EWAR. Thing is, this is not a thread about EWAR. Or AV weaponry. Nowhere do I suggest that small arms should take over the role of AV weaponry.
1. More granular does not mean "Legion should be just like Arma." Limited mobility does not mean your character has to lie down on the ground for half an hour until they can get some triage. Limited mobility could be anything to reduced jump height to to a penalty to stamina regen. Limited mobility after taking damage does not equal slow paced gameplay. Destiny has fast paced PvP, and "stunlock". As in, when you take damage from certain types of weapons it limits your mobility and also can throw off your aim when you ads. Personally I would like to see Legion become both more tactical and more fast paced than its predecessor, Dust 514. You may be able to shoot my legs out from under me, but I can still escape, with my rocket pack!
2. What i did write was "I am not trying to argue that any small arms fire in and of itself should disable every vehicle." Not sure how that got interpreted as a suggestion that small arms fire should only damage tanks. I was only using tanks as a hypothetical example. But if you want more, how about, the LAV turret weapon should take damage from all small arms fire. Tank hard systems (drive train, engine, cooling systems, exhaust systems, ammunition racks, or energy weapon ammunition banks) should not take damage from infantry laser weapons. Those are just examples of ways in which to think about or conceptualize how small arms v. vehicles could work in Legion if vehicles have a much more sophisticated damage model.
2.1. Anyway, does anyone know what the classes of ground vehicles are called in Legion? To the best of my knowledge all we really have to go on are the vehicles currently in Dust 514. So I assume you mean HAV. So nowhere do I suggest that an HAV should be "More vulnerable than it already is." For that to even make sense you have to already assume that vehicles in Legion are the same as vehicles in Dust 514. I do not make that assumption. Project legion needs to jettison the entire conception of vehicles that CCP delivered with Dust 514 and start over from scratch. Basing vehicle design on how vehicles play in Dust 514 not the way to go.
3. A tank is not a spaceship. Not really impressed with appeal to EVE since tanks won't be flying around in space. I am not a game designer, only an armchair game designer, and was not even attempting to balance shield v. armor v. infantry for all possible vehicles in Legion. That was just one off the top of my head example of how a game designer could introduce a situational vulnerability to vehicles that would take risk and skill on the part of the attacker and /or lack of awareness and carelessness on the part of the tank crew to result in any significant damage to the tank. Also, if shields are supposed to work exactly like they are described in the link to EVElopedia, why don't they protect the driver of an LAV? Oh, maybe because the better they are the more opaque they become. Hmmm.
"For instance, maybe a tank could have a targeting camera that you could shoot and disable as shields went through a power cycle."
Maybe ground vehicles need to have power cycles that allow the cameras that the drivers and gunners use to shoot the guns and drive the tank to actually function on ground based vehicle shield tech. Maybe not. None of the specifics are really that important to me, in the end. They are all just details. As stated in my earlier post "GǪarguments as to how those weak spots should work or if they are "realistic" or totally arbitrary design decisions are moot."
4. Not sure where you are getting the "kill the pilot with a relatively easy shot, making the pilot lose a bunch of ISK" thing from. Those are entirely your ideas. But for the record, the shot should be skillful and the player using a vehicle should not lose a bunch of ISK. Happy now? But you know what they say in EVE Online. "DOn't fly what you can't afford to lose."
Also, "It is better to have anti vehicle weapons that actually work than to try to figure out a way to make every other weapon in the game an anti vehicle weapon." Before you go around raving that I just wan AV to blow up every tank without infantry even having to aim, let me clarify that by "work" I mean for both the vehicle drivers, gunners, and pilots, and the infantry. An AV weapon that is so powerful and easy to use that it becomes boring for all involved is not one that works. On the other hand, vehicles that rule the field and can't be countered by AV weaponry are also boring and do not work either.
What I am mainly suggesting is that Legion should have a more sophisticated damage model for vehicles. What does that mean? That means that each vehicle is modeled more completely, given different parts, more than front, back, sides, turret, armor, shield. More than a few "vulnerable" shapes on the vehicle model that turn red and take extra damage when you shoot at them. This will allow CCP to implement deeper and more meaningful EWAR, or AV v vehicle combat. It would also allow CCP to add some options for players to damage vehicles with small arms fire if that is something they want to get into. Personally I think it will add some life to the game. |
|
|
| |
|