|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
15993
   |
Posted - 2014.07.22 21:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
Context to this suggest is that sometime back I remember in BF2142 you could in thoery destroy any vehicle with any question provided you got into position and wailed away at the weak spot.
While Legion is not 2142 should this consideration be brought in? The reactor behind HAVs the Hood of LAVs and Engine ports of the Dropships are all particular challenges to shoot up if they're moving about; this should be more for punishing the laxxy daisy type of pilots who need to be liberated from that role.
This would also bring infantry and vehicle interplay closer together as now any infantry now has the capabilities of hurting a vehicle now and may add additional types of modules as well increasing dynamics. (ie a shielded or armored protector but comes at the cost of speed so while making it harder for regular infantry to do you in AV infantry will get the benefit)
Thoughts suggestions ideas expansions and addiums?
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
15998
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 23:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Let's consider how weak spots would be handled by actual engineers if the technology in the Eve universe was real.
Personally, I believe shields would be adjusted to compensate for these weak spots; more protection over where there is no armor.
Of course, shielding can have weak spots as well, but I don't think shields and armor would have the same weaknesses, aside from simple directional weaknesses such as actual tanks being tough in the front and (relatively) weak in the back.
There have to be reasons for the decision to make those spots weak though for example you cant exactly shield an engine exhaust port because the shields would have to fight the exhaust and incoming fire.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
16002
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 18:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Let's consider how weak spots would be handled by actual engineers if the technology in the Eve universe was real.
Personally, I believe shields would be adjusted to compensate for these weak spots; more protection over where there is no armor.
Of course, shielding can have weak spots as well, but I don't think shields and armor would have the same weaknesses, aside from simple directional weaknesses such as actual tanks being tough in the front and (relatively) weak in the back. There have to be reasons for the decision to make those spots weak though for example you cant exactly shield an engine exhaust port because the shields would have to fight the exhaust and incoming fire. Ah yes, the ol'e exaust port that goes directly to the reactor core. Because you'd never be able to put an extreme bend or two in the pipe. Or an exhaust port shield.
Cept in most modern LRVs thats where the engine is...
https://go.dmacc.edu/urban/PublishingImages/hv142005.jpg
Cept in most modern tanks thats where the engine is...
http://www.alu.army.mil/alog/issues/JanFeb06/Story_Images/images/MS257p4.jpg
Cept in most Vtol Transport Birds thats where the engine is...
http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/mv22b_mickbajcar.jpg
Its not about shoving a banana up the smoke pike its about putting a bunch of holes into the engine that causes to self terminate.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
16004
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 08:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Well one thing is I am not expecting a single individual taking out the vehicles easily on their lonesome emptying the entire contents of their weapons into the weak spots and if they do it for the wrong reasons they should have the serious risk of being out of ammo against threats they could have killed instead.
This is more for what should happen if a vehicle pilot decides he wants to put his vehicle into someplace extremely risky.
Either way things that change armor models on the vehicle needs clear model indicators that such are installed.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
16012
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 20:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Syeven Reed wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:Syeven Reed wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Ideas and thoughts This is a good concept, although I could see it being to hard to manage. I'd imagine something like this would be balanced with giving the vehicle a counter such as an 'escape'. But as we know in Dust(beta) having vehicles with an easy escape only makes things more hit and run with my over-the-top killing machine. It made things hard to counter. However I like the idea that someone posted in response to your OP: for the ability to kill the driver and take the vehicle for your own (more loot!  ). While this would have to be very hard to do so, a small opening for a grenade in the top (think halo 1) or the ability to shoot a flap of metal off, reviling a squishy driver to shoot at, I think this would be a good mechanic. That's even a worse idea. It's as bad as being one shotted by any weapon in the game whilst being a heavy. Well... Make it a skill shot. The vehicle would have to be heavily damaged and can only be done when the vehicle shields are down, you have shot away an opening on top and manage to get a grenade through the small gap. (or maybe grenades won't go through but bullets do?) Plus If your tanks still around by then maybe you should die? An extra mechanic intended to make another option along side of, tank go's boom. 1: That punishes armor based vehicles 2: It's very easy to get on top of a vehicle 3: We're most likely sealed in pods (same for DS pilots), and therefore makes even less sense, since that's additional armor 4: Why in the hell would a engineer make a hole that goes straight towards the pilot? Still no.
1. it should work on shielded vehicles the same way.
2. Have you tried to vehicle rodeo lately?
3. NOPE; we control vehicles in the very similar same manner we control our guns. Standard co-processing interface. Smallest vehicle we could control that has such things are the MCC.
4. Because engineering has not come up with a feasible solution to all the problems. Worlds most expensive jet can still be taken out with a single steel rod shoved down the intake. Oddly enough most tank engines are the same way since they use jet engines now a days. Of course we're not talking an entirely catastrophic explosion but loss of power is lethal for either type of vehicle. Regular rotary engines are also subject to self destruction if you rammed a bullet into the engine that screwed one piston.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
16012
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 20:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Well one thing is I am not expecting a single individual taking out the vehicles easily on their lonesome emptying the entire contents of their weapons into the weak spots and if they do it for the wrong reasons they should have the serious risk of being out of ammo against threats they could have killed instead.
This is more for what should happen if a vehicle pilot decides he wants to put his vehicle into someplace extremely risky.
Either way things that change armor models on the vehicle needs clear model indicators that such are installed. A place in which would be extremely risky is a compound. And the designs of compounds so far that CCP has given us so far on their own makes it extremely risky to go in, especially if smart AV is on the other side. going into the middle of a compound, then AV starts striking you, you'll probably die before you get out of the compound. This would just make it worse, as now infantry wouldn't even need to call someone to tackle the HAV; they would need to only shoot at it.
well the weak spots are current in dust so just to experiment you could try attempt shooting at them now to see how easy it is to hit a mobile vehicles weakspot.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
16012
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 22:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:Roger, you are amazing. You did not came with single idea in this topic, and all you do is keep criticize other's, like this is a hard part  .
TBH it would be hard to come up with ideas against this. Its a do or don't thing with comprimises in the middle.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
16013
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 22:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:
1: That punishes armor based vehicles
2: It's very easy to get on top of a vehicle
3: We're most likely sealed in pods (same for DS pilots), and therefore makes even less sense, since that's additional armor
4: Why in the hell would a engineer make a hole that goes straight towards the pilot?
Still no.
1. it should work on shielded vehicles the same way. 2. Have you tried to vehicle rodeo lately? 3. NOPE; we control vehicles in the very similar same manner we control our guns. Standard co-processing interface. Smallest vehicle we could control that has such things are the MCC. 4. Because engineering has not come up with a feasible solution to all the problems. Worlds most expensive jet can still be taken out with a single steel rod shoved down the intake. Oddly enough most tank engines are the same way since they use jet engines now a days. Of course we're not talking an entirely catastrophic explosion but loss of power is lethal for either type of vehicle. Regular rotary engines are also subject to self destruction if you rammed a bullet into the engine that screwed one piston. 1: Even then, still bad. 2: Yes, it was easy. 3: Have you seen the inside of the HAV and dropship cockpits? I sure haven't. 4: Quote:4: Why in the hell would a engineer make a hole that goes straight towards the pilot? learn to read. And that would be a no. I'm fine with extra damage (as that what we pretty much have), but loss of movement is a no.
I was saying that if you install a module that removed the weakness (and it would apply to av shots as well) it should come at the cost of movement.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
|
|
|
| |
|