Thoughts suggestions ideas expansions and addiums?

Yea, it would be cool if people could put giant potato in to LAV exhaust pipe which could trigger some chain reaction and big explosion ...

But seriously, I wouldn't mind if infantry(without AV) could somehow temporary disrupt how vehicles work. Killing or harming pilot that is inside is slightly to much, same as destroying whole vehicle. Maybe some sniper rifles could be able to penetrate DS cockpit, but that's it - HAV pilots should be safe from that.

OK, so I see it as Outpost services mechanic in eve. Every module that is fitted to vehicle have it's outside representation placed on vehicle hull.

Outpost services can be attacked and disabled independently of the outpost itself. They are always vulnerable, and sovereignty has no effect. Services appear in space at the same location as the Outpost itself, and can be targetted and shot at as usual. When they reach structure damage, they are disabled and will not function until repaired by remote structure/armor repairers and shield boosters in the normal way. When they reach 50% shield, they become active again. The different services have different numbers of hitpoints, and services cannot be completely destroyed.

With exception that modules will not function properly until X amount of time or someone with Repair Tool or Vehicle Repair Module will fix them for pilot. And that they have only structure points, no shield or armor(so individuals pilots skills do not matter).

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.

There have to be reasons for the decision to make those spots weak though for example you can't exactly shield an engine exhaust port because the shields would have to fight the exhaust and incoming fire.

This could go into the new modules designed to help protect weak spots as well. For example you armor up the tank's radiator; its now immune to small arms fire but because of weaker heat venting it cannot punch its systems to full speed as easily making it slower and more vulnerable to AV fire.

There have to be reasons for the decision to make those spots weak though for example you can't exactly shield an engine exhaust port because the shields would have to fight the exhaust and incoming fire.

This could go into the new modules designed to help protect weak spots as well. For example you armor up the tank's radiator; its now immune to small arms fire but because of weaker heat venting it cannot punch its systems to full speed as easily making it slower and more vulnerable to AV fire.

Not against it.... I feel any way of making vehicle more vulnerable and skill based...not to mention enjoyable is wonderful....however I want my ability to freely and accurately engage infantry..... or atleast for that capacity to be better if this is going to be the case...... in all honesty all I want is a single skill shot HE main gun with good AoE so my HAV feels like it actually is carrying some serious fire power.

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.

autocannon and arty both has explosion radii

If they existed.....

I want to drive/ride in a tank with an actual cannon. I want to hear the boom as it fires, not some little "Pewoohh", like the railgun has. I want to hear the reloader shoving another shell into that barrel, I want a sense of REAL POWER.

Kinda like this.

I also want a coaxial turret (a turret that is always parallel to the main turret). See image.

Ideas and thoughts

Would you like it if say infantry could get shot at say in the say chest and the armor plates gets weakened, and or gets shot in the backpack or head and their scanners gets weakened, and the only way to wait for X amount of time, or getting reps from a logi? It's quite the same thing.

The answer for me is no to both. It's a silly notion for a engineer to put critical parts like that out in the open. And it would just hurt balance for vehicles even more.

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.

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.

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.

I wouldn't mind having differing armour values depending on where I am hit.

E,g-

Frontal Armour- 10% Damage Resistance
Side Armour- 0% modifications to -10% Damage Resistance
Rear Armour- On top of the vulnerable spot a standard -25 Damage Resistance
Treads and Hull- -25% Damage Resistance

So hunting tanks requires AV to think on their toes and focus on HAV weak spots for critical damage, while HAV have to conside how the enter and exit and engagement and can tactically use their frontal armour as a shield of sorts.

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.

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?

It would be cool if AV attacks were living marks on vehicles hull - if HAV would survive encounter of cures he would regenerate his shield, armor to 100% but if someone would approached HAV close enough to use his non-AV weapon as leverage to pull out previously damaged part by AV attack. It could reveal the new HAV weak spot thereby reducing the resistance of the place by some -% number.

That's even a worse idea. It's as bad as being one shotted by any weapon in the game whilst being a heavy.

It would be cool if AV attacks were living marks on vehicles hull - if HAV would survive encounter of cures he would regenerate his shield, armor to 100% but if someone would approached HAV close enough to use his non-AV weapon as leverage to pull out previously damaged part by AV attack. It could reveal the new HAV weak spot thereby reducing the resistance of the place by some -% number.

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.

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.

I wouldn't mind having differing armour values depending on where I am hit.

E,g-

Frontal Armour- 10% Damage Resistance
Side Armour- 0% modifications to -10% Damage Resistance
Rear Armour- On top of the vulnerable spot a standard -25 Damage Resistance
Treads and Hull- -25% Damage Resistance

So hunting tanks requires AV to think on their toes and focus on HAV weak spots for critical damage, while HAV have to conside how the enter and exit and engagement and can tactically use their frontal armour as a shield of sorts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

4: Why in the hell would a engineer make a hole that goes straight towards the pilot?

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: 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.

lolwut? okay

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 armour models on the vehicle needs clear model indicators that such are installed.