| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
   |
Posted - 2012.09.11 10:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi,
There's a few (ha!) threads around at the moment about suggestions on what to do with tanks.
So I thought I would chuck out a suggestion to the community to see what you think. 
I've seen a few games with this in, so might be an idea for here.
Instead of reducing Shield & Armor Hit Points etc, what about giving them separate damage zones?
Zone 1
Main Body of the Tank where the crew are housed.
Once the HPs reach zero then obviously the crew & the tank are dead.
Also, following along with another suggestion of having the driver of the tank located here, and separate from the main turret.
Zone 2
Main Turrent.
Once the HPs are down to Zero, the person in the main turret is dead & the turret can no longer be used.
Only weapons left are those on the main body.
Zone 3
Tracks/Tires
Once HP reaches zero. The tank is dead in the water, and unable to move. Can still shoot but can't run away ... pretty much a sitting duck. :o)
My suggestion is that each of these zones have their own Armor Points, but the whole vehicle itself shares the shield.
I realise that this would add a lot more complication to designing & building your tanks, but also gives a lot more room for customisation.
Especially as we'll be able to purchase new tracks, made out of different materials etc giving better movement maybe, along with more Armor HP.
Possibly even go proto hover tanks? :o)
Tanks would be able to have Armor repair units, but would actually be unable to repair the tracks or main turret if it is no longer functioning. These could only be fixed from a Merc in the field with a remote repair unit. Maybe similar to hacking?
Taking a few seconds to get the tank up & fully running.
What do you think?
That's a basic summary, I can go into a bit more depth later if wanted.
I'm just in work, and keep getting distracted, so my explanation might not flow.  |
Seran Jinkar
Sanmatar Kelkoons
Minmatar Republic
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 11:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Every part would need it's own lock on zone. Otherwise sounds nice and I guess something similar will be implemented. some Forge gunners tell me there are already weak spots on tanks though. |
dust badger
BetaMax.
283
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 11:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
i like this idea i think it would be fun as a forge gunner to take out the turret and then the tracks leaving it help less, but i feel that the shield tanked HAVs would be a lot better as it protects everything, but i guess you could buff the armor of all these modules enough to compensate.
and would the armor repairer still fix these modules?
one thing i would suggest is that the armor rep does but if it reach 0 health it can only be rep'd by a logi with remote repair |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 11:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Seran Jinkar wrote:Every part would need it's own lock on zone. Otherwise sounds nice and I guess something similar will be implemented. some Forge gunners tell me there are already weak spots on tanks though.
Actually, tanks in Planetside 2 have different damage zones, and they only have one lock-on point. I can say from personal experience that that works just fine, especially considering that if they attempt to evade the missile, it will just follow them and hit them from behind where the armor is weakest. |
Seran Jinkar
Sanmatar Kelkoons
Minmatar Republic
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 11:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
As it says: Armor repairer :) I'd say that different builds of tanks and armorplating could focus on certain areas giving it more armor points before the actual mechanixm gets damaged and needs to be restored by a mechanic.
Like 60mm Turret Plating has 60% AP on Turret and 20% on tracks and 20% on hull.
While the standard armor plating has 33% on everything. |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 12:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
dust badger wrote:
... and would the armor repairer still fix these modules?
one thing i would suggest is that the armor rep does but if it reach 0 health it can only be rep'd by a logi with remote repair
Yeah, that is what I meant. 
Also, gives a nice tempting target for the snipers among us.
Leave a disabled tank sitting out in the open, guarded by a sniper who can take out any brave logi trying to fix it.  |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 18:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
I suppose one drawback to this idea is the increased investment that would be needed. Both in SP & ISK, for the extra parts & skills needed.
So it would sting a little more if a sneaky scout snuck up & stuck a remote explosive on your tracks.
But as long term investment is the name of the game, that could balance out. |
Seran Jinkar
Sanmatar Kelkoons
Minmatar Republic
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 06:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
Actually there is need for more skills. The different armor plates could be added as variants of the standards. And the parts of the tank are parts of the tank model being connected to a activate / deactivate routine and not special modules in the fitting of the tank. |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 07:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
As there is announcement on Tank changes & an increased interest in separating the driver & main gunner.
I thought I would, bring this suggestion back to the table. |
D3LTA NORMANDY
Doomheim
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 07:48:00 -
[10] - Quote
if they can be repaired i am for it. this would also increase the usage of REs and would balance shield and armor tanks.
There should also be different armor resistance zones like bf3 has.
Weapons do -20% damage to the front, +20% to the back and the rest of the body has no changes.
The resistance mods should be just added to them. |
|
|
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 09:15:00 -
[11] - Quote
Yeah, that would be my thought as well.
That even if a particular zone is at zero (except for the main hull) then it could only be repaired externally by logi with the repair equipment. |
onieros danneskjold
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 14:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
I like this idea. The separate areas need to be repairable, and any weak spots should be pretty limited. |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 20:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
Well I would probably think that the tracks & the main turret would be slightly weaker. Purely because of their nature, moving parts etc. But that would just be in armor, and not significantly different to the main hull.
The shield would encompass the whole tank, if the general consensus on how the shields work is correct. |
Cephus Stearns
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 21:29:00 -
[14] - Quote
i like the idea though if they did it with this thell do it with all the vehicles. and that means a dropship could get hit in the crew area and turrets knocking out the turrets and CRU and killing the passengers. or the engines making you have to reactivate them or bail out. reactivating them would take a combination of 5 buttons ,or some thing like that being pressed, or risk crashing and taking impact damage.and not to mention the cockpit being blown away making everbody else bail out.i wont even go in to the possibilities with the lav. |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
TBH I hadn't really thought about applying it to the other vehicles, current ones anyway. But you're right, as the weapons for examples are considered separate entities (turrets) with their own skill development. Maybe they should have damage zones as well. Quite often I see a LAV storming around with low HP & shield, but still having a fully functional turret on the back. If the LAV has taken that much damage in the first place, surely the turret should be as much use as a wet kipper.
So if the mechanics are possible within Dust, maybe we could have more complex vehicles with different damage zones?
|
Seran Jinkar
Sanmatar Kelkoons
Minmatar Republic
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:02:00 -
[16] - Quote
Well LAVs and even DS have weak spots concerning the turrets as the gunners (and LAV drivers and passenger) can be shot, splashed (and atm fluxed) out of their seats. The weak spot on LAVs is even bigger as the corpse tends to stick to the LAV and slow it down so it can barely more. |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 10:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
I'd just like to re-raise this for CCP Dev's to peruse.
... that's an extended way of saying "Bump". |
Sir Meode
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
318
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 10:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
How many people who have commented on this thread is an active HAV user??
and i dont mean cheap as chips Militia tank users that are every where. |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 11:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
Well I did start using HAVs near the end of last build, especially when we had the SP & ISK bonuses from the corp battles.
I haven't this build yet though (too poor  ).
My suggestion isn't about making the lives of HAV drivers harder, more of adding depth to them.
Making them a lot more customisable to your own tastes.
I'm looking at Dust more from the RPG end rather than the FPS end.
Less "bang bang" and more "Hmmmm I wonder ..." |
Governor Odius
Doomheim
177
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 12:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
The issue right now is that HAVs don't have the survivability for this kind of thing to matter. There's no reason to take out an HAV's treads when you can just kill it in a few seconds.
Edit: also, this
Cephus Stearns wrote: that means a dropship could get hit in the crew area and turrets knocking out the turrets and CRU and killing the passengers.
Already happens. You can be killed in the passenger compartment in a dropship. The turrets/CRU damage thing isn't a thing, though. |
|
|
Sir Meode
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
318
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 14:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Bucktooth Badger wrote:Well I did start using HAVs near the end of last build, especially when we had the SP & ISK bonuses from the corp battles. I haven't this build yet though (too poor ). My suggestion isn't about making the lives of HAV drivers harder, more of adding depth to them. Making them a lot more customisable to your own tastes. I'm looking at Dust more from the RPG end rather than the FPS end. Less "bang bang" and more "Hmmmm I wonder ..."
yes i know where you are coming from however HAV have already alot of depth, they dont need any more.
it is a good suggestion although i cant see it working very well |
SGT Garrisson
On The Brink
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 15:10:00 -
[22] - Quote
i quite like this idea if the multiple lock was put it too
this would cause swam launchers to have a muti lock on the tank spreading the missile damage
lets say im using a malitia launcher i lock the tank and it locks on to the turret and body due to the tank being slightly behind the terrain making me unable to lock the tracks
the malitia swam fires four rockets so 2 hit the body and 2 hit the turret spitting the damage unless its a shield hit
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |