[Suggestion] Vehicle cockpit headshot bonus

Only reply to this entire thread that is consistent and logical.

Which means you must hit them by surprise and run, not sit and hover.

That sounds like a BRILLIANT idea, let's make it so that aorcraft have WEAK SPOTS that a capable pilot can hit to down enemy aircraft EVEN FASTER so that the gulf of ability between sky-knight twits who glue themselves to your engines and shove round after round into you with no hope of escaping down you even faster, all the while you struggle to EVEN HIT the enemy aircraft because you have not spent years doing nothing but flying! BRILLIANT!

I won' even go into detail about hos Scythe cockpits are tiny compared to TR and NC ones, something that would make this already most agile aircraft the only thing people will bother to fly in.

You can have your weak-spots on aircraft when Coyote and Striker seeker range is increase 200% and do twice as much damage per rocket, and when lock-on weapons lock 100% faster, 200% further out and do 200% more damage.

Oh and did I mention flares would also be removed from the game?

This post deserve the ridicule it receives.

FYI, aircraft already have weak spots - generally in the tail area. I do agree that lock-on A2A weapons should be better; not to the extremes you ask, but better. At least if it were the cockpit as a weak spot you would know the weak spots, unlike your current knowledge.

This is false. Most aircraft in this game take the same damage no matter which side is hit. The sole exception the valkyrie underside, which has a 50% damage reduction.

Vehicles in this game are not strong enough to warrant WoT/AW-style pixel-hunting critical spots.

It's called bullet proof glass for a reason.

Although what a game it would be if vehicles were actually strong enough to warrant modular damage.

FYI, my requests regarding boosts to GTA etc. was deliberately ridiculous for the sake of mockery.

Let's just review this, vehicles are not the same as infantry. Infantry are the base unit of a player, with a class to perform a team function with modular components to perform better in an area of it's pursuit.
Vehicles are pools of resources designed to perform a role in getting infantry to a base and/or provide support for said infantry by killing it's obstacles, whether it be tanks walls or other infantry; only support vehicles are deigned to support other vehicles.

Making vehicles weaker to the base unit of infantry that isn't designed to kill it is an incredibly bad idea. Adding a supposed "skill" level to killing vehicles with the basic bullet would call for vehicles to be resigned to fight at much farther ranges from infantry, it really would not be fun for anyone. The idea of infantry is to work together to perform a tightly knit squad designed to enter, take control and hold a base, vehicles are supposed to be an obstacle for infantry, pulling another vehicle to destroy said obstacles would be the logical thing to do, not simply send 50 infantry at it.

Lastly vehicles are always cautious of infantry because they do not know if said unit is carrying C4, which is capable of destroying any ground vehicle in the game, that is already a situational deterant for vehicles to go towards infantry, we do not need snipers pecking people out of tanks, harassers or liberators by sheer luck, that is a single bullet taking away another players 9 minutes worth of resources without any setup or strategy to fight said vehicle. I don't think I need to explain why less strategy and team involvement is bad for this type of game.

Huh? Sorry mate this game is not your normal FPS - it just has infantry for vehicles to farm.

Modern weapons shoot at speeds double what rounds travel at in PS2. Please don't "Realism" this game; there is *NO* realism in this game.

I would really like cockpit shots, though, being able to kill the driver (NOT THE TANK ITSELF) in a vehicle would be very nice. Stupid tanks on hills wouldn't be so god-mode if they had to worry about getting sniped.

How on earth would you snipe a tank? It's a tank...

Ok so some questions:
Why on earth are shotguns and flak excepted? I understand if flak is excepted on aircraft when they detonate, but when they don't detonate and simply hit the windows of a Harasser (or an aircraft that's so close the flak hasn't armed itself yet) why shouldn't it damage them?
And why shouldn't shotguns damage windows? Shotguns offer a massive amount of power per shot, even in real life shotguns are incredibly powerful, so why shouldn't they punch through windows and deal more damage?

As for why we don't have such damage ratio's: Vehicles have a directional armor. It doesn't matter where you hit them, it matters where you stand compared to them. You can hit them right in the back, but if you are standing in front of the tank by the time you hit them you'll deal front-armor damage. If you hit them in the front but are standing behind it, you'll deal rear-armor damage.
This heavily reduces the load on the server and amount of tanks that can be fielded at once.

Of course this was the solution at launch, when render issue's and lag were much worse. It could be possible to perhaps add an extra node to vehicles now. This node is placed on the cockpit and increases the damage done to the vehicle if it's hit.

Actually shotguns aren't all that powerful. 00 Buck is about 55 grains per pellet travelling at 1,200 ft/s. This gives each individual pellet only about 175 ft-lb of energy.

For comparison purposes, a 9x19 handgun bullet has 383 ft-lbs of energy, while 5.56x45 has over 1,200 ft-lbs of energy.

So what is comparable to a 00 Buck shotgun pellet? The closest would be .32ACP, which isn't truly considered to be a viable self-defense round due to extremely low power.

Now you might be saying, "But shotgun shells have multiple pellets!" While that's true, that's also irrelevant when it comes to armour penetration. Unless those pellets all hit at exactly the same spot, the armour (or ballistic glass) will handle each of the pellets more or less the same.



This is an old Level II ballistic panel that's been shot by a 00 Buck shotgun from about 2 feet away. It failed to even penetrate the surface. The 9x19 bullet managed to go through 9 layers of Kevlar but was also stopped. And Level II is the second-lowest grade of body armour.

So it's one of the biggest myths perpetuated by video games that shotguns are powerful. In PS2 if you try to attack someone with a shotgun, even at close quarters, they should just shrug as it barely scratches their armour while they blow you away with an actually useful firearm. Shotguns are great for some things like home defense, but that's largely because opponents are (hopefully) unarmoured.

And are we firing only one pellet at a time?
Or are we firing them by the buttload and instantly transfer all that energy simultaneously across a pretty small area and basically cutting it to ribbons as it passes?
Yeah it's that last one isn't it? You really like to ignore a lot when it suits you doesn't it? Also, buckshot meant for hunting isn't very capable of penetration, but military buckshot (not to mention the much, much more powerful solid slugs) are much more powerful. Just keep in mind that the earliest types of handheld guns were shotguns... and used even against plate armor effectively.

And what do you know? They even tried to ban shotguns because of their immense power... And during World War II the body armor was already pretty damn good.

The only myth about shotguns is their massive spread.

Did you even read the rest of the post (I assume you did because you cut it out). Level II body armour, which is only a step above the lowest Level IIA grade, can easily stop 00 buckshot. It's tested for that, as in there is no magnificent trauma from being hit by 00 buck.

And the explanation is that each pellet of the buckshot doesn't add up in terms of penetration power. Sure, being hit by a single pellet hurts less than being hit by 8-9 pellets. But if you're talking about the ability to but through soft or hard body armour, shotguns are fairly poor for that. They disperse their power over a wider area, reducing armour penetration capabilities. Again, if words are too much for you to understand, refer to the picture that proves you completely wrong.

There is also no difference between "military" buckshot and "civilian" buckshot. It's all made by Olin/Winchester to essentially the same specs. Maybe military buckshot goes slightly faster, but ultimately not enough to make it an effective combat weapon. The pellets are of the same grains, and go about the same velocity. There is nothing special about "military" buckshot at all (apart from the fact that stores can overcharge you for surplus).

As for slugs, those are more powerful than buckshot, sure. But still weaker than rifle rounds and incapable of penetrating reasonable body armour. Proof:



That's Level IIIA armour. Heavier than the Level II pictured before, but still light enough to be "soft" armour (in other words not even military grade). It penetrated only a few layers, but failed to make its way through a significant portion of the armour. It would not be an effective round against armoured military personnel.

In modern militaries, shotguns are not widely deployed because they are not considered to be useful combat weapons. There are a few specialized uses, which include breaching doors, less-lethal options (when you don't want someone dead), scaring away birds, or in marine options (when you don't want penetration of that boat you're in). But that's roughly it. Giving someone a shotgun and sending them against a heavily armoured opponent is a suicide mission.

To summarize:
1) Any type of 00 buck out of a 12 gauge shotgun will do extremely poorly against armoured opponents and cockpits. Proof is in the pictures and physics.
2) Any type of slug out of a 12 gauge shotgun will do poorly against armoured opponents and cockpits. Proof is in the pictures and physics.
3) 12 gauge shotguns are poor military weapons, which is why they are generally limited to non-combat or less-lethal roles.