Vehicle combat is very boring and unenjoyable.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by karlooo, Jan 24, 2020.

  1. karlooo

    In infantry vs infantry combat you can possibly die in 0.1 seconds in the most extreme case. You can even get one tapped by the NS pistol.
    In tank combat it takes like 7 shots with a reload that takes a couple of seconds to just down another tank.

    To actually down a tank it can take approx 13 seconds (depending). It's a bit extreme that in one part of the game you die in less than a second but in tank combat it takes multiple seconds and there is minimal things you can do with that type of low damage.

    As an example, I played the Prowler. I flanked and noticed a Vanguard driving by, shot 3 shots into its side armor, half HP gone and he just left....
    He just backed up behind cover and started repairing....What am I supposed to do now? Like he knows I'm there, I'm not going to chase him who is like 200 meters from me in his own territory, he probably will repair in that time. He most likely even marked me on the map so pretty much I just got to leave and in the end accomplished nothing by that flank.

    Wouldn't tank combat be much more interesting if you got rewarded more for hitting a weak spot? Getting hit in the side or rear should both grant 60% damage increase.
    The side is usually the weakest part of the tank..The rear part, a shot like that rarely happens on the PS2 open map designs, why are we getting the highest reward for hitting that?

    Even for infantry...shooting a tank 10 times with an unguided rocket is just annoying.
    Vehicle output damage and also anti vehicle weapon damage should increase against armor.

    This change will allow solo players to be effective against large numbers of enemies. This will enforce strategy IMO and not numbers and spam, which is incredibly annoying.
    • Up x 3
  2. rsonny

    Its CAI... How many AA rockets need to kill esf, liberator and galaxy? Tomcat and Coyote is useless.
  3. IVANPIDORVAN

    Stop pulling vehicles then because they are for ****ters.
  4. Scroffel5

    I am a Flash driver, and I love it. You could possibly get insta-killed, you could be a boss and destroy a ton of vehicles in one life, you could evade the shots of a tank as they explode right next to you. Its just so risky to attack any armored target, and its so much fun. You are completely right, though. If the armor is this strong in this universe, why aren't the things to destroy it getting stronger? It'd be good to just get rewarded for making good hits too. I think there should be small weak spots on every vehicle, especially aircraft.
  5. Campagne

    I really agree.

    I think the one thing that's always kept me from playing vehicles much on my own is the long TTK and rather dull, boring fights. Two AP Lightnings cross each other? Whoever shoots first is probably going to win and that's about that.

    With infantry anybody can kill anybody with anything, and while obviously some things are better than others skill is much more applicable and there are many more factors which can determine the winner.
    • Up x 2
  6. Scroffel5

    I think short TTK is really good, and I think that aim should matter more. In vehicle fights, specifically tank fights, you take the shots you get. If there were specific small places you could aim for really good damage, I'd be all for it.
  7. Demigan

    Hold on. In Planetside where almost all vehicles except the Magrider have to round corners by showing their sides because they cant drive sideways, you want to excessively reward for hits in the flank?

    Are you SURE you were driving a Prowler and not a Magrider that you want to indirectly upgrade?

    Now I do think I understand the main concern. In some cases its too much a numbers game about who shot first, some cases.

    Now I think there is merit in having a long TTK. Not too long, but long enough. But you could add other things that dont affect TTK to change how a battle progresses.

    Infantry already has 3 hitboxes, a head, torso and legs. They even have a front and back that at least one implant makes use off. So could vehicles get more than one hitbox as well?

    Imagine if the gunsights had their own hitbox with some health that is tied to the tank. Dedtroying it could deal 50 damage for example. A direct hit from an AP shell would deal full damage to both the gunsight and the tank while small-arms would naturally only damage the gunsight (and through it deal 50 damage max to the tank).

    Now you can disable a gunsight.

    But you can also nerf the tank. Lets say you hit a tank's turret ring, now the turret traverse speed would be lower (but not impossible). Tracks/wheels/gravlift area, the gun itself and perhaps the turret as a whole could also receive a seperate hitbox by partitioning the current hitbox and have negatives when hit. This is all repaired in order when the tank is repaired.

    But PS2's fights are rather static. I would love to see more changes like the Harasser physics to the Vanguard we've seen for a faster gameplay, but that woulf require a hefty change in the faction vehicles. The Vanguard would be very mich outmatched (or more so than now) if movement became this important to tank combat if it's traits were kept the same.

    And just for clarity: the current TTK's in tank vs tank combat are OK. they allow for maneuvering to mean something. Lower TTK's would be even more about who shoots first. If you want the player to have more chance to change the outcome in a slugmatch where one shot first, stsrt with maneuverability and not the TTK, because changing the TTK doesnt make sense.
  8. Pikachu

    Karloo admit you wish PS2 was closer to War Thunder were a side shot will either kill you or cripple you enough to grant the enemy victory. :D
  9. OpolE

    Its rubbish. Planetside 1 is soo much better and you can see the shots coming visually and on mini map.

    I just seem to be full health then suddenly erased the next
  10. Clipped!

    What you are suggesting is a basically a semi-permanent flashbang/conq effect to a tank, which itself is not only very unfun to suffer from, but having those effects from an otherwise normal shootout is just crazy/stupid for both fun and balance. Taking a head shot would mean you received a brief flashbang/conq effect which would utterly remove any chance of dealing any damage at all to your attacker in a fairly straight up shoot out (aka, you both saw each other just before ether started shooting) because of how massive an advantage that would be.

    Not to mention that it would be insane(ly difficult) adding it to a game that is already long past it's base development cycles (ie fully past beta and ready to publish), and without the original dev team it downright impossible (but you already know daybreak is complete garbage). Doing something like that would require systems having been built in form the beginning to work with the game on both base and intimate level, enough to mean that it is a big part of how the game is played, like with the Fallout series part damage system unless you were willing to sacrifice a moderate to large amount of performance, especially so on a online/multiplayer game.

    EVERYTHING would have to changed about the game, to achieve what? A nerf so that people get their fallout kicks and vehicles are now not worth using unless it's in exclusively vehicle on vehicle combat and you get that hit on the enemy's critical spots? No, this would not be worth the effort from the devs nor the loss in players who left because vehicles have a serious design/gameplay flaw. Go ahead and play World of Tanks if you're that insistent on this vehicle part damage thing.

    Demigan, personally I respect your ability recognize serious game issues and understand how critical they are due to being able to understand how those changes work and affect gameplay (like myself), but this idea is... concerning to say the least, although it is neat for a vehicle focused game to have damageable parts with potent effects for damaging them (MechWarrior online also does this), just not when infantry are also involved.
  11. Demigan

    This entirely depends on how powerful the effect is. The gunsight for example would lock you out of your zoom, not prevent sight altogether. The turret ring would lower your turret turn ratio, not necessarily turn it into a slug.

    I actually think it's not that difficult. They showed us how they could swap out all the physics of a Harasser and just paste it to the Vanguard.
    For a quick laugh.

    So creating a new hitbox, one for the turret (which should already be there as the turret moves independently from the chassis), and a few more for other pieces, then replacing the current hitbox with that shouldn't be much effort either.

    I'm not sure why you are thinking this. Pieces of the tank would have their own resistances, the tracks for example wouldn't be damageable by small-arms while the gunsight would likely need most of a full magazine in hits to be destroyed, at which point the tank just loses his zoom function (or that's what I would let happen, no sense in going to extremes).

    Also I'm not asking for WoT levels of piece destruction. Damaging the tracks would only reduce speed, not stall the vehicle altogether. Just like hitting the gun itself shouldn't prevent the gun from firing.

    That's what I'm after. Damaging these parts would reduce the effectiveness of the tank, not completely ruin it's capability to drive, turn the turret, see or fire.

    I think the problem is that you think the effects are too large, rather than small. If infantry can stop the zoom functions from working it gives infantry a bit better way of protecting themselves. Or if infantry and tanks can reduce the tank's capability of fleeing the scene it can modify how both players fight. One player might focus on making sure the opposition can't get away as easily, while the other might focus on making the direct combat capabilities of the opposition harder. That said, these things don't need to be giant "shoot me" signs. The tracks could have a lot of skirt armor to reduce the hitbox, the turretring is tiny anyway (and non-existant on the Magrider) and the gunsights aren't enormous either.
  12. OneShadowWarrior

    The developers have balanced tanks so much back and forth I got whiplash.......

    I would really rather see them give them better driving mechanics, tanks can climb at much slower rate but when they power slide down the narrowest slopes it’s frustrating. The lighter the vehicle the better the climbs or jumps should be. Four wheel drive is needed in vehicles like the Sunderer.

    It’s ironic that the new hover bike embodies the best mechanics in movement.

    Really though, vehicles should have some fun value to using, not be a drudgery to use.
    • Up x 2
  13. pnkdth

    I am not opposed to this, i.e. rewarding manoeuvres to increase effectiveness (as we do have the death cam now). If they Magrider's mobility is a concern then I suggest lowering the resistance of the front armour so that the front/side resistances of the Magrider are the same. This would require rebalancing the Maggie's weaponry though (among other things) thus I doubt DBG have the time/resources necessary to make such a change.

    I also avoid vehicle combat because it is a snorefest. If I were to be able to implement a wish list then:
    • The suggested changes above (to emphasise the mobility trait of VS at the cost of resilience).
    • Improve 'stickiness' and weight of threaded vehicles.
    • Trying to ram/getting rammed by an MBT with a light(er) vehicle should result in significant damage.
    • Improve MBTs in terms of speed and/or acceleration (indirectly nerfing harassers which is the point).
    • Overall rebalance pass on weapons.
  14. karlooo

    No not exactly ;)


    Not exactly. You don't have to show your side, you can just angle towards the wall and back up with your front facing the target behind the corner.
    But yes I know this will indirectly buff the Magrider making it even more broken than it is now. It's extremely good offload, it's fast. It's can move sideways with it's front facing the target, making it possible to dodge shots from far range.
    My suggestion will help balance this tank and also others more effectively.



    Now that we have the news about Rouge Planet Games team working on PS2 I believe there can be some changes made so I will mention my concept about how tank combat can look like in PS2.
    I wouldn't do tank combat like in War Thunder where angles matter, you can penetrate the tank, etc.
    I would do it more arcade styled, like Planetside 2 is.

    It would be very similar to your idea: by giving each part of the tank separate hit boxes and the Hull will be the core. So currently as we have just the whole tank as one, I believe it should be divided up to also reward for aiming and hitting certain parts for both vehicle users and infantry....together with the bonus % damage based on your location we currently have in game.

    So as an example the Prowler will have the whole turret with a separate hitbox, the hull hitbox (core), the top gun hitbox (which will be vulnerable to small arms fire) and the tank sights (vulnarable to small arms fire).

    This will make tanks much more interesting, even allow for new and unique tanks to be added like heavy tanks, light tanks, tank destroyers, possibly some tanks that cost ingame currency to be unlocked.

    -----------------

    Now I suggested some hitboxes vulnerable to small arms fire and some tank sights, which I'll clarify. I believe a min of 2 people should be required to use an expensive combat vehicle like a tank. So a regular MBT in PS2 should require a driver, gunner, and commander which will have control of the top gun.
    I think more people having to operate a tank will remove randomness in this game. Currently outside the objective I experience complete randomness. I experience having to deal with some lone player scouting our territory, 2 km behind the front line with an MBT, I experienced dozens of times an infiltrator hacking a terminal and just taking out an MBT to destroy my PMB. I like it how the infiltrator can infiltrate bases, but I don't like it how he can just take out and fully operate a tank by himself.

    I mentioned driving, I know it will be a very boring role. To make it harder and something the player can actually specialize in, tanks should be driven with a manual transmission instead of auto. This will be interesting, fun indeed, more fun than holding w and it will also require some skill.

    If the tank will require more people to operate, then a third person view would be unnecessary because the driver will be focused on his driving, the gunner would be focused where the gun is. So I believe there should be tank sight hitboxes. Instead of a light assault pooping out bombs being the hardest tank counter, now based on what tank you're using, your sights and top mounted gun can be damaged and destroyed by regular infantry, actually being able to weaken the tank by a lot.
  15. Marik

    All well and good, but as long as the main problem, the excessive use of C4 by light units, is not solved, this would not change anything. Pulling a heavy tank or Max's unit is almost nonsensical, unless it's blown up.
    Even the best manpower will have problems if flanked by at least 2 light units and besides heavy units and other tanks and anti-tank guns will crash into the tank.

    --------------------------

    Schon und gut, aber solange das Hauptproblem, der übermäßige Einsatz von C4 von leichten Einheiten, nicht gelöst wird, würde das nichts ändern. Das Ziehen eines schweren Panzers oder Max Einheit ist fast unsinnig, wenn man so mir nicht dir nichts einfach in die Luft gesprengt wird.
    Selbst die beste Manschafft, wird Probleme haben wenn sie von mindestens 2 Leichten flankiert wird und nebenbei noch Schwere Einheiten und andere Panzer und Panzerabwehrgeschütze sich auf den Panzer Stürtzen.
  16. OneShadowWarrior

    I’ve had it so many times in my Flash I try to do a getaway from a tank and get canned regardless of it’s speed and it climbs or maneuvers like a tin can. The Hoverbike is actually the closest they have come to a vehicle that is actually fun, something the Magrider has long needed. Magriders worked better in the first Planetside where you could drive in water. Once you get into bigger fights the lack of 360 turret rotation and having to turn your backside become a curse, real tanks don’t have a weak rear end, it’s called slopped armor to deflect shots. The actual weak point to tanks are the hatches. The Magrider also spins out of control when you glance it.

    I don’t quite understand how these vehicles are so high tech yet they drive like something with a 3 cylinder hybrid engine running on electric, in climbs, slopes or terrain, they even slide way to easy with no torque or lack of any gears for breaking speeds or low gear to compete with ascent or descents.

    Tanks in reality in the modern age can climb all types of obstacles, at a much slower rate, but it can be be done. Hit a small rock and you come to a dead stop, like being on a skateboard hitting a pebble and a grinding halt with these models, WW1 and 2 had more to them.
  17. Demigan

    I don't see the added advantage of forcing a 3rd person to be present.

    In a militaristic shooter like Arma or something I can see this having a benefit. It can balance out the power and adds to the MilSim experience. But in PS2 that is far more arcade style it's just forcing more people into a single vehicle for no gameplay benefit. There is in practical terms no increase in teamwork in this case, as people inside a tank don't really have to communicate much if at all (and yes I have done a lot of tanking with friends) and the most teamwork would happen during the formation of a tank crew, assuming you aren't playing with people you know already.

    Sure communication between driver and gunner(s) about when to shoot and what to shoot is a form of teamwork, but it's quite literally the most bare bones minimum teamwork you can ever have in a game. "do/don't shoot" and "target that". But to get that you need to sacrifice the arcade style freedom that PS2 offers. It's just not worth it! On top of that the game already doesn't reward teamplay much and sometimes even punishes it, so the playerbase isn't even encouraged to do it. In this scenario players would be less encouraged to pull tanks in the first place and the battlefield would be dominated by small squads and friends playing together while cutting off a massive portion of the playerbase off the vehicle system. It's a needless complication that just segregates players for no reason and takes away the freedom to pick a vehicle and go to town with it.
  18. Demigan

    Who does the army give the explosives?

    1: A guy already encumbered by an LMG and other heavy weapons and the least capability to reach the target.
    2: A lightly armed unit that can get to the target, place the explosives and detonate it.

    If anything the LA should be the primary user of C4.

    Also the "excessive use" is mitigated by the excessive power that tanks have against infantry. For crying out loud you require the tank to be oblivious of your presence until you are already throwing the C4, despite the tank having longer effective range, higher speed and OHK capabilities on you not to mention the ability to use automatic detection devices like Spitfires to warn you beforehand. You can even see this in the works by when and where tanks are destroyed with C4: Not during the tank combat, but when they settle down to farm. They are too aware, too much on the move and too far away to C4 when they are fighting other tanks. But when they go into tunnel vision mode and stop moving to rely on their superior armor and resiliance against infantry is when they are caught by a C4 user.
    You can even find people who are farming infantry on a position, you circle around across open ground visible to the tank to C4 them. They come back within a few minutes to farm from the same position again and you can do the exact same thing. They don't learn! They refuse to take any action against C4 strikes! No anti-C4 armor, which is widely available right now. No Spitfires, no proxy radar no situational awareness no tiny movements to reduce the chance of a strike.

    Does C4 need to be changed? Yes! It's too omniversal and the only attack option in the utility slot. There is no punishment for taking it with you just in case. It needs to be split into an AI and AV variant at least. But we also need other options in the utility slot. Shields, high-powered ranged AV weapons, ways to obfuscate the infantry from the tanks, weapons that nerf tanks so infantry stands a better chance of beating one. Resources destroying resources, as it should be.
  19. LodeTria

    You'd need a reason for vehicles to, you know, exist before you do any of this.
    • Up x 1
  20. DarkStarAnubis

    Ps2 does not support location damage. With that it would be a day/night difference.

    Today is pure math and infantry (HA) are basically just a nuisance to air and ground vehicles.

    Rocket launchers have slow reload, slow acquire time and do not deal enough damage to kill a vehicle unless already heavily damaged.

    Vehicles know that, so sweep in, kill at leisure, take one/maybe two hits, retreat, repair, rinse and repeat.

    Location damage would change things drastically.

    An engine hit would force you to land or stop. A track hit would slow down or immobilize a ground vehicles, hitting a wheel would lead to interesting things and so on.

    Skill or luck or both could add some spice.