[Suggestion] Directional Armor for Infantry?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Gundem, Jul 23, 2016.

  1. Gundem

    So, beyond the likelihood of such a thing being extremely difficult to code and highly prone to netcode abuse, what would be the theoretical impact of a strong infantry-based Directional Armor?

    So basically, take the Heavy Assault, and triple his HP from the front. But from the rear, no extra resistance is applied, and perhaps there could even be a base health penalty to further weaken the class from flanking or well placed explosives.

    Think of it as a poor-mans Riot Shield, but with space magic Nanites.

    Advantages could be that HA's could better fill the role of "Heavy Assault", face-tanking oodles of damage while pushing capture points or fire lanes. Yet, on the other end of the pendulum, the HA would be especially vulnerable to smart Light Assaults, Infiltrators, and generally anyone with the sense to outmaneuver.

    Disadvantages could be that it would be too easily abused, or that it might make assaulting buildings or capture points extraordinarily difficult, and as I've already mentioned, poor netcode.

    Balance factors could include movement penalties and turn speed limitations, so a sort-of permanent Concussed state to increase vulnerability to flaking and perhaps allow the netcode to better keep up.

    Remember, this is only a suggestion, so if you like or dislike, leave a constructive comment as to why, rather then just spewing nonsense because you think it's stupid as ****.
  2. FateJH

    This game doesn't communicate the direction player is facing too well between clients.

    From a different perspective, how would you downplay the benefit of "front directional nanoweave?" You can't attack players to the side or behind you and, orientation hiccups by the network code notwidthstanding, they're most likely going to return fire at you by facing you and then it's front versus front.
    • Up x 1
  3. Lemposs

    I am going to say no, I think the balancing works quite well right now, where every infantry class is at least somewhat capable of being competitive no matter what they come up against. Making the differences even bigger between classes, will likely make some classes almost completely useless in some situations and then be spammed in others. Not to mention, infantry isn't limited in turn rate like vehicles, and good players can react very fast and turn around 180 degrees in a split second. I think most people have come across a HA that they shot in the back only for him to turn around on the spot, activate shield and just plow you down, let's not make that a more common occurrence.
    Not to mention, shooting someone from behind is already quite an advantage ;)
    • Up x 1
  4. Liewec123

    as you said heavies would naturally go for front armour
    i could see side armour becoming a favourite of AI turret engies too
  5. JKomm

    If it was possible to implement without issue it'd be nice... however triple HP from the front? That's massive for the Heavy Assault which already survives most encounters with a 450HP shield they activate in every engagement. Unless there was a passive movement downside for additional armour then it'd be hard to balance.

    If you're having difficulty pushing an objective as Heavy Assault currently, rethink your strategy, or pull a MAX, that's it's purpose in the game... Heavy Assault is just a fighter class with poorly designed abilities that don't really give it a definitive role... is it an infantry fighter with it's heavy weapons and it's shield, is it anti-vehicle with it's rocket launcher options? People have the delusion it is the primary infantry fighter... if you weren't aware, that is the role of the Combat Medic actually, the developers have the original image of Combat Medics being the primary infantry class pushing the points and Heavy Assaults were more of a specialty class... but due to the shield being extremely powerful this never happened within the playerbase.
  6. Vorest

    I'd say it would become nightmare to balance, putting coding aside.

    Also next patch/update may introduce new suit slot option that gives more hp(or shield?), right, around 5% overall, but enough to save your *** in few cases.

    And while directional armor for infantry isn't bad, it should be more balanced. Maybe movement speed penalty if you hand too much junk on your ****?

    Overall I'm skeptical toward this idea. Not yes and not a no.
  7. Gundem

    All good points, and though I agree it's highly unlikely due to netcode issues, it's interesting to consider the possibilities.

    As for balancing further, for starters, an activation delay of 2-3 seconds would really help balance it I think. Even if you try and 180 around to a player behind you, the inability to pop it instantly would leave you significantly hampered.

    Plus, while the Shield was active, your max turn rate would be hard-capped, not even allowing you to boost your DPI in order to circumvent the limitations. It can be done, Concussion Grenades already do it(It used to lower your DPI but I think they patched it),

    That would make it an incredible preemptive breaching tool, yet leave you even more vulnerable when in the open or flanked.

    Plus, grenades could be bounced behind players for maximum effect, and C4 would also still deal a considerable chunk of damage.

    EMP's could sap the shield, but in order to prevent constant EMP Cheese I'd say that EMP Shield could mitigate some of the effects. No total immunity, just lower the resistance increase from x/EMP to x/EMP( .EMP Shield).

    Also, I think a 50% speed reduction while active would also be in order.
  8. UberNoob1337101

    As you and Fate mentioned, poor netcode would be the bane of this thing, since it would bounce between very powerful and useless.

    But I'd also mention a few things on why this might be actually very weak :

    1. The nature of infantry itself doesn't really pair up with directional armor. Vehicles are kind of slow, they have big hitboxes and they're more difficult to flank because of their sheer size, and they don't turn a lot, so directions don't change a lot unless you progresivelly flank. But in Infantryside, turning is very fast, the hitboxes are very small and so, it wouldn't be noticeable (unless you somehow manage to stare at someone's face constantly with frontal armor). It would be too situational. When someone shoots you with a few bullets, the damage's already been done and directional armor won't save you. Nanoweave, on the other hand, will.

    2. Explosives would completely bypass it, since the current hit detection doesn't really have directional explosives. Meaning moar coding, meaning probably not happening.

    3. Flanking would be even more devastating, so Infils and LAs would be more popular, meaning that you'll find less fair and frontal fights. So even if the other two issues would be somehow fixed, the meta would change and so, it'll be made very weak by the community.

    It's too situational to be effective and there are too many problems that it faces to see any real wide-spread use. Building fights won't change that much, it'll just increase grenade spam because explosives aren't affected by directional armor.

    It's cool, it seems fun, it's unique, but it'd need a ton of fleshing out and a bit of coding to really be balanced and effective.
  9. ColonelChingles

    It makes sense from a lore perspective. For the NC and TR, most of their armour faces the front, especially leg armour. They are essentially unarmoured from the back for their legs. Even chest armour (which for some reason doesn't like protecting abdomens) seems weaker in the back. So it would make sense that hitting them in unprotected legs from the back would do more damage than hitting them in an armoured shinguard from the front.