Title says it all and imo it's not only justified but als mandatory to change it. I mean, we all know that cheesy Harrasser that hides their vehicle hitbox in a delve but just as much so they can still fire at you. Or that dual-kobalt-battle-bus that's hiding perfectly behind any wall and keeps farming infantry since the turrets can't be shot at. If one deals damage, one shall also be vulnerable.
Um.................firing from a hull down position is a long-established tactic IRL as well as in the game. I don't see anything wrong with it myself. But being able to knock out a top weapon might have some merit
The main problem is that vehicles don't have hitboxes. I dunno why that's the case because infantry can get multiple hitboxes, but vehicles are pretty much limited to one (maybe two if the tank turret is a separate hitbox). Tanks should have multiple hitboxes, and dealing heavy damage to those areas should result in various reductions in capability: Primary weapon hitbox- Primary weapon temporarily less accurate and slower to fire. Secondary weapon hitbox- Secondary weapon temporarily disabled. Gunsight hitbox- 1st person enhanced optics are temporarily disabled. Tread/Maglev hitbox- Speed and hull rotation speed temporarily slowed. Turret ring hitbox- Turret rotation speed temporarily slowed. Of course, the tradeoff to increased tank vulnerability to effectiveness damage would be a significant increase to tank overall survivability. Support vehicles and infantry would mostly be in charge of disabling but not killing tanks, which supports combined arms. Going hull down is a tactic... but although it decreases chances of being hit, you are not altogether immune from it. Besides, what MaDiv is referring to isn't hull down, but turret down: IRL it's not as bad a problem because tanks don't usually carry AV roof-mounted weapons. So in a turret down position, at most they could do is spot and spray you with HMG fire. But in PS2 vehicles can carry pretty heavy weapons up top. This means they can deal significant damage to enemy vehicles while remaining invulnerable. So a hitbox for that area is probably a good idea.
No. This is a bad idea. As listed above, this is one of the limited areas where skill and knowledge actually come into play (other than the ability to aim). It should stay exactly as it is. Also, they should revert the declination nerfs. They're proving to be complete BS, and I'm not even a vehicle player! I can just wander up to a vehicle and lol at them because they can't touch me! It is, as I believe the current meme is.... NONSENS!!!!!!!
It is pretty cheesy. Essentially, so long as your secondary weapon is peeking over the top (or the roof gun on a Harasser), you can shoot the enemy but they cannot shoot back. This is because the secondary weapon has no hitbox. That's not an advantage of skill and knowledge (at least not mostly)... it's an advantage of not having an exposed hitbox. The infantry equivalent would be being able to shoot from behind cover by raising your weapon over your head... but not taking damage because your weapon did not have a hitbox. Proper positioning in a hull or turret down position should be rewarded by presenting a much smaller target to the enemy, but it shouldn't leave one invulnerable altogether. Just harder to hit.
IRL if a tank goes hull down they can still be hit... it's just a much smaller target. In PS2, a Lightning can go hull down and fire on the enemy, but is still exposed to fire. The problem here is turret down, except that 1) unlike IRL MBTs in PS2 can have an AT roof weapon and 2) Harasser and MBT roof weapons have no hitbox, so cannot be hit. Give roof weapons a hitbox and the problem is solved.
Yes, I know all that, but be honest.... how much difference does it really make? How many people could actually hit a secondary weapon? Even if they did, is it reasonable that you should be able to do enough damage to kill the vehicle (as opposed to just disabling the weapon) by shooting the weapon? And compared to all the complexity of changing the whole system (and I'm pretty sure it would have to be a major change), I'm perfectly prepared to live with the occasional incongruity. I'm an infantry player, not a vehicle player, and I can live with it, so it can't be that much of a problem, right? This being infantryside and all! And it does require skill and knowledge (even if it is a bit of an exploit). There aren't that many places around you can do it, so you need to hunt them down and remember them, or be able to recognise them when you see them. If we're talking cheapass exploits, I've got a much bigger problem with HA's/MAX's using wallclimbing to get into impossible locations than with this relatively minor issue. That also takes skill and knowledge (and apparently, 60 FPS! ). Secondly, given the relatively small scale of PS2 (like "long-range" snipers are 300m) and the relatively fast speed of vehicles (not even counting air), even if you manage to put yourself INTO a hull-down position, if you just stay there somebody is gonna roll around and take you in the ***..... I just can't see it being the problem people are making it out to be.
You cannot downplay a fact, do you know that? It is an unfair advantage, period. You're not even giving reasonable arguments but just try to push it into a direction that's totally not related to the topic. Since this is my thread, I hereby warn you of further drive this discussion off-topic, we don't need that. Open up your own thread about skill etc., but keep it out here. Btw, thanks Chingels for helping me out the last few posts and I can only agree with what you've said so far. @Topic: It wouldn't even need a seperate hp status for the turrets etc, just a hitbox that's related to the main HP would be fine. On a side note, the refactoring of the hitbox to a hit-polygon with some boxes for the turrets, taken the current boxes are actually real boxes, could be a possible solutions as well, I sadly do not have insights into the models/assets.
Sure you can. This is the Trump era, where "alternative facts" and diversionary tactics are what define reality. More to the point, commenting on the relevance and significance of something is not the same as downplaying it. Well, I guess it is, sorta, but then again.... the life-span of a sperm-whale is about 70 years is a fact, but I'm not sure what relevance or significance it brings to this discussion... Ummm.... yeah.... but by that definition, a sniper rifle is an unfair advantage, 'cause I can't shoot back without going closer. A dude using wall-climbing to get places I can't because I don't have the FPS to pull it off is an unfair advantage. Stalker cloak is an unfair advantage, 'cause he can see me but I can't see him. ALL SORTS OF THINGS in Planetside 2 are "unfair advantages" in certain situations, and pretty much all of them can be countered. If you're a sniper, I can pull a sniper. Or just go closer and shotgun you in the face. If you're wall-climbing, I can pull LA. If you've got an MBT, I can pull one too.... or better yet, a Liberator. And if you're camped in a little dell with only your gun sticking out, absolutely nothing is stopping me rolling my big fat MBT **** over, sticking my gun up your tailpipe and blowing you away. Or dropping out of a Valk with C4. Or running a cloak-flash over with C4 on it. If you pull your head out your **** for 30 secs you'll see that there are plenty of options for dealing with it. Huh? How is "it would make no significant difference", "it would be hard to implement" and literally direct comparison to other exploits that also offer "unfair advantages" not reasonably and trying to derail? Frankly, I don't think you read it properly. Or simply didn't understand it, 'cause that comment is complete ********. Since this is my post, I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT!!! Hey... it works for Trump, right? Sooo.... you're totally fine with the idea that I can completely kill your vehicle by only doing damage to the turret? That seems a little silly..... Also, I don't think you realise quite how much work would go into changing everything involved to make this work. PS2 simply doesn't have the staff to implement this, I don't think. At least not over far more important things, given how minor an issue this one is!
I can get headshots on infantry using a Lightning AP cannon pretty easily out to ~200m so long as they aren't moving... the one thing about tank weapons in the game that more or less matches their balanced, real life capabilities is that they are extremely accurate. But the difference? The difference is fair gameplay. Imagine if infantry shot bullets out of a magical space a foot over their heads where they would take no damage, allowing them to shoot at the enemy with impunity. Infantry players would be raging over how unfair this would be. It really wouldn't be that difficult to give roof weapons hitboxes. The implementation would be no different that giving a Lightning turret a separate hitbox from the hull. Against a Harasser, sure. Hitting the roof weapon of a Harasser with an explosive or AP munition should set off all the ammunition inside the thing, completely destroying the glorified dune buggy. Hitting the roof gun of a MBT should disable the roof gun, but otherwise leave the tank intact. Would that be difficult to implement? Probably more difficult than just giving the roof guns hitboxes and subtracting it from the HP pool (like how turrets/hulls currently work). The best solution is of course to give locational damage effects to tanks.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whataboutism The question that's in need of an answer in this thread is not whether other things have a higher significance or not. It's whether the said advantage is fair, with "fair" meaning that one can counterattack the firing opponent in the moment they get attacked. That's why getting sniped can be considered fair since you're ale to counterattack in the second you get shot at, taken it wasn't a headshot. Who says that one shall be able to kill a vehicle with 100% health in a short amount of time by just shooting the turret? Like all things, the turret could receive directional damage attributes. And lemme tell you that editing a hitbox (which is a 3D model in most games and has surface properties, hence the ability to differentiate between top/bottom/side damage etc) isn't as hard as you may think it is. Had my hands on such things for some time myself, however we both cannot possibly say how much of a change it would require, so that point is a dead end in terms of debating over it.
I'll see your "whataboutism" and raise you a strawman. You've suggested a change. Changes take up the dev's time and effort. Which is a limited supply. So, ideally, they'd spent it on the most important stuff. Hence, significant absolutely is of relevence to a topic like this one. Second, it's not about "fair", because "fair" simply isn't in a game like Planetside under all circumstances. If I've got a shotty and you've got a sniper rifle, there's no "fair". Depending on range, one of us is screwed - we can't both, as you put it, "counterattack the firing opponent when we get attacked". I admit, you MIGHT get lucky with the sniper rifle, but at closer range, my money's on the shotgun and 9/10 I'll be right. The "fair" comes from the fact that we can take other actions.... like switching weapons or classes. Or pulling vehicles. Or plenty of other stuff. So to return to the example, if I'm sniping at you from 200m+, and you've got a shotty, how exactly were you planning on returning fire, even if I missed the headshot? Your only options are to take cover or change the range. Which is exactly the response I suggested to your problem with hull-down vehicles. Nobody suggested that. I asked whether you were OK with it (which you still haven't answered). Directional damage or not (and while directional damage might make sense for a vehicle, it certainly doesn't for a turret gun) the basic question is whether you're OK with me killing your vehicle by shooting only at the turret. If you are, I think it's silly, but fine. If not... now you're proposing an additional mechanic (separate HP pools and, potentially, disabling damaged weapons) in addition to changing up the models and stuff. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think it would involve a substantial amount of work and, for the relatively minor problem it is, I simply don't think it's worth it.
That's great. I sure can't, and I don't know how many other people can. We can't and shouldn't balance the game around the abilities of one (or a small number) of people. I would lay odds that the majority of the playerbase would be just as effective at shooting a tree as they would at shooting just at the turret. As such, I can see no real significance to implementing this. And be honest.... at the speed a Lightning moves, how long would it take you to simply move to a position where you can shoot at the dude? I'm guessing it's not that long..... I've be very surprised if it was long enough to make the difference between a kill and a death... Errr.... no. See my comments above on "fair. As for your infantry "idea", it's a pretty ridiculous comparison. Infantry is everywhere. Chest-high walls are everywhere. The ability to exploit your scenario is tremendous! The number of places you can turret-down is extremely limited, and the number of vehicles and players that do it, even more so. This barely happens. In about 1,500 hours of gameplay, I think I've seen this done maybe twice. And both those times, I C4 fairy'd the dude, because he was playing solo and thought he was "safe". We'll have to agree to disagree. See my comments above. Also, given what's left of the dev team, I'm not actually convinced they have the people to even implement this, even if it was a significant enough issue to bother! That's IRL. Which is a bad basis to be designing games and game-balance around. You can't currently one-shot a Harrasser iirc, so you shouldn't be able to do so by hitting the turret. Besides.... no offence, but vehicle players are some of the saltiest players I know (admittedly, sometimes with justification). How do you think they're gonna react to the idea that their vehicles can now be one-shot-headshotted??? I don't think it's gunna be good....... That's a completely new mechanic to the game and, while I think disabling weapons and locational damage would be awesome (I'd love for my infil to be able to hack your tank, or my AV mines to blow your tracks off if it doesn't kill you etc. etc. etc.) they're all new mechanics and, as I posted above, I don't believe the dev team is in any position to be implementing things like that.
