Tank Front amor to low !!!

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Godspeed0, May 27, 2017.

  1. Godspeed0

    Hello Daybreak an Forum.
    I find the front amor turret and hull of all Tanks is to low too many damage.
    I think the front amor turret and Hull must 500% stronger.
    When the Tank driver have a good hand an stay direcly in front to the enemy tank,it is a good tank driver.
    In battle Tanks get often damage from side or back i think the stronger front amor make the game not unbalanced.
  2. Demigan

    Let's ignore the immense increase in damage resistance to the front, and let's look at the tanks shall we?

    With your change you have to attack from the flank or rear, and you almost automatically win. So the best tanks will be the one's who can keep their front aimed at their enemy.

    The Vanguard is the slowest turning tank, with the biggest flank. So it is the easiest to kill.
    The Prowler is the mid-range turning tank with probably the smallest flank.
    The Magrider is almost guaranteed to have it's frontal armor facing you as it's the fastest turning tank and is forced to look at it's opponents to fire, but it can because it can strafe from behind cover.

    So no, your idea would fail at the basic level.
    • Up x 2
  3. VeryCoolMiller

    It's a myth that vanguard has a slow turning rate... it's comparable the the turning rate of a prowler... and is not the easiest to kill for sure.
  4. LordKrelas

    You do realize the Prowler is faster in speed in general right?

    Without the Vanguard Shield, the Vanguard for all that 'better' armor, loses to whomever shoots first if neither has an ability.
    The moment an ability is used, Vanguard dies without Shield.
    Vanguard still dies with Shield.
    And has some of the lowest results, with some of the highest numbers of tanks.

    It's pretty easy to C-4 the slowest firing tank.
  5. Tankalishious


    This.
    Quoted for truth and needs to be sticky.

    Slot into rival and the thing turns like a cat on the hunt
  6. meggarox

    Yeah sure let's just give magriders more ********. As if magburner doesn't need to be REMOVED FROM THE GAME because it is so game breakingly overpowered.
  7. LordKrelas

    Slot into rival on the others...
    Watch how the faster Prowler needs to care even less.
    Or notice how well the Maggie handles by default.

    The Vanguard has in general, has short-ranged top-guns, the slowest firing main cannon that doesn't even hit the hardest.
    A single miss, which is easy, is brutal.
    Add to the fact it must rotate to move in any direction that isn't forwards or reverse, and it can't react fast.

    A Prowler has a higher base speed, two-shots, and rapid-fire long-ranged top guns.
    The Magrider can boost, strafe, has a curved hull, and murderous top guns.
    Both are more likely to ram infantry or vehicles, and both can chase.

    Try chasing with a Vanguard.
    It ain't hard to avoid a single long reloading main cannon as a LA.
    Shield was the literal clutch to keep it from always dying.
  8. Cinnamon

    Magrider turning rate is unusual because it's based more on mouse movement. But you can just bind keys for non non analogue turning and it spins around like a top instantly with no chassis or racer. If prowler isn't locked down it mostly isn't that effective so turning speed is moot. I'm not that much of a fan of directional damage mods anyway since in practice they are just a pro-ganking mechanic and don't add much counter play. Smaller critical spots on tanks that can be damaged by lighter weapons would add more depth.
  9. DeadlyOmen

    Without armor specifics (material type, thickness, reactive, etc) and round specifics (size, velocity, munition type, etc), as well as other variables, trying to figure out anything in the game is nonsense.

    In order to have logical dialogue re: performance of anything, one must lay their viewpoint upon a foundation of physical laws. Laws that do not exist in PS2.
  10. LordKrelas

    So you mean the armor value is useless for armor value
    Since it lacks the details of the armor, that have no value to the armor value in this game.
    Only variables that are actually taken into consideration for the calculation are worth a damn.

    IE you aren't plotting resistances of real world ammunition against a real world armor plate
    This is a literal artificial construct of digital materials, appearance, weight, and physics defined to the game's own demands.
    Not the real world.

    So you can figure out everything about the game, using the game data.
    You want the effectiveness of one of the game's shells vs one of the game's armor types?
    Look at the game data, not the nearest physics textbook - as the two have no relation.
    One is required by existence itself, the Other has no need to follow anything but what the game defines.

    You need not lay your view point, your perspective, for a game's design or balance, on real world materials & weaponry to balance or design a game weapons.
    For they need not give a single damn about aerodynamics, thermal dynamics, velocity or anything else unless programmed in.
    And only when the game says they must give a single ****.

    Welcome to a Simulation, that isn't about being as realistic to the real world as possible.
    You are playing Planetside 2, a game with Hover ******* tanks, and non-functional plasma weaponry.
    Half the **** wouldn't work based on what technology we can compare it to.
    But we can make it in games, since games are not bound to our understanding of anything.
    Bloody hell.
  11. Demigan

    And what do we do with material type, thickness, reactiveness etc?
    We give values to them!
    Then, you can simulate those values! And give different values based on what type of ammunition you are using (size, velocity, munition type etc) as well as other variables such as "what does the game need to create good gameplay".

    So let's take a simple example:
    A Magrider. We condense material type, thickness, reactiveness etc into a standard value. Let's say "63% front armor, 58% side/top armor, 30% rear/underside armor". Hey that's almost as if those examples came straight from the game files! Well that takes care of the armor specifics, and all based on simulated physics without needing to code every single atom of the Magrider! That's some wonderful smarts right there!
    Then we simulate the physics required for the ammo. Rather than creating the math for weight, gravity, momentum, general relativity, special relativity, pressure, Hardness (like Brinell Hardness), Sheer strength, toughness, yield strength, air/gas resistance, % of imperfections in the material, Molecular structure (based on how the material was created) etc etc. We can just condense all that knowledge and physics into several simple things.
    For example: Velocity, starting damage, bullet drop and damage degradation (which simulates everything to do with gas dynamics, wind resistance for the altitude you are at, wind resistance the bullet shape will incur etc).
    Then, as a cherry on top, you can simulate how well each type of ammo works against specific armor types by introducing weapon-specific damage types. That way you can prevent small-arms from damaging heavily armored tanks!

    Hey, now you can actually create a game with less than 1/1.000.000th of the physics required to make a faithful representation of the world, meaning less load and more time for actual gameplay! And it still works!

    But ofcourse, with your 24 years of gaming you would have known things like that wouldn't you?
    • Up x 2
  12. The Rogue Wolf

    So because the game is not a 1:1 simulation of reality, there's no point in talking about game balance.

    Where do you even come up with these arguments? o_O
    • Up x 4
  13. Tankalishious

    I have fully certed MBTs on all fractions, with all the empire spesific guns slotted with full magsizes/reload speed etc. I know all this. Tye only thing i was hinting at was that it doesnt turn as slow as ppl try to claim here. The vanguard isnt a bad tank, i just find it boring to play. And yes, as with all NC guns, it punishes bad aim, but it REALLY awards good aim.
  14. DeadlyOmen

    That is not what I said.

    From a belief that arbitrary change is never a good solution.
  15. DeadlyOmen

    No. I mean that arbitrary argument for a change to a value does not correct a prior arbitrary assignment of that value.
  16. BadCoding

    Statistically speaking: By repeating random changes and reverting back each time a desirable effect wasn't met it'd be possible to do the "what" right without understanding a single thing about the "why". It's just very unlikely but not impossible.
    Game-wise even without understanding the "why" changing the "what" could reveal to a fool how the "why" works and is relevant. Learning by doing instead of analyzing, understanding and doing it right after that. Also there are too many options most often to consider everything and the human mind isn't made for that so what works best is working towards a solution or in rare cases stumbling upon one.

    Newsflash: Planetside 2 introduces magic !
    But for real: Physics in any game are an extra to add some gameplay value, not to govern the design of anything ahead of the thought of how to increase it's gameplay value or fun factor. Especially if talking about physical laws you should know that there are a lot that are missing, dumbed down or using customized values to fit to what the game needs and cares about to simulate.

    If you'd follow your argument to the full extend you'd need to go full physics and that would end up in a failure due to that being so complex that it'd need a supercomputer to handle the game, or unrealism, only caring partially and dumbed down about what's relevant to the game in terms of physics aka the current state.

    In any case: How would you compare Vanu projectiles that aren't using any actual bullets / shells to the bullet and shell based counterparts the other factions are using when applying your argument there, especially since we're talking about sci-fi weaponry here ?

    Translates to: Having that setting is a mistake already. Debating how to change the value achieves nothing.

    It seems like you already have a very specific idea but the stuff you come up with is nothing that's actually in the game or anything the game was made for as PS2 never had it's focus on realism.

    Also your thoughts are very narrow and too complex at the same time, like assuming that for balance it's enough to value armor types vs shell types using physical laws (complex), completely forgetting about stuff that's already in the game and bypassing this, along with the directional damage (narrow): C4.
    You're not thinking of anything new or any other way to handle things, not thinking of solutions but in same old patterns and then discovering that there's no solution so it's best to leave things as they are.
    • Up x 1
  17. ridicOne

  18. DeadlyOmen

    Thank you for the thoughtful, and thought-provoking, reply.

    When a desirable effect is defined by self-interest, it can never be met. Add the infinite number of variables the game supplies to most encounters, and I think "very unlikely" is an understatement.

    It is possible to assign mathematics to performance- taking away the need for trial and error, but introducing the need to stand by one's design or test if scientifically (instead of subjectively).

    There is still the opportunity to begin from a foundation.

    Battleground Europe has done physical laws pretty well.

    Don't need full physics- just a reason why something does what it does, and then using that reason as a starting point for the measure of its performance.

    Give me a week, and a paycheck, and I would answer that.

    I prefer to think that the existing state does not indicate a mistake. It is what it is. I haven't seen anything that deserves emotional adjectives to describe it.

    Working only with "what", an infinite number of variables, and a healthy does of self-interest, debates are not debates- they are opposing advocacy.

    I believe that the solution to every problem regarding people's in-game problems already exist in game. There are differing world-views. One view believes changing a game is best. Another view believes changing players is best.

    It is possible to define everything. Complex? Yes. Narrow? I think not. A metaphor: when rules are defined, the game opens up.

    Every in-game problem presented on these forums has an in-game solution.
  19. LordKrelas

    You really have a hard-on for turning a futuristic FPS into a Physics simulation don't you.

    This doesn't need to simulate every single possible calculation, variable, Physical , Thermodynamic Law or similar just to say a Bullet does 147 damage at a fire-rate of 550 rounds per minute.
    You'll find that is impossible to actually play the game, when every bullet has 621 calculations per second.
    As well, that damage isn't able to simply put, let alone with nanite technology of today not being capable of PS2's nanites.
    So you get a massive black hole of "We have no math or basis for this" in your reality simulation as well.

    When rules are defined, the game opens up?
    You want every single bullet to be bound by the laws of physics of the modern world, and to edit the damage, it must be changed in some many ways, rather than change the damage value - Not to mention, you'd loose fine-tuning.

    You also have this grand issue, that a solution to a problem that is 8x harder than the method that creates it, is fine since it exists.
    The Solution to winning a fight, is to knife everywhere - So there is no need for guns.
    Perfectly simple to simulate! Right? No.
    All the calculations for the materials of the blade, all the calculations for the movement of the body, all the calculations for the material of the armor, of the energy transferred.
    Or just put it as a damage value when the hit lands - 1 calc vs 5 sets of calcs.


    The solution to Aircraft is to outnumber severely - Which unless aircraft is spammed, is the 'solution' to everything.
    The second 'solution' to aircraft is aircraft - AA weaponry must be spammed.
    AV weaponry, needs not be spammed to have a chance of killing a vehicle.
    AI weaponry, needs not be spammed to have a chance of killing infantry.

    And the laws of the physical world state, aircraft can not resist the standard infantry rifle of TR or NC to any part of the aircraft.
    1 single bullet in the thruster or ****-pit - and the bird is dead.


    The Solution to your problem that the game isn't a physics simulation of the highest degree, is to stop expecting it to be one.
    No computer can handle the calculations for that, and at that point, it's not a FPS that people can play.
    Let alone PS2 at that point;
    Vanu's entire weaponry couldn't function.
    NS weapons have severe design flaws for ballistic weaponry.
    NC's weapons do not match the technology apparently used.
    A lot of TR weapons do not match the firepower the technology would grant. (usually less)
    We have massive *** warpgates - Simulate that which doesn't exist, within the known laws of our world? Good ******* luck.
    Nanites? Function & work entirely on a different scale than our own limited nanite technology.

    You can't have a physics simulation in PS2's world.
    Let alone a fun FPS, when in order to know if your pistol deals 100 or 5 damage to another infantry, you have to calc the range, material of armor, wind resistance, point of impact, and the results of impacts, the capabilities of nanite auto-repair...
    Most machines would crash before getting past the simulation of impact to the real-world degree.

    So you'd be staring at an opponent, imagining if you could fire without the game crashing.

    Welcome to practicality.
    A perfect physics simulation, where everything is determined solely & strictly by the laws of the physical world, Ain't it.
  20. DeadlyOmen

    No.