This game needs side-armour!
10 May 2013, 02:18 AM
#21
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
Hello Quinn! Any chance you could reply to the question about why side armor rewarded attackers? I'm still super unclear on how that works.
Signature by Ginnungagap
10 May 2013, 23:27 PM
#22
Posts: 642
I can perhaps explain what he meant.
There are no angle calculations in CoH2. In a realistic scenario, if the defender exposes his side armor at an angle, it becomes the equivalent of sloped armor: it is harder to penetrate.
However, since there is no angle of attack calculation in CoH2, even exposing a tiny bit of the side armor, will count as though you had gotten hit straight on, for full effect. This is a disadvantage to the defending player, because it means he must painfully position the tank so the hitbox used to calculate the hits, faces exactly towards the enemy opponent.
That's how I understood the problem at hand, and it is an understandable position, since adding angles of impact affects other stuff.
There are no angle calculations in CoH2. In a realistic scenario, if the defender exposes his side armor at an angle, it becomes the equivalent of sloped armor: it is harder to penetrate.
However, since there is no angle of attack calculation in CoH2, even exposing a tiny bit of the side armor, will count as though you had gotten hit straight on, for full effect. This is a disadvantage to the defending player, because it means he must painfully position the tank so the hitbox used to calculate the hits, faces exactly towards the enemy opponent.
That's how I understood the problem at hand, and it is an understandable position, since adding angles of impact affects other stuff.
11 May 2013, 01:19 AM
#23
Posts: 2
So let me put this straight...
- there's no side armor
- there's no pop-cap
- resource layout is horizontal and no DEVs seems to look on it as a problem
- sectors on dull maps presented so far, where objects doesn't look to serve any purpose, looks to be drawn in total chaos and not merging with a map at all
- currently gameplay reminds me Civilisation 5, where all action centers either on the sectors/fire-pits or building
- cover??? You do not need to care about troops much as you can tech basically in minutes, get VET from damage, so why bother using cover
....these are only the MAJOR flaws... tons of small ones as well yet.
Could anyone now tell me: why bother playing COH2 over COH1? [do not mention the online services]
This is the worst critique yet I have seen for CoH2. There are legitimate weaknesses in the current game... but these aren't even factually accurate differences between CoH1 and CoH2. Other than resource layout being horizontal. But that's a pretty lame reason to prefer CoH1.
Specifically dealing with side armor... the only way I would want side armor to be lower than front armor is if angular impact was calculated.. and since we're not there in CoH2, it would be a really bad idea.
I'm also curious why certain people lazily throw around "dumbing down the game for casuals" when there are plenty of additions to this game - special abilities for veteran units, blizzards, etc. - that undeniably raise the skill cap. Even the upkeep system punishes players for mindlessly producing units as fast as possible, as they could be stuck with a lot of weak units instead of a more balanced army.
But yes, horizontal resource layout is still bad.
11 May 2013, 04:03 AM
#24
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
I can perhaps explain what he meant.
There are no angle calculations in CoH2. In a realistic scenario, if the defender exposes his side armor at an angle, it becomes the equivalent of sloped armor: it is harder to penetrate.
However, since there is no angle of attack calculation in CoH2, even exposing a tiny bit of the side armor, will count as though you had gotten hit straight on, for full effect. This is a disadvantage to the defending player, because it means he must painfully position the tank so the hitbox used to calculate the hits, faces exactly towards the enemy opponent.
That's how I understood the problem at hand, and it is an understandable position, since adding angles of impact affects other stuff.
But this applies equally to the attacker...
Signature by Ginnungagap
11 May 2013, 06:20 AM
#25
Posts: 255
This is the worst critique yet I have seen for CoH2. There are legitimate weaknesses in the current game... but these aren't even factually accurate differences between CoH1 and CoH2. Other than resource layout being horizontal. But that's a pretty lame reason to prefer CoH1.
Specifically dealing with side armor... the only way I would want side armor to be lower than front armor is if angular impact was calculated.. and since we're not there in CoH2, it would be a really bad idea.
I'm also curious why certain people lazily throw around "dumbing down the game for casuals" when there are plenty of additions to this game - special abilities for veteran units, blizzards, etc. - that undeniably raise the skill cap. Even the upkeep system punishes players for mindlessly producing units as fast as possible, as they could be stuck with a lot of weak units instead of a more balanced army.
But yes, horizontal resource layout is still bad.
Who are you to judge my arguments to be false or true? I have my own opinion, and it is what I stated above and are valid. If you cannot counter them 1-by-1 giving a proper counter-argument for each - then just shut the **** up or do not QUOTE me! If you do not see the resource layouts, map design, pop-cap as a HUUUUGE difference - then what we're talking about? What lvl were you on vCOH in any of Automatch modes to state to know what I am even talking about???
I-am not sure about side armor tho - vCOH had a side armor. Damage to side shots did considerably more damage then front armor...
11 May 2013, 07:20 AM
#26
Posts: 57
sigh at humanity.
The truth is simple. It's more work than what its worth in programming terms. Something like this is a complete programming overhaul and the poor community reps have to come here and spin it to the regular folk.
Bottom line is simple, would you rather GUI changes, side armour or balance changes. You can pick 2 out of 3, this is the decision relic has to make because they only have finite resources.
The truth is simple. It's more work than what its worth in programming terms. Something like this is a complete programming overhaul and the poor community reps have to come here and spin it to the regular folk.
Bottom line is simple, would you rather GUI changes, side armour or balance changes. You can pick 2 out of 3, this is the decision relic has to make because they only have finite resources.
11 May 2013, 10:13 AM
#27
Posts: 371
Hello Quinn! Any chance you could reply to the question about why side armor rewarded attackers? I'm still super unclear on how that works.
i am confused about this as well , there was side armor in coh wasnt there , how come we had no problems there ? Anyway i had no problems facing the front side of armor on most occasions , only problem i can think of is cause of some of the tanks insane ( or ridiculous ) range which will result in side armor hits even if there is the slightest of relative angle between the two objects , anyway most of my problems in armored combat came from ranhdom criticals but atm flanking is very unrewarding .
One possible solution would be to split the tank in 4 areas , 2 of 120 degrees regarding frontal and back armor and 2 of 60 degrees of side armor essentiatially connecting the frontal and back armor (perhaps the number of degrees will have to be altered for each tank model depending on the size and shape of it .
Please relic and sega just take it easy with the dlc ...
11 May 2013, 11:59 AM
#28
Posts: 391
The vehicle armor system IS EXACTLY LIKE the system from COH1. Exactly.
Could it be that the maps (so far) are more claustrophobic in CoH2 then? There must be some reason for people thinking it's different. (Not directly at qduffy, more of a general floor question)
11 May 2013, 18:58 PM
#29
Posts: 642
But this applies equally to the attacker...
It doesn't. The attacker has first strike capability, and as such, gets to choose positioning in engagements, the only exception being an offensive that has been revealed to the defender (proper recon).
This would all be negated by shot angle calculation, but it takes time to implement, and it affects things around it (like a butterfly effect).
Alternate solution? If the rear hitbox is hit, increase the chances of engine damage/critical. Its not side armor, per se, but hitting the rear has an additional bonus.
Edit: of course, I don't know how the code works right now, so this might not be viable.
11 May 2013, 19:23 PM
#30
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
But the attacker only gets to choose positioning if they know which direction the defender is facing and if they can approach from some other direction head on. But of course that's often very difficult to do because coming from any direction other than "the front" means driving around near enemy lines and thus getting spotted, giving the defender tank time to swivel around and face its front armor, or more likely the defender either backs up or just starts maneuvering. And for any of that to work you have to know what direction the defender is facing already, which is very hard unless it's obvious which direction you'll attack from, in which case you have no choice and you're going to hit the front armor.
The thing is that most CoH tank engagements either happen at long/max range for both tanks - they approach each other and start shooting - or both players are maneuvering and both players (or the one with the better micro) get side shots.
The thing is that most CoH tank engagements either happen at long/max range for both tanks - they approach each other and start shooting - or both players are maneuvering and both players (or the one with the better micro) get side shots.
Signature by Ginnungagap
11 May 2013, 19:54 PM
#31
Posts: 182
This is the problem as I see it: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?9h3a38ap8h9f85c
Tank A doesn't even have to flank Tank B to have the possibility of scoring some side-armor hits. This problem is amplified by the extremely short ranges at which tank engagements take place in coh.
Tank A doesn't even have to flank Tank B to have the possibility of scoring some side-armor hits. This problem is amplified by the extremely short ranges at which tank engagements take place in coh.
11 May 2013, 21:12 PM
#32
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
Uh okay but Tank B gets just as many side hits: http://i.imgur.com/6RcrLxK.jpg
Signature by Ginnungagap
11 May 2013, 21:21 PM
#33
Posts: 21
adding sidearmour hits as being more effective than frontal hits is a bit weird, tanks not facing frontal but slightly showing their side will be much stronger due to simulating sloped armour (you may have experienced this while playing World of Tanks, a game that implemented the most realistic tank vs tank simulation so far). In the light of the above, making the full 180 degrees count as frontal armour is pretty reasonable.
"If they hid the resources in a collapsible overlay and you had to solve a sudoku first to have a glance at your resources, it wouldn't be much harder than it is right now." - cr4wler
11 May 2013, 22:19 PM
#34
Posts: 182
Uh okay but Tank B gets just as many side hits: http://i.imgur.com/6RcrLxK.jpg
Sure, I don't see what you're disproving... It affects the attacker and defender equally. My point is that it would be strange and unbalanced if side-armor were able to be hit when facing a tank from the front.
I believe this would go a long way in terms of making flanking more intuitive and rewarding (Blue=rear, Grey=front): http://www.mediafire.com/view/?58jmml6yesj2bt9
EDIT: I see now. You're talking about Quinn's post on how side-armor aids the attacker.
12 May 2013, 00:10 AM
#35
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
Right. I'm trying to understand what the heck Quinn is talking about. I totally agree with everything you've said, which is one of the reasons why Quinn's point makes no sense to me. Attackers and defenders seem more or less evenly positioned when it comes to taking advantage of side armor.
Signature by Ginnungagap
12 May 2013, 01:37 AM
#36
Posts: 37
The vehicle armor system IS EXACTLY LIKE the system from COH1. Exactly.
So, in COH2, you made changes to mechanics that didn't need to be changed, yet you kept things such as an unrealistic (and, frankly, annoying) armor penetration system which people have been telling you about ever since vCOH came out.
12 May 2013, 15:27 PM
#37
Posts: 105
Side armor was one of the most wanted things to be added by the community, atleast that was mine impresion after reading so Coh2 threads.
The Main gun seems to aim at front armor anyway, side armor would add an additional way to balance tanks.
http://i.imgur.com/ibPbdVK.png?1
The Main gun seems to aim at front armor anyway, side armor would add an additional way to balance tanks.
http://i.imgur.com/ibPbdVK.png?1
12 May 2013, 15:59 PM
#38
Posts: 642
But the attacker only gets to choose positioning if they know which direction the defender is facing and if they can approach from some other direction head on. But of course that's often very difficult to do because coming from any direction other than "the front" means driving around near enemy lines and thus getting spotted, giving the defender tank time to swivel around and face its front armor, or more likely the defender either backs up or just starts maneuvering. And for any of that to work you have to know what direction the defender is facing already, which is very hard unless it's obvious which direction you'll attack from, in which case you have no choice and you're going to hit the front armor.
The thing is that most CoH tank engagements either happen at long/max range for both tanks - they approach each other and start shooting - or both players are maneuvering and both players (or the one with the better micro) get side shots.
Pathfinding tends to be so terrible, that proper positioning of tanks will be a pain in the ass. Attacker still gets first shot, defender could still have turret facing another direction altogether. All I need to know the enemy tanks position is to walk some fleshies and force a shot, reveal enemy tank in all of its positioned glory.
It would still be interesting to test, nevertheless. Maybe they did (doubt it) and it didn't work.
12 May 2013, 16:28 PM
#39
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
Attacker doesn't necessarily get first shot. In fact because the attacker is maneuvering rather than holding steady, it's harder for them to get the first shot because when a tank in CoH moves, its turret turns to shoot whatever it wants instead of what you want it to shoot. The defender, meanwhile, could just target the attacker because the defender doesn't have to move. Whoever gets the first shot pretty much depends on whose gun has the longer range, though.
Signature by Ginnungagap
12 May 2013, 18:37 PM
#40
Posts: 172
One solution to this could be a change to the point where the attacking tank aims (however, I only presume it is in the middle of the tank in the receiving end).
The point could be moved to the (middle of the) rear end of the tank; what would it mean?
-> Attacking from the front gains you frontal hits
-> Attacking from the rear gains you hits to the rear
-> Attacking from the sides gains you more rear hits than frontal hits thus increasing the effectiveness of flanking while still keeping the same armour system.
A crappy image to illustrate the point:
The point could be moved to the (middle of the) rear end of the tank; what would it mean?
-> Attacking from the front gains you frontal hits
-> Attacking from the rear gains you hits to the rear
-> Attacking from the sides gains you more rear hits than frontal hits thus increasing the effectiveness of flanking while still keeping the same armour system.
A crappy image to illustrate the point:
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
65 | ||
 |
|
|
25 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.549203.730+3
- 2.830222.789+36
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.916404.694-1
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.305114.728+1
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.8520.810+7
- 10.14758.717+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1222
Board Info
644 users are online:
644 guests
1 post in the last 24h
16 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
16 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48909
Welcome our newest member, rudyegill
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, rudyegill
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM