Directional Vehicle Armour

[NodCommander]

So, I was (And still am) watching the "Black Dawn - Dev Playthrough & Podcast" video which Fobby posted on YouTube not too long ago. It can be found here:

And one thing I heard the guys talk about around the 30 minute mark is the directional armour on vehicles. So I thought we could perhaps discuss the subject here!

My own first thoughts is that it does sound like a really interesting idea. Directional armour was a great addition to the C&C gameplay in C&C3, and I dont see any reason as of yet why this would be a bad thing Renegade X.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

you mean this:

https://www.bluehellproductions.com/for ... opic=26800

try reading from post #8, they really get into it. you could get some nice ideas from it.

[cirex]

Not sure how well this will fit, it will make infantry OP, so then infantry will be nerfed so they cant fight well. Mostly you are fighting from the front, since there is not always space for surprise attacks.

[R315r4z0r]

Well I know that a lot of times people prefer to use certain vehicles backwards due to their design (the artillery and light tank, for example, because their turrets are set towards the back ends of the chassis).

I think that directional armor would be an interesting mechanic in the game. It will also change the way people use vehicles like the artillery .

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Sounds like a interesting idea, though it might make "sidestepping"(driving to the side and shooting with tanks) uneffective wich would be a shame.

But tbh, i am pretty neutral on the subject.

[NodCommander]

As for APB's implementations, they are WAY overdoing it. A heavy tank killed in just three hits is by far too much.

However, giving armour-boosts/weakpoints which slightly affects damage input is interesting.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

As for APB's implementations, they are WAY overdoing it. A heavy tank killed in just three hits is by far too much.

you have no idea how nit-picky the conversations on BHP can get. you'll get a headache within 10 minutes.

However, giving armour-boosts/weakpoints which slightly affects damage input is interesting.

1. the APB idea is still not final, they're still working on it and isn't released yet.

2. most of the weakpoints are placed at the edges of a tank, and with the extra recoil both APB and RenX is going to have (think of black dawn), you're going to risk missing a lot of bullets, in particular the missile launcher, considering the slow bullet travel of Gunner's launcher, and the lock-on feature automatically locks to the middle of the vehicle which is better defended, and also which makes enemy tanks harder to hit if it's hiding at a wall. because a warhead isn't smart enough to dodge a wall.

As for tank vs. tank combat: this would balance the fight in favour of the defender, because the defender decides the rules of the fight, and the attacker will have to play along with it.

Sounds like a interesting idea, though it might make "sidestepping"(driving to the side and shooting with tanks) uneffective wich would be a shame.

But tbh, i am pretty neutral on the subject.

yes, this does negtively affect driving sideways. but how you drive is often related to if you're attacking or defending. if you're defending, you'll be driving sideways to be able to drive away from heavy fire quickly without steering. with the added weakpoints, this will be useless.

offenders in the other hand, will often charge a tank frontally if it's low on health and tries to run. when this happens, off course, the tank will get exposed as a whole by planking into the enemy side of the field or base, and makes it extremely vulnerable from attacks from the side.

i could add even more details to this, but i think you get the picture of how it looks like and how complex it can get.

also, the 300% damage spots (yes i know, 300% is too much, it should be decreased)are hard to hit, and are few in numbers. also, allowing getting yourself hit on the back is just stupid. then again...

Well I know that a lot of times people prefer to use certain vehicles backwards due to their design (the artillery and light tank, for example, because their turrets are set towards the back ends of the chassis).

...if you do what R315r4z0r just said (which many people do), it's going to be a sacrifice you're going to have to take. but off course, you can block off the back of your tank by driving slightly diagonally, but you don't need my opinion on that to get an idea about that.

don't forget, the game isn't released yet, so nothing is final. the RenX team can still decide what they want to do with it.

[RypeL]

Well I know that a lot of times people prefer to use certain vehicles backwards due to their design (the artillery and light tank, for example, because their turrets are set towards the back ends of the chassis).

...if you do what R315r4z0r just said (which many people do), it's going to be a sacrifice you're going to have to take.

Thats also my main concern with this. This feature would kinda dictate you not to drive backwards anymore in vehicles like the arty even though many people like to do that. Also driving sideways would make you more vulnerable. Beeing able to drive my vehicle how i want and as crazy as i want in the fights is part of the fun in this game for me so i would be worried if we introduce this. So if we would do this we should have a solution for this aswell like maybe only applying the extra damage when getting very close to the enemy.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Well I know that a lot of times people prefer to use certain vehicles backwards due to their design (the artillery and light tank, for example, because their turrets are set towards the back ends of the chassis).

...if you do what R315r4z0r just said (which many people do), it's going to be a sacrifice you're going to have to take.

Thats also my main concern with this. This feature would kinda dictate you not to drive backwards anymore in vehicles like the arty even though many people like to do that. Also driving sideways would make you more vulnerable. Beeing able to drive my vehicle how i want and as crazy as i want in the fights is part of the fun in this game for me so i would be worried if we introduce this. So if we would do this we should have a solution for this aswell like maybe only applying the extra damage when getting very close to the enemy.

yeah, but because you're the dev, you decide where the weak spots on the tanks are, right? you could change it to your wishes!

[BoMbZu]

Sure sounds like a good addition to the current gamemechanics. I sure hope it doesnt impact the renegade gameplay too much though

[Ban4life]

As usual, I don't have a short reply. Sorry about that.

Overall

I think the mechanic is a good one. APB does overdo it though. I think the weak points should give a very small bonus to damage. This would maintain the tanks a high survivability, but can still be exploited to give that one small boost if you are skilled enough. This can make the difference in a fight.

I wonder if it will change with different weapons. An artillery flanking you could have a bigger bonus in % than a light tank. Also a difference in anti tank weapons who exploit this more than anti infantry weapons maybe?

Mind you, all bonuses you get will be small. Survivability is one of the interesting things in Renegade and I want to keep it that way. Using your gun in a slightly different way and suddenly gaining an advantage is very character Renegade and taking that to tank fights is a good idea.

Artillery and reconnaissance

So one problem raised is that artilleries for example would get more or less useless. I disagree. The artillery, MRLS, Humvee and Nod buggy all have minimal armour. This means to me they have no weak points and will get damage like normal. This will make them slightly better then normal, as they can use the weak points and are still able to drive whatever way they want.

Also, I imagine the support becoming more effective, as they shield you from being attacked from behind.

Characters

Characters have nearly always been trumped by vehicles when against them. That is ok, but when characters can also exploit this weakness, it would make the strategic value of characters as a weapon against vehicles much higher. As a tank driver it would be one extra thing to worry about. SBH would get more interesting too. The only thing I'm worried about is not using tanks any more. Didn't the dev's say that they used tanks less frequently and felt the characters had more power? Is this only a feeling thing because of the graphics or a real power change?

Attacking/defending

I saw someone saying it was a big bonus for the defenders. I disagree. I often stand forwards (ok actually backwards) when attacking, so that I can just drive backwards real quick if need be. When defending I stand a little more often sideways, so I can quickly hide behind objects in the base. Both are easily changed to the situation and sometimes the direction doesn't matter per ce. If you attack in walls, at some points you can always be hit from the side and, maybe something that does more damage, from the top.

I think it will eventually just give a slightly different way of attacking. No more change than I've seen during the long years of playing Renegade, where people have been changing the way's of attacking and defending over the years.

Here's to a great Renegade!

[Nielsen]

If I can plunk my 2 cents in here. Since there's quite a lot of standoffs in RX with 2 lines pushing against each other I think even though it might be a small bonus, players who flank should be rewarded for their efforts and this mechanic will allow you to do and get that.

There'll be attention paid to the balance side of things but since this is a (dis)advantage for everyone if it's not too radical it shouldn't change the dynamics too much.

[TP|himselfXD]

If I can plunk my 2 cents in here. Since there's quite a lot of standoffs in RX with 2 lines pushing against each other I think even though it might be a small bonus, players who flank should be rewarded for their efforts and this mechanic will allow you to do and get that.

There'll be attention paid to the balance side of things but since this is a (dis)advantage for everyone if it's not too radical it shouldn't change the dynamics too much.

This will make Renegade into a game like battlefield or some other horribly realistic yet still not actually realistic games. I think directional armor is for realism and you gotta ask yourselves if you honestly think renegade is supposed to be realistic down to that amount. I honestly think the people who want games to be as realistic as possible should jump off a bridge ESPECIALLY with renegade. Renegade is not realistic and is not meant to be realistic! Now if you did implement it I think it should be very minor variations in armor strength that would work and not ruin renegade.

[Ban4life]

If I can plunk my 2 cents in here. Since there's quite a lot of standoffs in RX with 2 lines pushing against each other I think even though it might be a small bonus, players who flank should be rewarded for their efforts and this mechanic will allow you to do and get that.

There'll be attention paid to the balance side of things but since this is a (dis)advantage for everyone if it's not too radical it shouldn't change the dynamics too much.

This will make Renegade into a game like battlefield or some other horribly realistic yet still not actually realistic games. I think directional armor is for realism and you gotta ask yourselves if you honestly think renegade is supposed to be realistic down to that amount. I honestly think the people who want games to be as realistic as possible should jump off a bridge ESPECIALLY with renegade. Renegade is not realistic and is not meant to be realistic! Now if you did implement it I think it should be very minor variations in armor strength that would work and not ruin renegade.

Wow chill out. If you are against it, just say so. I think I prefer without too, but I also think I'll get used to it soon enough and enjoy it more. And if not, this will probably be a server option. It sounds like that to me anyway.

I do agree that if it is implemented, it should be only small, like Nielsen said. As a dev he probably thought about it too. The robustness of the tanks should not be disturbed too much, as long duals are typical of Renegade. The option of getting the drop on others does intrigue me to have that little bit more in a fight.

I am against the sprinting and a few other stuff too, but I don't immediately tell them to jump of a bridge...

[R315r4z0r]

This will make Renegade into a game like battlefield or some other horribly realistic yet still not actually realistic games. I think directional armor is for realism and you gotta ask yourselves if you honestly think renegade is supposed to be realistic down to that amount. I honestly think the people who want games to be as realistic as possible should jump off a bridge ESPECIALLY with renegade. Renegade is not realistic and is not meant to be realistic! Now if you did implement it I think it should be very minor variations in armor strength that would work and not ruin renegade.

Directional armor is not realistic. In fact it's a very arcady addition to the game. It applies a very popular video game mechanic to this game: hitting stuff in the back is better than hitting it in the front.

Yes it might be more realistic in the sense that actual armored vehicles have disproportionate distributions of armor, but in real life it isn't something that can be modified and balanced with stats and numbers. In a game it can be and it can bring a very rewarding new mechanic to the table.

It adds a layer of strategy to the game that wasn't present before. Being able to create counter attacks by adjusting your forces postion will now be possible and successfully pulling off something like that can be very rewarding to the defenders.

They are not trying to be realistic here, they are trying to make it more fun. Even if directional armor wasn't something that existed in real life, they would still be opting to apply it here because of the way it meshes with the gameplay.

[Jngdwe]

I'm gonna come out and say it. I have grown less and less interested in this project every time it has diverged further from C&C Renegade. I love the updated graphics, game engine, sound, physics, etc. Renegade-X does not need directional armor, nor does it need anything else that significantly changes game-play mechanics.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

This will make Renegade into a game like...

Directional armor is not...

actually, vehicle combat in renegade has never been realistic. you must have quite some armour if your tanks is able to endure 10 hits of artillery fire. in real life, getting shot at your barrel/loop means you aren't able to fire anymore. getting hit in your caterpillars means your vehicle isn't able to drive as well as it used to.

in battlefield3, you would actually lose one or more of your vehicle's funtions if it was under heavy fire, or had to fire through a smokescreen. with directional armour, you take advantage of the weaker spots of the vehicle, which somehow damages the tank as a whole, which doesn't make sense. yet, it could happen in Renegade X.

Yes it might be more realistic in the sense that actual armored vehicles have disproportionate distributions of armor, but in real life it isn't something that can be modified and balanced with stats and numbers. In a game it can be and it can bring a very rewarding new mechanic to the table.

actually, you can. you can calculate how effective your armour gets with all kinds of formulas, but i'm getting nitpicky here. but the main point is, you can decide which sides of your vehicle will be better protected IRL and ingame. and that's all we need to know.

EDIT:

I'm gonna come out and say it. I have grown less and less interested in this project every time it has diverged further from C&C Renegade. I love the updated graphics, game engine, sound, physics, etc. Renegade-X does not need directional armor, nor does it need anything else that significantly changes game-play mechanics.

maybe... but directional armour doesn't have to make such a big impact on the game really. it depends on where the multipliers are, how much the multipliers count, and how you put it in use, off course. 120% at smaller weakpoints won't make a big diffrence really. 300% is a total gamebreaker though.

[Jngdwe]

I disagree with the idea of directional armor, but an extra 15% - 20% wouldn't be too bad, assuming vehicles will not lose functionality at all from said weak points taking damage. Nothing should make a vehicle immobile, or incapable of firing. Extra damage should be the only plus side of it, in my opinion.

On top of that, I think all options beyond classic renegade should be server side options and be available as filters in a server browser. At the very least, they should be separated into Renegade-X game-play, and Renegade-Classic game-play within the server browser.

[Nielsen]

As it stands now, there's plans for mutators / filters yes.

Directional armour IS limited to damage only and probably max damage of 120-125% but testing is required.

jump off a bridge

Classy.

[TP|himselfXD]

"jump off a bridge" is a figure of speak I obviously do not mean it I just was showing my distaste of their opinion. You don't need to be the politically correct police now.

[R315r4z0r]

This will make Renegade into a game like...

Directional armor is not...

actually, vehicle combat in renegade has never been realistic. you must have quite some armour if your tanks is able to endure 10 hits of artillery fire. in real life, getting shot at your barrel/loop means you aren't able to fire anymore. getting hit in your caterpillars means your vehicle isn't able to drive as well as it used to.

in battlefield3, you would actually lose one or more of your vehicle's funtions if it was under heavy fire, or had to fire through a smokescreen. with directional armour, you take advantage of the weaker spots of the vehicle, which somehow damages the tank as a whole, which doesn't make sense. yet, it could happen in Renegade X.

Yes it might be more realistic in the sense that actual armored vehicles have disproportionate distributions of armor, but in real life it isn't something that can be modified and balanced with stats and numbers. In a game it can be and it can bring a very rewarding new mechanic to the table.

actually, you can. you can calculate how effective your armour gets with all kinds of formulas, but i'm getting nitpicky here. but the main point is, you can decide which sides of your vehicle will be better protected IRL and ingame. and that's all we need to know.

???

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. You give off the impression that you're in disagreement but then continue to say the exact same thing I said in the quote. And in some cases you're saying something completely unrelated to what I said..

I can only assume that you either didn't read or understand what I said originally or that you simply accidentally quoted me when you meant to quote someone else?

Anyway, from the second quote, that's not what I meant. I understand you can calculate the yield of an explosive and the durability of armor and the varied reactions such an explosive could have at different angles. But that's not what I'm talking about nor is it relevant. I'm saying that in real life, a missile doesn't have a 15% damage increase because it impacted a spot with lower damage resistance.

[Ban4life]

As it stands now, there's plans for mutators / filters yes.

Directional armour IS limited to damage only and probably max damage of 120-125% but testing is required.

25% bonus damage!? That is way too much in my opinion. 10% would be my max, as it would mean that in the best scenario a tank is destroyed 10% faster. In big battles, which you will easily get, this can be a lot. But with 25% extra damage I would turn it off. The whole tactics change incredibly and risk taking would be discouraged too much.

Well. That is my opinion.

[Jam]

As Nielsen mentions, testing is required to narrow down to a percentage which will not ruin the gameplay.

[R315r4z0r]

IMO, I don't think you should go the route of bonus damage. Instead, make all weapons natively do more damage to all vehicle armor types across the board. Then, apply direction armor on vehicles that reduces the amount of damage taken.

If you do it like this, you can adjust it in such a way that strictly attacking the most armored portion of a vehicle would take 10-15% longer to destroy than it would if you were playing vanilla Renegade. And if you strictly attack a vehicle in its least armored portion, then the vehicle could be killed 10-15% quicker than it would be if you were playing vanilla Renegade.

I think doing it like this is a good idea because it allows there to be a significant 20-30% difference between attacking armored spots as opposed to non-armored spots but at the same time, it doesn't change the overall pace of vehicle combat very much (compared to vanilla Renegade.)

For those who are still confused, let me put it like this.

Now I don't remember the exact stats so I'm just saying this for argument's sake. Imagine that in the original Renegade it took a medium tank 10 shots to destroy a light tank. What I'm proposing is that if you attack a light tank head-on, with directional armor it should take you 11-12 shots, but if you attack it from the back it should take 8-9 shots. There is a 3-5 shot difference between high armor and low armor and that is significant... however when you compare it to how much it took you to destroy it in the original Renegade, 1-2 shots is completely negligible, imo.

Also, lets not forget that vehicle repairing is also a very important and key element here that you have to consider. It doesn't matter if all incoming fire is taken from the rear if you have 4 technicians at your side repairing you as you take hits.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

actually, vehicle combat in renegade has never been realistic. you must have quite some armour if your tanks is able to endure 10 hits of artillery fire. in real life, getting shot at your barrel/loop means you aren't able to fire anymore. getting hit in your caterpillars means your vehicle isn't able to drive as well as it used to.

in battlefield3, you would actually lose one or more of your vehicle's funtions if it was under heavy fire, or had to fire through a smokescreen. with directional armour, you take advantage of the weaker spots of the vehicle, which somehow damages the tank as a whole, which doesn't make sense. yet, it could happen in Renegade X.

Yes it might be more realistic in the sense that actual armored vehicles have disproportionate distributions of armor, but in real life it isn't something that can be modified and balanced with stats and numbers. In a game it can be and it can bring a very rewarding new mechanic to the table.

actually, you can. you can calculate how effective your armour gets with all kinds of formulas, but i'm getting nitpicky here. but the main point is, you can decide which sides of your vehicle will be better protected IRL and ingame. and that's all we need to know.

???

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing.

i agreed, but i did make an addition to your post to make it a bit more complete. besides, who cares about if i agree or not?

[R315r4z0r]

Fair enough

[NodSaibot]

I suppose it makes it more life like. It actually shows strategy and skill, in my opinion.

[Anonymously]

I'm going to go ahead and bump this topic rather than make a whole new one.

Is there any chance we can view the models of each tank and their weak/strong points, and how much extra damage is done per hit to each specific point?

It's an interesting idea, but I'm undecided yet as to if it will be a positive addition or a negative addition into the game. I suppose it would take testing in order for me to form a full opinion.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

you shouldn't worry about that just yet, it's still an idea, and is not part of the game yet.

[Goober Trooper]

Can someone explain to me why we want to make vehicles easier to destroy? I haven't exactly noticed a problem with killing them. They seem to get pounded on pretty good already, and if you don't take care of your vehicle it gets wiped out pretty quick.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

it adds additional tactics and skill to the game, you can say. then again, you can also say if both tanks are easier to destroy, what's the diffrence? personally, i like this idea because you actually have to think more about how to drive your tank.

[Noodlesocks]

Could be an interesting feature if balanced well. Would make Stealth Tanks more viable as a direct combat vehicle for Nod.

[Couch[GR]]

I propose something like 115-120% damage at the sides and between 150% and 180% in the back.

You'll be forced to watch your back but won't be insta-killed if you make a mistake. As for side-armor, with just this little more damage you get from hits you will more often take the risk of a positional advantage than if the extra was more significant.

Another thing to think about is introducing bouncing-off when the shot hits the tank from a particular angle. I've seen this in World of Tanks and there's a lot you can do with this mechanic.

But I see this is a game that wants to please the die-hard-fans who will not play your game if you make two changes to it lol. Easiest would be not introducing any directional armor. It will probably cause more headaches than if you did. From my experience with gaming communities, a change like this will polarize the community into those who want the extra damage to be greater, those who want it to be smaller, and those who want it to be removed.

[ehh]

stanks op?

[CerealKlr]

Lots of people use remotes to blow their vehicles if stolen. If remotes were placed on the weak spots of the armor, would that prevent the damage?

[goztow]

You would need to not only devrease armor. You could increase armor at spots and decrease at others so overall it remains more or less the same. But the change is not really needed imo.

[TaShadan]

If I can plunk my 2 cents in here. Since there's quite a lot of standoffs in RX with 2 lines pushing against each other I think even though it might be a small bonus, players who flank should be rewarded for their efforts and this mechanic will allow you to do and get that.

There'll be attention paid to the balance side of things but since this is a (dis)advantage for everyone if it's not too radical it shouldn't change the dynamics too much.

I think its a great idea. Even if Renegade X isnt a tactical shooter, players should still be rewarded for using good tactics like flanking or surrounding.

Another thing to think about is introducing bouncing-off when the shot hits the tank from a particular angle. I've seen this in World of Tanks and there's a lot you can do with this mechanic.

I dont think this is a good idea for an action shooter. Although i like WoT this is an unnecessary random factor. I personally dont like randomness in any action game.

[ehh]

if tanks behave anything like there do in the original, this would be terrible imo

a random factor winning tank battles, no pls

[[NE]Fobby[GEN]]

We did discuss the idea of directional armour internally, its pros and its cons. For the upcoming version of Renegade X, there will not be directional armour - hitting a vehicle at any spot will result in the same damage. I agree that directional armour can be cool (its strategic, makes the game more dynamic, infantry already have directional health), but it also complicates matters (driving vehicles backwards, realism in an arcade-cartoony game). Keep in mind that we already have put a limited amount of recoil and weapon spread ingame. All of this taken into account, we did not add directional damage.

[BlackDragon]

Not having to care where you hit a tank has been one of the vehicle battle staples of the original Renegade since the beginning. Having to stop and take care where you hit a tank for most effect is less arcade, and more realism. Directional armor, I might be able to get used to it, but the spirit of driving Renegade style vehicles would be "hurt" in my eyes, especially if they go with detailed weak points. With Renegade the small bonus the flanker got was the nearly free kills on the "repairing supporters" (Hotty/Tech), take out the repairs and the campsite dissipates if your team pushes the advantage. Plus, blocking the enemy tanks retreat so they're stuck in the open to prevent them running to repair would become a less of a good idea than in the original.

If you want your tank taken down in a few hits, I can think of several games where the tanks don't last long at all versus infantry, and an RPG up your tailpipe destroying an Abrahams is all too common with inf versus tanks. <(Just an example, don't mistake it as something else) I abuse tanks with Engineer type classes in those games, so I never drive them because of it. Original Renegade, it can be bad enough with Ravs vs a Med. tank or similar, if the Rav/PIC knows what they're doing. Just wanted to get my words in on this.