Jump to content


Location Based Damage.


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

Peasant_wot #1 Posted 19 October 2020 - 01:26 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6123 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

First, this is NOT a suggestion. This is just a thought experiment that I would like you to take part in.

 

What if the damage inflicted by a penetrating hit were to vary depending on the location hit? Shots near the center of mass would inflict more damage than clipping and overmatching the roof armour, for example. Putting aside the implications of this on balance this would be a good way to discourage some of the more absurd parts of the gameplay, like blowing up the tank by continuously shooting its cupola.

 

Here is how I picture it would work in the game: 

 

Spoiler

 



NekoPuffer_PPP #2 Posted 19 October 2020 - 01:40 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38386 battles
  • 6,197
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

Damage based on the amount of modules your shells damage after penetration.

 

Overpenetration (minimal damage after missing every module and exiting out the other side...).

 

Shell ricochet chance depending on just the angle of the armor rather than its thickness as well (i.e. that thing WG tested a long time ago but people thought was ridiculous).

 

All things I'd be interested in seeing...

 

Unfortunately, it's an arcade game. Best we get is fires and ammorack explosions.



Discontinued #3 Posted 19 October 2020 - 01:40 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2220 battles
  • 570
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

Yeah I always said that about South London

 

That location is damaging



Balc0ra #4 Posted 19 October 2020 - 01:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 80098 battles
  • 24,981
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Well... again that "other game" did to just that almost. They did half the alpha on cupola hits to name one. It might discourage some aspects as you said. But screw you moreover on others. As that other game did show, it only did sift the power the wrong way in most fights vs making it better. As here most tier 8 HTs can still only pen the VK 100.01 on the cupola. It would not be ideal to have half the HT lane have 1200 DPM until they can flank fire it tbh. Nor would it help to have to spend more ammo when you track a +2 target around the corner, needing more time to drain him down before his 152mm friend comes. Just saying. 

shikaka9 #5 Posted 19 October 2020 - 01:47 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 83693 battles
  • 3,361
  • [M-W-B] M-W-B
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013
WT and Grille wants to participate in this :teethhappy:

Peasant_wot #6 Posted 19 October 2020 - 01:57 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6123 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostBalc0ra, on 19 October 2020 - 01:40 PM, said:

Well... again that "other game" did to just that almost. They did half the alpha on cupola hits to name one. It might discourage some aspects as you said. But screw you moreover on others. As that other game did show, it only did sift the power the wrong way in most fights vs making it better. As here most tier 8 HTs can still only pen the VK 100.01 on the cupola. It would not be ideal to have half the HT lane have 1200 DPM until they can flank fire it tbh. Nor would it help to have to spend more ammo when you track a +2 target around the corner, needing more time to drain him down before his 152mm friend comes. Just saying. 

 

Obviously the things will have to be re-balanced a bit, namely in such a way that doesn't require you to aim for pixel sized(exaggerated example) weakspots to effectively fight opponents in heavy tanks.  



saxsan4 #7 Posted 19 October 2020 - 01:59 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 29131 battles
  • 6,288
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
my britsh tds agree

Obsessive_Compulsive #8 Posted 20 October 2020 - 05:53 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 30592 battles
  • 9,040
  • [J1FTD] J1FTD
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014
THis would mean a lot of work for wargaming and a lot more camping and a lot less pushing forward from cover.

CausticSoda #9 Posted 20 October 2020 - 07:18 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 49398 battles
  • 527
  • [-G0M-] -G0M-
  • Member since:
    10-29-2013

Hull down would get even more powerful.

im assuming that processing the data would be more as well.

 

Nice idea though.



DuncaN_101 #10 Posted 20 October 2020 - 07:52 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 59084 battles
  • 3,782
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011
Isn't this the case already... Hit the right location on a tank and you'll do more damage? Ie ammoracks or fuel tanks etc?
What's the point of dumbing it down even more?
What WG should change is bringing back viable weak spots on the tanks again. And I don't mean viable with prammo only.
Guess that's just me.

Orkbert #11 Posted 20 October 2020 - 09:06 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31121 battles
  • 2,719
  • Member since:
    08-29-2013

View PostPeasant_wot, on 19 October 2020 - 01:26 PM, said:

...

 

 

Basically you want Warthunder but with hitpoints

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users