Vehicle armor should ricochet bullets and...

[Pendrokar]

...deny shock rifle beams! It is acctually too easy to destroy vehicles. You can destroy a whole tank with a standart assault rifle (small bullets that can go through heavy metal?? Now there's something UNREAL in ut).

As I understand Shock rifles shoot hot lazers, but it couldn't be so hot to start melting vehicles metal armor! Shock rifles.
Link gun. Hmm "this weapon features a primary fire mode much like the Plasma Rifle from Unreal Tournament, comprised mainly of repeated bolts of green energy. The secondary fire mode fires a beam that, when linked to other team mates wielding the Link Gun" what kinda energy? Electric? I think the link gun shouldn't damage heavy armored vehicles.(Unless there is better info on em)
Stinger. What is tarydium? I need to get an answer to that!
Sniper Rifles should still punch holes into flying vehicles like raptors and cicadas, but not tanks!

All weapons should damage only mantas and vipers, because they're not so heavily armored. (Scorpion is (Very Heavily))

Do you agree?

[The5thviruz]

I don't agree. Player to vehicle damage was one of the things Epic actually got right imo.

If you can't kill the guy with an assault rifle while you are in a tank, there is something wrong with you.

[rhiridflaidd]

It isn't about reality, it's about balance.

And yep, in skilled hands, the shock can wreck any vehichle. It's one of the main skill differentiators.

[Hedge-o-Matic]

Well, I agree that multiple armor and defensive systems for vehicles would be more interesting, as well as more flexible for new vehicle designers.

One problem with a "single value" solution ("health points", in this case) is that in order to make things tougher, you can only raise this single value. Since this is a linear solution, you get strange results like puny assault rifles taking down Goliaths and Leviathans. Can one person do this? No, but there's nothing to stop ten people from hammering a Goliath with their AR, and destroying it eventually.

I think armor would do much better in different forms:

Light armor protects a percentage equal to half it's value, rounding up. So 75 points of armor will absorb 33% of the damage from an incoming shot.

Heavy armor ignores the first 5 points of damage from any hit, and then protects as light armor. This would keep ARs, flak chunks, and miniguns from being very effective, while rockets and flak secondary will work just fine. Goliaths and tanks should have heavy armor.

Energy Fields should stop one point of damage for every 10 points remaining in the shield, and, while functioning, should protect the vehicle from any inertia the hit would cause. energy fields regain 1 point every second, after a 10-second delay from being hit. Flying vehicles should have energy fields.

These are just ideas of how armor could be differentiated, not suggestions for new armor in the game. I just think different protection methods should be reflected in the game, somehow.

[Crotale]

I don't agree. Player to vehicle damage was one of the things Epic actually got right imo.

If you can't kill the guy with an assault rifle while you are in a tank, there is something wrong with you.

^^What he said.

We already have the ability to regenerate vehicle health, and vehicular weapons ammo magically never runs out. Face it, the vehicular-bound players have an auitomatic advantage over the foot soldiers. Therefore, it is fitting that several weapons in the foot soldier's arsenal can fairly easily put the vehicular-bound player in a pickle.

[Kronos]

I think all weapons besides enforcers should do damage to vehicles in UT2007.

[DavenH]

Well, I agree that multiple armor and defensive systems for vehicles would be more interesting, as well as more flexible for new vehicle designers.

One problem with a "single value" solution ("health points", in this case) is that in order to make things tougher, you can only raise this single value. Since this is a linear solution, you get strange results like puny assault rifles taking down Goliaths and Leviathans. Can one person do this? No, but there's nothing to stop ten people from hammering a Goliath with their AR, and destroying it eventually.

I think armor would do much better in different forms:

Light armor protects a percentage equal to half it's value, rounding up. So 75 points of armor will absorb 33% of the damage from an incoming shot.

Heavy armor ignores the first 5 points of damage from any hit, and then protects as light armor. This would keep ARs, flak chunks, and miniguns from being very effective, while rockets and flak secondary will work just fine. Goliaths and tanks should have heavy armor.

Energy Fields should stop one point of damage for every 10 points remaining in the shield, and, while functioning, should protect the vehicle from any inertia the hit would cause. energy fields regain 1 point every second, after a 10-second delay from being hit. Flying vehicles should have energy fields.

These are just ideas of how armor could be differentiated, not suggestions for new armor in the game. I just think different protection methods should be reflected in the game, somehow.

Sounds like Starcraft, wherein the protoss have regenerating sheilds and units have varying levels of armour. Take the Torrasque, no number of marines can kill it because it has level 7 armour (so it ignores the 6hp damage marines do), so you need to use seige tanks.

It does add a new element to gameplay in the form of weapon/unit choice and more realism - at the expense of simplicity - but I think it's worth it.

[iron12]

What makes you think the armor on the tank is so thick, after all when you drive off a bridge it will float to the ground like a leaf in the wind.

[N1ghtmare]

Tarydium is a crystal found in the mines of NaPali. Go play DM-Rajar.

[Hedge-o-Matic]

What makes you think the armor on the tank is so thick, after all when you drive off a bridge it will float to the ground like a leaf in the wind.

That's because in 2k4 the armor is made of bubblewrap. ;D

[Dymlos2003]

Will the dragons still be able to hurt vehicles?

Dragons? Why would there be dragons in UT? Is there something I missed or is this just a kid's fantasy?

[Bishop Gantry]

^^What he said.

We already have the ability to regenerate vehicle health, and vehicular weapons ammo magically never runs out. Face it, the vehicular-bound players have an auitomatic advantage over the foot soldiers. Therefore, it is fitting that several weapons in the foot soldier's arsenal can fairly easily put the vehicular-bound player in a pickle.

Id rather see more anti vehicle, anti material weapons for Ons gametypes aka vehicles...

[Pendrokar]

I don't agree. Player to vehicle damage was one of the things Epic actually got right imo.

If you can't kill the guy with an assault rifle while you are in a tank, there is something wrong with you.

Shoot first and ask questions later.

[Piglet]

Dragons? Why would there be dragons in UT? Is there something I missed or is this just a kid's fantasy?

You missed the annoucement about Dragons?

I'm worried about players walking up to one and pressing their "e" key.

[MonsOlympus]

Actually now you guys mention it, players had portable shieldguns right and they can pickup shields which can block damage...

Why dont vehicles have energy shields which can deflect link and shock fire, I mean if they can make a portable version it does make sense vehicles would have them by default.