Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bepin

Armor and durability

Recommended Posts

I like the idea of armor but I feel it's a bit too overpowered in terms of durability, it seems that people die to flesh damage rather then broken armor. If you could change the values of how many shots an armor plate could take before being destroyed it would give more use for the equipment bag, right now it's either ammo or meds that majority of players take since armor seems to never break.

Edited by Bepin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Well typically the squishy thing behind the plate is the point of failure not the armor, example of what level IV steel can take, if anything it is not a problem of the plate being too strong its a case of hitting arms and legs being too effective as they drain the main health of the character and dont take independent damage to their own health bar.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have realism and balance at the same time, and currently I'm sure a lot of people here will agree that they enjoy realism if it doesn't affect the balance with the game, too much and it ruins the fun, too little and it makes the game bland and generic. Armor currently needs to be designed in such a way that people can promote teamwork, not one man army tanks. I think the best idea of a team-based armor system is that of WarFace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the armor is in a good pace but the rest of the hit zones are not. equipment bag is under used for sure and it would be nice to have the armor show its durability in a drain netter fashion. The equipment pack should do other things like possibly being the way to resupply explosives like grenades and RPG rounds as well as armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armor does break quite often for me. It's a matter of how you play. If you run and gun in the open armor isn't gonna help you all that much. Armor is utilized to the fullest when you're not exposing yourself too much. Sounds contradictory? Not really. Think about it this way. Armor covers majority of your head, and a large portion of your chest. Hands and arms have reduced dmg multiplier (0.2 and 0.5 respectively). What doesn't it cover? Lower portion of your torso. Therefore armor is most beneficial to you when you stay behind the cover and just lean around the corner - this is when you make the most of it. If you like to run and gun armor isn't that useful and protects you on one-off basis - for me, not enough to choose steel plate over composite for assault purposes. It still protects me just enough (halves damage instead of reducing it to 5%) but I can actually run fast instead of being easy target.

Edited by Marrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do belive that the hit boxes are unbalanced as the limbs take too much damage. I think the torso, neck and head should take the most amount of damage; making the armor and helmet more useful. It would just need to be balanced enough to avoid having bullet sponges running around everywhere. I would like to see limbs take permanent damage and affect movement. If they ever add medics, they can repair damaged limbs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2018 at 8:01 PM, Marrond said:

Armor does break quite often for me. It's a matter of how you play. If you run and gun in the open armor isn't gonna help you all that much. Armor is utilized to the fullest when you're not exposing yourself too much. Sounds contradictory? Not really. Think about it this way. Armor covers majority of your head, and a large portion of your chest. Hands and arms have reduced dmg multiplier (0.2 and 0.5 respectively). What doesn't it cover? Lower portion of your torso. Therefore armor is most beneficial to you when you stay behind the cover and just lean around the corner - this is when you make the most of it. If you like to run and gun armor isn't that useful and protects you on one-off basis - for me, not enough to choose steel plate over composite for assault purposes. It still protects me just enough (halves damage instead of reducing it to 5%) but I can actually run fast instead of being easy target.

I've never seen my armor break (the armor icons you mean), they're always full regardless of how many bullets I take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bepin said:

I've never seen my armor break (the armor icons you mean), they're always full regardless of how many bullets I take.

If you're not being hit in armor (as I've said, it benefits you mostly for certain playstyle and less for general run and gun situations) then it won't get destroyed. Usually you won't notice destroyed armor because as soon as it gets destroyed, the next hit in the same area will deal full damage, which in case of Assault Rfile for example is 1/3rd of your entire HP. If you record your gameplay you can see it for yourself.

 

Or just look at mine (this is the first instance I've found going through recent replay, also I found it quite funny so I've included entire situation - notice how most of the damage I get is from the side or limb damage, as soon as I'm front facing the enemy my light armor plate pops, next guy hit me in hand and second hit reaches the chest since it dealt more than 27dmg in one hit)
 

Also I'm not sorry for that team kill. Don't cross line of fire, it ain't Battlefield and team bullets do inflict severe pain...

Edited by Marrond
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I dislike the entire armor system. Before everyone goes mental, let me mention two things first.1

  1. This is my personal opinion and that does not mean it is the ultimative truth, but I will try to explain myself as best as I can. 
  2.  While I play a lot of games with ea heavier focus on realism (ArmA 3 Milsim etc.) I see this from a gameplay perspective first and everything else comes after this. 

From my limited experience (15 hours of gameplay) I can tell you that I have the impression that a lot of firefights are won because one player has heavier armor than the other player. This is especially the case in CQC. I often see or experience situations in which two players shoot each other and it is often not the "better" player that comes out of it. 

Personally I like those mock-up formula for firefights. You should win a 1on1 firefight if:

  • You see the player first and acquire him as a target.
  • You shoot first.
  • You hit first and your aim is not going off target.

The only game changer in this regard to me are headshots. So I fire and hit somebody else first, but before I can kill him he replies with a well aimed (doesn't miss) and fast headshot. That is fair to me. It requires good mechanical skills and the player being active.

What I do not like is when this formula is broken because somebody has a passive (indirect) health bonus because he picked heavier armor. This is just a passive bonus people get and it requires no skill.  I also feel that it is rewarding bad aiming in the game. When I check the damage indicator after my death I often see that a lot of the damage was done to the limbs and not to my torso or the head. I don't think WW3 should try to reinvent the wheel here and try to make players unlearn what they have learned in the last 10-15 years of multiplayer fps.

I would rather see the replacement of armor in favor for carrier rigs as a separate piece of gear. These could come in a light/medium/heavy variant which will offer you different advantages like being able to carry more ammo for your main/secondary gun, grenades, explosives etc. This should be combined with the weight system that should also slow you down or give you a smaller stamina pool depending on how heavy you are. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think a better nerf for heavier armor or heavier weight would be restricted movement in general. If you have full level IV Steel armor you shouldn't be able to lean as far or crouch as low. That would make it to where heavy armor players can't utilize cover as well as say, a light armor rifler who's trying to flank. But heavy armor still blocks quite a few more bullets so standing in the "open" shouldn't be THAT big of a trade-off, but this is just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TheRealReacher said:

I would think a better nerf for heavier armor or heavier weight would be restricted movement in general. If you have full level IV Steel armor you shouldn't be able to lean as far or crouch as low. That would make it to where heavy armor players can't utilize cover as well as say, a light armor rifler who's trying to flank. But heavy armor still blocks quite a few more bullets so standing in the "open" shouldn't be THAT big of a trade-off, but this is just my opinion.

But playing light armor right now IS better if you're that flanking rifler. You get better value for your buck, so to speak. The footage I've pasted above is with LIGHTEST armor.

Edited by Marrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Marrond said:

But playing light armor right now IS better if you're that flanking rifler. You get better value for your buck, so to speak. The footage I've pasted above is with LIGHTEST armor.

Exactly my point, make heavier armor BETTER for people who don't like that style of play. This was just one idea on how to make it better. Make them block bullets but limit movement. Not just slow them down. 

Edited by TheRealReacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn't understand each other. Armor covers portion of your chest. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't require any change or adjustment. Heavy serves different purpose than light. Heavy can block quite a few hits - but again, if you want to have "full body armor" it ain't gonna fly.

Edited by Marrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...