Too many flying spaghetti monsters

Could there be a way to limit the amount of them?

I don’t see the appeal or that they fit in the game.

Maybe reduce max physical size for vehicles?

1 Like

Projectile changes should make for fewer of those, if the devs go through with the proposed changes.


They could weaken armor the further out from the cab to actually and do it that way. The further out the more the ratio would degrade. As apposed to RPG games most of the armor in game isn’t AC (Armor count) which would dictate how hard it is to hit but is simply DR (Damage resistance). If you did a 4x4 cube representing a cab and then block it in to be 5x5 for the first layer around that. You could start doing reductions at some point. This would pretty much kill spaced builds that have no inner layers.

Might edit later…

One solution would be to buff armor HP depending on the percentage of occupied attachment points, as if armor parts reinforced one another. I described this idea in detail here:

But, if clicking a link is too much, one can reassure themselves of their competence on the topic by merely quoting three words.
Took me at least 4 hours to write the linked comment, think the whole system through in detail, calculate everything and verify that it made sense, as far as a prelminary suggestion is concerned - which is why I repeatedly underscored that tests would need to confirm the respective values. But I’m wrong because a product of careful deliberation got shot down by something it took under a minute to write. Booya! Buffing stacked armor debunked! I don’t post separate comments as replies to such nonsense, as not make it appear as though I legitimize that. And the purposefully ignorant still win in their minds.


There are a number of thread on that and every time it’s been proven not to really be right. I.e wield strength topic… Yes though I agree it’s another attempt.

1 Like

So if we express the footprint of the cab as x,y,z we could say for every one of those +1 to the position reduces the dr by say q. q has to be interpreted using current rules like the 7 spaces as well as blast damage. This accounts for the idea of wielding strength without using it. It’s a little fuzzy but the further out you go the more dangle you would have to reduce it.

edit typo

If the blast radius is 3.5 then you get 7… If your projectile is a vector then use the hit points on the armor as a vector too.

This is a direct effect from the supercharged update, that made many wheel build players switch to hovers simply because wheels got bonked so hard and driving around with wheels is frustrating even at best

1 Like

Spaghetti or spaced build existed before that.

1 Like

I say we wait for the projectile rework and see how it impacts spaced armour.
If cannons end up being able to plow through it, I can’t see hover players continuing to rely so heavily on it, at least not to the degree they currently do.
In the meantime, I’m practicing cannons so that I’m ready.


I generally generally agree one big change at a time too but it’s also nice to have other options laying around too. I think most of it will depend on how they balance out piercing damage against the new shell durability as that has the core concept of actually piercing armor already built into it.




I personally think the new change will do the exact opposite. Made a thread about it :slight_smile:

youre giving me way too much credit! this is a very old idea, brought up countless times, which is why it didnt gain much traction when you posted it imo. granted you put a lot of effort into all the different buffs and percentages.

however, can you tell me how your idea prevents the every build is a square problem that seems to be the obvious elephant in the room here?

i hope people are going to hate read your post because i commented on it, its the least i can do for you. those guys hate to agree with me so im sure theyre going to be for your idea.

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback. What you quoted wasn’t addressing any of your comments; I apologize for the misunderstanding if it looked like it did.

That could be addressed by determining at which point bricky vehicles become OP, specifically by analyzing:

  1. The maximum values for any HP and resistance bonuses. E.g., if +50% HP is too much, the maximum HP bonus could be lower, e.g., 40% or less. We’d have to calculate the average bonus values vehicles built that way would gain, and see at which point the bonuses are too high.
  2. The thresholds for unlocking maximum bonus values. E.g., if the maximum HP bonus is unlocked at 100% of attachment slot occupancy, and that would result in extremely bricky vehicles having too much of an advantage, that threshold could be reduced, e.g., to 80% or less, so that it would be easier for less bricky vehicles to gain more of the bonus. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to consider how using different movement parts affects the part occupancy percentages, if it turns out that, e.g., the average percentages for hovercrafts are different to those for wheeled vehicles and that results in imbalance.

Another aspect to consider could be the looks. Maybe someone wants to use a vehicle that just looks nice and isn’t tightly packed into a compact brick. Should that be a criterion in such a system? I usually build compact vehicles (for maximum mobility), which may be why I may fail to see problems arising from such a style of building. Such a consideration doesn’t appeal to me at all, as it resembles the debate involving ‘art vehicles’ having to contend with those optimized for combat. The way I see it, you either build for combat, or you don’t. Optimizing for combat results in better chances to win, although one’s tactical and shooting skills can easily make up for any artistic compromises. I guess the community would have to vote on how much room for combat optimization we want.

I’ve been promoting the idea of there being separate leagues for players with different attitudes or skill levels. Such leagues would be just separate matchmaking systems, so that the different groups would be matched in separate battles, thus resulting in more fun and less stress both for players that are more casual or more aggressive.
And thus, for example:

  1. Higher HP bonus values, and higher maximum thresholds, could be implemented in the ‘pro’ league, resulting in bricky vehicles getting more extra HP - for the hardcore optmizers who seek out any available exploits .
  2. The ‘casual’ league would have lower HP bonus values and lower thresholds for unlocking maximum bonuses - so that ‘art’ vehicles could obtain them easier.

The general idea for such a league system is as follows:

  1. A basic league for everyone, mainly beginners and casuals. Or for testing things that can’t conveniently be tested in custom battles (I’m mostly against testing stuff in actual PvP, because a warrior should enter combat prepared - by learning the vehicle, the maps, the tactics in advance, as much as possible, that is).
  2. A ‘pro’ league for experienced players who don’t want to have to carry ones less skilled or less interested in winning. Existing members would have to approve new candicates, and either invite them or accept applications, upon verifying their skill. Perhaps there’d be some way to conduct tryouts, such as candidates being allowed a number of battles per month or year in this league to prove themselves.
  3. An ‘elite’ league for the best of the ‘pro’ players, serving mainly as a tool for automatic selection of which battles to stream on twitch, with paid live commentators - like e-sport events. This would serve to promote Crossout on Twitch, gaining it more popularity and revenue, possibly brand deals and so on. Lots of money for developing more content and balancing existing content. It wouldn’t be an actual separate league, but just a tag assigned to such players, in order to determine which battles have the most of those at any given moment - so as to prioritze battles for automatic selection to stream on Twitch.
  4. Possibly a league for ‘art’ vehicles. But after analyzing the subject, I’m inclined to believe it’s mostly lazy players complaining that they keep losing because their ‘art’ vehicles are matched against wedgies and so on. I tried giving that group serious attention, considering such an option for weeks, or months, but in the end, I felt deceived. But maybe I’m wrong, and there really is a need for such a league.

I now calculated the percentages of occupied atachment points in my PvP and raid cars. The averages are around 25% for the armor envelope, and around 45% for parts within it.
Any actual stacking of armor parts is mostly accidental, because I manage to max out the tonnage and the 80-part limit with just the single armor layer. Thus, although my combat cars tend to look bricky, the armor would get around 25% extra HP. How does that compare to well-designed space armor vehicles?

This car has 754 HP. Adding up the HP bonuses for each armor part would result in 207 extra HP, which is +27.54% HP.
2023.03.08 001
2023.03.08 002
If it looks like crap - it’s my latest, and possibly best iteration of a boosted Clarinet car to drive with Hans (before he was sent off to a gulag). I haven’t posted any videos with it for now. The bonus values for previous iterations would be similar.

I just need a way for my compact cars to have a fair chance against vehicles with space armor. A simple, elegant solution that also wouldn’t generate too much extra server load.

1 Like