Re: Using enemy vehicles...

**jex** · 08-09-2008, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by socomseal93

do these new no enemy vehicle rules effect Domination?

Unless something changed recently, I don't think there are any new rules about using enemy vehicles. The admin team would post that up. What we're talking about here is...

1) Playing missions based on prior knowledge of that mission because you have played it before. I.e. If you know a truck is going to drive down a road because that's what happened the last time you played it, you shouldn't set up your squad expecting that. Some people may not have played the mission before and giving things away about a mission ruins it for those that haven't played it before.

2) Using enemy vehicles - of late there has been a spate of people stockpiling enemy vehicles to ride around town on a rampage (be it in the air or on the ground). Having 1 guy in a tank or chopper kill everything when you have 6 guys working together to do that kind of defeats the point of playing the game - you might as well just sit on a hill top, having a picnic and watching the action though your opera glasses.

With the aircraft in arma, they are way over powered and basically amount to lock-fire-lock-fire tactics. With a single attack chopper, you can take out an entire city by yourself. Also note that the KA50 is the gunship of choice - it holds more missiles than the cobra. The aircraft are much the same and both require little skill to operate for big rewards. However, if you are playing an infantry role you'll soon get fed up with tanks and choppers killing everything without much skill involved - shooting fish in a barrel.

Nobody has a problem with people using armour or aircraft when they are playing as part of a team, it is the people that just hop in them and decide that they'll take on the objective how they want to play the game. We have plenty of people that like to fly, use tanks, etc but not enough people who know how to share these assets it seems. We need a compromise but would be pilots/armour crews must be prepared to a) limit the amount of armour they want to blow up and b) don't hog the assets - other people like to use them as well. Regarding point b, once an objective has been accomplished see if anyone else would like a go.

For people that do like to fly, there is another option open to us in Domination. Each town always have a KA50 and SU34 overhead making it risky to bring in transport choppers or vehicles. As long as the Air-Air Harrier has been unlocked it gives a good alternative and doesn't interfere with ground operations as its task is to clear the skies.

**Sc[ + ]pe** · 08-09-2008, 09:12 PM

There was a lot of animosity on the server today over use of "bonus" aircraft. I feel that this relates to the main topic of this thread for a variety of reasons, so let me explain myself.

Air assets are difficult to come by in Domination. You must complete a side mission for every bonus vehicle you want, and this can be time-consuming to amass a collection of appropriate weaponry. People are understandably miffed when their hard work is trashed on the runway after a bad take-off. That's an hour of planning and playing down the drain, isn't it?

Well, no, it isn't. I've talked to several people about side missions, and the general consensus is that they're more fun than main missions because they offer a variety of objectives and targets, and allow for more spontaneous and tense engagements. They've been applauded for not requiring a full fireteam to accomplish the mission, and are friendlier to smaller recon and assault task forces.

Never, never has anyone told me that the side missions are more fun because they unlock additional vehicles.

Whuh? So why is everyone complaining about vehicles being destroyed if they had fun playing the side mission anyways? Isn't the reason we're here to have fun?

It might be different if there was someone lone-wolfing with an A-10 or recklessly driving around in an M1A1 lighting up infantry by his lonesome. But such has not been the case when trite comments have been made about the vehicle situation at base.

In one such situation, without naming names, a priority asset of ours was destroyed on a mission that was called in by a fireteam operating deep behind enemy lines. Someone lit up with a comment about wasting assets (I knew it was coming sometime that game), but I felt terrible.

It is nobody's fault that a vehicle blows up. It is not the fault of a noobie who doesn't know any better getting into an A-10 and ramming it into a wall. Sh*t happens, it was an accident, we move on. It is not the fault of a seasoned veteran flying air support when he's taken out by an unknown AA battery. It's not the fault of a tank squad when they're ambushed and eliminated.

Sh*t happens, fellas. There's no need to point fingers, there's no need to blame anyone. If you really want to prove something, arm yourself to the teeth, join a squad, and go assault another side mission! HOORAH.

**socomseal93** · 08-10-2008, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sc[ + ]pe

There was a lot of animosity on the server today over use of "bonus" aircraft. I feel that this relates to the main topic of this thread for a variety of reasons, so let me explain myself.

Air assets are difficult to come by in Domination. You must complete a side mission for every bonus vehicle you want, and this can be time-consuming to amass a collection of appropriate weaponry. People are understandably miffed when their hard work is trashed on the runway after a bad take-off. That's an hour of planning and playing down the drain, isn't it?

Well, no, it isn't. I've talked to several people about side missions, and the general consensus is that they're more fun than main missions because they offer a variety of objectives and targets, and allow for more spontaneous and tense engagements. They've been applauded for not requiring a full fireteam to accomplish the mission, and are friendlier to smaller recon and assault task forces.

Never, never has anyone told me that the side missions are more fun because they unlock additional vehicles.

Whuh? So why is everyone complaining about vehicles being destroyed if they had fun playing the side mission anyways? Isn't the reason we're here to have fun?

It might be different if there was someone lone-wolfing with an A-10 or recklessly driving around in an M1A1 lighting up infantry by his lonesome. But such has not been the case when trite comments have been made about the vehicle situation at base.

In one such situation, without naming names, a priority asset of ours was destroyed on a mission that was called in by a fireteam operating deep behind enemy lines. Someone lit up with a comment about wasting assets (I knew it was coming sometime that game), but I felt terrible.

It is nobody's fault that a vehicle blows up. It is not the fault of a noobie who doesn't know any better getting into an A-10 and ramming it into a wall. Sh*t happens, it was an accident, we move on. It is not the fault of a seasoned veteran flying air support when he's taken out by an unknown AA battery. It's not the fault of a tank squad when they're ambushed and eliminated.

Sh*t happens, fellas. There's no need to point fingers, there's no need to blame anyone. If you really want to prove something, arm yourself to the teeth, join a squad, and go assault another side mission! HOORAH.

I could care less about the loss of assets but I feel that we need to use them more carefully. Aircraft are always going to be shot down in domination as there are always shilkas at objectives. I feel it is our best intrest to not call in on airsupport until all shilkas are cleared out. As for tanks dont drive up right to the enemy stay at distance and you wont die.

**Grunt 70** · 08-10-2008, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Sc[ + ]pe

There was a lot of animosity on the server today over use of "bonus" aircraft......

Of course I read the rest of your quote as well but this statement stuck out for me. Our semi open server policy is growing in popularity and this makes for a wide and varied player base. People have different ways of dealing with issues, different ways of listening, different ways of speaking their mind. A mini rant or two during an hours long gaming session has to be expected. I mean anything else would just be pie in the sky.

It's how we deal with these issues that defines us as a player base. Posts like yours clearly show we have the right people coming on to deal with asset issues. And if that doesn't work the admin team will handle the situation.

Remember that questions of asset allocation are mostly relevant to persistent missions like Domination or Evo and the best of Armed Assault really lies in the more dynamic co-op missions. Throw out a vote for a co-op mission with an air element if it makes sense. Asset allocation problem solved.

+ rep for your post.

**ryanb43** · 08-13-2008, 12:15 AM

I agree. I manned an enemy tank on one game, and it just made the whole mission far too easy.

Thread Tools

Display