Re: another Q for the admin.

**Nikolas** · 10-17-2006, 11:13 AM

Interesting post, Fallen. In my opinion, the only time someone should be exposed to administrative action is if they harm or kill themselves in the blast, thereby violating the suicide rule. Using the AT kit against infantry can be just as tactical as anything else, and is without question realistic as well.

This reminds me of the whole 'using AAA versus infantry' discussion from last month. Except that in PoE2, the AT round is significantly less effective versus infantry than it was in BF2. I have not witnessed anything even close to 'abuse' of the AT kit, so don't understand why we admins would need to take action against it.

**Tempus** · 10-17-2006, 11:15 AM

That's a good post, fallen, and it brings up some interesting points. Many of our guidelines were designed with regular BF2 in mind.. If the developers of PoE2 have made significant changes to weapons and their intended use, those are things we as admins can take a look at. We don't write rules up in stone, and this is an example why.

I will bring this up in the admin forum.

**Iamthefallen** · 10-17-2006, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

This reminds me of the whole 'using AAA versus infantry' discussion from last month. Except that in PoE2, the AT round is significantly less effective versus infantry than it was in BF2. I have not witnessed anything even close to 'abuse' of the AT kit, so don't understand why we admins would need to take action against it.

I'll make one quick distinction though, part of the problem with using AAA against infantry is that it's gaming the game, you fire a few rounds here and there and because of the massive splash damage, you use the hit indicator to locate infantry. If the hit indicator wasn't there, the AAA would be much less effective.

There's no such "exploit" with the AT kit that I'm aware of. You're just playing it the way it's supposed to be played.

Which is what bothers me with the current views. By playing the kit the way it's meant to be played, I'm also playing cheap in many eyes.

I appreciate you guys bringing this up for discussion, and I really hope that it will be recognized as a valid tactic so we can end the debates.

Power to the AT's!

Thanks,

**asch** · 10-17-2006, 01:50 PM

Fallen, I think the purpose of the weapon and the actual usage of the weapon can be different. The RPG is effective against infantry and even designed to be used against infantry. There are cases when they should be used against infantry (e.g. bunkers) and cases when they should not (e.g. target is running around 10 meters away).

We're trying to simulate to the best of our abilities how the weapon would be used in the story / environment created by PoE2 (or any other title). So while the RPG is made to be used against infantry, it's how we use it that comes to question.

**Iamthefallen** · 10-17-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by asch

Fallen, I think the purpose of the weapon and the actual usage of the weapon can be different. The RPG is effective against infantry and even designed to be used against infantry. There are cases when they should be used against infantry (e.g. bunkers) and cases when they should not (e.g. target is running around 10 meters away).

We're trying to simulate to the best of our abilities how the weapon would be used in the story / environment created by PoE2 (or any other title). So while the RPG is made to be used against infantry, it's how we use it that comes to question.

I think the very nature of the weapon removes most of the pre-concieved notions and objections people have. As an AT, you simply do not offensively engage an infantry squad in the open. You're not going to have a chance to fire a second round in most cases. By the time you switch to the staple gun to finish someone off, they've already found cover, dropped to prone and opened up with an assault weapon. You're dead.

If someone has faced death from AT, I can guarantee that you weren't moving the way you should be moving at the time. Or someone simply got off a lucky shot. Neither case says anything about the AT kit or how it should be used. Your mistake gave someone the opportunity to kill you, that they were able to do so with an AT kit is irrelevant. Odds are that had the opponent had an assault rifle, you'd be just as dead.

If an AT isn't protecting his teammates from tanks, he's not playing the role the way it should be played. But using his weapon against infantry, is according to POE at least, a secondary part of the role and a big enough part that the weapon was designed to support that purpose. To restrict the intended usage of it to bunker busting for instance, is only imposing an artificial limitation on the kit that I don't think we have anywhere else in the game.

If I see a lone infantry man huddled against a tree, 60 feet away, I have the option to either call for my squad mates to deal with him, my SMG sure can't handle it. Or I can use the primary resource I've got and take him out.

Again, I would've killed him just as much had I been holding an assault rifle.

So why does it bother people so much when I use the AT weapon?

The one instance where I can't justify its use is CQB. It is cheap to use the AT at 0 distance. But then, the suicide rule should eliminate most of the use in those situations.

**asch** · 10-17-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Iamthefallen

If someone has faced death from AT, I can guarantee that you weren't moving the way you should be moving at the time. Or someone simply got off a lucky shot. Neither case says anything about the AT kit or how it should be used. Your mistake gave someone the opportunity to kill you, that they were able to do so with an AT kit is irrelevant. Odds are that had the opponent had an assault rifle, you'd be just as dead.

Someone's mistake doesn't make another individuals actions justified.

If an AT isn't protecting his teammates from tanks, he's not playing the role the way it should be played. But using his weapon against infantry, is according to POE at least, a secondary part of the role and a big enough part that the weapon was designed to support that purpose. To restrict the intended usage of it to bunker busting for instance, is only imposing an artificial limitation on the kit that I don't think we have anywhere else in the game.

RPGs have always been used against infantry and I don't think that's in question. Even PoE's statement that they are an all-purpose weapon isn't in question. But just because the weapon CAN be used against infantry does not mean it should be used against infantry in ALL situations.

We're trying to simulate a war between two organized armies in the era create by PoE2. Unfortunately the game doesn't have all of the physics or mechanics that exist in real life at that time. The bunker example was just that, an example. We're not trying to limit it to just that.

It's going to be a case-by-case situation. There will be clear-cut situations that are easy to distinguish and some not-so-clear situations. What we want to discourage is the constant use in the clear-cut situations where the weapon should not be used against infantry.

If I see a lone infantry man huddled against a tree, 60 feet away, I have the option to either call for my squad mates to deal with him, my SMG sure can't handle it. Or I can use the primary resource I've got and take him out.

In this particular case, fire the RPG at him.

So why does it bother people so much when I use the AT weapon?

For me personally, it's the simulation / immersion factor. We want to simulate what is physically able to happen in that era / storyline.

The one instance where I can't justify its use is CQB. It is cheap to use the AT at 0 distance. But then, the suicide rule should eliminate most of the use in those situations.

CQB is one of those clear-cut situations, but it's the simulation that we're striving for here that should dictate our actions, not the suicide rule.

**Iamthefallen** · 10-17-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by asch

[snip]

It's the simulation that we're striving for here that should dictate our actions, not the suicide rule.

I understand your argument, but I don't think there's even a need to administratively define behavioral rules within the simulation in regards to the current topic.

The suicide rule is a way to preserve the simulation. Like I said in my first post, in real life, you do not enter a building with an RPG at the ready. In the game there was a need for an artificial rule limiting that behavior because the simulation cannot accurately represent the consequences of a suicide. If we could kick the player, uninstall BF2, and burn his computer, the number of people firing an RPG at their feet would drop drastically.

The limitations on the AT kit however are built into the game, already resembling the real-life limitations. It's the artificial limitation on top of that, that I don't think are needed. The balance of the game makes the use of the AT kit for infantry combat a poor choice. But it'd be nice to have the option and to be able to exercise it without having it be frowned upon, or considered questionable.

I guess what I am arguing for, is legitimization of the tactics within the scope of the intended role of the kit. Others have argued the other side and tighter regulations. I'm arguing for the ability to use the AT kit without it being called cheap.

**asch** · 10-17-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Iamthefallen

I understand your argument, but I don't think there's even a need to administratively define behavioral rules within the simulation in regards to the current topic.

The limitations on the AT kit however are built into the game, already resembling the real-life limitations. It's the artificial limitation on top of that, that I don't think are needed. The balance of the game makes the use of the AT kit for infantry combat a poor choice. But it'd be nice to have the option and to be able to exercise it without having it be frowned upon, or considered questionable.

The Primer should already define the scope of a players behavior. We don't want to add more rules for the sake of rules. We try to only add rules when necessary.

I guess what I am arguing for, is legitimization of the tactics within the scope of the intended role of the kit. Others have argued the other side and tighter regulations. I'm arguing for the ability to use the AT kit without it being called cheap.

I personally don't think we need more regulations on the kit beyond that defined in the Primer. It's not restricting AT use against infantry... we just want players to think about how they're using it against infantry.

I'm not quite sure what you're looking to legitimize.

**Iamthefallen** · 10-17-2006, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by asch

The Primer should already define the scope of a players behavior. We don't want to add more rules for the sake of rules. We try to only add rules when necessary.

I personally don't think we need more regulations on the kit beyond that defined in the Primer. It's not restricting AT use against infantry... we just want players to think about how they're using it against infantry

Understood, and agreed.

Originally Posted by asch

I'm not quite sure what you're looking to legitimize.

The design of AT in POE has changed part of the purpose of the kit from Vanilla BF2, but reading Tempus' fist post, the admins were not aware of that change. Having use of the new purpose of the kit be legitimate rather than "strongly discouraged", would mean that I can play the role as POE intended it to be played without worrying whether or not I'm violating the TG spirit or rules.

Thread Tools

Display