jmaker

Can we use your arguments to reason why AT against infantry should be admonished, but rarely is? I know some people are indifferent on that subject, but are we not talking about the same things here? Intended use of weapons? If you're clearly not the only one who feels this way, then I would have to say enforcement across the board of intended use of weapons would have to take place. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

__________________

Braidedheadman

You certainly could. I have my opinions about RPGs as well and I’ve learned to live with my distaste for certain applications of this weapon for the most part. And no, we are not talking about the same thing here. You’re mixing apples and oranges by suggesting that a single RPG tube can match the firepower that a single MAA unit can bring to bear against rank-and-file infantry. Clearly, one is far more demoralizing to its victims than the other. But that is a topic for another thread.

I think I should take a moment to make one thing clear here, because it seems to me that certain individuals are reading depth into my statements where it was not my intention to have my comments interpreted so rashly:

I am not suggesting that MAA should never, ever be fired at infantry if there are no air targets in the vicinity. I understand that it has other uses outside of its primary role and I fully expect that I'll be killed by MAA flak when on foot from time to time - on other maps - because they are balanced within their context. Since these maps have overwhelming A2G assets available to both teams, MAA is their most appropriate and direct counter. As such, it's kept busy most of the time hunting air assets with the odd infantry mash on the side. Balance is maintained and there are no problems.

What I am suggesting is that Operation Acorn does not even come close to having the balance necessary between A2G and MAA to warrant placement of MAA with either team, much less with both of them, when there are other, better, less lethal-vs-infantry AA options available to fill Acorn’s requirements for a counter against the transport chopper. That the MAA spends 90% of its time or more cutting down infantry should raise a red flag somewhere with someone and cause them to think, "Surely, this was not how it's meant to be."

I'm not saying, "Ban the losers who shoot infantry with MAA."

I'm saying, "Let's change Acorn so that it is a more balanced, infantry-centric map."

I would love to see Acorn evolve into one of the best, most played infantry maps out there. Having been a hardcore "Aliens vs. Predator 2 (AvP2)" junkie before moving on to BF2 and finally making my stop here, I can honestly say that I love the dark, forested theme. And god knows, we have precious few really good infantry maps at the moment as it is. And the ones we do have, we’ve played endlessly (still fun though). I simply state my opinion that, in order for Acorn to really take off and shine, we need to get rid of the MAA on that map and replace it with more appropriate S2A options.

Having said all that, let me just ask a quick question. Why are some people so opposed to the idea that MAA should be taken out of Acorn? Or have they simply lost the plot somewhere along the line?

__________________

Lucky Shot

The Mobile Anti-Air is not the best infantry killer of all the armored weapons and IMO ranks 3rd behind APC's and Tanks. Most of the flags have a lot of cover that infantry can cower behind while others are working over the AA. It only takes 1-2 AT shots or 2 C4 charges to take out the AA and with the kind of clutter you see on this map, you can sneak behind it pretty easily.

Honestly, I think you could make a better argument that the Mobile AA is not effective enough and the same is true of the chopper. The chopper is just a waste of time for 1-2 people and the AA is far less effective then an APC would be. Since 1.7, I haven't been killed by an AA or chopper on that map.

Lucky Shot

Braidedheadman

So far, no one has addressed the argument directly by justifying why the MAA is present on that map. Instead, most of the rebuttals seem to be in the form of, "You and your squad should be able to cope with it," which is totally beside the point. Am I the only one that actually wants this map to be more infantry-centric? Or has all of TG fallen sway to some idealized notion that every map must contain a set number of armored assets? If that's the case, I'll stop now.

__________________

Lucky Shot

No one is calling for more vehicles on Fallen, on Spies, on Orel. POE is a combined arms game that has varying degrees of vehicles on maps. You have those assets available to decide how to best use them, including leaving them at the main if you decide it's not your cup of tea. Operation Acorn happens to have 2 Mobile AA's and a chopper as interpretted by the original mapper and the POE dev team.

If they are that big of a problem, set up an armor ambush squad and hit this sucker before it has a chance to get up to a flag.

Lucky Shot

kilevvri1

You answered your own questions

Braidedheadman

Ok, so that's the map layout. Now what's the justification for having the 2 MAA to counter 1/2 a chopper? If people want to keep an armor piece around, change the MAA into a second tank or APC. At least then it would make sense; you never hear me complaining about Carpathian...

__________________

Rick_Slick

Maybe ironically the MAA were mostly meant to cut down infantry on that map?

Braidedheadman

I'd rather see/have a second tank for that purpose.

__________________

Lucky Shot

So what would happen if there was only 1 Mobile AA and the opfor had both chopper and AA! Imagine the screaming that would happen if you didn't have an AA or a chopper? Now make that No Mobile AA's on the map and you still have a transport chopper. How happy would you feel (assuming that you weren't in the chopper mind you)?

Again, I don't find that the Mobile AA's are that big of a threat on that map and are easy to avoid or kill.

Lucky Shot

Braidedheadman

*scratches head* *shuffles papers on desk*
Hmm....
*opens and closes drawers*
I'm pretty sure I left a post around here someplace calling for 2 MANPAD kits to spawn at the UCBs... Now where did that get to?

Let me also just repeat myself. I don't care about what threat the MAA represents. I care about elegance in map design. You heard me talking about the aesthetics of the new Quarry design the other day. Not too much different in my tone here.

2 MAA vs 1/2 (read: half) a chopper is ... ugly.

Getting killed by MAA that almost never hunts aircraft defies logic. Getting killed the same number of times by a tank is infinitely more tolerable because, "It just makes sense," within the context of this map.

__________________