Disturbing Trend (LAT/HAT/TOW/AA) - Page 3

Fenian420 · 03-19-2008, 07:09 PM

Would it be possible to have a agreement thing pop up when someone enters the server saying that they have read and agree with all the rules? Having to click that before entering?

(dont think its possible, but you never know...)

**O=T-M-A-N=O** · 03-19-2008, 07:43 PM

Happened to me again on Al Burj. We were fixing the bridge with engineers and infantry and whammy, in came a HAT round. Nardini saw it or at least heard me complaining about it. It is very frustrating. I wish there was an auto ban if you use a HAT to kill more than 2 infantry per round. That would solve the problem.

Other than that, we should hunt the HAT snipers down, tie them to a tree and knife kill them.

**llPANCHOll** · 03-19-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charity Case

I would be willing to make a tutorial video which covers the TG server rules. Currently, I'm still working on my commander asset tutorial, but once I finish it I could do a TG rules tutorial.

Lightbulb illuminates! What if when CC makes the Video, we give out the Password at, or near the end of the Video.. How hard would it be to link the video in the Password Thread and at, or near the end of the Video have a Black Sceen with the password in Text.. Would It be tremendously difficult to Change the Text part of the Video Every so often??
Yes for those of us that know the rules I can understand this could be somewhat tedious, but I am willing to sacrifice a Couple Minutes of time if it means the public is more informed regarding our Rules.

**TheSkudDestroyer** · 03-19-2008, 08:02 PM

And if we make the video impossible to skip directly to the end...

Madness!

Elwenil · 03-19-2008, 08:54 PM

That's actually a pretty damn good idea! +1

**MarineSeaknight** · 03-19-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

And if we make the video impossible to skip directly to the end...

Madness!

I've seen this happen before on some format, and I'm sure we could do it too. I know there's quite alot here with some technical know-how. Oooh. Sneaky Sneaky.

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 03-20-2008, 12:28 AM

I think it's a brilliant idea for 2 reasons:

1) It would work
2) someone from the 10th thought of it!

How about we come up with a way to have NEW players to the server have to watch the video?

What if we had a sign-up for password night? Sign up, get the password pm'd?

What if we put the rules for the server right in the thread with the password? That would be the least amount of effort with possibly the most effect.

Soupy_Norman · 03-20-2008, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BostonBob

The problem is ,,, no matter what you do ,,,there are people that will always break the rules...There is always some one who thinks they are above the rules....And its always the same little napoleons...

So to minimize problems there Sq leaders have to action...

If any player in my sq breaks a server rule i always correct him ...
99% stay,,, the willing to follow the rules players,,, the rest leave due to constant correction....

Cause if your not having fun ,,,I m not having fun ....

And i m sorry to here there are some people who think you can t run faster with your knife out,,, when it s a known fact ,,you can run faster with your knife out...."Its just Science" ...I say good day Sir..

Yeah there SL has to take action. At this point i should point out that there was not one SINGLE |TG| member on the china team. I (and others) asked several times who ws doing it and no one offered information. In the end DirtBoy changed to china and found out it was STASOS. *gasp!* I named him. Im sorry if nameing a rule breaker is against |TG| rules
but i am very very angry with the whole china team for that round. Every single one of them was going against |TG| ethos by not helping us identify the offender. While you might say this is ok because not one of them was a member, they are still on the server. I will be contributing to |TG| very soon and am apalled that this was happeneing. I will not mind too much because a new patch has just come out and every time that happens we get an influx of noobs. Yargh.

FrankManik · 03-20-2008, 02:12 AM

I would like to make an argument that on the insurgent and militia maps, it is appropriate to use the RPG-7 as both an anti-vehicle and an anti-personnel weapon. To the best of my knowledge the RPG-7 is employed by many militias, guerrillas, and other irregular forces as an all purpose weapon, employed in mass in ambushes against infantry, vehicles, soft targets, hardpoints, and any other target that presents itself. I have heard news reports detailing RPG attacks on helicopters, tanks, HMMV vehicles, and infantry. As the purpose of Tactical Gamer is to behave in a fashion that mimics the conduct of military forces in the real world within the context of a game, I feel that the RPG-7 is an exception to the general prohibition against the use of anti tank and anti air weapons against infantry targets.

That said, I haven't been tagged with AT lately, but I understand that it is a problem. What really bothers me is that if the AT and AA troops are hunting infantry, they're not able to effectively counteract enemy armor, which means the rest of the troops in their squad, and their team, are more vulnerable to assault by armor. I hate being pinned by armor and knowing that there is nothing I can do except hunker down and hope for rescue.

YourMom.com · 03-20-2008, 02:12 AM

now that all riflemen have ammo.. its a lot easier to re-arm the lat... might be why its getin used so much more as anti infantry.. i don't know what a good solution to this is.

FrankManik · 03-20-2008, 02:18 AM

Could we ask the PR designers to add some provision for a customizable rules screen? I don't know if it's possible, but It seems like TG has some strong proponents of the PR game mod, and I imagine that the designers would understand our concern with unrealistic use or misuse of various game assets. Assuming they're able to do such a thing without undo difficulty, it would not heart to ask.

**O=T-M-A-N=O** · 03-20-2008, 02:21 AM

I would agree that the issue is compounded by the regular rifleman having the ammo bag and not the auto rifleman. That also makes the kit much less desirable.

Nero · 03-20-2008, 03:05 AM

@FrankManik - Using a LIGHT AT on bunkers, troops behind cover and troops beside wall/mountainside is within TG rules. According to the rules only shooting people in the 'open' or intentionally trying to directly hit them with the missile is a no no.

intended-use-vehicles-weapons thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by asch

...
Light Anti-Tank (LAT)

On to the topic of the Anti-Tank kit. I'll start off by first discussing LAT. The primary targets for this weapon consist of lightly armored vehicles like the Humvee. I don't believe there is a question of use here.

The questions begin to circulate when it comes to the LAT use against infantry. This is a large grey area and very much situational-based. The use of LAT against infantry does happen in the real world. It's how and when that is not always correctly reflected with our use in-game.

A common use for LAT is as a bunker-buster when rifle fire does not suffice. This use isn't necessarily based on the number of infantry units, rather how the infantry unit(s) are entrenched and what objects are nearby for the projectile to hit and cause collateral damage. If we can remember this, hopefully our use of LAT against infantry will better simulate the environment.

Examples of CORRECT use:

a) The enemy infantry unit(s) are defending within a bunker. The LAT is a valid weapon to fire into the bunker to cause damage to the maximum number of targets.

b) The enemy infantry unit(s) are hiding behind an option like a barrel, tree, or wall opening. The LAT is a valid weapon that is intended to destroy the object providing cover and cause collateral damage to the enemy.

c) The enemy infantry unit(s) are moving along a wall, however they are not behind any objects as cover. This particular example allows for the use of LAT or rifle fire.

Hopefully we can see the commonality of those examples. The enemy unit(s) are entrenched with solid objects nearby for the projectile to hit.

What we don't see in those examples are the LAT projectiles directly impacting the enemy unit or targeting units not entrenched near some solid object. We should not be targeting infantry units directly in the open field at close to medium range.

I mention close to medium range purposefully. Long range LAT use against stationary infantry in an open area is a different situation that many call this AT SNIPING. Let's define "long-range" as a distance that rifle fire can not easily take down a target. In this situation the player must use their best judgment. If a target is off in the distance and not reachable by normal rifle fire, then they may switch to the next best feasible weapon at their disposal. The LAT kit can be properly used here.

EDIT for clarification: Using the LAT at long range still requires some object to be targeting. Using in the open field probably isn't the proper use, however if the enemy infantry unit(s) is on a mountain side, the mountain will provide the solid backdrop.

On Assault on Mestia, I think it would be reasonable for militants to use Light AT on infantry as enemy are often behind cover or have a mountain backdrop for splash damage.

BigGaayAl · 03-20-2008, 03:58 AM

Great idea on the video. I wish yahtzee could do the TG rules video. That would be so funny, and able to hold our meagre attention spans.

kilroy0097 · 03-20-2008, 04:25 AM

I am a firm believer in the 3 strike rule. If someone commits an offense 3 times and is warned the first two times with acknowledgment that he understands then the 3rd offense is a ban. Not just a couple of hour either. A ban for several days or even a week or more. There is another community I am with that regularly bans people for 1 week to 1 month and even 3 months. Anything over that is a perma-ban. Some people never learn and think they can get away with it. A lecture won't help. Solid punishment and a ban does. It's time we put an end to this mess. Support the 3 strikes you are out rule.