squadexodus

Im fine with a Lat hitting a bunker, even a hat hitting a bunker. But if it hits infantry in the open, or even half behind the trees, i dont think thats right... Especially at the range where a grenade is more feasible..

__________________

I am the leader Of the Zombie Defense Militia. We hold think tanks on how to live in a zombie apocalypse.
Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.

gijoe

I agree on pretty much all the points 100%

I have a good suggestion...why not make the rockets slow down so much you can dodge em, like in VBF2?

__________________

squadexodus

What about jeeps then?

__________________

I am the leader Of the Zombie Defense Militia. We hold think tanks on how to live in a zombie apocalypse.
Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.

llPANCHOll

I believe that the solution to this problem is "Enforcement!" and this is going to fall on Your shoulders, the Admins cant be everywhere. Make use of the BFR files. SS offenders, and report them.

Personally I don't have any desire to change the existing rules.
I do however believe that the rules should be more accessible.. ie COOL VIDEO
And the Community at Large needs to be more vigilant in reporting offenders.

__________________

google

I agree with charity's first point completely. However, I just get really ticked off when some guy pops up with a light AT fifty meters away and blows everyone away in an open field. It's not very realistic. Also, in a map like Zatar Waterlands, the MEC like to put up a firebase where the two roads from the right landing site meet. This is a fine tactic but MECers like to fire LAT at infantry alot there and use the excuse that being behind a hill is fortified cover. If we were to allow free usage of LAT anywhere people could simply fire dozens of LATs while quickly reloading off of a firebase. This just doesn't seem realistic or fun for gameplay.\

So, I agree totally with Pancho and we should be working to enforce the current rules and that the community needs to take responsobilty and start reporting more people.

TurkishDelight

I disagree with the Uncap rule. Yesterday(or the day before) on OGT, I blew up the commander's Command Post twice towards the end of the game. This prevented their team from building bunkers on the last flag they controlled. We steamrolled them because of the lack of opposition, the just couldn't spawn.

There are too many people leading 6 man squad to do this though, I am completely against that.

__________________
|TG-X|Turkish

Liquid.Watcher

i agree to the most point that HAT SHOULD NOT be used on infantry, however in my opinion i think the LAT should be used on infantry that are garrisoned inside buildings such and map bunkers and houses. I know for a fact that both soldiers in iraq and insurgents do use rpgs,at4s, and laws to clear out garrisoned structures. I also disagree on the reducing blast radius on the LAT ( You can reduce the blast radius all you want for the HAT as long as it takes out the armor )because than it wouldnt support the cause of my first comment. But Im only 1 person, so dont mind me :\

__________________

Liquid.Watcher

Agreed, i never lead a 6 man sq when making the "Wambusher" squad because its just not needed. I also dont want to waste the few good men who would actually change the tide of the battlefield in the battle. The most i offer in my squad is 3. BTW i had the same incident and delaying the enemy from building bunker is a crucial matter

__________________

Charity Case

One of the inspirations for this thread was the idea of me making a video tutorial about the TG server rules. And I was imagining how I would explain the rules for L-AT use: "You can shoot L-AT at vehicles and buildings, you can also shoot L-AT at infantry, but only if they're in a bunker, building, behind or in front of a wall, behind a tree, or on the side of a mountain, and if you shoot infantry in an open field...may God have mercy on you." Somehow, I suspect this might confuse many pubbers. And then we have the H-AT, which has a whole different set of rules governing its use. What's even more iffy is that while the H-AT rules say it should only be used against vehicles, people commonly fire it into indestructible bunkers and other hardened positions. On top of that we also have the stationary TOWs and TOW HMMWVs/Spandrels, which are even abused by people who know about H-AT but can't connect the dots. Altogether, this makes one royal mess of a rule.

I think Wolfe is on the right track with his proposed fix. But even if the blast radius is changed, there will be the inevitable asshats and smacktards who misuse the AT. The other day I watched a battlerecorder in which there were approximately 15 instances of H-AT sniping by four different people. And just today I played a game in which the chat was clogged with accusations of H-AT sniping. Now, imagine how it would be if we outlawed L-AT use against infantry...

Ultimately, I want rules that are simple and enforceable, because what's the point of a rule which nobody understands or follows? Yes, AT sniping is unrealistic and gamey, but should we really get so worked up over an offense that's not very serious and extremely hard to catch? And so, despite my loathing of AT snipers, I feel that we should drop the ban on AT sniping. Still, even if we allow AT sniping, as members of TG we should encourage a higher level of play.

As for UCBs, Disposable is right; there will always be people trying to game the system. But forbidding people from going into a UCB would make the rule a lot simpler and easy to police (I think). Right now, people are allowed to go into the enemy UCB and blow up the command post, but they can't shoot anyone unless their target is repairing a destroyed asset or if they are engaged first. And while this is fine for those of us who understand the rule, what about the pubs who see TG guys sabotaging the enemy base and then decide to do it themselves only to be kicked or banned for "base rape". This just feeds the perceived double standard many pubbers have about TG.

And let's talk about the command post. I have commanded before while my command post is being sabotaged and it's only a minor annoyance, if that. This is because I don't have people repair the wrecked command post, I just destroy it with C4 or a .50 cal and deploy a new one. What's more annoying is when I am killed by ignorant saboteurs and then have to try and track them down and report them. I would rather we just kick/ban any fool who ventures into a UCB than try and figure out just which member of the l33t spec ops squad actually shot the commander.

__________________
|TG-6th|Charity Case

Elwenil

Why not just set a rule that states that you cannot go within a certain distance of the UCB flag? We all can see the marker on the map and the distance in meters to the flag, so there would be little way to get around it. Sure it would be a little weird on some maps, but I think it would be far better to have a hard line in the sand than a flexible rule that is open to several variations of interpretation.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

google

Ya just gotta love Charity Case's tutorials.

uk-warrior

I agree 100% with Delta*RandyShugart* on the UCBs business, also...Never should HAT or LAT be used against foot soldiers.

MarineSeaknight

Here is where the enforce-ability of rules meets TG's Standards that run almost parallel with realism. I have to side with CC on this one in that the current L-AT/H-AT rules have not been practical in enforcing. This is a problem that TGers are not reporting/mentioning or it just being difficult to report, or a problem that the rule itself is too complicated.

My first opinion is strongly centered on Charity's initiative that we should come up with a solution that fixes the rule to be easily understandable, therefore, more widely followed. Details would be decided by the admins, but overall this would ease up the problems described above.

My Alternative:
Though the rule is a tad complicated to understand fully, I think TG should put out a public notice on the rule, making it more widely known. Whether it be a post on the Official PR Forums, or a Video (or both), this in combination with increased vigilance by the regulars here should make a noticeable impact.

Though there may be different opinions on this matter and ways of solving the problems outlined by some of the opinions, I think there really is a problem existing with the current rules set for using H-AT/L-AT. (Which is why Disposable says the admins are discussing it)

I'll post on UCBs later, time for some TG!

__________________
|TG-X|Marine

SpanishSurfer83

"The HAT/LAT is too effective at killing in a war zone and I'm annoyed when I die from it, lets ban it's use on infantry even though it's an extremely crippled class and can be killed easily with a little work!"

__________________

Elwenil

Is that supposed to be funny?

__________________
|TG|Elwenil