Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...

**Smachin007** · 10-31-2008, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by Vortex421

10. to drive or force by heavy blows.

Correct me if I'm wrong a tank is quite heavy, therefore running a tank into an object would be considered a heavy blow, Therefore allowing it fall under the dictionary.com's definition of ramming.

**pred011586** · 10-31-2008, 08:32 PM

Using a tank as a battering ram against a tank with the intent of killing the tank from the impact, I can understand as ramming.

Using a tank to force the other tank into maneuvering into a compromising position I don't see as ramming. Maybe that clarifies where I'm coming from.

I know tanks should be fighting from a distance, which is fine on maps like Camp G, or Verdun, with wide open spaces, but what can you say about Belgrade, which is a pretty small map with only really "wide open" space for tanks to fight long range. On Belgrade it's alot more CQC than long range.

Pushing others to maneuver them into positions they don't want to be in has been a valid war tactic for centuries, look at naval battles and I'm sure you can find some examples.

**Vortex421** · 10-31-2008, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Smachin007

Correct me if I'm wrong a tank is quite heavy, therefore running a tank into an object would be considered a heavy blow, Therefore allowing it fall under the dictionary.com's definition of ramming.

If you are traveling at full speed that would be a "heavy blow", but I don't think the term is meant to say that a heavy object hits another that is a "heavy blow" - when in doubt, use the force equation: F=MV. If V is low, so is the force of the hit. What I'm focusing on is the question of velocity or speed - how fast are the tanks moving? If it is slow-speed, which is what I've read so far above, I'm disinclined to call it "ramming". But again, the actual definition is for the admins to decide.

**MDFubar** · 10-31-2008, 08:41 PM

You are correct about the maneuvering part, and doing so is not a violation of the rules, as I see it. I mean, if I get into a position where I am in CQ with another tank then I would want to negate his gun to the best of my ability. This would be, IMO, like closing on people using rockets to make them useless by trying to get within 20m. Ramming with the intention of using the vehicle as a projectile would be wrong.
I hope that came out right........the wine is kicking in and I must now go kill people.

**Echo-48** · 10-31-2008, 08:55 PM

It's true that it is a little unrealistic to have two tanks wrestling, but how often do you see a tank stay back and shell a flag while his team is trying to take it?

It's pretty inevitable there will be close-quarters fights between armour, and it shouldn't be against the rules to pin the other vehicle (be it an APC, Tank, or Walker) down if you are much more at risk of destruction if you turn and flee.

Ramming should only be classified as intentionally destroying your own vehicle to cripple, or at least moderately damage, and opponent's vehicle with the impact.

As APCs, Tanks, and Walkers (heaven forbid someone tries to pin a Walker) do not cause significant damage to each other by their movements, only FAVs, Air Transports, and Gunships should be recognized as ramming vehicles. I suppose if you were crazy enough to try, an FAV could also be used to pin something down. Kind of a waste, though.

If anyone spots any flaws in my logic, feel free to PM me.

-Echo

**DaBrit** · 10-31-2008, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by pred011586

If you just emp the tank and let your squad pod out and try to get behind it, you won't be able to emp it again before it turns around and starts to mow down your squad. Whereas if you emp it then RAM it into the wall, the tank can no longer turn around, and do to the shock of suddenly having the APC ram into it, the driver will stop focusing on Statue and focus on a more local scope to protect itself.

The first situation results in the tank's ground support (assuming there is some) making short work of the engineers attempting to take out the tank and the APC's position being compromised and now you're position has been compromised. By pinning the tank up against the wall you take the entire group by surprise, even if they have a PDS, and even if the tank notices the APC barreling down the hill towards it from the edge of the PDS's range, the tank simply does not have a powerful enough engine to accelerate fast enough to avoid the impact of the APC. The sight of the actual collision itself will throw the entire squad into panic mode, your squad in the APC can make short work of the tank's ground support with the gun turrets then hop out blow up the tank. Of the two options, the second results in less risk of death, and higher rate of success than trying to snipe it with pilums from a distance.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. The only difference I see between your two situations is that one of them I would either support my engi's or start shooting at the APC with a pilum (only takes two shots in the wheels / sides / rear) whereas the other I would stop to type "Admin Reporting: XYZ for ramming." before taking those actions mentioned above. If someone rams the tank I'm defending, I'm not going to sit around waving my hands in the air saying "omg! omg! What am I going to do now!?" -- I'm going to shoot the thing!

You're assuming we're not expecting people to do wild and crazy things, but we are. This is a video game. There's always going to be people doing weird stuff. Further, the only tank I can see being neutralized by this "strategy" is the PAC tank, while any competent driver in an EU tank would just swivel his gun around and start blasting away at the offending vehicle (which his engineer friends would also be doing).

The ramming rule makes a lot of sense, especially on our server. I believe that the podding situation is another discussion entirely, probably in a separate thread.

**pred011586** · 10-31-2008, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by MDFubar

You are correct about the maneuvering part, and doing so is not a violation of the rules, as I see it. I mean, if I get into a position where I am in CQ with another tank then I would want to negate his gun to the best of my ability. This would be, IMO, like closing on people using rockets to make them useless by trying to get within 20m. Ramming with the intention of using the vehicle as a projectile would be wrong.
I hope that came out right........the wine is kicking in and I must now go kill people.

Came out perfectly clear.

In that case I apologize, we're on the same side of the discussion here, it's just a misunderstanding on my part on what ramming actually means! That's exactly what I was asking, I just can't see tanks/APCs/Walkers moving fast enough to even be considered a projectile, which is where all the confusion/miscommunication has come from.

Sorry if I sounded a bit heated and offended anyone, I tend to get like that when I believe something strongly. Stubborn as a mule.... not always a good trait xD.

**Shurikane** · 10-31-2008, 11:39 PM

Considering the way BF2142 handles clipping and collisions between two vehicles, I wouldn't really attempt to ram a piece of armor against another. Get a walker stuck to a tank and you'll quickly see the situation degenerate into a massive dance dance revolution.

**Mordona** · 11-01-2008, 12:48 AM

...How many times have I asked about posting about rules? 6 or 7 times now. Keep it to contact an admin or PM one.

First and formost, if anyone is going to find loopholes in the system. Find another place to play. This shows us you do not respect TG and it's rules for whatever reason. (Not directed at anyone unless your thinking this)

Ramming: Suicide tactics and Jihad Jeeps are FORBIDDEN.
This includes RDX Jeeps, ramming any vehicle, and intentionally blowing yourself up to cause the death of another. Jihad Jeeps or ramming are forbidden even if you manage to survive.

It's a rule and it's there to keep balance there. Yes a tank makes sense but then again do you see M1A1 needlessly ramming cars or blowing rounds at 2 miles away? Money is not a factor, waste the rounds.

There also two reasons it encompasses everything. 1st is makes my job easier so I can play more and keep the community happy. 2nd, there is no chance for anyone to find a loophole in the system.

Edit: Te be clear. Blocking a road so someone can't pass is legit. Your are not intending on ramming, your just making a tactical move to cut off a flank. You must make a effort to not cause yourself to ram (meeting head on).

**FeralShadow** · 11-01-2008, 02:52 AM

yay Eroak. well said.

**MarthaHyer** · 11-01-2008, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by Vortex421

If you are traveling at full speed that would be a "heavy blow", but I don't think the term is meant to say that a heavy object hits another that is a "heavy blow" - when in doubt, use the force equation: F=MV. If V is low, so is the force of the hit. What I'm focusing on is the question of velocity or speed - how fast are the tanks moving? If it is slow-speed, which is what I've read so far above, I'm disinclined to call it "ramming". But again, the actual definition is for the admins to decide.

I fly transports.

I can flip an APC onto its back like a turtle using my Transport without exploding.

Im not allowed to do that here because it is considered 'Ramming' when I come to a hover above an APC and ever so gently set down on them.

I dont consider that 'ramming' for the same dictionary reason you cited - however - I must admit that its a small sacrifice given the fact that gaming is joyous without a bunch of yahoos ramming me all the time.

Point being, as soon as its OK in some special instance - then everyone will use that as an excuse to violate the ramming rule et al - and the admins will be the ones to bear the brunt of the BS.

While I feel you have a valid point - I have to voice my support for the overall ban since Im old and wise

**Photometric** · 11-01-2008, 01:47 PM

I've been on servers where it was akin to bumper cars with the tanks and it's not like war. I think the key here is in an effort to keep from scope creep happening it's easier to not allow it and I like my admins gaming and happy and not administering and cranky.

**Sargentkyle23** · 11-01-2008, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by MarthaHyer

Point being, as soon as its OK in some special instance - then everyone will use that as an excuse to violate the ramming rule et al - and the admins will be the ones to bear the brunt of the BS.

I agree completely with Martha here!...the moment that you make exceptions it begins to spiral out of control, and while you guys do have points I do not think that it would be possible to be able to define "this" as ramming and "that" not, it just creates confusion and adds stress to the game.

**Photometric** · 11-01-2008, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by pred011586

Pushing others to maneuver them into positions they don't want to be in has been a valid war tactic for centuries, look at naval battles and I'm sure you can find some examples.

Follow this logic for a second...when have you EVER heard or saw of an enemy tank coming along side an enemy tank to push it out of the way in WW2 which was the last war that used tanks so prolifically? I would love a link to a picture or book showing this, please. Just one. It's a ridiculas argument and without merit.

**pred011586** · 11-01-2008, 10:41 PM

*re-emphasizes the "naval battles" in that quote for you*

WW2 and BF2142 are 200 years apart. Technology, and thus tactics, change in the span of 200 years.

I disagree with the rule in the fact that it doesn't make sense to not allow it.

However Eroak braught up a ood point which did not consider, and that's that the admins are playing at the times the reports come in. I honestly don't see how saying "No ramming with FAV/Gunship/Transport" could create loopholes for anyone to abuse and make admin jobs hard, I'd think that would make the amount of reports less, but I've also never admined a server, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not going to back down on that I think the principle of the rule is stupid. But given what Eroak has to to say about it, I'm not going to bother to try to pitch for a rule change.

For the record, I have yet to hear an argument for WHY the situation is illegal, other than difficulty in administrating. If we put that aside however, there has yet to be a good reason for why this rule's in place.

Thread Tools

Display