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

**Reaperassault** · 11-01-2008, 11:35 PM

Personally, the way the game engine handles ramming and clipping objects from ramming makes this hard to decide on, its easy enough to use just an apc to take out a tank by making it clip into a building or even something like a supply crate to "destroy" (use a weakness in the game engine to clip your enemy into death).

My point being:
1) ramming disrupts the balance of the game e.g. an APC cannot kill a tank (it could but who wants to shoot moarters for 30 minutes at a tank)

2) ramming could be used to exploit a weakness in the physics engine by making an enemy clip (this is very easy to do when you are trying to pin your enemy) and thereby killing said enemy with unrealistic means.

I rest my case.

**Mordona** · 11-02-2008, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by pred011586

*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.

Pred, I dont want to give the public the idea that rules wont change and you can't do anything about it. Most of the time your right, rules wont change. But, we are always willing to hear any case you wish to bring up (Titan UCB's is an example of a community movment for a rule change that passed). The only thing I ask, is post it in the contat an admin forum. There are reasons for this to be kept private. There are problems threads like this cause to more then one person. You have valid points, there's a process we look at when thinking about new rules and admendments.

1st, does the rule effect the code of conduct? The code is the absolute 1st everything to all TG and members.

2rd, Can the ruling be administrated? Can we as admins identify the rule is being broken without reasonable doubt? How much time will it disrupted from an admin's personal time? Is it a hack/exploit?

3rd, Does the rule violate EA's or Wolfservers EULAs? We dont want to do anything illegal.

4th, Does the rule sway or balance gameplay for both teams? Fairness is key to a safe and enjoyable server.

5th, Does the rule make sense to the primer? While the Primer is importent, it is only a guide on how our games should be played. 2142 is far in the future and not all tactics will be the same.

6th, Do all admins in majority agree to the rule?

7th, Is the rule writen in such a way that there is no possibility of a loophole to the reason of the rule. Is it simple for any player inluding children to understand?

Lastly, does Tempus agree to the rule?

Look over everything we take into account. We try to think about how the community feels about some tactics, but overall sometimes we have to look past that because of the reasons stated. no matter what ruling we make, someone doesn't like the outcome. We are prepared for that and know it's coming. If we decided to allow pod-rams, roof beacons, and GS taxis, someone else would be upset with that ruling to.

It's a tough job, but I'm glad I do it. I'm here for TG in it better and worse moments and you may come to me anytime with anything.

**Vortex421** · 11-02-2008, 12:47 AM

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing in favor of or against the rule. I was just trying to wrap my poor head around the situation and provide some food for thought.

Nothing more or less.

My opinion: The final say on things with the server is the admin group - They are talented in their own ways and I trust their judgment such that their ruling is the one I abide by. But, as Eroak has pointed out, you're always welcome to contact them about rule issues for clarification or discussion - I did it recently and found it edifying.

**Photometric** · 11-02-2008, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by pred011586

*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've been thinking about this as well. It's been 60 years since WW2. Have the concept of a tank or APC changed that much in the meantime?

In warfare the tank is never found without close infantry support in the event that some forces "trip" over each other. Those infantry are responsible to handle close combat situations.

Or put another way. The APC pins a tank against a wall. The infantry gets out and shoots pilums or rdx's the tank while pinned. If the infantry drops mines and APC pulls away the tank shoots the APC with the turret. So the APC needs to pin the tank until the tank is destroyed. 90% of the time, it leads to damage or destruction of the APC and a teamkill. In a real world scenario, the troops wouldn't risk the APC, but let the infantry handle the tank and get the APC to temporary safety.

This is my reasoning as to why it doesn't make sense. The reason I mentioned WW2 was because that most recent war that large scale ground vehicle combat have been engaged. All subsequent wars have been much on a much smaller scale iirc.

My vote, fwiw is no change based upon this argument.

**MarthaHyer** · 11-02-2008, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Eroak

It's a tough job, but I'm glad I do it. I'm here for TG in it better and worse moments and you may come to me anytime with anything.

Thanks Eroak.

Im using A2 Tool Steel Tight-Tolerance Rod 1/4" diameter as an axle for use in a gear box. I have had problems trying to use a 10-32 Plug Tap after center drilling to a depth of 0.50" using a #21 drill - even after using a #19 drill. At first I thought I may have hardened the Tool Steel when I center drilled either from drilling too fast or from using a dull bit - however - after using fresh tooling and stock the same results occurred.

I know I can obtain and use 12L14 Steel Precision Ground Shafts however they are more costly and I already have the A2 Tool Steel in hand. Is there a reason I cant use my Tap Plug on this material ? Its annealed with a Hardness of Rockwell B85-B103 and meets ASTM Specification A681.

Also

I have been trying to determine precisely by what means the force of gravity propagates - can you shed any light ?

Oh yeah .. and to stay on topic ?

I agree that a healthy discussion of the rules not only helps us refine the ruleset but also deepens our understanding and appreciation of the same - as long as we arent just hammering the same points home over and over. Filibuster no; Thoughtful dialogue yes.

**Mordona** · 11-02-2008, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by MarthaHyer

Thanks Eroak.

Im using A2 Tool Steel Tight-Tolerance Rod 1/4" diameter as an axle for use in a gear box. I have had problems trying to use a 10-32 Plug Tap after center drilling to a depth of 0.50" using a #21 drill - even after using a #19 drill. At first I thought I may have hardened the Tool Steel when I center drilled either from drilling too fast or from using a dull bit - however - after using fresh tooling and stock the same results occurred.

I know I can obtain and use 12L14 Steel Precision Ground Shafts however they are more costly and I already have the A2 Tool Steel in hand. Is there a reason I cant use my Tap Plug on this material ? Its annealed with a Hardness of Rockwell B85-B103 and meets ASTM Specification A681.

Also

I have been trying to determine precisely by what means the force of gravity propagates - can you shed any light ?

Oh yeah .. and to stay on topic ?

I agree that a healthy discussion of the rules not only helps us refine the ruleset but also deepens our understanding and appreciation of the same - as long as we arent just hammering the same points home over and over. Filibuster no; Thoughtful dialogue yes.

Try this site

It might help you.

**Shurikane** · 11-03-2008, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Photometric

I've been thinking about this as well. It's been 60 years since WW2. Have the concept of a tank or APC changed that much in the meantime?

In warfare the tank is never found without close infantry support in the event that some forces "trip" over each other. Those infantry are responsible to handle close combat situations.

Or put another way. The APC pins a tank against a wall. The infantry gets out and shoots pilums or rdx's the tank while pinned. If the infantry drops mines and APC pulls away the tank shoots the APC with the turret. So the APC needs to pin the tank until the tank is destroyed. 90% of the time, it leads to damage or destruction of the APC and a teamkill. In a real world scenario, the troops wouldn't risk the APC, but let the infantry handle the tank and get the APC to temporary safety.

This is my reasoning as to why it doesn't make sense. The reason I mentioned WW2 was because that most recent war that large scale ground vehicle combat have been engaged. All subsequent wars have been much on a much smaller scale iirc.

My vote, fwiw is no change based upon this argument.

This is not suicide. This is only a situation in which the soldier has a chance of dying - and this is what's expected from a soldier.

The point about suicide tactics is that:

A) You have little to no chance of making it out alive.
B) You have little to no chance of conserving the vehicle you were driving.

Now, there's a situational counterpart to that. If you're driving your APC and you bump into a tank along the way, well, waddya gonna do. You defend yourself as much as you can, and it's admitted that the tank's snuck up on you. You can't suicide into an enemy you hadn't noticed - that the battlefield for you. Same goes for jeep head-to-heads that happen so frequently on Tunis Harbor when neither driver has time to react.

The situation becomes a suicide when you are aware of what's up there but you go for it anyway, fully knowing that your chances of survival and/or success are slim to none. Now, I know this is relative. Someone considers an APC against a tank to be a game-over, but I shoot down tanks with an APC all the time without much trouble.

**Reaperassault** · 11-03-2008, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Shurikane

but I shoot down tanks with an APC all the time without much trouble.

in what way? do you do it with the APC yourself i.e. moarter or do you pod out because that is simply utilizing the APC to deploy an engineer who kills the tank, which would mean an engineer killed the tank not the APC

there is a difference there

Edit: I also doubt that this is on the TG conquest server as well

**MDFubar** · 11-03-2008, 12:47 PM

I have never lost a battle to an APC with a Tank.

**Smachin007** · 11-03-2008, 03:00 PM

I have never seen anyone in a tank lose to an APC

**BigMcLarge** · 11-03-2008, 03:39 PM

I know I've sat in an APC off at a distance from a tank on Suez Canal, bombarding them with my mortar, and they didn't even move from capping the flag because I was obviously doing so little damage to them.

**Shurikane** · 11-03-2008, 10:26 PM

Drive-by, shoot an EMP, get out and fire off a pilum.

Good tank drivers realize what's coming, and back off early on.

The others... well...

**Reaperassault** · 11-03-2008, 10:35 PM

well I call that utilizing the apc as a transport to put an engineer in a good spot, not killing a tank with the apc.

**Mercenary90** · 11-03-2008, 11:19 PM

Well, is it alright to EMP the tank, get out of the APC as Recon, throw RDX, then get back in the APC and detonate at a safe distance?

**Mordona** · 11-03-2008, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Mercenary90

Well, is it alright to EMP the tank, get out of the APC as Recon, throw RDX, then get back in the APC and detonate at a safe distance?

Thats fine so long as you dont ram them, but GL pulling it off since there is little time to pull it off safely.

Thread Tools

Display