Closed Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 78
Discussion: Battlefield 2142 / Battlefield 2142 - General Discussion - Change to the ramming rule in general... - Okay, I understand completely why this rule exists - because noobs like to reap easy
-
10-31-2008, 12:46 AM #1
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Mountain Home AFB, ID
- Posts
- 1,196
Change to the ramming rule in general...
Okay, I understand completely why this rule exists - because noobs like to reap easy kills by piloting three hundred tons of metal into a tank for a cheap easy kill.
However, I'm curious in general - how many ramming incidents don't involve airborne aircraft? Meaning, how many time has something lame happened that involved just ground vehicles?
Case in point - I'm commanding a tank, and see an FAV. Now I can plow my armored behemoth into this tiny fragile tin-can, just like tanks are wont to do in real life - *smush* - In-game this can push the FAV over, or if it's traveling, cause an enormous amount of damage to it. It saves me ammo, and I can use the tank to stop its progress. Furthermore, I at least don't have to fear it blowing up with RDX.
However, under the ramming rules, this wouldn't be allowed. I'm unsure why. There's nothing 'lame', 'exploitive' about this.
Case #2 - I'm again piloting a tank, going up against a PAC tank in close quarters. In this situation, the fight is completely in favor of the PAC tank - I can't strike any weak armor, whereas they can just strafe around me and one-shot me in the backside. One devilish tanking tactic is to ram the PAC tank with the front of the EU tank, causing it to do something of a wheelie thanks to its hover design. Again, I don't see anything lame about this - both tanks have their strengths and weaknesses, and this is utilizing a design flaw on the PAC tank.
I actually sit here and can't think of a single situation where ramming with a ground vehicle would be unacceptable whatsoever.
So is there a reason for the overall ban on ramming? Why not just limit it to ramming with aircraft?
-
10-31-2008, 01:42 AM #2
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Lowell/Medford, MA
- Age
- 26
- Posts
- 549
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
How about just aircraft/FAV vs vehicle ramming. Ramming an FAV into a tank/APC/Walker is quite the deathwish. I always thought the rule WAS only for FAVs and Aircraft, I've been ramming vehicles with my tanks all the time to prevent them from being able to turn towards me... You could make a case for a walker too, since ramming with that thing has a good chance of tripping over yourself and falling.
-
10-31-2008, 09:13 AM #3
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Ireland
- Posts
- 1,578
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
As far as I know it is ok to block the path of a FAV with something bigger not ramming just making it hit into you although I could be wrong.
As for you're second example I do find it horribly unrealistic I could never think of a real life situation where two tanks would ram eachother. Granted it is in the future but I see no reason why the EU tank would not just stay at long distance or move with engineers.
-
10-31-2008, 09:52 AM #4
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Lowell/Medford, MA
- Age
- 26
- Posts
- 549
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
Staying at a distance works fine, but the Pac tank driver should know he has the advantage in close range combat with another tank and should be trying to close the distance. In the event that two tanks ARE in close combat, I agree with Uranium here that I wouldn't consider that "ramming", in the illegal sense.
I don't know how the rule is worded exactly, and I have to leave for class once I click "post quick reply" so no time to check, but I've always believed ramming to be "using your vehicle as a missile". As in running an FAV into a tank and jumping out, or a Walker with the intent of making it trip. Or in the case of aircraft using your gunship as a ballistic missile against a tank/APC/Walker that you can't get rid of.
-
10-31-2008, 11:12 AM #5
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Posts
- 409
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
well uhh... even though the EU tank's turret DOES turn independantly, the EU tank does itself rotate pretty quickly. When faced against the PAC, always rotate my body as well sa my turret to keep my front facing him.
"If you want to taste the ground, feel free to attack." - Kenshin Himura
-
10-31-2008, 11:20 AM #6
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Quebec/Canada
- Age
- 24
- Posts
- 213
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
still he does bring a good point... tanks vs tank could rush each other turning it into a kind of sumo match heck if the EU tanks works nicely at tripping the PAC tank, it mince meat for a pilum to the underside! but little stop there... tank on tank is ok to me but not using an FAV as a missile... those are meant for fast assault when you need to get somewhere asap!
-
10-31-2008, 01:25 PM #7
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Mansfield, PA
- Posts
- 1,754
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
Come on guys, we are talking about machines here that cost millions of dollars to produce. Who in there right mind would see ramming a machine that is worth millions of dollars into another as a "legit" strategy. The projectiles that are shot out of the tanks give it the capability to stay at a distance and make the shots. I see no need for this discussion at all.
Whats the Deal with the tiny sig limit?
-
10-31-2008, 01:45 PM #8
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
Agreed!!
Originally Posted by Smachin007
A captain of the most awesome IHS ever and remember to burn before you pillage.
Big-eye101: "A true catman post a day keeps the bad mood away"
Please do not take any posts made by Catman seriously. If you begin to take his posts seriously, please call us you are in need of serious psychiatric attention. We are available 24/7 at 1-973-409-3277, please scream into the phone as soon as it's answered, we will identify you as a catman follower from that and direct your call to someone who can attend to you immediately.
-
10-31-2008, 02:20 PM #9
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- oregon
- Age
- 53
- Posts
- 98
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
Bumper tanks in Iraq. Didn't see much of that on the news.I have seen bumper combines in Washington state.
-
10-31-2008, 02:40 PM #10
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Northen Virginia
- Age
- 42
- Posts
- 1,055
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
Not really, we're talking about pixels on a screen. The reality is, tanks are in close combat all the time in game and Uranium brings up a point. Do the ramming rules for vehicles make sense when you are talking about tank on tank?Come on guys, we are talking about machines here that cost millions of dollars to produce.
"Remember to pillage BEFORE you burn!"
-
10-31-2008, 02:46 PM #11
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Potomac, VA
- Age
- 32
- Posts
- 579
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
However the year is 2142 and only a few remaining strongholds remain; therefore it would seem logical that drastic times would require drastic measures.....? We are not playing 2008 Iraq. We are playing 2142 EU vs. PAC. Originally Posted by Smachin007
hmmmm.....
Aircraft ramming = suicide tactic
FAV ramming = suicide tactic
Heavy Armor = Not a suicide tactic
The thing is you often see tanks or walkers up close as a strategy to occupy a space so the other may not retreat and thus over gun and win the battle.
A
-
10-31-2008, 03:10 PM #12
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Age
- 24
- Posts
- 5,514
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
My only arguments for this, and they aren't too strong:
The walker can stomp FAVs (sorta).
The PAC APC almost looks like a giant battering ram.
-
10-31-2008, 03:25 PM #13
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Northern Colorado
- Age
- 42
- Posts
- 3,660
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
The problem comes from an admin standpoint and keeping the rules managable from a "public" server standpoint. While we may agree with some of the previous statments it is hard to manage a situation that is sometimes one thing and sometimes another. Sure we could communitcate it here in the forums but for so many of the players that never make it here how do you tell them it is ok to ram a FAV with a tank but not ok to ram a tank with a tank. Ramming is ramming, there are no exceptions at this time.
|TG-8th|RAGE
SigPic provided by www.davidclair.com
New to TG start HERE * 8th Mercs * Admin List * Supporting Membership
I am a proud former IRRegular!
*****
-
10-31-2008, 03:40 PM #14
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Lowell/Medford, MA
- Age
- 26
- Posts
- 549
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
Simple. Originally Posted by rage4order
Ramming with a tank is ok. In all situations. It's a goddamn TANK, it's built to withstand a direct tank shot from point blank from another tank. It damn well better be able to handle a collision.
How about emphasizing the current rule that's applied to using gunships as transports:
(paraphrased of course)
Vehicles are to be used for their intended purpose only.
FAVs, Gunships, and Transports aren't built to be ballistic missiles. So they shouldn't be used as such. Seems simple enough to moderate to me. If an FAV rams a walker (because ramming anything else intentionally is suicide), report it. If someone uses aircraft for ramming, report it. If the admins feel the act was intentional, do your thing with either banning/warning/whatever the punishment is.
Not allowing ramming at all, in any situation I feel takes away some of the tactical situations you can have. For instance, if I'm an APC and I see a PAC tank with it's side to me up against a wall, I'm going to EMP it and ram it into the wall so that it can't turn towards me. I don't see why an act like this should be illegal. Sure it's risky, the driver might be a recon or an engineer and come up and kill the APC, but if we're going to be forced to play chicken**** and not take risks then I'm going to sit very contently in the UCB and twiddle my thumbs until my team wins or loses every round.
Plus having no ramming at all brings about confusion on things like pods, which are built to withstand the results of ramming, and in fact is tracked statistic in the BF2142 Stats screen. Obviously it's intended purpose is primary rapid troop deployment, but also secondary as a sort of Anti-Air defense mechanism for the Titan.
A simple rule, specific to ramming, that's easy to understand, follow, communicate, and moderate, while not taking away tactical situations and advantages from situations where it should be allowed:
No intentional ramming in an FAV, Gunship or Air Transport, in any situation.
or even shorter, if you wanna fit it on the loadup screen.
No ramming with FAV/Gunship/Trans.
I'm not one to fight against admins, but I think the ramming rule should be looked over again. (Along with firing into smoke, but that's another rule for another day, and that one at least has some logic behind it).
Can you give me one valid reason why the APC vs PAC Tank situation above SHOULD be illegal? Other than "that's the way it's always been"Last edited by pred011586; 10-31-2008 at 03:41 PM. Reason: minor edits
-
10-31-2008, 03:59 PM #15
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Northern Colorado
- Age
- 42
- Posts
- 3,660
Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...
The admins currently have an open discussion and will continue to listen to opinions regarding this issue and re-look at it. The rule as it is today is just that, the rule. If you want to continue to move the discussion forward it can be done without profanity, thanks.
|TG-8th|RAGE
SigPic provided by www.davidclair.com
New to TG start HERE * 8th Mercs * Admin List * Supporting Membership
I am a proud former IRRegular!
*****
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks