Re: Misuse of Vehicles

**machowner** · 06-20-2008, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax74

So, by that logic a 2 person locked APC squad should also be against the rules. It is a transport after all, not a tank...

It all depends on how it is used Lorax, that is concept of the logic.

a two person APC squad running around looking for kills, would that be against the rules?

Yes, lonewolfing, vehicle misuse

A two person APC squad tranportting and supporting the ground troops, would that be against the rules?
No, although a two-person squad is small, they would probably benefit for a third member, engi. Driver as medic, gunner as support, 3rd as engi to repair and take shots

**Mordona** · 06-20-2008, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Uranium - 235

Since when is using a gunship as a transport against the rules? Gentlemen's agreement yes, real rule, no - someone mentioned that fact on the first page (well unless that changed recently).

Look at the first post. It's been a rule since this thread started. The reasoning was 2 factors of realisum and balance. This mostly fell to the famed gunship on top of Inner Bridge Lock on Suez Canal. A squad could mount themselves very easly on the roof and were 5x as hard to remove. Also with the hight of the building made rockets less then ideal due to drop. The gunship was about the only useful tool to remove which already had to fight off 2 gunships to 1 that can be captured. We saw repeated rounds of this tactic on every single rotation of it. To many reguler people of TG made voice of it and the admin's agreed. This was almost the same time we banned rooftop beacons.

Realisum basis fell upon distorying a attacking asset. FAV is one thing to run and ditch: it's a transport. But the gunship is a fully equiped attacking vehicle and ment to engage ground and air targets from the air. The first rush out of a UCB with anything, nothing is faster then the gunship. Dropping a squad bomb to a flag can capture a far advanced point and hinder enemy movements the entire round.

Walkers/tanks/APCs are ground based and so long as they are used as a attacking asset. There is no reason to issue a rule. Now if people started running walkers and ditching them for spawning initiative like FAVs, then we look into this deeper. Realisticly, tanks are used as primarly as support roles to ground troops. Working a walker with a squad is fine and reasonable even if the SL is a mobile spawn point.

2 facts: The walker is slower then a gunship. The walker can be halted 50x easier then a gunship based on initiative.

**machowner** · 06-20-2008, 10:38 PM

Just because it can be stop easier, doesn't mean it fits with our primer.

**Lorax74** · 06-20-2008, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by machowner

It all depends on how it is used Lorax, that is concept of the logic.

a two person APC squad running around looking for kills, would that be against the rules?

Yes, lonewolfing, vehicle misuse

A two person APC squad tranportting and supporting the ground troops, would that be against the rules?
No, although a two-person squad is small, they would probably benefit for a third member, engi. Driver as medic, gunner as support, 3rd as engi to repair and take shots

Two person APC squad on Fall Of Berlin, PAC or EU - your choice.

**machowner** · 06-21-2008, 12:43 AM

I think you completely miss the point I'm trying to make.

Regardless of faction, vehicle, or squad size, the vehicle should be used the way it was intended to be used. All vehicle falls under the primer, and yes, if you support the primer you should apply it to all vehicles. Not just in game breaking situations. Take for instance bunnyhoping, its not difficult to kill someone doing it, annoying yes but its not game breaking, but it doesn't fit with our primer so we don't allow it. It just seems that we take the primer lightly. I'm talking about the intended use of the vehicle and you keep beating around the bush with its counters are and various other situations. The core of this is it intended use. Game breaking or not, the primer should still take precedence, unless we just throw the primer up there for looks.

I still haven't seen you post one thing about the walker that would show its intent to be a transport.

**Mordona** · 06-21-2008, 01:05 AM

Spawning on your SL, firing pilums at infantry, ditching transports from 100m in the air, and using VOIP while your dead doesn't fit with the [orignal] primer. But we still do it.

Remember when our site got redesigned and all the games we supposed to get new primers? Well we didn't get the new primers because of lack of time and resources. People wanted other things finished. TG administration knew that the BFx series didn't fit well with the primer that was made for CS. BF tagged later on. How does WoW and AoC work with the primer?

BF has to adapt and adopt certian aspects of the primer. The primer is our guide, our way how how things are to be thought out when adopting in new games. Please stop quoting the primer for everything we do. It doesn't work here as well as other games. Understanding what the primer means is more importent to BFx then basing our gameplay on it. Not to metion we violate EULA.

Over all, 100% primer would clash with EULAs of many games that run ranked or public. We can't qoute the primer every time something doesn't fit. We consider 6 of basic elements when making rules. 1st, does it clash with EULA or server LA? 2nd, is it unbalancing? 3rd, does it ruin fun for majority of players? 4th, how far from realistic? 5th, is it deviated from TG ways (IE: primer or code)? 6th, Is it easy to administrate? (we have to keep administration easy since we all like to play to. IE: babysitting, guessing, BR detail).

**TOOmuchMcLovin** · 06-21-2008, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

So you can't fly to inner bridge...land...get out and place a becon on the roof...then fly away?

Or is that ok, but not dropping a SL gunner off, then picking up one of his squadmates?

keep in mind roof top beacons must be accesible by foot

**Uranium - 235** · 06-21-2008, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Eroak

Look at the first post. It's been a rule since this thread started.

Didn't realize how old this thread was. I really don't concern myself with what is a real rule and what isn't. I just know what's frowned upon and avoid it.

The reasoning was 2 factors of realisum and balance. This mostly fell to the famed gunship on top of Inner Bridge Lock on Suez Canal. A squad could mount themselves very easly on the roof and were 5x as hard to remove. Also with the hight of the building made rockets less then ideal due to drop. The gunship was about the only useful tool to remove which already had to fight off 2 gunships to 1 that can be captured. We saw repeated rounds of this tactic on every single rotation of it. To many reguler people of TG made voice of it and the admin's agreed. This was almost the same time we banned rooftop beacons.

Wasn't a very effective solution, tbh. People still throw the squad beacon in the inverse corner on the backside of the building, meaning there's a 75% chance, 100% with some surfing (within tolerance) of getting on the roof. To destroy it on foot requires walking all the way around the building, subjecting yourself to a hail of rockets, grenades, and god-knows-what. And then they can just throw it off the roof again once you do blow it up.

Would have been far easier to just say anyone on the damn roof gets the boot.

**Mordona** · 06-21-2008, 10:45 AM

There's nothing wrong with being on a roof. The beacon became a problem becasue it couldn't be removed. The unbalance and fun factor dropped off the charts.

Thread Tools

Display