Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

was this oK?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • was this oK?

    Last night on Jabal......the US (my team) lost everything. Dam, and both beaches.
    I was the only surviving member of a shore party on the west beach and I had a HAT. Useless. Looked for the APC, could hear him but not see him. Troops were coming in on my postion and when I popped up I saw three bunched together so I let the HAT fly killing them all. Desperation took over.




    |
    |

  • #2
    Re: was this oK?

    Not being an admin, I can't speak with authority. However, in that situation, I believe you have three choices:

    1. Don't shoot a rocket, and die.
    2. Shoot a rocket, then die.
    3. Pull out the pistol, pop some useless shots, and die.

    Seeing as how you had the rocket out, and a bunch of MEC heads popped up into your sights, they were hunting you down, you had no squaddies and no place to go, I wouldn't fault you for it. I have been in that situation and not fired. Guess what? I got shot, and we lost the HAT to the enemy. Had I fired, same situation. Whatever. Either way, it's vastly different from "I was up on a hill and I saw some dudes 300m out running across my field of fire toward east beach so blew 'em all to Tajikistan..." Know what I mean?

    |
    |

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: was this oK?

      I have to agree with Pilot here.

      Sure, HAT-sniping infantry is against the rules, but there really needs to be some common sense involved, too. The server rules do not allow it, but the server also strives to stay as "true" to "realism" as it can. If, in real life, I were in that same situation, then those 3 MEC troops would all die from the HAT - it's them or me. I don't see them switching to pistols or knives when they see a lone HAT guy, and they surely aren't going to wait for you to draw your pistol before they open fire on you. I don't see anything wrong with what you did.

      "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: was this oK?

        Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
        I have to agree with Pilot here.

        Sure, HAT-sniping infantry is against the rules, but there really needs to be some common sense involved, too. The server rules do not allow it, but the server also strives to stay as "true" to "realism" as it can. If, in real life, I were in that same situation, then those 3 MEC troops would all die from the HAT - it's them or me. I don't see them switching to pistols or knives when they see a lone HAT guy, and they surely aren't going to wait for you to draw your pistol before they open fire on you. I don't see anything wrong with what you did.
        We've been over this many times before but I'll chime in once more. If you're not supposed to use HAT against infantry then you're not supposed to do it. Period. I fail to see why people keep trying to make exceptions for it. I wasn't around when this rule was created so I can't comment on the rationale behind it but the current rule definition is as clear as you can get. ;)

        IMO, if you're in a FUBAR situation in game that's no excuse for breaking the rules.

        Now if we could only apply such a cut and dry rule to LATs. :row__690: We'll see what 0.7 brings I suppose since it doesn't appear the admins will consider any rule changes until then.

        Bernout

        |TG-MD6|

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: was this oK?

          Originally posted by A_Grounded_Pilot View Post
          Not being an admin, I can't speak with authority. However, in that situation, I believe you have three choices:

          1. Don't shoot a rocket, and die.
          2. Shoot a rocket, then die.
          3. Pull out the pistol, pop some useless shots, and die.

          Seeing as how you had the rocket out, and a bunch of MEC heads popped up into your sights, they were hunting you down, you had no squaddies and no place to go, I wouldn't fault you for it. I have been in that situation and not fired. Guess what? I got shot, and we lost the HAT to the enemy. Had I fired, same situation. Whatever. Either way, it's vastly different from "I was up on a hill and I saw some dudes 300m out running across my field of fire toward east beach so blew 'em all to Tajikistan..." Know what I mean?

          Yeah, last night on 7 Gates I was in the forest north of the main china base with a HAT. There was an APC spotted in one of the tree-islands north of River. No enemies had been spotted on our side of the river yet. I had my hat out, running towards the beach to take a crack at the APC, when I run around a corner (the base of the mountain) and see an entire squad standing around a RP. I had a clear shot at the RP which would have without a doubt taken out the whole squad. In the past I would have taken the HAT shot rather than die, but I used some constraint, dropped to the ground pulling out my pistol, then took a shot in the face.

          Then it took an unecessary 5 minutes and lots of (poorly coordinated) squad deaths to finally clear out the RP and enemies. Then, somehow citadel was taken during this little waste of time and our team ended up getting steamrolled.

          What does all this say? I dont know... but there's a slim chance that had I taken out the rally, my squad and the other friendly squad messing with that RP could have made it back more quickly to the citadel and cleared it before they got too intrenched.

          Curiously, who was that squad, anyone know? At least 4 of you saw me run up with the HAT. You can consider that one a gift...next time I may "panic".

          :)
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: was this oK?

            Gentlemen, we have a problem. Players are not understanding, apparently, the fact that there is no HARD RULE concerning the HAT use on infantry. Here is the link again; read the rule again, and I'll be happy to walk anyone through it, line by line if necessary. PM me, or find me on TS, but we need to understand this. The link:

            http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...s-weapons.html

            The rule is purposefully ambiguous and suffice it to say, isn't easy to admin when players set out intending to abuse the trust we place in them. We are counting on players here to use their fine judgement and restraint, and the admins will handle situations that escalate out of control. It's the best we can do, gents, and a large percentage of the time, it's good enough.

            Please, guys: we all need to try to follow the kit-use GUIDELINES and we need to be able to forgive occasional slip-n-falls without uncalled-for condemation. Call out the HAT sniper every time, yes, but moderate your judgements based on the situations you face.

            As far as the original poster is concerned: from the description given, his actions would not warrant admin action in-game.
            OPS, the bacon is on you.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: was this oK?

              Originally posted by khaerus View Post
              Gentlemen, we have a problem. Players are not understanding, apparently, the fact that there is no HARD RULE concerning the HAT use on infantry.
              My bad. I did read that posting and in particular:

              The primary purpose of the HAT is for use against heavily armored vehicles (e.g. tank, APC). These kits / projectiles are considerably more expensive and less available than their LAT counterpart. Players carrying the HAT should focus solely on vehicles.
              So what exactly is the message you are trying to give us here? That Booty was ok to use that HAT against that group of infantry because there happened to be an APC in the general area and he was in a sucky position? If I'm carrying an HAT and stumble upon enemy infantry I've automatically got the green light to fire it at them at every time? Should TeflonDon have annihilated that infantry squad he bumped into on 7 Gates? If you're just trying to eliminate HAT sniping then why not just say that?

              Whatever. This is exactly why there is so much confusion over this issue. If you don't want HAT used against infantry then making it an ambiguous guideline only creates confusion and is not going to prevent the behavior you are trying to avoid. How the hell am I as a player supposed to know what to report? An even better question...if I asked these questions to 10 TG admins, how many different answers would I get? ;)

              My apologies for misreading the guidelines on this. I'll go back in my hole now.

              Bernout
              Last edited by Bernout; 11-21-2007, 02:39 PM.

              |TG-MD6|

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: was this oK?

                Ther will be no hole-crawling, my friend. My main concern is that we start the discussions form the same place, though. We can work on understanding the ambiguities from there. And far better to report more than less, I whole-heartedly agree with you on that.

                Hypothetically, if the OP's name came up again concering "HAT-vs-Infantry", I'd check into it a lot more carefully and go from there, and the original report would make that possible, or more likely.
                OPS, the bacon is on you.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: was this oK?

                  Originally posted by khaerus View Post
                  Ther will be no hole-crawling, my friend. My main concern is that we start the discussions form the same place, though. We can work on understanding the ambiguities from there. And far better to report more than less, I whole-heartedly agree with you on that.
                  Well, I'm not sure we're starting from the same place since we are talking about an ambiguous guideline. ;)

                  IMO, the admins would make life much simpler on themselves and the player base if they made some of this stuff clear cut rules and work in the ambiguity amongst themselves when it comes to enforcement. Stuff like "Ok player X, I know you were in a bad situation and simply panicked. Don't do it again."

                  With how this is set up right now the guidelines are next to useless since you can't count on the players to make it work. Likely on any given night, 1/2 the server is comprised of people who never visit these forums. And of the ones who do they may not have read the rules or not fully understand them as we see from repeated topics like this. The only way you can get it to work is to have a strong, clear, consistent message from everyone who is playing on that server.

                  Right now, I have no idea what to tell an HAT player in my squad who asks if he is clear to fire at a group of infantry.

                  Bernout

                  |TG-MD6|

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: was this oK?

                    To me the general idea is not to use your HAT kit as a cruise missle, destroying enemies at astronomical ranges. If I round the corner of a building, meet a person with a HAT kit and get blown to bits by a HAT kit, it doesn't bother me. When you are face-to-face your instinct takes over and you want to survive. The big strength of the kit is also taken away at close ranges, so it's not all that overpowering. If someone is purposely using the HAT kit as a close in weapon repeatedly that is another story ;)

                    That's how I understand the rules :)
                    |TG-X|Turkish

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: was this oK?

                      Originally posted by Bernout View Post
                      Right now, I have no idea what to tell an HAT player in my squad who asks if he is clear to fire at a group of infantry.
                      Bernout
                      If one of my squad members has time to ask, the answer will generally be no. HAT is for vehicles, bunkers, etc. If I run over a hill carrying HAT and see an enemy squad, I turn around and run away. If they see me and immediately start pursuing, I try to hide, find some friendlies, etc. Only in a last ditch DEFENSIVE maneuver will I fire upon them, and then only if I am by myself. If the squad I'm in is engaged in a firefight, I stay low. If I am leading, I tell my squad members to do the same. My HAT guy is too valuable to me to be sticking his head up over a ridge in the hopes of getting a potshot off on two guys who happen to be proned out next to each other. What TeflonDon describes is the penalty you pay for carrying the HAT. I know it's impossible to be right with your squad all the time, but that's what the riflemen are there for. Just use your head.

                      |
                      |

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: was this oK?

                        Imo I'd say no to the 1st situation, your desperate but we always are most games. In future I hope you'd not have to make silly choices to delibrately not fire but there it is


                        The RP situation, you should have used the HAT dam it, its an enemy asset and you should fire on it not the troops but if they die then tough so long as the RP is destroyed


                        If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: was this oK?

                          Sabre, i have the same opinion as you on RP's. I believe that it IS an asset to the team and needs to be destroyed reguardless of what is around it. I have destroyed only one RP on Jabal and it had some inf around it and a vodnic. If i really wanted to get kills at the same time, hit the rally and the chances are that your gonna get the inf.

                          BUT just using it on inf by themselves is BAD. or a NO NO! i have been killed several times because i had my HAT out and inf come around the corner. I just stand there and take it cause there aint nothing i can do.
                          sigpic


                          Do you really want invincible bears running around raping your churches and burning your women?

                          Intel i7 3930k @ 4.4ghz, 8gb RAM, 2x GTX 570 1gb, OCZ Vertex 3 120 gig SSD

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: was this oK?

                            Originally posted by TurkishDelight View Post
                            To me the general idea is not to use your HAT kit as a cruise missle, destroying enemies at astronomical ranges. If I round the corner of a building, meet a person with a HAT kit and get blown to bits by a HAT kit, it doesn't bother me. When you are face-to-face your instinct takes over and you want to survive. The big strength of the kit is also taken away at close ranges, so it's not all that overpowering. If someone is purposely using the HAT kit as a close in weapon repeatedly that is another story ;)

                            That's how I understand the rules :)
                            Turkish, the problem with this is how do you determine if a close range HAT is premeditated. Unfortunately, we do not have partially dressed hot pre-cogs to nab these tards before they do it - PR: Minority Report style.

                            Back to the original topic...

                            For sakes of game play I would just say die. I have been in this situation before and have always chosen to pistol whip a few before dying, then lowering myself to shooting a large tactical missile at sole infantry(ies). If you are in a situation where you have a H-AT by yourself, without your squad or support you "deserve" to be killed. How did this situation come into play? Really brings up some important questions about your (squads?) intentions.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: was this oK?

                              nevermind....I asked for a simple answer as the rule is a bit unclear. i thought I did something acceptable in the circumstances, but I was basically letting all know what happened just in case there was a complaint lodged against me.

                              Zaboo- I had no idea my playing style would come into question. In my original post I said I was the only SURVIVING member....read it THOUROUGHLY before you toss my gameplay under the bus. And frankly- I'm kinda pissed about your little comment....I've played in squads with you before and I am not a friggin noob.




                              |
                              |

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X