Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

was this oK?

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

  • |TG-X|Bootytrap
    started a topic was this oK?

    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.

  • mingmong
    replied
    Re: Only a Sith deals in absolutes

    Originally posted by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger View Post

    1.)You can chase a heli back to the ucb and destroy it if you like. Secondary questions might be, does it have to be a visual chase or one done via radar signature. Can you just fly to their ucb anyway because 'I know thats where he is'

    2.)How many passes can you make on the ucb and the heli, because you chased it can you then spend the next 5 mins circling trying to kill it and anything else that fires on you from the ucb.
    1.)Regardless of whether you're referring to an AA missile lock or the heli being spotted on the minimap, I would consider neither of those to be "engaged" with the enemy helicopter. I think that's the critical state which needs to be emphasised. You need to be in weapons range, or maneuvering with the intent to enter weapons range.

    2.) You may engage the helicopter, if for whatever reason he does not attempt to evade by leaving his base. ONLY THE HELICOPTER. Regardless of whether anyone in the UCB is shooting you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Terminal Boy
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Originally posted by snooggums View Post
    Your points would be covered by a restriction to vehicles and assets:

    The engineer and any guys standing around are incidental and obviously not HAT sniping on infantry, you killed a vehicle didn't you? He cannot claim to be HAT sniped.

    If you miss, but were firing near the armor it would be acceptable since you fired close. Sure this means that a squad could be sneakily fired at next to a piece of armor currently, but it would get rid of the problem the rule was originally made for: shooting lone infantry in the open. The current guidelines are not rules and are unclear.

    I would have only a few simple and solid rules for the server.

    1 ) No using LAT/HAT/hand held AA launcher/those mounted AT launchers on the ground and Humvees against lone infantry. Infantry near vehicles and destructible bunkers/assets that die when the structure or vehicle are targeted are considered secondary damage and not lone infantry. The only non-destructible structures that may be targeted are small bunkers. Houses/rocks/trees/large bunkers like on Kashan are not acceptable.

    2 ) Vehicles are not bumper cars. Ramming other vehicles intentionally is prohibited, intent is determined by the admin staff. You may run over infantry on your way to another point but you may not loop around to attempt again or go for different infantry.

    3 ) Flags marked as uncapable are always uncapable and may only be entered to destroy assets as explained below. If there is no marked uncapable flag then the last flag that can be captured is considered uncapable until the AAS marker indicates it is in play. Before the AAS notes the flag is capable enemy units may only enter within 100 meters of the flag to destroy the following assets that the commander has placed: bunkers, sandbags, razor wire and the command post. Any enemy that is within the 100 meters is not allowed to fight back against attack and may not attack anything else so no destruction of any vehicle (including command trucks and APCs) unless it is caught by the blast from an asset being destroyed (so that vehicles cannot be parked nest to the asset to provoke the vehicle being destroyed). Mines may not be placed within 100 meters of an uncapable flag. The restriction on self defense is to ensure that the infiltration is solely to destroy assets and not to provoke a firefight at another's main.

    4 ) You must follow the chain of command as long as it does not break the above rules, including insurgents. Insurgents are not restricted in their use of antitank or vehicle ramming and may feel free to do so at any time.

    That's really all that PR needs.
    Outfrakkingstanding post!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ghost Dog
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Originally posted by snooggums View Post
    In games such as this having absolute rules are the best because people can follow them. In football there is no clipping allowed because it causes injuries, even if you are "panicked and have no other options'. If HAT killing infantry is so annoying as to need a rule, just make it absolute instead of a gray area for people to argue over during the game. Yes/no absolutes are the best ways to go with rules for games.
    2nd that!

    Can 't wait for 0.7 to deal with this, the rules/guidelines are confusing and newcomers don't have to read them before joining the server...

    To the first poster: Next time run in the see and suicide, so they can't get their hands on your H-AT... 3 of those kits on the beaches would make it impossible for US to recap.

    Leave a comment:


  • snooggums
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Good examples of why gray areas are crap for games. Gray areas are for real life.

    In games such as this having absolute rules are the best because people can follow them. In football there is no clipping allowed because it causes injuries, even if you are "panicked and have no other options'. If HAT killing infantry is so annoying as to need a rule, just make it absolute instead of a gray area for people to argue over during the game. Yes/no absolutes are the best ways to go with rules for games.

    Terminal boy brings up good points. Can I HAT infantry once an hour? Is that a habit or too often? Once a night? Once a map? Once per time I have to request the kit? Only if I haven't seen a tank for 30 minutes? How about if I just really want to but won't do it a second time? Can I take it on Street but only fire it once during the round? Under the current 'no spamming' guidelines then yes I could. That is why the current guidelines are bad, they don't give enough answers for us to make an informed decision. We could default to not using it in a gray area, but then our opponents get to use tactics that we don't. That's just frustrating.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sabre_Tooth_Tigger
    replied
    Only a Sith deals in absolutes

    I like that there are grey areas, its a side effect of how variable and interesting the game can be


    A recent grey area Ive used and seen negatives of is attacking a ucb in a helicopter.
    Instead of never attack the ucb we have a grey area that is a bit more advanced but not everyone agrees or understands.

    You can chase a heli back to the ucb and destroy it if you like. Secondary questions might be, does it have to be a visual chase or one done via radar signature. Can you just fly to their ucb anyway because 'I know thats where he is'

    How many passes can you make on the ucb and the heli, because you chased it can you then spend the next 5 mins circling trying to kill it and anything else that fires on you from the ucb.

    My point of view with these grey areas try to play it on the side of caution so that you never find yourself exploiting a gap in the rules or at least you always have a good excuse ?:row__577:

    If its HAT only use a rocket once on the inside of the bunker before trying to find a more viable target, dont spam it.
    With the heli, a visual chase and just one pass on the heli at its ucb.
    Using LAT on infantary, dont spam it

    Leave a comment:


  • thegreatnardini
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Realize that although there are no hard rules, the admins take HAt sniping, that is using the heavy AT against lone infantry, or against infantry constantly. On maps like street where there are no vehicles I see it as no AT at all, since there's no reason to have them. Although it's not set in stone, this thread provides a wealth of info about the subject. http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...s-weapons.html

    All in all, it is up to you to realize when to use the AT kits, and don't go overboard with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • snooggums
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
    You know as well as I do what is meant by abuse of H-AT against infantry. Don't turn this into a 15-minute argument about the definition of the word "is" (ie. President Clinton).

    This is getting pointless.

    Can I shoot a H-AT at a tank when his engineer is out repairing it? He will be killed, correct? Technically, he could claim he was H-AT sniped. How about a H-AT at a bunker that kills the infantry there. What if I fire at a vehicle, miss, and hit infantry beyond the armor? I could go on and on.

    I'm not defending the use of H-AT against infantry. I'm just taking the position that there are situations where it is "grey" and not "black-and-white", and that we need to be aware of those.
    Your points would be covered by a restriction to vehicles and assets:

    The engineer and any guys standing around are incidental and obviously not HAT sniping on infantry, you killed a vehicle didn't you? He cannot claim to be HAT sniped.

    If you miss, but were firing near the armor it would be acceptable since you fired close. Sure this means that a squad could be sneakily fired at next to a piece of armor currently, but it would get rid of the problem the rule was originally made for: shooting lone infantry in the open. The current guidelines are not rules and are unclear.

    I would have only a few simple and solid rules for the server.

    1 ) No using LAT/HAT/hand held AA launcher/those mounted AT launchers on the ground and Humvees against lone infantry. Infantry near vehicles and destructible bunkers/assets that die when the structure or vehicle are targeted are considered secondary damage and not lone infantry. The only non-destructible structures that may be targeted are small bunkers. Houses/rocks/trees/large bunkers like on Kashan are not acceptable.

    2 ) Vehicles are not bumper cars. Ramming other vehicles intentionally is prohibited, intent is determined by the admin staff. You may run over infantry on your way to another point but you may not loop around to attempt again or go for different infantry.

    3 ) Flags marked as uncapable are always uncapable and may only be entered to destroy assets as explained below. If there is no marked uncapable flag then the last flag that can be captured is considered uncapable until the AAS marker indicates it is in play. Before the AAS notes the flag is capable enemy units may only enter within 100 meters of the flag to destroy the following assets that the commander has placed: bunkers, sandbags, razor wire and the command post. Any enemy that is within the 100 meters is not allowed to fight back against attack and may not attack anything else so no destruction of any vehicle (including command trucks and APCs) unless it is caught by the blast from an asset being destroyed (so that vehicles cannot be parked nest to the asset to provoke the vehicle being destroyed). Mines may not be placed within 100 meters of an uncapable flag. The restriction on self defense is to ensure that the infiltration is solely to destroy assets and not to provoke a firefight at another's main.

    4 ) You must follow the chain of command as long as it does not break the above rules, including insurgents. Insurgents are not restricted in their use of antitank or vehicle ramming and may feel free to do so at any time.

    That's really all that PR needs.

    Leave a comment:


  • disposableHero
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Originally posted by Terminal Boy View Post
    Define "habit".

    Once a round?

    Once a night?

    H-AT for armour and L-AT for armour and bunkers was/is the way to go.

    You know as well as I do what is meant by abuse of H-AT against infantry. Don't turn this into a 15-minute argument about the definition of the word "is" (ie. President Clinton).


    Originally posted by Steiner
    Well, how about:

    1) H-AT is to be used against vehicles and defensive structures (buildings, bunkers, etc.)
    2) You have been assigned a side-arm for self-protection.
    This is getting pointless.

    Can I shoot a H-AT at a tank when his engineer is out repairing it? He will be killed, correct? Technically, he could claim he was H-AT sniped. How about a H-AT at a bunker that kills the infantry there. What if I fire at a vehicle, miss, and hit infantry beyond the armor? I could go on and on.

    I'm not defending the use of H-AT against infantry. I'm just taking the position that there are situations where it is "grey" and not "black-and-white", and that we need to be aware of those.

    Leave a comment:


  • Terminal Boy
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Define "habit".

    Once a round?

    Once a night?

    H-AT for armour and L-AT for armour and bunkers was/is the way to go.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steiner
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Well, how about:

    1) H-AT is to be used against vehicles and defensive structures (buildings, bunkers, etc.)
    2) You have been assigned a side-arm for self-protection.

    Leave a comment:


  • disposableHero
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Originally posted by Terminal Boy View Post
    An ambiguous guideline is no guideline at all.
    But I think it is a perfect guideline:

    1) H-AT is to be used against vehicles and defensive structures (buildings, bunkers, etc.)
    2) Do not make a habit of using it on infantry

    Originally posted by Khaerus
    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.
    This says it all. If I weren't feeling so talkative this morning, I would (and should) stop here.

    This leaves the door open to situations where you can use it on infantry, either where you turn the corner and SURPRISE! or other situations where it is a matter of survival, protecting the valuable asset or whatever. Regardless, the door is open so you will not be punished because everyone understands "stuff happens". If you do it on a consistent basis, meaning you are regularly firing on infantry with the H-AT, then actions will be taken against you.

    How many of us have accidentally shot a teammate (or an enemy) while Q-spotting to make sure the target is friend or foe? Now suppose you're doing this with the H-AT recticle up? Should you be kicked or banned for that? I think this is why the rule is left with a loophole. It is the spirit of the rule that counts, and as long as everyone understands it and follows it, then the rule works fine.

    I don't see too many of the admins debating this rule in this thread, with the exception of Khaerus. The reason why, I think, is that because if it were black and white - no H-AT on infantry - then they would have to investigate every single instance reported. They would have to watch every battlerecorder and determine if it was L-AT or H-AT, and if it was L-AT was it "legal". Would any of us want to do that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Terminal Boy
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    An ambiguous guideline is no guideline at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • disposableHero
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    Originally posted by Bernout View Post
    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

    I completely understand the rule as it is written. The intent is to stop people from engaging infantry on a consistent basis with H-AT, as this is not the true purpose of the weapon. I think this was especially true before .6, when the H-AT had a double-zoom and could be used to great effect on infantry from distance.

    I have been asked by SM before if they can take a shot on infantry with the H-AT and I have told them no every single time. I have tried to switch to my pistol when I have a face-to-face encounter with the enemy, and I've lost every single time.

    With that said, I think that it is still a judgement call for both the player and then later the admins. I know we could roll out a thousand scenarios to justify either side, but when it comes to survival and protecting a valuable asset for your team, I think I would fire...please don't hate me :madsmile:

    Originally posted by Bernout View Post
    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.
    (Sorry Bernout, not picking on you :))

    100% on the money. And you know what else? A lot of these people are new to the mod and are so used to vbf2 AT and shooting it at whatever moves that it takes a little bit to change their gameplay.

    Again, it comes down to making the admins aware of what is going on, especially if you feel it is abuse (ie. more than once) and let them handle it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZaBoo
    replied
    Re: was this oK?

    I guess that may have been interpreted wrong. I have played with you before and know that your a great team player.

    Let me explain what I mean by:

    How did this situation come into play?
    The way you wrote the original thread you wrote the thread like you were at the "west beach" position for quite a while.

    ...the US (my team) lost everything. Dam, and both beaches.
    I was the only surviving member of a shore party on the west beach...
    I am assuming you were on the hills to the north or the east.. if you were on the flag you would likely of been whipped out when they took the beach flags

    .... This is going nowhere, sorry for wasting your time - but it's for a valid point. This is the problem with the H-AT rules, it's to situational based and everyone seems to have their opinion. What I was really meaning by "How did this situation come into play?" could be several dozen factors...

    - How long were you at your location?
    - Where were you?
    - Was there cover
    - Did you have transportation
    - Could you retreat
    - How many squad members were with you
    - How did they die
    - Was their nearby support?
    - Could you have taken them out with small arms
    - Would it be a bad situation if they got your kit with rockets loaded
    - Was their sun glare in their eyes
    - ....
    - ...
    - "Are you feeling lucky?"

    *PS: Please do not answer any of these questions as it really doesn't progress anything*

    You could argue that all of these points could determine whether or not HAT use is appropriate. Unfortunately, it's not possible to write a "Usage of HAT bible". I prefer to keep it safe and use my sidearm. Since .6, pistols seem to be quite a lethal to encourage its use over rockets.

    I have nothing against the limited use of HAT against infantry. Unfortunately, when HAT is "free-game" we all know what happens.

    Hope we can squad up later without any bad feelings.

    Cheers,

    Leave a comment:

Connect

Collapse

TeamSpeak 3 Server

Collapse

Twitter Feed

Collapse

Working...
X