Why the vehicle hatred?

[Resjah]

The past couple of times i haved played PRMM (ingame name :O psResjah),there has been loads of times where people were actually saying they didnt want anyone to use tanks .

This worrys me as they also wanted no one to use APC's and it began to make me think that next thing they are gonna say remove all vehicles from the mod and make it like Counter-strike .

Im not saying CS is bad, i have it, but i bought battlefield 2 because i could do anything i want,fly,drive, get in a tank or APC etc etc, so i could fight the battle the way i wanted, but with people not wanting to use any vehicles except for jeeps is just ridiculous. And to make things worse almost everyone agreed to it.

I enjoy Project Reality because they dont just concentrate on making the guns realistic, but the vehicles realistic as well.

When i confronted the 2 people that wanted no one to use any of the tanks and APC's asking them why they should restrict it when its there to use and their team has a tank as well so its not like its unbalanced and plus theu have the AT kit and tows near each flag, they responded in a harsh and child like manner, one of them even said "whens the last time you ever saw a tank rolling into iraq?" lol.

I answered " all the time idiot" and that respectively shut that player up for the rest of the game as he realized he said a stupid question. after that, many of the other players agreed with me and just ignored the one other guy still wanting no tanks and everyone just used anything at their disposal.

Now, i would hate to see what this would be like on Op Clean sweep or any other map where their is aircraft because i know people have extreme hatred to towards aircraft and the people that fly them, usually its not too bad but sometimes, i just cant stand the bulls*** people throw at me when i fly.

This vehicle hatred happens too frequently and sometimes causes me to think twice before i decided to play PRMM, but then when i do play i dont give a damn what anyone else whats me to not use, if its there and i can enter it, im using it.

I usually experience this on the gloryhoundz server, but thats usually the server that has the most people are on so its not like i have any other choice, but there are those days when everything is good and no one cares about what vehicles people are using, but those days are few and far between.

[dawdler]

People want an equal battlefield, its that simple.

Now, I'm not talking equal weaponry or an AK47 that just has to balanced of against an M16 with more innaccuracy, I'm talking about a simple statement: I can kill everything I meet and they can kill me just as good.

Vehicles completely wreck this, and thus the fun (for some people). If a soldier meet a tank, the soldier go boom. There isnt a chance in hell a medic will take on a tank. Some people claim this is realistic and of course it is. But is it fun? I dont think anyone that plays that medic can claim he's having fun fighting a tank no matter how much of a realism freak he his.

But of course, the problem is the unbalanced maps and not really soldier-vehicle interaction. We should have a clear distinction between vehicle maps and infantry maps. But DICE has a tendancy to slip in a tank or APC on maps no one want them. Karkand is the perfect example. The epitome of an infantry city combat, yet you get a tank AND apc, wtf?!?! It totally ruins it when 6vs6 infantry squads duke it out and suddenly a tank comes and kill everything. Hell in masthuur you get a freakin tank and a transport helicopter!!!!

On the other side, some maps dont have enough heavy vehicles. Zatar for example should have so many tanks you'd drown in them, so we can roll around in massive formations and capping those dangerously covered outposts. But what does it have? Like 1-2 tanks on each side (although there are plenty of APCs). Once again, wtf...

Sidenote: The aircraft hatred is purely based on the inability to defend yourself since all AA suck (which is kind of the ground vehicle case too, but not that extreme).

[Eden]

I think most people who play PRMM don't want to use tanks when there's only a small number of people playing.

I have played a small game with and without armor and I must say that it was definitely more enjoyable without armor.

Eden

[Cerberus]

Tanks ruin a perfectly good game of PRMM when it's 10 vs 10

[dawdler]

Tanks ruin a perfectly good game of PRMM when it's 10 vs 10

Especially if its on small maps, like Oman 16p. If you play AT, you meet an infantry man that blow you away in 1 hit from an assault rifle. If you play infantry, you meet a tank that blow you away in 1 hit from a machinegun instead. Its really not fun in either case... But we cant select an all vehicle battle, can we? So only the infantry option is left. And we cant choose that either since all maps have tanks

[BLind]

nothing worse than trading fire across a field, just manging fight ur way to a flag and having some tank cruise in and knock your entire squad out with ease.

[Resjah]

I think most people who play PRMM don't want to use tanks when there's only a small number of people playing.
I have played a small game with and without armor and I must say that it was definitely more enjoyable without armor.Eden

when i was playing on when all the stuff i said happened had 25+ people playing on it, there was more than enough people to use armor and to use the AT class to counter that armor.

Vehicles completely wreck this, and thus the fun (for some people). If a soldier meet a tank, the soldier go boom. There isnt a chance in hell a medic will take on a tank. Some people claim this is realistic and of course it is. But is it fun? I dont think anyone that plays that medic can claim he's having fun fighting a tank no matter how much of a realism freak he his.

Yes, it does suck to turn around a corner and there is a tank waiting for you, but just becuase you killed by it, means you get pissed and start spouting vehicle hatred?

No

you was killed by a tank and there is nothing to do, your best option is to either spawn as AT and tank it out, or find a TOW or another tank to use to tank it out, a medic, sure as hell shouldnt have a chance to take on a take on a take,it wouldnt make any sense if he could shockpaddle the tank and the tank goes boom .

Being killed isnt fun, but what happens when you turn another corner and their is a support guy waiting for you and mows you down? you killed and dying isnt fun, but you could do something about it, shoot the support guy next time you spawn, same with the tank, you always have a way to take care of things, vehicles also have a long as hell respawn time, so when you take out a tank, your tank free for a long time.

But of course, the problem is the unbalanced maps and not really soldier-vehicle interaction. We should have a clear distinction between vehicle maps and infantry maps. But DICE has a tendancy to slip in a tank or APC on maps no one want them. Karkand is the perfect example. The epitome of an infantry city combat, yet you get a tank AND apc, wtf?!?! It totally ruins it when 6vs6 infantry squads duke it out and suddenly a tank comes and kill everything. Hell in masthuur you get a freakin tank and a transport helicopter!!!!

Yes i agree there should be a clear distinction between vehicle and infantry based maps, but not all maps should be like that.

I dont see whats wrong with having a blackhawk on Mashtuur city, its not like its completly unrealistic to see a helicopter transporting troops to a city.

Also, i agree that Karkand shouldnt have a tank AND apc, but i dont see a problem with having one or the other,tank or apc, but just not both, in this mod, tanks really cant dominate the whole map, if players really wanted to take a vehicle out they would just play as the AT class and then ground vehicles wouldnt be a problem ground.

[Rg]

I understand people wanting to use armor and such, but why ruin the fun we’re having by dealing with an armor whore the whole night. Squads vs. Squads makes this game really fun.

Right when the Rev.1 came out servers were bumping! At least 30 people in the servers. Now it’s very few. When there are only like 10-20 or less people there should be no armor. When it’s higher then that I would agree on use of armor if something is done about it (read bottom of post).

The thing is, armor can be VERY annoying.
Usually it’s 1 guy that’s an armor whore. When he takes a hit from an AT rocket, he’ll backup in reverse until he’s safe, then repair his armor. He’ll do this constantly until you can actually hit him with 2-3 rockets pretty quickly or sometimes 1 in the back.
Then he wait’s 40sec. to spawn, by that time the armor will spawn in 20sec. maybe? (I’m not sure what the armor spawn times are, but I’m guessing around 60sec.). He gets in the tank to do it all over again. It’s very annoying. You can have a tank rolling in and attacking you every 1-2 minutes.

The .50 cal’s on the transport vehicles are deadly enough with nothing but 1 shot kills.
I personally think something as powerful as armor should have like a 5-10 minute spawn time. The fact that you can just go in reverse, get out and repair your vehicle in a matter of seconds is ridiculous.
I think something should be done to the engineer class. Either taken out or not be allowed to repair vehicles on the spot. If you think there needs to be someway of repairing vehicles, you can think of a way of doing that (maybe back at a previous base or main base only, something other then repairing on the spot).

[dawdler]

Being killed isnt fun, but what happens when you turn another corner and their is a support guy waiting for you and mows you down? you killed and dying isnt fun, but you could do something about it, shoot the support guy next time you spawn, same with the tank, you always have a way to take care of things, vehicles also have a long as hell respawn time, so when you take out a tank, your tank free for a long time.

Of course its NEVER fun to die (well unless you those tendancies ), but the thing is that the guy rounding the corner COULD have killed the support guy. There are no ifs buts or maybes here. The support guy can kill the other guy and the other guy can kill the support guy. Of course only one of them will actually die unless they manage to lob grenades at the same time, heh.

But when the tank comes, its loopsided. Its not like you can say "oh but if the medic had just been smarter, he could have killed the tank!". This isnt BF1942 anymore. Which most consider more fun, lol. Isnt that an odd coincidence?
However its obviously in contrast to realism... Vehicles shouldnt be blown up by a couple of medics and a half a dozen hand grenades. So people opt out of vehicles instead. Ignore them, maybe they'll go away. Realistic battles are dull: You'd get owned by something you never see and hardly even hear. You'd get owned before the other country had the time to call your president to declare war.

Sidenote: Take out the miniguns on the Blackhawk and I'd agree with you, nothing wrong with a transport helo on a city map.

[Artnez]

The purpose of having tanks and other vehicles is to expand the strategic element of the game.

If a tank is giving you a problem, grab the AT class and take it out. A couple shots destroy the armor. If you don't want to take the AT class, then the armor will pummel you until someone on your team decides to do something about it.

This is one of those topics that acts similarly to religion. People believe that the game should be realistic.. but it should be their "type" of realistic. BF2 is about land, see and air -- always has been.

To close, if you are getting eaten up by a tank and refuse to switch kits because you think the sniper class is cool, you're SOL

EDIT: dawdler, there is commonly 1 or, at most 2, tanks per map. They also take a while to respawn. If you were referring to an entire tank column, that's one thing, but saying that a single tank causes that much disruption in gameplay is just silly. Especially if the tank can easily be neutralized by a single soldier with an AT kit.

[GRB]

It's all about map design if you ask me. The current maps are designed VERY poorly. There shouldn't be heavily armored vehicles in a map like Strike at Karkand.

IMO, APCs should be more popular than the MBTs on maps like Mashtuur and Strike at Karkand...It's rather simple to rearrange vehicles in a map.

Larger maps should have more tanks. The smaller the map, the more infantry combat there should be.

A lot of times though, when you get on a server with 4 people, using tanks can completely ruin the game. I dont think it's hatred of the vehicles, rather a hatred of the unbalancing factor of unpopulated servers.

For me though, it's the map design. I say less tanks on smaller maps.

[Artnez]

GRB']It's all about map design if you ask me. The current maps are designed VERY poorly.

100% agreed.

Although, it's important to remember that your team will do only as good as your team is. In other words, if no one on your team grabs the AT kit, your team has a hole in its defenses.

If the US Marines rolled into Fallujah, only to meet a resistance that hasn't a single anti-armor projectile... guess what the US Marines would do (or any military force for that matter).

Even on a populated server, 2 AT kits will easily repel the enemy armor.

However, it is my firm belief that heavily vehicles should be made slower in certain terrain. I don't know how possible this is, but I know for a fact that an Abrams will not fly through a city like Karkand at full speed with enemy all over the place.

[requiem]

We have removed UAVs, hence a tank going into any urban environment without infantry in front of him/her is as good as dead. Like some people said, BF2 is after all a vehicle-based game, and PRMM is about teamwork. Protect your tank in urban areas, protect your AT-man if you're on the other team, feed your squad(s) with good intelligence and rock on

[Rg]

I agree with GRB on the annoyance of having the tank repaired in the field, maybe repair pads like in bf1942 could be implented, and remove the engineer class. in reality no repairs on anything are cinducted in a combat situation. With very little exceptions of course, but the confrontation like will occure in BF2 being so heavy you wouldnt see a combat engineer fixing a tank under fire, or fixing a bridge in 1min with a wrench anyhow lol how realistic is that. Thing like this would go on either in the rear at a repair station or the area would be cleared and considered safe for engineers to come repair a bridge. Maybe we could replace the engineer class with another more realistic line of soldier you would see more in combat.

Um...that was me

[dawdler]

Artnez.com']EDIT: dawdler, there is commonly 1 or, at most 2, tanks per map. They also take a while to respawn. If you were referring to an entire tank column, that's one thing, but saying that a single tank causes that much disruption in gameplay is just silly. Especially if the tank can easily be neutralized by a single soldier with an AT kit.

But then as AT you get owned by infantry.

For example on Karkand a single tank DOES cause disruption to the gameplay. Everyone is playing as assault, medic, support or spec ops (and a few stupid snipers ). When a tank comes rolling in, no one is prepared, not even spec ops (they where probably chosen for the rifle). Suddenly everyone has to disengage from the infantry battle just to take out an annoying tank that is often used as a means of getting easy kills rather than support of friendly infantry.

I think the only vehicles that should be around Karkand are jeeps, trucks and buggies. I'd take 15 tanks on Zatar and 0 tanks on Karkand over a couple of tanks on both anyday.

I want to see tanks fighting tanks and infantry fighting infantry.

[GRB]

Well what about APCs?

I think the APCs are perfectly viable vehicles on maps such as Strike at Karkand.

Tanks should, IMO, be used on maps where they can be used in more of an infantry combat supportive mannar opposed to an offensive flag capturing tool.

[fuzzhead]

i think tanks are acceptable, they just need to have looonnnger respawn times.

i sugguested before, 3 minutes for a tank, 2 minutes for an apc. maybe 4 minutes for a tank and 3 minutes for an apc.

when the tank is destroyed it should be a major victory, not an inconsequential event.

[Figisaacnewton]

I usually don't like tanks because of the way the maps are designed, and their usually arn't enough players to make it really that fun. Oh no, there is a tank (every spawns AT, kills tank, get killed by infantry).

I blame it on poor map balancing. Not PR's fault perse but it could use some tweaking. Like, take the APCs and Tanks out of Karkand. A few other maps could use some alterations as well.

Also, long respawn times are needed as well, like 5 minutes. 1 or 2 tank respawns in the battle that way. Same with APCs