Defenseless - need more deployable defenses

General_J0k3r · Post by **General_J0k3r** » 2008-03-26 10:28

i would LOVE it. maybe 1 TOW and 2 MGs or something. but i think the devs have more important stuff to work on right now

Tofurkeymeister · Post by **Tofurkeymeister** » 2008-03-27 00:13

O.K, I am pretty sure this might be hard-coded, but I am going to post it anyways. Would it be possible for the sandbags themselves to act as a stationary vehicle, in the way that AA guns are? After all, when a jeep is destroyed the guns are not left behind. I envision a stationary position that can be entered like any other one. That way, when the sandbags are destroyed, the guns go to as it is all one entity. You could, of course, hide behind it normally.

Would this be possible? If not, its just another thing hard-coded in the BF2 engine.

Post by **Masaq** » 2008-03-27 00:15

If you read carefully my good man, that's what I said earlier- it's how it could be done, but requires a fairly large amount of work by the look of it.

Tofurkeymeister · Post by **Tofurkeymeister** » 2008-03-27 00:35

Oh... sorry about that. Thanks for telling me.

Psyko · Post by **Psyko** » 2008-03-27 01:37

[R-MOD]Masaq wrote:are you just expecting the Devs to do it on top of creating new maps, new UGL kits with scopes, a new faction (US Army), the scenario game mode

Putting it bluntly...Yes.

You guys have undertaken the task of making vBF2 into BF2PR. and should focus on stuff that is allready there to perfect it, and then make new stuff afterwards, otherwise all the new stuff will be as incomplete as the old stuff and the project wont improve. It will become more detailed, yes, but it wont be reality will it. Nobody said it would be easy, but it seems to me from your last comment that you havnt prioritised the currently existing elements of PR to make them the best the can be.

Your new projects sound awsome, but dont you think it would be a worthwhile investment to maximise the persofmance of the current PR dynamics?

Keep up the good work, its making a lot of frowns, smiles.

Psyko · Post by **Psyko** » 2008-03-27 01:43

ReaperMAC wrote:Aye, making them indestructable could be exploitable.

Unless you jump accross it, after you breach & bang the entranceway.
The ability to make a blockade is also part of reality, i know that if i was up a hill with only a narrow place to move up it, i would demolish the sides to block out enemys and attack from the top, realism demands the presance of highly difficult obsticals. come on, dont tell me you cant see that. plus, lest i remind you, fools road has a hillside that is rediculously difficult pathway to traverse on the west side. and yes i know that there are three or four ways to get up other than that, but thats up to the mapper to deside. isnt it?

Post by **Mosquill** » 2008-03-27 02:45

Well, I'm kinda still pretty sure it can be done the easy way. But I don't feel like being a ginger gnome.

Psyko · Post by **Psyko** » 2008-03-27 02:47

Mosquill wrote:Well, I'm kinda still pretty sure it can be done the easy way. But I don't feel like being a ginger gnome.

lol...

Well if your in a position to try it, by all means, ill even test it for ya!

gclark03 · Post by **gclark03** » 2008-03-27 03:02

Can we give the weapon emplacement a certain amount of health, as if it were a vehicle? If we could do that, and give it 1 health, we could then make the sandbags do 2 damage upon collapse, thus destroying the weapon and bloodying the soldier a bit as a side effect.

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2008-03-27 03:14

scenario game mode

RCMoonPie · Post by **RCMoonPie** » 2008-03-27 04:33

Perhaps the bunkers could be rendered the same as they are now in appearance...but in actuallity.....they are vehicles.
This way people could "attach" to a firing point on the bunker/firebase AND the guns would destroy when the bunker/firebase is blown....just like they do on vehicles.

Just an idea.....

"...and the wind.....whispers....hard-code."
(sung to the tune of Jimi Hendrix's "The wind cries Mary"

Sgt1_Jackson · Post by **Sgt1_Jackson** » 2008-03-27 09:14

Mosquill wrote:Oh come on! Every time I say "cobra support is available" you, ground boys, either ignore this or start placing lasers or CAS markers all over the map. What the hell am I supposed to do with that? I need to know what do you want to be destroyed: tank/apc/infatry, how many tanks/apcs are there, and is there an AA near by. I can't just go there, kill everything, and go back. So, I have to be carefull, have to know what I'm facing.

Use CHAT ffs! Or at least tell the commander.

Huh?

Use the chat? the most noobs are going to be commander because they saw a movie of a JDAM in PR and know that you can use it as a commander.

JuniperM40 · Post by **JuniperM40** » 2008-03-29 19:30

Just to re-iterate Ghost1800;s comments:

Pls replace defensive AA missile w/ Defensive TOW Missle as a deployable assett near bunkers/FBs, etc.

The AA gun was perfect for anti-vehicle defence; and it was used very effectively. With the use of an AA missle though, this deployable assett is largely "useless" IMHO.

Hence, to re-claim the ability to defend a bunker/FB from vehicular ground assault, my suggestion is to use a deployable TOW then. (Thus also eliminating the AA gun's overpoweredness-vs-infantry ability - which Is why I believe it was changed in the first place.)

Cheers.

- JM40.

Post by **Mosquill** » 2008-03-29 20:36

Sgt1_Jackson wrote:Use the chat? the most noobs are going to be commander because they saw a movie of a JDAM in PR and know that you can use it as a commander.

Yes use the chat or tell the commander. And if commander is a noob then use the chat. What is not clear to you?

Defenseless - need more deployable defenses

TOW instead of AA