Why the vehicle hatred?

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-12-11 20:19

As I've said before (and as many of you are saying) vehicles need to be used realistically and balance will work itself out. Also if it's possible to get rid of vehicle capping it should work out perfectly.

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2005-12-11 20:56

FlyBoy wrote: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.

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.

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.

I agree with flyboy 100%. I was pvt.nouri on that server, and it was me and some other guys defending his argument. I mean, the server had about 25 players at one point, and that is enough for tanks. We always originally agree to no tanks on 4v4 squad games but once the server gets filled up, then shut up and stick to your original agreement. So many people were bitching at the tanks last night it was rediculous. I've never seen such crybabies in my life before. There are ways to counter tanks, obviously, especially in prmm. Plus they take longer to respawn if you take them out. AND you have a tank of your own.

And it isn't unrealistic to have tanks in urban settings, this happened in iraq a lot.

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2005-12-11 21:11

dawdler wrote: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.

You really want to corrupt this mod don't you? If you're not for near-absolute realism then you shouldn't be playing this mod. Take out the miniguns off the black hawk? Why? Because you get raped because of it because you don't listen for the helicopter engine, thus you run out into the open and get ripped up by the minigun? The miniguns are there because they are there in reality. By what you're saying, I don't think you have ever played any uber realism games, like OFP, red orchestra for ut2004, and americas army.

People like you are going to send this mod in an watered down depiction of reality.

Like I said, if you feel you are dying to much under the guise of "too much" realism, then don't play this mod; it isn't for you. Realistic gameplay is fun, and immersive, and that's what milsim players are looking for, just maybe not you and people who think like you.

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2005-12-11 21:14

'[R-PUB wrote:Artnez.com']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.

Well put and good defense of "absolute realism," which this mod is aiming for, and it is a notion that many people don't seem to understand. Like has been said, this mod isn't for everyone.

Ratking · Post by **Ratking** » 2005-12-12 01:29

its all about the 'rape' of a battlefield. its all very well having a tank, but when that tank is there raping a spawnpoint and not even attempting to capture it, it becomes a different matter, and in some cases can make ppl leave the server. i believe there should not be any armour unless it is 7 on 7, besides i think PRMM is better with infantry combat, as the tanks still have a lot to be desired. but thats just IMO.

Ratking · Post by **Ratking** » 2005-12-12 01:37

Like I said, if you feel you are dying to much under the guise of "too much" realism, then don't play this mod; it isn't for you. Realistic gameplay is fun, and immersive, and that's what milsim players are looking for, just maybe not you and people who think like you.

Its MUSLIM...

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2005-12-12 01:47

Ratking wrote:Its MUSLIM...

Are you serious? What I meant by milsim was "military simulation," not "muslim."

Private_ryan · Post by **Private_ryan** » 2005-12-12 02:31

I think the problem could be solved by making a tank worth more. IE. tank destroyed is worth 5 or 10 tickets. Thus if someone keeps getting in the tank, they will loose and fast!

I have played 1 on 1 with my brother over LAN, he loves to get in the tank at Karkand, I'm hopeless in a tank, so I opted for SF kit, I took him down as many times as he got me, made little diff that he was in or out of the tank.

I agree tanks can mess things up, but I also think they can be taken out easily with C4 or Mines or even claymores, so if the penalty for loosing a tank was high, they'd be used with extreme caution. (and increase the spawn time)

my 2c

Lifetaker · Post by **Lifetaker** » 2005-12-12 03:13

Good thread. This has noticeably been the biggest complaint during gameplay recently. I've played a bunch of times when there was only a couple of us on the server and agreeing not to use armor has never been a problem. The more people that join, the more of a problem it becomes. That being said, it is a reality mod and though "absolute reality" is unattainable and probably wouldn't be fun anyway, there is no reason to reduce the reality aspects of this game as it stands. If everyone agrees no armor, cool. If someone decides they don't want to play like this, such as the afformentioned game last night that I think almost everyone participated in at one point or another, so be it. You just have to modify your approach and tactics.

I am also in inclined to agree with BrokenArrow that the real issue is flag cappability. Real frustration is an armored vehicle rolling up to your team's flag, wasting everyone real quick and posting up on it, while you in turn lie on the ground dying or dead and waiting who knows how long to respawn. If even the driver can't cap the flag, then the tactical advantage of the Armor is limited. However, using an APC to transport your squad to a location and then providing cover for them while they cap the flag is a very "realistic" and I think, dynamic way of play. The same could be said for a tank that provides cover for its' squad and must in turn be protected by the squad it's covering.

I personally rarely use armor, but I do think that the ability to use varying vehicles and aircraft is what seperates this game from the slew of other FPS' out there.

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2005-12-12 03:50

FlyBoy wrote: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.

Ok first of all We had made a Gentlemans Agreement to not use tanks. It would be nice for people who join into the game to then show some honor and respect that the majority of the players requested it.

Second, I didnt say when is the last time you saw a tank in iraq? I said when is the last time you saw MEC with a tank in iraq? MEC being INsurgents. That is my impression of the situation in which the idea of MEC VS USMC would be.
I dont think EA wanted to risk putting them as the military force for PC reasons.

Now with that said. We were playing on a server in which We have had the spawn timers increased to a level which allows for a much better INFANTRY only game. If I was going to want to play a map with armor I would not want to play on a server that would take me a min after I die to spawn with AT. AT is a very crippled kit when you are playing against high powered infantry weapons like the saw. I mean a pistol isnt very effective.

The Trouble with tanks is That in the real world 1person could not jump in a tank and dominate a battle like they can in this game. It would also take more than 1 person to crew that tank. The people who tend to play PRMM are those who appreciate a teamwork based Assault and Secure type game. Not one in which Rambo in a tank can roll from base to base capping flags.

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2005-12-12 04:07

The mec is not representative of an insurgent army. The mec is supposed to be an official ARMY. And it's a conglomeration of all arab countries, so they won't just have rag-tag insurgents. They have tanks and equipment--a lot of it russian made, especially.

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2005-12-12 04:15

I know that MEC means the official army but When Would we be fighting them??? China I could see going to battle with but not the Middle eastern coalition. We are allies with them.

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2005-12-12 04:18

DEDMON5811 wrote:I know that MEC means the official army but When Would we be fighting them??? China I could see going to battle with but not the Middle eastern coalition. We are allies with them.

Yeah but it's a hypothetical war.

Sig215 · Post by **Sig215** » 2005-12-12 04:44

Slower roatation of the turret and limit the gunners view to give them a "tunnel vision" feel, like that of a sniper.

Now, unless you have a MG'er/commander to call out targets, the tank is serverly handicapped to AT and spec op infantry.

Armand61685 · Post by **Armand61685** » 2005-12-12 05:55

Sig215 wrote:Slower roatation of the turret and limit the gunners view to give them a "tunnel vision" feel, like that of a sniper.

Now, unless you have a MG'er/commander to call out targets, the tank is serverly handicapped to AT and spec op infantry.

Just give them a realistic tank view. Ask some people who have been in tanks.

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2005-12-12 06:04

Well I am solving this problem atm. I just finished modding Strike at Karkland with no armor. This should give us a choice whether to play with armor or not. Now im working on getting it named to not override the stock strike and see if i can make sure its aas.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2005-12-12 06:45

Armand61685 wrote:You really want to corrupt this mod don't you? If you're not for near-absolute realism then you shouldn't be playing this mod. Take out the miniguns off the black hawk? Why? Because you get raped because of it because you don't listen for the helicopter engine, thus you run out into the open and get ripped up by the minigun? The miniguns are there because they are there in reality. By what you're saying, I don't think you have ever played any uber realism games, like OFP, red orchestra for ut2004, and americas army.

People like you are going to send this mod in an watered down depiction of reality.

Like I said, if you feel you are dying to much under the guise of "too much" realism, then don't play this mod; it isn't for you. Realistic gameplay is fun, and immersive, and that's what milsim players are looking for, just maybe not you and people who think like you.

How can infantry combat be corrupting the mod? My guess is that in real life, the infantry fight quite alot.

All I want is some infantry maps that arent saturated by tanks or aircrafts.

Regarding the Blackhawk, why does it have to be armed? Being the internet milita that I am, I just looked up a site on it, and lo and behold, a Seahawk (what DICE tried to do I believe) transport landing on an aircraft carrier *without miniguns*!!! Nice real life picture or amazingly unrealistic cg work?

But it would be nicer if a AT rocket took down a helo in 1 shot period rather than removing the helo, yes. It worked good in Joint Operations (I guess you gasp at that, seeing what kind of arcade game it is, and I liked it!). Portable AA missiles wouldnt be too bad either, that'll really give the scare to those minigunners.

Sidenote: I was a rabid OFP fan. I bought the european version the first day of release and yes I even played that version online (despite it being unplayable). The only game I've ever been in a clan for. Ah, those where the days...

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2005-12-12 20:43

From what i can tell about peoples opinions on the vehicles is that they believe them to be a cheap way of racking up kills.

Since PRMM isnt ranked in anyway, why the hell would you care?The important thing is victory for your team.

People have said that they hate when they take the time to cap a flag that a tank comes up and kills them all.

Well, im sorry the enemy used strategy to send in armor to stop you from taking the flag, and im sorry that at least one person in your squad isnt AT to take the tank out, come on people, be serious here are you actually mad because a tank did its job of defending a flag?

and i dont see why people get so pissed when a tank kills them, what do you want the tank to do? just drive around the map harmlessly?

I have read that the AT class is useless againts other infantry.

the Devs made the AT class like this to enforce teamwork, if your only weapon against infantry is a handgun, you better damn well stick with your squad so they can help you out against infantry, as i recall R-Dev eddie baker even stated that the AT loadout is realistic as it is now.As an AT your job is Anti-armor, not some rambo soldier who can gun down infantry and take out tanks. People need to work together to overcome obstacles.

I rarely use tanks, the only reason im trying to solve this argument is because i feel people want PR to be a mainly infantry game, but as lifetaker said "I do think that the ability to use varying vehicles and aircraft is what seperates this game from the slew of other FPS' out there."

That is why i bought BF2, and i also think that is way the devs have made so many vehicle models for the PR mod, becuase they understand this.

Please dont give me this Gentlemans agreement bullsh**, when i joined that game where i experienced all that vehicle hating ****, i the round had just started and their was 25+ people on the server, then some person said "no tanks" i merley asked why, as there was more than enough people on that server to use all the vehicles to our disposal, which is when Armand61685 and a bunch of other people agreed with me, then someone used the tank, and the person who wanted no tanks began spitting offensive remarks to the person and spouting vehicle hatred at them, when the rest of us tried to defend that person, that person who started the **** began replying in a childlike manner,accompanied by DEDMON's own childish remarks.

I am not here to start an offensive argument with anyone, but for things to be taken so far because some people just want to use everything PRMM provided them with is ridiculous

, i can fully understand if its not that many people on server and ,say 4v4, and they agree to no tanks or the such, that is a gentlemans agreement, but with plenty of people and just because a single person doesnt want to use tanks, starts a crusade for people to not use them, and gives degratory remarks to the people that do, is unacceptable.