Page 2 of 2
Posted: July 12th, 2007, 22:02
by HereComesPete
Hmm, after a totally un-fun start it did get better/more balanced as peeps got used to actually staying on a point, and using anti-vehicle stuff again. However, it still wasn't as much fun as some of the games we had with no vehicles, also however

at the chicken rage.
Posted: July 12th, 2007, 22:29
by ProfHawking
Where is the "CSS only"?
Posted: July 12th, 2007, 22:45
by deject
Everyone who complains about being helpless against tanks needs to go here:
http://www.secretsofbattlefield.com/hitpoints.php
Yeah you'll still die a lot, but you'll kill a lot more tanks. Taking down a tank on your own with 2 rockets is very satisfying.
Posted: July 12th, 2007, 23:26
by FatherJack
My main problem is that unless the tank driver is rubbish, you rarely get the opportunity.
Granted, I haven't spent much time as AT, and I can never work out what those ground-mounted things are supposed to be for, but do grenades or gunfire have any effect on a tank?
Posted: July 12th, 2007, 23:33
by Dr. kitteny berk
FatherJack wrote:My main problem is that unless the tank driver is rubbish, you rarely get the opportunity.
You just have to be fast and get cover soon after firing, They'll rarely see you for the first shot. for the second you need to rely on their stupidity more than anything.
FatherJack wrote:Granted, I haven't spent much time as AT, and I can never work out what those ground-mounted things are supposed to be for, but do grenades or gunfire have any effect on a tank?
The TOWs and such are pretty much double-damage AT guns. they're kinda lousy as most decent drivers know where they are (and as such half ignore them). *BUT* if you get a shot off, you'll likely get a kill.
Nades and bullets do nothing to armour.
Posted: July 13th, 2007, 1:06
by deject
Well, frags aren't completely useless, but it would take around 40-50 to take out a tank.
Posted: July 13th, 2007, 1:10
by Dr. kitteny berk
deject wrote:Well, frags aren't completely useless, but it would take around 40-50 to take out a tank.

But for the sake of normal gameplay, they're useless.
Posted: July 13th, 2007, 1:34
by deject
Dr. kitteny berk wrote:

But for the sake of normal gameplay, they're useless.
yes
Posted: July 13th, 2007, 7:39
by Lateralus
I think that if we stick with vehicles, we need more of the vehicle-based maps such as Jalalabad, Wake, Daqing Oilfields, Oman, Kubra Dam, Fushe She Pass and Dragon Valley, since on Karkand and Oman the vehicles generally dominate but there aren't enough for everyone who wants one. Also, most of them have an uncap base for each team, which always helps. Just my opinion, but I say if we stick with vehicles, we should mix up the map rotation a bit.
Posted: July 13th, 2007, 7:56
by fabyak
Posted: July 13th, 2007, 9:32
by FatherJack
Wasn't it possible to set certain maps as infy-only, so we can have a bit of both.
Karkand and Mashtuur might be best without vehicles, Sharqi and Jalalabad work better with them. Wake and Fu-She suck pretty much regardless - without vehicles it's a long, boring walk - with them it's jet/heli rapage.
Posted: July 13th, 2007, 10:02
by spoodie
Well if I'm around vehicles will be blowing up all over the place due to my AT whoring.

If Dog Pants were around it would be double.
Posted: July 13th, 2007, 11:29
by buzzmong
FatherJack wrote:Wasn't it possible to set certain maps as infy-only, so we can have a bit of both.
Karkand and Mashtuur might be best without vehicles, Sharqi and Jalalabad work better with them. Wake and Fu-She suck pretty much regardless - without vehicles it's a long, boring walk - with them it's jet/heli rapage.
That.
Posted: July 13th, 2007, 16:30
by Dr. kitteny berk
FatherJack wrote:Wasn't it possible to set certain maps as infy-only, so we can have a bit of both.
Isn't possible.
