Vehicles and Choke Points (objectives)

[ayatollah]

I doubt that to be honest. Admins will take these matters into account and deal with it appropriately. A well admined server will sort the wheat from the chaff.

[kamikazee]

[quote=Vengeance]i have a feeling certain admins on servers wont enjoy seeing people just standing waiting for vehicles to pop, and as well if you die and you constantly seeing the same player just looking into oblivion waiting for a vehicle or you run by them every spawn, i got a feeling the admin will either kick or someone will call a vote on them.

it would be like BF2 and i have never seena admin kick people and there is normaly like 5/6people waiting for jets/heli but u can bet loads of people wait for them[/quote]I’d say they do it because BF2 is known for his “Heli Hell”. Taking it would give you a serious advantage over other players.

We must stop comparing this game with others though. Vehicles are far easier to blow to smithereens when you drive them up to a chokepoint crowded with people. (And there will probably be a soldier around happily waiting to fire his complete cardboard box of rockets.)

[Flesh]

We must stop comparing this game with others though. Vehicles are far easier to blow to smithereens when you drive them up to a chokepoint crowded with people. (And there will probably be a soldier around happily waiting to fire his complete cardboard box of rockets.)

I wonder how exactly will the infantry stop the vehicles? Becouse of these “choke points” you cannot avoid vehicles, you have to fight them. Mines aren’t useful when you’re attacking and I’m guessing Artillery support wont have much effect either since vehicles can move out of the fire pretty fast. So the only class you can truly rely on to destroy vehicles are soldiers with RLs. That leaves the other 4 classes to play the role of tank fodder or?

[Nail]

nope, vehicles can be damaged by assault weapons, that means anyone can shoot off a tire or two

[Nuclear_Mr.Rogers]

What about the strogg vehicles that don’t have wheels??? :?

[Flesh]

So you can damage a Goliath or Desecrator by shooting an mg at it? Are you certain? not the best solution imo

[Nail]

vehicles can be damaged by assault weapons

shoot off a different part then

btw, next time you want to split hairs, don’t use the one holding the other half of your brain in

:lol:

[Nail]

So you can damage a Goliath or Desecrator by shooting an mg at it? Are you certain? not the best solution imo

you’d rather it could only be damaged by a weapon you don’t have ??

[Vengeance]

personally i thought the fact that you can cause damage using your troop weapons on vehicles as a wonderful feature. if this is in fact the case i truly welcome it and will perhaps stop people trying to hoard vehicles. Will certainly make people think about how they use vehicles as well.

[BrightSoul]

So you can damage a Goliath or Desecrator by shooting an mg at it? Are you certain? not the best solution imo

well, maybe you can “headshot” a vehicle and take it down fast with regular weapons.
Luc Skywalker trashed the Death Star with 1 X-Wing after all. The same happened in Indipendence day when the big floating (no wheels) starship was taken down by an old geezer. Man, that’s what the future is like.

[Flesh]

So you can damage a Goliath or Desecrator by shooting an mg at it? Are you certain? not the best solution imo

well, maybe you can “headshot” a vehicle and take it down fast with regular weapons.
Luc Skywalker trashed the Death Star with 1 X-Wing after all. The same happened in Indipendence day when the big floating (no wheels) starship was taken down by an old geezer. Man, that’s what the future is like.

Yeah well Schwarzeneger could take down an entire camp of naughty terrorists with his trusty “painless” but that dont mean you should be able to do it here.

All Im saying is that it doesnt look like a good solution. Infantry can crawl into spaces that are hard to spot and which vehicles cannot reach. You’ll end up being shot up from a dozen directions and you still wont be able to figure out where exactly is your enemy hiding. Not the mention the issue of realism that you have when bullets start cuting thru steel.

[Desoxy]

All Im saying is that it doesnt look like a good solution. Infantry can crawl into spaces that are hard to spot and which vehicles cannot reach. You’ll end up being shot up from a dozen directions and you still wont be able to figure out where exactly is your enemy hiding. Not the mention the issue of realism that you have when bullets start cuting thru steel.

Quote Locki @ QCon presentation: ‘It’s in the future…’ :nag:

Apart from that, we have a fine example of ‘gameplay > realism’ here. It’s the same with wheels simply popping out of nowhere when the engineer’s repairing a vehicle or badly shot soldiers who just need a charge with the defib to get up and fight again or … I could come up with so many examples.

We should not forget that Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is a game and by no means a hyper-realistic combat simulator (hence the lack of tapirs)… Personally I have no problem with that. If you want vehicles only taking damage from explosives like rockets etc Bf2, OFP or ArmA might suit you more.

Like Vengeance and all the others I prefer being able to damage a vehicle with an mg as well - the futuristic scenario could give thousands of possible explanations (new ultra super armor piercing bullets for instance). And according to my information one type of artillery was specifically designed to take on vehicles. So the rocket soldier should not be alone.

The idea of a ‘weak spot’ (where a vehicle takes more damage than usual, not allowing instakill) is interesting as well - and I’m sure SD will already have that tested and maybe built in…

[ayatollah]

All Im saying is that it doesnt look like a good solution. Infantry can crawl into spaces that are hard to spot and which vehicles cannot reach. You’ll end up being shot up from a dozen directions and you still wont be able to figure out where exactly is your enemy hiding. Not the mention the issue of realism that you have when bullets start cuting thru steel.

Yes but that reduces the amount of vehicle spam, a la that other game people keep comparing this to.

My Eng could beat your goliath anyday!

[I3LiP]

Machine guns damaging armoured vehicles?

Hell No.

But every class should carry grenades, and they should harm the vehicles, just like they harmed the vehicles in Wolf:ET.

Adding something like exhaust vents as weak spots would also be kinda cool.

And of course, the lightly armoured things, danger and huskeys should take damage from machine gun fire.

[Flesh]

Machine guns damaging armoured vehicles?

Hell No.

But every class should carry grenades, and they should harm the vehicles, just like they harmed the vehicles in Wolf:ET.

Adding something like exhaust vents as weak spots would also be kinda cool.

And of course, the lightly armoured things, danger and huskeys should take damage from machine gun fire.

Exactly.

Apart from that, we have a fine example of ‘gameplay > realism’ here. It’s the same with wheels simply popping out of nowhere when the engineer’s repairing a vehicle or badly shot soldiers who just need a charge with the defib to get up and fight again or … I could come up with so many examples.

We should not forget that Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is a game and by no means a hyper-realistic combat simulator (hence the lack of tapirs)… Personally I have no problem with that. If you want vehicles only taking damage from explosives like rockets etc Bf2, OFP or ArmA might suit you more.

Lemme just point out that even though engis create vehicle tires out of thin air and build bridges out of nothing and medics recover ppl from deadly wouds in a matter of seconds the situation in RL is that engineeres actualy DO fix vehicles and build bridges and medics DO heal the wounded but in RL soldiers with mgs DO NOT destroy tanks. And I seriously doubt they will have such weapons even if it is 60 years in the future, after all, according to the devs, weapons are supposed to be based on latest technology of weapons we have today. On the other hand no one would even consider this if we were talking about a WW2 setting.

Hey Im not hardcore about realism either (this is more a matter of common sense), I agree that sometimes you need to put gameplay firist but that is only if theres no other solution, which, as I3LiP pointed out, is not the case here.

Edit: typo

[senator]

Lemme just point out that even though engis create vehicle tires out of thin air and build bridges out of nothing and medics recover ppl from deadly wouds in a matter of seconds the situation in RL is that engineeres actualy DO fix vehicles and build bridges and medics DO heal the wounded but in RL soldiers with mgs DO NOT destroy tanks. And I seriously doubt they will have such weapons even if it is 60 years in the future, after all, according to the devs, weapons are supposed to be based on latest technology of weapons we have today. On the other hand no one would even consider this if we were talking about a WW2 setting.

Well , you DO know that in WW2 most armies owned anti tank rifles? Fireing a solid shot, aimed at penetrating the tanks armor (on the earlier tanks and halftracks) or disabling a tanks tracks/vulnerable parts (vs late-war tanks)?

You do know that some modern sniper rifles are specifically made to take out tanks and vehicles?

You do know that the most leathal anti tank weapon of today is the APFSDS, which is basicaly a solid rod, made of depleated uranium or some other extremely dense material?

So, those weapons already exist today, doesnt seem too unlikely for them to make it into the standard soldiers rifle mag in 60 years from now, a solid bullet will still be needed to take out enemy soldiers, with the likely improvement in body armor the bullets penetration capabilities would probably have to increase aswell, thereby making them more potent against armored targets, and voila… infantry rifles will be able to penetrate and damage alien armor in the future!

quad erat demonstrandum

[Desoxy]

Lemme just point out that even though engis create vehicle tires out of thin air and build bridges out of nothing and medics recover ppl from deadly wouds in a matter of seconds the situation in RL is that engineeres actualy DO fix vehicles and build bridges and medics DO heal the wounded but in RL soldiers with mgs DO NOT destroy tanks. And I seriously doubt they will have such weapons even if it is 60 years in the future, after all, according to the devs, weapons are supposed to be based on latest technology of weapons we have today. On the other hand no one would even consider this if we were talking about a WW2 setting.

Hey Im not hardcore about realism either (this is more a matter of common sense), I agree that sometimes you need to put gameplay firist but that is only if theres no other solution, which, as I3LiP pointed out, is not the case here.

Edit: typo

So you say that in today’s world hyperblaster or lacerator do no damage to tanks? Would you please show me a hyperblaster or lacerator then? :roll:

And what about conventional projectile weapons versus advanced alien technology? For instance look at Stargate again, where replicators are immune to advanced energy weapons but can easily be destroyed by ‘our’ low tech guns (that maybe even got armor piercing bullets as one little upgrade) - it would make sense in a sci-fi scenario.

What I’m trying to say is that in ETQW there aren’t two armies of earthlings fighting against each other (ok, technically we do have… :evil: ). Hence you got no point in saying ‘This doesn’t work that way today’, as we don’t have any Strogg technology nowadays.

And well, I still don’t understand what you guys are so upset about: If anyone saw the 8800 Launch Event movie, then you saw that vehicles like the Trojan APC or the Titan Tank can surely take a beating - even from rockets. So you can imagine how much longer it would take with regular mgs…

What I would dislike if you could not damage a vehicle with mgs at all - and manning a vehicle would be like a shooting gallery (see Bf2)… :nag:

[_UBC_McNite]

Iirc those anti-tank rifles are not simple rifles but .40 to .50 guns, single shot mostly, and using special armour piercing bullets. They still don’t break main battle tank armour, only lightly armoured tanks/ vehicles.

What would ve been cool though is flame ammunition (single action flamethrower or, in German, the good old Handflammpatrone). We had them in our military training, they looked odd but are highly effective on infantry and any vehicles. Bullet flies up to 90 meters, then the phosporus shell breaks and covers a 50x15 meter area with fire up to 1.300°C which can destroy light vehicles and does blind heavy tanks which means the optical devices, especially anything using heat detection gets useless.

links here:
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/t1000/190/flecktarn-infwaffen011.htm

Handflammpatrone

[senator]

UBC[ McNite]Iirc those anti-tank rifles are not simple rifles but .40 to .50 guns, single shot mostly, and using special armour piercing bullets. They still don’t break main battle tank armour, only lightly armoured tanks/ vehicles.

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

A-10, a plane basically build around a 30mm gatling gun, tank-killer deluxe using nothing but solid bullets.

In the future everything will be smaller and the GAU-8 will be made man-portable and renamed N80 Assault Rifle… there you go

[_UBC_McNite]

lol u got an idea about the recoil of 30mm cartridges? In WWI they were using 20mm single shot guns against tanks, but only few soldiers dared to use them due to the danger of breaking your shoulder :lol:
U can do a lot with good recoil brakes but i doubt that any infantry based gun you can actually carry will ever get the penetration energy needed for heavy armour.

I still like the single shot flamethrowers 8)