With 0.6...

 

It's not that the tanks are uber and impossible to kill, yes, they are quite powerful, but that's not it.

 

The problem is...

 

 

 

 

They

 

spawn

 

too

 

fast.

 

 

 

Ha! Yes, that's it. Seriously, they spawn every 10 minutes or so. Now, back in 0.5, this would have been okay, but now it just makes things crazy. Especially with the large numbers of tanks on each side, it's like a non stop wave. Especially on the smaller maps (ie, not kashan) where the travel time is minimal. On zatar, I'd finish of two tanks that are acting in a pair and all of a sudden, three more would rock up and annihilate me. Not cool.

 

All that needs to be done is increase the time it takes for a tank to spawn and presto, we have balanced infantry and tank combat.

 

A round would go something like this:

 

Initial tank rush.

Most die.

Respawn as infantry and fight.

The few remaining tanks continue to duke it out with each other and the large number of infantry.

This continues on for some time, then the tanks respawn and are dribbled in as people bring them up from main.

 

Rinse and repeat.

I think the reason that Zatar seems so tank orientated is because there are so many tanks that spawn at once not to mention the center of the map is basically just a big tank deathmatch fighting arena where there is no cover for infantry to use so they get cut down all the time. Personally I don't mind that as it's not like every maps gives each side 6+ tanks to play with so it gives the map a unique flavor. And if I remember correctly the plain vanilla version of Zatar is pretty much the same ie. if you don't have a vehicle you don't stand a chance.

 

I think that only thing Zatar needs is transport choppers so the infantry have a way to get around from point to point without being exposed to tanks while in the open just like they have in Kashan.

 

Also if one was to limit the amount of tanks I would take away some of the tank spawns rather than extend the timer. 6 tanks = 12 guys minimum to crew properly and the over abundance of tanks at the start of the round usually ends up in most tanks being only single crewed. As well as the fact that when the first round of tanks is destroyed there are usually 2 or more left at base because there are so many around at the start that you pretty much end up with 'reserve' tanks that you don't really need to have.

There are too many tanks also.

 

On maps like kashan where it takes you 10minutes to drive to the battle, as soon as you get blown up you've got 5 of your remaining tanks left, plus the one that just spawned.

 

Less tanks, longer spawn times. Then people would treat them properly instead of bounding off into the distance to waste them.

I hate quite a good time last night in my tank convoys. Just use the tanks, I do agree that a few choppers would help a great deal.

 

Oh and I have a screenie I took with screen shot button. Where is it?

documents/bf2/screenshots

documents/bf2/screenshots

 

Thanks! I'm going to send it to TotalBF2 and see if they will put it up as a POTD.

i agree lucid. but i also hold to that on every other armor map we've seen theres always been a use for infantry, as many of the flag areas are inaccessible to vehicles. thats what zatar lacks, so therefore why even have infantry? of course if the tanks respawned less then the option at sitting at spawn waiting for the next wouldnt be as viable and so therefore more ppl would be on foot. so i agree completely with longer respawns.

 

i saw your thread on PR forums too and i believe longbow had a couple of good solutions too. one which i found particularly interesting was forcing tankers to have 2 people in them, as then tanks wouldnt be wasted and you'd have less on the field, and they'd generally be moving around being effective instead of camping. increasing H-AT kit numbers since the zoom was nerfed and removing crewman wrench also sounds good.

 

anyways i really would like zatar removed from the maplist when we start getting rid of the dodgy maps cause i think its terrible as is.

i agree lucid. but i also hold to that on every other armor map we've seen theres always been a use for infantry' date=' as many of the flag areas are inaccessible to vehicles. thats what zatar lacks, so therefore why even have infantry?[/quote']

I also agree.

Last night, the Zatar round was pretty bad, too much tanking going on and they could go pretty much anywhere on the map.

That's why Kashan is a well designed map, vehicles can't go into the two flags in the middle of the map so they aren't super-dooper. Kashan could've become a nasty round but the devs did a great job in the map design.

Zatar has become a pretty bad map in 0.6... but not as bad as Hills of Hamgyong, everytime this round starts, I'm going to do something else and wait for the next round.

As far as I know, eggman has no intent on forcing two man tanks.

 

There is a flaw with multicrewing tanks. You need to do it with someone that you know quite well. In reality, tank crews live, eat, sleep together so they build up a bond of sorts. It lets them understand each others motives better and they learn how to act in relation to their fellow crewman.

 

Most likely, in pr, you will not get this bond. The best person to multicrew with would be a friend you have in real life, as they would most likely have this some of this bond present. Trying to tank without it is a nightmare incarnate.

 

Also, until we remove the tanks health and replace it with a realistic armour penetration system, I will say nay to removing the crewman wrench.

The only problem I can see with limiting the numbers of tanks is that it may result in the same problem that seems to be affecting planes/pilots in Kashan/Zatar/etc.

 

The problem being that there are so few air assets with such a long spawn time that when a bunch of PR noobs keep taking them because they are "OMFG UBER POWA HAX !!!1" and keep smashing them into the ground or just joyriding around then it puts the rest of his team at a massive disadvantage because they effectively lack any air support. Espeicially when the enemy has a good pilot blasting you to pieces, a la Razor. To further compound this problem the said players have no problem camping the airstrip all round waiting for another plane to spawn and do it all over again, ensuring that unless you camp the airfield as well you have no chance of ever getting some decent air support going for your team.

 

While I realize why there must be so few aircraft in the map to balance the game and stop it from being airstrike central, I would hate for this to happen to tanks as well.

I play BF and it's mods for all over combat. If you don't like getting raped by jets and tanks learn to use them and get even. If you simply don't like tanks and planes at all then may I recommend getting a copy of Counter Strike.

 

Leave the jets and tanks as they are. There is more than enough ways to kill them. PR is meant to be hard and I don't want it nerfed because people can't be bothered to figure out how to win.

i played a couple more maps today and tanks are fine on all the other maps. its just zatar which is ridiculous. so really tanks dont need nerfing, that map just needs to be removed.

Remember guys the new version has only been out since the start of the week and everyone is getting used to it. There are also alot of new players coming in to play too which might be adding to your frustrations.

 

Once we get a good overview of what needs changing we'll make the changes but give it a couple of weeks to get everything running smoothly.

+1 Daveee and smokey (I can call you smokey right? lol)

 

I think in general people just need time to adapt to the new changes I personally am a bit, well a lot of a infantry whore however I like having to hide from tank battalions and the scourge of the skies or the A-10 as some people call it. It all adds to the fun of the game and makes it much more imersive IMHO.

 

Plus it lets me type "where the @%^& is my armor/air support" while I hunker down in a building being systematically blown to pieces by tanks/ground attack aircraft.

 

Lets give it a while before we start picking apart the new version. And at the end of the day have faith in the PR devs to fix any real problems.

After experiencing the updated US tanks on that new oil fields map I can safely say that if I'm not crewing one on a Tank Map then I will be waiting at base to do so. Dont bother getting heavy AT because you dont stand a chance with it anymore.

 

Not that I'm a stat whore but on practically any map that has a tank the people on top of the ladder will have used it. In 0.5 you didn't get ridiculously high scores in a tank. Why would the DEVs give people so many incentives to be tank whores in 0.6?

 

Question: Does the RL heavy AT weapon have a zoom? For a game that is meant to simulate real weapons and warfare the weapon characterisitcs sure do vary version to version.

+1 Daveee and smokey (I can call you smokey right? lol)

 

Please do, I like smokeys with saurkraut. Jalapeno and cheese smokeys are great too! Also with saurkraut and some hot sauce.

 

I'm hungry.

Question: Does the RL heavy AT weapon have a zoom? For a game that is meant to simulate real weapons and warfare the weapon characterisitcs sure do vary version to version.

 

Not the current HAT in pr at the moment. However, the javelin does, and that may make an appearance in a future version.

If they made the HAT into a javelin and made it realistic it would result in the biggest imbalance bitchfest ever. The real javelin can instakill tanks from so far away that it's more like an ICBM. It can shoot over 2500 Km and has a zoom of 9x with infrared sights and tracking.

 

BTW what is the current HAT weapon in PR? I thought it was a javelin.

Axis uses the Eryx and the Allies use the SRAW.

 

Yeah, the javelin would be a ultra limited kit. Almost like the A-10.

I know the Axis teams use the Eryx System which is weird considering it was built by the French but there is no way the US/Brit HAT is a SRAW or (AT-4/LAW 80) because that is what they have as a light AT weapon at the moment. Considering the model is identical I think that all the teams must currently use the Eryx for HAT. Plus I can't think of another RL weapon system that has similar stats and look to the Eryx. Except for the Jav of course.

SRAW =/= AT4

 

It is also known as the predator sraw or the FGM-172

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-172.html

FGM-172A = SRAW or HAT as we call it

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/AT4.jpg

AT-4 or LAT as we call it

 

Both as disposable tube systems but only the SRAW is a true fire and forget considering the AT-4 does not have any type homing/autopilot in its rocket system. I suppose you could call the SRAW a anti tank missile system while the AT-4 is simply a anti tank rocket.

*sound of Captain Wolf being shot down*

 

Hmmm... I stand corrected I completely forgot about the Predator. I blame it on the fact that it was 3:45 in the morning.

 

Too many systems are classified under SRAW IMO Practically everything that goes boom is called a SRAW for some retarded reason. You might as well call a 40mm UGL a SRAW. What is short range about the predator anyway, at 600 meters. I was thinking of The SRAW as in the LAW-80 or AT-4 not saying that the Predator was the same as the SRAW BTW.

 

SRAW meaning short range assault weapon doesn't really apply to the Predator considering it doesn't use a multi-purpose warhead and is not short ranged. That's it I'm marching down to Lockheed Martin and demanding they change the designation on the grounds that it made me look bad on the forums... oh and the above two reasons.

 

Note: That is 2 to you Lucid, and in as many days, me thinks I won't post in the same threads as you just to be safe.

All that aside it would be nice if he Eryx and the SRAW acted like they do in real life, being fire and forget after all rather than having to use them like some sort of semi wired guided missle. But thats just probally grabbing at threads BF2 just can really give us total realism and if it could would you really want it ?

I don't think the BF2 engine is capable of that unless you make it into some hybrid lock on system to simulate that effect...

I've been thinking the new patch needs a forewarning something like this.

 

 

Follow, but follow only if ye be men of valor! For the entrance to this cave is guarded by a creature so fowl, so cruel that no man yet has fought with it and lived. Bones of four fifty men lie strewn about its lair! So, brave knights, if you do doubt your courage, or your strength, come nay further, for death awaits you all . . . with nasty big pointy teeth!