Jump to content

Vewt

Member
  • Content count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vewt

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. In summary, vehicles remain idiot proof despite updates over the V12-13 cycle. Your fear of people not using vehicles if there is any punishment for doing so has prevented there being any meaningful infantry counterplay to vehicles. Vehicles continue to be used unrealistically. It is normal for them to be single crewed. There is little incentive to crew vehicles properly in game because the delay to swap between seats is excessively short - at this point in time it's the same as the delay in Battlefield. This is bad because multiply crewed vehicles allow new players to be introduced to crewing duties and vehicle play, and because it degrades teamwork. It is abnormal to see properly crewed vehicles (drive, gunner, commander) or proper vehicle squads. Vehicles continue to be used unrealistically. It is normal for vehicles to take more rockets than an entire team can carry to be killed from weak angles. This is dumb - infantry have inadequate counterplay right now against vehicles because the existing HAT classes offer no credible threat to any armoured vehicles. It is normal for armoured vehicles to operate entirely without infantry support and to do so in poor positions; while doing so they simply shrug off a few rockets, then go and heal whatever minimally concerning crits they took. This system is not working; it's dumb and it promotes silly play. The two justifications that I keep hearing for this are that "Squad models squad level play, so proper anti-armour weapons that do not exist at the squad level cannot be added."; if this is the case then remove armoured vehicles which are not at the squad level. The second is that there is a desire for armoured vehicles to be used as much as possible and so teams should not fear repurcussions for using them; this is well and good, but in its purest form you are just saying that you want armoured vehicles to always have less consequences than effect no matter their misuse. That's silly. As it stands, completely misused armoured vehicles that operate conservatively but in poor positions, without infantry support, with a single crew member and for no real tactical effect, routinely clean up 40-50 kills in match, and this is bad for lots of reasons. There are three things that need to be cleaned up around vehicle play: 1. Crits remain generally ineffective. Each of the crit types doesn't have enough of an effect when it is procced. Vehicles with destroyed engines or tracks should have to be recovered, rather than self recovering or having a crewman fix it in 20 seconds, for example. It is also unclear to me why crews cannot be killed, while the stations they man can be destroyed. This particularly affects infantry AT who most typically establish anti-armour ambushes where they have the luxury to select their target area on the vehicle, to very little effect at this point in time. 2. Single crewing promotes lone wolfing and the separation of infantry from armour without repurcussion. It is beyond be why it has been permitted to remain viable because it undermines everything this game was intended to be. The swap duration from driver to gunner and gunner to drive is far, far, far too short; this combined with the inability for crew kills to occur on penetrating shots makes single crewing vehicles that in real life would always have a full crew far too forgiving. 3. The penalties for losing armoured fighting vehicles are too shallow. The ticket loss and respawn times need to be revisited, and the repair system is much, much too forgiving right now. The current damage and repair system is literally more forgiving and gamey than the BF2 engineers with wrenches that PR originally sought to escape from. It is not clear to me what this mod wants to be anymore. Successive versions have not addressed the glaring problems with vehicles and have continued to accelerate gameplay in ways that run counter to the original design goals that the community was behind. It looks to me as though the game has ambitions to be nothing more than a vanilla Battlefield competitor, being designed for some audience it wants rather than the audience it has or the audience who originally wanted it. Slow the game down and readd consequences and weight to decisions, or they're meaningless and dull.
  2. movement in ADS

    Haha oh wow. There is, if anything, too little sway in most positions. To those who are saying you should be able to maintain a stable sight picture while crawling, holy hell have you ever crawled before or held a gun prone? How on earth do you imagine doing both at the same time?
  3. 50-90 SQD v12.2 CPU: Xeon E3-1230 V2 3.3ghz x 8 core RAM: 8gb DDR3 GPU: GTX1080 4gb RAM Tournament settings 1080p. I suspect that I'm CPU bottlenecked.
  4. Yeh, I went and double checked, this does appear incorrect. The M4 should be mounting a TA31RCO while the L85 should be mounting a TA31F. Both are 4x32. M4 TA31: https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA31RCO-M4CP L85 TA31: http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=ta31F (Both of the BAF marksman rifles should be using the same optic from what I could find, but with a different reticle pattern: L129: https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA648RMR-308 L86: https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA648RMR I would be interested to see if the L129's magnification (6x) is correct compared to the M110's 10x Leupold (https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle-scopes/mark-4-lr-t-3-5-10x40mm
  5. Suppression system

    I love the suppression system.
  6. Love your work, pump that stuff out.
  7. I have conducted some testing, and the only areas that receive critical damage are engines and ammo racks. No other critical systems on tracked vehicles appear to be taking damage. There are two other systems that should be able to take damage from infantry weapons that are consistent with gameplay decisions so far: Tracks and Optics. Currently no weapons deal critical damage to tracks. A number of HE weapons should be able to disable tracks. HE, HEFRAG and HEAT in the 25-125+mm range should all be capable of causing track loss. There is a case that sustained 12.7mm and 14.5mm should also. Additionally 25mm and 30mm, LAT, HAT and MBT main armament should be capable of destroying drive and return wheels and sprockets. The effect of not having this in the game is that armoured vehicles are not compelled to fight hull or turret down against flanking infantry, and are far too able to expose their flanks at close range to infantry while conducting offensive manoeuvre unsupported by infantry or fires. The effect of such actions should be the loss of track if HE or AT is employed judiciously from a flank, which in gameplay terms should result in the inability to drive from that side, resulting in neutral steering from the opposite track. An interim measure that wouldn't require substantial coding effort would be to have destroyed track trigger the current engine damage status. Secondly, no weapons can currently damage optics. Nearly all weapons should be able to disable exposed optics and sensor stations with either accurate fire to the optics themselves, or sustained fire to other components of exposed systems. The effect of not having this is that armour is able to completely disregard engagement from dismounted infantry and support weapons at ranges closer than armour should be comfortable operating unsupported. The effect of receiving such fire should be the loss of visibility from that station - one of the reasons that MBT have CITV and queing is to help mitigate this risk, particularly against artillery. I admit that this will be harder to code and balance. Right now, infantry can only engage armour from precisely perpendicular to rear armour against most tracked vehicles to destroy the engine and achieve a mobility kill with anything less than the single HAT on a team. There should be far more options available to weapons lighter than HAT from the flanks and from the frontal arc at close range against careless armoured vehicles. The addition of these options would not make tanks or other AFV useless, but simply force them to use the assets realistically for precise direct fire support from good positions or in the attack well supported by infantry.
  8. M1A2 wrong ammo type?

    The M829A4 was designed for the M1A2SEP, but the gun systems for the two tanks are virtually identical. The only missing thing is the datalink, which shouldn't stop the A4 from being firable. Otherwise the breach, barrel and firing system are identical afaik. Good catches though.
  9. Vehicles vs AT infantry in V12

    I think the problem's being misdiagnosed here. Vehicles are ripping games up right now, which is realistic, but they're also being used unrealistically, with near impunity in tactically unfeasible ways. I think that the problem is mostly that not enough areas are doing critical damage. I'm not seeing tanks get tracked from LAT hits to their drive sprokets or tracks. Ditto no loss of turret drive when the turret ring is hit, optics loss when a CROWS gets lit by small arms, and engine loss is unreliable with LAT from behind. K Killing a tank with light and medium antitank weapons should be nearly impossible, but mobility or mission killing it when it's used improperly is pretty straightforward. That's why tanks need support for the close fight; there's little risk of catastrophic armour penetration, but throwing track if completely unsupported is a long term death sentence, and happens easily enough.
  10. Commander in every APC / IFV

    Single crewing vehicles is far too easy and effective right now. The seat swap time and weapon activation after swap times should be drastically increased to reduce unrealistic use of AFV that reduces teamwork. Single crewing vehicles should be so ineffective that it gets people shouted out of servers and kicked.
  11. TBH just a more fleshed out marker system with a PLCOMD slot would achieve what you're talking about better. There are standardised NATO task graphics that could be used to show an entire battle plan for all squads at all phases of the game. Simply adding a system to generate, scale, rotate and place these in layers (called overlays IRL), then a system to cycle through them would enable precisely what's being described, but better.
  12. "Wait patiently because we just have to get around to adding the counter to anti-armour weapons, which is armoured vehicles." I do like that that conversation has come full circle, and now rather than snipers being unrealistic, snipers are now apparently too realistic for the game.
  13. The in service Barrett is a 2.5 MOA rifle. It makes far more sense to incorporate the M2010, which is a .300 winmag, rather than a .50. Just give it the same damage as a 7.62. but with slightly better velocity and drop.
  14. (NB. And having maps like Kohat is desirable. Having maps with good tank country like Kohat does is a very good thing in the long run, it's just we're missing a piece of the puzzle that's important in making good tank country actually good for armoured vehicles.)
  15. And I'm fine with having that discussion. The core of what I'm saying os is that: 1. The undesirable behaviour that we fear a sniper class promoting occurs and will occur anyway. In the absence of a sniper class the effect of the behaviour is worse because assets with other purposes are used for it. 2. A sniper class fills an important part of the rock-paper-scissors game you describe, which is preventing heavy crew served weapons from being set up in areas where they are out of range of small arms and mortars, and can dominate most of the ground on a map. In the absence of this element of the rock paper scissors game, a single TOW on a map like Kohat can shut the entire game down. To use more commonly accepted game design terminology, it's extremely desirable that snipers be added as a strong specific answer to certain types of emplacement tactics relating to enemy heavy weapons that too strongly ask certain general questions and friendly mortars that at the moment can't ask specific questions they're supposed to be able to, but be unable ask general questions of the enemy team on their own. The cost of not doing so is people trying to use other tools to crudely mimic the behaviours of a sniper without being able to give those desirable specific answers.
×