Jump to content
Chuc

What's up with Vehicles? Part 1

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, BrossParavoss said:

Guys, don't forget — instead BTR, vehicle hasn't a good sight. I guess vehicles will be use at cap zone.

You can turn out and have a much better view.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LevelPulse said:

I wouldn't consider the vehicles "OP", they are actually pretty balanced when there is quite a few players on in each team. I can only see it being an issue with a low player count when there is not people to cover the necessary kits.

 

With the introduction of the new weapons, the vehicles are quite easy to disable. Small maps like Sumari, drivers have to constantly be aware of their surroundings. I have died plenty of times because i'm forced to go a route that i don't want to go on.

I'm talking about small scale contacts. As in, a squad gets hit by a toyota mounted 12.7 Dshk from a hill above them, and from beyond their rifle's effective range. The can't effectively respond to the threat without accurate anti vehicle weaponry.

 

To meet that threat, the squad needs the ability to range the vehicle, and the ability to accurately engage it, of which V6 has neither, nor are they planned for V7.

 

While the future implementation of weaponry will reduce the threat, the next version will be plagued with the inequality of vehicle on infantry fighting. 

 

We will need sights you lazy devs!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LevelPulse said:

You can't cap inside vehicles.

 

May be. But most effective m2 or DSHK will be in close range — 50-100 meters. Where are you can kill enemy by .50 cal on this distance? Only in cap zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I'm talking about small scale contacts. As in, a squad gets hit by a toyota mounted 12.7 Dshk from a hill above them, and from beyond their rifle's effective range. The can't effectively respond to the threat without accurate anti vehicle weaponry.

 

To meet that threat, the squad needs the ability to range the vehicle, and the ability to accurately engage it, of which V6 has neither, nor are they planned for v7.

 

That is where tactics comes in tho. Make sure the squad is spread out, not exposing themselves and using dead ground. Also having other squads or vehicles supporting.

 

Just because your in a shit position doesn't mean you should insantly be able to get out of it and a squad by itself shouldn't able to take a vehicle head on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

I'm talking about small scale contacts. As in, a squad gets hit by a toyota mounted 12.7 Dshk from a hill above them, and from beyond their rifle's effective range. The can't effectively respond to the threat without accurate anti vehicle weaponry.

 

You will probably need to get used to this crazy concept that there will be threats that infantry squads simply can't deal with. That's where the whole 'communicate, coordinate' thing comes into play. If you can't neutralize an enemy vehicle, then you need your own vehicles to do it for you. If you've played PR, you should already know -  if you can't kill it, leave it alone. There is no point in engaging a vehicle if there's a high probability of failure. Go around, call for help, hide and wait for it to pass you by, there's plethora of options in any given situation, and combat is only one of them.

 

That being said, I really miss the adjustible sights, it was one of the features in PR that just really blew my mind, and moments like squadlead spotting for you and  telling you the range to an enemy vehicle which you just absolutely needed to take out were awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MultiSquid said:

That being said, I really miss the adjustible sights, it was one of the features in PR that just really blew my mind, and moments like squadlead spotting for you and  telling you the range to an enemy vehicle which you just absolutely needed to take out were awesome.

 

A specialy when you used RPG26 )))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/03/2016 at 6:41 AM, Major Trouble said:

What will happen to the laminated armoured glass of vehicles like humvees if shot in the game? Obviously it will stop multiple rounds but will it craze and block the drivers vision such that the vehicle will need repairing to clear it. That would be cool and helpful in an ambush situation.

 

That's reminds me of this

http://imgur.com/a/Bk1y8

a 2004 game did this, then i never see other game doing it, arma have a mod for it but was kinda fake, this one were atual shoots in the glass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MultiSquid said:

 

You will probably need to get used to this crazy concept that there will be threats that infantry squads simply can't deal with. That's where the whole 'communicate, coordinate' thing comes into play. If you can't neutralize an enemy vehicle, then you need your own vehicles to do it for you. If you've played PR, you should already know -  if you can't kill it, leave it alone. There is no point in engaging a vehicle if there's a high probability of failure. Go around, call for help, hide and wait for it to pass you by, there's plethora of options in any given situation, and combat is only one of them.

 

That being said, I really miss the adjustible sights, it was one of the features in PR that just really blew my mind, and moments like squadlead spotting for you and  telling you the range to an enemy vehicle which you just absolutely needed to take out were awesome.

 

Also, it's great fun when everyone is running around ala benny hill trying to escape the vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MultiSquid said:

 

You will probably need to get used to this crazy concept that there will be threats that infantry squads simply can't deal with. That's where the whole 'communicate, coordinate' thing comes into play. If you can't neutralize an enemy vehicle, then you need your own vehicles to do it for you. If you've played PR, you should already know.

 

And that feel when you can destroyed enemy BTR, Glorious. ITS feel so great to accomplish that difficult and contribute alot to your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MultiSquid said:

 

You will probably need to get used to this crazy concept that there will be threats that infantry squads simply can't deal with. That's where the whole 'communicate, coordinate' thing comes into play. If you can't neutralize an enemy vehicle, then you need your own vehicles to do it for you. If you've played PR, you should already know -  if you can't kill it, leave it alone. There is no point in engaging a vehicle if there's a high probability of failure. Go around, call for help, hide and wait for it to pass you by, there's plethora of options in any given situation, and combat is only one of them.

 

That being said, I really miss the adjustible sights, it was one of the features in PR that just really blew my mind, and moments like squadlead spotting for you and  telling you the range to an enemy vehicle which you just absolutely needed to take out were awesome.

 

...

 

"You will probably need to get used to this crazy concept that there will be threats that infantry squads simply can't deal with."

 

Did you read my post properly?

 

No where does it talk about inf actively hunting and initiating engagements with vehicles.

 

"That's where the whole 'communicate, coordinate' thing comes into play. If you can't neutralize an enemy vehicle, then you need your own vehicles to do it for you."

 

...Not that this is relevant to the original post. In all of your "vast" experience in PR, how many times out of 10 was friendly ARMOUR actually on hand when your INF squad was accosted by enemy ARMOUR? You can call for help all you want while being engaged. That doesn't mean that it will arrive, and/ or be competantly manned to engage the threat.

 

"If you've played PR, you should already know -  if you can't kill it, leave it alone."

 

... Sadly, again, read the post... and again, not that it is relevant, I've played PR for 8 years.

 

"There is no point in engaging a vehicle if there's a high probability of failure. Go around, call for help, hide and wait for it to pass you by, there's plethora of options in any given situation, and combat is only one of them."

 

...Read the post...

 

If you're "being" engaged, you have little choice. Also, while you may recall from all of your time playing PR, you don't always know where the enemy is or will be, negating the opportunity to always "Go around, call for help, hide and wait for it to pass you by,"  or any other plethora of options one may have available if they were to know where the enemy was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Thrillhouse17 said:

 

That is where tactics comes in tho. Make sure the squad is spread out, not exposing themselves and using dead ground. Also having other squads or vehicles supporting.

 

Just because your in a shit position doesn't mean you should insantly be able to get out of it and a squad by itself shouldn't able to take a vehicle head on.

 

That's no different to saying "Don't get engaged by the enemy".

 

They don't design corridors in these maps where one can travel from A to B, completely protected from the enemy.

 

"Just because your in a shit position doesn't mean you should insantly be able to get out of it"

 

This part is correct. That said, as to my original point, a techie or humvvv is not out of the question for a squad to destroy. I was refering to the current situation where we will not be able to engage them effectively at distance, which wouldnt be an issue if they weren't engaging you, though if they were the vehicle is OP in that situation, and without an additional variable such as cover, your squad is fucked (unless your rpg squad mate gets a lucky, unsighted, unaimed shot on the vehicle, which would place the outcome down to chance rather than skill)

 

and a squad by itself shouldn't able to take a vehicle head on.

 

Well a MBT or heavy APC for sure, but an armed toyota is no match for a LAW or RPG that can be sighted in.

 

Edited by [email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

 

They don't design corridors in these maps where one can travel from A to B, completely protected from the enemy.

 

I know and so they shouldn't but there is still plenty of cover in most maps to move from and to. A squad has a massive amount of smoke which can be used to obscure a crossing or even just a diversion to get out of the open. A lot of time people are just lazy and run straight from the FOB to the marker.

 

"This part is correct. That said, as to my original point, a techie or humvvv is not out of the question for a squad to destroy. I was refering to the current situation where we will not be able to engage them effectively at distance, which wouldnt be an issue if they weren't engaging you, though if they were the vehicle is OP in that situation, and without an additional variable such as cover, your squad is fucked (unless your rpg squad mate gets a lucky, unsighted, unaimed shot on the vehicle, which would place the outcome down to chance rather than skill)"

 

Standard squads don't usually carry anything bigger then a LAW unless it is mission specific. On the forest maps it shouldnt be that hard to get within 200m of a vehicle to get a shot off. Once vehicles are in it will be stupid for people to be running across the top of bare hills and they deserve to be mowed down for that.

 

"Well a MBT or heavy APC for sure, but an armed toyota is no match for a LAW or RPG that can be sighted in."

 

I still by a squad shouldn't take a vehicle head on, a 50 cal is devastating to a squad even if it is an unarmored vehicle at distance. Unless I can get surprise on a vehicle on a flank or rear I won't be going after it and if im stuck between a rock and a hard place lets just hope the anti tank guy is a good shot at range. Even if he gets a rocket close to hitting I bet most vehicles will move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thrillhouse17 said:

I know and so they shouldn't but there is still plenty of cover in most maps to move from and to. A squad has a massive amount of smoke which can be used to obscure a crossing or even just a diversion to get out of the open. A lot of time people are just lazy and run straight from the FOB to the marker.

 

"This part is correct. That said, as to my original point, a techie or humvvv is not out of the question for a squad to destroy. I was refering to the current situation where we will not be able to engage them effectively at distance, which wouldnt be an issue if they weren't engaging you, though if they were the vehicle is OP in that situation, and without an additional variable such as cover, your squad is fucked (unless your rpg squad mate gets a lucky, unsighted, unaimed shot on the vehicle, which would place the outcome down to chance rather than skill)"

 

Standard squads don't usually carry anything bigger then a LAW unless it is mission specific. On the forest maps it shouldnt be that hard to get within 200m of a vehicle to get a shot off. Once vehicles are in it will be stupid for people to be running across the top of bare hills and they deserve to be mowed down for that.

 

"Well a MBT or heavy APC for sure, but an armed toyota is no match for a LAW or RPG that can be sighted in."

 

I still by a squad shouldn't take a vehicle head on, a 50 cal is devastating to a squad even if it is an unarmored vehicle at distance. Unless I can get surprise on a vehicle on a flank or rear I won't be going after it and if im stuck between a rock and a hard place lets just hope the anti tank guy is a good shot at range. Even if he gets a rocket close to hitting I bet most vehicles will move.

 

Oh my fuck... Read the damn post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did and from what I read is that you are worried you won't be able to shoot back against a vehicle and you are talking about more sights and/or bigger anti tank weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, [email protected] said:

 

Oh my fuck... Read the damn post.

 

He pretty clearly did and he responded to it. You're complaining about there supposedly being very little infantry players can do about vehicles in certain situations because there's no proper sights at the moment, so he suggested some solutions to that problem.

 

I think you're being needlessly hostile and repeating "read the post" over and over doesn't help. I've read it as well and what Thrillhouse has said is relevant.

Edited by MintyWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not relevant in the context which the points were stated. While yes, there are many ways one can avoid being shot, if one is being shot at (I.e. Cover ect), the problem of the inequality between inf and vehicles, due to lack of sights is not solved. I understand what Thrillhouse was saying and he is 100% right. However, THE PROBLEM STILL EXHISTS!!!! Was my point the whole time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will we get to read part two a few days after release? Though not terribly interested in coding in and of itself I found this read very enjoyable and would like to see how you've managed to overcome the problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes ages to write this kind of stuff, but it would be really cool to read about how you are going to tackle the issue of overloading the server with vehicle simulations; essentially what parts can be offloaded to the clients while still preventing exploits on the client side (like speed hacks etc). I was thinking about it late into the night, it was a fun thing to tackle in theory, but I feel bad for whomever has to make those calls and implement them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If part two is ever coming, the chances of it being about tracked vehicles is really high I think. 

Edited by bilsantu
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×