No you can't call him a "tuber" at all. Jesus, theres someone that proves you wrong and what are you doing? You just say he's no "complete" tuber. You are wrong. Get used to it.
Yes, I can't call him a tuber. However, don't make the same mistake I did in saying he's
not a tuber either. He could be, he could not be. The error I made was including him in a generalization that is not completely fair to everyone lumped in it, and it was not my place to label him as such. Fact is, none of us have any insight as to what he does with it. Thus, I retract that statement, and stick to what I do know and what's relavent, his habits inside a tank.
But just to further what seems to be a conversation that has gotten back on track, why not use it from medium-to-long range distances? It's a very effective weapon not only at taking out multiple enemies that bunch up (as they always do), but it also is invaluable at denying time and space to advancing squads.
No issue here. I see medium/long range use of it to be valid.
Rather than trying to pick off four enemy squad members with the M-16, why not switch to the M203 and give them hell? You're not going to be a "noob toober" if you use it as it's meant to be used.
This does draw a point of contention in that it asks the question "should it be possible for one ground pounder class to be able to kill 4 people in an instant attack that can be followed up on".
Consider the two scenarios you've mapped out. Taking on 4 people with a rifle is a very daunting task. You have two options - unload your clip on someone, hoping you can kill 1 then run, or, drop prone and hope that you can kill multiple of them at least making the situation profitable to you. The first is hit or miss, pardon the pun, you may get one, you may not, but you can run if things turn ugly. The latter, you increase your chances for getting one at least, but you're likely going to be dead, as they'll usually begin returning fire once your cover is blown (usually by the time one dies at least). With the grenade launcher, you get the best of both worlds. You don't have to expend time firing triples, you don't have to choose to stand or prone, you have a chance to obliterate all 4 instantly if circumstances line up right, if you botch it or only get 1, you can run, or if you get something like 3, you can quickly switch to assault rifle and finish the 4th off while he's stunned and concussed. In the situation you detail, the grenade launcher has no real weakness, whereas the weaknesses and risks of the rifle are there.
I know you seem to have an aversion to it, but it's a hell of a tactical weapon...one that exists and is used extensively in the real world.
You'll notice though it's been implemented in a bunch of games but never been of the kind of power you see in BF2. Remember the original half life had one, but it didn't have a giant splash radius nor did it kill someone with armor in 1 hit.
Hand grenades are a very tactical weapon that are used in the real world as well, however, unlike the grenade launcher, hand grenades have some really heavy risks attached to them too. If you walk up to someone throwing a hand grenade, they're dead. If you walk up to someone using grenade launcher, you're dead. The only real risk I can see with grenade launcher is the risk of blowing yourself up alongside the enemy.
I hold it in questionable balance overall, but I don't have a real problem with it if at least it is used long range. I could just pretend it was another one of those heat seeking artillery coming after me again, and at least some effort was expended in lining up the shot.
First of all, I'm not sure that this is the right game for you. You seem to have an aversion to vehiclular combat and the tactics that go along with that. Vehicles are the primary ingredient that sets the Battlefield franchise apart from your run and gun FPS. If you don't like vehicles and the people that use them then I am sure you could find lots of friends on a CS server somewhere.
There's a lot of responses so you did miss some stuff Bob. I love [ground] vehicles, and see them (in the correct numbers, not HORDES of them) as a necessary part of the game. What I don't love is people abusing the game mechanics to force unnatural circumstances against teams too weak to defend themselves. In this case, I take extreme exception to the neutralization of square and refusal to capture hotel despite the fact no viable attack force could even ever form. On top of it, when your tank has to respond to the threat of a single anti tank with a personal commander, infantry, and 2 LAVs with engineers, just what kind of coward are you? And then when the tables get turned and you're getting destroyed in a fair fight for once, you take off to find a new server to farm?
Second, I'm not sure that you have enough time and experience in this game to render some of the judgements that you have about the way that others play the game. What you refer to as spawn camping I call good strategy
A refusal to capture flags is not good strategy. Good flagplay is supposed to be a major part of winning this game. Spawn camping is good strategy if you're holding the spawn down such that your teammates can capture the flag without 20 MEC spawning in and throwing nades like confetti in at you.
Perhaps Darkside was attempting to lay down fire to cover his infantry's approach to the spawn. This occurred on a cappable base and you refer to this as if it was somehow cheating.
Darkside's only intent was to increase his personal score. Him and those around him were holding spawns but NOT capturing flags, such that they would have the spawn to continuously hold down. To further support this, in the previous round, I was on Darkside's team and he had the tank all round that round as well. At one point, I spotted an enemy APC coming down the right road from square to the US spawn. I spotted it a good 3 times as it was sitting there plunking away with it's BTR-80 thumper on the US spawn. Then, the commander went and put a UAV on it. All this time, Darkside is still killing infantry down the middle road. The BTR-80 then swoops in and puts a rocket into Darkside, which he FINALLY responds to by killing it. When I play armor, nearby enemy vehicles are my number 1 priority, unless there are hordes of anti tanks or C4 that prevent me from being able to engage it. Never would I sit there and allow an APC to attack allied troops under any circumstances just for the sake of fragging a few extra loose infantry. And from a strategical point of view, wouldn't you agree?
And his intent was not honorable to any degree. He was trash talking up a storm the entire time.
Finally, I do agree that taking people out with a GL at a such short ranges is a little on the far fetched side. However, jumping off of 50ft ledges and using a parachute to land softly isn't exactly a tactic your soon to catch marines doing in Iraq on CNN. My point is this... Obviously EA and DICE were not trying to go for an ultra realistic shooter. If your looking for that then head on over to America's Army - its free and it sounds like it might be a little more ageeable to your style of gameplay.
I never argued for realism, I argue for balance and that there be a standard requirement of skill to play this game. EA could make rifles fire jellybeans with rifle mounted cupcake launchers, just so long as the jellybeans and cupcakes are balanced.
Last edited by Sud (2005-12-13 18:55:42)