PDA

View Full Version : Anti aircraft vehicle, Why can they still be used as a solo driven/fired vehicle?


Oddsodz
2010-11-16, 03:57
Anti aircraft vehicles are now beyond a joke.

This is going to turn into a rant by me. Please feel free to click to something funny.

How is it that even now after so many builds that in the current version. Players can still single seat an Anti aircraft vehicle? Can somebody please tell me why this is the case? To use a VN3-Batcar you need 2 crew men. To use a tank. You need 2 crew men. To use and APC, You need 2 crew men. So why is it you only need 1 player to drive it and gun it? This one issue is just so stupid now.

This is a story of a real game experience.

Map is Silent Eagle. One Russian player decides that he wished to camp the German airfield. He takes the Russian Anti aircraft vehicle. Takes a nice long drive to map grid K11. Swaps seats. And then proceeds to destroy 2 jets and 2 Transport helos, 1 Little bird and about 10 troops plus a truck or 2. Due to the map. There is no way to kill him unless a tank or Bradley comes along. But in the case of the Russian Anti aircraft vehicle. He can kill them too. He then drives back to his main and rearms and comes back and can do it all again. How is this right? How is it that 1 player can have so much power over the opposite team? Just by my story above. That one player has just cost the team 20 minutes with no air support. 5 or 10 minutes with no Supply's. No transport. Plus the silly amount of team tickets. It's a game winning tactic.

This is the same on Kashan and Battle for Q. 1 Player can effectively destroy a team by just base raping the assets. It's even worst on Silent Eagle due to no HAT/LAT kits (I know that is a side issue).

And before somebody says. Go play on server that don't allow base raping. This does not stop the above story from happening. If a player wants to base rape in this way. He will do the damage. By the time a Admin can get on the case. It almost always to late. The damage is done. It's not the admins fault. He can not be watching every Tom, Dick and Harry's move all game long. Their is also the side note that a single seated Anti Aircraft Vehicle does not show up on the map. So even if an admin is looking about. He will not see that player on the map. And so does not know that there is an issue to deal with. Again. Not the admins fault. If the Anti aircraft vehicle is crewed by 2 men. Then it is easy for an admin to see and deal with.


So can somebody please tell me where Solo/Single seated Anti aircraft vehicles promote teamwork? Can somebody give a good valid reason why the Anti aircraft vehicles should stay usable in this manner?

It's time to bring the Anti aircraft vehicles in line with every other vehicle that has a gun (note: not including light vehicles like Hummers/BRDMs/Techys and so on - TOW Hummer should also need 2 crew men but I will leave that to somebody else to deal with). Make them a 2 man job like everything else.


With a tool like the Anti aircraft vehicle. It should be a 2 man job.

End of my rant.

Bazul14
2010-11-16, 04:42
Ok, well, if the team is so mentally challanged that it can not bring a HAT or LAT on the field of battle, then I am seriously sorry for them. Also, a TOW can be built. Another, sometimes even easier variant would be C4 and some flanking action, since only 1 person is in the vehicle, it will be preoccupied with what's in front of him or his sides, and not his back. Also, I think the AAVs don't have thermals, so SE and infantry should go hand in hand on such a map. Also, if the Jets are dumb enough to fly low without knowing that other jets died, then sorry for them, too bad.
The AAVs should remain one mannable since they are often brought in with the tanks in order to provide AA cover, and since most tank squads are not always full, they would still prefer to get the most tanks up, and leave the AA job for only one guy. Or even better, bring TWO AAVs out in the field with them, for double the ownage.

I know I might be advocating some unruly behaviour, but it helps gameplay a lot. So keep soloing AAVs To Victory!

Oddsodz
2010-11-16, 06:02
Oh my, Did you even read my story above? Please do tell me how you are going to build a TOW when you have no crates to build with? Or fact you have to be so far away from your main before you can build a FOB. Please tell me how you are going to get a HAT/LAt kit when the Anti aircraft vehicles has full on sights on the spawn point at your main? Please do tell me how you are going to bomb the Anti aircraft vehicle when he has already based raped both jets/CAS-HELOS before take off because Anti aircraft vehicles spawn 10 minutes before any jets/CAS-HELOS do? Please tell me how you are going get near him when he as a 4x zoom? The only Anti aircraft vehicles that does not have some sort of cannon are the MEC Anti aircraft vehicles. All the rest have a fast firing cannon of some sort (ok the Brit one does not. but it can still kill tanks). Plus the Anti aircraft missiles that can destroy a tank. Oh and did you forget in my story the map was Silent Eagle? I Would love for you to show me how to get a HAT/LAT. You are up to date on the current build of PR right? No HAT/LAT kits on that map at this time due to bug. As I stated above. It's a side issue that is going to be fix. In fact the only map where there is hope of getting ride of the offending base raper is Silent Eagle. Due to the extra tank spawn point. But as I said above (you did read that right?) The damage is done by the time a tank/Bradly/BMP/Whatever can get near. Plus they too can also can also be destroyed by an Anti aircraft vehicle. YEs, that's right. The big Anti aircraft vehicles can take out tanks.

All your ideas to deal with the task of killing the Anti aircraft vehicle take lots of time. Good luck getting C4 on him. That's along walk to where it might be sitting. And again. All the damage is done by the time you get there. As I said before. Just in a ticket count alone. It is a game winning tactic. An Anti aircraft vehicles cost a team 5+1 tickles if destroyed. Now if he just gets 1 CAS asset. Jet or CAS-HELO. He has paid for himself. And by my count on my story above. He destroyed 85 tickets worth (ruff guess) with in 1 minute. And was able to go back and rearm to come and do it again.

I Am sorry. But it's far to much fire power for just one player alone. Remember. It takes teamwork to do anything in PR. Want to kill something in a tank. Need 2 crewmen. Want to bomb something from a jet, Need 2 players to work together, spotter and jet pilot. Again teamwork. Want to go to town in the Bradley? Best get 2 crewmen. Want to rack up them kills in a CAS-HELO? Best get 2 pilots and a spotter (spotter is optional but highly recommended). Again team work.

The only exception is the Anti aircraft vehicle. No teamwork required. Get in and drive to where you want and swap seats. Bingo. 30 seconds latter you can kill everything you like. And where on any map is the most lightly defended place on the map? Where is the one place you can go that you can guarantee nobody is guarding? Yes. You guess it. The main.

Making the Anti aircraft vehicles a 2 man job will not stop base rapping. I Am not that silly. But it will make admins jobs a lot easier with identifying offenders of server rules that have them. And it will also mean that it will take 2 players to agree to go base raping. Not just one lone nub cake who has no sense on how the game is meant to be played.

Your argument is that it helps game play a lot. How is that so? The Anti aircraft vehicles primary role is to kill aircraft. Now CAS aircraft needs lots of things to work right before it can do it's job. Spotter needs to know how to laze. Pilot need to know how to bomb. Communication needs to work right between the two of them. IE: squad to squad and map marks with Como-Rose And so on. Lots of teamwork. Now in relation to all that teamwork. How much does an Anti aircraft vehicle need to kill anything? The answer is 0. No teamwork is need at all. It does not help game play. In fact it promotes lone wolfing. I Can't remember the last time I saw an Anti aircraft vehicle stay with the tanks. 80% of the time I see Anti aircraft vehicle in 1 of 3 places on any given map. Near the opposite teams main base camping or base raping. Near the current flag in contest. Never where they need to be to help the team. Only where they can get the best score/KDR.

This needs to be changed. Make Anti aircraft vehicle work for it's kills like everything else in PR has too. It's only right.

PLODDITHANLEY
2010-11-16, 06:27
I disagree with the little AA vehicles being two manned, the humvee Avenger and the little no .50cal MEC one, but the Tungska is so powered it needs it.

If this becomes a more frequent problem, which it may do after this thread put it on a 20min spawn?

Oddsodz
2010-11-16, 06:34
Does not matter what Anti aircraft vehicle you think of. The end result is the same. Zero teamwork needed to use. 100% teamwork to kill an Anti aircraft vehicle. Ok the light MEC BRDM and Avenger Anti aircraft vehicle you can destroy as a lone soldier. But still the amount of damage them light Anti aircraft vehicle can do with just one player at the helm is still out of balance with the rest of PR.

DonDOOM
2010-11-16, 11:34
I agree, AA Vehicles have been changed from 1 manned to 2 manned in earlyer releases, and the fact that you can solo it again in 0.95 seems a bit silly to me.

Alex6714
2010-11-16, 11:51
And then people complain the AA is not good enough.:roll:


I agree though, it makes no sense. Me and mora were playing on iron eagle, server not even half full, in a tank, and we got killed. We knew the apache was up, so I took the AAV and Mora took a tank, we drove out of base. Saw the apache, so I stopped, switched seats, shot it down, and abandoned the AAV to get in the tank, and off we went. I don?t defend that play style, I think its stupid, but it worked... I think its silly that that is possible really.

With all the teamwork that is required to operate any air asset, its strange that even with the abundance of AA it still requires none at all to use.

Edit: Iirc its because there aren?t enough players in game, or it would take too many away from the front. I would say thats not an issue, because if it were 2 manned then you have to make the tactical decision if you want to take 2 tanks out, or 1 tank and 1 AAV and AA would actually become more important.

Jaymz
2010-11-16, 12:04
I agree actually. Whatever reasons we had for this in the past are outlived now.

Tim270
2010-11-16, 12:10
I definitely agree for vehicles like the Avenger and Tunguska that have two weapons. Not so much for stuff like the Gaskin/Stormer though.

Oddsodz
2010-11-16, 18:12
If it's armoured and can kill a tank. It should be a 2 man job in my opinion.

The Question is. Will a change happen? I Have a felling that it can be changed with a server side update/fix.

ma21212
2010-11-16, 18:19
If it's armoured and can kill a tank. It should be a 2 man job in my opinion.

The Question is. Will a change happen? I Have a felling that it can be changed with a server side update/fix.

wait why even that? if it needs more than one person irl then it should in PR.

Mongolian_dude
2010-11-16, 19:36
I do still think that its important to remind ourselves that its hard taking people away from the battlefield, especially if it proves to not be much fun.

Sitting around on an AA staring at the sky all day is pretty abysmal and can be a real anti-climax when you've waited for a long amount of time, for the benefit of the team, only to be busted open by a random HAT round for a distant ridge-line.

AA is very hard to code realistically/game-play wise, and people will be familiar with how random AA can appear against aircraft:

"I shot 4 missiles at him before he could drop flares and they ALL missed! That sux!"

"Wtf?! He had a crappy angel on me, I dropped all 30 flares, was going top speed and he STILL got me!! FUUUUU!!"

With that said...

I'd personally like to see a well thought out return of AAA(anti-aircraft-artillery), both fixed and self-propelled. Not only is AAA, in experienced hands, potentially more effective against helicopters, but it actually allows players to still have a direct effect in the ground conflict; aka, fun.

Unfortunately, due to hitbox problems with the speeds they move at, it proves very difficult to hit fixed wing aircraft with AAA. I think continued research into AAA PR:CA (Combined Arms) was looking at may prove value for gameplay in this regard.


For those willing to discuss this solution, continue your read below

View (01:01 - 02:38 )
XbNm3HLtd9A

Alright men, by looking at this intel, we can see here that AAA fires 'homing-rounds'. These are essentially lots of tiny AA-missiles that will explode in proximity to an aircraft, resulting in continuous damage against the targeted aircraft; meaning for the pilot, the longer he exposes his aircraft to AAA, the more DMG he takes.

Perhaps with the disabling-damage feature we see in other vehicles, the pilot would loose control over his weapons systems (maybe even his flares?), forcing him to withdraw from the battlefield and land. Direct hits against an enemy aircraft would be even more costly and harrowing for the pilot.
This, coupled with the current standard, manual firing mode of AAA (for better use against helicopters) would make a fierce weapons system that gives both gunner and target a chance and puts a gradient into the current 0.0 or 1.0 success-rate of both AA and evasion.


Help me out fellas, thoughts? Criticisms?
x


...mongol...

Zoddom
2010-11-16, 19:50
the automatic mode is very realistic, however the proximity rounds would probably be a bit useless then, and unrealistic imo. that, with normal AP rounds and its fine, but add a warning signal for lock on in aircrafts! or the advantage of the manual firemode is lost.

Oddsodz
2010-11-16, 20:01
Oh noezesez, Thread has been hijacked by an [R-Mod] lol

Your point about sitting in an Anti aircraft vehicle and looking up all game long being boring can be true to a point. But there is a lot of roles in PR that can be boring. Setting up an IED ambush and waiting for a target is boring. Guarding a FOB is boring. Driving a truck can be boring. Building a FOB is boring. A Pilot flying round and round a map because there are no targets for him/her to engage is boring. But all are roles needed to be played out for a team to win. So I don't think your point counts on this matter.

As cool as that video maybe with it's auto locking long range exploding bullets and so on. The point remains the same. It should be a 2 man job. Again the main point is that the amount of fire power the Anti aircraft vehicles have at the hands of just one player is too much. Again zero teamwork needed to use and dominate.

Tim270
2010-11-16, 20:14
wait why even that? if it needs more than one person irl then it should in PR.

Because they hardly get used as it is. How many times have you spawned in the mec main on Kashan to see 4 Gaskins sitting there untouched? Waiting for a air-target to pop onto the radar can get boring and driving even more so.

I like the AAA idea as it does indeed give the user much more input and involvement in ones actions.

I am not too sure I see where forcing the vehicle to have to require 2 crew members will actually have any impact on balance at all? It still comes down to 1 guy still in the turret with a lot of firepower. If anything it will lead to less AAV's around the map which imo there are already very few of.

Oddsodz
2010-11-16, 20:27
I am not too sure I see where forcing the vehicle to have to require 2 crew members will actually have any impact on balance at all? It still comes down to 1 guy still in the turret with a lot of firepower.

Making it need 2 crewmen means teamwork is needed for it to be used. I Am not saying the Anti aircraft vehicle should not have it's level of fire power. I Am saying it should take 2 players to use that fire power.

As for the MEC Gaskins (I Had forgotten it's name). Easy fix. Dump it and bring back the Tunguska for the MEC.

Mongolian_dude
2010-11-16, 21:30
Oh noezesez, Thread has been hijacked by an [R-Mod] lol

Your point about sitting in an Anti aircraft vehicle and looking up all game long being boring can be true to a point. But there is a lot of roles in PR that can be boring. Setting up an IED ambush and waiting for a target is boring. Guarding a FOB is boring. Driving a truck can be boring. Building a FOB is boring. A Pilot flying round and round a map because there are no targets for him/her to engage is boring. But all are roles needed to be played out for a team to win. So I don't think your point counts on this matter.

As cool as that video maybe with it's auto locking long range exploding bullets and so on. The point remains the same. It should be a 2 man job. Again the main point is that the amount of fire power the Anti aircraft vehicles have at the hands of just one player is too much. Again zero teamwork needed to use and dominate.


Yeah, sorry about the mega post. I thought someone might think that :-?

Considering this is a modification for a videogame which we all play for our enjoyment, I think that alone makes the point valid. Just because it's proven difficult to rectify other not-so-fun roles playable/ uninspiring scenarios in the game, it doesn't make it any more sensible to withhold enjoyment in other areas.
And most relevant to you, it's an effort to rectify what is most likely the cause of the observation you've made of players one-manning an AAV.

Yes, while the game allows a player to do this, an AAV can be employed more effectively with a full crew; not waiting for weapon times, more eyes, move-firing etc. However, even with players offered a way to maximise their potential, they dont. Because its rather boring. By making this game aspect more fun, you wouldnt only have made the game better overall, but you wouldnt have to bother changing any code anyway.


...mongol...

Wh33lman
2010-11-16, 21:38
if AA is so strong, why havent people figured this out yet? instead of taking 3 tanks, you can take 2 tanks and an AAV, which can fight off aircraft and other tanks. i think your overstating their power just to try and scare everyone.

i agree with the original statment, require 2 crewman for an AAV. no changing of vehicles, just a 2 seat restriction like the tanks. i actually wonder why this hasnt been done already.

Mongolian_dude;1490928']...you wouldnt have to bother changing any code anyway.


...mongol...

Mongol, please, its cut and paste. the gunner w/o driver coding cant be more then 5 or 6 lines. it would take all of a minute to change

hiberNative
2010-11-16, 21:43
yes, make it 2 manned.

Oddsodz
2010-11-16, 22:06
if AA is so strong, why havent people figured this out yet?

Some have ;) I Am not so sure about the smaller Gaskin and Avenger. I Did once damage a tank so that it was "tracked" with the Avenger. But the bigger Anti aircraft vehicles like the Stormer and the Russian/PLA Tunguska (I Don't know about the new MEC Gopher as I have not been in it as of yet but I asume it has the same sort of missiles) can and do kill tanks. I Have myself killed with the Brit Stormer Anti aircraft vehicle killed 1 MEC Havoc CAS-HELO, 1 MEC Gopher + 1 MEC BMP and 1 MEC Tank before I ran out of ammo and had to go and rearm. This was down to the fact we was crewed up as a driver and a gunner. So we could move and hide. This would be harder to do as a solo/single setter. But it would be doable.

This is why it should be a 2 man job. They have so much fire power. I Am not saying we should not have this fire power. And I don't really care how Anti aircraft vehicles are made for the game. Anti aircraft vehicles do have a place in PR. No matter how they work. But they should be dealt with like the rest of the game. Teamwork to do the job. Look at all the teamwork needed to do anything in the game. Then look at the teamwork needed to use an Anti aircraft vehicle. Can you see the imbalance yet?

Mongolian_dude
2010-11-16, 23:56
Mongol, please, its cut and paste. the gunner w/o driver coding cant be more then 5 or 6 lines. it would take all of a minute to change

I personally can't recall saying it would be in any way difficult to change a single line of game code at any point within this thread. What I do see, however, is me stating that changing the game code would be unnecessary if you solved the problem at its root.
I thought it would have been fairly easy to deduce that from my post, keeping in consideration that I have just suggested a fairly major game change that would actually require a sizeable amount of effort put into changing code, amongst other things.

In actual fact, I have not yet stated whether I feel that changing an AAV to a two-man minimum to operate is a good move. I mentioned that a negative would be that it takes more players away from an already under-manned battlefield. A victory would be that it further promotes teamwork, yet possibly at the a cost. There's a strong chance we would see a large reduction in the population of AAVs on the battlefield, already few in numbers; with those solo-AAVs that make up a sizeable % of AAV numbers ceasing to exist.


I think if we took both initiatives of improving the AAA aspect of AAV gameplay and limiting the minimum required player-capacity, we would see by far the best results. In short, I don't think we should change the minimum players required...yet.


...mongol...

Oddsodz
2010-11-17, 01:01
I Think you would be proved wrong on the point about not seeing to may players use the Anti aircraft vehicles. The only one I don't see much use from players is the MEC Gaskin. We all know why. It has not got that extra gun to shot troops with. I See the Tunguska and Avenger used all the time. Including my self. I See that the MEC Gaskin gets used only by pilots that have just been shot down and want revenge. But the rest all get used in my experience.

You point about pulling more infantry away from the front is not a very good line. When the DEVs keep on adding new vehicles or deployable's like Mortars that in themselves take troops away from the front. Remember. You don't just have to cap a flag. You have to hold it also. And there are many ways to do just that. That is the joy or PR. So many ways to achieve the same goal. So yes. Making the Anti aircraft vehicle a 2 man job may take extra troops from the infantry pool. But if all that infantry pool is getting hammered by CAS. You as a team should have to make the choice. Man up the Anti aircraft vehicle or take cover. The answer should not be bring on the all powerful 1 man tank killing jet blowing Anti aircraft vehicle that needs no skill or teamwork to operate.

ma21212
2010-11-17, 01:07
Because they hardly get used as it is. How many times have you spawned in the mec main on Kashan to see 4 Gaskins sitting there untouched? Waiting for a air-target to pop onto the radar can get boring and driving even more so.

I like the AAA idea as it does indeed give the user much more input and involvement in ones actions.

I am not too sure I see where forcing the vehicle to have to require 2 crew members will actually have any impact on balance at all? It still comes down to 1 guy still in the turret with a lot of firepower. If anything it will lead to less AAV's around the map which imo there are already very few of.
you know, now that I think about it it does make sence to have it one manned. it takes less people away from the team and we dont have alot as it it.

mat552
2010-11-17, 01:51
The gaskin is just a less effective vehicle for its role than others. Its handling is...delicate and requires a skilled hand to avoid flipping the vehicle over while traversing rough terrain. The lack of a cannon or extra secondary weapon is a deal killer to most people, and, opinion lol, it doesn't sound or look quite as good as the other ones.

Draakon
2010-11-17, 06:21
One manned, two manned, three manned, it doesn't matter. Changing how much people you need in a AAV does not stop that story from ever happening again. Having more people needed in a AAV takes away people from the frontline. And in the case of that story you told, it's the german team's own fault for not getting rid of that AA threat. Servers where I have played and seen teamwork, as soon as something like that starts to happen, the AAV itself is like a rabbit in a wolf pack.

Oddsodz
2010-11-17, 07:23
Well I shall say no more on the matter. The point has been made. If you can't see the point. That's not my fault. If some of you feel that a one man tank jet helo troop killing machine that needs no teamwork to use in the game. Then so be it. I Myself feel it is a just not right. And needs to be changed.

Tim270
2010-11-17, 09:26
Maybe a class system of AAV's could be made? A 'heavy' one such as Tunguska etc that are kinda op with one guy that require 2 man and a light class such as the Gaskin that only requires 1.

Alex6714
2010-11-17, 10:16
I think taking people of the front is not a problem. Let them choose. And anyway, treat the AAV like an IFV, except instead of TOWs it has AA missiles. Remove one tank or IFV from the map and then the crew that would take that, can take the AAV instead and there is no loss of people. I don?t know why 4 AAVs are needed anyway, if they were 2 manned you can just halve it to 2 and not lose any infantry either.

Then if your team decides its more important to have the 2 extra guys on foot with them than in an AAV to protect them, its their loss/or gain.

Kain888
2010-11-17, 13:22
I think taking people of the front is not a problem. Let them choose. And anyway, treat the AAV like an IFV, except instead of TOWs it has AA missiles. Remove one tank or IFV from the map and then the crew that would take that, can take the AAV instead and there is no loss of people. I don?t know why 4 AAVs are needed anyway, if they were 2 manned you can just halve it to 2 and not lose any infantry either.

QFT!

This sums this up very nicely.

Mongolian_dude
2010-11-17, 21:31
I Think you would be proved wrong on the point about not seeing to may players use the Anti aircraft vehicles. The only one I don't see much use from players is the MEC Gaskin. We all know why. It has not got that extra gun to shot troops with. I See the Tunguska and Avenger used all the time. Including my self. I See that the MEC Gaskin gets used only by pilots that have just been shot down and want revenge. But the rest all get used in my experience.

You point about pulling more infantry away from the front is not a very good line. When the DEVs keep on adding new vehicles or deployable's like Mortars that in themselves take troops away from the front. Remember. You don't just have to cap a flag. You have to hold it also. And there are many ways to do just that. That is the joy or PR. So many ways to achieve the same goal. So yes. Making the Anti aircraft vehicle a 2 man job may take extra troops from the infantry pool. But if all that infantry pool is getting hammered by CAS. You as a team should have to make the choice. Man up the Anti aircraft vehicle or take cover. The answer should not be bring on the all powerful 1 man tank killing jet blowing Anti aircraft vehicle that needs no skill or teamwork to operate.


I agree that one more man is not a huge amount to ask, but comparing that change to AAVs with the introduction of mortars is, I feel, not a very good comparison.
Mortars are much more justifiable in terms of manpower as they introduce a new element to PR and arguably revolutionised battle dynamics (you now no longer have to wait half an hour to make an attempt at breaking your enemy's almost-impenetrable defence with area attack. Incentives for mobility).

Adding a single man to crew an AAV will quite obviously have a less dramatic effect on battle dynamics. Alex does make a good point about a team's choice though.


...mongol...

Imchicken1
2010-11-17, 23:10
Maybe a class system of AAV's could be made? A 'heavy' one such as Tunguska etc that are kinda op with one guy that require 2 man and a light class such as the Gaskin that only requires 1.

I like it. AAV's with only missles (Gaskin, MTLB one, etc) could be one manned, as they only have the missles, while the ones with guns as well (Tunguska, Chinese variant of the tunguska) require 2 men. The missle AAV's can only damage aircraft, while they pose no threat to ground forces unless they come within a very close range. The gun AAV's can pretty much own anything, in the ground and in the air. They get zoom, plus some rapid fire guns

It is silly that AAV's can be one manned though

Wispit
2010-11-18, 01:01
How does making it 2 manned change the possibilty of a "base raping raping megamachicne" stop it from happening again. If its dual crewed, not only does th gunner have no warm up time cose he will be constantly manning the vehicle, He will have a driver able to move him should they warrant to much attention.
Thats how they become highly deadly, even just the AA only ones, because it is mobile, it wont be gauranteed to be in the same spot, so you can be seen run off and hide somewhere else while the entire time the gunner can scan the air. Making it much more deadly. especially if the other team never knew it was about.

Bazul14
2010-11-18, 01:11
Exactly. And everyone should spawn somewhere else, get a HAT/LAT, own the AAV then do whatever they want.

Wh33lman
2010-11-19, 22:22
How does making it 2 manned change the possibilty of a "base raping raping megamachicne" stop it from happening again.

the one will corrupt before the many.

first, you have to have 2 players willing to risk a ban and baserape.
second, with the driver in the vehicle, it shows up on the map. an admin spots them, they're going to be gone.

it might not stop it, but its definatly going to slow it down.

and mongol, your worried about taking more people off the battlefield? the DEVs just implemented mortars, thats 6 people off the frontlines, whats 2 more?

and were assumeing a optimum 32v32 match. 4 guys off either side is still going to make it even.

Bad&Mad
2010-11-22, 09:57
Agree with Oddsodz.
Asked myself same questions many many times, and couldnt find the answer..
AAV must be 2-manned, like the other special vehicles.

Mora
2010-11-22, 12:06
Why not just remove them all. Problem solved! There is already a lot off AA on the maps.

eztonia
2010-11-22, 12:13
Armoured assault can be very hard without AAVs. I hate Iron eagle bc IDF doesnt have a AAV and I get owned by havocs bit too often.

Bazul14
2010-11-23, 06:38
the one will corrupt before the many.

first, you have to have 2 players willing to risk a ban and baserape.
second, with the driver in the vehicle, it shows up on the map. an admin spots them, they're going to be gone.

it might not stop it, but its definatly going to slow it down.

and mongol, your worried about taking more people off the battlefield? the DEVs just implemented mortars, thats 6 people off the frontlines, whats 2 more?

and were assumeing a optimum 32v32 match. 4 guys off either side is still going to make it even.



I think that we should also require logitrucks to be 2 manned. You join, get in a squad, take AA kit, steal a INF logi with 4 ammo crates and solo it near the enemy main. There you can camp for jets and helis, and almost nobody will find you. We assume that the enemy team is "special" and that the admins are either drunk, absent or on crack. There, with the AA kit you can camp the enemy base and get all the kills u want if you hide when you need to.



The AAVs would use someone that could have a lot more fun than driving a lightly armored vehicle over the map. Common, driving an AAV is not fun, its worse than driving a tank. At least on a tank you live a while, have some zoom and can look around with thermals. On an AAV you have none, and getting another person to join the squad deaths sucks. I mean common, sometimes tank squads get wiped out. It's not impossible. The mortars are at least kind of fun, because there are something new and you actually have a major impact on the gameplay. Also, they don't need 6 people, but rather 4( the Sqld can spot and fire it, the rest of the sqlds can spot and the commander, it's a lot more usefull)
Also, on most servers, even NoobCore, the admins pay some attention to base rape, and usually stop it before it affects gameplay. If the admins are present, the impact of that soloed AAV is either small or inexistent. Tadaaa.

Truism
2010-11-23, 08:19
All the vehicles should be single crewable, just with limitations. Like not being able to fire and maneuvre.

AA is fine being single crewed and it's a waste of someone's time and a player having a driver afking while someone plays GBAD.

Jonathan_Archer_nx01
2010-11-30, 13:51
I disagree. AA vehicles are supposed to be defensive units and unless you pay somebody to do it, nobody is going to volunteer a driver. How much fun is that? Sitting in a vehicle and do nothing all day long?

Baserape however, needs to be treated alternatively. With a script kicking players who baserape - it's as simple as that.

dtacs
2010-11-30, 14:05
The Tunguska, since its an infantry rape machine, should be 2 manned. Every other AA should require just a single, its unrealistic, but the extra person on the ground/in a tank etc. is more beneficial to the team.

Nebsif
2010-11-30, 14:12
^ Agree
Gunning+Driving AA is wtf boring enough, but only driving one is just /wrists...

mat552
2010-11-30, 14:25
I'd like to point out that the tunguska may be a rape machine, but it sounds like one, and deploys like a tank.

The Avenger Humvee on the other hand, sounds like a normal light vehicle until it rolls up and dumps 200 rounds of .50 into you and your squad, with a few wildly aimed missiles to boot. And then flees the scene before anyone can show up to deal with it.

Alex6714
2010-11-30, 18:51
So its not ok if it rapes infantry but it is if it rapes aircraft?

Grizzly
2010-11-30, 19:24
I Have myself killed with the Brit Stormer Anti aircraft vehicle killed 1 MEC Havoc CAS-HELO, 1 MEC Gopher + 1 MEC BMP and 1 MEC Tank before I ran out of ammo and had to go and rearm. This was down to the fact we was crewed up as a driver and a gunner. So we could move and hide. This would be harder to do as a solo/single setter. But it would be doable.

Don't you completely invalidate your point with that statement? Make it two man and the same thing will happen, yes you stated that but YOU already do/have done it. Sounds to me you had a bad day and then came home to PR and then got the short end of the stick. S**t happens man get use to it.

Oddsodz
2010-11-30, 21:14
Don't you completely invalidate your point with that statement? Make it two man and the same thing will happen, yes you stated that but YOU already do/have done it. Sounds to me you had a bad day and then came home to PR and then got the short end of the stick. S**t happens man get use to it.

The point is it would take 2 players to agree go base raping. One player on his/her own can do it. But making it 2 man job means making it harder for him/her to do so own there own. Plus admins would be able to find them on the map and deal with it before it becomes an issue.

I Will say it again as it looks like the point has been lost.

Base raping issues aside (remember that some server don't have that rule). The amount of teamwork needed to use the Anti aircraft vehicle is zero. Yet it has the power to kill a tank. This is wrong. Just today I saw an US Army Anti aircraft vehicle Avenger kill a tank (it may have been damaged before the the Anti aircraft vehicle hit it, But I did not see that). This is a lot of fire power at the hands of just one player. It's armored. Making it require a LAT or more to kill it (yes I know you can fozz/C4/mine it if you can get close). For such a thing to have this much power and need zero teamwork to use/kill is just plan wrong. Everything else in PR needs teamwork to be used. Why should the Anti aircraft vehicle be any different? Some of you say it would take away players from other jobs/roles on the battle field. Fine. Make it have 1 single seat. And reduce it's ammo count to just 2 rockets. Then it can still fill the role of an Anti aircraft vehicle. But it can't go around killing tanks and troops to it's hearts content.

Nebsif
2010-12-01, 04:08
How can an AAV kill a tank? spam missiles and hope they hit somewhere around it or wut? Tank crew must be wtfubernub..

Grizzly
2010-12-01, 06:12
The point is it would take 2 players to agree go base raping. One player on his/her own can do it. But making it 2 man job means making it harder for him/her to do so own there own. Plus admins would be able to find them on the map and deal with it before it becomes an issue.

I Will say it again as it looks like the point has been lost.

Base raping issues aside (remember that some server don't have that rule). The amount of teamwork needed to use the Anti aircraft vehicle is zero. Yet it has the power to kill a tank. This is wrong. Just today I saw an US Army Anti aircraft vehicle Avenger kill a tank (it may have been damaged before the the Anti aircraft vehicle hit it, But I did not see that). This is a lot of fire power at the hands of just one player. It's armored. Making it require a LAT or more to kill it (yes I know you can fozz/C4/mine it if you can get close). For such a thing to have this much power and need zero teamwork to use/kill is just plan wrong. Everything else in PR needs teamwork to be used. Why should the Anti aircraft vehicle be any different? Some of you say it would take away players from other jobs/roles on the battle field. Fine. Make it have 1 single seat. And reduce it's ammo count to just 2 rockets. Then it can still fill the role of an Anti aircraft vehicle. But it can't go around killing tanks and troops to it's hearts content.

So if used properly you would rather have two players waiting around doing almost nothing instead of one...

Also this reminds me of an old quote on here that "Players are hard coded". No matter what you do or how you do it, jackasses will be jackasses and find a way to screw it up.

Oddsodz
2010-12-01, 17:39
So if used properly you would rather have two players waiting around doing almost nothing instead of one...

If you and your team want protection from the sky's. YES. Teamwork should always trump lone wolf.

Maverick
2010-12-23, 19:38
I disagree. AA vehicles are supposed to be defensive units and unless you pay somebody to do it, nobody is going to volunteer a driver. How much fun is that? Sitting in a vehicle and do nothing all day long?

Baserape however, needs to be treated alternatively. With a script kicking players who baserape - it's as simple as that.

Sorry to maybe-necro this thread, but VBF2 has this script. Auto Admin has it to where it knows when someone baserapes, rams, commits teamklling, a whole lot of really interesting features.

Dev1200
2010-12-23, 20:38
tl;dr


Sorry oddsoddz, but I'm sure they'll fix this :P Perhaps they have them like how it is now so they are mobile AA positions, like the emplacements are?

Stealthgato
2011-01-21, 00:46
The Stormer, SA-13 Gopher and SA-9 Gaskin should remain able to be 1-manned, they don't have any armament other than anti-aircraft missiles.

Oddsodz
2011-01-21, 15:47
lol, did you not read the whole thread? They can kill tanks even when one manned.

Rudd
2011-01-21, 15:53
lol, did you not read the whole thread? They can kill tanks even when one manned.

not reliably, and not if a tanker is actually looking at his computer screen instead of arguing with his mother about coming down for dinner....

Oddsodz
2011-01-21, 15:58
It is what it is, They can kill tanks, troops, aircraft. All that power in one players hands is to much. Even more so when everything else armored has to be 2 manned.

Draakon
2011-01-21, 16:27
lol, did you not read the whole thread? They can kill tanks even when one manned.

True, it can be done. AFAIK, it's even possible IRL. But that does not mean nerf the AAV or something(and no, I am not talking solely about the guns, since they don't do a crap. I am talking about missiles). It's the tank crews own fault for letting that happen.

Why take away a gold medal when you clearly won the first podium position?

illidur
2011-01-23, 16:09
i can see the reason for having 1 person aa.(only takes 1 person to fly a jet) but them turning invisible on the map makes it a pain to admin baseraping. on the other side who wants to sit in a driver seat while ur friend stares at the sky?

W4lt3r89
2011-02-16, 11:14
i can see the reason for having 1 person aa.(only takes 1 person to fly a jet) but them turning invisible on the map makes it a pain to admin baseraping. on the other side who wants to sit in a driver seat while ur friend stares at the sky?

Pretty much same in bomber jets. Who wants to sit in the pilot seat when friend is staring in the bomber's FLIR or who wants to sit in APC/Tank driver seat while friend watches the buildings / bushes / hills...

It was already stated earlier on first page that to use a jet effectively, it requires help from the people on the ground in the form of lasering and informing the jet on the whereabouts of enemy units.

AA does not require this right now. You can just ride one to random part of the map and just look in the sky to take down an asset from the enemy that requires coordination to be used effectively in a unit that doesn't require such thing.

Bob of Mage
2011-02-23, 19:22
In real life does an AAV driver have to stay at the wheel when it's in use like a tank? I would think that if the AAV stops to guard a location the driver can get out and stretch his legs, or something like helping to reload the weapons. The real question that hasn't been answered is how the AAVs are used in real life. If they are used like artillery, than leave like it is, if not than change it.

ShockUnitBlack
2011-03-02, 02:02
I support two men simply 'cause that's how it is in real-life and there's the distinct possibility of some noob stealing the vehicle so he can get to some vantage point with his sniper kit, in which case the team loses a valuable asset.

AAA, as suggested by Mongol, doesn't really work as I believe the only exclusively AAA vehicle in any sort of relevant use currently is the ZPU-23-4 (the 57-2 could be used by the Militia though). You got all sorts of vehicles like the Tunguska that have a mix of guns and missiles, but then you have missiles too and all the aforementioned problems that go along with that. To summarize, that means unless you want to give the US the Sergeant York or an M113 with a Vulcan - which either never were or are no longer in use - that isn't going to work.

Also, I'm fairly certain that the Tunguska and other "heavy" AA vehicles are far too powerful to be in PR and be balanced at the same time.

General Dragosh
2011-03-02, 11:33
Also, I'm fairly certain that the Tunguska and other "heavy" AA vehicles are far too powerful to be in PR and be balanced at the same time.

By this statement, the attack helicopters are too powerfull as well to be in PR and be balanced at the same time.

Im being an ass right now, but come on

My logic (real life logic ) :

1. Pilots DO NOT fly in AA territory, if they do they are either stuped or idiots
2. No sane Pilot in RL would fly in a AA territory, because the AA is Owerpowered of course
3. ( Bonus joke )Heli pilot should shit his pants if he flyes in AA territory

But i am anoyed how weak the AA is, yes i said its weak (because i can xD)

Anyway, hmm tough thing to say, solo vs 2man is a tough choice here but i think it should be like this

Light Mobile AA = Should be able to be soloed (and has 2 or multiple seats)
Heavy Mobile AA = Should be 2 maned (has also more than 2 seats if the vehicle allows it)

That would make sense, because the BRDM AA for example has only missles and cant missuse the weapon to shoot infantry, the Avenger on the other hand has a 50 cal and can abuse it to shoot infantry, but thats how you would use these weapons in real life anyway

But the Heavy Mobile AA should be 2 maned thats for sure, and it should counter any helicopter as well + i wished it had a longer lock range

Oddsodz
2011-03-02, 18:47
That would make sense, because the BRDM AA for example has only missles and cant missuse the weapon to shoot infantry

Want to bet on that?

I Have used it just to do that very thing. With great success.

TheComedian
2011-03-02, 18:56
+ i wished it had a longer lock range

And increase the 400m difference between a laser lock and AA lock? Make it even more unbalanced?

Bringerof_D
2011-03-02, 19:11
And increase the 400m difference between a laser lock and AA lock? Make it even more unbalanced?

i cant be sure about the balance but an AA lock being farther than a laser lock makes sense to me. An AA lock tends to be in this case a radar lock which means as long as there's nothing in the way it can reach quite a distance. A Laser lock however requires that the aircraft in question be within a certain range so that the laser has not dissipated by refraction in the atmosphere. remember that in order to mark a target the laser must reach the target then get back to you so assuming you are the spotter situated 200m from the target the laser has to travel 400m in order for you to lock. same rule applies for the aircraft and i assume clouds and dust would make this even harder. a cold dry tundra being the best conditions.

General Dragosh
2011-03-03, 11:04
And increase the 400m difference between a laser lock and AA lock? Make it even more unbalanced?

You know its really irritating when hueys just fly arround like wasps and bees and yet you never seem to be able to kill them, thats irritating, thats beacause i find it that the AA is really weak + the range is really not enough for me, pilots should fear the AA and not "Ima gona kill you first, cause the AA cant hit me for the shitz" =P

Want to bet on that?

I Have used it just to do that very thing. With great success.

Well i ment it more like this -> Wasting BRDM AA missles on infantry is mostly just wasting if compared to the avenger where it has a 50 cal and it uses that to kill infantry

I mean you can just as crash a plane to kill someone, im just saying it would be a waste if you did that xD

+ Ive read that the Strela has 2 fiering modes for helicopters and airplanes, that would be awesome to implement