|
Post by Willow on Mar 16, 2010 8:35:35 GMT -5
As I was informed that any games from here on out will require the main gun to be a LAW (and still allow paintguns as secondary weapons), I want to ensure what's in the GSRP is still correct:
Paintguns inside of Tanks are allowed a FPS of up to 250fps.
Also, at Hamburger Hill there was an epic elimination of the SoVa PUG as Waldo was piloting it on the spools field, I'm sure most remember hearing about the "bunkering of the PUG".
As awesome as that was (I witnessed it), I'm curious how one bunkers a tank exactly, without violating the safety barrier?
From where I was, about 50' to the rear/side of the PUG, I saw a player bunker-slide on the tapeline (where the PUG was, about 10' behind a spool on the tapeline), next to the spool and toward the tank.
I'm not sure if a rocket hit the tank or the spool (if it hit the spool, the tank wouldn't be eliminated, GSRP requires a direct hit), I didn't see the actual 'elimination' but what I did see was the player stand up next to the PUG after the slide.
So, kinda curious about this since.. he advanced into the tank. Not that I'm implying he meant to slide that far, I'm just voicing what I witnessed.
|
|
|
Post by kouza on Mar 16, 2010 10:36:21 GMT -5
The rules state that the Tank Must have a main gun, and redirects you above for more information on the Main Gun. It says that the tank Must have a Main Gun that shoots at a MAX 230 FPS. With that said it does not Specify that this must be a Law Launcher, just that it cannot shoot over 230 FPS. In theory that would mean that your main gun could be a marker but, that it would have to shoot under 230 FPS or, you could have a "Fake" main gun that does not fire, and the non firing main gun would not exceed the 230 FPS limit.
(That would be what I take from the rules any way I could be wrong.)
|
|
|
Post by mntlhazrd on Mar 16, 2010 11:02:20 GMT -5
In reference to the main gun for a tank Kouza has for the most part hit it dead on. A tank needs to have a designated main gun and the main gun may shoot no more than 230 FPS. To give a heads up there are plans to amend that the designated main gun must be a functional LAW launcher.
As for the "PUG bunker" if it was witnessed by a referee the player acting as the aggressor would have been pulled. True a direct hit is needed to eliminate a PUG but with the way the rules are now it is possible for a tank or PUG to use a bunker as cover. If a tank or PUG is in fact effectively using a bunker as cover and within 10ft of it i would fall back onto the rule that those who are actively using the bunker and within 10ft of it would be elminated.
|
|
|
Post by Willow on Mar 16, 2010 11:31:43 GMT -5
Kouza, yeah with a paintgun as the main gun it would have to be under 230--any "main gun" is limited to 230. I made sure my marker was under 230 that day (I set it to 200, the most I ever saw it spike on my first shot was 228) as I knew I'd be using it in the PUG and just wanted to be safe (regulators spike sometimes, better safe than sorry). William, I don't know if a ref witnessed it or not, Waldo erred on the safe side of things and went ahead and called himself out, so I'm presuming it was a direct rocket hit as he couldn't have known if it hit a bunker. Aside from that, the only other thing I know is I saw the demo player stand up near the tank (within arm's reach). It's not a huge deal being a PUG, but the safety limit still needs to be maintained for all fairness, even though the PUG won't run over someone and hurt them (unless I fall over like at Hamburger Hill haha). That's why I waited until after the game to mention it, kept the game going smoothly and everyone was having fun. I would, politely and professionally of course, argue against calling a tank out if near a bunker and a rocket hits it--even if I didn't have a PUG--for a few reasons. It's extremely unfair to the tank, it's going to cause more clashing/confusion on field, which in turn will cause more players yelling at/for refs, and with a field as well-layed-out with bunkers as SplatBrothers, it adds crippling points to the tank. Case in point, I could literally stand in the village and knock the Social Hazard tank out before it even makes it around the SplatHouse. Or, hit a bunker next to the tank or hit the tank from a distance--allowing me more targets (some potentially easier to hit than the tank)--just because the tank is near the bunker. A good example of this would be the tank on the road near Fort Poyer. It can't help but be within 10' of all of the bunkers (the halfpipes, tires, etc). I wouldn't even have to aim, I could just point and click and by "bunker" rule, the tank would be out. A real-life example of this would be near the end of Bastogne, when the SH tank was parked just on the other side of the big half-pipe. I came tank-hunting from the top of the ravine. I had no shot on it due to the half-pipe, so I had to work my way through the woods. Kouza saw me, and we got into this epic, forever-memorable, fight for our "lives". He tried gunning me down, I was diving between trees. I eventually took a diving shot at the tank, around the half-pipe. It was awesome. All of that would end up being tossed out the window with me standing atop the Ravine, hitting the half-pipe, and keep on going. That really diminishes gameplay and the fun factor of a tank. It also goes against GSRP ruling, which allows for Tanks to be near bunkers and structures but not within 20' other vehicles or players. Finally, it would cause some consternation on the field amidst players. Why? Because you'll get the demo guy who said, he hit the bunker, the tank should be out. The tank had no idea the bunker was hit, and is raking the demo player and his friends with paintballs. Finally, a ref is either going to call both out or say the shot didn't count. While tailoring some rules to make sure gameplay is fun for everyone, and safe, I don't feel allowing vehicles to be knocked out near a bunker would do anything other than lessen gameplay. It's already easy-enough to hit a tank which has spent several minutes slowly, safely, working its way through the roads, but to give it chokeholds at every point just seems a bit much. This is my humble opinion, not representative of anything official from my team. I just wanted to share my ideas on it.
|
|
|
Post by The Corndog on Mar 16, 2010 12:43:15 GMT -5
You know Willow...every time you speak....I gain a little more respect for you. You have very good points and you lay them out logically. I will say...the story I heard the demo was an aggressor...I questioned it myself when I heard about it. But it sounded good regardless. As far as the rule goes for the tank or pug having a "main gun" this gets tricky cause for instance If I want to replicate the M32 or Mark 1 it's not going to have a "main gun" that would fit in your definition. Likewise I don't know what they are calling it but this tank would get pushed to the side as well... earthhopenetwork.net/police_tank_2.jpgNow that is only looking at the idea that there isn't a "main gun" at all. If we look at the idea of saying a tank MUST have a "main gun" then we have to worry about those tanks with multiple laws in them on them around them. It begins to open up doors that yes...I would go through given the need to do so. I think by making a ruling that a pug or tank MUST have a LAW as a main gun then you are going to number one limit what's available and two open some doors for me to play in. I mean, why is it necessary to make a rule like that? What was the train of thought that lead to it? Why does a tank have to have a LAW to be a tank? What about the APC or supply tanks? What about the people that want to build replicas of the APC and use them for that function? BTW...one argument that I would use and will use if I have to during the game...if you say that the tank must have a main gun that shoots less than the 230fps...what happens if the LAW on the tank malfunctions and stops working? Cause now it doesn't have a LAW that will shoot under 230 cause it won't shoot at all...do you tell the guys that spent the time to bring it to the field that they are no longer allowed to use? They can't just fire their markers out the side of the tank? Sorry for the jumpy nature of this post...Mountain Dew is REALLY kicking in right now!!! But for now...I digress.....
|
|
|
Post by The Corndog on Mar 16, 2010 12:46:07 GMT -5
BTW...whatever you do...please make sure that ALL rules applied to tanks and pugs are in black and white in the GSRP. You don't want someone spending the money and then traveling to the field only to find out they can't use it because of some rule that wasn't listed or changed at the player briefing. The tank rules aren't like rules for spies...they can't just be turned out because the tank rules will cost the player his money. Just a thought...
|
|
|
Post by The Corndog on Mar 16, 2010 14:49:43 GMT -5
also the Stryker Transport(does have a machine gun on top though) and just thought I would throw this one out there...you are then saying that the tank Spec Ops made is not legit either...
again...I digress...
|
|
|
Post by mntlhazrd on Mar 16, 2010 15:59:43 GMT -5
I agree Corndog that Willow does present some good debates. In regards to the main gun rule is that last discussed there were plans to amend them. Until there is an amendment in black and white then i will uphold the current ruling. Overall i agree with you Willow in regards to tanks and bunkers and it boils down to individual interpretation of the rules. The GSRP states that PLAYERS within a 10' radius of a bunker are elminated when it is hit by a LAW. The way i see it is that while it may be a tank/pug behind a bunker it is a player inside that tank/pug behind that bunker. As demonstrated from earlier discussion of tank rules is that you would like for the referees to uphold what is in black and white and disregard what isnt in black and white. At this time these are my thoughts but they will be discussed later with staff for possible changes to clarify the rulings.
|
|
|
Post by The Corndog on Mar 16, 2010 16:03:37 GMT -5
the idea that a PLAYER is inside the pug behind the bunker and a law to the bunker takes out the player can not hold up. If that is to hold up then Willow's pug has to be changed...because a defined hit with a paintball marker to the legs of Willow would take him out because he is still a PLAYER inside the pug. Thus negating the rule that a DIRECT HIT with a LAW is what takes out a PUG or tank.
|
|
saywhat
High Dollar Walk On
Posts: 44
|
Post by saywhat on Mar 16, 2010 16:31:37 GMT -5
Just get rid of tanks.
|
|
|
Post by The Corndog on Mar 16, 2010 17:10:44 GMT -5
so...with the new rules...does that mean if I make a Stryker that I have to change what it really looks like in order for it to pass inspection...because it is suppose to have a LAW as a main gun by the rules...but also in the rules it states that the tank must appear as if it were the real military vehicle...The Stryker doesn't have a cannon on it...therefore one rule infringes on the other. How do we resolve which rule takes precedence?
|
|
|
Post by Ronn on Mar 16, 2010 17:12:47 GMT -5
Sigh.
The rules do not infringe. No one said you had to build a stryker, but if you do, it's gotta have a main gun.
|
|
|
Post by mntlhazrd on Mar 16, 2010 17:13:46 GMT -5
Corndog, currently players within a tank are not eliminated by paintballs as they are consindered protected by the tank which nullifies your argument about Willow getting his legs shot up. Second as i looked over the GSRP it says that a tank/pug could only be eliminated by a LAW rocket or a satchel and it does not state that it has to be a direct hit from a LAW.
|
|
|
Post by The Corndog on Mar 16, 2010 17:19:41 GMT -5
SRPLs, PACs & LAWs: One impact from a Nerf™ Round eliminates the vehicle.
now we have to argue what defines impact? I mean looks pretty self explanitory to me...
dictionary.com says im·pact (ĭm'pākt') n. 1. The striking of one body against another; collision. See Synonyms at collision.n
therefore by definition the nerfie must impact or hit the tank itself
|
|
|
Post by Ronn on Mar 16, 2010 17:23:03 GMT -5
Your logic is wrong.
"SRPLs, PACs & LAWs: One impact from a Nerf™ Round eliminates the vehicle."
That is clearly ONE way to eliminate a vehicle. That quote does not say nor imply that it is the ONLY way to eliminate the vehicle.
|
|