quote from Nathans web site:
"A special note: one of the bugs fixed is the infinite flying bug present in BZ2 1.0 - 1.2. This was removed because it is considered to be a bug by those of us who worked on BZ2 from the beginning. It is not due to complaints from "newbies" or the like. Certain people certainly feel strongly about this. Fine. Your feelings are not an argument. Whining about this will not change anything-- we've heard such complaints for years, and your comments will only serve to harden our resolve in this. If you still think you must comment, see here."
I was just wondering, has bz2 a special meaning, is it supposed to give a message out to the world? Or is it a 'work of my life', that everything has to be perfect?
I get the feeling that the people who worked on the patch cared too much about the original intention (deeper meanings?) of the game, rather than caring about the gaming experiance..
If you teach a newer player how to fly, or hover, he'll love you for the rest of his gaming career (unless you really mess up).. They like it, the vets like it, the intermediates like it, the only ones who dont , are people who make up 5% of the actual gaming community (not including several exceptions from the above named groups).
Is this (bz2) about the fun of the (hardcore) players, or the fun of people who play far less/not??
you tell me
____
edit:
btw, dont get me wrong, it's really cool that you guys do all this, I'ts not like I think you all did a bad thing... I mean I'll be up for a game of 1.3 whenever you invite me, but I'm just curious about who it's made for, players or none-players..
Taboo :oops:
*sigh*
It's probably impossible to give an explanation or reason that will make the hurt go away for some people, but I keep trying...
Thanks for a civil post, btw, it's appreciated.
:)
There are a few other 'basics' for BZ2 that were NOT open to change. The biggest of these for me was the Satellite View. Why not make it just like an RTS game would be, to help pull in the RTS players as Commanders? Why this funky 'only see what's targeted' stuff? It's not even true Fog of War...
Nope. Wil was adamant about how it should work, so it's not a thing we can/should change with 1.3 even though it wouldn't have taken much to do.
See? Some parts of the game are a certain way to give the game it's 'flavor'. 'Infinite Hovering' was never an intended use of the Tanks. Mods can give you it back (pretty much) if it's something you absolutely can't live without, but it's not part of the basics of the game and never was intended to be...
-Av-
Well Avatar, terrain damage was NEVER intended to be in the game, but now it magically appears in 1.3, and it's a bad thing for so many reasons. Flying was there from day one, even in the BZ2 Demo. Flying is fun, and should have never been removed, and is simply NOT a physics bug.
At least flying didn't render many units useless like skiing did in Tribes, but the Tribes devs didn't want to remove something that was never intended, because the community liked it.
Wil was adamant about how it should work, so it's not a thing we can/should change with 1.3 even though it wouldn't have taken much to do.
[2 cents] IMHO it's things like this that made (even just SP) BZ2 less accessible to a lot of potential players, even BZ1 players. Loss of "Hunt" command is another one (though that one is back for modders now, hooray for 1.3). "Features" like this do nought for the game except add unneeded micromanagement when you should be building and fighting. Team strat and MPI are obviously different beasts but if you've got to command and thug at the same time, on a decent sized map things can get very tricky and require player to do stuff (like driving a few km back to base to tell a unit to do its job) that isn't "fun".
Units should be able to patrol if not actually hunt - they presumably have trained and qualified (if not top-gun) pilots driving them and all units have radar maps.
Service trucks should heal whatever is damaged, that's their reason for being there.
Satellites should be able to see the whole battlefield unless jammed, else why go to the trouble of launching one. BZ1 system was much better - access sat view from your tank but stand out on radar like dog balls as a consequence. BZ2 system is a step backwards.
It's near impossible to look after your base when you are off leading an assault force - you just gotta build lotsa GT's and turrets and hope they can hold till you get back, or else get a builder out to put up a relay at your staging point. At least now in 1.3 u can ferry them out on a tug...
It always seemed to me that since in BZ2 it is MUCH more difficult to control all your forces than in a traditional RTS, it should be easier to get a holistic view of the battle and your units should be smarter and more self motivated to compensate. Not so much that they do your job for you, just enough that you don't eg: have to tell a service truck to heal that burning building it's idly sitiing next to, or so that a group of tanks can go patrol without you having to hold their hands constantly, or be able to at least be told to go get themselves fixed at nearest service when they are red-lined.
[/2 cents]
We still love it tho ;) Luckily, like Av I'm a modder - BZ2 can become what I choose to make it, and 1.3 helps lots with that aspect, even if you aren't a modder. Don't dismiss it just cos it fixes a few lame, easily exploitable bugs, there's so much more to BZ2 than scout flying...
"Flying is fun, and should have never been removed, and is simply NOT a physics bug."
Well see that's one of those little personal prefernces things Mower. If you ask eg: Ken and Nathan and Wil (among others) flying is lame, should never have been there in the first place and IS a physics bug. I'll probably play a lot more MP now it's gone - not that I can't do it, just that I'm not into exploiting bugs in order to win.
It's always surprised me that in such a uniquely immersive and rich game (despite its flaws) that is based on action and command and strategy, so many of you "vets" seem to cherish such a lame ass tactic as hovering over a base, chaingunning it to death with total impunity. It's like you are being deprived of your only way of winning or something.
If scouts are really sluggish now that probably needs looking at - but reversing into the sky ass first so u can kill anything below you is a weird way to float your boat, and a waste of the potential of BZ2.
It is not a physics bug, the physics are correct according to the inverse square law. Learn some Physics Slaor.
Service trucks should not, and were never meant to automonously heal a whole base. I think it is appropriate for them to automously heal combat units (expecially if they are told to follow them).
I have talked to George, Ken, wiL, Brad and Nathan on many aspects of this game (played BZ/BZ2 with every one of them too). Yes they have opinions, and they are not gods.
Hover bombing bases is lame, not very effective, and easily countered. You paint with a broad brush with you LAME characterizations.
Ah here we go again.
The inverse square law implies that scouts should be able to reverse into the sky thrusters first?? Yeah OK.
Service trucks, whatever, it's an opinion that no-one is requiring you to share - and from prior experience you should know that I scarcely give a rats whether you happen to agree or not. If you don't like competent service trucks probly best to skip Epic.
I've talked to Ken et al also Mower, and yes they aren't gods. But they did design the game so I guess their opinions count more as regards what is a bug and what ain't.
Hover bombing bases is lame, not very effective, and easily countered. So why do you all bitch so much that such a lame, ineffective and easily countered bug is removed? Work is being done to make the scout more manouverable for you all, so what's the problem?
Risa, there is no deeper meaning implied or intended. All it means is that aircraft fly, hovercraft do not. Sure, hovercraft can catch some air, but they are not meant to hover like a helicopter. It is a bug which produced a very lame tactic which ruined the game for many and is now being removed, as well it should be.
As for the satellite view, try using the Scout's radar to reveal enemy units. Use Scouts like they were intended and place them around the map to use their enhanced radar to reveal enemy units in satellite view. I do it all the time and it works like a charm. I can see the entire enemy base from across the map.
As for seeing the base while you are away, I just select the Recycler or Factory and swivel. Place the Rec and Factory apart so that you can see the entire base. Also, I build Relay Bunkers near my pools so i can just hop in and update my base.
As for micomanaging the base, hand off command to someone who is in base so they can repair/build things. Also, there are new Service Trucks/Healers in the new Recs/Mats which will heal anything if you choose to make them.
Good points all Red - guess I just like dogfighting more than unit micromanagement. Plus my current little side project makes moving builders and driving back to base all the time both a bit more involved, so I'm always looking at ways to compensate. 1.3 gives me a few options to this end, I love it so far.
Oh my goodness, I royally suck at dogfighting. Probably why i try to spend so much time in base. :-}
Hey, have you guys tried the new DM with Bots and the sliding damage multiplyer yet? Set it at 10% and you can practice all day. (probably what I should do more of in the future).
Yes the inverse square law does indeed imply that Slaor, if the hovering effect is a generated field, which there is every indication that it is. The inverse square law applies to fields. You know the moon stays in the Earth's orbit by this little thing called gravititional field, and the moon is much farther than 30m away.
Just because I think hover bombing is not very effective or easily countered, doesn't mean that flying is fun or good for other purposes (like escape). Good pilots of fighter jets can make them do things that they were not specifically designed to do.
Hate to clue you in Slaor, but I was in on the development of BZ2 long before Nathan was. Ask Avatar who the first person he ever even hear describe Team Strategy, or who the guy was who was had the concept of Team Strategy way back in the original BZ (even was developing a map with AV called Team Fortress). So don't start name-dropping with me.
I can live without infinite flying in BZ2, but it's a programmers preference, not a physics bug.
Quote from: MowerManIt is not a physics bug, the physics are correct according to the inverse square law. Learn some Physics Slaor.
That implies a very weak gravitational field and overdesigned reverse thrusters. Based on the graphics and the game's backstory, I don't think you can start assuming that the reverse thrusters are anything but rockets, not field effect devices. It just doesn't fit in with the whole paradigm. If the field generators are so great, what the heck are the jump jets for?
You want to fly, play Starfleet.
What kind of blather is that? The reverse/strafe/forward thrusters are all the same technology.
When comparing a planetary mass to the mass of a craft, the field strength would be the same at 30m or 1000m.
Someone needs to learn some math too.
I don't play Starfleet (although I may give it a try once the patch if fully released).
Certain things work much better when pushing against a solid mass(aka, the ground) or a near solid mass(aka, water). Gas doesn't always work for some of this stuff. Take a standard hovercraft, it will go over land and sea, but it can't drive off a cliff and continue to operate.
Yes, that is called "ground effect". BZ2 units do not hover by atmospheric pressure differentials.
At least you made a good valid point CmptrWz!
(flying is not a life or death issue for me... I just like to argue!!! heh heh)
Quote from: MowerMan
When comparing a planetary mass to the mass of a craft, the field strength would be the same at 30m or 1000m.
That is the "blather." If the hover is based on a field generator, then why is flying normally so limited? It wouldn't take much more effort to just "fly" the ship. The jump jets would just change your elevation. Since this is not the case, and you must go through specific techniques to fly the ship using the reverse thrusters, then there is obviously and energy trade-off somewhere. The hover is therefore not a field generator - or at least it has some self-imposed limitations. Flying is therefore utilization of rocket technology, and the reverse thrusters are overdesigned and depend on a low-gravity field.
Someone needs to think like an engineer and what they would do if they had such field generation technology.
1. Do not argue physics with Mower.
2. Sorry Mow, the 'flying'/'hovering' or whatever anyone wants to call it was indeed a bug in the code. That bug was removed and the physics model is now consistant across all units.
That is not to say that you can't DESIGN a unit to hover/fly/whatever. Intended changes to the odf's allow pretty much the same performance that the bug did. It's been done in the Recy variant currently tested in another thread. The vets have their 'hovering' Scouts back that way WITHIN the bounds of the physics engine.
One law you should obey is the law of gravity... :)
3. Mower is older than dirt, and chisled the first ever drawing of a Grizzly Tank on a wall of his cave in France some 1 million years ago. That's why you don't do #1...
:)
-Av-
Not one bit of blather there, it's absolute fact, and you pointing out certian dynamics in a game, does not change real life physics. Gravity does not fall off significantly at 1000m, or even 10,000m.
Jump thrusters are very weak when compared to forward/reverse thrusters. If you sit there an hold your jumt thrusters, it does change your altitude (elevation refers to height of terrain or objects on terrain).
Quote from: MowerManNot one bit of blather there, it's absolute fact, and you pointing out certian dynamics in a game, does not change real life physics. Gravity does not fall off significantly at 1000m, or even 10,000m.
Jump thrusters are very weak when compared to forward/reverse thrusters. If you sit there an hold your jumt thrusters, it does change your altitude (elevation refers to height of terrain or objects on terrain).
I don't think I'm explaining myself well enough. I'm not arguing the fall-off of gravity. I agree with you there. I'm saying that the capabilities that would be available to the ship, if the technology were field generation, don't fit with what the ship is actually capable of doing in the game - even in 1.2. It would be capable of flying better than it does in 1.2. THIS is why it can be called a physics bug. Given the things the ship can do, and can't do, it just doesn't add up.
Quote from: Avatar1. Do not argue physics with Mower.
3. Mower is older than dirt, and chisled the first ever drawing of a Grizzly Tank on a wall of his cave in France some 1 million years ago. That's why you don't do #1...
-Av-
This isn't a physics argument per se. It is a physics vs. engineering argument.
Even if Ken tells me it'a a bug in the code, I would say, "no, it's not". The hover code is modeled on "field effects", and the model is responding properly (whether or not it's 100% accutrate).
If you think about it, if you have a field that counters gravity, you could leave a planet's orbit with very little thrust. Would that be a good design for a terrestial craft... nope! It's not a good thing to lose all your pilots into open space!!! (ha ha).
If you want to say it's a bug in the code, because the designers of the craft never intended for the craft to ba able to leave orbit, well that its probably true...
I'm kinda wondering if the reason all the bz2 vets are into hovering is possibly due to the fact that everyone else got pissed of with the lame tactics and left to play something else . I do indeed know several people personally who feel this way so maybe this sentiment is even more widespread . So to all the vets that have come here saying how they are the only ones keeping this game alive , take time to consider that possibly there may have been even more people playing this game if it weren't for you and your hovering .
I'm not attacking anyone here , just offering a different perspective on things .
I will say this again here.
Technology is perishable anyone who believes in absolutes in programming is shortsighted.
The general public has just as much skill and inginuity as the highest skilled programmer. If you don't think so I can give many examples.
So you can work with the public and watch your efforts grow and inspire or watch them tear your stuff apart and do what they please with it anyway.
Whether or not "hovering" is a bug is irrelevant. If the public wants this they will have it , "bug" or no "Bug", feasible science or not.
I think hover as an option is the best compromise to prevent further hacking and insure all get to have the best of everything.
Quote from: LizardI'm kinda wondering if the reason all the bz2 vets are into hovering is possibly due to the fact that everyone else got pissed of with the lame tactics and left to play something else . I do indeed know several people personally who feel this way so maybe this sentiment is even more widespread . So to all the vets that have come here saying how they are the only ones keeping this game alive , take time to consider that possibly there may have been even more people playing this game if it weren't for you and your hovering .
I'm not attacking anyone here , just offering a different perspective on things .
I was thinking this same thing yesterday. Seems like I recall this same thought came up a couple of years ago. People that like playing strategy lose interest because the hovering turns it into an FPS...something along those lines.
Actually the majority of vet games in the evening are played with no base hover as the rule. Just check all the server messages nightly. It was not necessary to legislate or program morality, they choose this themselves. Unforced morality is the best kind of all.
The only wildly pro hoverers are "vets" who never command, they only thug. A few stints of commanding vs a stronger team of hoverers usually changes their viewpoint, at least with time. Most are too cowardly to ever command a vet game though, so they never learn.
The "H" word is a big fat red herring here. I dont miss the hovering, I miss everything that was taken along *with* the hovering. I thought I would at least get good base defenses as a "compensation" yet the towers are still wobbleable and turrets hoverable.
Did someone say "herring?" :o
Quote from: TimeVirusActually the majority of vet games in the evening are played with no base hover as the rule. Just check all the server messages nightly. It was not necessary to legislate or program morality, they choose this themselves. Unforced morality is the best kind of all.
The only wildly pro hoverers are "vets" who never command, they only thug. A few stints of commanding vs a stronger team of hoverers usually changes their viewpoint, at least with time. Most are too cowardly to ever command a vet game though, so they never learn.
The "H" word is a big fat red herring here. I dont miss the hovering, I miss everything that was taken along *with* the hovering. I thought I would at least get good base defenses as a "compensation" yet the towers are still wobbleable and turrets hoverable.
Ditto.
Quote from: NukeDaddyGiven the things the ship can do, and can't do, it just doesn't add up.
If reality is any sort of guideline at all, we'd have to delete 7/8ths of the elements of BZ2. I know this will come as a shock to some but there *really* (http://www.timedisruptor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2318#2318) is no such thing as biometal.
Quote from: MowerManEven if Ken tells me it'a a bug in the code, I would say, "no, it's not". The hover code is modeled on "field effects", and the model is responding properly (whether or not it's 100% accutrate).
I know better than to try to change your mind once it's set (Mower gives pit bulls 'hanging on' lessons). Let me toss out three things, though, one sortof 'for', one sortof 'against', and one observation.
Against: I fail to see how anything we've seen, or how it relates to RL physics, has any bearing whatsoever on the game engine saying "1+1=3" for some craft. It can be a bug and still look good, because it's a GAME...
:)
For: Biometal craft in the BZ universe hover without fans, jets, or any visible (reactive) propulsion. It's explained by the inherent anti-gravitic properties of biometal, possibly 'shielding' the craft from gravity. I think that your assertion that the hover force of the craft remains constant despite the altitude of the craft, while the attractive force of gravity diminishes according to the inverse square law, is quite correct. Therefore the higher such a craft got the less affected by gravity it would be.
Observation: When I hit "R" (Jump) in a BZ tank I rise up. This is some force being applied upward, wtih no visible effect so it could be a field issue...
When I hit "Forward" (only Forward, not Reverse or Strafe) some ships shoot a Big Feaking Flame out the back of the ship. This looks cool, but is it applying a forward force? Why, then, do some ships NOT have the BFF coming out the back? Does it help? It must, right, or it wouldn't be there... So we must be dealing with a field (Forward for non-BFF ships) AND a newtonian thruster (reaction thrust) when going forward, but field only for Strafe and Reverse.
So, all hovering ships have 'Jump', all have Field-based horizontal motion, and some have reactive thrust for Forward only. In all cases Forward is the stongest (fastest), Reverse is usually second, and Strafe is the weakest, whether there's a reactive thrust in the mix or not.
So exactly why, then, would such craft be able to shoot into orbit in Reverse, when even those with an extra thrust NOT be able to do so going Forward?
I could see a "Tail Stand" achieving such an effect, given that Forward is the strongest force especially in the case of those ships with extra thrusters... but I can't see them going up butt-first the way they do...
:D
-Av-
(I love it when we try to make this stuff work in RL... gives me hope I'll one day be tooling around in a Razor...)
QuoteQuote from: TimeVirusI know this will come as a shock to some but there *really *is no such thing as biometal.
:shock:
:o
:s
:-(
-Av-
TV hit the nail on the head. If "defenses" were hover proof and less "wobbleable" the point would be mute.
Or give me some AA guns for base defense!
I may add that to my first mod. Something like the ones used in "The Wall" map.
Excellent post TV, I'm a little dissapointed that 1.3 turrets seem so weak now. What exactly changed? I remember the day in the private beta where they'd fire right up above themselves...
Actually I rarely hovered at all (even though I was one of the first guys doing it). I was always way more effective on the ground. I agree 100% with TimeVirus (as usual). It was just fun to do once in a while for escape, or just to get to a high point of terrain or to just goof around. If anyone sets some rules to a game and I chose to play in it, I would always abide by the set rules.
Av I'm sure the reverse and strafe are thrust based of some kind, and only the boyancy/hover is a field effect, whether it shows a flame for it or not (some VTOL craft just redirect the forward thrust). Even in imaginary physics, it's difficult to come up with a directional field that would play off of nothing, or gaseous molecules (Newton's third law of course).
if we are changing scout physics might as well change turret angles not that hard with the other odf tweaks going on now.
Two cautions:
1. Don't go nuts with changes without testing testing testing. Did I mention they should be tested? Thoroughly? Try to work that in between testing sessions... ;)
2. Any changes that are to go into 1.3 MUST be accepted by ALL players. That usually means placing them in the Recy variants rather than expecting to see stock ODF's tweaked.
So, it would be nice in the end to see three or four Recy variants selectable depending on skill level of the players. Things should range from the 'easy' Recy emphasizing simplicity and Defense to the 'Veteran' Recy emphasizing individual skill and unit complexity.
In the end it's up to GSH and Ken as to what goes in the 'official' 1.3 patch. The more thoroughly it's all tested, the more efficiently it's laid out, and the less bu!! that accompanies it the better the chance that it'll all go smoothly and become part of the final patch. Anything too offbeat can wait and be the subject of future mods...
-Av-
I love when Mower starts spoutin' off that engeineering Physics stuff...I just stand back and say...man..theres some deep ship I musta slipt though in the '70s.
Now I know whey I can never win at rock-paper-scissors with him...
I also agree with TV that I'd say at LEAST 50% of MP vet games specifically call for "No Hover Base Area"...But that is the 'evolved too" lelvel many players accept and enjoy,,,Again...most of us have evolved to the "hovering as a part of the game....NOT THE ONLY Game" Level..The direction being approached By Aegis and others to make a "Vet Recycler Option" is a very reasonable approach to satisfy all players of the game.
Reminder, much of the elelemts about weapon effectiveness were NOT throughly tested in the closed beta, now IS the time to find out what all those changes to code, AI etc have resulted in...feedback, reasoned game experienced opinions and Concise comments are needed.
Mower..we gotta get togather old Man...Beers on me..
Indeed BZ_FE... indeed! It's been too long!
I changed the turret angles already for the new recycler.
You mean vertical aim? I recall requesting vertical aim on turrets back on Pandi and someone said they did for 1.3. That was 2 years ago. When I got signed on for 1.3 late last year I noticed turrets didn't have the aim straight up (or within a few degrees of vertical). Was this something that happened and then got changed back and now we're going back to vertical??
just give them zeeder DLL...
k a few things
-arent we a lil of topic? :P
-turrets are slow to lock on, easy to defeat, if you fall down (rainbow hover) it won't hit you at all, if you're right above it it wont hit you at all, if you 'sit' on it it will hit you but not enough
-GTs are wobbleable, and also a bit slow to lock on (FE GTs are mich bettter)
-spires own
-scion ships own (specially the ones we tested with the experimental rec)
-ai is cool now, but turrets/GTs are on ai lvl 3 still easy to kill
But I dont even wanna talk about hovering, cause thats not the 'core of the case'... Point is, who is this game made for? Gamers probably! And, if gamers would like to have something, wich (with the experimental rec) can be turned on/off by server, whats the big deal? Its about the gaming, it's not supposed to bring a message to the outer world, so it doesn't have to be perfect (thats my opinion)
I mean if you dotn want to hover, use a default 1.3 rec, if you do, use the new one, its all about the gamers, don't think many people will come into this game, its too old for that, so I would try to keep the current group in (or am I missing something here?)
But maybe some people would just want a certain group of gamers to find another game or something? It doesnt have to be 'my way or the highway'!
The same people who are arguing for hover are the same people who whinned and B#@!@ about non wobbleable GTs and turrets. Thats right folks we had GTs and Turrets That could not be wobble killed by a scout but no that takes away another lame @$$ tactic that some "vets" just cant win without. Dont blam the devs for this one! It was fixed before and got broken again just for the vets. Happy now?
Hm...I do believe the majority of the players have always wanted non-wobbable GT's and some improvement on the turrets. At least that's what I think.
I did not say a majority asked for but they posted for days and weeks about how they would not play the patch if they could not wobble a gt. I know it sounds stupid but it happend.
Well, there has to be SOME give and take...if we take away hover from the offense, it doesn't make sense to make the defense better as well...we'd end up playing 4 hour games. While I enjoy long games, that amount of time tends to interfear with real life...bodily functions in particular.
I seem to remember hearing similar objections to the improved defences in FE .
If you leave in a annyoing bug like wobbling by a scout just becuase of game langth I think your looking at the problem backwards. If such is the case late game units and weapons should be boosted.
Look at command and conqure generals for a game where it is impossible to turtle and win against a human.
Anybody tried using the Level 3 AI aiming yet?
Anyways, wobbling a GT. Sure, if there is just one unit aiming at you, but that is why you never use just one unit of anything and never use one type of unit. That's why there are different units, to fill in the gaps. Use your units in concert with other units. Always. Pretty hard to woblle kill a GT when you have some Rocket Tanks/Sabres/Scouts/Missile Scouts/Turrets shooting at you too...
When it takes two units to kill the lowest level offensive unit in the game something is wrong. The gun tower is supposed to stop little stuff like scouts from lingering near your base. A turret can just bearly holds its own againts a scout, Gun tower should have no problem handds down.
A scout is the lowest level unit.
A human piloted scout is not the lowest level unit by far.
There are so many ways to counter wobbling. The vulnerabilty encourages strategic planning, rather than just plonking down a tower and becoming invulnerable for 5 minutes until mortars show up.
Turrets are meaner in 1.3, too, which bumps up defense. It could be argued that given the absence of hovering and circlestrafing, you don't even need towers until late in the game...by which time you have a lot of other toys to back them up.
We just gotta play more and see how the tactics evolve.
Quote from: AcneVulgaris
We just gotta play more and see how the tactics evolve.
Now there's the most intelligent thing said so far.
forget the GTs, and the turrets, and any ships, I just wanna make something clear here, read my 2 posts! (3 now)
(and go discuss unit ai/power/thrust/engeneering/whatever somewhere else)
I think all has been said that can be about your two posts and people are bored with that subject.
A human piloted scout is the lowest level of unit? That is definetly not true. It is the most versatile unit in BZ2, good for almost anything.
Being able to wobble a GT or not...hm...I understand what people are saying now when they mention the scout can't hover anymore. But, I would prefer a non-wobbable GT.
I do not think the scout was intended to base a base buster unit, right? A scout killing a GT, that sounds weird, at least if I was new at this game.
But then again, there are actually people in this game that prefer to use the scout instead of any other unit.
So our only conclusion is that people need tanks (or more) to attack a base? But tanks are not as good in this 1.3 warp, they weren't that superb in 1.2 either, not against chain scouts.
Bah, i dont know what i'm saying.
Right on ND!!! We don't need any damn "thread police"! (even if it is the thread starter)