Anti tank

[Cazzy]

Re: Anti tank BS.

STOP THE ARMOUR WHORES, Make AT 1 shot 1 kill.This will ballance out the game even more, People in armour always get the most points on city maps

I would have to agree with this statement, however make it a two shot kill so the tank has a chance at least.

[GSG9xSNIPER]

Re: Anti tank BS.

I would have to agree with this statement, however make it a two shot kill so the tank has a chance at least.

Did you forget about crates?

A crate by a tank will usually last a long azz time, or engineers in vodniks,jeep assisting armour.


I was in armour on a city map. I think a crate and a engineer in a vodnik were right next to me. I was hit by at least 10 AT missles and didn't die. Kinda unreal if you ask me. I think crates shouldn't repair armour, only engineers should be able to. Armour is overwhelming on city maps just like the MEC heli on Sharqi.

[Cazzy]

Re: Anti tank BS.

Just shoot the crate first, then shoot the tank.... easy money. But again I agree that crates should not repair vehicles, only ENG. Crates should only resupply, not fix commander assets either-

[Bungalow_Bill]

Re: Anti tank BS.

As a certified armor whore myself I must say I have nothing but respect for the dedicated AT guys... both when I'm in my tank and they are firing at me and when I'm playing as a medic when they come to the rescue by taking chunks out of that armor that has me pinned down. It's that kind of infantry/vehicle interaction that I enjoy so much about this game and the main reason I think that the whole concept of an infantry only mode in BF2 is pure retardation.

To say it's a crappy kit though is far from the truth. The only truth about the AT kit is that it's no point magnet, but as points are pretty much meaningless numbers who really gives a crap? The AT kit has a lot of destructive power with the AT rockets and can defend again armor and helicopters. That has a huge impact on the game because I know from experience when I don't have to worry about AT I'll massacre the enemy team but when you throw some AT guys in to the mix I'm forced to go on the defensive and as a result my offense begins to suffer. Armor and air are both very powerful inherently and it follows that any unit that can counter that amount of power is in itself powerful.

But if that wasn't enough the AT class also has a great selection of weapons for dealing with infantry.

Are they overpowered though? No. Are they underpowered? Hell no. I personally think AT are just right.. but for the players who enjoy score and getting that which they have earned I strongly believe DICE should give AT players a single point for every hit they land against a vehicle with an enemy in it. That'd be more than enough to even out the score for the amount they contribute, as a tank kill with 3 AT rockets involved sounds like a well earned 5 points to me.

[sm007h]

Re: Anti tank BS.

Are they overpowered though? No. Are they underpowered? Hell no. I personally think AT are just right.. but for the players who enjoy score and getting that which they have earned I strongly believe DICE should give AT players a single point for every hit they land against a vehicle with an enemy in it. That'd be more than enough to even out the score for the amount they contribute, as a tank kill with 3 AT rockets involved sounds like a well earned 5 points to me.

I agree with this sentiment. At least more points would make me feel like I've actually accomplished something after nailing a tank without destroying it. Added to that, it sucks to hammer a tank but someone next to you gets the kill or the guy hops out and runs away.

[kiss my RICE]

Re: Anti tank BS.

I never play as Anti-tank...once I figure out how to use the Dao-12, I will stay that way.

[imported_Mongo Only Pawn]

Re: Anti tank BS.

....congrats - this is the ONLY thread on the entire internet that says the AT kit is OVERPOWERED.

*******.

[Lazza66]

Re: Anti tank BS.

....congrats - this is the ONLY thread on the entire internet that says the AT kit is OVERPOWERED.

*******.

Does it, WHERE??

[imported_Mongo Only Pawn]

Re: Anti tank BS.

Does it, WHERE??

the original post - it may not SAY it but it sure Implies it.

[Kurt]

Re: Anti tank BS.

I never play as Anti-tank...once I figure out how to use the Dao-12, I will stay that way.

Oh you're gonna LOVE the DAO-12. Crap at anything over 15 yards but it owns in close combat. Bare that in mind as you play and you'll have a great time.

I personally think AT are just right.. but for the players who enjoy score and getting that which they have earned I strongly believe DICE should give AT players a single point for every hit they land against a vehicle with an enemy in it. That'd be more than enough to even out the score for the amount they contribute, as a tank kill with 3 AT rockets involved sounds like a well earned 5 points to me.

Yeah, sounds reasonable. Though, to be honest, I would like a *little* more power in the AT rockets. I try damn hard to hit the tank weak points but I never seem to take out a tank in less than 3 shots.

I suppose though 3 shots is reasonable. If there's more than one AT guy, you'd be able to take out tanks with one shot each which is maybe a bit much.

Talking of AT, have you seen the AT lamers that hold off shooting until the vehicle is smoking THEN shoot so they can get the kill? They let you do all the damage then take the kill. Bast**ds.

[frazzman]

Re: Anti tank BS.

Dont know if its just coincidence or a feature/bug but ive noticed your AT missile can have one hell of a punch when you sharply turn the missile into your target just before hitting it.
Hitting it straight on (unless at a weakspot) seems to do little or no damage with one shell.

Usually as AT, i find myself spending more time running around trying to find a support guy than i do looking for/shooting at armour :|

[Lazza66]

Re: Anti tank BS.

the original post - it may not SAY it but it sure Implies it.

Plain BS, the o.p. not only implies but states that these diversions from real life are necessary for "for balance and playability", and nowhere did I suggest any changes whatsoever.

You've detracted your comment that the o.p. is the "ONLY thread on the entire internet that says the AT kit is OVERPOWERED". And now you profess that the o.p. implies it. You're not happy with trashing your credibility once, but come straight back and do it again, incredible.

[schaef2k]

Re: Anti tank BS.

I see Lazza66's piont.

1) AT splash damage should kill the AT guy at piont blank.
2) secondary explosions from vehicles should kill people standing next to them.

The situation that was described was him in a APC and an AT guy under his APC that shot, blew up the ACP and lived.

Now I've never been under the APC so I have no idea if this is a lag or freak of game mechanics but I have shot a tank on the underside from about 5m and it took 3/4 of my health but the tank blew in one shot (was probably damaged).

I've also had a grenade land at my feet and have been untouched. Go figure.

As to piont 1, I don't think they can change the splash on a weapon per target and I think we all know why the splash on an AT rocket is so low.

As to piont 2, I agree, an exploding vehicle should kill you within 10m. As an AT guy, this would help with getting more kills since everyone just bails out and then you have to go hunt them down and shoot them in the face.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: Anti tank BS.

I have 2 questions

1. Where is every 1 getting this information about over-the-shoulder fired AT rockets being 1 shots kills on modern MBT's (Main Battle Tanks) IRL?

I poster claimed that a certain rocket sends turrets flying like frying pans, I have watched all the military shows, & have only seen Hellfires (fired from Apache Longbows) do that type of devestation

I qualified w/ the LAWS rocket in basic training, & we were taught that light AT rockets were for defense against APC's, & trucks, & weren't effective against, nor meant to be used against heavy armour

2. Why shouldn't a AT rocket take out half a squad if shot @ there feet? I have played AT, & have been shot @ by enemies beyond the range of the DAO-12, & shot back w/ the AT rocket which hit within 2 feet of the enemy w/ out causing him any visible discomfort which is BS imho

I do agree that playing AT kit should earn more points, like for instance getting a "destroyed startegic object" point for the tank itself, even if no 1 is in it

Thank God for the P-90, it is OK in CQC, & effective @ medium range, it is the only reason I will play the kit since like 1 poster stated, by the time you spawn AT, the tank is usually gone

I try to get all my team m8's to go AT @ the same time against tanks, but it is not "lucrative" enough work to intice them, they would rather just go around the tank (now that's probably closer to "real life")

in my most humble of opinions

PEACE

[Kurt]

Re: Anti tank BS.

2. Why shouldn't a AT rocket take out half a squad if shot @ there feet? I have played AT, & have been shot @ by enemies beyond the range of the DAO-12, & shot back w/ the AT rocket which hit within 2 feet of the enemy w/ out causing him any visible discomfort which is BS imho

If we're talking about real life, the AT rockets have a shaped charge that's meant to punch a hole in a tank and take out the crew and damage the inside of the tank, not "blow it up", as such.

So, I suppose BF2 reflects that as there is little or no splash damage is it's not a fragmentation weapon.