Remove the min players for AT equipment.

[Raic]

REWRITE

NOTICE: I do not want more AT kits. 2HATS 2 LATS and whatever amount of engineers we have is FINE!

Now, if the server is NOT full and just been filled up. The infantry has no to little defense against armored targets cause of the kits been unavailable until the player number on the server exceeds ~40 players(dunno the exact number). This makes the game damn unfair if one side has more armored assets on the map or other side has very few assets capable of destroying armored targets. EJOD and QWAI are good examples, if blufor loses the TOW hmmw, they have no defense against the Redfor APCs and Tank.

Should make it so at least 1 of each kit is available all the times.

He wants the same limitations and numbers as right now, with one exception: At least one AT has to be requestable even if it's just 5 players on the server, otherwise one team could be left completely defenseless against armor.

However - I thought you already had at least 1 LAT even with a nearly empty server?

This one summs it up so awesome ill edit in here.

[Jigsaw]

PR is meant to be played with the server full of players so I doubt that this kind of concession would be made for when a server is empty (which it would have to be to not be able to request any AT weaponry).

On Asad khal the MEC has the shitty piece of APC, but cause it has little armor the brits can't kill it.

You can kill a BRDM with 10 seconds sustained .50 cal fire so really its not that hard to take down. Also the confines of that particular map mean it is very easy to avoid.

[Rudd]

There is a reason a map is called the 64 layer...

[Spuz36]

No. I've heard that there is already too much AT on the battlefield. Armors units are to be feared and not 'wanted'. You only need 2 people per squad now for LAT so I don't think we need more AT running around.

If you loose your heavy assets, tough beans, make blockades so they cannot get past.

[Raic]

PR is meant to be played with the server full of players so I doubt that this kind of concession would be made for when a server is empty (which it would have to be to not be able to request any AT weaponry).

Guess I forgot to put up some numbers. So when server is filling and we have somewhere around 30-40 players, its OK that whoever has assests dominates the other side?

No. I've heard that there is already too much AT on the battlefield. Armors units are to be feared and not 'wanted'. You only need 2 people per squad now for LAT so I don't think we need more AT running around.

If you loose your heavy assets, tough beans, make blockades so they cannot get past.

*facepalm* Not more AT, gosh. Just make the damn AT accessible for the players when the server isn't completely full! I'm not sure what the limit is but there are times when servers are filling and even if you say "ooh, its 64 players for reason" Its not that much funny to be completely raped until we over 25 whatever players per side.

And yes, you can kill BRDM with .50 but you can also kill APCs with Incendiary grenades, changes of actually managing it are very very low.

[badmojo420]

I would like to see the engineer kit available regardless of the numbers. Playing Fallujah West with no engineer kits sucks when they put mines in front of your gates.

[503]

There is definately too much AT in the field. If you see armour and you got no AT weapons, then hide and avoid it.

[Grim1316]

like they said, all you need is 2 members and you get your LAT kit. Yeah ins not great at killing tanks, but you shoot a tank with it enough it will go down. I have done it a couple of times on maps like fools road and Ejod.

[foxxravin]

Stupid idea, already alot of AT , if not limited it will end up being spam like vBF and that sucks

[Spec]

He wants the same limitations and numbers as right now, with one exception: At least one AT has to be requestable even if it's just 5 players on the server, otherwise one team could be left completely defenseless against armor.

However - I thought you already had at least 1 LAT even with a nearly empty server?

[Expendable Grunt]

Everyone except Spec can't read for shite.

I support this suggestion. We need AT distributed at all levels of the conflict.

M.

[Jigsaw]

However - I thought you already had at least 1 LAT even with a nearly empty server?

This man is correct. You really don't need many people playing to select AT weapons, if you're team has lost them then thats the teams fault. You need something like 10 people on your side to select H-AT.

Also, you can't kill an APC with an incendiary, that exploit was removed in 0.86.

[Outlawz7]

I support, either this or have all the server admins stop using 64 sized maps for seeding!

[SqnLdr]

Or the converse - a lock on using the heavy assets until a specific player number...

[Spec]

Or the converse - a lock on using the heavy assets until a specific player number...

Actually, by not allowing to use pilot and crewman, that could work - but I see problems. How would you get off the carrier in carrier maps for example? Boats aren't always there, and swimming would be suicide.

[badmojo420]

There's already a server with that rule in place. I believe it's TBA insurgency. It's really a nice change for the insurgents. Small games on basrah always end up killing the server because the only 6 brits are usually all sitting in armor.

But, i really like the idea about limiting the crewman and pilot kits on smaller games. To solve the muttrah problem of transport choppers not being used, we could add 1 pickup pilot kit on the carrier. That way your team gets 1 transport helicopter until the server fills up. Of course the 1 kit could be used to fly the cobra around. But, with just hydras and aim-9s it wouldn't be much of a threat to deal with.