Excessive amount of LATs

Cpt.Future · Post by **Cpt.Future** » 2015-08-19 20:43

Just leaving this here

Post by **K4on** » 2015-08-19 20:56

Yeah they're used IRL against infantry but this is way too many for PR.

That was one of the main reasons why v0.9x LATs had such a ridiculous low splash damage, as some DEVs didn't like that.
Feedback made us going back again to more realistic values in 1.x.

viirusiiseli · Post by **viirusiiseli** » 2015-08-19 23:14

Cpt.Future wrote:Just leaving this here

A picture of a special operations unit (norwegian special forces) completely out of proportion from what we're dealing in PR. The thread isn't about the realism point of view either, its about inf vs APC gameplay as I pointed out earlier.

Original post:

viirusiiseli wrote:The LAT system ATM works really badly for APC vs inf warfare. Somehow people are able to spawn with a new LAT every life and it wrecks gameplay for APCs.

[R-DEV]K4on wrote:That was one of the main reasons why v0.9x LATs had such a ridiculous low splash damage, as some DEVs didn't like that.
Feedback made us going back again to more realistic values in 1.x.

So will there be further changes or is this thread a lost cause? Sorry if there was a definitive reply earlier I might've not seen it due to high reply count.

Post by **Rhino** » 2015-08-20 03:12

viirusiiseli wrote:So will there be further changes or is this thread a lost cause? Sorry if there was a definitive reply earlier I might've not seen it due to high reply count.

We are looking into quite a few changes, but some are going to take a couple of releases to fully implement.

Filamu · Post by **Filamu** » 2015-08-20 06:21

Would be nice to keep LATs usable against infantry, but as you only have one or two its a choice about destroying some inf right here or having it in reserve till later when an apc might appear.

Post by **Rhino** » 2015-08-20 06:26

Most LAT weapons are HEAT warheads, meaning they are shaped charges designed to focus their blast on one spot in order to penetrate armour, as such they don't have that much "splash damage" since all their energy is focused into w/e they impacted on and the only splash comes off of w/e gets bounced back from that blast, which isn't alot, depending of course on what the object it hit was.

Cpt.Future · Post by **Cpt.Future** » 2015-08-20 09:11

viirusiiseli wrote:A picture of a special operations unit (norwegian special forces) completely out of proportion from what we're dealing in PR. The thread isn't about the realism point of view either, its about inf vs APC gameplay as I pointed out earlier.

No need to be so defensive just because I posted a picture of a bunch of used LAT's

viirusiiseli · Post by **viirusiiseli** » 2015-08-20 10:02

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rhino;2092137']Most LAT weapons are HEAT warheads, meaning they are shaped charges designed to focus their blast on one spot in order to penetrate armour, as such they don't have that much "splash damage" since all their energy is focused into w/e they impacted on and the only splash comes off of w/e gets bounced back from that blast, which isn't alot, depending of course on what the object it hit was.[/quote]

True, but in real life when they are used against infantry it's at infantry in a fortified/closed position. To put it simply, IRL you shoot at a room or a bunker which will cause the people inside to get severely wounded/killed. In the game you shoot through the window at the closest wall near the guy and deal damage that way.

[quote="Cpt.Future""]No need to be so defensive just because I posted a picture of a
bunch of used LAT's

[/quote]

You're posting irrelevant/inapplicable stuff to the argument. You don't need to tell me off for telling you your post is irrelevant either. There are already enough people who did similar arguments in this 11 page thread...

Cpt.Future · Post by **Cpt.Future** » 2015-08-20 10:54

Only complaint seems to be that kills for APCs in urban terrain aren't ez enough (ie realism).

viirusiiseli wrote:There are already enough people who did similar arguments in this 11 page thread...

So I hope you get the idea that the LAT kit shouldn't be changed?

Geronimo · Post by **Geronimo** » 2015-08-20 12:49

How many LAT kits are there currently per team? Is it squad limited? (like AR, Breacher, ..?)

Cavazos · Post by **Cavazos** » 2015-08-20 13:17

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Most LAT weapons are HEAT warheads, meaning they are shaped charges designed to focus their blast on one spot in order to penetrate armour, as such they don't have that much "splash damage" since all their energy is focused into w/e they impacted on and the only splash comes off of w/e gets bounced back from that blast, which isn't alot, depending of course on what the object it hit was.

I can understand those sort of rounds not doing much damage to infantry. I like the SMAW system of having both AT and multipurpose rounds.

PatrickLA_CA · Post by **PatrickLA_CA** » 2015-08-20 13:45

Geronimo wrote:How many LAT kits are there currently per team? Is it squad limited? (like AR, Breacher, ..?)

The more times you manage to respawn, the more LATs you can get. Basically, you can get your whole squad to have LATs if you die enough times.

viirusiiseli · Post by **viirusiiseli** » 2015-08-20 15:04

Geronimo wrote:How many LAT kits are there currently per team? Is it squad limited? (like AR, Breacher, ..?)

Read the thread.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Psyrus;2081569']Here are the numbers (you can look it up in your realityconfig_private.py)
So the riflemanAT (among others) gets put back in the kit pool after 30 seconds when it dies. So in essence, virus isn't far off the mark, 8 of 9 squads can have light AT kits 30 seconds after they die

I didn't make the change, merely injecting some facts into the discussion. Please continue.[/quote]

[quote="Cpt.Future""]Only complaint seems to be that kills for APCs in urban terrain aren't ez enough (ie realism).

So I hope you get the idea that the LAT kit shouldn't be changed?[/quote]

Yes, because you get a 12-page thread when everyone agrees LATs shouldn't be changed?

gwa1hir · Post by **gwa1hir** » 2015-08-20 16:41

viirusiiseli wrote: Yes, because you get a 12-page thread when everyone agrees LATs shouldn't be changed?

its 12 pages of people convincing YOU which still fails obviously

Post by **Frontliner** » 2015-08-20 17:00

83:4 = Too much LAT, Mats pls fix.

Cossack · Post by **Cossack** » 2015-08-20 17:20

gwa1hir wrote:its 12 pages of people convincing YOU which still fails obviously

More like you just keep posting, but majority is still saying nope.

Like I said previously LAT's are fine, because most of the time it feels that infantry still lack AT capability, because one hat kit got removed IMHO.

gwa1hir · Post by **gwa1hir** » 2015-08-20 17:34

Frontliner wrote:

83:4 = Too much LAT, Mats pls fix.

you cant argue with virus using pictures like that. he will basically say its only because the other team sucked. and if its the other way around it surely is the balance and how the lat kit works

virus has his oppinion, he wont change it. facts and proof wont work on him because he has no intention of changing his oppinion until people start agreeing with him

Post by **Mats391** » 2015-08-20 17:43

Getting a new LAT right after you lost your last is intended. The current total amount of LATs is not. The limit per team does not seem to work.
Will lock this thread as it is going nowhere.

Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs

Re: Excessive amount of LATs