Definition of HAT sniping

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2007-11-07 12:04

Chuc wrote:But firstly I hope some improvements to the LAT reticules come..

Agreed. Using attack markers to gauge range (what I do) is unrealistic. With the AT-4 you can just raise the tube a notch worth for every 100m between you and the target. The bottom line on the RPG's sight can be used in a similar fashion. Aim the target at the bottom of the line for ranges of ~1000m, halfway down for ~500m and a quarter of the way down for ~250m.

The problem with making realistic sights is that the proportions will be wrong as IRL, the notches accommodate for increasing drop over the various ranges whereas the drop is at a consistent rate in BF2. Also any changes to the values the game uses will render the modelled sights useless (eg gravity and initial velocity). Therefore all the ballistics should be sorted out before attempting to implement realistic sights.

-=TB=-Tobakfromcuba · Post by **-=TB=-Tobakfromcuba** » 2007-11-07 12:50

i went on a European server for a change from my normal one and got a squad going. After about 20 minutes I'd died 5 times. 4 from HAT and this was inside Govmnt Office

pls dont get me wrong. H-AT versus infantry just for a better k/d is not what i like to see as an admin nor as teammate nor as opponent. i used to do it in the beginning of playing pr, but quitting it then cause opponents complained and i felt like "uhmm..theyre right, its cheap".

but i see hardly a way to enforce a no H-AT sniping rule on the server. How could you do that as admin? watching the BR recorder after any round? before you could you have already 10x guys crying bout H-AT sniping and 5 times the H-AT user was 1.shooting at bunker/houses/trenches/cars, 2.maybe hitting guys around apc/tank and just missed the vehicle 3. defending himself from distance of maybe >80 while being engaged and surrounded. 4.other things that couldnt count as H-AT sniping.

i think played lots of pr on our server and at least can say things bout the stats at the end of the round. the best k/d consist of
1.tank/apc gunners
2.experienced squadplaying riflemen
3.H-AT on Maps with many APCs

5.or6. H-AT versus infantry users

so i would rly like to see changes in the weapon handling making it hard/impossible to waste the dedicated kit on unneccesary targets.

mrmong · Post by **mrmong** » 2007-11-07 14:06

its not really a problem so i dont know why everyone is complaining.. theres usually 1 or 2 in a map and they take ages to reload and resupply anyway.

Xander[nl] · Post by **Xander[nl]** » 2007-11-07 14:06

If I don't have any higher priorities (enemy vehicles), then the guy infront of me can expect to get a rocket into his face. Hell yeah.

Post by **LeadMagnet** » 2007-11-07 14:34

Having played with the H/AT quite a bit I can only say that this argument is utterly pointless. All these complaints can be reproduced in any of the threads on snipers/aircraft/armor etc. (ie. Something killed you, let's nerf it!). The existing H/AT handling is fine as it is. If anything, restrict the venues of ammo replenishment and leave it at that. The proposed changes are utterly ridiculous for a system that is already far underpowered to it's real life counterpart. An ERYX can take out any main battle tank in the world....in one hit. It's an optically guided munition that somehow gives the targeted vehicle a lock-on warning??? So not only will the user have to target said vehicle for the length of the delay the target will also have the benefit of that time to either dispatch the shooter or find cover utterly negating the usefulness of the kit.

KingKong.CCCP · Post by **KingKong.CCCP** » 2007-11-07 16:56

I hate guys who are using the HAT sniper to shoot at tanks/apcs.
They are ruining the idea of this beautiful rail-gun.

Waaah_Wah · Post by **Waaah_Wah** » 2007-11-07 17:45

BetterDeadThanRed wrote:It's cheap, unrealistic, and damn annoying. I use the HAT kit a lot and I make sure to avoid using it on unfortified infantry whenever possible. I know how frustrating it can be to get sniped by some happy-go-lucky noob who just wants to get some free kills rather than help his team fight off armor.

Why shouldnt i use it on infantry when im defending a flag with a bunker and dont have anything inportant to shoot? I first will spot him for my squad, but if he goes prone behind a rock or whatever so they cant hit him, i will f*ck him up with my HAT.

Also, when i see an enemy squad running tightly togetther i will most likely fire my HAT on them if i cant see any armor.

Wolfe · Post by **Wolfe** » 2007-11-07 19:05

LeadMagnet wrote:All these complaints can be reproduced in any of the threads on snipers/aircraft/armor etc. (ie. Something killed you, let's nerf it!).

The proposed changes are utterly ridiculous for a system that is already far underpowered to it's real life counterpart. An ERYX can take out any main battle tank in the world....in one hit. It's an optically guided munition that somehow gives the targeted vehicle a lock-on warning???

I agree with the damage output and lockon warning. The problem is that you can't increase the damage with the current method of reloading otherwise everyone would agree that the HAT would then become a portable nuke that would unbalance the game more than it already is.

The proposed changes aren't a "nerf" or due to "whining". They are legitimate concerns about a weapon that, as you pointed out, does not match its real-life counterpart. To that end, the HAT should:

Increase damage to tanks. 1 hit kill to side, rear, and top.
Add a rifle to the HAT kit loadout.
Remove the "lockon" warning that armor sees when targeted by a HAT
Reduce the AOE damage effect against infantry. The HAT is a kinetic/heat round. Although it has an explosive charge, it is designed to focus that explosion forward, followed by kinetic energy to drive the projectile through the armor. It does not explode in a radius around the target. (This also goes for the HEAT version of tank rounds, but that's another story.)
Restrict ammunition sources.

The HAT then becomes more true to its real-life counterpart; deadly, portable, functional.... not a semi-automatic nuke launcher.

But the HAT isn't the only thing that makes the game arcade-like in its current form. Combat is too fast and transportation is too slow. Solo tanking, hyper accurate small arms, fast SL/APC spawning, slow vehicle spawning, and near limitless field ammo all contribute to the gamey-ness of the mod.

It's not enough to look at just one aspect then say "all the whiners are causing my weapon/vehicle to be nerfed". Look at each as part of the whole mod experience and ask yourself, "do I want the mod to be a run'n'gun shooting gallery or tactical movement/combat experience?"

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-11-07 19:18

Wolfe wrote:I agree with the damage output and lockon warning. The problem is that you can't increase the damage with the current method of reloading otherwise everyone would agree that the HAT would then become a portable nuke that would unbalance the game more than it already is.

The proposed changes aren't a "nerf" or due to "whining". They are legitimate concerns about a weapon that, as you pointed out, does not match its real-life counterpart. To that end, the HAT should:

Increase damage to tanks. 1 hit kill to side, rear, and top.agree

Add a rifle to the HAT kit loadout.mmmm..., not sure

Remove the "lockon" warning that armor sees when targeted by a HATdisagree

Reduce the AOE damage effect against infantry. The HAT is a kinetic/heat round. Although it has an explosive charge, it is designed to focus that explosion forward, followed by kinetic energy to drive the projectile through the armor. It does not explode in a radius around the target. (This also goes for the HEAT version of tank rounds, but that's another story.)agree, but not removing the AOE completaly , since the blast radius is a litle bigger than a grande explotion

Restrict ammunition sources.completaly agree

also , remove one missil from the kit , so you only have one shot , afther that , you should find some ammo source (apc and suplies crates , NOT rifleman)

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-11-07 19:19

double post

Wolfe · Post by **Wolfe** » 2007-11-07 19:25

The AOE should be the same radius/damage as the current kinetic tank round (i.e. does little to no damage to surrounding infantry). So when I say remove AOE, that's what I mean.

If you don't give a rifle to the HAT kit... what does he do? Run around with 1 HAT bullet? Basically a free target to any enemy? The HAT is an infantry man first, and a tank killer second. He should function in the squad normally with a special ability to devastate an incoming armor or two.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-11-07 19:29

with the sraw yes , but eryx are heavier (and also more powerfull) ,its impossible to have a rifle and a eryx at the same time .

kinetic rounds in tanks dont have any type of explosives , HAT does , so no , AOE shoul stay , but not that big as now .

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-11-07 19:29

damn

Post by **Mongolian_dude** » 2007-11-07 19:34

H3eadshot wrote:Get a squad. Use VOIP. Ask them to cover/escort you. Kill armour. Is it really that hard?

Yeah.

Seriously, what the hell do people think the pistol is for?
The HAT is meant to have a weakness, otherwise the DEVs would have given him an assault rifle to do it.
A conventional army would no way waste its rounds like that on just INF, when they know armour is about. I doubt the extensive use on Iraqi and Afghan insurgents in the middleast right now. I think [R-DEV]Gaz served as as part of a Javelin crew in the British forces, so clarify that with him.

HAT sniping is using HAT against INF (I think it would sometimes be acceptable when the troops have fortified a position within a building or bunker. It usually deducts from gameplay for others as A. its quite unrealistic(methinks) and B. It pisses people because it is quite cheap and easy-killing, making the game unbalanced and intolerable.
I think it shouldn't even be requested(well, requestable at that matter) on a map where there is no opposition armour, especially maps where one team has the advantage such as HoH.

...mongol...

Post by **OkitaMakoto** » 2007-11-07 20:07

Maybe give him a rifle then, with like2 mags/clips so that they can use it instead of the HAT. Maybe that wouldnt have the effect, but it seems people use HAT on inf because it IS (duh) more effective than a pistol.

Give them a rifle to use instead and maybe it wont happen as often?

idk. :'(

Post by **Deadfast** » 2007-11-07 20:20

I think the USMC's M9 is fine. So is the Chinese one.
But what the heck am I supposed to fire on a guy more than 10m ahead as a MEC ?
Taking out that imaginary iron-site DICE-made MORON-444 ?
Give me a brake, aiming with that thing is easy just as aiming with a stone. Just give AT's SMGs - MP5 for the US, that SMG parody AT has in vBF2 for Chinese and...no, not the P90

...the MEC spec op's H&K made gun.
With limited ammo of course. Let's say 2+1 (or maybe even 1+1) mags ?

-=TB=-Tobakfromcuba · Post by **-=TB=-Tobakfromcuba** » 2007-11-07 20:33

a guy who served in german army told me they have always a 2 men team for a H-AT weapon. one of them has the (empty) weapon, one have 2 missiles with him. both have small arms(not pistols) for defence? anyone knows what it is like irl in british/US army?

blud · Post by **blud** » 2007-11-07 20:33

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude wrote:B. It pisses people because it is quite cheap and easy-killing, making the game unbalanced and intolerable.

The primary enjoyment I get out of multi-player games IS pissing people off.

Thats why I like MP games more than SP. You kill a bot or NPC in SP and it's just a computer pixel without feeling. But when you kill someone in MP, you know you just pissed someone off and they are on their end going like ARGHH!! *Especially* if you did it in a funny way like dropping down off a roof in between a couple enemies and wasting them both, or knifing a sniper. Not that I even USE the HAT very much.

As far as easy-killing, it really isn't that easy killing. In most topographical settings in PR a scoped rifleman has a better chance of killing a HAT than the other way around. I know when I have the HAT I am always more vulnerable than if I had a rifleman.

And how does it make the game unbalanced? Both teams have HATs.

Post by **Mongolian_dude** » 2007-11-07 20:40

'[T wrote:BludShoT;525443']The primary enjoyment I get out of multi-player games IS pissing people off. Thats why I like MP games more than SP. You kill a bot or NPC in SP and it's just a computer pixel without feeling. But when you kill someone in MP, you know you just pissed someone off and they are on their end going like ARGHH!! *Especially* if you did it in a funny way like dropping down off a roof in between a couple enemies and wasting them both, or knifing a sniper. Not that I even USE the HAT very much.

As far as easy-killing, it really isn't that easy killing. In most topographical settings in PR a scoped rifleman has a better chance of killing a HAT than the other way around. I know when I have the HAT I am always more vulnerable than if I had a rifleman.

And how does it make the game unbalanced? Both teams have HATs.

Insurgents and Militia Factions dont have them (or at least as extensively). The coming Hamas forces will also not have them.
I guess not so much unbalanced, but kinna like an overpowered super soldier that is UBER against everything,

...mongol...

Post by **Deadfast** » 2007-11-07 20:49

If you ever played Hills of Hamgyong, you could notice, how unbalanced the sides are. This is balanced out with more tickets for USMC team. But if China goes on H-AT killing streak, there goes your ticket balance.