AT a bit too nerfed!

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-02-27 08:24

I know it has been mentioned before, but, seriously, the AT kit is far too nerfed. Give him 2 AT rockets, and a small sub machine gun (such as an MP5) with one clip and no pistol. id be happy if AT only got 1 rocket as long as he got a machine gun. it just sucks being completly useless until a vehicle shows up, then you get one hit on the tank, and it kills you. and after playing, i think the idea of giving assualt the choice between a grenade launcher and AT rocket is realistic, but i think it would take away from gameplay, because, well everyone would just go assualt all the time. thoughts?

Maj.b00bz · Post by **Maj.b00bz** » 2006-02-27 09:23

I think the main issue here is what to do with the AT class in general. It’s a gamey idea to begin with: One guy running around with the SRAW/SMAW and a bunch of rockets and an SMG.

I think PR took a big step in the right direction by making the warhead more powerful limiting him to two rockets and a pistol. If we start going back to the SMG days it’s Romper Room all over again.

Why? Because the SMAW/SRAW is a crew served weapon. You don’t just toss it aside, whip out your SMG and go to town. It’s big and bulky. With the launcher, sight, rockets and accessories (cleaning gear, maintenance tools) it is a two-man operation all the way. It’s a long process to even load one of those things. BF2 vastly simplifies it already.

I think a better idea is to make an alternate AT class. Have a heavy and a light class with the intro of AT-4, single shot disposable, type weapons. Give AT-4 type weapons to the alternate class and give them a standard rifle. No frills. The AT-4 lacks the punch of the SMAW/SRAW but it can still take out light armor in one shot and destroy tanks with a few shots. The light AT gunner can still be effective in a firefight and carries a realistic load.

I carried an AT-4 during Desert Storm/Shield in the USMC for over 7 months. While I didn’t enjoy the extra weight strapped to my pack, it was not a serious burden. See the article below where the US Military is even bringing back the LAW from Vietnam Days. Apparently new technology and weapons design has made it much more powerful and it still retains is compact portability.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 234832.asp

This is a good base idea to start reconfiguring the AT class for better playability than to keep nerfing the current AT class loadout.

da.SPAWN · Post by **da.SPAWN** » 2006-02-27 11:36

Please don´t change this it is fine like it is now. AT is Antitank, not less not more
The idea behind limiting this class is that you have to work as team and
not to build an overpowered class which can handle all situations.

If i play AT i seek near to my team so they protect me from soldiers and i them from armor.

Zantetsuken · Post by **Zantetsuken** » 2006-02-27 11:38

I can kinda understand the part that article mentioned about just using RPGs instead as they are cheaper and I would think more of em. The problem is, which model did the author mean? A simple search on wikipedia turns up

"RPG-2, RPG-7, PG-7VR, RPG-16, RPG-18, RPG-22, RPG-26, RPG-27, RPG-29"

While I can imagine the RPG2 being quite outdated, I would think anything from RPG7, or at least RPG16, would be more than adequate...

Anyway, like I said, which one did the author mean?

dunkellic · Post by **dunkellic** » 2006-02-27 18:58

the rpg-7 is what i think most people refer as "rpg"
but why not equip them with a smg and a (or two) panzerfaust 3

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-02-27 19:09

Oh what a great idea bringing back the LAW... So when the rare accurence that an American soldier is faced with a tank aproching they fire all of the obsolete LAW's hopeing they kill the threat but because the LAW is "obsolete" it makes no difference ant the tanks wipe out the squad.

I think they need to protect the soldiers from armoured threats.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-02-27 21:00

Pence wrote:Oh what a great idea bringing back the LAW... So when the rare accurence that an American soldier is faced with a tank aproching they fire all of the obsolete LAW's hopeing they kill the threat but because the LAW is "obsolete" it makes no difference ant the tanks wipe out the squad.

I think they need to protect the soldiers from armoured threats.

Maybe you missed this part

See the article below where the US Military is even bringing back the LAW from Vietnam Days. Apparently new technology and weapons design has made it much more powerful and it still retains is compact portability.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...1125234832.asp

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-27 23:23

u know, sure the AT is meant to be the strongest anti vehicle class in the game, thus they limit his weaponry. On the other hand though, having just a single pistol doesn't even allow u to protect urself, i mean seriously.. a pistol against assault rifle? Well sure i like the idea that the class shouldn't be able to go rambo and all, but on the other hand i was thinking, isn't there another way of limiting him without stripping down his weapon to just pistol sidearm?

I mean, if they give me a submachine gun, hell a machine pistol even that would be better than just a pistol, i don't mind if they make him even slower than he already is, that's fine.. to tone him down and make sure he doesn't run and gun like rambo i don't even mind if he gets just one spare magazine for his PDW, just give him SOMETHING that would still make him a viable threat against another infantry in the event that he meet face to face with an enemy infantry.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-28 00:09

You are completely reliant on others when you are the dedicate AT guy. The pistol also does work well for defense, but only if you can get the jump on someone. In a face to face fight in real life, a soldier with armor and an assualt rifle will kill the hapless pistol armed AT trooper ninety-nine times out of a hundred. The current situation is realistic, it's just a shame we don't have troops with a light AT weapon like the law yet. When we do this will be less of a problem. The LAW would be great for taking out apc's and transport vehicles.

00SoldierofFortune00 · Post by **00SoldierofFortune00** » 2006-02-28 17:48

I also think the class is fine the way it is now. Maybe instead of giving them a full weapon, just give them an upped weapon like a 1911/USP, or the Navy P226 .40 when it comes out. I had no problem killing with the class, but an upped weapon would be good so people have a little more of a chance and they would play the class more often since it isn't that played right now really.

Post by **Wraith** » 2006-02-28 18:14

I truly believe this kit is designed perfectly as is. AT weopons are not designed to be 20m killing machines use verses infantry. I think it does what it was intended to do. Forces Squad relience. I think giving an AT kit a SMG makes the kit too powerfull and detracts from then playing as a team and encourages more of a "Lone Wolf" attitude because they feel like they can make it better on thier own.

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-02-28 20:20

laws should be brought into the game they are easy to use and provide adiquite destuction against light vehicles smaws should be added for anti tank as they are a lighter weapon and so provide more destruction.

00SoldierofFortune00 · Post by **00SoldierofFortune00** » 2006-03-01 02:18

Wraith wrote:I truly believe this kit is designed perfectly as is. AT weopons are not designed to be 20m killing machines use verses infantry. I think it does what it was intended to do. Forces Squad relience. I think giving an AT kit a SMG makes the kit too powerfull and detracts from then playing as a team and encourages more of a "Lone Wolf" attitude because they feel like they can make it better on thier own.

Yea, which is why I suggested giving them a little better pistol. Give them that and they will play it more while still relying on a squad since the pistol will be useless medium to long range, but good up close.