Project Reality Forums

'[R-PUB wrote:Viper5']on a sidenote out of pity, never go Heavy AT as USMC on Basrah.

QFT as a t62 tanker

We have to deal with slow reload time, and hiding under arches most of the game in fear of A 10 until one gets smart and comes in from the west

danthemanbuddy wrote:QFT as a t62 tanker

We have to deal with slow reload time, and hiding under arches most of the game in fear of A 10 until one gets smart and comes in from the west

QFT

The reason Light AT is becoming limited is because players seem to always respawn with it after being owned by enemy armor. I personally like the idea of limiting the class, though I would prefer 6 to 8 of them be available to the teams. 4 seems a little too low, and would probably be hard to come by when needed in alot of cases.

I think in another sense, it would create much more realistic scenarios. Enemy APC spots your squad, and you become pinned down. If you didn't have someone take Light or Heavy AT in the first place, you'll be requesting support from friendlies or manuvering away from the enemy vehicle. Otherwise, the SL would have his 3 dead squadmates all spawn with AT, which is really sort of whacky.

Not to mention the fact that players were using the darn things on just about everything. On alot of maps with transport helos (Muttrah for example) you can't land or circle an area without being hit by some form of light AT. You can't last 2 seconds using the .50s on jeeps without a rocket taking you out. Bleh, and the list goes on.

Terranova wrote:The reason Light AT is becoming limited is because players seem to always respawn with it after being owned by enemy armor. I personally like the idea of limiting the class, though I would prefer 6 to 8 of them be available to the teams. 4 seems a little too low, and would probably be hard to come by when needed in alot of cases.

I think in another sense, it would create much more realistic scenarios. Enemy APC spots your squad, and you become pinned down. If you didn't have someone take Light or Heavy AT in the first place, you'll be requesting support from friendlies or manuvering away from the enemy vehicle. Otherwise, the SL would have his 3 dead squadmates all spawn with AT, which is really sort of whacky.

Not to mention the fact that players were using the darn things on just about everything. On alot of maps with transport helos (Muttrah for example) you can't land or circle an area without being hit by some form of light AT. You can't last 2 seconds using the .50s on jeeps without a rocket taking you out. Bleh, and the list goes on.

Another great post Terranova.

As you said, the Platoon or Company or team will need to be more meachanzied. SLs will need to call in support to help out with the armour.

The main issue with them is die .. respawn a bunch of guys as light AT .. kill what killed you .. carry on.

Adjusting the # available is a 2 second change .. will tweak that when in the final play testing stages of this dev cycle (which will more than likely be an open beta).

'[R-PUB wrote:Viper5']on a sidenote out of pity, never go Heavy AT as USMC on Basrah.

I love it when the US messes up and spawns with heavy AT while I am an insergent. I will kill the guy then evac with his heavy AT to the city and rape any chopper, tank, or APC that comes by.

Limiting light AT is ok as long as there are more available. There should be more than 4 at least.

perhaps there will be more than 4.... my opinion is 4 is enough.

If you look on the list Ive given, you can see that by giving more than 4 you are pressing the limit to the amount of stuff being supported at a platoon level. So you want 8 light AT avaliable? So that means 4 infantry squads have 2 light at in each squad. Does this ever happen in PR Currently? (besides when you all die by an APC and all spawn in to take it out).

The most I ever see is a light AT and a heavy AT in the same squad, and the ammo guy usually has a helluva time keeping them supplied.

and what about realism.... at a platoon level, I dont think giving 1/3rd your infantry an AT weapon is realistic. I think at the most it would be 1 in every 4 soldiers carries an AT weapon. And on most maps, you wont ever have more than 24 organised infantry units (8 guys either fuckin around or in choppers or tanks).

6 AT weapons in game relates to alot of firepower, just as 4 support weapons in game relates to alot of firepower...


ahh well we shall see what happens when we get towards the open beta...

Nah no real point in taking them if they're limited, really. Wanna prevent the spawn in take out manuver? It's called supporting infantry.

I HAVE A REVELATION

i would love this "feature"

now i can camp RPs without danger , becouse nobody would have AT weapons , and if they want one , they would need to respawn in the main base , so no problems for me

i love you devs

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:I HAVE A REVELATION

i would love this "feature"

now i can camp RPs without danger , becouse nobody would have AT weapons , and if they want one , they would need to respawn in the main base , so no problems for me

i love you devs

Could you do me a favour and stop posting shite?

'[R-DEV wrote:fuzzhead']
... you are pressing the limit to the amount of stuff being supported at a platoon level.

Leaning more toward sim gameplay, I would like this to be the ethos of the devs.

IMO, the light AT should be requested from the Rally point. However, I do not have any problems with it not.

Again, I support this because it makes the teams more mechanized and allows the armour to have a fighting chance.

There should be plenty for at least one in a grunt squad.

__

I would die laughing if you guys ever limited the medic kit.

You would lose half the player base.

Random guy: .... medics limited, WTF, this isn't Armed Assault? What gives?
Granted I do not play Armed Assault. I sold all my ArmA stocks for PRM stocks baby.

Light ATs will be requestable at any kit req location.

Only heavy ATs and AA kits are not be allowed to be requested at rally points.

then they need to not absolutely suck against anything but a car, im pretty sure a RPG or AT4 would go through the back of a APC like a bull in a china hutch. and would knock the tracks off a tank, so make them hurt armor and not just cars/people. or give you more then 1 because having just 1 is stupid.

have you tried carrying 2 rocket launchers and a rifle before "Sneak Attack"?

i have, and guess what, its simply not feasible in battlefield conditions, so realistically speaking I would really not want to arbitrarily give the light AT 2 rounds "just because".

We look into changes to light AT, there are many factors that we got to look at...

The requestable anywhere is a good start, and I have managed to kill a (badly beat up) tank with them before.

There is a recoilless rifle that fires HEAT rounds...maybe we should get them.

'[R-DEV wrote:fuzzhead']have you tried carrying 2 rocket launchers and a rifle before "Sneak Attack"?

i have, and guess what, its simply not feasible in battlefield conditions, so realistically speaking I would really not want to arbitrarily give the light AT 2 rounds "just because".

We look into changes to light AT, there are many factors that we got to look at...

did you see the pf 89 ? only weight 3.5 kg and is very small , AT soldiers carry minimum 2 and his type-95 , AT4 weight 7.8 kg and is bigg , thats why amricn soldiers carry only one