Please give vehicles a chance!

[77SiCaRiO77]

Zoom -is- too short i still think on a tank, although not at all bad - considering the short distances on the map, and the lack of airborne distance possible..

considering the short distances on the map , the tow/hj are too fast .

[Jonathan_Archer_nx01]

I think there's no need for limiting light at kits. Just slight reducing damage of lat against apcs/tanks that would cause need to hit them with 1 more rocket would solve it all.

+I think that it is operator's fault that he lets enemies spraing light ATs at him.
However heavy AT is a point-and-kill kit.

[Jonathan_Archer_nx01]

I think its positive that they make light AT a limited kit. Now its used widely against infantry, which I doubt is the main purpose of this kit.

Though the light AT I have used doesnt really have splash damage outside of the target area, if it penetrates the armor/wall/whatever it hits. Since all the explosive power is directed 'inside' the target, instead of just exploding outside.

Ok then the splash damage should be reduced but kit limitation has nothing to do with this.

[$kelet0r]

limiting light AT? what madness is this?
It's a rocket - it's used against any and every thing IRL.

[77SiCaRiO77]

acuarate would be reduced , not making limited the light AT

[eggman]

we're going to work on a new deviation model fo the light at weapons. but they will also be a limited kit, available in the same numbers and same amounts as the SAW.

[gazzthompson]

we should have eryx's like this ...

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New- ... nk-Missile

[$kelet0r]

eggman']we're going to work on a new deviation model fo the light at weapons. but they will also be a limited kit, available in the same numbers and same amounts as the SAW.

;(
This imo is a mistake as the kit limiting can at times be very restrictive but I'm willing to see how it works out

[Jonathan_Archer_nx01]

eggman']we're going to work on a new deviation model fo the light at weapons. but they will also be a limited kit, available in the same numbers and same amounts as the SAW.

And are you aware of that no one is going to use it?
I don't know what the point of light at being limited is. It is isn't supposed to be strong kit.

[Wasteland]

And are you aware of that no one is going to use it?

Well apparently you know everything.

I think it's a good idea to limit the light AT. Maybe not as limited as the SAW. But personally I think that if it's possible, every kit should be somewhat limited. Like you can't have more than two of the same kit in a squad, unless it's engineer/pilot/crewman. Maybe there could be one squad with unlimited grenadiers, so that you could mortar positions for the commander. But only one squad like that.

[Mr.Whitlow]

we're going to work on a new deviation model fo the light at weapons. but they will also be a limited kit, available in the same numbers and same amounts as the SAW.

When Light AT kits are made to be limited, will they be requestable at rally points? I'm thinking yes personally as they aren't as deadly as the heavy AT rockets by quite a margin. Also, when you say new deviation model you're talking about making the model better not worse, right? Oh and one more thing, will the requestable kit get more than 1 rocket unlike the current version?

If so, I'm for the change. Light ATs will be:

Much less used as n00b tubes (vs. Infantry in CQB, often killing the user -_-)
More accurate and reliable, thus more deadly

[LeadMagnet]

So limited light AT with more deviation? Definitely sounds like the wrong way to proceed. I hate to break it to people on here but LAWS and AT-4's are used regularly by infantry to route out stubborn pockets of insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you want realism, leave the kit alone.

[77SiCaRiO77]

IF you are going to make the kit requestable, make i t like the oficer , *unlimited* and without wait time (or maybe a short wait time) , LAWs are very common in the modern war , and would be more common in 2012 , where supostly , pr is set

[Jonathan_Archer_nx01]

IF you are going to make the kit requestable, make i t like the oficer , *unlimited* and without wait time (or maybe a short wait time) , LAWs are very common in the modern war , and would be more common in 2012 , where supostly , pr is set

Such availability = not limited kit. I see no difference.


I totaly disagree with LAT kits being limited.

As I started this topic about vehicles being too vurneable I suggested many other ways how to solve it.

[zeidmaan]

I find it usually almost impossible to get a heavy AT kit since its extremely good against infantry (it gets takes even before snipers). Thats why you have to rely on light AT and coordinated squad to fight enemy armor. With limiting light AT you will too often find your self with only 1 light AT kit available to you squad with which its impossible to take down 1 enemy tank.

[Jonathan_Archer_nx01]

more accurate coaxials ftw against non limited ATs!

Also what happens when all rally points of 1 team are destroyed for example in EJOD when there is no friendly armor available while eniemies have lots of armoerd vehicle there and you can only spawn on your SL? There will be no place you will be able to request LAT.
Thus...you can throw egg at enemy tanks.

[Guerra]

I think restricting light AT kits is rather absurd since they during gameplay they are naturally restricted. AT kits are best at taking out cars and trucks, and if thats limited we're going to see a lot more problems. Al Basrah is already near impossible for the USMC, imagine if AT kits were limited, would be harder getting rid of spawn cars.

This is unacceptable and should not be limited.

I recommend that light AT rounds bounce off the front armor of tanks, and really can only damage the treads, top armor and rear armor.

[eggman]

LOL.

"Unacceptable".

LOL.

LOLocked.