Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]Psyrus wrote:As a player I think there should be 8/9 LAT kits, so that each squad may defend themselves, but I believe the 30 second respawn time on the LAT is too forgiving. 300 seconds is not that long a wait for an item that yes, is crippling to the majority of APCs, or at least will cause an RTB. Like most changes in PR, I am sure it was an idea that will be fine tuned as the releases progress

"Fine tuned" like the amount of "balance" smoke + FLIR created on Muttrah or removal of zoom on bolt action rifles?
(one is not tuned at all and one is blatantly removed)


Last time I checked, APCs vastly outrange infantry's LAT and don't need to sit still for 4 seconds to gain maximum accuracy.
When I drive APC the most likely form of death is either ATGM or HAT, unless I'm driving a BTR-60 or something weak and AT-4 hits the sides...

AT-4 is the only problem I have seen over playing 1.3/1.3.1 almost every day since release.
Limit number of AT-4 and all will be fine.

ComradeHX wrote:"Fine tuned" like the amount of "balance" smoke + FLIR created on Muttrah or removal of zoom on bolt action rifles?
(one is not tuned at all and one is blatantly removed)


Last time I checked, APCs vastly outrange infantry's LAT and don't need to sit still for 4 seconds to gain maximum accuracy.
When I drive APC the most likely form of death is either ATGM or HAT, unless I'm driving a BTR-60 or something weak and AT-4 hits the sides...

AT-4 is the only problem I have seen over playing 1.3/1.3.1 almost every day since release.
Limit number of AT-4 and all will be fine.

Limiting only one kind of LAT is your solution? You do realize infantry is supposed to be scared of APCs, not completely the other way around? Armored vehicles are supposed to be scared of concentrated AT positions (defensive HAT/TOW), not every second/third guy running down the streets with a LAT kit. Like psyrus said, the LAT system atm is too forgiving. Infantry does not have to be scared of APCs as there will always be a LAT, all over.

Let's talk about 50 cal HE
Same HE that have a 20 meter radius explosion
LAT/AT are balanced. I've seen you complaining about AA. Do you want to turn infantry into toy soldiers?
And as it was said before APC don't have to wait 4 sec to be accurate, and their range is way better than a LAT.

viirusiiseli wrote:Limiting only one kind of LAT is your solution? You do realize infantry is supposed to be scared of APCs, not completely the other way around? Armored vehicles are supposed to be scared of concentrated AT positions (defensive HAT/TOW), not every second/third guy running down the streets with a LAT kit. Like psyrus said, the LAT system atm is too forgiving. Infantry does not have to be scared of APCs as there will always be a LAT, all over.

If you are scared of every LAT then you might as well park apc in main.

Tank is supposed to be scared of only atgm...etc.
APC isn't supposed to not feel threatened by LAT.

APC should overcome number of LAT with skill and teamwork.

It's too simplistic to try and construct a one way hard counter chain. There are times and places where APCs should be punished for sticking their snout in but there are other times and other places where infantry should need to put their heads down or risk doom.

Give and take from both sides.

viirusiiseli wrote:Limiting only one kind of LAT is your solution? You do realize infantry is supposed to be scared of APCs, not completely the other way around? Armored vehicles are supposed to be scared of concentrated AT positions (defensive HAT/TOW), not every second/third guy running down the streets with a LAT kit. Like psyrus said, the LAT system atm is too forgiving. Infantry does not have to be scared of APCs as there will always be a LAT, all over.

Wrong. APCs are meant for transport duties primarily and are only armed for self defense, not for fire support duties. If you take an MTLB or BTR60 into towns, vehicles that can be penetrated by WW2 era RPGs and expect anything less than getting fucked by more recent AT systems you're playing it wrong. Ever heard of infantry cover? Staying out of range? Or is playing your cards correctly too MilSim nowadays?

I don't see what all the fuss is about, apcs are still infantry killing machines, and I usually don't find the LATs too big of a problem, that combined with the delayed shooting HAT means that you can survive a lot easier as an apc.

Frontliner wrote:Wrong. APCs are meant for transport duties primarily and are only armed for self defense, not for fire support duties. If you take an MTLB or BTR60 into towns, vehicles that can be penetrated by WW2 era RPGs and expect anything less than getting fucked by more recent AT systems you're playing it wrong. Ever heard of infantry cover? Staying out of range? Or is playing your cards correctly too MilSim nowadays?

Staying out of range is not a possibility in PR though. I understand that IRL armored vehicles would stay miles away and support the infantry where they literally can't be hit with anything that the infantry can use other than some HAT weapons. But in PR the view distance creates a problem and there has to be balance. Even on maps with very long view distances it is extremely easy to hit a vehicle at the edge of the view distance with unguided and unscoped AT weapons, especially the RPG and AT-4.

PatrickLA_CA wrote:Staying out of range is not a possibility in PR though. I understand that IRL armored vehicles would stay miles away and support the infantry where they literally can't be hit with anything that the infantry can use other than some HAT weapons. But in PR the view distance creates a problem and there has to be balance. Even on maps with very long view distances it is extremely easy to hit a vehicle at the edge of the view distance with unguided and unscoped AT weapons, especially the RPG and AT-4.

That's bs and you know it. The most that I can reliably hit a target at with an unguided RPG is about 200m give or take, after that my accuracy suffers and I need a few shots to gauge the correct distance; and it's unlikely the APC just sits there and waits. I mean, if you can hit stuff 600+m away when it's only 3-4 pixels and the guiding can be set to a maximum of 400m, props to you, but I doubt that is the case for the majority of us.
Every single map in PR has a higher view distance than these 200m bar Operation Ghost Train and maybe Asad Khal(and some parts in Dovre Winter I suppose), . I won't deny the possibility of some maps being horrible and/or situational for Virus' pseudo-realistic APC fire support yolo play, on the other hand there's maps with little to no cover for infantry combined with view distances past 700m where an APC can get a lot of kills easy, such as Silent Eagle, Khamisiyah and Hades Peak.

SkyEmperor wrote:Let's talk about 50 cal HE
Same HE that have a 20 meter radius explosion
LAT/AT are balanced. I've seen you complaining about AA. Do you want to turn infantry into toy soldiers?
And as it was said before APC don't have to wait 4 sec to be accurate, and their range is way better than a LAT.

^ 12346

Frontliner wrote:Virus' pseudo-realistic APC fire support yolo play

It's called APC vs INF gameplay balance which has been, for a long time, balanced. Due to LATs being limited. All the way up to 1.3 it was carefully chosen how many LATs per team compared to player amount on the server. That was something the DEVs did really well for a long time.

chrisweb89 wrote:I don't see what all the fuss is about, apcs are still infantry killing machines, and I usually don't find the LATs too big of a problem, that combined with the delayed shooting HAT means that you can survive a lot easier as an apc.

Amen.

67

Virus, I've had countless of rounds that ended in sheer frustration for my team due to no LATs being available to deal with the enemy's APC, even on maps like Muttrah when Infantry has a lot of cover. While I guess it must sound like fun to you when nobody is suifficently equipped to fight back, turning the game into a PR version of CoD MW2's airport level, I think the rest of us would rather give the guys by foot a fighting chance. Wreck a squad, then wreck it again without fear because it cannot spawn with another LAT and for a third time making half of them quit, that's what you've been accustomed to do I guess, so why don't you adapt to that no longer being the case? I've had reasonable successes in 1.3 with APCs and IFVs alike and thus don't understand why you're crying unfair.
Unless ofc you still try to make the argument that APCs should only fear AT emplacements and HATs. But you'd still be wrong on that.

Yeah, according to real life, we would have times 2-3 more AT capability as INF, right now, its perfect. Sometimes even feels lacking AT.

If you are good at APC, you will not get shot, second thing is becoming too greedy and then start crying "reduce AT" when finally get shot. This is how this thread looks like.

viirusiiseli wrote:It's called APC vs INF gameplay balance which has been, for a long time, balanced. Due to LATs being limited. All the way up to 1.3 it was carefully chosen how many LATs per team compared to player amount on the server. That was something the DEVs did really well for a long time.

Now APC gets better anti-infantry（and possibly choppers too?） rounds（HE-I） for 14.5mm guns and splash on 12.7mm guns.

Now APC with thermals can utilize smoke to shoot infantry with very little chance of retaliation.

Points above CLEARLY upset this "balance" you mentioned to have existed before.

So why shouldn't infantry get more LAT?

Just because you don't know when to press "2" or right click that does not mean APC vs. infantry balance is upset.

Now APC is more lethal vs. infantry and infantry is conditionally more consistently dangerous to APC. It's more skill（in using range and/or speed, or smoke+flir, to kill/avoid LAT） than luck（hoping no LAT is around or ready and he misses the kit in a few minutes the third time you killes him）.

Try playing infantry if you feel that CAS or APC got hit too hard by v1.3.

So you are saying there should be more AT-4's?

Navo wrote:So you are saying there should be more AT-4's?

Have you been reading?
Don't bother answering.

No, you haven't; because you would know the answer if you have.

ComradeHX wrote:Have you been reading?
Don't bother answering.

No, you haven't; because you would know the answer if you have.

Comrade, settle your shit. These people are not your enemy; we all play the same game. We're discussing the LAT / APC situation. Every single one of your comments that I have read for the last 3 weeks has been overly aggressive. I know other people have noticed and I bet your comments are pissing off just about every person that reads them.

Seriously, take a break from the forums or something, man. There's no need respond to someone like that.

ComradeHX wrote:Now APC with thermals can utilize smoke to shoot infantry with very little chance of retaliation.

I don't fully understand this statement. With thermals you have always been able to exploit smoke screens. Or have there been changes that I missed?

RedWater wrote:I don't fully understand this statement. With thermals you have always been able to exploit smoke screens. Or have there been changes that I missed?

Smoke screen is actually useful now.

Before, it didn't cover the vehicle completely and was easily seen-through.

PricelineNegotiator wrote:Comrade, settle your shit. These people are not your enemy; we all play the same game. We're discussing the LAT / APC situation. Every single one of your comments that I have read for the last 3 weeks has been overly aggressive. I know other people have noticed and I bet your comments are pissing off just about every person that reads them.

Seriously, take a break from the forums or something, man. There's no need respond to someone like that.

He's just saying the wrong things on purpose.