Project Reality Forums

Although I am in awe of you guys ( the Devs) by your fantastic work on the latest MOD, I am rather saddened by the reduction in Heavy Anti-tank kits. I was always of the firm belief that two per team was far too low. After all, which modern army would conceive of sending troops into an arena, where there was a certainty of enemy Armour to encounter, without adequate weapons. To have that number reduced has, to a degree, degraded the infantry's effectiveness massively.

Personally I think there should be two HAT kits in larger scale maps like Kashan and Khamysa (or what ever its called) but 1 kit is enough for most maps.

Since there are more armor vehicles and players in the same time now I think they should increase the HAT kit amount back to 2.

The BF2 nature of how HAT kit's work make them extremely overpowered so 1 is enough just to keep this broken kit in the game.

On the big maps you got CAS, Tanks, IFV's and stationary Tow's to deal with enemy Armor, so why should moving infantry be able to deal with it also?

Countless times I have been hiding in a hole because there is enemy armor nearby, waiting for help to arrive. This is how it should be. Infantry should fear armor and request support to take it out, and not just magically pick up a HAT from a box.

The reason I think the HAT is broken is because if your in a building or behind a wall you can crouch and get the weapon totally ready and just listen for the armor and wait for them to shoot at something else or move, then you pop your head and shoot guiding on the target.

It is extremely easy to do and impossible to counter in armor. So the more HAT kit's the more you see armor fighting in the middle of the desert far far away from the objective hunting cars and other armor instead of providing cover for there own infantry.

In 1.0 at least this happen less frequent and infantry start to fear armor and ask for help (teamwork) to take it out.

I would go as far as giving the factions with unguided HAT's 2 kits because they are less broken, and the ones with guided just 1.

Gracler wrote:The BF2 nature of how HAT kit's work make them extremely overpowered so 1 is enough just to keep this broken kit in the game.

This should be argument enough for anyone proposing additional HATs, or improving the kit further. Hence the name "jack in the box".

I've seen it and done it many, maaany, maaaanny times, be it in random pub matches or highly organized games (scrims, PRT, etc.). If someone capable has the HAT, the opposing team will have an awful time, depending on the map he/she can effectively deny almost all armor movement.

To OP, I disagree with every fiber of my body.

Clarification: All of the above applies to the wire guided and not guided stabilized AT systems. I'm all for adding one more HAT if they are all like the RPG tandem or SMAW).

Edit: Just figured Gracler said the same just in a more elaborate way.

Gracler wrote:Countless times I have been hiding in a hole because there is enemy armor nearby, waiting for help to arrive. This is how it should be.

Wish you had been in Iraq to tell the insurgents with the RPG-29s and Kornets how it should be. I'm sure the Russians would have appreciated this in Grozny on New Year's '95.

Here's an idea: if you want the infantry calling for tank support, perhaps start having your infantry support the armor by killing anti-tank gunners?

Eddie Baker wrote: Here's an idea: if you want the infantry calling for tank support, perhaps start having your infantry support the armor by killing anti-tank gunners?

Any experienced HAT gunner will not engage infantry, but avoid them and only show his head when armor is near.

Many times the infantry report "ALL CLEAR" and as soon as you arrive "jack in the box" was behind window nr 896. or in bush nr 365. Infantry don't play BF2 PR like they play ARMA so they will just skim the area and if they don't take fire it is "CLEAR".

Many times they don't even find the HAT guy after he fired and ran away.

I'm not really sure what your getting at with the factual incidents. Your saying infantry should not fear armor and just run around toying with them for a few seconds so they can have there buddy blow them up easier? In that case tanks should not cost tickets and re-spawn instantly or be removed from the game.

Eddie Baker wrote:Wish you had been in Iraq to tell the insurgents with the RPG-29s and Kornets how it should be. I'm sure the Russians would have appreciated this in Grozny on New Year's '95.

Here's an idea: if you want the infantry calling for tank support, perhaps start having your infantry support the armor by killing anti-tank gunners?

Play the game instead of flooding the forums with your spat out irony. You are not making anyone a favor. Your assumptions based on RL facts and experiences do not apply to gameplay.

Gracler wrote:Any experienced HAT gunner will not engage infantry, but avoid them and only show his head when armor is near.

Many times the infantry report "ALL CLEAR" and as soon as you arrive "jack in the box" was behind window nr 896. or in bush nr 365. Infantry don't play BF2 PR like they play ARMA so they will just skim the area and if they don't take fire it is "CLEAR".

Many times they don't even find the HAT guy after he fired and ran away.

So, you're saying he's doing his job better than your teammates are doing theirs?

Gracler wrote:I'm not really sure what your getting at with the factual incidents. Your saying infantry should not fear armor and just run around toying with them for a few seconds so they can have there buddy blow them up easier? In that case tanks should not cost tickets and re-spawn instantly or be removed from the game.

I'm saying that prepared infantry in the right terrain should not fear armor; if your squad has an HAT kit, you ARE the help.

And if you're so about teamplay, as you claim, you should be prepared to take one for the team, even if that means being bait for the tank or making your tank bait for the HAT. You can't handle the respawn time? It's not like you're actually getting killed. Or are you some diva who thinks that the team is there only to support you?

Brainlaag wrote:Play the game instead of flooding the forums with your spat out irony. You are not making anyone a favor. Your assumptions based on RL facts and experiences do not apply to gameplay.

Comp isn't up to spec to play the mod well, anymore. 'Sides, I already spent 9 years working on this mod for free. I'm retired, so why the fuck should I do you any favors?

Eddie Baker wrote:So, you're saying he's doing his job better than your teammates are doing theirs?



I'm saying that prepared infantry in the right terrain should not fear armor; if your squad has an HAT kit, you ARE the help.

And if you're so about teamplay, as you claim, you should be prepared to take one for the team, even if that means being bait for the tank or making your tank bait for the HAT. You can't handle the respawn time? It's not like you're actually getting killed. Or are you some diva who thinks that the team is there only to support you?



Comp isn't up to spec to play the mod well, anymore. 'Sides, I already spent 9 years working on this mod for free. I'm retired, so why the fuck should I do you any favors?

you have good points but i would drop the diva term...no need to go down there.

Well if people ask me i think the HAT is fine as it is now. Back in 0.98 i knew that when most is quite and you are just driving to find targets you will be dead in matter of minutes because of HAT's controlling key points (mainly Kashan and Muttarh city) but now because there is one less i have less worries driving through some where as the chances of a HAT being there are very slim. Of course there are still TOW's and LAT's but that's another story

Eddie Baker wrote: I'm saying that prepared infantry in the right terrain should not fear armor; if your squad has an HAT kit, you ARE the help.

And if you're so about teamplay, as you claim, you should be prepared to take one for the team, even if that means being bait for the tank or making your tank bait for the HAT. You can't handle the respawn time? It's not like you're actually getting killed. Or are you some diva who thinks that the team is there only to support you?

You can prepare by building a tow that can't be exploited working as intended.

And your right I'm preparing to take "one for the team" by wasting the team's tickets making the team lose the game. Reason to make tank's and other armor last longer is to make it a worthwhile asset that is not instantly a hazard to the team. If infantry is so good as you want it to be, you automatically punish the team that uses tunnel visioned and loud armor.

And yes I'm a diva I expect everyone to cover me because that is how I play PR. Also every time I die I cry like a little girl, I believe you forgot that detail.

Eddie Baker wrote:Comp isn't up to spec to play the mod well, anymore. 'Sides, I already spent 9 years working on this mod for free. I'm retired, so why the fuck should I do you any favors?

So you honor the 9 years of work by ranting and being bitter talking about a game you don't play? useful for PR indeed.

Gracler wrote:You can prepare by building a tow that can't be exploited working as intended.

If it were working as intended then they wouldn't be visually outranged by the tanks they're meant to kill, as they currently seem to be. But sure, that works, then we get to read another thread by someone like you whining about TOW-sniping.

Gracler wrote:And your right I'm preparing to take "one for the team" by wasting the team's tickets making the team lose the game. Reason to make tank's and other armor last longer is to make it a worthwhile asset that is not instantly a hazard to the team. If infantry is so good as you want it to be, you automatically punish the team that uses tunnel visioned and loud armor.

So, you want rewards with no risk?

If they're taking it into a terrain where it's at a disadvantage with no infantry support, they're punishing themselves.

Gracler wrote:So you honor the 9 years of work by ranting and being bitter talking about a game you don't play? useful for PR indeed.

Seems to be completely within the spirit of a very vocal segment of the community you have helped to create who have been playing it for less time and feel they are owed something; that something being a game made exactly the way they want whether their polls support them or not.

Useful for PR: BF2? Probably not. Could be useful for PR on the superior engines, though. And I still contribute to this mod in the team forums. What have you done lately aside from being condescending to retired DEVs and relatively new forum posters?

Eddie Baker wrote:Comp isn't up to spec to play the mod well, anymore. 'Sides, I already spent 9 years working on this mod for free. I'm retired, so why the fuck should I do you any favors?

No one is saying you have to do anything but if you already have nothing to contribute, at least stay quite and don't go full cynical.

And this is surely not a disgraceful rant. It's simply adds nothing posting those things.

One HAT is really enough. Even though i sometimes miss a second, because someone else has it in a random location. It is better that way.
On a sidenote:
I did not test it myself yet, but it seems to be possible, to get a second HAT, when the first HAT drops his Kit.

And Eddie Baker, you are really not contributing to this discussion.

Tonymount wrote:Although I am in awe of you guys ( the Devs) by your fantastic work on the latest MOD, I am rather saddened by the reduction in Heavy Anti-tank kits. I was always of the firm belief that two per team was far too low. After all, which modern army would conceive of sending troops into an arena, where there was a certainty of enemy Armour to encounter, without adequate weapons. To have that number reduced has, to a degree, degraded the infantry's effectiveness massively.

HAT kits are ment to be self defense weapons against armor, the idea is not to hunt down tanks with it. That's what you got tanks and tank destroyers for.

Eddie Baker wrote:If it were working as intended then they wouldn't be visually outranged by the tanks they're meant to kill, as they currently seem to be. But sure, that works, then we get to read another thread by someone like you whining about TOW-sniping.

If you played the game you would know that Tow's cant zoom anymore, and a tank funny enough expose his armor before he is able to see and shoot a target, but I guess there is a tank out there in real life that I don't know about?

Eddie Baker wrote: So, you want rewards with no risk?

If they're taking it into a terrain where it's at a disadvantage with no infantry support, they're punishing themselves.

I think your trolling more than anything since you clearly don't know how this game is working with the guided handheld HAT's.

Eddie Baker wrote: Seems to be completely within the spirit of a very vocal segment of the community you have helped to create who have been playing it for less time and feel they are owed something; that something being a game made exactly the way they want whether their polls support them or not.

Useful for PR: BF2? Probably not. Could be useful for PR on the superior engines, though. And I still contribute to this mod in the team forums. What have you done lately aside from being condescending to retired DEVs and relatively new forum posters?

I'm being condescending? That's rich coming from a retired developer who thinks his contributions allows him to be condescending on younger posters. Also please give me a list of the people I have attacked and not the ones I'm defending myself from like you. I'll be happy to apologize to them.

I love the one HAT change. Pre 1.0 you would not survive longer than 5 minutes in any city. Too much corners, and at least one HAT is sitting in one of them waiting for you to come around. Too many HAT lonewolfs, lurking around the map made the game unplayable as a vehicle IMO. The new change is perfect.

why the Russian RPG-7 was so nerf? you can not destroy a Lav-25 with a shot and he runs away like a chicken before you can reload it.

Gracler wrote:If you played the game you would know that Tow's cant zoom anymore, and a tank funny enough expose his armor before he is able to see and shoot a target, but I guess there is a tank out there in real life that I don't know about?

LOL Did you read all of my previous posts or just the parts that so outraged you because someone has a different opinion? I don't need to play the game to know that, it was listed in the complaints section, and it's what I was talking about. That isn't a feature, it's a bug, so no, it is not working as intended. And most in-game tanks have multiple magnification levels, last I played.

Gracler wrote:I think your trolling more than anything since you clearly don't know how this game is working with the guided handheld HAT's.

Sure do know how it's working, and I think it and this engine suck golf balls through a coffee stir. But you have to use the cards you're dealt both as a developer and as a player.

Gracler wrote:I'm being condescending? That's rich coming from a retired developer who thinks his contributions allows him to be condescending on younger posters.

ROFL You're going with "I'm not, you are?"

Younger posters? Like I know or give a rat's *** what age you are, you just stated that you know how things "should be," and I disagreed using caustic sarcasm. But taking that attitude into account and the fact that you still insist on having the last word, I'm guessing you're, what, 19? And since there seem to be shitloads of guys like you, here, yeah, I might be getting you confused with someone else. But even if you did, you don't have to apologize to anyone, this isn't elementary school. Though you wouldn't know it to look at our behavior, would you? Elementary school has adult supervision; this is an internet forum.

As for contributing to the topic discussion, I thought it was apparent that I am on the "for" side and others are on the "against" side of reinstating the second HAT kit. But things digressed.

Roque_THE_GAMER wrote:why the Russian RPG-7 was so nerf? you can not destroy a Lav-25 with a shot and he runs away like a chicken before you can reload it.

That's in this thread:

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f252-p ... ement.html

Eddie Baker wrote:As for contributing to the topic discussion, I thought it was apparent that I am on the "for" side and others are on the "against" side of reinstating the second HAT kit. But things digressed.

That is great, now base your opinion on something. How do you think a second HAT affects the game and don't bring RL as argument up, because it does not apply to the game.

So you are for a second HAT because....(Knowing that ONE experienced guy can deal a motherload of damage to the opposing team)?

Eddie Baker wrote:Younger posters? Like I know or give a rat's *** what age you are, you just stated that you know how things "should be," and I disagreed using caustic sarcasm. But taking that attitude into account and the fact that you still insist on having the last word, I'm guessing you're, what, 19?

I think he meant younger as in the join date, might be wrong tho.