#AT GUNS NEED A REWORK!!!!

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

primal stag
#

What's the point in having an AT gun on the battlefield these days if it takes more shots now to destroy a tank? The whole point of an AT gun is to do what its meant to do and thats destroy tanks. But it doesnt anymore to the efficency it used too.

AT guns got used back in the day but not to the extent that they shoulda been IMOO. They used to be a formidable weapon on the battlefield. Now they're just an oversize BB gun that is a waste of supplies and time in general cause it takes so many hits to kill a tank these days. At that point the tank is going to find you and one tap you before you can cause some real damage.

Time to balance it out more or rebalance everything again, tanks included.

mint bloom
#

How many shots is it to kill the front plate of a heavy now?
It used to be 2. Has this changed?

#

I just tested it for myself.
It's now 3 shots to kill the front of a heavy tank. Doesn't seem that bad to me given at guns:

A) are tiny and hard to spot until they fire
B) can be built as a pop up cannon anywhere with about 10 seconds notice. A back of the line AT gun behind from a spotted pushed-up tank on stalingrads roads is devastingly effective.
C) have an insanely fast reload of about 4 seconds when double crewed.
D) are cheap af and have no cooldown limitation on the time to build.

So I disagree they have "no point".

Don't get me wrong, I don't like this balancing because it's basically entirely dependent on whether the tank had a decent plan to kill the gun, and whether the gun had a decent plan to kill the tank; and if given either situation neither opponent will recover. Such extremely glass cannony armour play isn't fun imho, especially given the completely disparate resource cost of a tank vs a gun.

I think the AT gun deserves buffs and nerfs:

  1. Traverse should be about 40% faster
  2. It should be able to go one level of zoom further in. (historical buffs might not like this)
  3. Reload should be slower, about 40%
  4. 5 minute Cooldown on each player "build-AT" gun event; so sure you get a second build event if your gun had been surviving for 5 minutes prior (similar to support supply box limit), but this stops the "1 AT player spams 6 consecutive at guns from a single supply truck on the hill of remagen/kursk"-type bullcrap.
twilit goblet
mint bloom
#

My point isn't that you can make a line of lots of guns to salvo. It's that they are so cheap (in every metric- most importantly time to get a gun in position) compared to tanks.

I'm thinking specifically about a really annoying game on remagen where our tanks were getting blasted for cheap by AT guns that couldn't be kept down, because even if you found them and killed them, the little fudger would have another gun up within 1 minute. I think they had 2 guys building guns. Even though we killed something stupid like 14 at guns in that game we couldn't leave spawn to help our guys on the bridge because we had to constantly wack-a-mole the next at-gun. Granted, this issue is as much a product of bad map as it is poor AT gun balance.

3 shots to hull to kill tank at any range. that bit I don't have a problem with, I was just commenting the actual number because the OP made it sound like it had significantly gone up- which it just hasn't - it's +1, or +4secs time to kill.
I would also contend, that making a heavy tank retreat and need to repair damage is a win for an AT gun- similar to a recon managing to waste a tank's time being hunted rather than letting them drive to front. It takes ages to repair a heavy tank and pushing them into a corner is incredibly helpful to your team.

I think the number of shots is fine, but the O/A advantages of AT guns should have a cost to failure that is fairer to the cost of failure of losing a tank (i.e. the tank sufferrs 3 players out of action, a fuel cost and a 5 minute drive to front, whereas the AT gun suffers a minimum of a player death/respawn cooldown).

iron warren
#

The only rework you need is to put the loadout at LVL 1. Maybe even give one to the engineer too, since the main issue with AT-guns still is that the team isn't building enough of them. It's silly to get your entire team shafted by arbitrary limitations, like if no-one in your squad has the AT gun unlocked, or if the AT is just griefing and you can do little about it. It seems to me that more often than not you run into problems like these that stop you from getting a gun built, that's the problem, not that AT-guns are too weak.

novel olive
#

a big thing I think it needs is the ability to be moved
its pretty hard to find a good spot for them sometimes and theres no way of really adjusting it