Re: The straight dope on HATs, LATs, and GLs

**BigGaayAl** · 10-20-2007, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by thegreatnardini

While LAT may be allowed against infantry spamming it repeatedly, while not against the rules is very unsportsmanlike and in my opinion against what TG stands for. Some of the things I saw on the server tonight were, while legal, cheap, and I would think people that play on our server, especially TG regulars, can play with a certain level of maturity to know when enough LAT spamming is enough, regardless or rules.

I was "whining" about this too at the end of the round. Normally I just shrug or course with my squad-mates over voip and move on. However near the end of the round I was literally seeing more AT weapons fly at me then bullets.
At that point the immersion in the game totally disappeared for me. I do expect more realism approaching behaviour from what was apparently a mostly TG manned squad.

Whatever it was It wasn't setting the right tone, the right example.

**Ghost Dog** · 10-20-2007, 11:54 AM

Apparently the AT spamming in the end of the round was not from a person wearing a TG tag, but still a regular on the forums. I checked the BFR file and it was an SA-7 (MANPADS) spamming us. Even worse...

I know there aren't any rules about this as far as infantry goes but as it has a straight shot I think it should be considered a HAT.

**Skud** · 10-20-2007, 11:59 AM

I'm pretty sure thats on the same level HAT wise.

Either way, PM the an admin and try to get ahold of the BFR file name for him.

If it's who I would assume it is, they're already in hot water as it is.

**Tempus** · 10-20-2007, 12:01 PM

I am interested to see what the new version of PR has in store, as alluded to by Fuzzhead. It would be premature to make new rules at this stage, considering all the changes that this still BETA is going through.

**{-BaH-} LilPiccolo** · 10-20-2007, 02:23 PM

Thoughts on making the HAT just Lock-On for Vehicles, in .7. Not necessarily that 2 second lock-on but modify the vars to enable the user to fire the rocket when vehicles are mouseovered/triangulated from TV guided perspective.

**snooggums** · 10-21-2007, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by {-BaH-} LilPiccolo

Thoughts on making the HAT just Lock-On for Vehicles, in .7. Not necessarily that 2 second lock-on but modify the vars to enable the user to fire the rocket when vehicles are mouseovered/triangulated from TV guided perspective.

The problem with that is that if it is limited to the crosshairs, then you cannot lead your target. If it came down to just being in your FOV that would not be as bad but would allow people to still snipe near armor.

**{-BaH-} LilPiccolo** · 10-21-2007, 05:05 PM

Well there is a variable that enables the rocket to be shot. It won't be lock on. target mouseover a vehicle should enable HAT shot, and lead is still available

**TurkishDelight** · 10-22-2007, 02:22 AM

Alright here we go....I think what Ghostdog and Al are talking is important, and I take full repsonsibility for my actions. Here is my side of the story on Operation Phoenix.

My squad was taking fire from the Americans shooting at us from the East. My unscoped G3 was useless against the deadly eyeball zoom of the M16. I could not hit them if my life depended on it, as they were to far away. I run at 90% visibility and they were barely in sight. Tired of being shot and then revived, I took aim with my RPG and put down a supressive volley of rocket fire hoping for the best(not more than maybe 5?).

These actions although frowned upon for good reasons, helped save my squad from certain destruction. Under normal curcumstances I would not attempt doing such a thing, but desperate times call for desperate measures. So if everybody would just let the situation diffuse we might all be better off.

**Portable.Cougar** · 10-22-2007, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ghost Dog

Apparently the AT spamming in the end of the round was not from a person wearing a TG tag, but still a regular on the forums. I checked the BFR file and it was an SA-7 (MANPADS) spamming us. Even worse...

I know there aren't any rules about this as far as infantry goes but as it has a straight shot I think it should be considered a HAT.

Sounds like something I would do.

**Ghost Dog** · 10-22-2007, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by TurkishDelight

Alright here we go....I think what Ghostdog and Al are talking is important, and I take full repsonsibility for my actions. Here is my side of the story on Operation Phoenix.

My squad was taking fire from the Americans shooting at us from the East. My unscoped G3 was useless against the deadly eyeball zoom of the M16. I could not hit them if my life depended on it, as they were to far away. I run at 90% visibility and they were barely in sight. Tired of being shot and then revived, I took aim with my RPG and put down a supressive volley of rocket fire hoping for the best(not more than maybe 5?).

These actions although frowned upon for good reasons, helped save my squad from certain destruction. Under normal curcumstances I would not attempt doing such a thing, but desperate times call for desperate measures. So if everybody would just let the situation diffuse we might all be better off.

Breaking the rules because you 're being overpowered is no excuse... your squad went the other way as we were no real threat back there, you should 've done the same.

I rest my case, did what I had to do, the rest is up to the bosses.

**TurkishDelight** · 10-22-2007, 04:15 AM

Breaking the rules? AT is allowed against infantry is it not?! I don't see how I was breaking the rules. I wouldn't consider it spamming either. It was precisely directed at visible targets. People wouldn't be so upset if they were 10 meters away and I threw 5 grenades, yet it is a similar tactic. Also if you want to contest realism, RPGs can be reloaded quickly unlike the AT4s and other "throw away" AT weapons. So yes it could conceivably be a realistic tactic. Some things need to be kept in proportion. I didnt go around HAT sniping your main base. So please dont give me any "I did what I had to" speeches. You did what you CHOSE to do.

Have a nice day

Turkish

**Ghost Dog** · 10-22-2007, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by TurkishDelight

Also if you want to contest realism, RPGs can be reloaded quickly unlike the AT4s and other "throw away" AT weapons. So yes it could conceivably be a realistic tactic.

Lol, you 're teaching me lessons in realism while you were using ANTI AIR on infantry.

Originally Posted by LAT Rules

Hopefully we can see the commonality of those examples. The enemy unit(s) are entrenched with solid objects nearby for the projectile to hit.

What we don't see in those examples are the LAT projectiles directly impacting the enemy unit or targeting units not entrenched near some solid object. We should not be targeting infantry units directly in the open field at close to medium range.

I mention close to medium range purposefully. Long range LAT use against stationary infantry in an open area is a different situation that many call this AT SNIPING. Let's define "long-range" as a distance that rifle fire can not easily take down a target. In this situation the player must use their best judgment. If a target is off in the distance and not reachable by normal rifle fire, then they may switch to the next best feasible weapon at their disposal. The LAT kit can be properly used here.

EDIT for clarification: Using the LAT at long range still requires some object to be targeting. Using in the open field probably isn't the proper use, however if the enemy infantry unit(s) is on a mountain side, the mountain will provide the solid backdrop.

As we were out in the open field, no mountain side or whatever other solid object nearby, I did feel like your actions weren't within the rules, that 's why I felt the need to bring it up. Add to that, that an SA-7 is more like a HAT than a LAT (straight shot, huge splash damage) and anyone in our situation would 've done the same.

EDIT: I didn't want this discussion to happen but it 's still on topic and proves the confusion created by the rules...

**TurkishDelight** · 10-22-2007, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Ghost Dog

Lol, you 're teaching me lessons in realism while you were using ANTI AIR on infantry.

As we were out in the open field, no mountain side or whatever other solid object nearby, I did feel like your actions weren't within the rules, that 's why I felt the need to bring it up. Add to that, that an SA-7 is more like a HAT than a LAT (straight shot, huge splash damage) and anyone in our situation would 've done the same.

EDIT: I didn't want this discussion to happen but it 's still on topic and proves the confusion created by the rules...

Hmmm....I think this whole situation has been jumbled up....I wasnt using AA on infantry....I was using an RPG(98% positive.....The people I was shooting at where on a mountain side FYI and we did not retreat.....We are not talking about the same occurance....Basically I was not the one shooting at you
Ghostdog. This is confusing!!!!! For some reason I thought that we were discussing the same event, but infact we are talking about two seperate occurances.....My head hurts.....

If we are talking about the same thing, then I must not remember a whole lot!

**Ghost Dog** · 10-22-2007, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by TurkishDelight

Hmmm....I think this whole situation has been jumbled up....I wasnt using AA on infantry....I was using an RPG(98% positive.....The people I was shooting at where on a mountain side FYI and we did not retreat.....We are not talking about the same occurance....Basically I was not the one shooting at you
Ghostdog. This is confusing!!!!! For some reason I thought that we were discussing the same event, but infact we are talking about two seperate occurances.....My head hurts.....

If we are talking about the same thing, then I must not remember a whole lot!

During the round we were indeed attacked by LAT by your squad, I checked the BFR file and most of the useage was within the rules even though some of it was questionable... I 'm not gonna debate that as it is hard to tell whether someone is aiming at a tree or a person.

What I was referring to is the last 10 minutes of the round, where you shot at least 7 AA missiles at our squad within 3 minutes. If you want proof, give me (or create) a Youtube account and I 'll refresh your memory.

If you have anything else to add, I suggest we discuss this over PM 's.

**Tempus** · 10-22-2007, 12:46 PM

Alright guys, as I mentioned above, the new release of PR will bring some changes to the AT weapons. After that occurs, the admin team can review the changes and consult with the PR devs to come up with something appropriate.

Thread Tools

Display