Ghandi 2Taque said:
He's back, and this time, he wants revenge.
No more Mr. Passive-Agressive Nice Guy.
Some serious issues..
- Thread starter geogob
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
He's back, and this time, he wants revenge.
No more Mr. Passive-Agressive Nice Guy.
Ghandi 2 said:
________
[edit: I do dislike the AT4's lack of realistic backblast, but we *cannot* and *should not* blame SS, They included it so that we could make better EAS maps not to ruin the game. besides, you posted in that AT4 removal thread so I dunno what all this fuss is about, there are like 3+ ways to get rid of it.
]
Last edited:
The Check loadout Mut works wonders
There are heaps of servers running that take out the AT4. Find one and Play.
Problem Solved?{GD} Odie3 said:
There are heaps of servers running that take out the AT4. Find one and Play.
Burger said:
Since no one but Odie removed the AT4 (as far as I know) nothing is solved for me.
And let me say one thing to those who bring up the "Demo map/gametype" argument... If you want to do something, do it properly. I don't blame SS for including an AT4... they could even includ a damn Javelin and I would mind. That is if its done correctly and in the "official" philosphy of infiltration. If they wish to change that philosphy and start re-release UT-like weapon, that's fine with me. I'll just start looking for another game.
Again on the "Demo map/gametype" argument... the Infilration Modteam had in its projects a "real" RPG, desing, modelled and to be coded "as real as possible" and in prevision of such a Demolition gametype. While we were trying to do things the "right" way and in the philosphy of this damn game, SS releases this 8 polygon cylinder (sorry but it's a real piece of crap, far from your own standards). In the end, it only discouraged our developers and modellers to continue with their project. They still might work on it, but I wouldn't put my money on that now.
yah, admins give a shout-out if you allow the AT4.
IMHO The AT-4 Needs:
1) new model/skin
2) backblast/minimum arming range
if an AT4-fix mutator was released that included these things, then I could see allowing the weapon on servers. also such a "as real as it gets" AT4 would be much more encouraging to EAS mapping.
(BTW: I dislike the idea of a "demolition gametype",
I would much prefer to see EAS-games that feature demolition *objectives*,
with a community as small as ours we cannot afford to split up our servers and playerbase anymore then they already are.)
_______
edit: there may be other things the AT4 needs, but I cant think of any right now
IMHO The AT-4 Needs:
1) new model/skin
2) backblast/minimum arming range
if an AT4-fix mutator was released that included these things, then I could see allowing the weapon on servers. also such a "as real as it gets" AT4 would be much more encouraging to EAS mapping.
(BTW: I dislike the idea of a "demolition gametype",
I would much prefer to see EAS-games that feature demolition *objectives*,
with a community as small as ours we cannot afford to split up our servers and playerbase anymore then they already are.)
_______
edit: there may be other things the AT4 needs, but I cant think of any right now
Last edited:
Lt. said:
Well I don't know what crowze had in mind, but I thought it more in the line of EAS with special objectives... I can be wrong though.
The bonus pack came with a mapper placeable mortar, right? And you can use the AT4 for an objective, has anybody tried that in UED2?
I dunno why everyone is soiling themselves over this.
The way I saw it, the AT4 is simply an objective weapon. (yes I kow they put in the loadout but lets be reasonable, there's mutators to stop it, it's not like they're forcing it down your throat). Since it's an objective weapon, (supposing we had maps for it) you wouldn't waaste the ammo on enemies because then you can't complete the objective. It had one purpose and one purpose only. The fact that ammo needed to be conserved was the check and balance to ensure that it wouldn't be whored. Unfortunately, no one followed through on a demo map. Why would you want INF to devote modeling and skinning time to a prop? The fact that it's lame stupid looking and unrealistic IMO deters people from using it, unless your a ****tard.
and don't you see the poetic nature of them including the old school AT4 with the final UT incarnation of INF? it's a nice irony seeing the weapon that was dropped when INF began it's journey to realism return to be there for it's arrival.
I don't like the weapon but I don't hate on SS for doing it. If people are going to abuse something, they will. It's asking too much of the INF team to police every freaking detail. Let the community handle some of it, and members like Odie have. more should and they're not so be pissed at them.
The way I saw it, the AT4 is simply an objective weapon. (yes I kow they put in the loadout but lets be reasonable, there's mutators to stop it, it's not like they're forcing it down your throat). Since it's an objective weapon, (supposing we had maps for it) you wouldn't waaste the ammo on enemies because then you can't complete the objective. It had one purpose and one purpose only. The fact that ammo needed to be conserved was the check and balance to ensure that it wouldn't be whored. Unfortunately, no one followed through on a demo map. Why would you want INF to devote modeling and skinning time to a prop? The fact that it's lame stupid looking and unrealistic IMO deters people from using it, unless your a ****tard.
and don't you see the poetic nature of them including the old school AT4 with the final UT incarnation of INF? it's a nice irony seeing the weapon that was dropped when INF began it's journey to realism return to be there for it's arrival.
I don't like the weapon but I don't hate on SS for doing it. If people are going to abuse something, they will. It's asking too much of the INF team to police every freaking detail. Let the community handle some of it, and members like Odie have. more should and they're not so be pissed at them.
geogob said:
It's definitely removed on n1 and most likely removed from FOOL and 121st...
That's probably not your favorite servers ....
Nukeproof said:
It's not that i don't like them. I usually enjoy playing alot on european servers (I even get to practice my German
)... but most of the time, lag is unsupportable. So sad IMO. I'd like to be more often on those servers.
geogob said:
I agree Geogob, but my big thing is that the AT4 is an ANTI-TANK weapon with a shaped charge warhead. In game, its presented more like an RPG. Which is not realistic. I dont think a shaped charge warhead would give the effect being seen, nor any soldier IMO try to use a shaped charge warhead like an RPG. If we want some launched anti-personell weapons introduced into the game, lets bring in the RPG-7 and automatic grenade launchers like the Mark 19. HK also makes a nice automatic grenade laucher. Make 'em vehicle mounted like the .50s.
Beppo
Infiltration Lead-Programmer
Oh boy... how can so many people get so far off in such a short amount of time...
how can people think that including the AT4 shows anything about where SentryStudios is going or what our plans are for future versions... how can the AT4 be some sort of milestone that shows you that we will go arcade in the future...
guys, you know us for years and we already stated the reasons for implementing the AT4 as a 'bonus' weapon... well for those that need it... some official statements:
- The AT4 'reincarnation' started here on the forums by the community talking about destroyable EAS objectives. The AT4 got into the discussion pretty fast and was used for blowing up this or that vehicle scenarios.
- At that time the in-game fun shots of our 2.9 player carrying an AT4 were posted more or less as a joke cause the AT4 was discussed by the community and I was fooling around with the codes at that time and digged up the old AT4 model on an old HD.
- The AT4 was not released with 2.9. The demand for a destructible objective showed up again and people discussed different types of anti-tank weaponry to be implemented by the community folks if possible. I don't remember who talked about a model of an RPG-7 to be implemented by the INF MOD team or others within the community, but if you use the search tool of the forums you will notice that it showed up several times.
But now to the reasons why the AT4 became even a loadout weapon...
- During the development of the BonusPack the destructible objective was created and tested by implementing the AT4 as a pickup for it cause we simply had no model of ie the RPG-7 or anything similar and no modeler to create one out of thin air. The new objective type is part of the BonusPack and we had a map scenario in mind to actually use it but abandoned the idea later on and so no special map using the AT4 was included.
- The AT4 was implemented with nothing big in mind, it just should work to destroy the objective, needed an offset and stuff like that but most of the 'special' things like ie the backdraft was left out at the time the old codes were copied over and adjusted cause most of these effects looked ****ty and I simply did not wanted to waste more time than actually needed on this class to be implemented as an example or base for others. The damage radius of the original AT4 was reduced drastically and the old UT rocket model was used again cause we had no modeler for such things as said already.
- Well, the AT4 needs to be a regular weapon you can pick up, fire, drop, whatever. So it is and needs to be a regular weapon class. Now give a community member ten to fifteen minutes and he will locate this class, write a mini mutator to add it to the game as regular loadout weapon and then releasing his new mutator. So why should we wait for someone to do it with completely messed up bulk values and whatnot... why not do it ourselves and have it under control.
- So, the AT4 became a loadout weapon, got heavy bulk to avoid abusage and all.
- The main focus was to present a destructible objective and a base weapon class for ie the INF MOD team or anyone else who was developing a RPG-7 out there already.
- Sure our team and testers looked at the AT4 to be only a fun addition used as an example and not really a regular weapon that some stupid folks out there use to play TDM. But the FarCry community (and other game communities before) do show that a rocket launcher can even be used in CQB situations. And if the RL has a zoom feature... well... say good bye to gameplay. So some got concerned about our community starting to abuse it. Well after talking about the very easy way to disallow the AT4 an a server this concern wasn't there anymore cause we thought that most server admins will add the few lines needed within a very short amount of time if players really start to play CQB-me-with-an-AT4.
- A mutator that can be used to remove the AT4 from your server is part of the BonusPack and some more that can do this were made available by the community folks too some time ago already. So I really don't see a problem of removing it if needed.
Just one thing to TDM and the AT4...
TDM plays in many different ways for every game and mod out there, just depending on who plays the game together with you. If a RL of some kind is available and can be used to 'own' in CQB or even out in the open, then you will always find players that start to abuse it effectively.
We thought that the heavy bulk and the one-shot-only stuff is enough to stop those lamers to use it in CQB or whatever and had an option at hand for removing the AT4 from the servers if some would be so 'stubborn' to ignore all the disadvantages and actually use it in game. Well, I guess we were correct partially in terms of most people only use it for fun matches. Sure, not really nice if you take the match seriously and they do not. But that is 'standard' out there if you play TDM type games that are normally played like DM just with a few targets that you aren't allowed to shoot at or (if FF is off) cannot be hurt by ya. Most 'just for fun' TDM players do not care for the rest of their team, so TDM is just a frag fest most times where dying and killing makes fun (no matter how) and nothing more is needed.
Well in EAS I don't think that the AT4 is such a thread at all. It can be countered easily, it slows down the guy carrying it and the explosion radius is really not that large that it can be used to kill a whole enemy team with one shot. If so, then a well placed 40mm would have been enough already. It travels slowly, can be dodged and is not easy to get on target properly to actually kill someone effectively. A well placed shot from the opponent can easily stop the guy carrying the AT4.
So, if someone with an AT4 somehow ruins the game for you, either switch to another server that disallows the AT4 or try to convince him or the rest of the folks on the server to not use it. If nobody except you sees a reason to not allow it, then you are actually playing with the wrong people for you anyway.
Well a lot of text... hope ya read it fully before continuing to complain about something
cheers,
Beppo
how can people think that including the AT4 shows anything about where SentryStudios is going or what our plans are for future versions... how can the AT4 be some sort of milestone that shows you that we will go arcade in the future...
guys, you know us for years and we already stated the reasons for implementing the AT4 as a 'bonus' weapon... well for those that need it... some official statements:
- The AT4 'reincarnation' started here on the forums by the community talking about destroyable EAS objectives. The AT4 got into the discussion pretty fast and was used for blowing up this or that vehicle scenarios.
- At that time the in-game fun shots of our 2.9 player carrying an AT4 were posted more or less as a joke cause the AT4 was discussed by the community and I was fooling around with the codes at that time and digged up the old AT4 model on an old HD.
- The AT4 was not released with 2.9. The demand for a destructible objective showed up again and people discussed different types of anti-tank weaponry to be implemented by the community folks if possible. I don't remember who talked about a model of an RPG-7 to be implemented by the INF MOD team or others within the community, but if you use the search tool of the forums you will notice that it showed up several times.
But now to the reasons why the AT4 became even a loadout weapon...
- During the development of the BonusPack the destructible objective was created and tested by implementing the AT4 as a pickup for it cause we simply had no model of ie the RPG-7 or anything similar and no modeler to create one out of thin air. The new objective type is part of the BonusPack and we had a map scenario in mind to actually use it but abandoned the idea later on and so no special map using the AT4 was included.
- The AT4 was implemented with nothing big in mind, it just should work to destroy the objective, needed an offset and stuff like that but most of the 'special' things like ie the backdraft was left out at the time the old codes were copied over and adjusted cause most of these effects looked ****ty and I simply did not wanted to waste more time than actually needed on this class to be implemented as an example or base for others. The damage radius of the original AT4 was reduced drastically and the old UT rocket model was used again cause we had no modeler for such things as said already.
- Well, the AT4 needs to be a regular weapon you can pick up, fire, drop, whatever. So it is and needs to be a regular weapon class. Now give a community member ten to fifteen minutes and he will locate this class, write a mini mutator to add it to the game as regular loadout weapon and then releasing his new mutator. So why should we wait for someone to do it with completely messed up bulk values and whatnot... why not do it ourselves and have it under control.
- So, the AT4 became a loadout weapon, got heavy bulk to avoid abusage and all.
- The main focus was to present a destructible objective and a base weapon class for ie the INF MOD team or anyone else who was developing a RPG-7 out there already.
- Sure our team and testers looked at the AT4 to be only a fun addition used as an example and not really a regular weapon that some stupid folks out there use to play TDM. But the FarCry community (and other game communities before) do show that a rocket launcher can even be used in CQB situations. And if the RL has a zoom feature... well... say good bye to gameplay. So some got concerned about our community starting to abuse it. Well after talking about the very easy way to disallow the AT4 an a server this concern wasn't there anymore cause we thought that most server admins will add the few lines needed within a very short amount of time if players really start to play CQB-me-with-an-AT4.
- A mutator that can be used to remove the AT4 from your server is part of the BonusPack and some more that can do this were made available by the community folks too some time ago already. So I really don't see a problem of removing it if needed.
Just one thing to TDM and the AT4...
TDM plays in many different ways for every game and mod out there, just depending on who plays the game together with you. If a RL of some kind is available and can be used to 'own' in CQB or even out in the open, then you will always find players that start to abuse it effectively.
We thought that the heavy bulk and the one-shot-only stuff is enough to stop those lamers to use it in CQB or whatever and had an option at hand for removing the AT4 from the servers if some would be so 'stubborn' to ignore all the disadvantages and actually use it in game. Well, I guess we were correct partially in terms of most people only use it for fun matches. Sure, not really nice if you take the match seriously and they do not. But that is 'standard' out there if you play TDM type games that are normally played like DM just with a few targets that you aren't allowed to shoot at or (if FF is off) cannot be hurt by ya. Most 'just for fun' TDM players do not care for the rest of their team, so TDM is just a frag fest most times where dying and killing makes fun (no matter how) and nothing more is needed.
Well in EAS I don't think that the AT4 is such a thread at all. It can be countered easily, it slows down the guy carrying it and the explosion radius is really not that large that it can be used to kill a whole enemy team with one shot. If so, then a well placed 40mm would have been enough already. It travels slowly, can be dodged and is not easy to get on target properly to actually kill someone effectively. A well placed shot from the opponent can easily stop the guy carrying the AT4.
So, if someone with an AT4 somehow ruins the game for you, either switch to another server that disallows the AT4 or try to convince him or the rest of the folks on the server to not use it. If nobody except you sees a reason to not allow it, then you are actually playing with the wrong people for you anyway.
Well a lot of text... hope ya read it fully before continuing to complain about something
cheers,
Beppo
Beppo said:
Thats why people use it. You spend 5 minutes wandering around because the bulk is so heavy, you manage to evade all enemies and kill others with just a pistol, and in the end, you still blow your opponent beyond smitherines. It is the ultimate in pride to kill someone with a *****-weapon, thats why we have knife-fights in TDM.
Beppo
Infiltration Lead-Programmer
That's what I call a 'fun' match... so, nothing serious. And in a fun match everything is allowed... including AT4s, knife-fights, 40mm head-and-CQB-shooting... stuff like that.Derelan said:
If you search for a serious game, then search for the right people/server.
Derelan, off topic but I just wanted to point out a flaw in your theory. When both sides use a knife, they do so because they want the round to end not to humiliate the other guy (since obviously he is also using a knife).
TDM is not all about looking cool, it's about killing non-stop.
TDM is not all about looking cool, it's about killing non-stop.
I don't see how people would use the AT4 against people in INF... In the IDF we have LAW rockets (apperantly not much different fromt the AT4). It also uses a shaped charge warhead, which is supposed to be less effective as a anti-personal weapon compared to, say, an m203 40mm HE grenade.
"While the LAW is mainly used as an anti armor weapon, it can also be used with limited success against secondary targets such as weapons caches, pillboxes, buildings, or light vehicles."
This means it IS used sometimes against a terrorist hiding behind a wall, to breach a door or to just blow something up when a m203 is unavailable. The main use in CQB is the fact it penetrates 1m of concrete rather than it's explosion, as mentioned before (less effective than m203 against personel).
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/rockets/law/law.htm
BTW RPG also uses shaped charge warhead (so it's ineffective against people), but penetrates more steel than the LAW, but less concrete (due to the structure of the warhead or something). We also have a "wall-breaching" RPG rocket that penetrates up to 1m of concrete and spreads fragments into the room, but is ineffective against armor, and I hadn't even seen 1 in first person. The biggest and most expensive RPG rocket we have penetrates up to 500mm of steel, while the LAW only penetrates 260mm.
When we do operations in the territories, a team would usually carry a few law rockets just in case, like shown on isayeret.
Of coruse, to prevent abuse of such weapons in CQB, rear blast, minimum arming range, long time to pull it out and ballistics (RPG is quite hard to aim while LAW is easier but still requires you to guesstimate range when not facing a tank - the reticle helps get range but only vs a soviet tank).
As for having RPG in a game, the RPG is like the FN MAG in that it requires a 2-man team to work efficiently, and its only advantage on LAW is armor penetrating, which makes it unworthy of carrying to a CQB environment. Also you can throw away the LAW after you use it so you don't have to keep carrying the launcher. Also the LAW only weights 2.3-2.5 KG and is pretty short when closed.
After the AT4 is fixed to work like it does IRL, I doubt it'll be used effectively against people (if it's even effective now), and it should be possible to allow one to carry multiple AT4s.
"While the LAW is mainly used as an anti armor weapon, it can also be used with limited success against secondary targets such as weapons caches, pillboxes, buildings, or light vehicles."
This means it IS used sometimes against a terrorist hiding behind a wall, to breach a door or to just blow something up when a m203 is unavailable. The main use in CQB is the fact it penetrates 1m of concrete rather than it's explosion, as mentioned before (less effective than m203 against personel).
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/rockets/law/law.htm
BTW RPG also uses shaped charge warhead (so it's ineffective against people), but penetrates more steel than the LAW, but less concrete (due to the structure of the warhead or something). We also have a "wall-breaching" RPG rocket that penetrates up to 1m of concrete and spreads fragments into the room, but is ineffective against armor, and I hadn't even seen 1 in first person. The biggest and most expensive RPG rocket we have penetrates up to 500mm of steel, while the LAW only penetrates 260mm.
When we do operations in the territories, a team would usually carry a few law rockets just in case, like shown on isayeret.
Of coruse, to prevent abuse of such weapons in CQB, rear blast, minimum arming range, long time to pull it out and ballistics (RPG is quite hard to aim while LAW is easier but still requires you to guesstimate range when not facing a tank - the reticle helps get range but only vs a soviet tank).
As for having RPG in a game, the RPG is like the FN MAG in that it requires a 2-man team to work efficiently, and its only advantage on LAW is armor penetrating, which makes it unworthy of carrying to a CQB environment. Also you can throw away the LAW after you use it so you don't have to keep carrying the launcher. Also the LAW only weights 2.3-2.5 KG and is pretty short when closed.
After the AT4 is fixed to work like it does IRL, I doubt it'll be used effectively against people (if it's even effective now), and it should be possible to allow one to carry multiple AT4s.
The explision effect should be more like the HEDP from yurch... but on a larger scale... An effect that goes trough wall and structures with ultra high penetration, all that with a reduced localize blast area. This combined with a minimum arming distance would resolve most issue I have with it. Adding a realistic backblast would also help a lot for that matter.
I have to agree with Geogob. If a weapon is going to be included, do it right. Same reasoning behind the statement that someone was going to add it in a mutator anyway and it might as well be done right. Unfortunately, I guess being done right didn't mean being done as realistically or correctly as is currently possible.
A friend told me about a disposable Rocket launcher, called a 66 (i think) it's a light, one shot launcher, however, it wouldn't be anywhere near as heavy as the AT4.
Read Bravo two Zero, it's mentioned there.
How hard would it be to do that?
Read Bravo two Zero, it's mentioned there.
How hard would it be to do that?