"Sir, our ANTs can't hit any vehicle up close due to the attack angle being too high..." "Sir, if we take out this restrictor, we get 10 degrees more down angle and everything is fine..." Seriously, if a anti ground vehicle gun was found unable to engage other ground vehicles like harassers and lightnings, don't you think the Generals would correct the problem? Or at least the maintenance chiefs? Harassers and lightnings have learned to hug ANTs and become invulnerable. Time to lower that angle of attack please...
Depression on top gun mounts was nerfed fairly recently, so all sorts of attackers (vehicle and infantry) have now learned to get in under the guns firing arc on ANTs and Sundies. IDK why DBC did it but........reasons.......I guess.
When you solo a vehicle, you give up the ability to move for the ability to shoot. If you were not soloing a multi-crew vehicle youd not have to give up anything (as a unit). This is intended balance, love it or hate it.
Simple, because pitching angles were OP and everyone complained about them. If that change doesn't have you dumbfounded about what the devs want to do with vehicles, I don't know what will.
That really wasn't the point of his post. Very few people want to gun an Ant, why would you? Hey, want to look at scenery while I mine cortium? I prefer the Walker on the Ant and it's even worse for arc, but I've gotten the hang of positioning myself to shoot ground targets when I need to.
As some1 above already pointed out to you, and i mentioned in my earlier post, a fully manned vehicle can move to give its gunner an angle. Well if your ANT is being killed enough that you feel it necessary to make this thread, i cant see why your gunners would be bored. Your gunner should be scanning the horizon for enemies. Its only as boring as driving up to a crystal and holding LMB, surely the fun is building the base (which the gunner can partake in) not mining the cortium. Unless of course if youre talking about just farming wasting cortium for XP gain, in which case i have 0 sympathy. When i used to build bases, finding cortium was always a problem because there were 20 players who dont actualy like combat playing a combat game just to mine cortium. Worse still they also take up a regular players slot on the continent. Mining reward should be removed imo as it doesnt do what its intended to do, it just creates farmers.
My point is, in the real world this would never make it out of the motor pool. The corporal in charge of the humvee would go up to his maintenance sergeant and say "Hey man, we can't shoot anything close to us because of this metal limiter." The sergeant would say "Let me take care of that." WHACK! and your humvee is minus one limiter/restrictor and you can shoot just fine. I know this is a game, but seriously, would you want a gun that is anti-vehicle not be able to shoot vehicles just because of proximity? I understand nerfing it so that infantry can get right up next to it, but vehicles as big as the harasser? How long would that last in real life???
In actually effect I really dont see this as problem since 90% percent of harassers are anti tank and 90% of ants are single manned at all times and 90% of time these two vehicles meet its the ANT being ambushed and the ANT trying to run away. Why would I even try scrape bumpers with the ANT when I can just melt it at 20 meters? This assumes you stand a chance against a harasser and it takes scrapping against to beat one. Honestly If I rolled up on a ANT that violently counterattacked with a 2 man crew it might kill me the first time because how unexpected it is. But really Id lay on the boost and get away and try again. Like agree the ANT should have the gun depression to defend itself from other vehicles. I cant see any reason someone would call the ANT OP because "I was standing too close to it and it killed me PLZ NERF" But hey these are the same guys nerfing the god damn smoke launcher so whatever. They dont make sense.
Don't be obtuse. Of course the vehicle can move. It can back away from a target, or find an incline. A hassle if solo, also a hassle if you have a driver as they need to recognize the situation and make the right adjustments. To top it off there are times when moving either won't be effective, or it will be countered by movement of the target. The fact is the declination on the gun is crap. That you can *partially* compensate for it is irrelevant. It's crap and having a driver doesn't provide any meaningful mitigation.
Well, Im with you, but dont think that everything in this game is logical - many things are pure stupidity, from an engineer or architect view. If you want things good, logical and balanced a change in the dev team has to happen. You need 1 (or more) dev for each faction who only contruct aggressive things for the advantage for "his" faction and 1 (or more) dev for each fachtion who only constucts the defending things for the advantage of "his" faction. Then you need devs to construct all the NS things, like weapons and vehicles with pure killing potential and bases with pure defending potential. Then it might happen that the BS and illogical stupidity that happens within all the connstruction in the game gets less... But this will only happen in an ideal world
I think its you who is being obtuse. You want gun angles to be changed, you arnt open to reasoning on why they are like they are, you just want them changed because you dont like them. Being some1 who always has a gunner, ive never experienced the problem you speak of, in 5 years playing this game. Thats not partial compensation, thats total avoidance. Try to understand this: You are not supposed to be 100% effective in a multi crew vehicle whilst on your own. There are drawbacks to operating them solo, the main one being unchangeable angles and a complete lack of movement whilst shooting. If this wasnt intended they would simply slave all the guns to the drivers reticle when not having a gunner. Basically a 2 manned vehicle is supposed to be more powerful than a 1 manned vehicle. Play the vehicles as they're intended for less irritation.
You've never had someone run under your gun? You're lying. Also the changes in gun declination were recent, not 5 years ago. I don't find any of this to be all that problematic myself. Yes it happens. I deal with it (or take advantage of it). The point I came to dispute is the whole "it's only a problem because you're playing solo" BS. Again, this has nothing to do with being solo or with a crew. If you're in a crew the gun declination is crap. If you're solo the gun declination is crap. Period. It may be easier or harder to compensate depending on crew -vs- solo but in both cases you're being forced to compensate for crap that you shouldn't have to compensate for. Being in a crew doesn't magically make it not crap.
A 2 man vehicle will still be better even if the decline is fixed, so what's the resistance here? When playing infantry I never once thought it was unfair a manned gun could shoot down at me, you snuck up and tankmine/c4 them and it felt even better knowing the risk.
Im not lying, this is never a problem. Also your gun points down further in 3rd person, just thought you like to know that. They changed the gun angles to make it easier to see down. Thats the only change i remember. Why shouldnt you have to compensate for it? This is what ive been saying, the devs want you to have to compensate for it as it gives driver/gunner vehicles a small advantage over solo ones. Its intended. They want infantry to hide next to a sundy, they want a harasser to hide next to an ANT. Neither of those things can happen if your moving, and a harasser cant sit next to you if your moving, ever tried it? Its not magic, its communication, experience, and having a decent driver. See when its about to happen, adjust, compensate, adapt.
