http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-materiel_rifle Right, because AMR's are totally unrealistic and snipers would never use them. Do note there is a difference between a AMR and a Anti Tank Rifle, which is something a heavy would get.
History The origins of the anti-materiel rifle go back to the First World War, during which the first anti-tank rifles appeared. While modern tanks and most other armored vehicles are too well protected to be affected by anti-materiel rifles, the guns are still effective for attacking unarmored or lightly armored vehicles. They can also be used against stationary enemy aircraft, missile launchers, radar equipment, small watercraft, communications equipment, crew served weapons and similar targets. Their value is in being able to precisely target and disable enemy assets from long range for a relatively low cost. From your own link.... Each empire has a 50cal rifle....and an equivalent for the VS. Guess what....they hurt harassers(about as much as an AMR would on an armored assault vehicle)...and can headshot MAX units. Sooooo they are already in the game. Stop asking for them
This is where your argument falls apart. Take any of the high damage BASR's and shoot a Harraser and count how many hits it takes to kill it. It takes way more then what would be considered viable. Any automatic weapon can kill a Harraser or Flash or Max faster then a BASR. A AMR should, even given its slow ROF, be more effective (IE: TTK) then a smaller caliber weapon. Finally, it's understood that the .50 bmg is a light round by PS2 standards. A PS2 AMR would have to fire at least 20mm rounds which isn't that absurd given the high tech nature of PS2.
Ok. We should have a self-destruct beacon. Sneak up, place on enemy vehicle, takes a long time to explode/very noisy/flashy/whatever. BUT can only be disarmed from outside. (Edit. Maybe requires the vehicle to have no driver to disarm)
I think EMP grenades that disable tanks for a few seconds and Darts that mark tanks and reduce the lock-on time friendly rockets need would be a fine addition to our arsenal, and definitely not too strong.
This again? Listen, I know you want to contribute, but an anti material rifle is NOT what we need. We're infiltrators, our role is a sabotage, and anti personel one, not anti vehicle; it never will be. If and when we get anything that we can actually use against vehicles, it'll be in the form of a hack of some sort (if I remember right, that was the entire purpose to adding all those extra faction color patches to vehicles). Until that time, I personally will continue to work as an anti infantry unit, and will continue to complain about vehicle based radar, because the damn things doesn't show up on my minimap, and completly spoils all my fun.
I really want it. I mean I really WANT it. But imagine the river of tanker tears, it would flood Indar ten times to Sunday. Basically you're carrying a portable tank cannon. Imagine what it would do to infantry as well.
As Rhumald said, it does take us slightly out of our niche (though C4 takes a Medic out of their role as well...) Damage is the only problem with any anti-vehicle infiltrator weapon. It would be entirely possible to have an entire squad of infs blowing up vehicles across the battlefield, but lowering the damage too far would cause it to not be used like the Crossbow's explosive bolts. If we could have an AMR though, I'd think it'd be a short-medium range bolt action Scout Rifle type weapon with armor piercing rounds that deal normal damage to infantry, with a shot multiplier for MAXs and vehicles (like how sniper rifles have head shot multipliers, but for a specific type of target, not hit box on the target). Vandal-like ranges so vehicles still have a chance to find you and retaliate. Piercing rounds wouldn't really matter on infantry, since bullets pierce through people anyway. I'd prefer it be a BA with a rechamber time that's slightly slower than a sniper, but faster than a rocket launcher, so people think twice before using it indoors or for sniping, since it would be so slow to rechamber.
My idea is more toward something that does good DPS against Flashes, Harrasers, Maxes, ESF's and Valkyries but nothing against heavy armor like Tanks and Galaxys. Oh and for the record I do use the explosive crossbow and I have multiple armor kills with it. How? I follow badly damaged enemy armor until the driver gets out to repair. I kill the driver, then shoot the tank with my xbow till it blows.
My god... Seriously the devs need to stop just reading the titles of threads and thinking "what a great idea! And it has 2 pages of comments! People must love it" https://mobile.twitter.com/mhigby/status/561301100305739776 Why must they add this awful awful idea to the game. It can not be well balanced. You either end up with a super rocket launcher or a pea shooter... The middle ground doesn't exist. If it is weaker than a rocket launcher there is no reason to use it over a rocket or an AV turret. Both of which let you still fight infantry with your primary weapon. If it is for heavy only and replaces the rocket launcher we are alright! It can even be 50% damage of a rocket launcher with ideally a 50% higher ttk (it should take at least 3 shots (maybe 4 depends how quickly you want it to down maxes) on an esf to set it on fire) and yes we need to balance it around esfs. They are the ones most likely to suffer, hitting them sniper rifles is pretty easy and rather funny anyway. If it is even nearly the same ttk as a rocket or even as above but for infi then I will gather a squad of people with them and kill everything until it gets whacked hard with the nerf bat... Who wants to help out? Because this could be game breakingly stupid if done wrong.
Why does everyone want it to be anti vehicle? just make it a anti max rifle that isn't as effective at killing infantry (1 bullet per reload vs 5)
I believe every asset of the game could be abused if used by a coordinated group of people. They do it as we discuss.. AMR is no exception, like nothing else in the game. It's part of the weapon design process to make it harder to abuse.. high sway, high reload time, high bullet drop.. whatever. Since AV options are only available as items no one will ever give an infiltrator BUT are available for every class, I would love to see a alternative. AMR's are used by snipers.. infs are snipers.. AMR and inf.. love. As I stated at the beginnig, the weapon stats are rough placeholders and not mine to decide, I just needed something to start with. Let me clarfy it. I want a rifle used at the main weapon slot of the infiltrator. Fixed scope (12 times). High sway! High bullet drop, maybe a tracer which will show the direction of the shot. High reload / rechamber time! Make it 6 to 7 direct rear hits at a non certed MBT to kill it. Maybe the engie inside the vehicle could counter repair, so YOU need to move. High sway, bullet drop and scope should make it harder to hit esf. If you hit one, it won't explode and hey.. it's an esf.. it can fly away! If they hover they're a target, not only for a theoretical AMR. rn
As a cloaker, I love the idea of expanding our role.. but not like this. That said, I think that Medics should also not be allowed to have C4, but that's another matter for another thread. I think we should be shown some attention in terms of what our role consists of, rather than being flung into a different role entirely. If I'm leading a squad, I don't want to say "There's a group of Prowlers raining hell on us. Everyone swap to cloaker and take them out." It just isn't what we are designed to do. If you trade off an anti-personnel sniper rifle for an anti-vehicle sniper rifle, we become not only inefficient vehicle killers (if we were efficient at it, it would HUGELY tip the class balance scale in an unfavorable direction), but we are now inefficient at killing high-pirority infantry (a sniper's intended role). In short, I don't think throwing us an entirely different role will solve anything, rather, it will just make things worse for the class as a whole. Also, in regards to your proposed balance factors: -A 12x scope's sway is nonexistent whilst holding our breath. 4 seconds (up to 8 with implants) is MORE than enough time to rain consistent hell on a massive, relatively in-agile object. -If this scope is using mil-dots, which I'm sure it would, then drop is almost a non-factor. We can just aim at them the same way we snipe at our harder-to-hit, more agile, less predictable, normal infantry targets. -We already have bright, glowy tracers. This doesn't stop us from killing infantry, so why would it stop us from killing armor? We already snipe in the presence of armor, and we can do so to amazing effectiveness. In fact, armor being around doesn't make most decent snipers any less effective than if there were no armor at all. Just because we change our target does not mean we are any more or less vulnerable to it. With your proposal, it makes it sound as though the armor will be able to more easily counter us, when in reality, all we're doing is shooting the tanks instead of the infantry running around them. TL;DR I vote no to this. Just my 2 cents -MisterFr0st
