NS-AM7 Archer should belong to Infiltrators?

Discussion in 'Infiltrator' started by Kyomon, Jun 21, 2015.

  1. Kyomon

    I believe it should, for some reasons:

    1- Its a Sniper Rifle
    2- Engineers already can snipe both infantry and armor with Anti Vehicle Turret
    3- Infiltrators are the only class that cant deal with armor, in any way. (I mean, you can EMP a tank, hear the guy laughing while he blows you to the moon for being close enough to EMP him in the first place)
    4- Its a goddam sniper rifle for god sake!

    Im the only one that thinks like that? =\
    • Up x 1
  2. m44v

    Dunno, imo this rifle doesn't add much to the infiltrator except the ability to kill maxes (at the expense of being unable to kill infantry), and it doesn't add any new game mechanic whatsoever. Is underwhelming enough for me not to care which class gets it.

    But this anti materiel rifle is **** for dealing with armour, it only kills maxes. And if the infiltrator is going to have some interaction with vehicles, I won't stand for anything less than hacking.
  3. Kalari

    1. we have better infantry killing sniper rifles
    2. its an anti maxx rifle not anti armor. yes it can dmg a heavy tank but the driver its just gonna giggle
    3. we are meant for anti infantry and yes we are the only 1 with no anti vehicle capacity. deal with it
    4. please read #1
  4. Dramonicous

    I wish they would had added it to both infil and engie, so we could choose.
    But we still got xbow with explosive tip to deal with vehicles.
    Against vehicles it does about the same damage, joke against maxes thou.

    3 hits of explosive xbow on a ESF disables it, while a mag from archer is just short of disabling it.
    Can earn u some cheap kills if u shoot them just before they retreat away from a AA MAX.
  5. Kirppu1

    This "idea" of yours makes inflitrators way too easy, it is already easy as f to get a **** ton of kills with it
  6. breeje

    i don't want this gun it's a peace of crap
    the engi can have it and i hope they all wear it (easy kills for me:))

  7. Amouris

    After seeing it in action and using it in the field I'd say infils should definitely not get the Archer. It would just be too easy to clear an entire hex of maxes and as amusing as it would be, I'd hate to fight in a hex where aircraft don't have to worry about Burster Maxes.
  8. Ximaster

    Maybe,and put reload time shorter. 4 seconds for reload is crazy.
  9. Kyomon

    yeah, after testing it a bit, not so good against armor, almost useless =\

    but the idea is there, tweak a bit, give more damage against armor and give it to infiltrators, we need something against armor, the hacking thing would be awesome, I hope Daybreak give some thought on some anti armor stuff for infiltrators =\
  10. Jubikus

    This weapon would be a bit too troublesome if infiltrators had it. I believe the whole reason Engineers have it is because they are a support class and have vulnerabilities that wouldn't make them able to completely hinder enemy maxes (cloak makes it easy to get into a good position to openly hit the maxes even when they go for cover). If there was another class i would suggest giving the weapon access too it would be medic as it is also a support class.
  11. Jubikus

    #3 isnt true we can use explosive bolts with the crossbow which sucks just as much as this rifle against vehicles but it still hurts them.
    Also infiltrators are the only class that doesn't have anti vehicle for a good reason if it were decent it would be OP because of cloak if it was crappy like the crossbow then whats the point?
    In the end the weapon is a Niche weapon and shouldn't be used in a standard loadout it should be a side load out that you pull when enemy has maxes you can take out.
    Theres alot of minor balancing factors that people tend to not consider when stuff like this enters the game sure it sucks against infantry but if it didn't every sniper there is would just be playing engineer if it was good against ground and air this would be a indirect nerf to the usefulness of maxes do to the ability to just pull this instead for 0 nanites instead of 450 in addition to the weapon already being a direct counter to long range maxes(you have to be carefull what territory the weapon steps on). C4 is a better anti max weapon as it goes in the utility slot and doesnt really hinder your combat potential at all but this weapon is a less effective nanite free version to deal with the same problem (kind of like how an AV max is better at killing vehicles but rocket launchers are the less effective nanite free version granted the rocket launcher isnt a primary).
  12. TerminalT6

    MAX is a decent escape from the infil's decloak-shoot-cloak instagib. An infil with the Archer would have too easy a time taking MAX heads with the same method. The engineer's already basic combat capabilities are a balancing factor for the Archer on their own, imo. I really like the Archer, and yesterday I learned that I don't need to be invisible to clear a MAX-point hold. But if I was invisible? Well, that would've been too good.

    An infil can sit on a hill and avoid counter-sniping all day long if he's half decent. An engineer has a harder time doing this, as it should be for a class hunting 450 nanite units.
  13. TheKhopesh

    As much as I hate to admit it, no.
    The Archer is not an infil weapon.
    (The explosive bolts on the Xbow should do archer damage to maxes & vehicles though, IMO!)
  14. Baracuda

    The fact that this isn't an Infil weapon is sad. It's been asked for since beta for infils but instead years later it's finally added and given to the engi. I'm so tempted to buy it but I would never use it because I don't play engi.
  15. Leivve

    Yes you are. Infiltrator is exclusively anti personal. Engineer and heavy assault have AV/AA duty. There is no need for us to step on their toes.
  16. Gemenai

    By that logic, shouldn't Engi and Heavy only have a sidearm being capable of dealing damage to infantry?
    Like in the case of QCX with explosive darts o_O ?
  17. Leivve

    That's not at all what that means. Where do you even get this logic? Anti personal class doesn't get AV; class that is intended for AV get's AV weapons.
  18. Gemenai

    So "Anti personal class doesn't get AV;..." because it's intended for anti personal.
    But classes intended for AV aka anti vehicle classes have AV and anti personal?
    Wouldn't it be right, that so called "AV classes" excell at AV but are a minor threat in the anti personal departement?
  19. Kirppu1

  20. Leivve

    How about you explain the logic on why you think a class with the sole roll of anti infantry should get a weapon meant for AV? Without going against what the devs said on the matter "Infiltrators are anti infantry ONLY. If you want to kill a tank pull a heavy or another tank."