Forum Discussion

Re: AT Rifles should destroy buildings again

Nothing more than a balancing issue - a small group of soldiers can already decimate tanks and pierce wood/ some concrete with K-bullets, let alone rifles actually designed for armor.

I loved blowing stuff up, don't get me wrong, but the switch from HE to AP (for a lack of a better analogy), was a smart move to keep an entire team from playing Scout

3 Replies

  • @TTZ_Dipsy I’m confused by this response, even if vehicles were no longer being effected by AT Rifle shots the one hit kill capability is a snipers dream.

    So ask yourself, why wouldn’t anyone pick this over all the other loadouts? Because it’s not viable, even if it could still destroy buildings along with its current abilities it’s a very unforgiving gun choice especially at anything closer than medium range at best. You can play game after game and are lucky to find a single AT Rifle user let alone a whole team like you are suggesting.

    The amount of counters is massive so like I said I don’t understand this argument.
  • ElliotLH's avatar
    ElliotLH
    Hero+
    5 years ago
    @BlueSpy3DO You can still OHK infantry with the AT rifles provided they're within 100m (also assuming you hit them in the body rather than appendages). Any infantry target over 100m will require a headshot like the regular bolt action rifles.
  • N4v1s's avatar
    N4v1s
    5 years ago
    @BlueSpy3DO I really don´t see the AT Rifles needing a buff. If you ask me they should have never been added to the game, as they are one of the most annoying things to play against. The force the user to camp and don´t require any skill. AT Rifles should be a gadget and do more damage to vehicles, but the OHK should be removed.

About Battlefield V

Join the Battlefield V community to learn all you need to know. Find game information and updates, talk tactics and share Battlefield moments.15,366 PostsLatest Activity: 7 minutes ago