EAT-17 a bad choice? *[NO IT'S NOT]

[NO REGRETS]

I thought that the ET-17 was the same as the RR-122, but with an emphasis on accurate shooting at the center of mass. But it turns out that on high difficulties the EAT-17 becomes more than a bad choice, since you start encountering Warlords and Behemoths that cannot be oneshoted even with an accurate shot at the center of mass, is this fair?
And if I fundamentally want to play with a set of exclusively stratagem supplies?
Of course, without taking into account the DLCs.

For the full picture, I will simply say what I use.

Stratagems: Ressuply| Ressuply Pack| MG-94 Machine Gun| Eat-17

Perk: Heavy Armor (only).

Main weapon: everything except Rail Gun, all Las guns. Paragon, Scorcher.

[Parboleum Loyce]

Resupply pack, MG and EATs?
They're good, but you're hurting them by having to juggle them which just isn't practical in high difficulties.
You're also making it sound like you're playing solo, which isn't recommended.
EATs are, much like in the sequel game, just a disposable, no-backpack variant of the recoilless (like the MG Vs the MGX (? Been a while unsure on name). Both are useable, but your loadout just isn't good. I'd also recommend maybe bringing an airstrike instead of 4 supply strategies

Tl;Dr
EATs do work. Your loadout probably doesn't.

[NO REGRETS]

I fully accept the fact that my build is not viable, I absolutely agree with that.
I just want to reject the meta-choice as much as possible, but as you can see, it's very much to my detriment.
I'm generally familiar with all the difficulties, and in my opinion, the more difficult it is, the more dependent the player is on equipment rather than their skill (if you don't take into account the abuse of "despawn" on enemies).
In general, as for me, this is the only negative in the HD1 compared to the HD2, the variability is greatly reduced and / or becomes something "harmful" with increasing difficulty.
It's just that no one has raised this topic before, in any case, thank you for responding, but I just wanted to hear someone's opinion, thank you.

And about EAT, you can still tell me if it is possible to destroy Warlords and Behemoths with a single accurate shot, I would like to be a little more sure.
Of course, I've played a lot, but I personally can't say for sure, so I'll be honest, I really don't know.

[Parboleum Loyce]

Originally posted by NO REGRETS:

And about EAT, you can still tell me if it is possible to destroy Warlords and Behemoths with a single accurate shot, I would like to be a little more sure.
Of course, I've played a lot, but I personally can't say for sure, so I'll be honest, I really don't know.

Personally unsure on one-shot, but the wiki[helldivers.fandom.com] says it can do Warlords, no comment on Behemoths though (so unlikely). Considering you need to upgrade your RR to kill behemoths in 1 (at least consistently) though, and the EAT has no damage upgrades, probably not gonna happen.

[NO REGRETS]

Wiki... I completely forgot about such a platform, to be honest.
In any case, thank you for responding.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by Parboleum Loyce:

Originally posted by NO REGRETS:

And about EAT, you can still tell me if it is possible to destroy Warlords and Behemoths with a single accurate shot, I would like to be a little more sure.
Of course, I've played a lot, but I personally can't say for sure, so I'll be honest, I really don't know.

Personally unsure on one-shot, but the wiki[helldivers.fandom.com] says it can do Warlords, no comment on Behemoths though (so unlikely). Considering you need to upgrade your RR to kill behemoths in 1 (at least consistently) though, and the EAT has no damage upgrades, probably not gonna happen.

The EATs? Even if it can't you get two per drop and it'll take both to drop one Behemoth, but you can also just use the Mortar as it's more indirect fire and can get toxic for its MK3 upgrade.
Edit: but honestly OP's missing out on SEVERAL rather good stratagems especially for the higher difficulties that are included in the DLCs, such as the two Exos with one being equipped with a flamethrower and equal to a railgun without it actually being a railgun since this Exo's main gun can damage heavily armored enemies.

[♞Stygian Nova]

i run EATs on all my 10s. allows for a backpack which can be some objectives and shield or drone depend on what you need. i normal run HMG sentry or other one to take out objectives. Having EATs on call allows for me to have another weapon just in case MG, AMR, Nade launcher all depends on the mission and they are all laying around.

[76561199115857471]

EATs (for me)is more useful when doing objective as u can kill tank out side of it alarm range (sometime disable the tank is a good thing as they cant spawn more) which the C4 cant really do easy. Warlord need 2 but u can just shoot it with 1 eats then drop a vindicator on it(or few shot from the camper, railgun, the revolver) and it be done. It not for use when u running between obj as just have 1 of it at time compare to C4(5 charge) and other form of anti-tank. RR-122 is not(effective) really suit for solo as for it long time to reload(4s), commando have 6 rocket is better for this.

[NO REGRETS]

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

The EATs? Even if it can't you get two per drop and it'll take both to drop one Behemoth, but you can also just use the Mortar as it's more indirect fire and can get toxic for its MK3 upgrade.
Edit: but honestly OP's missing out on SEVERAL rather good stratagems especially for the higher difficulties that are included in the DLCs, such as the two Exos with one being equipped with a flamethrower and equal to a railgun without it actually being a railgun since this Exo's main gun can damage heavily armored enemies.

I always want to strive for more, and waste a whole stratagem of two EAT-17s on one enemy is more than not practical, given that there can be more than four Behemoths on high difficulties.
Regarding the M-25 Rumbler, let's be honest. When the developers did "this" (same as TOX-13 Avenge), they didn't care that many support weapons would simply become meaningless, the M-25 Rumbler is meta, and meta is something I want to avoid.
I don't know about EXO-48 and EXO-51. I like the EXO-44 much more, but unfortunately It is very difficult to find usage for EXO-44 on high-difficulty missions, given that if the ammunition is wasted, I just become useless, and I don't really want to be useless at all.

Originally posted by Stygian Nova:

i run EATs on all my 10s. allows for a backpack which can be some objectives and shield or drone depend on what you need. i normal run HMG sentry or other one to take out objectives. Having EATs on call allows for me to have another weapon just in case MG, AMR, Nade launcher all depends on the mission and they are all laying around.

You may not have noticed, but the discussion is on the Helldvirvers 1 forum, not Helldviers 2.
So unfortunately, what you said doesn't really fit in the context of HD1.
But anyway thanks for sharing your opinion.

Originally posted by 76561199115857471:

EATs (for me)is more useful when doing objective as u can kill tank out side of it alarm range (sometime disable the tank is a good thing as they cant spawn more) which the C4 cant really do easy. Warlord need 2 but u can just shoot it with 1 eats then drop a vindicator on it(or few shot from the camper, railgun, the revolver) and it be done. It not for use when u running between obj as just have 1 of it at time compare to C4(5 charge) and other form of anti-tank. RR-122 is not(effective) really suit for solo as for it long time to reload(4s), commando have 6 rocket is better for this.

I am glad that you did not say about the destruction of the IFV, but rather "neutralization", otherwise sometimes it hurts to see how people unknowingly destroy one, and as a result, a new one is dropped in its place.
As for finishing off Warlords, I have "problems" here, since I wrote in the explanation that, first of all, I would NEVER even think of replacing "Heavy Armor" with something else (although I will be honest, the P-6 Gunslinger is an excellent weapon, although of course it is hidden behind the "perk system" that It would be the case if I replaced my "main" weapon with another secondary weapon.
I don't think the RX-1 Rail Gun is a meta thing, of course, but it's too good, even with all its flaws.
Regarding the LHO-63 Camper, I agree, it's a good choice, a weapon that fully forces the player to use their skills as a substitute for good damage, but since I try to stick to vanilla arsenal (without DLCs) this weapon is not suitable for me.
At the moment, I have decided to replace the EAT-17 with the RR-112, maybe not the best idea, but at least I can choose what I like most.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by NO REGRETS:

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

The EATs? Even if it can't you get two per drop and it'll take both to drop one Behemoth, but you can also just use the Mortar as it's more indirect fire and can get toxic for its MK3 upgrade.
Edit: but honestly OP's missing out on SEVERAL rather good stratagems especially for the higher difficulties that are included in the DLCs, such as the two Exos with one being equipped with a flamethrower and equal to a railgun without it actually being a railgun since this Exo's main gun can damage heavily armored enemies.

I always want to strive for more, and waste a whole stratagem of two EAT-17s on one enemy is more than not practical, given that there can be more than four Behemoths on high difficulties.
Regarding the M-25 Rumbler, let's be honest. When the developers did "this" (same as TOX-13 Avenge), they didn't care that many support weapons would simply become meaningless, the M-25 Rumbler is meta, and meta is something I want to avoid.

Given that I've seen EATs, Rumblers, Recoilless rifles (which the MK3 upgrade allows it ignore armor all together) your concern about a "meta" seems to be misplaced (and also VERY ANTI-democratic) since Helldivers use what they find that works best for them.

[NO REGRETS]

Excuse me, but do you think I'm role-playing? No, I'm absolutely serious.

And yes, we can continue arguing for many more pages (even though this discussion was primarily aimed at finding information/expressing personal opinions), but I'll repeat myself...

EAT-17 is not practical if the anti-tank weapon CANNOT destroy most of heavy-armored targets for which it was created in theory.

RR-112 has only one drawback (like many other support weapons) so it is the ability to call this equipment once, and reloading (alone) leaves much to be desired, but still better than EAT-17 considering that even without upgrades RR-112 easily copes with its duties, unlike EAT-17.

R-25 "Rumbler"... I'm sure there's no point in arguing how much the balance of equipment breaks down when taking this "cancerous tumor" into account, although I'm ready to admit that it's a great merit of the developers that they decided to let everything slide instead of increasing the variability in choosing equipment without harming the players for "wrong" loadout.
An elementary example is the MG-94 and LAS-98... There are no options, the LAS-98 is simply better, better in that it has more capabilities and infinite ammunition, unlike the MG-94.

Okay, I may be wrong, but I would like to be told the facts, and not just told that I'm wrong.

Not everything works in this game, many equipment loses its meaning in existence when one overshadows the other.
I experienced this myself, this whole discussion about it.

[Daegon]

Originally posted by NO REGRETS:

And about EAT, you can still tell me if it is possible to destroy Warlords and Behemoths with a single accurate shot, I would like to be a little more sure.

EAT cannot kill a Warlord in one hit in solo. It will be left with 100 HP even with a critical (CoM) hit. However, in online play due to desync issues, damage sometimes applies twice with both projectiles and explosions, and in those cases it will obviously be enough to overkill it.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3376784956

[NO REGRETS]

Originally posted by Daegon:

Originally posted by NO REGRETS:

And about EAT, you can still tell me if it is possible to destroy Warlords and Behemoths with a single accurate shot, I would like to be a little more sure.

EAT cannot kill a Warlord in one hit in solo. It will be left with 100 HP even with a critical (CoM) hit. However, in online play due to desync issues, damage sometimes applies twice with both projectiles and explosions, and in those cases it will obviously be enough to overkill it.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3376784956

Hello again, thank you, now I can be sure of something. I suppose with such a small remaining health, they can be finished off with ordinary grenades without resorting to anything else.
If so, then I think I shouldn't have spoken so badly about EAT-17.

[rockowang]

EAT has a use, but it's a very niche use. It's an extremely quick to deploy and risk free way to deal massive damage to a single problem target or take out an objective. It is not meant to be used as the basis of your anti-armor strategy, unless you devote yourself fully to it (multiple EATs, strat priority.) With cyborgs, a nice but niche usage is that it's very easy to consistently disable an IFV without destroying it, allowing you to stop any new IFVs from spawning on non RS missions, create a very nice source of cover, and nullify its cannon/melee damage. This is especially useful on defense objectives. With high level bugs it just falls off miserably; behemoths are just far too tanky and appear too often. Recoilless rifle suffers from the same issues without a teammate with the support pack and I'd honestly consider it situationally worse than EAT solo. As for a vanilla finisher primary other than the railgun, consider the constitution, which can deal damage to every enemy in the game but behemoths and IFVs. People see it as a meme weapon but it's a staple of high level play for a reason that's more than just to show off; high damage, large ammo pool, bayonet, limited piercing capabilities on small targets (dogs, bug scouts, grotesque.) It's honestly a straight upgrade to the camper if you learn to use it well. You'll want a crowd control alternative though to make up for the constitution's low fire rate.

As for your comment that loadout matters more than skill on higher difficulties, I heavily disagree. Patience, good game sense and mechanical skill can allow a solo player and/or good team to complete most objective types with minimal casualties regardless of loadout. Rando runs are perfectly viable and reliably completed (although maybe not perfectly) up to difficulty 12, then become doable but tricky on 13+ bug and cyborg and not so doable on 13+ illuminate. It's a steep learning curve but once you get to a point where you can manage the game with any gear it's a very fun experience. Your playstyle may make this significantly more difficult however (sticking with heavy armor, objectively a hindrance far more often than a help and the only perk I actively dislike; insisting on fighting rather than fleeing when appropriate, which is not at all an "abuse" of a game mechanic; and I'm assuming from what else you've stated that you're opposed to utilizing melee dodging.) I'd like to believe that almost every weapon/perk/stratagem has an effective usage, and I've yet to see evidence to the contrary while playing (some notable exceptions notwithstanding.)

[Daegon]

Such a great post rockowang, I agree fully

~~~

I just wanted to mention a trick with EATs, which OP may or may not know about. If they are picked up from the pod they drop in, then dropped to the ground, they will never disappear unlike those that are never picked and left where they are called in (the timer on those is 2 minutes).

With Stratagem Priority and several instances of EAT stratagems in a loadout, the trick can be used very effectively in Cyborg RS, especially if combined with something like Tanto or other weapons that can damage and finish off Warlords left with very little HP.

[NO REGRETS]

Originally posted by rockowang:

EAT has a use, but it's a very niche use. It's an extremely quick to deploy and risk free way to deal massive damage to a single problem target or take out an objective. It is not meant to be used as the basis of your anti-armor strategy, unless you devote yourself fully to it (multiple EATs, strat priority.) With cyborgs, a nice but niche usage is that it's very easy to consistently disable an IFV without destroying it, allowing you to stop any new IFVs from spawning on non RS missions, create a very nice source of cover, and nullify its cannon/melee damage. This is especially useful on defense objectives. With high level bugs it just falls off miserably; behemoths are just far too tanky and appear too often. Recoilless rifle suffers from the same issues without a teammate with the support pack and I'd honestly consider it situationally worse than EAT solo. As for a vanilla finisher primary other than the railgun, consider the constitution, which can deal damage to every enemy in the game but behemoths and IFVs. People see it as a meme weapon but it's a staple of high level play for a reason that's more than just to show off; high damage, large ammo pool, bayonet, limited piercing capabilities on small targets (dogs, bug scouts, grotesque.) It's honestly a straight upgrade to the camper if you learn to use it well. You'll want a crowd control alternative though to make up for the constitution's low fire rate.

As for your comment that loadout matters more than skill on higher difficulties, I heavily disagree. Patience, good game sense and mechanical skill can allow a solo player and/or good team to complete most objective types with minimal casualties regardless of loadout. Rando runs are perfectly viable and reliably completed (although maybe not perfectly) up to difficulty 12, then become doable but tricky on 13+ bug and cyborg and not so doable on 13+ illuminate. It's a steep learning curve but once you get to a point where you can manage the game with any gear it's a very fun experience. Your playstyle may make this significantly more difficult however (sticking with heavy armor, objectively a hindrance far more often than a help and the only perk I actively dislike; insisting on fighting rather than fleeing when appropriate, which is not at all an "abuse" of a game mechanic; and I'm assuming from what else you've stated that you're opposed to utilizing melee dodging.) I'd like to believe that almost every weapon/perk/stratagem has an effective usage, and I've yet to see evidence to the contrary while playing (some notable exceptions notwithstanding.)

Thank you for sharing your opinion, I will take it into account.