Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Posts: 1,888

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

21

Monday, November 21st 2016, 4:40am

It is a game, where if you have boots on the ground you're supposed to capture flags in packs of two and three+, clear out enemy from a far and blow up vehicles. There are three classes, which excel in doing parts of that. Support is a sort of experimental noob-friendly Hollywood blockbuster class. Check this out - I can artillery-strike random infantry guys or do a saving private Ryan thing with a limpet charge and die gloriously in the process. Looks great on youtube. Thing is, three core classes can do all the work and they do not need any help whatsoever. So, for the sake of cinematography and diversity, there is another class, which can be situationally useful in good hands, but is completely irrelevant to someone, who is actually determined to win. Once you realize the class is intentionally irrelevant (same as in BF2, 3, 4) the need to fix it vanishes. Leave it, noobs will always find something "useful" to do with it. Just don't give it anything strong, so that good proportion of the team starts using it.

A bunch of problems appear when you decide to make it relevant. If you make it relevant, you would have to give it good AT potential, because one more support is one less assault/scout/medic. This dynamics further dilutes presence of assault (the most important man) in the game, making the opposing team's tanks OP.

Conclusion: Leave it be, it is supposed to be underused. Other classes can do all the work perfectly fine. Expect support to get even more "wonderous" weapons & gadgets in the future expansions, because it's the official "Neebs class".
This is why the engineer class is so damn important: you can't combine support and primary anti-tank class because the ability to spam anti tank would be absurd. This automatically makes the assault class overly prevelant as the kill everything class during flag actions.

The engineer with unscoped BAs worked just fine a decade ago in 1942 but they chose to re-invent the wheel here and it makes support a janky class and assault overly relevant as a result.

Well, I understand why people complains for mortar nerf, but IMO it was too strong, especially in Rush: arm an objective - noone could disarm it. And as defender you can play as mortar-only - that was too much. And devs fixed the main issue - spam-ability. And instead of changing mortar resupply time they've changed the mechanics to make this thing not an ultimate devastating gadget, but as camper-clearing and support barrage tool. They also added five some smoke shots and fixed the HE range. The only thing they've done bad is airburst blast radius nerf - with all other nerf that was unnecessary and they should revert it back to pre-patch value - there is nearly no reason to use Airburst over HE for now, HE is superiour: better against buildings, better against vehicles, same range, nearly the same against infantry. Now it's way more balanced gadget.
P.S. support is my favourite class since BF3, but I like a competetive play and I'm agaist OP things such as UCAV pre-nerf in BF4.

Also, everyone who wants LMGs to be very accurate - that would turn them into Assault Rifles, do you really need this? Notice that LMGs are already have good hipfire accuracy(otherwise Gas Grenades would force LMS users to ALT+F4 constant ragequit), good stopping power at close-medium range, nice reload times(they are average in general, but on par with most weapons), ability to use AWESOME AA-sights and nice variants too, especially with recent addition of bipod to Low-Weight variants(but I still prefer Madsen Storm/Trench(gas gas gas), Bar Storm, MG15 Storm/Suppressive and M1909 Telescopic). Also, LMGs still could hit target at long range - that's enought. Making support accurate at longer ranges than now would make it one-man-army class.
There are only two LMGs that are bad in general: Lewis and Huot, both of them needs a min damage buff to 17.5, since both of them are low-rpm and burrently beiung outclassed by Madsen and MG15 completely. Also, Huot needs other variants than low-weight, a trench version and a storm version. Or simply be converted to Storm variant. Low-weight for 26-mag slow-firing LMG - DICE, why?
Limpets need something of a buff.
Why? They are already powerful against vehicles and are great tool for destroing camper nest in buildings. If you give two of them to support - with light anti-tank grenade he will easily solo-destroy Heavy Tanks and obliterate buildings in one "poof". One timed limped charge is already very well balanced, I don't think that it should be touched at all.
I don't think I've been hit by a limpet after 20+ hours of tanking in BF1, clearly the player base isn't getting the message about how amazing this thing is, or it simply isn't.

Sure, if you buff limpets in terms of count you can solo a tank that you can actually approach. What on earth is wrong with that?

Tanks have generally ALWAYS been soloable with placeables like mines, and C4. They've been easily soloable with two flank rocket hits. They are easily soloable with a suicide mine charge (or were until the mine nerf) in BF1. Why should they not be soloable with two limpets plus an AT grenade now?

Suicide charge with HE that can kill the tank is 100% in line with penalizing tankers for not taking advantage of their mobility from previous titles. It does not invalidate or obsolete the assault weapons for AT work, similar to how C4 has never obsoleted the AT launchers despite the fact that a C4 load can solo a tank and has been able to do so in every BF title.

I am 100% on board with the ability to solo a tank with things you need to place directly on the tank.

C4 spam from support wasn't something worth whining about in BF4 either and they could solo tanks.

Posts: 3,440

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

22

Monday, November 21st 2016, 5:26am

C4, especially on Support, was one of the single worst things to exist in BF4 (and only got added just before launch because the a few members of the community whined really hard). I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of Limpets being able to solo a tank, that would be awful. Between that or them staying as-is, they should stay as-is.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 1,888

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

23

Monday, November 21st 2016, 5:47am

C4, especially on Support, was one of the single worst things to exist in BF4 (and only got added just before launch because the a few members of the community whined really hard). I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of Limpets being able to solo a tank, that would be awful. Between that or them staying as-is, they should stay as-is.
Eh? It would be almost always ignorable by skilled players with decent team coverage, just as C4 was pretty much ignorable in Bf3 and Bf4.

I'm generally pretty damn happy when I see C4 and mines in BF1. That means one less person with AT grenades.

Posts: 274

Date of registration
: Jun 21st 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Moscow, Russia

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

24

Monday, November 21st 2016, 6:26am

The idea is two have two Limpets with less damage, it would give them far more utility. It wouldn't chance balance much, but would make them drastically more appealing.
So, just split 45 heavy tank damage to 2x 22.5 and half the anti-infantry damage? Hm, maybe as an additional gadged "mini limped charge" seems interesting.

Sure, if you buff limpets in terms of count you can solo a tank that you can actually approach. What on earth is wrong with that?
Maybe because tanks in BF1 don't have fast as rocket acceleration and don't obliterate infantry like Darth Vader like it was in BF3/BF4? Also, Assault is now pure anti-tank class, who requires 2 AT grenades and a 2-3 shots from AT Rocket gun to take down the A7V or use a dynamite, which now don't stick to vehicles and tank can simply run away from it, so why I would ever use this risky setup, if I could put 2 sticky timed explosives + 1 light AT grenade and tank will be destroyed with 146% chance, because even if I die - the charges will still detonate, while if you're killed before you blew up you dynamite - tank just runaway from you? In that case support would be just better at destroying tanks than assault.
Now, If you want to suicide destroy tanks: pick up assault with mines = problem solved. What are you asking now is a totally unbalanced gadget.
Sorry for my bad english - it's not my native language and I have difficulties with acquiring speaking/writing practice in my country. If I accidently insult you or say something wrong - I'm sorry, you can feel free to correct me.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "kazei009" (Nov 21st 2016, 6:41am)


Posts: 171

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

25

Monday, November 21st 2016, 6:46am

I don't think I've been hit by a limpet after 20+ hours of tanking in BF1, clearly the player base isn't getting the message about how amazing this thing is, or it simply isn't.


It is amazing on paper, ask Noctyrne Saga. It just doesn't work. People who aren't yet decent in a tank don't seem to understand how laughable it is to try killing a tank (!) with that thing. To the point of being ridiculous & unfair to the guy trying to do it. Of course, in a Neebs vs Neebs situation, with "unsupervised traps" and all it's a completely different thing. Perhaps we should be looking at it from this angle by default?

What really makes me facepalm in this situation is a good tanker advocating the return of C4, while infantrymen arguing the opposite. that's when you know something is way off. :D

Posts: 3,440

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

26

Monday, November 21st 2016, 6:52am

What really makes me facepalm in this situation is a good tanker advocating the return of C4, while infantrymen arguing the opposite. that's when you know something is way off. :D


I do have to admit this is pretty funny. :pinch:
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 1,888

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

27

Monday, November 21st 2016, 6:55am

The idea is two have two Limpets with less damage, it would give them far more utility. It wouldn't chance balance much, but would make them drastically more appealing.
So, just split 45 heavy tank damage to 2x 22.5 and half the anti-infantry damage? Hm, maybe as an additional gadged "mini limped charge" seems interesting.

Sure, if you buff limpets in terms of count you can solo a tank that you can actually approach. What on earth is wrong with that?
Maybe because tanks in BF1 don't have fast as rocket acceleration and don't obliterate infantry like Darth Vader like it was in BF3/BF4? Also, Assault is now pure anti-tank class, who requires 2 AT grenades and a 2-3 shots from AT Rocket gun to take down the A7V or use a dynamite, which now don't stick to vehicles and tank can simply run away from it, so why I would ever use this risky setup, if I could put 2 sticky timed explosives + 1 light AT grenade and tank will be destroyed with 146% chance, because even if I die - the charges will still detonate, while if you're killed before you blew up you dynamite - tank just runaway from you? In that case support would be just better at destroying tanks than assault.
Now, If you want to suicide destroy tanks: pick up assault with mines = problem solved. What are you asking now is a totally unbalanced gadget.
Tanks are slow, but they can still move. Supoort has to get in close and plant two charges. By contrast the rocket gun has a similar effective range as the tank itself and the AT grenades can be deployed very far and from cover/defilade. So these are safe to use.

High risk plays should have high reward, currently only mine spam is really rewarding. Neither the C4 nor limpet is terribly rewarding unless the tank is already crippled. I'm totally fine with two limpets doing 80 dmg total for eg. Again it's no less balanced than C4 in prior titles. I don't see support being able to totally devastate tanks with two limpets that can almost total a tank as totally breaking balance and making tanks crap.

Either way, limpet needs some sort of buff because it's not useful for much more than smurfing infantry in buildings right now. And IMO it's the worst overall anti tank gadget in the game, other than HE rifle grenades which barely count.

Posts: 3,440

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

28

Monday, November 21st 2016, 7:03am

tanks are slow, but they can still move. Supoort has to get in close and plant two charges. By contrast the rocket gun has a similar effective range as the tank itself and the AT grenades can be deployed very far and from cover/defilade. So these are safe to use.

High risk plays should have high reward, currently only mine spam is really rewarding. Neither the C4 nor limpet is terribly rewarding unless the tank is already crippled. I'm totally fine with two limpets doing 80 dmg total for eg. Again it's no less balanced than C4 in prior titles. I don't see support being able to totally devastate tanks with two limpets that can almost total a tank as totally breaking balance and making tanks crap.

Either way, limpet needs some sort of buff because it's not useful for much more than smurfing infantry in buildings right now. And IMO it's the worst overall anti tank gadget in the game, other than HE rifle grenades which barely count.


Put like this it sounds okay to me, but what type of tank is that 80dmg referring to? If Heavy, that would make that pair OHK a Landship, wouldn't it? With how exposed Landships are, especially beside/behind, that might be a bit much. The pair killing a Light Tank doesn't seem too unreasonable though; even using the Howitzer variant I think I'd be okay with that.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 1,888

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

29

Monday, November 21st 2016, 7:13am

tanks are slow, but they can still move. Supoort has to get in close and plant two charges. By contrast the rocket gun has a similar effective range as the tank itself and the AT grenades can be deployed very far and from cover/defilade. So these are safe to use.

High risk plays should have high reward, currently only mine spam is really rewarding. Neither the C4 nor limpet is terribly rewarding unless the tank is already crippled. I'm totally fine with two limpets doing 80 dmg total for eg. Again it's no less balanced than C4 in prior titles. I don't see support being able to totally devastate tanks with two limpets that can almost total a tank as totally breaking balance and making tanks crap.

Either way, limpet needs some sort of buff because it's not useful for much more than smurfing infantry in buildings right now. And IMO it's the worst overall anti tank gadget in the game, other than HE rifle grenades which barely count.


Put like this it sounds okay to me, but what type of tank is that 80dmg referring to? If Heavy, that would make that pair OHK a Landship, wouldn't it? With how exposed Landships are, especially beside/behind, that might be a bit much. The pair killing a Light Tank doesn't seem too unreasonable though; even using the Howitzer variant I think I'd be okay with that.
I'm fine with people being punished for using that terribad thing in pub rounds with it getting OHK'ed with the limpets. :P

I want to like the tank hunter or squad landship so bad but they just aren't viable relative to the A7.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "tankmayvin" (Nov 21st 2016, 7:21am)


Posts: 3,440

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

30

Monday, November 21st 2016, 7:28am

I want to like the tank hunter or squad landship so bad but they just aren't viable relative to the A7.


I have to agree, it's a shame the A7V is so much more effective/common than the others. You'll see FTs on occasion, but Mark Vs? As good as never.

I think a major reason for this is the driver weapons, mainly with the A7V and the FT. The FT is dramatically weaker (health-wise), carries less ammo ready, and, unless I'm mistaken, is slower than the A7V. Sure the FT has a turret and a couple other nice little features, but as a whole the A7V just straight up beats it in every way. And doesn't rely on passengers, that's the key issue. Unlike the Mark V, passengers are a nice-to-have force multiplier in the A7V, and it's not hard to wreck everything more or less solo as an A7V driver.

Despite needing a few buffs, the Mark V is at least how it should be in terms of having a weaker driver weapon in exchange for powerful side cannons. But the A7V doesn't progress like this; its driver weapon should be "weaker" than the FT for sure. As for buffing the Mark V, I'm not as sure how that should be done.
Who has fun, wins.