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: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

31

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 12:54am

Why does support get to be the anti-everything class?

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,305)

Posts: 2,735

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

32

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 1:10am

Yeah it does make sense, they already do a lot of damage though, the low bullet counts and the overheat for a small part hinder the LMGs to be potent AA. The MG15 though can put some constant pressure though on planes. However you will have other stuff to do than stalk planes so you will mostly shoot at it when it is coming your way, which will very likely mean the pilot is desperately looking to meet you.

Mostly it is the motivation of players that hinders more AA though. As said, you might not see the planes or you might be occupied with other stuff, or you just do not bother. I think the damage is enough on planes from bullets.

As for the rocket gun: With the amount of damage planes take already a OHK would be a bit overkill. I would not oppose a buff though, because if anyone flies as low to put himself in reach of the rocket guns he deserves to get hit really hard.

On the other side though, no vehicle is as riskless as the planes are, as you can always get out, and the gunners do not even have an underperforming kit, then. Here lies a propblem, I would want to see the pilot's health tied to the vehicle health, so if you jump out of your plane with 12% left you will land with 12% HP. I would also want exit animations to prevent avoiding death from people who outplayed you. I mean DICE made a great deal to have enter animations and seat switch animations, but exiting is instant? Come on...

Posts: 3,639

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

33

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 2:12am

Why does support get to be the anti-everything class?


Because that's what it is, really. It's the jack-of-all-trades class, but it doesn't really specialize in anything.


I would also want exit animations to prevent avoiding death from people who outplayed you. I mean DICE made a great deal to have enter animations and seat switch animations, but exiting is instant? Come on...


Absolutely this. As much as like the entry animations, exit animations were the important ones.

At least they setup pilots bailing so they usually get roadkilled by their pursuer, that's something at least. I actually just yesterday killed a bailing pilot with my main cannons by accident before he could even get splattered. :D
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

34

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 2:45am

As long as you don't REALLY screw yourself over, tanks can generally withdraw from AT fire more effectively than planes once they get bracketted by that SAA, unless they get lit up really at the edge of the SAA range and the plane can evac instantly.

I think the least interesting aspect of the plane dynamics is that while tanks can effectively operate while being engaged by anti-tank, planes can only beat their counters either by setting up to strafe their counters at the edge of their range (dofighter cannon sniping, super high altitude bombing) or by simply not going there.

Posts: 3,639

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

35

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 3:07am

As long as you don't REALLY screw yourself over, tanks can generally withdraw from AT fire more effectively than planes once they get bracketted by that SAA, unless they get lit up really at the edge of the SAA range and the plane can evac instantly.

I think the least interesting aspect of the plane dynamics is that while tanks can effectively operate while being engaged by anti-tank, planes can only beat their counters either by setting up to strafe their counters at the edge of their range (dofighter cannon sniping, super high altitude bombing) or by simply not going there.


This is a much better phrasing of my main reason for wanting high MG (etc) damage and no OHKs. The Rocket Gun OHKing air would just be an amplified version of what the SAA currently is. MG fire, on the other hand, does damage constantly but doesn't knock the plane around like the SAA does, meaning the plane can still operate while under fire, making it an actual fight. Said MG fire would also be able to inflict disables with enough rounds on target, similar to with tanks, but those disables would rarely doom the plane then and there, as is currently the case with the SAA.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 32

Date of registration
: Aug 11th 2014

Platform: PC

Location: France

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

36

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 3:32am

As long as you don't REALLY screw yourself over, tanks can generally withdraw from AT fire more effectively than planes once they get bracketted by that SAA, unless they get lit up really at the edge of the SAA range and the plane can evac instantly.

I think the least interesting aspect of the plane dynamics is that while tanks can effectively operate while being engaged by anti-tank, planes can only beat their counters either by setting up to strafe their counters at the edge of their range (dofighter cannon sniping, super high altitude bombing) or by simply not going there.


Actually that's my main source of dying when in a Fighter, getting surprised by an AA at short range. The most dangerous AA gunners are the sneaky ones, waiting the last moment to open fire. That, and when they shoot at you during an actual dogfight :thumbdown:

And yeah OHK with the rocket gun seems very harsh to me. It should be reserved to AT guns of all sort, like the one on the Breakthrough.

Posts: 840

Date of registration
: Dec 3rd 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

37

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 4:14am

The annoying thing about the AA is that stationary weapons seem to have a very long respawn timer. This applies to AT guns too. Once they're destroyed they take forever to come back. In the time while they're down enemy vehicles have free reign. It gets pretty ridiculous in rush when 12 defenders (at most) are expected to take out 2 attacking heavy tanks with maybe 1 or 2 field guns which, when destroyed, leave the team with very little long range AT firepower. Not sure what the exact timer is but it is pretty inadequate given the constant stream of enemy tanks.

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

38

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 7:55am

It is the ANTI TANK Rocket Gun, therefore, it should be used against armour. Not air.

Like with every other primary weapon in the game, the Rocket Gun can be used against something that it's not intended to be used against, however, that will result in reduced effectiveness. This means 35% damage against aircraft.
something something Model 8 bestgun


How to ice an A-91

Next, wanna try adding a guy that you KNOW is bad, and just testing to see that? Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

PP-2000 added. Y'know, it's not that bad....

Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.

Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:




Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.

But... You can't be counting for the fact that it takes 9 bullets to kill at "long" range... Don't you dare tell me my A-91 is worse than a 9 BTK 650 RPM mediocre PDW.

Also. Just go heavy barrel. The recoil is low enough.

Well, technically...

Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).

And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.

In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.

Mind blown.

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

Zer0Cod3x explained it very well. If you look at the raw numbers right here on Symthic Comparison, you can see how that happened:

A-91 vs PP-2000 | BF4 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

A-91's "23%" RPM advantage only afforded it 1 extra round.

Reload times are wash.

Velocities are wash.

V-Recoil are wash (and this is HBar on PP2k vs. A-91 without).

Hipfire and ADS - Moving are better on the PP2k, but it's a PDW and not the surprising part.

The surprising part is that, as equipped (and we see above that PP2k HBar has almost same V-Recoil as A-91 without HBar so why not?), the PDW performs better at 50 - 100m than a bloody Carbine. Why?

H-Recoil Spread, 0.525 vs. 0.45, advantage PP2k.

SIPS, 42% better on the PP2k.

And here is the most important part. ADS - Not Moving Spread, 0.35 vs. 0.2, 43% improvement.

Without HBar then of course the PP2k loses, which is why when I add all the attachments together for an Overall Ranking, it would slot below the A-91. Run HBar on it, though, then... I'm sorry

@Veritable
@Zer0Cod3x
I... I...
But...
Wha...
I AM HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE OF YOU TWO.

FUCK YOU NERDS AND YOUR FANCY NUMBERS

SEXY RUSSIAN BULLPUPS FTW.

In all seriousness, thank you both so much for giving me the numbers. I still don't want to accept them. You have led the horse to water. I still need to drink.


Posts: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

39

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 8:16am

I'm generally against any sort of OHK against any vehicle. I always hated rockets vs air in BF4 (Transport Helis was okay, being 2HK) and always hated C4 vs tanks. You can argue positioning or whatever, but it's ultimately no fun for anyone.

Tanks should not be discouraged from charging into enemy territory to confuse them and soften them up, in fact it should be encouraged. C4 did the opposite of this. BF1 has done this well, I think; you'll only get obliterated by a rain of AT grenades if the enemy was expecting you, and that's fair.

As for planes, I want to see them doing low-altitude strafing runs. Partly because that's actually fun, and often practical because you're harder to see if you're behind objects/etc. The absolute worst thing we can do to air vehicles is seclude them to only being effective when super high or super far away. Certain people always argued the AH was amazing in BF4, and cited sitting at the edge of the map spamming rockets and TV missiles as proof. And yeah, that was effective. But it was bland and boring. For everyone

If we want better infantry AA options, Support's MGs would fit the bill perfectly. OHK Rocket Gun shots don't discourage pilots from coming close because there's a degree of luck involved. Pilots won't change (and will simply complain about cheap deaths), while we'll also have to endure further annoying cross-map "skill-shot" montage videos of people OHK-ing planes. It's a lose-lose.

If we want better infantry AA options, Support's MGs would fit the bill perfectly. MGs do constant damage, and it's the sort of thing that (if damage is buffed) should serve to discourage incoming aircraft extremely well. I already do it now, but lighting up a Bomber starting a run for a total of maybe 20-25 damage just isn't worth it, not when that's easily repairable. Infantry weapons should do more damage, but especially cause Disables (wing damage) far more often. This would be far more dynamic, interesting, and fun for everyone involved.
The great thing about C4 and launchers oneshotting armor and air vehicles is that they were always high risk, but high reward that always put the driver of said vehicles on high alert and respectful of infantry options.

Tanks shouldn't be discouraged to charge objectives? Guess what, the average 50+ Service Star A7V or Artillery Truck driver would still not get on the point right now, when he's happy to sit outside and farm kills. Tank drivers should be working with ground troops to cover blindspots and kill AT shooting at them. Just like previous BF games.

If I was oneshotted by a C4 Support/jihad jeep while driving a LAV/AAMTRAC, or exploded by a launcher while hovering a Little Bird, I never thought, "Wow, that's cheap and unfun." That's a natural consequence of not covering your angles and not respecting the capabilities of a single ground infantry who can completely ruin your day. BF1 is a complete step backward in regards to this, and it's one of the reasons why armor and air vehicles are at its strongest in a long time. By this same logic, Battle Pickups in BF1 shouldn't be oneshotted by melee and bayonets since they're basically the equivalent of armored vehicles that trash infantry.

As for better infantry AA options like Support MG buffs against aircraft, why not have that + AT Rockets oneshotting planes at the same time?

Posts: 3,639

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

40

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 9:05am

I've already explained that I think any OHKs on vehicles are awful. That said, TNT in BF1 is in a good place though, I'm happy with it here. I'm also not a huge fan of bayoneting the hero classes, but at the same time it's not really much of an issue.

Incremental damage is always better than OHKs, one of the reasons being OHKs always encourage players to spam said ability in the hopes of getting lucky. See: Every montage video of cross-map sniper headshots, RPG Jet/Heli takedowns, and so forth. It adds virtually nothing positive to the game. Killing things very fast is fair game, it's the binary alive/dead of a OHK that's the problem.

Upping bullet damage vs planes would benefit Assault and Support the most, Medic less so, and Scout would be lowest in DPS but better at getting critical hits. Fits each class quite well, I'd say.



What about a canister shell-firing Rocket Gun, as an "AA Rocket Gun"? Would naturally get less effective over distance, giving it a natural range limit, and making it exceptional at point defence and protecting against low strafing runs (etc) while also not being able to be spammed cross-map in hopes of an easy kill. Seems like a win for everyone.
Who Enjoys, Wins

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "BleedingUranium" (Dec 21st 2016, 9:11am)