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.

## Fighter Planes + Ranken Darts: A Balancing Disaster?

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: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 2:11am

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

The reason the trenchie dominates the META is because killing infantry basically dominates nearly ALL of the game meta because it's really the only way to get high scores.

This is one of the most, if not the most fundamental problem with Planes, more so than any other thing. Why would you actually put work into dogfighting, using the Tank Hunter Plane to fight armour, or use any other harder-to-use or more situational Plane type when the Trench Fighter not only gets you the most points by a large margin, but is also the easiest to use, and is still top-dog vs any opposition you face? It's not only the easiest, but also gives the most points.

Damaging/destroying a vehicle being worth the same as a single foot soldier really needs to be fixed; total-HP-based points instead of percentage-based are a must. When engaging armour and/or other Planes becomes as (or more) attractive as cheesing infantry mobs, then we'll actually see some Plane variety. And we'll also see infantry engaging said Planes.
I used to think the AT plane was a turd. It is actually bloody amazing just very hard to use. It actually has excellent infantry farming ability, smashes bombers, and is quite good vs armor if you can secure a second pass. The trenchie is just easy because it can kite/turnfight other planes and it has the easiest derp weapon in the game.

Armor kills are worth dramatically more than a infantry kill. Infantry kill baseline gives you 100 points.

Armor kill baseline gives you 100 points for the crew kill + 250 points for destruction of the vehicle. In the process you will generally get a part destroy bonus or disable bonus. A typical vehicle kill will thus net you 350-400 points. Or 4 isolated infantry kills. Lots of infantry kills also come from pre-damaged infantry so the average pts per kill is probably more like 70?

Posts: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 2:20am

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

The lack of an...) infantry gadget to counter air

Primary weapons work juuuust fine.
Objectively/theoretically yes. Practically speaking players simply are NOT using them effectively against planes. Infantry rarely shoot at planes more than 1-2 at a time, which isn't enough.

Planes are categorically not being downed at the rate they should be by infantry.

If you deny that there is a gap between the way something is setup to work, and the way people actually use it, then you really just don't have any idea what you are talking about.

The Designer-User gap, and the user-experience/competence gap are well described in design literature. They are something game designers generally play close attention to.

I am not saying that guns need to be statistically buffed versus planes, however something needs to be done to get players to actually use them vs planes accordingly.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 2:22am

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

The lack of an...) infantry gadget to counter air

Primary weapons work juuuust fine.

That's not the point. The MANPAD gadgets of previous titles have a definite intention and purpose: to combat aircraft. When the user selects these gadgets they do so with the intention and purpose of countering aircraft and are, therefore, utilized during the match more frequently. The same just does not translate with small arms against planes in BF1. When a player chooses his primary weapon it is done so with the intention and purpose to counter opposing infantry; I would think that rarely does someone opt for a certain gun with the intention to counter planes. If there was an AA gadget - deployable AA MG - players would probably shoot at planes more because that's what it's specifically designed for. Asking for an AA gadget isn't because small arms are inadequate, but because using small arms isn't at the forefront of every player's mind when it comes to countering planes.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.2
SnapZoomPostTime 0.2
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 1.2
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier 1.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom -1.0
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.0
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 0.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.0
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

 AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

the Sebstalder is quiet good since it can 3hit kill at any distanc ,but In my opinion i actually thikn the sweeper is better, its got a really really fast firerate that can beat alll those Noobmaticos, Helregall adn shitguns in close quarters , and its also really accurate out to like l;ong range,. overall great allround gun, jsut my 2\$ tho

### My "Contributions"

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (Apr 15th 2017, 5:52am)

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,633

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 2:30am

### Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

Damaging/destroying a vehicle being worth the same as a single foot soldier really needs to be fixed; total-HP-based points instead of percentage-based are a must.
I think a straight HP to score conversion is too hamfisted and bordering on the extreme, but I do support more score for damaging/disabling vehicles.

Currently they are (nearly) treated the same as damaging infantry, which isn't right, but a flat 10x multiplier for AT score is going to over-inflate the assault class (and tank players, who do a lot of AT work).

A medium is needed, but it's important that it doesn't come at the cost of UI clarity (i.e. score feed -> damage done).

^ I'm not saying that 10x isn't good because of "UI clarity", I'm saying that 10x is excessive and that any eventual compromise will have to include changes to UI to preserve clarity.

I agree it would be a lot, but at the same time other teamplay actions aren't especially rewarding in terms of points either. Boosting revive, heal, resupply, suppression, spot (etc) points would be good as well.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 2:56am

### Quoted from "C0llis"

Not having lots of flag spawned assets is one of the few things BF1 does right and it's not something that should return.

Having counters tied to map control (or even pure force multipliers like tanks) is a generally shitty idea. The team that needs them the most is the least likely to get them and vice versa. It's a slippery slope mechanic, pure and simple.

No offence meant, but of all the things I have seen suggested for "fixing" air-to-ground balance in BF1 reintroducing flag based assets is probably the worst of the bunch.
It's not so much as fixing air-to-ground balance as it is admitting that the AA Truck is a huge waste of a tank slot, no matter how you look at it

I don't buy the slippery slope mechanic at all either. AA Trucks are hardly going to be a game changer in the grand scheme of things, and Light Tanks/Arty Artillery Trucks are the easiest armored vehicles for Assaults to smash, let alone the 1-2 gauranteed A7V/Landship/Chammond tank slots from deployment eating them alive. I don't think the big boy tanks should ever be controllable map assets for obvious reasons though

Posts: 180

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: UK

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 3:13am

### Quoted from "Shalan"

The Ground Support Attack plane's anti-infantry abilities is matched by the Trench Fighter

Right... Well I suppose I'm so obviously mistaken that you haven't even felt the need to provide an explanation to support your stance...

In response, I could ask you to watch Niccaman's YouTube video of him getting 161-1 in a Plane with anti-infantry abilities that would be simply laughable to compare to the Attack Plane's, and then ask you to explain your opinion. But frankly, discussing this with you has become exceedingly tedious and I'm about done with it. So you can decide whether or not you'd like that triumphant feeling of having the final say.

Because I can assure you, it's there if you want it.

Posts: 116

Date of registration
: Dec 26th 2015

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 3

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 4:45am

### Quoted from "CaptaPraelium"

Primary weapons work juuuust fine.

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

Objectively/theoretically yes. Practically speaking players simply are NOT using them effectively against planes. Infantry rarely shoot at planes more than 1-2 at a time, which isn't enough.

Planes are categorically not being downed at the rate they should be by infantry.

If you deny that there is a gap between the way something is setup to work, and the way people actually use it, then you really just don't have any idea what you are talking about.

The Designer-User gap, and the user-experience/competence gap are well described in design literature. They are something game designers generally play close attention to.

I am not saying that guns need to be statistically buffed versus planes, however something needs to be done to get players to actually use them vs planes accordingly.

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

That's not the point. The MANPAD gadgets of previous titles have a definite intention and purpose: to combat aircraft. When the user selects these gadgets they do so with the intention and purpose of countering aircraft and are, therefore, utilized during the match more frequently. The same just does not translate with small arms against planes in BF1. When a player chooses his primary weapon it is done so with the intention and purpose to counter opposing infantry; I would think that rarely does someone opt for a certain gun with the intention to counter planes. If there was an AA gadget (deployable AA MG :whistling players would probably shoot at planes more because that's what it's specifically designed for. Asking for an AA gadget isn't because small arms are inadequate, but because using small arms isn't at the forefront of every player's mind when it comes to countering planes.

I can specifically attest that working together with a squad of supports to harass any plane that came too close with nothing but our MG15 is an incredibly effective defensive strategy against planes. For two rounds we fired at any plane in the skies. Focusing each of our fire made us able to take down a fighter in one pass. And since we didn't clump up, when one of us got taken out - which happened a lot - we were still able as a full squad to take down whatever plane decided to enter our anti-air zone. If a bomber had a competent front gunner, they usually took out a few of us, but we still wailed on them enough to cause the pilot to break away for a few minutes and lick its wounds.

But we're talking about the trench fighter, the bane of almost any infantryman. Because the fighter moves so quick and can drop the darts and disengage, it means that the fighter won't be in view long enough for every one of us to get enough shots off at it. There's almost always cover for the planes, since the infantry that takes cover most likely can't see the fighter anyways.

While yes, having a squad of supports can work, it's definitely not exactly fun to camp as anti-air for just a few plane kills.
I love the math behind the statistics
It's possible to find me online at almost any given time, due to the fact that my schedule is hectic and rather non-existent.

Who needs sleep anyways?
(PC/PS4 gamer)

Various bf4 spreadsheets: (nothing special, just raw data from the Symthic website put into a spreadsheet to analyze all values at once)

### Spoiler

BF4_Weapons_enhanced_UPDATED_2016
Soldier Equipment:
Interactive Damage Table
Unsuppressed Sniper Rifle Bullet Drop Charts
bf4_sniper_guide
Suppressed Sniper Rifle Bullet Drop Charts
Suppressed bf4_sniper_guide
More user friendly Unsuppressed Sniper Rifle Bullet Drop Chart
Friendlier Sniper rifle Bullet Drop Chart
More user friendly Suppressed Sniper Rifle Bullet Drop Chart
Friendlier Suppressed Sniper Rifle Bullet Drop Chart

Posts: 286

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 5:27am

@CaptaPraelium

You have suggested that primary gun fire is enough to counter a plane, but I do not agree.

Let's take the support class as an example, one of the more effective classes against strafing planes. (I do not play recon much, so I don't really know about recon) As a competent infantry player one will be often close to any capture point, where the trench fighter gets a lot of its kills. When said infantry player takes 3+ seconds to fire 30 rounds into a plane, he said a lot of things to consider.
1. He must have cover. However with BF1's map design there are a lot of open spaces and cover is really limited. There are certainly more than 1 cover spots for each capture point but they can really be counted with one hand for most of the points.
2. So now you are firing at the plane. If you are the only one firing at the plane, in my experience the majority of the times the plane will bomb you because you are firing at him, and you might not even fire 30 rounds into him. There is nothing you can do about it.
3. Let's say you got lucky and got into a team with supports who will fire at any plane that strafes by. Also let's assume there are 2 other supports on the same point and are competent and don't sit in the same cover. However, realistically the covers will be close together. The plane can only kill one of you. Let's optimistically you guys have disabled the plane. But the 3 supports have also broadcasted their locations to the enemy team who is defending/attacking the point, and your team is down 3 people working on the point. Assuming equal skill, the enemy team will definitely have some assault player with an automatico who will rush you 3 support players looking at the sky, as these will be free kills.
4. Even if enemy players can't get to you supports in time, they will throw a nade there, because why not we have so many. That forces the supports to either stop firing or die shooting.
5. To avoid getting rushed by enemy players, the said supports must be at a more remote location, all while the team has fewer bodies to push the capture points.
6. This happens all while the plane is getting near-guaranteed one kill in one strafe, and the infantry firing at it might not even get a disable.

I know there are a lot of if's in my arguments, but this is actually what happened a lot in my experience. Attempts to shoot back at a plane either 1. does insignificant damage, 2. get myself killed by the plane, 3. get my team killed by other enemy players, or 4. make myself unavailable to contest a capture point for 30+ seconds. It is frustrating to say the least.

TL,DR: Primary weapons by a group of infantry certainly do noticeable damage to a plane, but it is not practical on a battlefield.

Posts: 226

Date of registration
: Sep 20th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 12:30pm

### Quoted from "sid_tai"

TL,DR: Primary weapons by a group of infantry certainly do noticeable damage to a plane, but it is not practical on a battlefield.

It is entirely practical, I do it every day. You can learn how to do it.
Again, we could apply your same arguments to infantry. "Oh, I can't engage any infantry because there are 31 more of them and I'll get caught in the crossfire from them". And that's what happened to every one of us when we started playing FPS. We'd step out to shoot one guy and bam, dead from another direction. One learns to manage their engagements. This is only different in that the Y axis is more pertinent

It is true, that it can be difficult to pull it off and make it work. but as @tankmayvin pointed out, that's only because people won't try it. If the whole team were dropping one sniper bullet, or a quick half an MG mag, whenever they had a few hundred milliseconds to spare (because that's literally all the time it takes to land a few shots) then each infy on the team would be doing 10+ damage to that plane every time they try. It doesn't take long to shred the plane if there are enough people doing it. But there aren't. And that is NOT a problem with planes. That's a bad infy problem. As @lope_a_dope pointed out, if a small handful of players have to do the work of the entire team, then they're going to get pretty tired of it.

### Quoted from "Shalan"

Right... Well I suppose I'm so obviously mistaken that you haven't even felt the need to provide an explanation to support your stance...

I did. scroll up. I'm not taking the 'last word' on this. I'm very happy to discuss it with you further when you're better educated on the game.

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

When a player chooses his primary weapon it is done so with the intention and purpose to counter opposing infantry; I would think that rarely does someone opt for a certain gun with the intention to counter planes

I'd agree with you on this. Well that's a case of bad players not adjusting to the new game mechanics where primaries work against air now
Me personally, If I see a decent pilot, I'm going for my 1903 marksman rather than my usual SMLE or M95 (because velocity/drag). My anti-vehicle support loadout preset (aka repair bitch preset) has the benet tele in it specifically for planes.... You get the idea.
See, the problems with infy vs planes all wind down to the same thing in a nutshell: It's not a weapon problem. It's a soldier problem.

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

. If there was an AA gadget....deployable AA MG

You mean the MG15 suppressive? Or better yet, Benet Mercie Telescopic? You see my point. We already have these weapons. There's no need for a dedicated infy AA gadget because primaries already hurt air. You'd just be carrying a second MG. Sure, assault player primaries suck (10A slug being an exception, it's actually OK vs fighters, if they're close), so we could let them have an MG in their gadget slot... A mag from one of these does about the same damage to planes as AT rockets to tanks. But why? just let them play support/scout. If they're already an assault player, they can join the medics in the supportive role or holding off enemy forces while the supports/scouts get the job done. Besides, we both know how much assaults having MGs would be used vs infy (see: AT rockets, grenades), and how much that would unbalance the infy game.

A dedicated AA MG is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist....and it comes with a set of it's own new problems, too.

Posts: 1,221

Date of registration
: Dec 7th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 2:40pm

If infantry just made it a habit to shoot at enemy planes with whatever guns they have then that would turn pilots lives into hell.
bob

1 guests