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: 425

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

131

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 3:29pm

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.
Why would they? The average experience of shooting planes learns to inf that it's non-sensical to do, as any damage (including part damage) is quickly repaired from, and makes you a target for groundforces and the pilot + front gunner (if bomber) itself.

Damage done to airvehicle is of no use in this game. How different was that in BF2, or BF4 classic mode with the (mounted) vehicle MG's.

No matter how DICE might marginally buff small arms damage; as long as we have this fast and cheesy repairsystem for airplanes, this will stay largely the same. There is currently no incentive for the infantryplayer to shoot airplanes that actually makes sense.
RIP Sraw

Posts: 272

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

132

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 5:16pm

So many fingers pointed at people **not** shooting planes, and not enough serious thought on why that's the case. We're told to expect that all 31 of our teammates should prioritize taking potshots at a plane, and that keeping track of planes should come as naturally (and is the same) as watching out for tanks or infantry. The claim that Trench Fighters can match a Ground Support's farming gets laughed at, because who could believe such an absurd and outlandish claim? The Trench Fighter nerf is a huge step backwards for gameplay balance, because too much whining and not enough infantry shooting. Oh, don't forget to make the intentionally #1 air scrapping plane more capable of gunning down infantry, because it's just bad game design for a vehicle to have nothing to do after achieving its purpose; let the pilot get some infantry kills too for fun! Did I mention that your entire team needs to be shooting the plane, or its everyones fault if you get darted?

Am I missing anything else? It feels like any attempt to explain why we're unsatisfied with the current state of air vs infantry balance is simply ignored, despite addressing why such an obvious suggested solution (shoot the goddamn plane!) isn't working well enough.

This post isn't a personal attack against you. We don't want planes to be flying pieces of garbage. I'm even willing to discuss some sort of Dogfighter buff that gives it something to do when there's no planes in the sky, just god forbid we have another Fighter variant that can gun down infantry when one can already drop darts and the other can splash with less accurate ghetto Hydras.

You have to take into account seriously the experiences of everyone criticizing air balance, from perspective that isn't shared by you both as an avid pilot and tank driver/infantry. Some of us here play infantry exclusively, some are tank mains, and a whole lot have solid experience in multiple roles. We all seek a balanced game experience where everyone can have fun. Take our comments by themselves and reflect why they're stated, don't simply default to easy explanations.

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,529

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

133

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 5:36pm

And that is NOT a problem with planes. That's a bad infy problem.

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.

This is probably the case. However, I don't think you can just dismiss it.

It's pretty obvious that very, VERY few people shoot at planes in public servers. For those people who do shoot at planes, unlike tank combat, there is no depth to it, nor is it very engaging - it's quite literally crosshair over target, track target, avoid plane bombs, repeat.


I think this argument has gone well past "git gud", and gone into "something needs to be changed." If anything, make infantry/plane combat interesting to some degree, because at the moment, it's really not.
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: 68

Date of registration
: Mar 2nd 2017

Platform: PS4

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

134

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 6:26pm

I keep seeing people say 'players don't shoot at planes blah blah blah'. Sure, if you're camping at a corner of the map, with your back against a wall you can afford to do that. If you're crossing large open spaces between objectives (which is basically every map in the game where planes are available) or playing the objective (which is where 90% of plane kills occur) you're not going to be afforded the luxury of looking up in the sky when you're getting sniped and there's a guy with an Automatico running into the objective towards you. Oh did I mention tanks too? And the absolutely stupid placement of stationary AA on some maps?

Let's not even talk about how over 25% of players (SMG and shotgun users) can't even do anything against planes.

Posts: 3,346

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

135

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 7:25pm

This is probably the case. However, I don't think you can just dismiss it.

It's pretty obvious that very, VERY few people shoot at planes in public servers. For those people who do shoot at planes, unlike tank combat, there is no depth to it, nor is it very engaging - it's quite literally crosshair over target, track target, avoid plane bombs, repeat.


I think this argument has gone well past "git gud", and gone into "something needs to be changed." If anything, make infantry/plane combat interesting to some degree, because at the moment, it's really not.


This is the real issue that needs to be discussed. I think we can all agree that infantry weapons are great against planes on paper, and that even just one squad of players working to take out planes (about on par with taking out a tank, I should note) would give all pilots a very bad day.

So why doesn't it happen? Is it not interesting enough? Rewarding enough? Doesn't have a lasting impact? All of the above? How do we make shooting at planes more appealing and engaging?
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 425

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

136

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 9:51pm

This is probably the case. However, I don't think you can just dismiss it.

It's pretty obvious that very, VERY few people shoot at planes in public servers. For those people who do shoot at planes, unlike tank combat, there is no depth to it, nor is it very engaging - it's quite literally crosshair over target, track target, avoid plane bombs, repeat.


I think this argument has gone well past "git gud", and gone into "something needs to be changed." If anything, make infantry/plane combat interesting to some degree, because at the moment, it's really not.


How do we make shooting at planes more appealing and engaging?
By having more effect to the cause.

You can think of bullets from small arms:

1. creating more overall damage over distance, (the medic rifle damage needs buffing against planes)
2. greatly increasing impulse damage or force to throw off the aim of the airplane
3. bullets causing slightly faster partdamage
4. Make partdamage 'hurt more', have a greater effect on the physics of the airplane
5. Airplanes having to repair longer to fix damage or each repaircycle gives less health, things like that.
6. Have squadleader a 'destroy this, destroy that' context related message when he pushes spotbutton for the second time on the already spotted target.
7. Slightly buffing bullet damage of the small magazine LMG's against fighters, attack planes
RIP Sraw

Posts: 195

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

137

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 9:54pm

This is probably the case. However, I don't think you can just dismiss it.

It's pretty obvious that very, VERY few people shoot at planes in public servers. For those people who do shoot at planes, unlike tank combat, there is no depth to it, nor is it very engaging - it's quite literally crosshair over target, track target, avoid plane bombs, repeat.


I think this argument has gone well past "git gud", and gone into "something needs to be changed." If anything, make infantry/plane combat interesting to some degree, because at the moment, it's really not.


This is the real issue that needs to be discussed. I think we can all agree that infantry weapons are great against planes on paper, and that even just one squad of players working to take out planes (about on par with taking out a tank, I should note) would give all pilots a very bad day.

So why doesn't it happen? Is it not interesting enough? Rewarding enough? Doesn't have a lasting impact? All of the above? How do we make shooting at planes more appealing and engaging?

I think the reason is that it does not have enough impact and feedback. Against a tank a rocket gun does around 20% damage and could cause a disable. After you reload you could do that again because a tank has low mobility. Against a fighter with an LMG, you could put 30 rounds into him and cause 11% or so damage, but he is going to fly off, wait and repair, and come back at full health to do the same thing again, this time the victim is possibly you. And in my experience, the chances of causing a disable on fighter, even aiming at the wing exclusively, is very low.

Against an attack plane, the damage is even lower and the incentive to shoot at him is less because you just telegraphed your position for his tail gunner to shoot at. Even more so for the bomber. I usually leave the bomber alone because each time I shoot at it the front gunner wrecks me.

Oscar

Sona tank jungle

(1,825)

Posts: 7,832

Date of registration
: May 30th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: SURROUNDED BY FUCKING MOUNTAINS

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 18

  • Send private message

138

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 10:49pm

@sid_tai

30 shots from a LMG will deal, at the very least, 45% against a fighter. (assuming 15 mindmg)

Bombers would take 14% from those very same 30 shots.
Bro of Legion, the lurker ninja mod | Tesla FTW | RNG is evil.

Quoted from "MsMuchLove"

I find majority of the complaints I hear about this game somehow never appear in my games.

Posts: 1,819

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

139

Saturday, April 15th 2017, 11:51pm

In a manner similar to how I argue that spawning an AA truck is a net loss because it's an otherwise crappy vehicle that can't do much, dedicating an entire squad to shooting down planes is a net loss. If a squad is working in tight coordination of the sort that is good taking down planes, they will be very powerful for actually taking flags. And they should be taking flags instead of cover camping to shoot at a plane at intervals of every 3 minutes.

A squad AA loadout will look something like 2 scouts with K-bullets and three MG15s. That's kinda a shitty loadout for doing other things. You could probably dedicate just two MG15s to the task if you can both dump everything until overheat into the plane. But I don't really want to be in a squad running two MG15s.

An ideal general purpose loadout is 2 x assault, 2 x medic and 1 x support. Which gives you high burst against tanks if everyone has the AT grenade (which they should on any map that has tanks), redundant revives and access to ammo/limpet.

So really the issue in all cases that gearing for fighting planes with anything other than planes is a net loss because you could be gearing to do basically anything with a better net return. This even applies to the plane meta. No one really uses the bomber killer, dogfighter, or blimp killer loadouts because killing air isn't profitable.

A pair of medics leapfrogging means that you are almost guaranteed to be able to pick up the elements of your squad that get darted or autocannoned and you can just carry on. The shitbucket pilot gets points but is denied the contribution to winning because no ticks are lost. This is another reason tanks are simply better. They can persist to get a squad wipe.

So really the best counter to plane farming is simply to prevent ticket attrition from their kills.

Posts: 210

Date of registration
: Sep 20th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

140

Sunday, April 16th 2017, 1:49am

I keep seeing people say 'players don't shoot at planes blah blah blah'. Sure, if you're camping at a corner of the map, with your back against a wall you can afford to do that. If you're crossing large open spaces between objectives (which is basically every map in the game where planes are available) or playing the objective (which is where 90% of plane kills occur) you're not going to be afforded the luxury of looking up in the sky when you're getting sniped and there's a guy with an Automatico running into the objective towards you. Oh did I mention tanks too? And the absolutely stupid placement of stationary AA on some maps?

Let's not even talk about how over 25% of players (SMG and shotgun users) can't even do anything against planes.


This is untrue. I could provide dozens of examples every time I play that prove this wrong.

Because of this thread, I actually spent some time today in game, to see how much damage I could do by just flippantly lobbing a few rounds at convenient moments. I never spent more than half a second on the job, I got at least 10HP every time (often dealing the killing blow, I took out quite a few), there were dozens, possibly hundreds of these occasions and I died a total of zero times in doing so. If everyone were to do this, planes would be in big trouble. But they don't.... and that's kinda where this thread seems to be headed. Every can see that infy weapons DO work against planes and most (anyone who tries it and is decent at the game) can see that it IS possible to take a few shots without excessive risk or interfering with PTFO gameplay. The trouble is that not everyone does it. So there's this impression that it's super risky and draws too much attention - which can be true, but again, only because there's only one guy doing it. If you're the lone opponent damaging a plane of course it's going to single you out - you've singled yourself out.

So yeh... The direction of this thread is a good one IMO. We can see that the counters exist and are effective, but we can also see that nobody is using them. We're starting to head to the real nuts and bolts of this, which is WHY aren't people doing it? HOW can we get them to do it?