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: 171

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

171

Monday, April 17th 2017, 1:13pm

A good old dumb fire rocket launcher. Great against air vehicles, weak against tanks.

C0llis

Up and down. Bounce all around

(3,334)

Posts: 3,100

Date of registration
: Apr 15th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

172

Monday, April 17th 2017, 2:44pm

@sid_tai

You can switch out "support" for "assault", "primary gun" for "rocket gun" and "plane" for "tank" in this post by yours and it's clear that the argument is bordering on the farcical, no offence meant.
You have suggested thatrocket gun fire is enough to counter a tank, but I do not agree.

Let's take the assault class as an example, one of the more effective classes against armor. As a competent infantry player one will be often close to any capture point, where the tank farms a lot of its kills. When said infantry player takes 3+ seconds to fire an AT rocket into a tank, he has 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 tank. If you are the only one firing at the tank, in my experience the majority of the times the tank will shoot you because you are firing at him, and you might not even survive after firing the first rocket. There is nothing you can do about it.
3. Let's say you got lucky and got into a team with assaults who will fire at any tank. Also let's assume there are 2 other assaults on the same point and are competent and don't sit in the same cover. However, realistically the covers will be close together. The tank driver can only kill one of you at a time. Let's optimistically you guys have disabled the tank. But the 3 assaults 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 assault players looking at the tank, as these will be free kills.
4. Even if enemy players can't get to you assaults in time, they will throw a nade there, because why not we have so many. That forces the assaults to either stop firing or die shooting.
5. To avoid getting rushed by enemy players, the said assaults 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 tank is getting near-guaranteed one kill in each shot, 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 tank either 1. does insignificant damage, 2. get myself killed by the tank, 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: rocket guns by a group of infantry certainly do noticeable damage to a tank, but it is not practical on a battlefield.


Engaging aircraft as infantry isn't very different to engaging armor, but no-one complains about that. Comparing with previous iterations of the series it's safer for infantry to engage aircraft than it has ever been. Gone are the lock-on tones telegraphing your attack (and exact location in BF4) in advance which gave aircraft time to either avoid the attack or shoot you before you could even shoot. Gone are the mandatory long exposure times in exchange for even a chance of doing some damage (with players being forced to expose themselves at least twice in order to do damage if CMs were up). Gone are the highly restrictive ranges where good pilots could prevent any chance of retaliation by pinpointing the manpads and then engaging from outside their short ranges.

Now exposure times can be as short as players want, their attacks aren't telegraphed until they are already doing damage and attacks deal damage far more reliably - no more damage immunity by exploiting the shitty TCN missile guidance.
It's silly that people argue that infantry cannot afford to have the situational awareness and good enough positioning/movement skill that they can respond to some threats but not others. How is engaging a plane when moving around the map any different than a tank, enemy infantry in cover or far off snipers? No one is complaining about having to juggle movement, cover and situational awareness when fighting armor and/or infantry, but aircraft are apparently impossible to manage?


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.


This is another ridiculous argument I've seen repeated. The manual repairs are a straight nerf from the auto regen from previous iterations of the series. Not only does it take longer to start regaining any health at all, but the pilot also cannot take any action at all (not even maneuvering) while repairing. Also, when it comes to repairs/health regen it's preferable to regain a lot of small chunks instead of a few big chunks over the same amount of time - the end points are the same, but between those points you have a bigger health pool at all times.

The previous (auto heal) system allowed pilots to do more useful things when repairing (such as maneuvering, or even shooting if they weren't taking return fire) but the new system really forces them to disengage and do nothing more than repairing. Sure, they can maneuver a bit by pointing their nose somewhere before starting repairs, but it's still a great limitation and they still have to be defensive and careful about where and when they do it.

Lastly, the ability of small arms to cancel repairs cannot be overstated. A determined support player can stop repairs all the way out to the distance where their bullets despawn (~1000 m) which is enough to reach far into the uncap on many maps (it's especially noticeably/doable on large open maps like Fao or Sinai). It's pretty powerful for a single infantryman to be able to keep a force multiplier out of combat for 20+ seconds by lobbing a few bullets at it at 500+ meters.

Things people said

And reading Youtube comments still gives me Turbo Cancer.

It really is quite frustrating when Helen Keller sets up her LMG in the only doorway in/out of an area.

What kind of question is that? Since when is cheese ever a bad idea?

Hardline is a fun and sometimes silly Cops and Robbers sorta thing and I think that's great. Or it would be if it didn't suck.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "C0llis" (Apr 17th 2017, 2:50pm)


Posts: 274

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

173

Monday, April 17th 2017, 4:32pm

The truly farcical thing is presuming that accounting for and fighting planes is the same thing as fighting tanks. It's really not, no matter how many times people repeat it. The only thing that they really share is being vehicles, and it stops at that. What changes even more in BF1 is that the primary air threat to infantry are no longer helos, but planes. Those two aircraft have the same primary purpose (farming infantry), but they operate fundamentally different in accomplishing that task.


What people also don't realize is that while it was easy for helo pilots to account for and use CMs against MANPADs, getting hit by one is a pretty fucking big deal; say goodbye to roughly 1/3 of your HP and an automatic engine disable, which no autorepair or even a teammate repping can fix ASAP. Or if you fly too low, a single dumbfire rocket or pre-nerf SRAW would make short work of you instantly. There is nothing like this in BF1. That's why some people here have suggested for infantry rounds to inflict more impulse damage and disable aircraft parts much more easily, while having a wing/engine disable actually mean something and taking longer than 1 repair cycle to fix


You tout much less exposure and the ability for anyone (3/4 classes really) to damage aircraft now as a plus, when in reality, those benefits hardly matter in impeding a plane's ability to farm. It's just as sid_tai mentioned, a single or even a few infantry doing damage in the teens to 20s is only a minor inconvenience to a pilot that is quickly cleared in 1-2 repair cycles; a MANPAD locking on to a helo actually forces the helo to seek out and kill the user or hightail it out of there. That's the kind of feedback that we want in BF1 and is sorely missed.

Posts: 795

Date of registration
: Dec 3rd 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

174

Monday, April 17th 2017, 7:36pm

I find I have better luck with the HE mortar than the rocket gun. Still, you need assaults to keep the tank from just charging the mortars. But seriously, 1 mortar aimed well can dish out at 12-20 damage per hit from relative safety. The only way a tank can stop this is to keep moving around, which screws up their aim and ability to retreat and use cover. Not a perfect solution, but particularly on non conquest modes it works beautifully.

Dumping some smoke mortars between the tank and the assaults can help too if it will still be easy for them to hit. It also obviously helps them charge it with AT grenades too

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Hau_ruck" (Apr 17th 2017, 7:54pm)


Posts: 3,429

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

175

Monday, April 17th 2017, 11:48pm

The truly farcical thing is presuming that accounting for and fighting planes is the same thing as fighting tanks. It's really not, no matter how many times people repeat it. The only thing that they really share is being vehicles, and it stops at that. What changes even more in BF1 is that the primary air threat to infantry are no longer helos, but planes. Those two aircraft have the same primary purpose (farming infantry), but they operate fundamentally different in accomplishing that task.


What people also don't realize is that while it was easy for helo pilots to account for and use CMs against MANPADs, getting hit by one is a pretty fucking big deal; say goodbye to roughly 1/3 of your HP and an automatic engine disable, which no autorepair or even a teammate repping can fix ASAP. Or if you fly too low, a single dumbfire rocket or pre-nerf SRAW would make short work of you instantly. There is nothing like this in BF1. That's why some people here have suggested for infantry rounds to inflict more impulse damage and disable aircraft parts much more easily, while having a wing/engine disable actually mean something and taking longer than 1 repair cycle to fix


You tout much less exposure and the ability for anyone (3/4 classes really) to damage aircraft now as a plus, when in reality, those benefits hardly matter in impeding a plane's ability to farm. It's just as sid_tai mentioned, a single or even a few infantry doing damage in the teens to 20s is only a minor inconvenience to a pilot that is quickly cleared in 1-2 repair cycles; a MANPAD locking on to a helo actually forces the helo to seek out and kill the user or hightail it out of there. That's the kind of feedback that we want in BF1 and is sorely missed.


Exactly, and this is what I mean about a lack of potential burst damage in BF1. In previous games you could decide "I'm going to kill that goddamn tank/heli" or "I'm gonna cap this flag or two and turn the game around", and you could spawn in and do exactly that.

Even if MANPADs could be countered fairly easily, when you did manage to land a shot it hit hard. Disable and massive health loss, which means they're basically helpless to a follow-up shot and may even just crash. Ditto for tanks, especially with rear shots. Same with flags, it was actually a goal that always felt obtainable on an individual level. Needing to hold half-plus-one means you always felt like you could make a push, grab a flag or two, and turn the game around.

BF1 lacks this, against planes, against tanks, and with flags themselves. You don't feel like you can do something. You can't decide to go take out that pesky plane/tank that's harassing your team and go do it, because individual players simply can't have that kind of impact. You literally cannot kill an A7V with all of your Rocket Gun ammo.


In BF4 you always had the chance to do something, you had hope, you could do it if you tried hard enough, with maybe a bit of luck. The kind of thing every good heroic/action/underdog movie is built on. This is what gives players purpose and drive to play and keep playing, they matter and they can get things done. BF1 has very little of this, across all levels of design and balance.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 205

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

176

Tuesday, April 18th 2017, 12:04am

@C0llis

It may sound absurd at first, but if you think about it you would find that 1. it does not take 3+ seconds of continuous exposure to fire a rocket at a tank, 2. the tank moves so slowly relative to the plane that it is still there to damage after you fire one rocket, while the plane is gone after one strafe. And most importantly, 3. the tank is (usually) on the same plane as infantry, so walls, holes in the ground can be used as cover for the said infantry to maneuver. Against planes though, 2 seconds of sprinting is nothing. If you want to shoot 30 bullets at the plane, you better have the whole hemisphere above the ground visible. If you were shooting at the plane with cover in proximity, up to 50% of the plane trajectory could be blocked.

Also, I do not think that the rocket gun in the current state is enough to battle that many heavy tanks in the game. The current heavy tank is basically an MTRAC with a main cannon and many side gunners. Light tanks are fine though.

Posts: 1,879

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

177

Tuesday, April 18th 2017, 3:49am

What people are really complaining about is that BF1 is too much of a team game in design. The constant refrain in every single aspect of complaining is basically is that "I don't have enough agency as a single player, I want to be the hero of my own action movie".

You're not supposed to be a lone wolf. You're supposed to be a badass in a squad of badasses.

This is why there is so much bitching about the Trenchie, A7V, Chammy. Those are really the only means of hero-modeing in BF1.

BF1 is just a team game, and heavily so but they forgot to add all of the things that make it possible to make friends and coordinate groups of players effectively. Ooops.

They also haven't decided if they wanted to make a game where your worth is determined by the amount of people you kill, or by the amount of objectives/assists you perform. Ooops.

Also: Zerg rush, kekekeke. Not a great FPS concept.

And the maps suck.

Posts: 3,429

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

178

Tuesday, April 18th 2017, 6:54am

You're not supposed to be a lone wolf. You're supposed to be a badass in a squad of badasses.


I actually agree, it's just that I don't think BF1 has gone about doing this well. Specifically, it's missing the "badass" part, in the sense that individual players can't really be "badass" very often, and only are when working as a group.

This seems incredibly ironic to me, when people supporting BF1's method of teamplay keep repeating that teamplay should be about a group of people who can function independently augmenting their abilities by working together. Instead of having classes and roles that excel at what they do on an individual level, they're all just kinda there. Assault doesn't excel at AT, it's just the best option.

This sort of focus on the minute differences is exactly what's gotten us a whole list of weapons, gadgets, and general roles that are mediocre and/or of questionable value. Very little excels at anything in BF1, it's usually just the better option by some relatively small amount. Instead of having classes that are really good at what they do, but crappy at other things, we have classes that are decent at what they do... and a little less decent at other things.

The argument for BF1's style has been that players should remain individually powerful, as opposed to being forced to suck because of incompetent teammates, yet that's still exactly what it amounts to, especially so with Ammo 2.0.



Yes Battlefield is supposed to be team-based, but BF1's current philosophy isn't really helpful in that regard. Wanting to be more influential and more capable on an individual level does not imply wanting to not have to use teamwork at all. Individually powerful classes that are weak in other areas promotes the kind of comm-less, spontaneous teamwork BF is known for. The current system of every role being "meh" individually does not encourage that, and in fact it's a concept that only works with full comms and a hive-mind sort of team.

People want to be able to get things done on their own, even if that means being weak to or losing to things outside their element. Individual player agency needs to matter.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 171

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

179

Tuesday, April 18th 2017, 8:10am

Removal of spotting while shooting is yet another factor contributing to people not wanting to engage tanks/airplanes. With specific map design discussed above and absence of a lion's share of people on the mini-map (well, compared to previous titles that is) it should go against every instinct to do something as stupid as engaging the tank/airplane. At least that's how I feel about it. If I run out in the open with my pants down and start shooting some trenchie, which is making a pass at max speed (like it is supposed to be doing) at some random place - the only result I am going to end up with is getting shot in the butt. So, yeah, I'd rather leave it be and keep moving between solid cover towards my current goal. And so would most other rational people. Because you're in the middle of yet another hell and the last thing you wanna do is engage some trenchie above.

Posts: 1,879

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

180

Tuesday, April 18th 2017, 9:58am

You're not supposed to be a lone wolf. You're supposed to be a badass in a squad of badasses.


I actually agree, it's just that I don't think BF1 has gone about doing this well. Specifically, it's missing the "badass" part, in the sense that individual players can't really be "badass" very often, and only are when working as a group.

This seems incredibly ironic to me, when people supporting BF1's method of teamplay keep repeating that teamplay should be about a group of people who can function independently augmenting their abilities by working together. Instead of having classes and roles that excel at what they do on an individual level, they're all just kinda there. Assault doesn't excel at AT, it's just the best option.

This sort of focus on the minute differences is exactly what's gotten us a whole list of weapons, gadgets, and general roles that are mediocre and/or of questionable value. Very little excels at anything in BF1, it's usually just the better option by some relatively small amount. Instead of having classes that are really good at what they do, but crappy at other things, we have classes that are decent at what they do... and a little less decent at other things.

The argument for BF1's style has been that players should remain individually powerful, as opposed to being forced to suck because of incompetent teammates, yet that's still exactly what it amounts to, especially so with Ammo 2.0.



Yes Battlefield is supposed to be team-based, but BF1's current philosophy isn't really helpful in that regard. Wanting to be more influential and more capable on an individual level does not imply wanting to not have to use teamwork at all. Individually powerful classes that are weak in other areas promotes the kind of comm-less, spontaneous teamwork BF is known for. The current system of every role being "meh" individually does not encourage that, and in fact it's a concept that only works with full comms and a hive-mind sort of team.

People want to be able to get things done on their own, even if that means being weak to or losing to things outside their element. Individual player agency needs to matter.
The argument that teamplay should be defined by complete independent action that is enhanced by teamwork is really just a statement of opinion not an objective reality. I know it is popular to repeat opinions until they become fact but it doesn't actually make it so. Lots of examples of stellar games where a tank class and healer class are required before you can even load into a game. I personally don't like those games as a matter of preference but you can hardly argue they are "bad" games.

I don't think BF should be designed around that concept either, but it is also clearly not designed around lone-wolf play. Indeed it has been designed around quite the opposite for many many iterations of the game.

The fact of the matter is that pretty much all engagements in BF1 are notionally based around squads engaging things together - as a result it is really hard to take one element of the squad and make it feel super powerful at that same task alone. Classic example: single assaults vs 2-3 assaults attacking armor. A single assault isn't great against a tank, but because of how slow and clumsy the tanks are a couple of assaults can fairly trivially gang up and wipe it out. That gives you very little parameter space on which to make an individual assault effective on his own, versus overpowering the trivial act of multiple people engaging a tank. And this does happen.

The same applies to planes: small arms damage is in an objectively decent place under the assumption that more than one guy shoots at it. It just seems very hard to convince anyone to shoot at planes at all. Unlike with tanks where a solid 1/3-1/2 of any given team has a rocket gun in their pocket.

The same even applies to infantry: they wanted to move away from the generic 30 round mag bestgun paradigm and they accomplished this to the extreme. But that means that a layered squad is really where all of the best guns shine.

BF1 is actually a really great game if you can throw together a coherent 5 man squad that works together, even when not composed of uniformly great players. Most of the complaints go away because the game is balanced around squads. Problem is that everything else about the game is designed to discourage it. There has never been any great way to drive players to work together in BF, and BF1 has shredded what few tools there are.

BF titles have always been team-oriented (and squad based since BF2) but largely populated by players dropping in to do their own thing. BF1 really punishes you for that in all aspects. Combine that with shitty maps and a ticket system that discourages mobile back capping and the like and I can see why the sentiment is that the game is generally "not fun".