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

Sunday, April 8th 2018, 8:43pm

Yeah. I have to say, even with all of the problems in BF1, I think it has one one of the best class balances of ANY Battlefield game, period, as of TTK 2.0.

  • In terms of infantry combat, scout/recon has one of the best implementations, its not just a lame sacrificial class to get a spawn beacon and sensors. Only implementation I preferred is the scout in BC2 with the VSS, or the fact that recon got carbines and explosives and stealth stuff in 2142.

  • Support is actually a viable class in infantry combat now, although I still feel that class has the weakest of gadgets. The xbow and the mortar are really underwhelming for high-scoring play and ammo just isn't very useful compared to health, and they never got ammo 2.0 to something viable.

  • Medic vs assault are well balanced in terms of performance against infantry (with TTK 2.0 anyway).

  • Even in terms of vehicle combat, all of the classes except medic have solid options that really help in a fight. The k-bullet and mortar are amazing at countering repairs and flushing tanks out, etc. Sure the best tank killing option is still spamming AT grens or rocket guns, but it means that you aren't forced to play the equivalent of engineer on vehicle maps as you did in BF4 since you can meaningfully contribute with any class (medics for picking up dead assaults is also helpful). Also the removal of the support/recon + suicide jeep is something I ultimately like. While its been a staple of BF forever, I don't think the resulting meta was all that great.

  • The addition of dedicated tanker and pilot classes is IMO an amazing choice, but something that got badly marred by the half-baked and very glitchy spawn system they implemented for planes, heavy armor slots, and light vehicle slots on flags. Hopefully they fix the spawning in BF2018 because its half-way to being the best implementation so far.

  • Medic still suffers from the split identity of medic/(assault)rifleman/marksman that has plagued every single title since they got rid of a dedicated medic class, but that's a minor quibble since it only nullifies one gadget.


*edited to add stuff and fix list syntax

This post has been edited 5 times, last edit by "tankmayvin" (Apr 8th 2018, 8:51pm)


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,292)

Posts: 7,279

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

32

Sunday, April 8th 2018, 10:08pm

Even in terms of vehicle combat, all of the classes except medic have solid options that really help in a fight.


Rifle Grenades can be spammed to quickly eat up a quarter to a third of a tank's health in a span of like 5 seconds depending on what tank you're shooting at.

Unlike the rocket gun, you're not forced to bipod it either. I wouldn't really discount that.

While its been a staple of BF forever, I don't think the resulting meta was all that great.


I'm not really sad to see it go. It's not like it worked that well anyways.

It was just a stupid stunt people did to pump up their own death count.



Also really like that Scout can carry its own weight now. Like you said, it's not a joke class. It's actually threatening.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

33

Sunday, April 8th 2018, 11:01pm

Even in terms of vehicle combat, all of the classes except medic have solid options that really help in a fight.


Rifle Grenades can be spammed to quickly eat up a quarter to a third of a tank's health in a span of like 5 seconds depending on what tank you're shooting at.


Its a good capability on paper, but in practice the overall effect is low since they aren't terribly accurate which means you need to be close, which sort of nullifies any moving advantage. Using them also mean forgoing the frag grenade, which is overall more useful if you're going to bother with grenades, since those can be spammed to wipe out infantry very effectively.

If the tank doesn't have a driver MG, dealing with rocket runs podding from cover over terrain are big threat with low vulnerability.

I see the mortar/k-bullet/limpet as being far more complimentary to the primary heavy AT gren and rocket gun. Part of it could also be the horribly low usage of the HE rifle grens. I honestly struggle to think of situations where I've seen them used, nevermind doing major damage while tanking.

Posts: 3,671

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

34

Sunday, April 8th 2018, 11:27pm

HE Rifle Grenade > Frag Rifle Grenade, every single time. On top of the higher vehicle damage, you also get the ability to collapse structures, and the slightly lower damage vs infantry doesn't really matter when most people have Flak and/or you're just spamming into groups anyway.

I'd love to see the Frag RG traded for Incendiary, and Frag Crossbow traded for Smoke.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Hau_ruck

Tow me daddy!

(1,085)

Posts: 878

Date of registration
: Dec 3rd 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

35

Monday, April 9th 2018, 7:09am

HE Rifle Grenade > Frag Rifle Grenade, every single time. On top of the higher vehicle damage, you also get the ability to collapse structures, and the slightly lower damage vs infantry doesn't really matter when most people have Flak and/or you're just spamming into groups anyway.

I'd love to see the Frag RG traded for Incendiary, and Frag Crossbow traded for Smoke.


Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the HE crossbow grenades detonate on impact whereas frag has a fuze? This means HE can actually be ok against infantry.

In general I'd say support just isn't that great in conquest but is god-tier in operations or rush where its gadgets can really shine and belt feds actually encounter enemy concentrations they are made to fight without having to worry as much about flanks.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,368)

Posts: 2,801

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

36

Wednesday, April 11th 2018, 1:21am

I surely disagree, I find the balance between classes especially horrible. Every class is tied to a certain engagement distance and even within that class it is highly dependent on your weapon of choice. In every other title before that, every weapon bar the BAs, if you were a bad shot, worked in the average engagement distance. Even then you could use the all-kit weapons. The balance through class gagdets was better as well. Yeah Assault was straightforward and feasible all the time, but C4, the launchers, Claymores and mines offered a direct approach for the other classes. The mortar was more mobile, the Drones were situational, the torch and Ammo Box gave a very basic teamplay value that could be used on yourself as well.
The T-UGS and the XM25 were hands down the best gadgets in the game, which made the two classes invaluable assets if they were used smartly. Basically every gadget in BF1 is worse than the counterparts they had before.

ARs also were only marginally better than other weapons and the outcome of a fight was firstly determined by positioning, then aiming, then weapon of choice. In BF1 you find yourself in occassions were you are at a loss before right on the engagement, not because you are outgunned but outdistanced or out-ammoed.

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

37

Wednesday, April 11th 2018, 2:42am

I surely disagree, I find the balance between classes especially horrible. Every class is tied to a certain engagement distance and even within that class it is highly dependent on your weapon of choice. In every other title before that, every weapon bar the BAs, if you were a bad shot, worked in the average engagement distance. Even then you could use the all-kit weapons. The balance through class gagdets was better as well. Yeah Assault was straightforward and feasible all the time, but C4, the launchers, Claymores and mines offered a direct approach for the other classes. The mortar was more mobile, the Drones were situational, the torch and Ammo Box gave a very basic teamplay value that could be used on yourself as well.
The T-UGS and the XM25 were hands down the best gadgets in the game, which made the two classes invaluable assets if they were used smartly. Basically every gadget in BF1 is worse than the counterparts they had before.

ARs also were only marginally better than other weapons and the outcome of a fight was firstly determined by positioning, then aiming, then weapon of choice. In BF1 you find yourself in occassions were you are at a loss before right on the engagement, not because you are outgunned but outdistanced or out-ammoed.


As of TTK 2.0, all of the classes have weapons that work well around the average engagement distance. Sure assault wins up close, and medic now dominates the longer ranges, but there is lots of overlap.

Claymores and all of those sorts of passive-ish gadgets are ultimately the shittiest of the gadgets, so they've never meaningfully contributed to class balance if you are playing to win. But they certainly can be fun. BF4 mortar was garbage, the UCAV got nerfed into garbage, and the C4 is well replaced by dynamite and limpet. Support only had the XM25 really going for it. Building a class around a single gadget + ammo isn't much of a class.

BF3/4 engineer was simply overpowered on combined arms maps because it was a strong anti-everything class. Sure it didn't have the best small arm, but they had some that were pretty close. Plus launchers. Reviving was so shitty that it didn't hurt that much to ditch the capability from a squad entirely and just eat the deaths.

BF1 wrench is just as powerful as the torch (moreso because of the way BF1 armor meta is), and it's been given to the class that traditionally has the weakest play to win gadgets. The wrench in BF1 is absolutely a play-to-win gadget.

Sure, every gadget is a more primitive version of those in previous games, but that's because of the historical setting. This is part of the reason why I want a futuristic/sci-fi setting: the possibility of gadgets that meaningfully contribute to gameplay/balance is pretty endless.

Posts: 75

Date of registration
: Sep 17th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Richmond, VA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

38

Wednesday, April 11th 2018, 4:09am

I'd have to agree with tanky here in BF 3/4 classes were pretty much broken down to, are there vehicles on the map engineer if not then assault. Whereas with BF1 I feel like I think more of the class I play, the benefits it's gadgets bring, and how that affects my teams current situation and our ability to push or defend. Class balance in general feels good and I don't feel like I'm stuck being like, "Well it's this type of map I should play this.". All classes actually feel viable for all maps and you just have to adapt to your current situation, I actually like that a lot more.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Atum675" (Apr 11th 2018, 4:29am)


VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,368)

Posts: 2,801

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

39

Wednesday, April 11th 2018, 2:36pm

I surely disagree, I find the balance between classes especially horrible. Every class is tied to a certain engagement distance and even within that class it is highly dependent on your weapon of choice. In every other title before that, every weapon bar the BAs, if you were a bad shot, worked in the average engagement distance. Even then you could use the all-kit weapons. The balance through class gagdets was better as well. Yeah Assault was straightforward and feasible all the time, but C4, the launchers, Claymores and mines offered a direct approach for the other classes. The mortar was more mobile, the Drones were situational, the torch and Ammo Box gave a very basic teamplay value that could be used on yourself as well.
The T-UGS and the XM25 were hands down the best gadgets in the game, which made the two classes invaluable assets if they were used smartly. Basically every gadget in BF1 is worse than the counterparts they had before.

ARs also were only marginally better than other weapons and the outcome of a fight was firstly determined by positioning, then aiming, then weapon of choice. In BF1 you find yourself in occassions were you are at a loss before right on the engagement, not because you are outgunned but outdistanced or out-ammoed.


As of TTK 2.0, all of the classes have weapons that work well around the average engagement distance. Sure assault wins up close, and medic now dominates the longer ranges, but there is lots of overlap.

Claymores and all of those sorts of passive-ish gadgets are ultimately the shittiest of the gadgets, so they've never meaningfully contributed to class balance if you are playing to win. But they certainly can be fun. BF4 mortar was garbage, the UCAV got nerfed into garbage, and the C4 is well replaced by dynamite and limpet. Support only had the XM25 really going for it. Building a class around a single gadget + ammo isn't much of a class.

BF3/4 engineer was simply overpowered on combined arms maps because it was a strong anti-everything class. Sure it didn't have the best small arm, but they had some that were pretty close. Plus launchers. Reviving was so shitty that it didn't hurt that much to ditch the capability from a squad entirely and just eat the deaths.

BF1 wrench is just as powerful as the torch (moreso because of the way BF1 armor meta is), and it's been given to the class that traditionally has the weakest play to win gadgets. The wrench in BF1 is absolutely a play-to-win gadget.

Sure, every gadget is a more primitive version of those in previous games, but that's because of the historical setting. This is part of the reason why I want a futuristic/sci-fi setting: the possibility of gadgets that meaningfully contribute to gameplay/balance is pretty endless.


Yeah maybe TTK has changed quite a bit, I have to admit that I have not played for a year. However in BF3 and 4 the overlaps where much less punishing, as were the shooting mechanics, when going beyond a certain distance. It did not matter whether you had an AR, Carbine, PDW or LMG, they worked in the same way with only small variations. And these stupid maps do the rest.

Support also had unlimited C4, as did recon, which was enough to kill any vehicle when played smart. Sure Claymores are nothing to write home about, but they were straightforward if you did not want to worry about gadgets. The mortar I found to be way better in BF4, at least pre-nerf. BUt people just hate being killed behind cover so it got nerfed. I think BF4 suffered from having too many gadgets in any case, so I would have been very happy with just the box, the mortar and the XM for support so you can have some consistency.

I can not agree with the Engineer though, you were up against 2-8 armoured vehicles on each map so having a wide variety of launchers and enough ammo was elemtary. With mines being situational you would come across a lot of engis with the torch equipped that actually stopped and repaired. I am all against eliminating basic teamplay actions like reviving and repairing, but with adding self-repair and moving it to the support class they did just that. Naturally thex had to change something with more players on the maps and less vehicles, but that jsut leads to the current 50-0 vehicle meta, which is even worse than the moa' vehicles, moa' playas agenda in BF4.

However I am surely biased as I can not really say anything particularly good about BF1 which destroyed the franchise and the community for me, and now I am constantly invited to Incursions alphas and betas, which is an even more stupid abomination. So take my posts with a grain of salt, but I m still representing an opinion of a former enthusiast.

Hau_ruck

Tow me daddy!

(1,085)

Posts: 878

Date of registration
: Dec 3rd 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

40

Wednesday, April 11th 2018, 3:14pm

Vincent, are you saying that all the weapons in BF4 being basically slight variations on the same thing was good? Sure it may have been balanced but it was boring and lazy too. Now positioning and cover are more important than ever and there is no clearly dominant "meta" gun in each class. Goodbye BF3's M16 and BF4 AEK. And good riddance.