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: 74

Date of registration
: Sep 17th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Richmond, VA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

111

Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 6:38am

My last post was definintly through a haze of terrible games won't lie, but there is an issue with tank damage output v. damage taken and right now going after tanks feels worthelss more often than not.

Posts: 274

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

112

Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 7:05am

If you are routinely scoring ricochets in BF1 you're just bad. I only get ricochets at extreme range due to plunging fire against that stupid roof panel. Hell the landship ricochets more often because there is actual incentive to aim other than dead center of mass.
Ricochets happen absurdly often enough when just fighting the communist box car A7V. Hell, I can even exploit ricochets when I manage to get a hold of an A7V and drive one myself if I know where the rockets and shells are coming from. This is all aside from the fact that ricochets even fucking exist in the first place for the very first time in a BF title, when they could've just done poor angle damage modifiers instead. For what fucking purpose? So our 18 damage AT Rockets can do 2 damage if the driver even so much turns to point his cannon at another sniper? Yeah sure, just let me reposition by getting out of bipoded prone position, sprint to a more favorable angle, prone and wait 1 second for the bipod to deploy, awkardly stand back up b/c the game wants me to do so, and reprone to deploy and shoot again

You are sincerely missing the point we are making, that BF1's infantry AT options are incredibly fucking difficult to utilize with less damage output compared to their previous counterparts. Nobody here disagrees with you that the A7V is a complete piece of shit compared to the M1 Abrams. But guess what? BF34's launchers didn't require an awkward use of a bipod, could be shoulder fired from peeking around corners extremely quickly, had the potential to deal mobility crits and massive rear attack damage, none of which is possible with the AT Rocket. The P O T E N T I A L. And trust me, all these advantages and potential were used quite often on MBTs despite your claim of a >50% hit rate on tank drivers, even with their super acceleration and 360 rotating turrets, because the only tanks that me and my friends ever had problems hitting were ones so preoccupied with their KDR that they didn't want to go near our objectives

This post by "JSLICE20" (Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 7:45am) has been deleted by the author himself (Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 9:44am) with the following reason: Information is incorrect.

Posts: 3,277

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

114

Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 10:53am


Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
            0      45     60     75     90
MBT Front   0.90x   1.00x   1.08x   1.17x   1.25x
MBT Side    0.90x   1.00x   1.12x   1.33x   1.65x
MBT Rear    0.90x   1.00x   1.33x   2.22x   2.45x
MBT Top     0.90x   1.00x   1.30x   1.65x   1.65x
IFV         0.75x   0.92x   0.95x   1.10x   1.38x
FAC         0.90x   1.00x   1.15x   1.30x   1.45x

Battlefield 1 is indeed a different game, but I 'm pretty sure angle multipliers were recycled for the heavy tank, at least a couple.

So far I've seen anything from 13-17 damage for hits with the Rocket Gun against heavy armor. Specifically: 13, 14, 15, 16, and finally 17. So I was incorrect in thinking that 21 damage was capable. 17 is the max damage as indicated by the max damage hitmarker which I have set to the color blue. The default damage of the Rocket Gun is 150 (15; or with other values divided by 10 for the UI's representation) which has been very consistent as the 45.X-59.X angle in past Battlefield titles. I would postulate that it's safe to assume this angle provides a 1.00x damage multiplier in BF1 as well.

150 damage and a 1.00x multiplier is our base. Starting with ~130, the multiplier could be anywhere from 0.84x - 0.89x, ~140 from 0.9x - 0.96x, ~160 from 1.04x - 1.09x, and ~170 from 1.1x - 1.6x. All are assuming the decimal is limited to tenths and not hundredths.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

Nope. Aim Assist or bust; here's why:

Default Aim Assist Data

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

No Slowdown Data

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


No Auto Rotation Data

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

Prepare your laughbox

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


Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,530

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

115

Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 11:23am

Being an avid tanker in BF4, and mainly an infantry player in BF1, here are my thoughts:


In BF1, I find that if a tank gets anywhere close to a cluster of infantry with at least two Assaults, it's likely dead. A single assault has very high burst damage potential against a tank in CQB, generally being able to hit with two AT grenades doing 40/56 damage, or perhaps even being able to OHK it with dynamite or AT mines. Couple this with the A7V and Landship having a limited FoV, and an inability to disengage quickly from bad situations, and basically any tank next to a group of infantry is probably dead.

Whereas, in BF4, tanks had the ability to reverse extremely quickly, had a complete 360 degree view with Thermal Optics, and could use Smokescreen/APS to cover their retreat, making it possible for a tank to drive into a group of enemies, get a few kills, then when taking a lot of damage, quickly back up and repair. Rinse and repeat. As long as you were even somewhat intelligent and observant, there was basically no real danger in this sort of playstyle, since the tanks could back up so quickly. In this sort of situation, BF4's tanks are vastly superior.


This leaves situations where the tank is at range. In BF1, this is the optimal way to play basically any tank. The Artillery Truck and FT-17 don't have enough health to facilitate an engage/disengage playstyle, the A7V and Landship don't have the FoV to facilitate this sort of playstyle, and none have the speed to do so (perhaps the Artillery Truck might in some circumstances); thus, the optimal engagement range of a tank starts when you're outside an AT grenade's effective throwing range (20 m or so).

Admittedly, at this sort of range, the A7V and Landship in BF1 can probably take one or two more hits than tanks in BF4, just due to the fact that Rocket Guns in general do less damage than rocket launchers in BF4. However, remember that in BF4, at range, you could actually dodge rockets by simply moving back and forth, especially against RPG and SRAW users (SMAW was a bit harder due to faster projectile velocity). Additionally, in BF4, you could always just retreat from any infantry engagement you find yourself in.


In general, BF1 tanks, whilst they generally can withstand more slightly damage, are punished far, far harder for overextending. In BF4, it was relatively easy to exit any engagement you found yourself in through the combination of smokescreen/APS and high speed.


Which do I find better? I have to agree with tankmayvin here, I do believe that tanks in BF1 aren't as potent as in previous titles. I can honestly say that if there was a tank with the health of a FT-17, but had the movement speed of a jeep, then I would definitely take that over the slower A7V or Landship. IMO, being able to instantly disengage from any infantry you find yourself against is a far better ability than being able to take one more hit or so, and I have a feeling that most tankers would agree.
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: 50

Date of registration
: Nov 7th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

116

Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 12:03pm

Ok, I admittedly haven't read through all 12 pages of comments, but one thing I haven't seen mentioned is a variable resupply timer based on usage.

Is it at all possible to give explosives, including grenades, a resupply timer that suits cluster fuck maps, but have a check in place to determine if vehicle damage etc occurred from the explosive? If so, reduce resupply times for that type of explosive for the next instance?

For example, an anti-tank grenade might take 30 seconds to resupply, but if vehicle damage is done, resupply in 15 seconds etc. This would allow balancing to make a squad full of assault to be less effective than a squad working together with a support too.

This stems from my frustrations in bf3 & bf4 having explosives resupply balanced around lockers and metro style maps and ending up hamstrung in conquest.

Posts: 429

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

117

Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 12:31pm

Couple this with the A7V and Landship having a limited FoV, and an inability to disengage quickly from bad situations, and basically any tank next to a group of infantry is probably dead.
3rd POV with the FOV is nearly 180 degrees that offers 260 degrees freelook left, right, up and down. No accuracy penalty either.

Any tank closing to infantry into AT nade range does not happen often if the tanker is any experienced.
Farming infantry from range with the splash and MG (if artillery truck) is often enough. The DPS output of AT rifle is lackluser compared with BF4. And that's without the ricochets because of sloped terrain.
Infantry cant beat a good tanker at range. That is the rule of thumb in public servers.

Quoted

The Artillery Truck and FT-17 don't have enough health to facilitate an engage/disengage playstyle
They have enough health to do that with infantry support closeby, the game is initially tailored towards that playstyle if you look at

- the AT gadgets
- instant+emergency repair
- the loadouts of the light tank
- loadouts of heavy tank

It's only that they all that can do both playstyles but all prefer to stay at range, because why wouldn't they? The threats are far fewer and less threatening if they stay at range, contrary to BF4 whilst they maintain the same DPS to farm infantry at range without taking real risk.

Quoted


Additionally, in BF4, you could always just retreat from any infantry engagement you find yourself in.
This is still the case in BF1, hence the emergency repairs.

Quoted


Admittedly, at this sort of range, the A7V and Landship in BF1 can
probably take one or two more hits than tanks in BF4, just due to the
fact that Rocket Guns in general do less damage than rocket launchers in
BF4.
One or two more hits? Alot more hits with the low AT rifle damage, repairsystem and ricochets in mind.

Quoted


Which do I find better? I have to agree with tankmayvin here, I do
believe that tanks in BF1 aren't as potent as in previous titles
Tanks in BF1 are more potent in BF4 because of the gap in AT DPS at range and the current repairsystem and supercasual Battlefront 3rd POV mode. Overextending rarely happens, because there is no need. Farming kills at range with the splash and accurate driver LMG is enough incentive for many tankers to never feel the need to (over)extend.

Tanks in BF1 are unbalanced and should not be that powerful because it hurts the combined arms gameplay a great deal. There is no incentive for tankers to work together with infantry. Suez is a perfect example of this.

The heavy tank (ironically enough a mobile spawnpoint for infantry) reflects this:

Battlefield 1 Insights - Detailed Vehicle Statistics



I think there are alot of false assumptions in your post.
RIP Sraw

Posts: 3,277

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

118

Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 1:28pm

Overall, great assessment, Cod3x. This is consistent with what I determined when finding out the minimum TTK of a single Assault against a heavy tank or landship. It takes about 4s to toss both AT grenades from 20m away and an additional ~1.3s to deploy, shoot, and hit the target with the Rocket Gun. So it takes roughly 5s to deal 53-57 damage (ignoring possible ricochets). With a second Assault in coordination, both players can, simultaneously, destroy the tank in that same 5s.

However, unless I've been incredibly unlucky, Dynamite cannot insta-kill heavy armor. If you have in fact done this before YOU MUST TELL MEEEE. Please. Still have yet to try out the mines trick. It's super situational, but then again so is coming across a tank. It's a fairly common situation, but situational nonetheless.

BF4 comments are spot on as well as BF1 tanks generally getting dunked on up close if 2-5 attentive infantrymen (depending on the class and gadgets) are nearby. If a tank gets the best of me it's usually in the distance, but not always. If I see a tank overextend into the range of multiple infantry then I know he's a bad tanker, simple as that. It's those that keep their distance and make sure a good amount of separation lies between them and their targets that I tend to worry about. These guys know exactly how armor succeeds in BF1 because they can just sit back, find a nice perch outside an objective, and splash damage everyone they mark for death. These are the bastards that have made me question the armor balance, not the Rambo tankers that think that they can mow through an entire team up close.

To clear the air, I don't think anyone here has outright said that BF1's tanks are better than BF4's overall. Actually, I'm pretty sure the opposite has been said and agreed with, mostly anyway. The differing points of view concerned the armor - AT dynamic between the two games; specifically the relationship between the RPG/ SMAW and Rocket Gun against armor-based competition. As you noted, it's no secret that the Rocket Gun does, comparatively, much less damage than the dumb fires. The percent damage decrease from the RPG to the Rocket Gun at the 1.00x multiplier angle is 33.3% and 25% for the SMAW.

Factor in BF1's critical damage hit of 17 (any 90 angle) and contrast it to BF4's:

37 (RPG, side)
55 (RPG, rear)
33 (SMAW, side)
49 (SMAW, rear)

An average of 35 for perpendicular side shots and 52 for perpendicular rear shots.

Then we get a crit-damage decrease of 54%, 69%, 48%, and 65%. That's pretty drastic across the board with an average of 51% side and 67% for rear. And while BF1 does have compartmental destruction on vehicles, the A7V is the least vulnerable to AT regarding non-weapon components, namely the tracks, to cause crucial mobility disables forcing the tanker to Emergency Repair (if he has it) and bail. Then we have vehicles like the light tank that can get screwed in 3 different ways: tracks, turret, and engine. I mean if we can knock out the main gun on a significantly weaker vehicle, we should be able to do the same for the stronger one, right? Right?
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

Nope. Aim Assist or bust; here's why:

Default Aim Assist Data

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

No Slowdown Data

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


No Auto Rotation Data

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

Prepare your laughbox

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

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (Mar 7th 2017, 2:05pm)


Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,530

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

119

Tuesday, March 7th 2017, 2:06pm

So I just went a played in a tank to test some things. I ended up going on a 27 killstreak in an A7V Assault on Empire's Edge. A fairly average killstreak for me, neither really good nor really bad. I was mainly doing the BCD flag run, never quite made it to F. It was quite a close match, but we ended up losing by about 30 tickets. Here are some of my reflections from that match:


- It's really, REALLY easy to kite an A7V. Ask the Scout I played ring-around-the-rosie with for a good 30 seconds circling a rock before giving up.

- Whilst an experienced tanker isn't very likely going to overextend and get himself killed, it really doesn't take too much to get him to back off to repair, which is as good as him being dead. This might just be an overly cautious playstyle on my part, I don't really know, but I find that after taking two AT grenade/Rocket Gun hits, I end up retreating to repair. You might think that "oO, how are you getting hit in the first place, you're just a bad tanker?" Which leads me to my third point:

- The limited FoV on the A7V is actually quite hindering. There were plenty of times in that match I was simply getting hit from across the map, especially when pushing C and getting hit from the hillside and D. There's no time to take care of that threat because of the enemies in front of you.

- Whilst the sightlines are quite long in some places, the hill up to C and D forces you to bring your tank into the range of AT grenades (and dynamite at one time). Likewise, sitting outside of B and farming the enemy's spawn doesn't actually achieve anything, as the enemy just keeps spawning, and eventually you'll run out of ammo. You actually need to sit on the flag with your tank, which again, brings you into the range of AT grenades and dynamite. Unless, of course, you can convince the blueberries to cap the flag whilst you farm kills, to which all I can say is good luck.



Some of this might just be me being bad. However, I would also consider myself to be at least an above average tanker. Of course, this was all purely anecdotal, but I don't think it's that far from the truth.
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.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Zer0Cod3x" (Mar 7th 2017, 2:12pm)


Posts: 3,453

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

120

Wednesday, March 8th 2017, 12:36am

The real issue here is that BF1 has fantastic (and copious) "melee-range" AT weapons, while any tool useful past that range is average at best. All this does is make camping at a distance the most effective tank strategy, while actually moving up and capping points extremely hazardous; BF1 is encouraging and discouraging the exact opposite things it should be.
Who Enjoys, Wins