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: 1,877

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

151

Friday, March 10th 2017, 5:37am

Tanks, however, are objectively terrible close assault tools for contested flag captures. There is a mountain of evidence for this:


You're entirely right about this, and it's also a good example of what this discussion is really about: Game design and intention, rather than implementation. This is also why the super-detailed number values for this topic aren't worth a whole lot, because hard values are a part of implementation; you can have a poor concept that's implemented well in a technical sense, and no amount of looking at the numbers will show you what the problems are.

Tanks are really strong outside "melee explosive" range, and easily killed within that (to the point it feels almost binary). Therefore, Tanks are, all of them regardless of type and variant, vehicles best used back a bit from the front lobbing shells. They're sort of like LMGs or SMGs in range, role, and weak ranges. And that's the real crux of the problem here, that despite the supposed variety in Tank variants, they basically all play in the same manner at the same range.

It's like having only the LMG class for all infantry classes, and that's it. Sure there's some variety within it, but looking at the larger potential picture they become very same-y. It also makes them not very fun to fight, because you either get a well-placed Tank that you might as well ignore unless you have help, or a close-up Tank that's a rather easy kill. This is also what leads to Tanks feeling redundant to each other, with many variants simply being worse; they're so similar that some will just end up being better, as there aren't enough variables to tune at present.

If there was proper variety in Tank ranges and roles they would be a lot more interesting and fun to fight, whether you're infantry or another Tank.
Arty truck and TH landship are both suited to long/extreme range combat. All of the rest of the tanks are mid range.

BF has never really done "close range" tanks because the concept is anathemic to good balance. If a tank variant could thrive up, or specifically have benefit from fighting close against infantry it would have to be absurdly tough, or have some way of negating close range infantry burst damage reliably. IOW, it would basically be overpowered because it would have all of the strengths of the other tanks, but non of it's weaknesses against infantry.

It would then also suffer from dying instantly to other vehicles or somesuch for "balance" purposes and no one would use it because it would melt the first time it has to do tank-things.

Tanks must suffer when getting close to infantry or outflanked by infantry, and that means that tanks will always be their best when abreast or a bit behind an infantry blob. Otherwise your balance goes to shit.

BF1 actually has great balance in the sense that maximum firepower comes at the expense of coordination. And vehicle killing comes at the expense of infantry killing. It's a lot more rock paper scissors than prior titles where the MBT could do everything optimally by combining main gun with coax weapon. That the landship sucks in practice and that many of the variants are just bad (mortar landship, 37mm FT, flame tank) is just typical DICE fretting over guns at the expense of quality tools filling out the rest of the box.

Posts: 3,429

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

152

Friday, March 10th 2017, 5:47am

I get what you're saying, but I think that's thinking too much inside the box.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 3,252

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

153

Friday, March 10th 2017, 5:54am

We know that the infantry weapons' ranges are dictated by Hrecoil, spread, and velocity. Gravity is a constant factor of 12.0m/s^2 for all infantry projectiles as far as I know and drag differs from the standard 0.0025 to 0.002 on a couple weapons. For vehicles, recoil and spread would be odd choices to force vehicle weaponry into certain ranges. Therefore we're left with velocity and drag since gravity is also a constant factor of 9.81m/s^2.

Starting with the A7V and its various armaments we have:

AT - 222m/s and 0.005
HE - 222m/s and 0.006
CA - 450m/s and 0.0025

Mk.V:

TG - 780m/s and 0.0?
Sponson AT - 222m/s and 0.005
Sponson HE? - 222m/s and 0.006
Sponson CA - 450/ms and 0.0?
LMG - 870m/s and 0.0027 (15.0m/s^2 gravity hmmm)
20mm - 250m/s (attack plane, boat, zeppelin) or 400m/s (bomber) and 0.002 (attack plane) or 0.005 (boat, bomber, zeppelin)

Pierce Arrow (Artillery Truck):

QF13pdr HE - 222m/s and 0.003
HMG - 740m/s and 0.0025 (0.0m/s ^2 gravity, huh?)

FT-17:

37mm HE - 150m/s and 0.006
37mm CA - 450m/s and 0.0025
20mm HE - 160m/s and 0.004
20mm CA - 450m/s and 0.0025
75mm HE - 100m/s and 0.006
LMG - 870m/s and 0.0027 (also 15.0m/s ^2 gravity)

The typical 57mm looks to have a constant velocity of 222m/s with differing drag values of 0.005 to 0.006 from AT to HE, and any CA shell tends to follow the 450m/s and 0.0025 model. The Artillery Truck's drag offers a 60% or 50% decrease depending on if it is considered AT or HE. Evidently all HMGs in the game have 0.0m/s^2 gravity while LMGs tend to share a 15.0m/s^2 gravity value with identical 870m/s velocities and 0.0027 drag coefficients.
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 11th 2017, 4:45am)


Posts: 1,877

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

154

Friday, March 10th 2017, 6:01am

I get what you're saying, but I think that's thinking too much inside the box.
How would you propose a "close range" tank work then? Especially if you're limited to historical-ish equipment, or even any of the modern day/prototype weapon system.

It's only in 2142 where they really had complete freedom to break the mould and make totally fanciful vehicles. And they did. 2142 had the widest range of what vehicles could do, but still suffered from a bad case of bestitis.

Also its just very, very hard to avoid the issue that getting in close gets more dangerous because of micro flanks and burst damage stuff. The same applies to infantry really. At long range you're sniper fodder, but up close and it's all AOE burst damage and super low TTK buck and high ROF guns. The mid range under cover is a safer place.

Posts: 1,877

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

155

Friday, March 10th 2017, 6:03am

We know that the infantry weapons' ranges are dictated by Hrecoil, spread, and velocity. Gravity is a constant factor of 12.0m/s^2 for all infantry projectiles as far as I know and drag differs from the standard 0.0025 to 0.002 on a couple weapons. For vehicles, recoil and spread would be odd choices to force vehicle weaponry into certain ranges. Therefore we're left with velocity and drag since gravity is also a constant factor of 9.81m/s^2.

Starting with the A7V and its various armaments we have:

AT - 222m/s and 0.005
HE - 222m/s and 0.006
CA - 450m/s and 0.0025

Mk.V:

TG - 780m/s and 0.0?
Sponson AT - 222m/s and 0.005
Sponson HE? - 222m/s and 0.006
Sponson CA - 450/ms and 0.0?
LMG - 870m/s and 0.0027 (15.0m/s^2 gravity hmmm)
20mm - 250m/s (attack plane, boat, zeppelin) or 400m/s (bomber) and 0.002 (attack plane) or 0.005 (boat, bomber, zeppelin)

Pierce Arrow (Artillery Truck):

QF13pdr AT/HE? - 222m/s and 0.003
HMG - 740m/s and 0.0025 (0.0m/s ^2 gravity, huh?)

FT-17:

37mm HE - 150m/s and 0.006
37mm CA - 450m/s and 0.0025
20mm HE - 160m/s and 0.004
20mm CA - 450m/s and 0.0025
75mm HE - 100m/s and 0.006
LMG - 870m/s and 0.0027 (also 15.0m/s ^2 gravity)

The typical 57mm looks to have a constant velocity of 222m/s with differing drag values of 0.005 to 0.006 from AT to HE, and any CA shell tends to follow the 450m/s and 0.0025 model. The Artillery Truck's drag offers a 60% or 50% decrease depending on if it is considered AT or HE. Evidently all HMGs in the game have 0.0m/s^2 gravity while LMGs tend to share a 15.0m/s^2 gravity value with identical 870m/s velocities and 0.0027 drag coefficients.
Youd have to do special weapons, special armor, special abilities.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,529)

  • "NoctyrneSAGA" started this thread

Posts: 6,957

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

156

Friday, March 10th 2017, 6:16am

Vehicles are not as simple as infantry weapons.

They are an entire suite of functionalities bundled together.

Different hitboxes, vulnerabilities, firing angles, weapons, gadgets, etc.

Comparing just their weapons is short-sighted and incomplete.



Spewing out a list of numbers like that is pointless.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.


Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 3,429

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

157

Friday, March 10th 2017, 7:02am

How would you propose a "close range" tank work then? Especially if you're limited to historical-ish equipment, or even any of the modern day/prototype weapon system.

It's only in 2142 where they really had complete freedom to break the mould and make totally fanciful vehicles. And they did. 2142 had the widest range of what vehicles could do, but still suffered from a bad case of bestitis.

Also its just very, very hard to avoid the issue that getting in close gets more dangerous because of micro flanks and burst damage stuff. The same applies to infantry really. At long range you're sniper fodder, but up close and it's all AOE burst damage and super low TTK buck and high ROF guns. The mid range under cover is a safer place.


Improving the FT in this regard would be good. First and most obviously it should be faster and more responsive. I definitely haven't come up with some fancy complex list of idea setups, but for a few things I've been thinking of, part of the reason the FT 37mm sucks is because it doesn't have a rapid-fire secondary. Four total rounds across both ammo types with a shared reload is just awkward, especially for something supposed to be fast, nimble, and aggressive. The Flanker gets a heavy automatic while the Howitzer gets a heavy cannon; the 37mm could bridge the two by having a "weaker" version of both, letting it actually be an all-round option by replacing the canister round with a flamethrower. Far more effective up close, and a hell of a lot more fun.

You could also give an aggressive/CQ Tank both Emergency and Track Repair, sacrificing "useful" gadget like Smoke, Mines, or team supplies for pure survivability.

At least one A7V should definitely get a different driver weapon; every other Tank type does this (including the new French one), and it's a major factor in why the A7V feels so bland, even across variants. Sure one has slightly different ammo, but in this context that's basically not worth mentioning.

I could list/think of a ton more, but I'm far too sleepy for that now.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 3,252

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

158

Friday, March 10th 2017, 7:03am

That was just the first part. I submitted that portion because I didn't want it to vanish unexpectedly. Here's the continuation to those weapon stats:

Miffyli's Drag Tool (Bottom of page)

Depending on if the tool is still viable, you can input the corresponding values to each vehicle weapon to find out how gravity, velocity, and drag impact range performance.

Evidently at 100m, it'll take a 57mm AT projectile with 9.81 gravity, 222 velocity and 0.005 drag 0.58s to hit and only drop about 1m. That's not difficult to manage at all. Thankfully this type of projectile only inflicts 70.0 blast damage to infantry with a blast radius of 3.0m and an inner blast radius of 1.0m. However with HE, you get 112.0 blast damage to infantry with a radius of 5.0m and an inner radius of 1.75m at the small expense of + 0.14m and 0.04s. I don't know which A7V has HE and what other equipment is accompanied by it, but this would be the superior long range option because the impact of the 3 physics factors just isn't steep enough to be challenging to use at all.

For example, the Artillery Truck's HE shell only has a 0.09s and a 0.37m projectile drop advantage advantage over the A7V HE shell. Plus the A7V has a much higher resistance to AT damage and a shape that makes it easy for AT projectiles to ricochet off of. Mobility doesn't really mean anything at this range either. Currently it incentivizes staying back near infantry support, so you don't get surprised by close range AT, and pushing up when it's relatively safe which then advances your team's frontline offense where the cycle just repeats itself until your tank is destroyed. Such an in-depth strategy this is.

Right now, unless on comms, destroying the tank is the problem and the game is supposed to be balanced assuming no form of communication whatsoever, just in-game context clues and instruction. As it is, the game is not properly balanced for retaliation to force multipliers. You can "cheat" the system through text chat or voice chat, but other than through that, luck, or coincidence a tank will alway win at ranges where close range AT is ineffective.
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 5 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (Mar 10th 2017, 7:21am)


Posts: 1,877

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

159

Friday, March 10th 2017, 5:27pm

How would you propose a "close range" tank work then? Especially if you're limited to historical-ish equipment, or even any of the modern day/prototype weapon system.

It's only in 2142 where they really had complete freedom to break the mould and make totally fanciful vehicles. And they did. 2142 had the widest range of what vehicles could do, but still suffered from a bad case of bestitis.

Also its just very, very hard to avoid the issue that getting in close gets more dangerous because of micro flanks and burst damage stuff. The same applies to infantry really. At long range you're sniper fodder, but up close and it's all AOE burst damage and super low TTK buck and high ROF guns. The mid range under cover is a safer place.


Improving the FT in this regard would be good. First and most obviously it should be faster and more responsive. I definitely haven't come up with some fancy complex list of idea setups, but for a few things I've been thinking of, part of the reason the FT 37mm sucks is because it doesn't have a rapid-fire secondary. Four total rounds across both ammo types with a shared reload is just awkward, especially for something supposed to be fast, nimble, and aggressive. The Flanker gets a heavy automatic while the Howitzer gets a heavy cannon; the 37mm could bridge the two by having a "weaker" version of both, letting it actually be an all-round option by replacing the canister round with a flamethrower. Far more effective up close, and a hell of a lot more fun.

You could also give an aggressive/CQ Tank both Emergency and Track Repair, sacrificing "useful" gadget like Smoke, Mines, or team supplies for pure survivability.

At least one A7V should definitely get a different driver weapon; every other Tank type does this (including the new French one), and it's a major factor in why the A7V feels so bland, even across variants. Sure one has slightly different ammo, but in this context that's basically not worth mentioning.

I could list/think of a ton more, but I'm far too sleepy for that now.
I agree. Overall tank balance with all variants/types is crap. Flamethrower would be meh unless the FT was so fast it couldn't get hit. Like as fast as MTB speeds in prior games or so. So basically straight buffs to that platform.

I'm not sure how this addresses the complaints that the already good tanks are OP though.

Smoke is straight up pure survivability. Track Repair is useless by comparison. And since you're concerned with surviving most of the time in tanks (so that you can keep killing shit), smoke + Erep is straight up the best. Erep + track rep would be netly worse.

The A7s are a problem only in the sense that the flame version is a straight up pure downgrade to the assault. The breakthrough plays totally differently. It's very good but suffers from a bit of landshipitis in that it needs at least one solid gunner to really shine. Also the supply box ability is just a fucking turd in terms of tanking. Yeah its a super box but it's almost impossible to dump where the infantry need it - and good infantry can handle their own ammo/meds anyway.

BF4 really just had so much better ability slot setup. All of the countermeasures were viable/useful, although IR was niche. A couple of the passives were useful. In BF1 the only ones really worth talking about are Erep and smoke. BF4 slots still need work in how useless some of them were, but heads above BF1s locked slots.

Posts: 1,877

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

160

Friday, March 10th 2017, 5:42pm

That was just the first part. I submitted that portion because I didn't want it to vanish unexpectedly. Here's the continuation to those weapon stats:

Miffyli's Drag Tool (Bottom of page)

Depending on if the tool is still viable, you can input the corresponding values to each vehicle weapon to find out how gravity, velocity, and drag impact range performance.

Evidently at 100m, it'll take a 57mm AT projectile with 9.81 gravity, 222 velocity and 0.005 drag 0.58s to hit and only drop about 1m. That's not difficult to manage at all. Thankfully this type of projectile only inflicts 70.0 blast damage to infantry with a blast radius of 3.0m and an inner blast radius of 1.0m. However with HE, you get 112.0 blast damage to infantry with a radius of 5.0m and an inner radius of 1.75m at the small expense of + 0.14m and 0.04s. I don't know which A7V has HE and what other equipment is accompanied by it, but this would be the superior long range option because the impact of the 3 physics factors just isn't steep enough to be challenging to use at all.

For example, the Artillery Truck's HE shell only has a 0.09s and a 0.37m projectile drop advantage advantage over the A7V HE shell. Plus the A7V has a much higher resistance to AT damage and a shape that makes it easy for AT projectiles to ricochet off of. Mobility doesn't really mean anything at this range either. Currently it incentivizes staying back near infantry support, so you don't get surprised by close range AT, and pushing up when it's relatively safe which then advances your team's frontline offense where the cycle just repeats itself until your tank is destroyed. Such an in-depth strategy this is.

Right now, unless on comms, destroying the tank is the problem and the game is supposed to be balanced assuming no form of communication whatsoever, just in-game context clues and instruction. As it is, the game is not properly balanced for retaliation to force multipliers. You can "cheat" the system through text chat or voice chat, but other than through that, luck, or coincidence a tank will alway win at ranges where close range AT is ineffective.
Max angle for a ricochet is really, really tiny. Landship gets as many ricochets as the A7V IME, you just don't see them often so it's a bias in terms of numbers, not anything special about the shape.

I'd like to see overall far more important facing/angling considerations. BF4 was already a huge step back in that you reached min damage with little deflection, but the overall reduction in damage was small for the front and sides, but massive for the rear. Such that rear shots were super easy to floor, while front/side shots were basically always floored by compentent drivers, but the overall impact on the firefight wasn't tremendous compared to other factors such as repairs, pre-damage and shot dodging.

In BF1 it's even worse. The spread between min/max damage for the HE weapons is tiny and the health pool + Erep versus damage chunk is such that facing effects aren't decisive, certainly not in tank fights. I'd like to see the max damages extended, the range of angles increased, and the min damage reduced quite a bit before you get a full ricochet.

Also they need to fix the damn shell dusting issue. I keep getting the invulnerable enemy vehicle bug where my hits just don't reg. This has been around for how many BF titles now? At least since BF2.