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.

## CTE Battlefield Roots Initiative

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: 75

Date of registration
: Sep 17th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Richmond, VA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

Thursday, March 2nd 2017, 8:40am

Well I do hope for a bigger push to diverse squads and not feeling punished for playing medic/support/scout, just because there's a tank in play, which with the light AT grenades and the HE crossbow/rifle grenade I feel like they're working towards.

Can't get a title

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

Thursday, March 2nd 2017, 8:49am

DICE isn't just restricted to changing resupply times. They can still change damage values, reload times, angle modifiers, muzzle velocity, etc.

I have confidence that they can work something out.

Also, I'm seeing a worrying amount of people rejecting the new grenade auto regen idea just because they don't like the idea of having an automatically regenerating gadget.
something something Model 8 bestgun

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

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...)

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

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.

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

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.

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

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.

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

### Quoted from "Veritable"

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.

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?

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

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

@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: 75

Date of registration
: Sep 17th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Richmond, VA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

Thursday, March 2nd 2017, 9:12am

Grenade spam alone makes auto regen grenades scary to people, it's less about timers and more about perception as people see that as you just have grenades for staying alive.

Rezmer

Posts: 4,259

Date of registration
: Apr 6th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: From the heart of Europe.

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 17

Thursday, March 2nd 2017, 10:22am

Meanwhile on reddit, people freak out because obviously support ammo will be even more useless than it is now.
[Aristocrat's Shoes]

### Quoted from "Darktan13"

TLDR -
Teamwork is where players function by themselves, but their effectiveness is multiplied when they work together. Not a checklist of "did we bring a healer so we can start playing?"

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Thursday, March 2nd 2017, 5:53pm

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

DICE isn't just restricted to changing resupply times. They can still change damage values, reload times, angle modifiers, muzzle velocity, etc.

I have confidence that they can work something out.

Also, I'm seeing a worrying amount of people rejecting the new grenade auto regen idea just because they don't like the idea of having an automatically regenerating gadget.
And I simply don't think that magical fields that buff/debuff damage or weapon performance have any place in a BF game - that's bashing some serious MMO/overwatch shit in. Especially if coupled to un-intuitive/unknown radius of effect. And if you do add indicators or at least HUD indicators for the AOE of magic boxes its just going to be a shitshow on those infamous choke points they are already worried about.

The smokescreen as a damage modifier in BF4 was as pretty janky mechanic for instance. Now it was a powerful ability and great gameplay ability, but it was horribly counterintiutive that smoke magically reduced projectile damage - while BF is an arcade/fantasy game the design/setting really generates the expectation that at least weapons aren't magically modified through somewhat visible magical field projectors. BF1 smoke dishcarger works so, so, so, so much better. It's a straightforward obsucrant and it's amazing because obsucrants on the battlefield are amazing. Good job DICE; make smoke good by making sure it does what smoke should do; make sure you can't be seen so you can't be shot. That's almost too sensible as a mechanic choice.

So why are they now talking about going backwards on that and introducing magic? AEO healing/resupply off boxes is a straightforward mechanic that abstracts something from a fairly concrete concept. Magical fields that modify weapons near them, or bullets passing through them have no concrete/logical basis outside of some far future sci-fi shit which is akin to magic. Really the only exception to said magic is the APS systems, or ERA. And those just shoot down/nullify projectiles in a straightforward manner.

Lets save the magic for BF 2143, where you can throw in all sorts of overwatch/MMO esque shit and buffs/debuffs on the grounds of sci-fi magic. Sci-fi magic is cool. Change the setting and the expectations that derive from the setting also change and you can do more without jankyness.

And remember - all this is to fix an ill posed problem: too much spam in choke points requires that stowage and resupply be reworked. Instead it should be: oh, yeah, chokepoints are bad for a game with lots of AEO things that aren't single life. Ops.

### Quoted from "sid_tai"

I don't think going 5 assaults should be the only viable strategy, but should be equally as viable as 3 assaults + 1 support + 1 medic.

On the effectiveness of rocket gun against tank, the main reeason that it is not effective is because you need to deploy to use it. A lot of times you cannot deploy at a good spot to shoot it, and are forced to shoot it at an angle, causing reduced damage or even ricochet. That is the reason why the rocket gun is not that effective compared to BF3/4 RPG/SMAW. Giving the rocket gun more ammo does not make it more effective, but only would that give people more opportunity to prone and wait for people to come out of a corner and one shot them.
Two shotting a tank to the rear in BF4 required 2 basically square tail shots: IOW, typically happened vs a bad or distracted tank.

The rocket gun isn't bad. It's that the heavier tanks have a deeper health pool since min dmg is 18 and they have e-rep plus lucky ricochets. But they are then bad in other ways. However the health pool vs RG damage means you simply aren't soloing tanks with a ranged weapon anymore. But then unlike BF4 you an every player shooting at the tank can hit in at range because the RG has great ballistics, the tank is slow, and most of them don't have high-uptime anti infantry if they have the high durability.

BF4 is not a good place class balance wise - on maps with a bigger armor pool there was a disproportional number of engineers outside of the bush wookies and C4/jihad smurfs. Decent guns plus anti-stuff launcher. The obvious choice.

BF1 clearly should attempt to avoid a similar situation with the Assault class.

The issue with fighting tanks at range is simply that the best solution is N+1 rocket guns because of the shooting mechanics of the rocket gun. Once you start having lots of assaults (which you usually do) and those assaults all really try to shoot at the tank (which they don't, it's usually groups of 1s and 2s), the RG ammo pool becomes irrelevant because you've got many stowed tank kills spread out in that total assault ammo pool. I really have no idea how they will tweak support passives change that equation without what amounts to some fuckery - by their own admission they have no idea how they will do this either, they just see a problem, IMO where there really isn't one.

Not sure why they are even concerned about the overall viability of the medic in an AT fight. The medic is good at doing what it always does: picking up the mess. Why didn't they add recon in there? So that in their view a squad of 2 assault, 1 med, 1 support, 1 recon should be just as good as fighting a tank as 5 assault. They are basically ignoring what recon and support can already do (mortar + k bullets), and assuming medic needs to do more than what it can already do, which is picking up fallen squaddies after they've been derped by the tank.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "tankmayvin" (Mar 2nd 2017, 11:53pm)

Posts: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

Thursday, March 2nd 2017, 11:57pm

### Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

• The overall system of resupplies is currently not working as intended. The best squad composition to fight a tank is to bring 5 assault players. 3 assault players combined with a medic and support should beat that, but usually it does not. We want ammo gadgets to matter for all players, no matter how long you stay alive. Ammo should be relevant the moment you spawn in. Medic players are rarely affected by ammo unless they run rifle grenades. However, a support player can currently allow a medic to fire 12 rifle grenades in a row with almost no delay. This should not be possible
Well no shit. When you make AT garbage by having them do less damage and be more cumbersome to use vs BF34 where a single Engineer could make a tank fuck off or outright kill him with two well-placed rear shots, stacking more Assaults is always going to be the better option

Whoever wrote this has no concept of how vehicles are or how they work in BF1. Can we get an actual dev that reworks tanks and vehicles in general to be tools for assisting the team and capturing objectives, not unstoppable raid bosses and infantry farming machines?

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,674

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 12:10am

A Rocket Gun damage buff in exchange for the eventual lower available ammo seems likely.

Also, this is really just the exact same system vehicle ammo has right now.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 12:37am

### Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

A Rocket Gun damage buff in exchange for the eventual lower available ammo seems likely.

Also, this is really just the exact same system vehicle ammo has right now.
A rocket gun buff (in isolation) would make it more powerful than the 57mm HE, which is kinda dumb. Rocket gun now carries 4 shots, which is 72 min damage vs a heavy (18 min/hit). If you even dropped the ammo count by 1, to keep that same min damage dumping you'd now have to do 24 min damage, which would make it clearly more powerful than the HE 57mm.

Anything that increases the per hit damage of the RG is a clear and heavy buff to the RG since the operator rarely survives to dump 4 shots on a tank. Anything that buffs damage but removes total solo damage is a straight punishment to an assault player who can stay alive since they are not rewarded for doing so.

Really, pinning the RG to the 57mm HE vehicle damage model is a pretty good place balance wise.

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 12:42am

### Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

• The overall system of resupplies is currently not working as intended. The best squad composition to fight a tank is to bring 5 assault players. 3 assault players combined with a medic and support should beat that, but usually it does not. We want ammo gadgets to matter for all players, no matter how long you stay alive. Ammo should be relevant the moment you spawn in. Medic players are rarely affected by ammo unless they run rifle grenades. However, a support player can currently allow a medic to fire 12 rifle grenades in a row with almost no delay. This should not be possible
Well no shit. When you make AT garbage by having them do less damage and be more cumbersome to use vs BF34 where a single Engineer could make a tank fuck off or outright kill him with two well-placed rear shots, stacking more Assaults is always going to be the better option

Whoever wrote this has no concept of how vehicles are or how they work in BF1. Can we get an actual dev that reworks tanks and vehicles in general to be tools for assisting the team and capturing objectives, not unstoppable raid bosses and infantry farming machines?
BF3 tank >> BF4 tank >> BF1 tank.

Two man tank crews with the BF3/BF4 RWS gunner system were simply dramatically more powerful than any combo you can throw together in BF1. One RWS gunner is worth 4-5x any single gunner in BF1.

BF3 ERA just fucking laughed at engineer rockets. You could eat 3 hits without taking health damage.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 1:03am

The problem with the Rocket Gun is the extreme vulnerability to use it. You're lucky to get one shot off on a tank without being picked off by one of the 10 Scouts strewn about the map or just the common cluster of infantry surrounding the tank. And when you do get the shot off it typically does something shitty like 15-17 damage. Oooh, so rewarding.

Now, the overall damage output available against a heavy tank is between 60-80 (depending on the angle) which is fine, but when it is highly unlikely that all four Rockets can be used in a lifetime against a singular tank, then that damage output becomes futile.
Often times when I played Assault, I wouldn't even bother engaging tanks with the Rocket Gun because I knew as soon as I deployed it I'd probably be killed by literally anything because I'm a stationary target. The argument here would be "find better positioning and minimize exposure" which works sometimes but not always. Sometimes there's only a small window of opportunity to inflict damage and deter the tank from engaging and every bit counts to stop a tank from pushing too much where he can really do some damage.

Possible changes here:

1. Reduce reserve rockets to 2 with a minimum damage of 20 and a max of 25 (or 27); a range of 60-75 (or 81) possible damage overall if you can use them all.

2. Reduce reserves to 1, min of 30 - max of max of 40; a range of 60-80 (this one is highly improbable, but it's the other option to retain the maximum damage output we have now).

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

Rocket gun now carries 4 shots, which is 72 min damage vs a heavy (18 min/hit). If you even dropped the ammo count by 1, to keep that same min damage dumping you'd now have to do 24 min damage, which would make it clearly more powerful than the HE 57mm.

This is completely contrary to my experience with Rocket Gun vs heavies. I've easily done 15 damage (at a bad angle, but still) and a "perfect" hit for 20 or 21.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

### 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

### 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

### 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