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: 1,824

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

31

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 1:23am

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).

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.
SRAW and javelin left you very vulnerable to being sniped in prior titles. Jav was especially bad because the tank itself could effectively countersnipe on it's own. It's just that recon is oppressively present on the open maps in BF1 compared to other titles. The dumbfire launchers with low exposure all really restricted your range vs tanks since they could move so fast.

You might be right, for some reason I really though min damaged was clamped at 18. So rephrase that statement to 72 damage dump average between good at bad facings. Same argument still applies.

Posts: 273

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

32

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 1:37am

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.
Sorry, but nothing is going to convince me that even BF3 tanks are better than BF1's A7V for so many reasons:

- Reactive Armor had to be manually repped outside of the vehicle BY THE DRIVER to restore it
- Reactive Armor could be ignored by AT Mines/C4 and other means
- Vehicles actually had to be repped outside of the vehicle, making solo tanking much more dangerous
- Emergency Repair was only available to Tank Hunters (basically the Artillery Trucks of BF3), and you had to be at critical HP to use it. It allowed full HP regen, but only instantly restored a small bit of HP and the regen would be disabled if it was hit right after
- Any vehicle that was hit to <50HP entered a mobility disabled state, which led to a bleedout and destruction of a tank if it wasn't repped immediately
- AT Launchers/C4 in general not being comparitively garbage in that game
- Ricochets not existing
- Side and rear multipliers MUCH more unforgiving to tank drivers. Tell me how much damage an A7V receives for being shot in the ass with a Rocket Gun again? Definitely not 50% and an instant disable

Yeah, BF34 tanks are going to sound much more attractive compared to BF1's A7V, but we're talking about tank balance in relation to infantry. To which BF1's is blatantly much, much more worse

There's another point that multiple people have brought up to: the AT Rocket is just absolute garbage to use, and requires exposing yourself for an excruciatingly long time. It would be nice if DICE addressed the shit damage on Rockets, but that's only a half-step forward. AT Rockets need to be much more versatile at deploying and using

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Ritobasu" (Mar 3rd 2017, 1:42am)


Posts: 3,220

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

33

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 1:54am

Same argument still applies.

To expound on your argument, a reduction in reserve rockets has to equate to higher damage per rocket. It has to. That said, 15-21 damage is incredibly unrewarding for an infantryman with 100 HP vs a tank with 1000 HP, so I will welcome this change if it happens.

Since you brought it up, the 57mm HE projectile is consistent with both the Rocket Gun and heavy tank. Don't you find it odd that this is the case? A vehicle that absorbs 1000 damage and a soldier that absorbs 100 damage, but both or their armaments deal equal min and max damage to armor. [sarcasm]Yep, totally balanced; nothing at all wrong here.[/sarcasm] The soldier has to do more damage to armor, otherwise it just isn't worth the risk. I'll risk dying for a potential 27 damage to armor, but won't even consider it for a likely 15-17.
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


Posts: 1,824

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

34

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 2:02am

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.
Sorry, but nothing is going to convince me that even BF3 tanks are better than BF1's A7V for so many reasons:

- Reactive Armor had to be manually repped outside of the vehicle BY THE DRIVER to restore it
- Reactive Armor could be ignored by AT Mines/C4 and other means
- Vehicles actually had to be repped outside of the vehicle, making solo tanking much more dangerous
- Emergency Repair was only available to Tank Hunters (basically the Artillery Trucks of BF3), and you had to be at critical HP to use it. It allowed full HP regen, but only instantly restored a small bit of HP and the regen would be disabled if it was hit right after
- Any vehicle that was hit to <50HP entered a mobility disabled state, which led to a bleedout and destruction of a tank if it wasn't repped immediately
- AT Launchers/C4 in general not being comparitively garbage in that game
- Ricochets not existing
- Side and rear multipliers MUCH more unforgiving to tank drivers. Tell me how much damage an A7V receives for being shot in the ass with a Rocket Gun again? Definitely not 50% and an instant disable

Yeah, BF34 tanks are going to sound much more attractive compared to BF1's A7V, but we're talking about tank balance in relation to infantry. To which BF1's is blatantly much, much more worse

There's another point that multiple people have brought up to: the AT Rocket is just absolute garbage to use, and requires exposing yourself for an excruciatingly long time. It would be nice if DICE addressed the shit damage on Rockets, but that's only a half-step forward. AT Rockets need to be much more versatile at deploying and using
-Reactive armor could be repaired by anyone. Generally the gunner did so.

-Mines are not an effective counter to ERA because it requires the driver to actually hit them. Mines were super easy to spot relative to BF1 thanks to the generous turreted views.

-Min damage facings, especially with ERA were absurdly generous in BF3/BF4. BF3 had the ERA. BF4 had the smoke discharger with it's insane uptime and ability to floor even rear hits to non critical min damage. Who the hell actually got hit in the rear with that sort of disabling hit? BF4 rear mults + smoke made that unlikely unless you were fighting trash. A7V trash dies before you even notice there is tank. So you're selectively complaining because BF4 had more tanks and thus more badly driven tanks.

-BF3/BF4 tanks had double turrets, and generally two 100% uptime infantry farming guns.

-BF3/BF4 tanks could simply disengage from any infantry fight they didn't want to be in and mow down anyone trying to plink them with jav/sraw during the retreat. An over comitted tank in BF1 generally always dies.

-Lets not even get into the absurdly potent BF4 IFV sabot vs infantry.

-BF3/BF4 tanks have a satisfying gunner experience, which means more people gunner-repped, which means good tanks were generally operated by a 2 man team. In BF4 thats coupled with smoke for 100%, 360 deg min damage hits that can be easily repped through. BF1 gunning/repair support is just a relatively shitty experience, and one that isn't even rewarding in terms of points. And so less people do it.

- Internal repairs are almost constantly interrupted by K bullets, spammed by the countless recons that populate your typical BF map. Or trash grenades dropped by the plan. Or someone chucking autocannon fire at you. There are countless mechanics to counter internal reps. And external reps are highly risky now for numerous reasons.

-SRAW/Javelin were garbage to use since they involved permanent LOS exposure to the tank, which had zoom optics. GG.

Posts: 3,351

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

35

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 3:26am

That the dedicated Anti-Tank option does the same damage tanks as tank main guns do has always been stupid. Not only because it's supposed to be the counter, but also because the more shots you have to fire, the more likely you are to die; it takes an extremely high amount of exposed time to put all four rockets into a tank, and that won't even kill a Heavy.

People don't play Assault as ranged AT enough for similar reasons to why people don't shoot at Planes with small arms: it's both incredibly time consuming to deal any notable damage, and you're essentially guaranteed to not get the kill not matter how hard you try. Lower ammo count with higher damage for the former, and a much lower threshold for Disables for the latter would be very welcome.


There's also the issue of the A7V effectively being the M1916 of Tanks, but then actually being the best one.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 1,824

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

36

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 4:34am

That the dedicated Anti-Tank option does the same damage tanks as tank main guns do has always been stupid. Not only because it's supposed to be the counter, but also because the more shots you have to fire, the more likely you are to die; it takes an extremely high amount of exposed time to put all four rockets into a tank, and that won't even kill a Heavy.

People don't play Assault as ranged AT enough for similar reasons to why people don't shoot at Planes with small arms: it's both incredibly time consuming to deal any notable damage, and you're essentially guaranteed to not get the kill not matter how hard you try. Lower ammo count with higher damage for the former, and a much lower threshold for Disables for the latter would be very welcome.


There's also the issue of the A7V effectively being the M1916 of Tanks, but then actually being the best one.
That's literally just your opinion. And I think it's a piss poor one. This isn't an RTS, there are no "hard counters". There are better/worse trade offs. Launchers have never effectively out-damaged tanks in AT work as the general rule in BF.

If a squad in BF1 wants a tank dead, it will generally die, and quickly.

The SS landship is unambiguously the best tank in the game. But it needs dedicated reps and suffers from serious blueberry disease, which makes the A7V a best choice for pubstomping.

People have no problem grinding their toons to death in chokepoint maps for their measly 1 KDRs and typical result of dying over and over and over again for little in the way of impact on the round. But god forbid if they die a couple of times shooting a tank and don't get the kill.

I still think the primary problem in BF1 is the insufficiency of infantry cover and overall map linearity and the lack of mobility to compensate for the lack of cover. Lots of going prone in an open field podding the RG, etc.
Same argument still applies.

To expound on your argument, a reduction in reserve rockets has to equate to higher damage per rocket. It has to. That said, 15-21 damage is incredibly unrewarding for an infantryman with 100 HP vs a tank with 1000 HP, so I will welcome this change if it happens.

Since you brought it up, the 57mm HE projectile is consistent with both the Rocket Gun and heavy tank. Don't you find it odd that this is the case? A vehicle that absorbs 1000 damage and a soldier that absorbs 100 damage, but both or their armaments deal equal min and max damage to armor. [sarcasm]Yep, totally balanced; nothing at all wrong here.[/sarcasm] The soldier has to do more damage to armor, otherwise it just isn't worth the risk. I'll risk dying for a potential 27 damage to armor, but won't even consider it for a likely 15-17.
If my argument applies, then the correct number of assault players is still N+1, where N is the current number of assaults. You want maximum dump damage.

How is buffing damage and slashing reserve suddenly going to make support valuable to fighting tanks, let alone medic intrinsically valuable? It's a totally dumb piece of logic.

As for balance well. Tanks are big, singular targets for a whole array of threats at any one time, downtime is huge when they die, etc, etc. There are gobs and gobs of infantry and infantry in principle should automatically be working in a squad for mutual support and life extension. That this doesn't happen is a limitation of the player base - all the mechanics are there.

The tanks that are really good vs infantry have either middling or merely average anti-tank and so get bruised up by specialist AT vehicles. But those same vehicles are of quite low threat to decent infantry.

Why should a single squishy, of which there are ~30 other squishies have better DPS than a rare asset? How is that balanced? BF1 tanks with good HP suffer from not having turrets, which really exposes already typically middling player skill, and is something that can be exploited against good players as well. Infantry posses no such limitations, they are just squishy.

Posts: 3,351

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

37

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 5:36am

That's literally just your opinion. And I think it's a piss poor one. This isn't an RTS, there are no "hard counters". There are better/worse trade offs. Launchers have never effectively out-damaged tanks in AT work as the general rule in BF.

If a squad in BF1 wants a tank dead, it will generally die, and quickly.

The SS landship is unambiguously the best tank in the game. But it needs dedicated reps and suffers from serious blueberry disease, which makes the A7V a best choice for pubstomping.

People have no problem grinding their toons to death in chokepoint maps for their measly 1 KDRs and typical result of dying over and over and over again for little in the way of impact on the round. But god forbid if they die a couple of times shooting a tank and don't get the kill.

I still think the primary problem in BF1 is the insufficiency of infantry cover and overall map linearity and the lack of mobility to compensate for the lack of cover. Lots of going prone in an open field podding the RG, etc.


Of course Assault is supposed to be the hard counter to tanks. The only other real AT options are... other Tanks, and a fundamental rule of counters is that a thing shouldn't be its own counter. You're right that there are tradeoffs and such within a type of thing (Tanks), but that doesn't extend to other types (non-Tanks). The ideal tools to take out Tanks should always be things that are not Tanks themselves.

So the SS Tank is theoretically the best, but the A7V is more used because ease-of-use. That sounds like exactly what I said, that the A7V is the M1916, Hellriegel, and so forth. And the fact that the "easy" option is dominating says that the system isn't balanced.

That's because when people "grind" fighting other infantry they actually kill a lot of enemies in the process, and accomplish something. That's not at all comparable to putting some damage into a big steel box that doesn't die, kills you, then just keeps on going. That high level Tankers and Pilots can get crazy K/D ratios like 30-1 or whatever, while high level infantry accept dying fairly often as part of the game is also part of the problem.


On another Tank-related note, part of the issue with balance comes from lack of diversity in areas they could really be diversified like small arms are. Like, why are all vehicle-mounted weapons perfectly accurate instead of having spread appropriate to their intended range? This is a major reason vehicles sitting at long range is as effective as it is.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 3,220

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

38

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 5:53am

'Counter' and 'hard counter' are different. Uranium mentioned the Rocket Gun being a counter, which it is, not a hard counter, which it isn't. Nothing hard counters armor except heavy ordinance like Torpedoes and 75mm, Field Guns, and the Tank Hunter Elite (but we know that only gets used to annihilate infantry). The DICE representative who wrote the post mentioned that gadgets will be tweaked concerning damage and ammo reserve "where it makes sense." It makes sense to increase damage and reduce ammo pool on the Rocket Gun because no player can consistently shoot all 4 in a lifetime (without being potentially revived). So when this happens, 'cause let's be honest something will be changed, the damage will have to go up to retain the same overall damage output. If damage remains the same, then Assaults are gimped even more. Might as well not even equip the Rocket Gun for AT purposes at this point. Running AT grenades and Dynamite will provide better damage; better as in more, more quickly and better as in consistent and guaranteed.

Cover doesn't matter all that much when you deploy the Rocket Gun. It helps, but you're still going to die at some point if you want to do decent damage to a tank. Even when you flank the tank and engage it won't really matter. Shoot one rocket and your position is compromised. The tank doesn't need to retreat because, oh yeah, pitiful damage. Now the tank and any attentive infantry know where you are, repositioning will probably get you spotted so it's best to just stay put and ride it out for as long as possible. After the first shot, all the tank has to do is spin around and look for the next rocket tracer to do a measly 15 damage and just splash that same area with his cannon. Boom, "ENEMY KILLED."

This scenario is just one Assault, but in actual pub gameplay this is what happens. Only people on comms coordinate tank hit squads. In pubs, teamwork doesn't come naturally. If more than one Assault is engaging a tank then they just happen to be individually engaging at the same time or if the tank is near a pack of Assaults it is because the area is highly contested or highly concentrated. Either is the case more often than not.
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 2 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (Mar 3rd 2017, 6:28am)


Posts: 1,824

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

39

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 6:25am

That's literally just your opinion. And I think it's a piss poor one. This isn't an RTS, there are no "hard counters". There are better/worse trade offs. Launchers have never effectively out-damaged tanks in AT work as the general rule in BF.

If a squad in BF1 wants a tank dead, it will generally die, and quickly.

The SS landship is unambiguously the best tank in the game. But it needs dedicated reps and suffers from serious blueberry disease, which makes the A7V a best choice for pubstomping.

People have no problem grinding their toons to death in chokepoint maps for their measly 1 KDRs and typical result of dying over and over and over again for little in the way of impact on the round. But god forbid if they die a couple of times shooting a tank and don't get the kill.

I still think the primary problem in BF1 is the insufficiency of infantry cover and overall map linearity and the lack of mobility to compensate for the lack of cover. Lots of going prone in an open field podding the RG, etc.


Of course Assault is supposed to be the hard counter to tanks. The only other real AT options are... other Tanks, and a fundamental rule of counters is that a thing shouldn't be its own counter. You're right that there are tradeoffs and such within a type of thing (Tanks), but that doesn't extend to other types (non-Tanks). The ideal tools to take out Tanks should always be things that are not Tanks themselves.

So the SS Tank is theoretically the best, but the A7V is more used because ease-of-use. That sounds like exactly what I said, that the A7V is the M1916, Hellriegel, and so forth. And the fact that the "easy" option is dominating says that the system isn't balanced.

That's because when people "grind" fighting other infantry they actually kill a lot of enemies in the process, and accomplish something. That's not at all comparable to putting some damage into a big steel box that doesn't die, kills you, then just keeps on going. That high level Tankers and Pilots can get crazy K/D ratios like 30-1 or whatever, while high level infantry accept dying fairly often as part of the game is also part of the problem.


On another Tank-related note, part of the issue with balance comes from lack of diversity in areas they could really be diversified like small arms are. Like, why are all vehicle-mounted weapons perfectly accurate instead of having spread appropriate to their intended range? This is a major reason vehicles sitting at long range is as effective as it is.
Eh? There is no equivalence between guns and armor. The reason the A7 is used so much is because the FT sucks as a tank by any objective battlefield standard and blueberry gunners are generally idiots and they shit all over the landship experience. And even if you can get gunners of quality, they will inevitably get pushed out when they rotate out for repairing duty.

The A7 is only good because the other options suck relatively, not because it's OP.

Most metro grinders have like a 1.2 KDR. They are not "killing lots of
people on average" by any possible numerical assessment of playerbase KDRs. Someone has to be getting stomped and most of the people have to be trading kills in grinders.

Top tier infantry players typically have KDRs in the 3-4 range and SPMs higher than top tier tankers and especially top tier pilots. Who gives a shit if someone goes 30-10 and 28,000 vs 40-1 and 24,000? I fairly often go on 60+ kill streaks and my team still gets stomped. Maybe I'm holding off a complete route? Probably not, either way I'm not winning things for all the supposed OPness of tanks.

Kills are fucking worthless. It's an objective based game.

Assaults ARE the most deadly think to tanks simply because they are as common as roaches. They don't need to be individually as powerful as tanks because a good team will be throwing 5-6 or more of them at you at a time. You literally CANNOT kill 6 assaults without dying in A7V. You run dry on ammo. Who the hell plays a team based game and then whines that you can't stack a common game entity for OP'ness.

Tank mgs have crazy spread. Large bore shells are slow and have huge drops. Aiming small arms is infinitely easier than aiming HE at range.

Posts: 3,220

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

40

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 6:29am

By the way, my gripe is damage against heavy armor not light armor. Light tanks and Artillery Trucks I couldn't care less about as Assault because I can actually deter them with decent damage if they get too close. But with heavy tanks (including the Landship) they can eat that same damage and laugh it off with no need to retreat. Damage material multipliers exist and they already impact how the Rocket Gun performs against the various pieces of armor. Believe it or not, all tanks have 1000 HP, but as we know, the rocket damage is not consistent across all vehicle types. It does more damage to light tanks than it does heavies. If a straight damage upgrade is too much for light armor then slap a lower material multiplier on it. Problem solved.
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