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: 1,819

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

41

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 6:32am

'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.
Then you're attacking tanks wrong. Simple as that.

I never, ever have to worry about just 1 assault. I have to worry about a constant trickle of assaults. The enemy tank. That attack plane that keeps hitting me for 30 damage. The sniper interrupting my repair. The mortar that keeps shelling my reverse slope position. That artillery truck sniping from 300 m away. All more or less at the same time while managing a really small ammo pool.

People tend to be very tunnel visioned when engaging tanks, but you only ever the luxury of engaging trickling 1-2 squishies at a time if the enemy team is just terrible.
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.
Higher damage but more generous ricochet angles, or a better range in min-max facing damage would be overall more interesting. The spread in facing damage for the lower dmg weapons (RG, 57mm HE) is pathetic for good angle vs worst angle. Pillaring/angling should be a component of tanking that is really far less essential than it was previously and that's kinda boring.

Posts: 3,219

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

42

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 7:03am

Then you're attacking tanks wrong. Simple as that.

Or I'm the only one on the team who gives a crap about countering armor, which has happened before on more than one occasion. My personal experience means literally nothing though, yours doesn't either; and there just isn't any hard data to prove one way or the other. It's a frustrating thing about the vehicle play in Battlefield that has always made me question the balance.

Guns are easy to balance because infantry can be killed by small arms and have comparatively miniscule health. Tanks are only vulnerable to AT and explosives, and not every player has these specialized AT and explosives at hand to counter armor but they do have general purpose tools to counter infantry. This surfaces huge inconsistencies if there aren't enough Assaults or aren't enough useful and attentive Assaults since they serve as the primary AT role. This inconsistency is practically impossible to ideally balance around because it's entirely subjective from server to server.

We have Player A, Player B and Player C on respective Server A, B, and C all on map X:

Player A is encountering overwhelming tank opposition because Assaults aren't doing their job resulting in a negative reaction to armor (read: 'overpowered').

Player B is encountering contained tank opposition because Assaults are keeping them in check resulting in a neutral reaction to armor (read: balanced).

Player C is encountering little to no tank opposition because Assaults are the definition of anti-tank resulting in mixed reactions to armor (read: unsure or undecided).

All of these scenarios are present in pub games. All of them. Unfortunately, constant exposure to Player A's circumstance has left me with the impression that the AT tools are utter shit and need rebalancing, specifically the Rocket Gun.
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: 425

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

43

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 11:14am

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.

BF1 was developed with the hard counter balance system in mind. At least that is what the PR guys said on the EA play events. And DICE failed at it.

Quoted

If a squad in BF1 wants a tank dead, it will generally die, and quickly.
Never seen such a thing occur on publics. There is rarely any coordination or communication on publics, simple as that. If the 5 assaultguys live long enough, that is. As they are seen and killed quickly with the view options and splashdamage in this game.
This game having worse and less AT options than BF4 and instant repairing tanks add to the discomfort of the lacking balance in BF1.

A squad of support guys with MG15 firing on an airplane will down it, right? That never happens. N-e-v-e-r.

You keep persisting these assumptions as if they are existing and tangible in a public environment. Well gues what: pubbies are getting farmed by high rank vehiclehogs. Especially in Operations.
RIP Sraw

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Iwo_Jima" (Mar 3rd 2017, 11:19am)


Legion

Moderator

(1,494)

Posts: 439

Date of registration
: Apr 14th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Germany

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

44

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 1:13pm

  • 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?


Consider this. The rocket gun is actually stronger vs armor than BF4 rockets assuming the driver is actually competent. That is due to BF3/4 drivers being able to dodge rockets left and right if they came from anything but short range. Didn't take all that much, did it myself and I'm not even close to being an actually good driver. You are also ignoring that repair stacking was removed, with diminishing returns for each additional repair, which was what made BF3/4 tanks so ridiculous in the first place. In organised rounds, the only thing capable of killing a tank was shooting enough rockets at its face that it instantly blew up before it could be repped enough to survive the next one, which was generally in a fraction of a second. It effectively meant that a well supported tank was not just theoretically but practically immortal.
Do I also have to mention that BF3/4 tanks were far more deadly to infantry, with 2 360 degree turrets that carried a strong anti infantry MG with practically no downtime each?
In fact, I'd argue that tanks in BF1 are the least overpowered out of the 3 modern BF games.

Going on with your argument, we have this.

Quoted

- Reactive Armor could be ignored by AT Mines/C4 and other means

Technically, yes. But it was again something that could only be reasonably done against bad drivers. Any decent driver/gunner combo pretty much never fell for either of those by not putting them into situations where applying them is possible. At higher levels of play, C4 and AT mines were irrelevant against tanks as kill option. AT mines were used for area denial, ammo drain and to slow down tanks, but they were incapable of killing one. Even experienced pub tankers rarely, if ever, fell for them.

Quoted

- 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

Fair point but it was a stupid system to the point where it was already removed in BF4. For the most part it just meant that a tank had to stack reps, which was commonly done in organised play. Removing it was needed to allow the tank to effectively do things on its own.
There were also other problems with it, primarily in Jet vs MAA balance.

Quoted from "Iwo_Jima"

BF1 was developed with the hard counter balance system in mind. At least that is what the PR guys said on the EA play events. And DICE failed at it.

You already said the crucial part. PR guys. That being said, simply based on that statement, we cannot say that 1 assault is the hard counter to a tank. That would be completely ridiculous for balance. And seeing how the game ended up being, it's far more likely that they meant a coordinated assault by, well, a couple assaults.
Bro of Oscar, the gentleman ninja
Rules. Read them, follow them.

Quoted

[22:09:20] Failure117: Legion: Tank Expert and Pokemon Afficianado

[16:21:16] Oscar Perez Lijo: In soviet russia legion is top poster

Posts: 273

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

45

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 6:26pm

@Legion

The AT Rocket gun being stronger than BF34 Launchers? That's utterly false. How does faster velocity make up for cumbersome deployment times, poor damage, and extremely awful angle modifiers and ricochets?

If tanks want to hit the GAS GAS GAS, that just means they're zooming away from areas where they're unwanted by AT that pose a genuine threat. And guess what? There were launchers and gadgets that existed to harass even extremely mobile tanks. The MBT LAW, the SRAW, Javelins, and UCAVs to name a few.

You want to talk about repair stacking? How about BF1's wrench which has no cooldown for extended useage? Or self-repping from inside the safety of a tank instead of the driver being forced to rep from outside? Or Emergency Repair which effectively gives BF1 tanks an additional 20-30% bigger healthpool?

Even with their 360 rotating turrets of death and insane mobility, BF34's tanks are far less of a headache to deter or outright kill. It shouldn't surprise anyone when you significantly downgrade AT capabilities and give additional tools to tank survivability, that we end up with the current situation now

Legion

Moderator

(1,494)

Posts: 439

Date of registration
: Apr 14th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Germany

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

46

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 7:38pm

@Legion

The AT Rocket gun being stronger than BF34 Launchers? That's utterly false. How does faster velocity make up for cumbersome deployment times, poor damage, and extremely awful angle modifiers and ricochets?

If tanks want to hit the GAS GAS GAS, that just means they're zooming away from areas where they're unwanted by AT that pose a genuine threat. And guess what? There were launchers and gadgets that existed to harass even extremely mobile tanks. The MBT LAW, the SRAW, Javelins, and UCAVs to name a few.

You want to talk about repair stacking? How about BF1's wrench which has no cooldown for extended useage? Or self-repping from inside the safety of a tank instead of the driver being forced to rep from outside? Or Emergency Repair which effectively gives BF1 tanks an additional 20-30% bigger healthpool?

Even with their 360 rotating turrets of death and insane mobility, BF34's tanks are far less of a headache to deter or outright kill. It shouldn't surprise anyone when you significantly downgrade AT capabilities and give additional tools to tank survivability, that we end up with the current situation now


As I already said, the comparative advantages of the launchers don't matter if they are simply incapable of hitting good drivers. I wish I had a video of it for you but the best example I can think of was taken down ages ago. SRAW and Javelin were easy to negate with either cover or, in the case of non lock-on Javelins, a tree between the center of the tank and the launcher and MBT-LAW dealt pitiful damage, was countered by having overhead cover, APS or I think IR smoke, all of which would completely negate you trying to burst somebody down with MBT-LAW. And without a burst of damage, you are not breaking through the tank's health recovery.

And yes, I want to talk about repair stacking because it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Even with the repair tool cooldown in BF3/4, they stacked without loss in efficiency. A single repper would give you 67.5 HP/s and as you add then, it would stack up. Asked somebody who played more organised BF than I did and it wasn't uncommon for tanks to have 5 reppers behind them.
Meanwhile, BF1, where diminishing returns exist on wrenches in addition to them restoring less HP, which is the reason they eliminated the cooldown on it. While a single repper will still grant you 50 HP/s, a second one will increase the total health gained to only 70/s. And the per repper efficiency continues to decrease with every additional repper you add. For reference, 5 reppers in BF1 restore 100 HP/s, making them less efficient than 2 BF3/4 reppers.
Self repair is only 40 HP/s, making it safer but slower than getting out and repairing it with your wrench. It also takes a while to complete and is interrupted by damage. Even a scout with K-Bullets can deny a tank self-reps for a while without having to resupply. If people let a tank drive away and fully recover, it's their own fault.
Emergency repair is 200-300 HP, depending on vehicle, on a 30s cooldown and as such nowhere even close to the sheer health regeneration I am talking about.
So, ultimately, BF1 tanks are unable to match the health regeneration of a BF3/4 tank with only 3 reppers without having most of your team stack behind the tank. In fact, 2 BF3/4 reppers are faster than 12 BF1 reppers.
Tank survivability has not been increased, it has been significantly decreased and some of it was reallocated to the tank itself.
Bro of Oscar, the gentleman ninja
Rules. Read them, follow them.

Quoted

[22:09:20] Failure117: Legion: Tank Expert and Pokemon Afficianado

[16:21:16] Oscar Perez Lijo: In soviet russia legion is top poster

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Legion" (Mar 3rd 2017, 8:17pm)


Posts: 1,819

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

47

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 8:57pm

Then you're attacking tanks wrong. Simple as that.

Or I'm the only one on the team who gives a crap about countering armor, which has happened before on more than one occasion. My personal experience means literally nothing though, yours doesn't either; and there just isn't any hard data to prove one way or the other. It's a frustrating thing about the vehicle play in Battlefield that has always made me question the balance.

Guns are easy to balance because infantry can be killed by small arms and have comparatively miniscule health. Tanks are only vulnerable to AT and explosives, and not every player has these specialized AT and explosives at hand to counter armor but they do have general purpose tools to counter infantry. This surfaces huge inconsistencies if there aren't enough Assaults or aren't enough useful and attentive Assaults since they serve as the primary AT role. This inconsistency is practically impossible to ideally balance around because it's entirely subjective from server to server.

We have Player A, Player B and Player C on respective Server A, B, and C all on map X:

Player A is encountering overwhelming tank opposition because Assaults aren't doing their job resulting in a negative reaction to armor (read: 'overpowered').

Player B is encountering contained tank opposition because Assaults are keeping them in check resulting in a neutral reaction to armor (read: balanced).

Player C is encountering little to no tank opposition because Assaults are the definition of anti-tank resulting in mixed reactions to armor (read: unsure or undecided).

All of these scenarios are present in pub games. All of them. Unfortunately, constant exposure to Player A's circumstance has left me with the impression that the AT tools are utter shit and need rebalancing, specifically the Rocket Gun.
After a few hundred of play hours I think you can objectively comment about what does and does not happen in matches.

Certainly there are rounds when tanking where I really just never take any effective anti-tank fire and I can farm my way to 80 kills. But in those contexts the enemy team is just shit and typically is getting pushed back hard and getting dominated in all aspects of the game.

Then there are the rounds where battles are quite pitched and concentrated and you can withdraw to repair due to the gridlocked nature of the map. Pretty common on Suez, Amiens. Amiens has flanking at least, Suez is just too damn narrow. And that's definitely frustrating, but the reason you can't kill the tank as it withdraws is an issue of bad map design. And this goes back to my initial comments in the threat that elaborate balancing algorithms shouldn't be needed to compensate for shitty map design.

If players don't actually use the weapons at their disposal, it's not the fault of the weapons. My experience is that people will start to gang up to take out problem tanks unless their entire team is collapsing around them.

Further, balancing has to be done around the notion that up to 5 guys can be spawning in as a group and more or less attacking something (flag, vehicle, etc) simultaneously. On top of the general tendency for teams to blob up around certain flags. It goes back to the classic argument of how balance needs to be done so that it cannot be exploited by the best players to the point of brokenness, while it still retains some fun and satisfaction for the masses.

The big issue is that BF1 lacks mobility and options for infantry to maneuver. I get most of my kills shutting down infantry trying to move from a flag they own to a flag my team owns. Generally in open terrain as they leave cover.
@Legion

All comments spot on so far.

The ability to maneuver to evade dumb-fire or simply spoof or counterfire the missile gunner was huge in BF3/BF4. On top of maneuver the tanks also had optics, which phenomenally increased their range of effectiveness, all while they could kite many times better.

And that's ignoring the pair of fully rotating turrets, high damage resistance (either via ERA or smokescreen), and rep monkeys.

Yeah, the rocket gun is derpy to use, but it basically always hits.

Posts: 68

Date of registration
: Mar 2nd 2017

Platform: PS4

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

48

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 9:35pm

Yeah, the rocket gun is derpy to use, but it basically always hits.
When the bipod works.

Legion

Moderator

(1,494)

Posts: 439

Date of registration
: Apr 14th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Germany

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

49

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 10:05pm

Guns are easy to balance because infantry can be killed by small arms and have comparatively miniscule health. Tanks are only vulnerable to AT and explosives, and not every player has these specialized AT and explosives at hand to counter armor but they do have general purpose tools to counter infantry. This surfaces huge inconsistencies if there aren't enough Assaults or aren't enough useful and attentive Assaults since they serve as the primary AT role. This inconsistency is practically impossible to ideally balance around because it's entirely subjective from server to server.


Stop right there. Everybody has access to AT tools. Specifically, the light AT grenades and then class specific gadgets. K-Bullets, mortar, limpet, HE crossbow and HE rifle grenade. You said it yourself, Assault is the primary AT class. Focus on primary. Everybody else can add their AT damage on top, big difference being that they have either lower range or lower power because assault is supposed to be better at killing tanks, same way support is supposed to be better at sustained damage or sniper having better spotting.
Ultimately, it is a choice of the players. Do I bring these tools and suffer vs infantry? Or do I leave them at the spawn screen and bring in other things.
Bro of Oscar, the gentleman ninja
Rules. Read them, follow them.

Quoted

[22:09:20] Failure117: Legion: Tank Expert and Pokemon Afficianado

[16:21:16] Oscar Perez Lijo: In soviet russia legion is top poster

Posts: 3,219

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

50

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 10:24pm

Stop right there. Everybody has access to AT tools. Specifically, the light AT grenades and then class specific gadgets.

I know this full well, Legion. When I refer to "Specialized AT tools" it concerns those of the Assault class. I don't consider the other classes' gadgets specialized for AT. Are they capable of moderate AT damage? Yes, but it's moderate. Hence why I said that Assault "Serves as the primary AT role," the statement recognizes that Medics, Supports, and Scouts have AT capacity, but that it's vastly inferior to what Assaults can manage if they pay attention to the things their gadgets were designed for and don't blow their loads for a couple rather meaningless infantry kills.

@tankmayvin

This is my experience with BF1 over a couple hundred hours: tanks tend to dominate most infantry centric maps unless there's a considerable amount of terrain cover and then become unstoppable in large, open maps. Infantry are tunnel visioned into fighting infantry alone which allows tanks to literally stay put and rack up kills for a minute or two before a stray rocket ricochets off the hull. Because the focus on infantry is so intense the gadget selection reflects that. You'd be hard pressed to find more than one or two players who aren't Assault with AT-capable gadgets like HE Mortar, Limpet Mines, HE Crossbow/ Rifle Grenade, etc.

Tanks are largely ignored, why this is the case I cannot determine. It's coming to the point where everytime I play Conquest or Operations I'm going to strictly have to play as Assault so at least one player, guaranteed, is countering armor; not that at least one player, guaranteed, is using the Assault class but that tanks have something to be concerned about. This will make Conquest and Operations limiting and just not fun and the only times I'll be able to play Medic and Support are on Domination and Team Deathmatch.

Tanks are the bane of my play sessions. If classes were played as they were meant to be played and used how they were designed to be used at all times, then tanks would probably be underpowered, that's right. Underpowered. That is how many Assaults I see when I play Conquest. There are so many that tanks would be insta-killed without much of an issue. But do these Assaults play Assault with the intent to hunt vehicles? No, instead they waste their potential because their infantry weapons are good for aggressive, up-close action. This kit is chosen for its infantry killing capabilities and not its AT prowess because that's basically all that matters to the players I have the misfortune to team up with. 'Who can kill the most infantry,' that is the motto the players I encounter live by. Armor is a vague afterthought.
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, 10:57pm)