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: 1,893

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 11:22pm

### Quoted from "Legion"

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.
Most rounds I play are gobs and gobs of assaults with a healthy selection of supports running mortar and the like. All assaults run the AT grenades since they are pretty good all-around gagets. Generally more rocket guns than mines, or dynamite. I'd like to see dynamite get a bit of a buff. It's garbage except for smurfing infantry and digging yourself emergency cover.

The mortar is really under-rated as an AT gadget. It deals good damage and the player can remain impossible to counter fire with good positioning relative to the tank and the rest of their team.

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,487

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 11:26pm

Theoretical stuff is only worth so much here, because one of the most fundamental reasons Tanks aren't engaged as much as they should be is because trying to do so is incredibly unrewarding. Same reason people don't shoot at Planes. You're going to do 15 to 30 damage tops, then get killed (Tanks) or the vehicle is going to just leave and repair (Planes). On top of that, you literally don't even have enough Rocket Gun ammo to even kill the Tank (and won't shoot down the Plane), further increasing how pointless it feels.

Not all game design is the stats and numbers part, in fact it's more likely that most of it is not that part. You can create a mathematically perfect game, but if the not-stat/math parts aren't well-designed/implemented too, the game will be a failure. And whining that it failed because "people are dumb" or anything similar is meaningless, nor does that attitude actually fix the game.

Also, on a related tangent, David Sirland / tiggr stated in the Reddit thread (among many other things he talked about) that the intent is to balance the game assuming NO comms and NO text chat. While this is hardly a surprise, it does address a point I've tried to make numerous times before: Balancing around high-skill players (a good thing) is not at all the same as balancing around organized play.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 3,291

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Friday, March 3rd 2017, 11:36pm

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

All assaults run the AT grenades since they are pretty good all-around gagets. Generally more rocket guns than mines, or dynamite. I'd like to see dynamite get a bit of a buff. It's garbage except for smurfing infantry and digging yourself emergency cover.

The mortar is really under-rated as an AT gadget. It deals good damage and the player can remain impossible to counter fire with good positioning relative to the tank and the rest of their team.

I know, I get it! The gadgets themselves are actually pretty decent at dealing damage to armor, but my specific complaint is that they often don't get used or don't get used properly! I just admitted I'm complaining for crying out loud. I get stuck with ignorant, one track minded players that simply don't give a rat's ass about destroying or at least deterring the vehicles that interrupt their precious infantry battles. It's more of a player quality issue than a true balance issue (although I still hold to the 4 ---> 3 rocket reduction with a max 27 damage to heavy tanks idea). This is the misfortune that apparently I just have to deal with or never play Conquest again. Or perhaps maybe I'll take up tanking and shit all over the retarded infantry that choose not to engage me.
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

### My "Contributions"

This post has been edited 4 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (Mar 4th 2017, 12:19pm)

Posts: 274

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

Saturday, March 4th 2017, 2:08pm

And for the most part, planes are just as equally unfun to deal with in BF1 as well.

We had this dynamic in BF34 where the infamous Scout Helicopter with his rep crew preyed primarily upon infantry and light vehicles, a coordinated Attack Helicopter murdered both infantry and heavy armor, the Attack Jet murdering armor, and the Fighter Jet being the king of the sky at the expense of practically zero anti-personnel/armor capabilities. In BF1, EVERY plane has effective anti-infantry capabilities and some of them have been combined with also being the most effective against other enemy aircraft (Trench Fighter).

Infantry operated MANPADs and dumbfire/wire-guided launchers were always a significant threat that had to be factored when piloting choppers, precisely because choppers were also a significant threat to infantry. Those chopper counters were pretty much non factors for both jets, except the Attack Jets if they --really-- wanted to kill 1-2 infantry in a dive. Jets were pretty much a non-factor when it came to interaction with infantry in games, and rightly so.

-----

In BF1, you have repeated stationary AA nerfs, the only meaningful way to deter and KILL the much more mobile Fighter and Attack Planes. Any plane doesn't even have to bother dropping explosives from the ceiling box now, since they can just bruteforce their counters at the sacrifice of a chunk of HP, instead of being completely shut down and killed.

A successful AT Rocket gun shot at a plane (which is MUCH, MUCH harder to pull off than SRAWing or even SMAW/RPGing a Little Bird or Viper)... only deals 40 damage. And before anyone actually chimes in with the old "but it's an Anti-TANK Rocket, not an anti-PLANE one," let me reply with a rhetorical question: why did BF34 launchers 1HKO anything but the transport in the air? They too are clearly intended for ground armor, but DICE allowed them to still be used effectively in the hands of a skilled player instead of forcing everyone to use MANPADs. Yet, they went one step back when it came to planes and AT Rocket guns in BF1. It's not like AT Rockets should be the primary means of aircraft removal for infantry, but to make the option completely obsolete just further compounds the infantry vs air vehicle balance.

The only other infantry recourse (and the most common suggestion from pilots) is to use their small arms... but what good does that do against if you scratch a plane for 15-20 damage and they fly off to repair, and continue their infantry farming? The pilot may be mildly inconvenienced, but it's the boots on the ground that is wasting ammo to literally no effect and possibly exposing himself to threats on the same plane as him. You'd have to triple, quadruple, or boost the damage of small arms higher than that and add significant impulse shaking/part destruction to making pilots truly terrified of infantry gunning for them like chopper pilots and MANPADs/Launchers.

Planes that would serve their team infinitely better bombing enemy armor (Tank Hunter Attack Plane, Torpedo/Barrage Bombers) get chased down by Trench Fighters and vanilla Attack Planes, which have far better air-to-air capabilities while still being able to comfortably farm infantry.

DICE has completely missed the memo from the previous games. Part of what makes combined arms combat in BF fun is that it achieves a healthy balance of infantry and vehicle interaction. No, a single Engineer isn't usually capable of soloing a Tank or Little Bird (but it's very possible!). But he can make himself a hell of a lot more of a nuisance and threat if he has the skill, and vehicle drivers could never underestimate the potential of a single infantry to take a gigantic dump on their joyride. This dynamic is completely missing from BF1, and part of the reason why vehicles just get ignored and complained about.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Ritobasu" (Mar 4th 2017, 2:14pm)

Sona tank jungle

Posts: 7,875

Date of registration
: May 30th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: SURROUNDED BY FUCKING MOUNTAINS

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

Saturday, March 4th 2017, 5:32pm

Seriously I feel like I play a different version of BF1 than some of you do.

"Killing tanks or planes isn't fun". - What's your definition of having fun in the game? You need to kill OpFor to contest objectives. Vehicles are harder to kill than infantry (in most cases). Does this spike in difficulty make it unfun for you to fight against them?

"In BF1, every plane has effective anti infantry capabilites". Yeah there's (at least) one variant for each plane that has a fairly reliable way to engage infantry. In return, all infantry except Shotgun users with buckshot rounds can fight back. You talk so much about the coordinated crews of Scout Helis or Attack Helis on previous titles but it seems like it's impossible for infantry to make anything that resembles an effort to fend off planes without having stationary AA at hand.

The Trench Fighter is not the most effective plane against other planes. The Airship KIller Attack Plane has the highest potential damage output and the Bomber KIller Fighter has better speed than the Attack Plane at the cost of firepower and survivability.

"Infantry operated MANPADs and dumbfire/wire-guided launchers were always a significant threat that had to be factored when piloting choppers" - You mean those coordinated Attack Heli crews that would just orbit hover in BF3, or pretty much the same in BF4 with them maybe getting a bit closer to the ground every now and then? Remember we're talking high skill coordinated crews here, not your usual pub pilot that flies 50m off the ground and gets a tank shell to the cockpit 30 seconds into flying.

"Jets were pretty much a non-factor when it came to interaction with infantry in games, and rightly so." - Ok, fine, whatever. BF1 planes ARE NOT jets, though. Some are clearly designed to have an impact on the ground rather than being strictly relegated to fighting for air superiority.

"In BF1, you have repeated stationary AA nerfs, the only meaningful way to deter and KILL" - It's funny you mention deterring planes from engaging when you're so incredibly focused on the kill. Small arms fire and vehicle mounted/stationary machine guns deter planes and can kill them if they stay in range too long (like .50 cal gunners could do in BF3/4 vs Helis). SAA has the best damage output and ease of use, but also deters planes from getting close to it unless they're planning to strike from an unseen angle. With the range AA guns have, you can cover half or more of the relevant airspace on most maps with them. If AA isn't available, find other ways or hide.

" they can just bruteforce their counters at the sacrifice of a chunk of HP, instead of being completely shut down and killed" - Current AA range is 334m if I'm not mistaken. If you can score a kill on a AA operator from that range and dip out before dying, then kudos to you, because in my experience the 20mm cannon from the bomber front seat/Attack Plane Ground Support has too much spread to reliably kill at that range, Rockets' time to live is short. Trench Darts at 334m+ are a fluke. You could make a point about bombers flying high up in the sky and bombing AA emplacements, but I'm fairly positive you could only achieve this on the AA on Sinai G flag. Usualy all other maps don't have a high enough skybox to allow bombing from an altitude of 334m without taking fire.

"A successful AT Rocket gun shot at a plane (which is MUCH, MUCH harder to pull off than SRAWing or even SMAW/RPGing a Little Bird or Viper)" - Yeah because they're planes, not helicopters. Also what happened to those coordinated Attack Heli crews you mentioned before? I can understand Scout Helis getting hit with the stray dumb rocket every now and then since their effective range isn't as long as Attack Helis, but surely a coordinated Heli Crew wouldn't get hit by the vast majority of dumb rockets fired at them unless it was a fluke? Anyway, my point here is, why are you comparing hitting planes in BF1 with the RG to hitting Helis with RPGs? Why not compare it to jets? You already made a comparison with jets by saying that jets in previous titles didn't have much ways to impact the ground (well or at least BF4, because BF3 jets with rocket pods = LUL).

"if you scratch a plane for 15-20 damage and they fly off to repair" "wasting ammo to literally no effect" - Wait so did it have no effect or did the plane actually have to go and repair?

"You'd have to triple, quadruple, or boost the damage of small arms higher than that"

### video

Look at this clip. If you can't be bothered by counting the damage I dealt to the plane with my MG, it's around 38-40 points of damage. Tripling damage would've allowed to to outight kill that plane with no addiitonal firepower from my team. Even doubling it would've made it so I almost took down a plane with very subpar accuracy.

This bit is just based on experience, but the oh-so-dreaded Fighter planes seem to have a 1.0x multiplier from bullets. What I mean by this, is that out of the 1000 HP the vehicle has, infantry rounds deal whatever damage they'd deal at the range they hit. This means 8% at the very least from (most) sniper rounds and 1.5% from LMGs per shot (at the very least). Attack Planes and Bombers can take more of a beating, but fighters are pretty much paper thin. Surely this kind of damage output from SAF is pretty damn good right? Or do we need regular sniper rounds dealing 20%+ a shot to fighters?

TBH this could go on forever and I can be arsed to type more about this. Just stop being so stuck up about planes and make an actual effort to fight them. Lrn 2 fly, lrn 2 aa, lrn 2 MG. I don't care which, but AA isn't required to fight planes.
Bro of Legion, the lurker ninja mod | Tesla FTW | RNG is evil.

### Quoted from "MsMuchLove"

I find majority of the complaints I hear about this game somehow never appear in my games.

Posts: 1,893

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

Saturday, March 4th 2017, 8:14pm

### Quoted from "Oscar"

Seriously I feel like I play a different version of BF1 than some of you do.

"Killing tanks or planes isn't fun". - What's your definition of having fun in the game? You need to kill OpFor to contest objectives. Vehicles are harder to kill than infantry (in most cases). Does this spike in difficulty make it unfun for you to fight against them?

"In BF1, every plane has effective anti infantry capabilites". Yeah there's (at least) one variant for each plane that has a fairly reliable way to engage infantry. In return, all infantry except Shotgun users with buckshot rounds can fight back. You talk so much about the coordinated crews of Scout Helis or Attack Helis on previous titles but it seems like it's impossible for infantry to make anything that resembles an effort to fend off planes without having stationary AA at hand.

The Trench Fighter is not the most effective plane against other planes. The Airship KIller Attack Plane has the highest potential damage output and the Bomber KIller Fighter has better speed than the Attack Plane at the cost of firepower and survivability.

"Infantry operated MANPADs and dumbfire/wire-guided launchers were always a significant threat that had to be factored when piloting choppers" - You mean those coordinated Attack Heli crews that would just orbit hover in BF3, or pretty much the same in BF4 with them maybe getting a bit closer to the ground every now and then? Remember we're talking high skill coordinated crews here, not your usual pub pilot that flies 50m off the ground and gets a tank shell to the cockpit 30 seconds into flying.

"Jets were pretty much a non-factor when it came to interaction with infantry in games, and rightly so." - Ok, fine, whatever. BF1 planes ARE NOT jets, though. Some are clearly designed to have an impact on the ground rather than being strictly relegated to fighting for air superiority.

"In BF1, you have repeated stationary AA nerfs, the only meaningful way to deter and KILL" - It's funny you mention deterring planes from engaging when you're so incredibly focused on the kill. Small arms fire and vehicle mounted/stationary machine guns deter planes and can kill them if they stay in range too long (like .50 cal gunners could do in BF3/4 vs Helis). SAA has the best damage output and ease of use, but also deters planes from getting close to it unless they're planning to strike from an unseen angle. With the range AA guns have, you can cover half or more of the relevant airspace on most maps with them. If AA isn't available, find other ways or hide.

" they can just bruteforce their counters at the sacrifice of a chunk of HP, instead of being completely shut down and killed" - Current AA range is 334m if I'm not mistaken. If you can score a kill on a AA operator from that range and dip out before dying, then kudos to you, because in my experience the 20mm cannon from the bomber front seat/Attack Plane Ground Support has too much spread to reliably kill at that range, Rockets' time to live is short. Trench Darts at 334m+ are a fluke. You could make a point about bombers flying high up in the sky and bombing AA emplacements, but I'm fairly positive you could only achieve this on the AA on Sinai G flag. Usualy all other maps don't have a high enough skybox to allow bombing from an altitude of 334m without taking fire.

"A successful AT Rocket gun shot at a plane (which is MUCH, MUCH harder to pull off than SRAWing or even SMAW/RPGing a Little Bird or Viper)" - Yeah because they're planes, not helicopters. Also what happened to those coordinated Attack Heli crews you mentioned before? I can understand Scout Helis getting hit with the stray dumb rocket every now and then since their effective range isn't as long as Attack Helis, but surely a coordinated Heli Crew wouldn't get hit by the vast majority of dumb rockets fired at them unless it was a fluke? Anyway, my point here is, why are you comparing hitting planes in BF1 with the RG to hitting Helis with RPGs? Why not compare it to jets? You already made a comparison with jets by saying that jets in previous titles didn't have much ways to impact the ground (well or at least BF4, because BF3 jets with rocket pods = LUL).

"if you scratch a plane for 15-20 damage and they fly off to repair" "wasting ammo to literally no effect" - Wait so did it have no effect or did the plane actually have to go and repair?

"You'd have to triple, quadruple, or boost the damage of small arms higher than that"

### video

Look at this clip. If you can't be bothered by counting the damage I dealt to the plane with my MG, it's around 38-40 points of damage. Tripling damage would've allowed to to outight kill that plane with no addiitonal firepower from my team. Even doubling it would've made it so I almost took down a plane with very subpar accuracy.

This bit is just based on experience, but the oh-so-dreaded Fighter planes seem to have a 1.0x multiplier from bullets. What I mean by this, is that out of the 1000 HP the vehicle has, infantry rounds deal whatever damage they'd deal at the range they hit. This means 8% at the very least from (most) sniper rounds and 1.5% from LMGs per shot (at the very least). Attack Planes and Bombers can take more of a beating, but fighters are pretty much paper thin. Surely this kind of damage output from SAF is pretty damn good right? Or do we need regular sniper rounds dealing 20%+ a shot to fighters?

TBH this could go on forever and I can be arsed to type more about this. Just stop being so stuck up about planes and make an actual effort to fight them. Lrn 2 fly, lrn 2 aa, lrn 2 MG. I don't care which, but AA isn't required to fight planes.
To be fair. If a guy with an LMG lights up your trench fighter, it is basically equivalent to painting a target on themselves. It gives you an aimpoint to drop dart without needing the spot or picking them out from ground clutter.

So you need to be tactical about it, engaging them when they can't wheel and dive on you etc.

Fighting the Trench fighter can be a frustrating experience though because its a classic boom and zoom gravity fighter and so it can easily drop payload and then climb away form the field with minimal groundfire exposure.

A bigger issue is simply the overall impact most vehicles have. Even with persistent killing by high skilled players, you can rarely single handedly wipe well defended flags with any of the vehicles. Even an orbiting bomber can't spit autocannon fire into all of the buildings.

So while decisive plays and decisive vehicle use does happen, most kill farming takes the form of a ticket tax. Quite impactful in the rare closer game, but generally not decisive without persistent map control which is really the infantry's game.

Posts: 274

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

Saturday, March 4th 2017, 8:23pm

The video that you posted was an Attack Plane taking over 25 seconds of straight machine gun fire, for what you claim is a whopping 38-40 damage, while failing to take any evasive maneuvers. It's actually great that you posted that because it illustrates how long it takes to kill an incompetent pilot, compared to dealing with a flyboy who's not braindead

### Quoted

Current AA range is 334m if I'm not mistaken. If you can score a kill on a AA operator from that range and dip out before dying, then kudos to you, because in my experience the 20mm cannon from the bomber front seat/Att
This is assuming that the AA has a clear line of sight directly at you and begins firing immediately from their maximum range. Believe me, it may feel like it's the case the vast majority of times but there are ways to deal with this currently in Live. Why make it even easier for all planes to completely disregard and kill their counters in a stationary AA's range where they should be writing a final will instead?

### Quoted

Ok, fine, whatever. BF1 planes ARE NOT jets, though. Some are clearly designed to have an impact on the ground rather than being strictly relegated to fighting for air superiority.

Anyway, my point here is, why are you comparing hitting planes in BF1 with the RG to hitting Helis with RPGs? Why not compare it to jets? You already made a comparison with jets by saying that jets in previous titles didn't have much ways to impact the ground
Because BF1's "jets" are able to farm infantry with the effectiveness of a helicopter while having much faster mobility completely unmatched by Little Birds and Vipers. I'm baffled that you take time to point this out while failing to consider why I made the comparison in the first place. If you are going to have significant impact against ground troops as a plane, it's only fair that ground troops should also have a significant impact on your operating ability as well

### Quoted

"if you scratch a plane for 15-20 damage and they fly off to repair" "wasting ammo to literally no effect" - Wait so did it have no effect or did the plane actually have to go and repair?
We're talking about a meaningful effect that makes solo infantry players feel like they are doing something useful, as BleedingUranium said. If you are arguing that 15-20 damage by itself to a plane is anything meaningful unless it's in a critical condition, then we are at a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes a balanced infantry vs vehicle experience.

### Quoted

Just stop being so stuck up about planes and make an actual effort to fight them. Lrn 2 fly, lrn 2 aa, lrn 2 MG. I don't care which, but AA isn't required to fight planes.
Resorting to vehicles to counter vehicles is a garbage design philosophy, to which 95% of Symthic would agree with me. There are already ways for planes to work around AAs as is, and that's not counting the threat posed by things on the ground to stationary AA users. I completely agree that AA shouldn't be required to fight planes, and as things stand on CTE, so does DICE (in a completely negative way).

The infantry vs plane experience is complete shit and frustrating right now, and DICE has yet to do something about this while adding several nerfs to stationary AAs, buffing Trench darts, nerfing SLR damage against planes, and only throwing infantry a bone by letting them do more damage to Bombers. The choppers in BF34 could at least be harassed by a single Engineer with a MANPAD in the right place, but the average BF1 class can't do dick all about a Trench Fighter or Ground Support plane except shoot and pray that his teammates do the same, and hope that they don't catch a dozen darts or grenade icons to the face during the process

1 guests