Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 22:58. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

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

Moderator

Posts: 440

Date of registration
: Apr 14th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Germany

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 12

Sunday, March 5th 2017, 12:57am

Increasing small arms damage vs planes is not needed.
What people here need to remember is that fighter planes take full damage from infantry weapons with attack planes receiving 25% less damage.
A BAR can technically already kill a fighter plane in 3 magazines with an attack plane going down during the 4th magazine, though realistic situations usually call for more due to inaccuracy on side of player and weapon. It is not unfeasible for a squad that notices a fighter attacking it to retaliate and kill it.
And that shot from a sniper rifle? That's 8-10% of that plane's HP gone, depending on rifle and distance.
So, unless you feel that taking off 24-40% of a plane's health with a sniper rifle shot, or 6-8% with a hit from a BAR, is balanced, I would refrain from saying that infantry damage vs planes needs to be tripled or even quadrupled.
Bro of Oscar, the gentleman ninja

### 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 5th 2017, 6:52am)

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Sunday, March 5th 2017, 3:33am

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

Tank gunner seats blow up if you look at them the wrong way. You are invalidating your own arguments.

Unless you're talking about the Landship, you're not disabling anything important.

I may leave this topic here for a bit, because everyone's just talking past the real problems.
What are you talking about? If you blow up the tail gun of an A7V and you are behind it, it is going to die because you'll likely be able to dump a load of HE onto with while it's waddling around try to turn. The only real hope the driver has is a smoke discharge and gunning it reverse with the hope that he can put you in front of his gun.

So which is is it? Is the A7V a sort of pillbox tank designed to push flags with its 360 deg cover, in which case, disabling it's 360 deg guns is important to blindspotting the tank and killing it? Or are the machine guns useless and thus the tank is really just a camping tool? You can't have it both ways. You are the one that keeps saying flame tank best tank, right?

The gunner seats are pretty potent on the A7V. When I have a dedicated gunner/rep guy they are usually able to pull in half as many kills as I can, so really at least 15-20.

Posts: 226

Date of registration
: Sep 20th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Sunday, March 5th 2017, 8:25am

### Quoted from "Legion"

Increasing small arms damage vs planes is not needed.

I'll go one further on this and say it would be completely gamebreaking. Right now, 3 support, medic or scout players, using their primary weapons only, can take down any fighter or attack plane in ONE SINGLE PASS. There are 32 players per team. That means you could destroy something like 10 planes in a few seconds.

If they buff primaries against planes, I imagine what will happen would be this:

Everyone FINALLY starts actually shooting at planes because of the change
Horrible imbalance mentioned above will be exposed

The only thing that needs to be done to primaries vs planes, is that players need to start using them. Maybe, maybe then, balance changes should be considered.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Sunday, March 5th 2017, 9:21am

### Quoted from "Legion"

It is not unfeasible for a squad that notices a fighter attacking it to retaliate and kill it.

Level with me here, Legion. Do you regularly group up with random players whom you have no contact with? Be honest here, because these are the types of squads I play with, and I know my complaints would likely disappear if I had a regular squad of people that I consistently played with. I fully understand my experience isn't representative of the proper Battlefield form, but this is how my Conquest games play out which is unfortunate because this game-type is where communication is most necessary; a necessity that I don't have access to at the moment. Currently, I play most rounds with zero communication, verbal or otherwise; that's just how it is.

With this in mind how is a player to feasibly cripple or outright destroy heavy tanks or planes if or when communication is not present? This right here is what DICE is trying to figure out through in-game context clues and instruction, but I think it is a futile attempt because nothing is going to entice a solo player to coordinate with players they do not know or talk to. We have the tools to communicate through VOIP and text chat but this requires that other people respond to these VOIP and text chats which isn't a guarantee by any means. If certain vehicles can only be meaningfully damaged through some sort of communication or coincidence then something is terribly wrong with the gameplay or balance; eliminating a heavy vehicle or shooting down a plane necessitates teamwork in a game that is notoriously bad at teamwork (since at least BF3), which seems like poor design to me.

### Quoted from "Legion"

I would refrain from saying that infantry damage vs planes needs to be tripled or even quadrupled.

I really, really don't think this was intended literally. I really don't. I imagine it was simply posed as an exaggeration to prove a point just how repetition for effect is employed to prove a point. The point being that small arms damage to planes is rather useless in the big picture because infantry only need to target planes when their own pilots are dead or just shitty in general. I'm sure no one here thinks that one, singular player should be able to take down a plane all on their lonesome in a short amount of time. I do agree that enough shots to the engine or wings should disable mobility or that the threshold should be lowered if it's already possible, but a straight damage increase is totally unnecessary (possibly an extra multiplier of 0.2x - 0.5x, but other than that...meh).

### Quoted from "CaptaPraelium"

Right now, 3 support, medic or scout players, using their primary weapons only, can take down any fighter or attack plane in ONE SINGLE PASS. There are 32 players per team. That means you could destroy something like 10 planes in a few seconds.

Okay sure, but how does one disperse this information to the playerbase that ignores this capability, just doesn't know about it, or really doesn't care? Better yet, how does one convey that planes are more important to prioritize rather than that useless Scout in the the distance (*exaggeration to prove a point, wink-wink)? Uranium is absolutely right. BF1 is damn-well balanced numerically, but the gameplay doesn't reflect it, specifically in reference to vehicles. We have the problem of players not doing what the numbers intend. The numbers suggest that 3 Supports with MGs will easily annihilate a plane or that 3 Assaults will annihilate a tank, but does actual gameplay consistently reflect this? HELLLLLL NO. It only occurs through friends talking to one another or blind luck. I'd like to give DICE the benefit of the doubt on this one and say, "DICE don't worry, people are dumb. Especially casual minded players who don't understand what Battlefield requires in order to be successful," but there comes a point where you have to question if the necessary knowledge is portrayed well enough for even the most basic player to understand what the hell they are supposed to do.
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 5th 2017, 11:16am)

Up and down. Bounce all around

Posts: 3,100

Date of registration
: Apr 15th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Sunday, March 5th 2017, 11:21am

I think it is kinda funny that people complain that no one shoots at planes and then also don't shoot at planes because "no-one else does".

Infantry damage against planes is perfectly fine, the problem is that infantry rarely takes the time to look up to the sky. Many times one player (you) starting to shoot at a plane is enough to draw the attention of his teammates to that plane and make them shoot at it too. The clip Oscar posted is a perfect example of this, and it mirrors my in game experience well.

TBH, of DICE were to make some patch note stating "increased damage of infantry weapons against planes" without even buffing anything we would see a lot more small arms fire directed at planes an people would realize that it's actually pretty effective. Those trench fighters making dives on crowded flags would suddenly think twice before doing so.

### Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

It really is quite frustrating when Helen Keller sets up her LMG in the only doorway in/out of an area.

### Quoted from "Watcher-45"

What kind of question is that? Since when is cheese ever a bad idea?

### Quoted from "LeGarcon"

Hardline is a fun and sometimes silly Cops and Robbers sorta thing and I think that's great. Or it would be if it didn't suck.

Can't get a title

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

Sunday, March 5th 2017, 11:34am

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

Okay sure, but how does one disperse this information to the playerbase that ignores this capability, just doesn't know about it, or really doesn't care? Better yet, how does one convey that planes are more important to prioritize rather than that useless Scout in the the distance (*exaggeration to prove a point, wink-wink)?

Is that a balance problem or a playerbase being bad problem?

If it is a playerbase problem, then perhaps DICE shouldn't bother changing it. Maybe instead of campaigning for planes to be nerfed, you should campaign for DICE to educate their playerbase better.
something something Model 8 bestgun

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

Next, wanna try adding a guy that you KNOW is bad, and just testing to see that? Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

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

Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.

Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:

Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

But... You can't be counting for the fact that it takes 9 bullets to kill at "long" range... Don't you dare tell me my A-91 is worse than a 9 BTK 650 RPM mediocre PDW.

Also. Just go heavy barrel. The recoil is low enough.

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

Well, technically...

Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).

And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.

In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.

Mind blown.

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

### Quoted from "Veritable"

Zer0Cod3x explained it very well. If you look at the raw numbers right here on Symthic Comparison, you can see how that happened:

A-91 vs PP-2000 | BF4 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

A-91's "23%" RPM advantage only afforded it 1 extra round.

Velocities are wash.

V-Recoil are wash (and this is HBar on PP2k vs. A-91 without).

Hipfire and ADS - Moving are better on the PP2k, but it's a PDW and not the surprising part.

The surprising part is that, as equipped (and we see above that PP2k HBar has almost same V-Recoil as A-91 without HBar so why not?), the PDW performs better at 50 - 100m than a bloody Carbine. Why?

SIPS, 42% better on the PP2k.

And here is the most important part. ADS - Not Moving Spread, 0.35 vs. 0.2, 43% improvement.

Without HBar then of course the PP2k loses, which is why when I add all the attachments together for an Overall Ranking, it would slot below the A-91. Run HBar on it, though, then... I'm sorry

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

@Veritable
@Zer0Cod3x
I... I...
But...
Wha...
I AM HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE OF YOU TWO.

FUCK YOU NERDS AND YOUR FANCY NUMBERS

SEXY RUSSIAN BULLPUPS FTW.

In all seriousness, thank you both so much for giving me the numbers. I still don't want to accept them. You have led the horse to water. I still need to drink.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Sunday, March 5th 2017, 11:48am

### Quoted from "C0llis"

TBH, of DICE were to make some patch note stating "increased damage of infantry weapons against planes" without even buffing anything we would see a lot more small arms fire directed at planes an people would realize that it's actually pretty effective. Those trench fighters making dives on crowded flags would suddenly think twice before doing so.

This actually sounds like the only way to spread the word. It's misleading as all hell but at least it would get the job done.

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

If it is a playerbase problem, then perhaps DICE shouldn't bother changing it. Maybe instead of campaigning for planes to be nerfed, you should campaign for DICE to educate their playerbase better.

And again we go back to the "choice" dilemma. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Honestly, I don't care which route is chosen so long as A route is chosen. If small arms becomes more effective, fine. If DICE decides to commit resources to further educate the playerbase, fine. I just want consistency because consistency is where true balance actually gets noticed.
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