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
Woo~. M1907 Trench is even better as you don't have to aim to be (relatively) accurate .
Rep++.
Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013
Platform: PC
Location: __main__, Finland
Reputation modifier: 16
Is this data available for armor as well?
I'd be pretty curious to see where tankers are getting their kills, especially relative to BF4.
(BF1 kills, kills done with vehicles only)
Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013
Platform: PC
Location: __main__, Finland
Reputation modifier: 16
I assume this doesn't include planes..
The median is a pathetic 41 m. That's basically danger close for a tank in BF.(BF1 kills, kills done with vehicles only)
I assume this doesn't include planes...just wanted to check. This shows why Assault is such a struggle vs. armor - short range weapons vs. long range armor and its support team. Bless the Ribeyrolles!
Date of registration
: Feb 1st 2017
Platform: PS4
Location: Somewhere safe and boring
Reputation modifier: 1
I believe it is a danger for tanks in the previous title. With rockets are less restrict to fire and general infantry's anti-armor weaponry have a longer impactful touch to the armor. In BF1 though, dynamite and limpet are purely useful at under 20 M. AT nade isn't that good at 20+M either, since it is impossible to let most pub players hit 40M nade throw every time. Then we come to the rocket gun. Yes, it is good at the middle~long range for AT staff. But the restriction is much. And the angle while you are pruning might be a really bad thing for even hitting a damn thing. So I think the danger zone for tank in BF1 is probably around 20~30. 40 is fairly speaking safe for tank.
Quoted
The median is a pathetic 41 m. That's basically danger close for a tank in BF.
Quoted
Quoted
(BF1 kills, kills done with vehicles only)
I assume this doesn't include planes...just wanted to check. This shows why Assault is such a struggle vs. armor - short range weapons vs. long range armor and its support team. Bless the Ribeyrolles!
You try to fart around 40 m from a killzone and not end up with squishies creeping up your flanks. People basically sprint as fast as the tanks can move too.I believe it is a danger for tanks in the previous title. With rockets are less restrict to fire and general infantry's anti-armor weaponry have a longer impactful touch to the armor. In BF1 though, dynamite and limpet are purely useful at under 20 M. AT nade isn't that good at 20+M either, since it is impossible to let most pub players hit 40M nade throw every time. Then we come to the rocket gun. Yes, it is good at the middle~long range for AT staff. But the restriction is much. And the angle while you are pruning might be a really bad thing for even hitting a damn thing. So I think the danger zone for tank in BF1 is probably around 20~30. 40 is fairly speaking safe for tank.
Quoted
The median is a pathetic 41 m. That's basically danger close for a tank in BF.
Quoted
Quoted
(BF1 kills, kills done with vehicles only)
I assume this doesn't include planes...just wanted to check. This shows why Assault is such a struggle vs. armor - short range weapons vs. long range armor and its support team. Bless the Ribeyrolles!
Date of registration
: Feb 1st 2017
Platform: PS4
Location: Somewhere safe and boring
Reputation modifier: 1
IMO the overall intent with tank vs AT balance was a squad vs vehicle, and is reflected by the burst damage/total output of a single player per magazine.Yeah... I wasn't a good tanker... when I was going around as infantry. Tank at 20-30 was much more killable than at 40M for me personally. probably due to the fact that I run dynamic more than AT Gun. the nade has a better chance to hit at 20~30 to deal consistent damage and AT gun is probably much stronger while multiple people shooting at once....
Forum Software: Burning Board®, developed by WoltLab® GmbH
© Design by Symthic.com