Balance of tanks and BTR/LAV, rebalance C4

[boreal cypress]

Hey, everybody. I think we've all seen tanks standing in the mountains and afraid to drive up to the mess.

Why is that?

The tech feels extremely uncomfortable due to the fact that literally any unit can blow it up on its own. Whether it's a sniper, a medic or a stormtrooper. Anyone. There could be 64 malarial mosquitoes that you should be afraid of, it could be in the window of a house, lying in a bush, waiting around the corner. Or maybe even all of them together if it's a 127 server. It's horrible.

There's a reason tanks stand very far away, for in a fight they will die instantly. I propose to give pride back to the big and scary war machines.

There are too many explosives on the map.

Anyone can sneak a bunch of bags of C4. Equipment is destroyed in 2-3 C4 packets.

Technics can be destroyed by a random class, although we have a class specifically for this task - engineer. We devalue him, we take away his job.

My suggestions. (Yes, you may not like them, as it takes a certain amount of fun out of the game)

• Take C4 away from the medic. It's a medic, not a bomber.

• Take away C4 from the sniper and support (same reasons, it's not their job)

• Leave the stormtrooper with the option to take 2 C4. To break the walls on the assault, for example. 2 units of C4 will not give the opportunity to destroy the tank independently.

As a result, the technique will feel more confident and it will not have to be afraid of literally every player. It will be able to be more aggressive, but at the same time the engineer will be able to deal with it as easily, because it is his direct duty. Also in the game there will be more logic in equipment and individuality of classes. But less fun and bang for the buck, unfortunately.

Summary of Content.
The main idea is to reduce the amount of explosives on the map. Technics will be able to move, will be able to be dangerous, not an easy frag for a conditional medic. "tank - Frag for medic/sapper/sniper". This is nonsense.

No one but an engineer should destroy an entire tank on their own

Also want adequate criticism of such a suggestion or additions to what's already written.

I also realize that this may take away some of the fun of blowing up everything on any class. I am not in favor of such balance edits where "something is taken away". Also, I'm not a tank pilot, but I feel sorry for those guys on top of the mountains, they miss out on all the fun.

As I see it this method can do 2 things at once. Help the technique and add uniqueness to classes.

[vital portal]

I remember someone suggest adding a new explosive that does close to no damage to vehicles but it can still break down walls. Remove c4 from all classes except engineer and maybe assault and replace with that wall breaking explosive.

Sumthing like this

[boreal cypress]

Looks like one solution to the problem.

[primal flint]

Add or move some props so that more practical props cannot be equipped with C4 at the same time

[lapis current]

Well, same way there is a reason why everyone takes C4. Tank drivers can clear everyone on the point in seconds. Sure, take away C4s but nerf tanks as well.

[real glacier]

possibly also reduce the number of rpgs a player can carry. i would also think the damage models need to be looked at. the lav takes 80 percent damage if hit from the rear and i agree it should be a lot but maybe not 80 percent. with the number of players and the number of rockets they can carry its just too easy for a few engies to hide and wait for a lav/tank to pass by

i although think the greatest way you can get tanks/lavs out of deployment is have it so they can refill their ammo and repair at any player supply drop instead of having to go all the way back to homebase. also would be nice if i could see friendly supply drops on the damn map!

[boreal cypress]

If they can be replenished anywhere, then there's no point in having ammunition at all.

[boreal cypress]

What? A tank on a point won't last 10 seconds, everyone will hit it. Unless the point is near a base, then it can stand on the edge of the zone and fart from there. As soon as the car goes beyond the safe perimeter, anyone can throw 3 c4 on it and blow it up. Especially on point. When me or my co-commanders hear a tank or LAV, our eyes light up and we run to blow it up because there's probably 100% free points and frags. Technics at least something of themselves on the same Eduardovo, but, there are guys who with their c4 just mined the exits from the base and that's it. The team is left without equipment and do it stormtroopers, medics, snipers.

[lapis current]

10 seconds? Everyone fighting it would be dead already.. Nobody wants to fight a tank without a C4, as a normal weapon doesn't do any damage, it is a suicide. Mines you can blow alone.

[boreal cypress]

That's the thing, everyone has a C4.

[lapis current]

Yes, I mean, I would be ok with reducing amount of C4s, if it won't make tanks too overpowered, without a counter.

[boreal cypress]

Engineers will remain on the map and it will be just as much of an incentive to take more engineers to fight tech.

[vital portal]

A single engineer with anti tank grenades can quickly destroy a tank up to 50m...

[boreal cypress]

Engineers will still be very strong specifically against heavy machinery

And now it can be done by anyone and very easily. That it can be done easily by an engineer is a different question and a different topic. Right now, tanks are just disintegrating into atoms. Tanks and LAVs are like an 18 year old schoolgirl with pigtails in a bar with bikers.

[vital portal]

i would even suggest to make tanks "tankier"... tanks die way too quickly in close range forcing most tanks to camp at long range and snipe all day. Tanks should be OP since there is only 2-3 tanks at a time per team

[boreal cypress]

I don't think they should be straight OP, but balancing c4 would give them more vitality but not make them death stars either

[vital portal]

or give tanks ERA that acts like a 1-time use armor against rockets.

[boreal cypress]

Which doesn't rule out my C4 option

[lapis current]

I don't think limiting classes which can destroy a tank is a good idea. Taking C4s is the only option to fight it in close range for most people, to have an ability to do that takes away a gadget slot.

[vital portal]

Engineer still exists... its sole role is destroying tanks... and spamming Heat rpgs at players... you can always hide from the tank or straight avoid it. Spot it for your team and you'll see a bunch of engineers beeline towards the tank.

Engineers have so many tools for that as well... AT mines, AT grenades and rpgs

[boreal cypress]

Classes that don't engineer and shouldn't fight tanks. They should be afraid of them. Fear them very much. It's a fucking tank! The average infantryman shouldn't be able to destroy a tank. He's an ordinary man with a machine gun, it's not his job to destroy tanks.

It's the same as if a medic could give himself ammunition. Or a sniper can heal himself endlessly. That's not their specialty

By the way yes, there still needs to be an RPG redesign. Because one charge for both vehicles and infantry is not cool.

After that there would be engineers who take charges against tanks, and someone against infantry. Or change them depending on the situation, which in any case gives tanks more chances and time to survive, to fulfill tasks

[vital portal]

Snipers could get an anti materiel rifle... for the APCs... but balancing it could be tricky

[boreal cypress]

Just make it do damage like the old AUG. 😅

If there's a lot of opposition to taking C4 away from the classes. I still have a solution.

Not to take away C4 completely. But to keep 2. With the possibility of taking 3-4, but with some heavy armor and a large backpack. You wanna boom, you're gonna be slow and clumsy.

But that's still exactly not the balance I originally proposed. I don't like it very much.

[lapis current]

It's not really fighting tanks, it's defending from them. You have no chance to fight a tank if you won't close the gap stealthy. There should be some balance to take out too offensive tanks and restricting C4s to just engineers + nerfing it will make tanks way too overpowered. Also, tanks should avoid very close combat on points btw.

[boreal cypress]

It won't make the tanks too powerful. Since the engineer is still capable of single-handedly demolishing a tank's cockpit in a couple of shots. The tank still has to fear the engineer. But not fucking everyone. I'll say it again. THERE SHOULD BE NO MEANS OF FIGHTING THE TANK FROM THOSE WHO SHOULD NOT FIGHT THE TANK!

This is the third time I've explained that the tank is just a toy now. No one is afraid of it because literally every mosquito can take down an elephant in a couple bites. A sniper can blow a tank the fuck up, what a game. A medic can blow up a tank. A tank should cause fear, it should be strong and scary. When a soldier sees a tank on the battlefield, his first thought should not be "oh, easy frag", but "fuck, we should run for cover and stay low, call the bomb squad".

[low veldt]

We need C4 launchers 🙂 like a trebuchet or something.

[boreal cypress]

Exactly, thanks to your post I remembered that there are also drones with mines against vehicles... the tank just doesn't stand a chance

[low veldt]

You're right! Give all classes drones! ...and trebuchets

[zenith snow]

This is bullshit in modern warfare real tanks also in big danger getting destroyed in uraban areas etc and this is normal. Tanks and other vehicles are useless in combat without infantry support in game and irl there’s nothing wrong with them standing behind because they support the infantry from afar
personally I had 50\0 and more standing far from battle in safe. And would it have been better if I had come closer and been destroyed? C4 used not only for dealing with vehicles its allow to destroy walls, kill big group of enemies and a lot of other ways. Taking С4 from all classes is stupid and won’t solve the problem because RPG, C4 drones and anti vehicle mines are still exist

[boreal cypress]

So you protect C4 and vulnerability of the tank by having an engineer in the game? And the fact that absolutely any player can cope with the tank you ignore and for you it's normal. Okay. Let's remove the engineer from the game and nothing will change at all. Tanks will live on the edge of the map just the same. What's the point then?

If you're defending fun, there was a suggestion above to replace c4 in non-core classes for destroying vehicles, with blast packs for demolishing walls, with small armor damage

Having explosives at all is what makes tanks stand in the asshole of the world and "enjoy" the parroting from the mountain

Because anyone in any class, upon hearing a tank, goes to blow it up. Read above. I'm already tired of explaining the same thing, and you ignore it with your text, as you ignore and defend incomprehensible things. Technics will be able to get closer, its gameplay will become more diverse, the technique will stop being afraid of everything. Only a cluster of players will be dangerous. As in real life (god I give examples of real life in the game about cubes), as well as a special class to destroy these very tanks

Right now, tech is just another sniper on the team. So get a sniper and don't fuck around. What's different about the gameplay? One or the other is sitting on a mountain, afraid to get close.

[lapis current]

As I said, I wouldn't say anybody can fight a tank - nobody stands a change until its very close, so until a tank driver goes to them. Atm only engineer can take a anti-vehicle RPG and try to shot it from the range, so I would say it's pretty fair now.
Imo tanks are very powerful now, but if a tank could just drive on the point alone and fight everyone that would be waaay too overpowered. Tanks should be scared in this scenario.

[placid vapor]

one question op, after removing c4s from basically everyone, what makes you think tank and btr players will go, oh hey no more c4s, yayy I can push up with the infantry into a dangerous warzone with prolly multiple well coordinated engineers at the frontline that can blow me up into pieces instead of doing the same or even more damage by sitting by a hill where I can see everyone and I'm comfy and cozy

well one stupid idea I have is to increase objective capture speed and capture bonus while in a tank/btr

inciting the need of gaining from pushing

along with ur idea of well. just reduce c4 number

[foggy gazelle]

Well, not a op but, the good players will definitely start pushing, you just eliminated the most broken counter to vehicles, leaving RPG's and AV nades, things you can counter/work against, while C4 is instakill that doesn't even need LoS. Pushing gets you closer to enemy, that gets you more kills, making pushing more viable means you have more kills, which is good incentive for majority. Of course, some players will still be sniping, and even the good ones will be forced to do so by how the game plays in that specific moment, but pushing will be more viable, and because of that more popular

[foggy gazelle]

To what number? You need to have 0 c4 to not be able to one shot IFV'S. 1 c4 deasl 60 dmg, duble of that in the rear, and placing c4 on a vehicle is very easy, especially in more urban maps

[placid vapor]

there's IFV's? the lav and btr are APCs. built for self defence, not for fighting. which brings me, the APCs should be spawned along with the infantry in some modes in the front

[placid vapor]

after abit of thought, ye it should be restricted to engineers and assault, and the c4 count should be 2.

it won't destroy a vehicle but it can still destroy walls which is what it's supposed to do

[foggy gazelle]

Man, both BTR 82 and LAV 25 are IFV in game and irl by thier design, capability, and intended use

You don't put 30 mm auto fucking cannon on glorified taxi

[foggy gazelle]

2 c4 would still destroy a vehicle, up to a tank I think

[median edge]

LAV is an APC, BTR-80 is an IFV.

[median edge]

2 c4 would hardly destroy a humvee, the hell you on about?

[foggy gazelle]

Yes, true, BTR 80

We have btr 82

[median edge]

you understand the 82 is a variant of the 80 right

[foggy gazelle]

Which is a modernisation of 80, to a IFV standard

[foggy gazelle]

A modernised one, made into a IFV

[median edge]

actually no

both are APCs

by design and how they are used

[foggy gazelle]

2 C4 can destroy a tank in the rear

[median edge]

irl or in game

[foggy gazelle]

Lmao no

[foggy gazelle]

In game

[median edge]

then also no.

[foggy gazelle]

Just go and try

[median edge]

I have, it is more than that.

[median edge]

both are literally named as APCs.

[foggy gazelle]

Where?

[median edge]

by the people who make them

and the countries that use them

[foggy gazelle]

Proof

[placid vapor]

idw to be a downer here, only place I can find the identification of the lav is on war thunder and some place called military today, both saying it's an apc

[foggy gazelle]

War thunder

Military today

[placid vapor]

and for the btr, it says it's an apc in wikipedia

💀

[foggy gazelle]

I would trust Wikipedia more

[foggy gazelle]

For which version?

80? 82? 82A?

[median edge]

they are literally the same thing, but it has more armor and a bigger engine

literallty nothing else changes besides internal systems between those variants

[foggy gazelle]

For LAV 25, wikipedia says its recon vehicle, polish one categorizes it the same as BMP1

[placid vapor]

it's an APC the variants is just an upgraded versions

[median edge]

its a recon APC. that's what its INF compartment is.

[foggy gazelle]

Yes, because version 82 was up armored, got spall liner and 30mm cannon, to make it as a light IFV , because BTR90 program failed

[foggy gazelle]

?

[median edge]

no difference

[placid vapor]

okay Bois, let's be honest here both vehicles are IFV's and APCs

[median edge]

LAV does not have the armor for it

[placid vapor]

they do both jobs well

[foggy gazelle]

Same turret, different hull

[median edge]

neither does btr-82a

[foggy gazelle]

Differen role

[median edge]

hull is the same except for the floor

[placid vapor]

both are APCs and IFV's there done boom

[foggy gazelle]

It doesn't need to, IFV aren't tanks

[median edge]

LAV can't take .50 cal to anywhere but the front

its not an IFV

[foggy gazelle]

Stryker IFV is just a stryker with 30mm hull, same gun

[median edge]

BTR is much the same

[placid vapor]

Bradley when so we can differentiate lfv and apc

[foggy gazelle]

Last time I checked taking .50 to the front wasn't only requirement to be a IFV

[median edge]

its a primary one bud

[foggy gazelle]

According to who?

[median edge]

you cant even take small arms fire, you ain't an IFV

the US marines

the US army

[placid vapor]

uh oh war thunder like discussion I'm out

[foggy gazelle]

Amd if so, then BTR 82 is a IFV, because it can take .50 to the front

[foggy gazelle]

1. .50 isn't small arms
2. Lav 25 can easily stop 7.62

[median edge]

if you read correctly both can, and both cannot take .50 to the sides or rear.

[median edge]

.50 is very much small arms

[foggy gazelle]

Anti material

[median edge]

also, just ftr, russian 30mm is worse than the 25mm the LAV has

[median edge]

that is not mutually exclusive to small arms

[foggy gazelle]

True, like most older IFV's

[median edge]

most older IFVs can infact take up to .50 cal.

[placid vapor]

.50 cal is quite borderline the definition of small arms, anything above that is big bois

[foggy gazelle]

Man, the fact that both have ~30mm cannons, and work close in with infantry, supporting them after thiey dismount is a big argument FOR them being IFV's

APC are taxis, they drive back after dumping the load

Those two vehicles stay

[median edge]

LAV has a 25mm believe it or not, its not like its named LAV-25 or anything

[median edge]

LAV very much is behind the heavy vehicles and stays there.

but it does not push up with the infantry.

[foggy gazelle]

That's why I used ' ~ '

[foggy gazelle]

Only thing heavier than LAV 25 is AAV7

[median edge]

anyway, both are classified as APCs by the military

[foggy gazelle]

Even if that's true, BBR is a game, not irl

[median edge]

oh then why bring up IRL?

[foggy gazelle]

And in BBR they are IFV to the fullest

[median edge]

got to change tactics because your argument is stupid?

[foggy gazelle]

As a part of discussion, but it doesn't brught us to a consensus

So now we can discuss in game things

[median edge]

alright

neither are IFVs

they do not have the survivability to do that job

and their gun sucks

so they can't even support from afar really

[foggy gazelle]

They have firepower to do that job, and survivability is a balancing thing it seems

[median edge]

they really don't have the firepower

[foggy gazelle]

Brb 20 min

[median edge]

if their gun was accurate but shit, sure

or hit hard and inaccurate, also sure

but it doesn't hit hard, splash is all but useless, its inaccurate as fuck, and the shells have slow as fuck velocity

tanks have very, very limited ammo, its survivability is a joke.

[foggy gazelle]

You are basing your argument on "it's bad at it's job, therefore it isn't IFV"
By that logic, tank isn't a tank, and Gunboat isn't a gunboat. But they are what they are, and no one is disputing that, discussion is only about LAV's.
So, both BTR and LAV 25 have autocannons, they can engege every target, armour, inf, airctaft and light vehicles alike. They are better against some than against others.
They can ignore ALL small arms fire, .50 cal included.
They are able to transpot infantry, like APC and IFV should be, but no one uses them as such, they are at best glorified rally point.
They are bad at thier job, definitely, but they are still capable of doing that. Akd thier job is supporting infantry by fire and transporting it.
They are IFV'S, but because of questionable game design choices they are bad IFV'S. That doesn't make them APC'S

[vestal trout]

Buffing vehicle durability isn't going to do anything to prevent people from using tanks and IFVs as sniper rifles, the people who do that are either "vehicle mains" who will do anything to avoid risk because they want to stay in a vehicle for the entire round or they're trying to pad their k/d and will do anything to avoid risk because they want to go 150-0. Unless you completely eliminate the risk of death then no amount of buffs will make them behave any differently. Planetside 2 potentially let you chain spawn MBTs and some of them even had abilities that made them immortal for 60 or so seconds and there were people who still used them incredibly passively to just snipe infantry from across the map

[median edge]

they can't ignore most ground fire, sure it would take a long ass time to kill it, but if it just sits there it does get damaged pretty easily. as for everything else, you have no idea what the difference inbetween IFVs and APCs are do you? IFVs carry less people and can push with the infantry, APCs carry more people and stay behind the infantry usually with more support like an actual IFV.

[median edge]

the durability doesn't need to change, what needs to change is how much damage a single soldier can do to them.

[vestal trout]

It won't do anything lol

[foggy gazelle]

So, saying that tells me you didn't played vehicles much, and have very bad pov.
Second, it will do a lot, because you get more kills playing point than sniping. A LOT more.
Third, this game doesn't allow for long LoS, with the exeption of few old map, 300m is a streatch.
You can't go 150-0 unless enemy team is literally feeding you kills. Those game are more rare than 250+ games on inf

[vestal trout]

ah the all time classic "i'll definitely stop" from the people who have done it in every gmae

[foggy gazelle]

They can ignore small arms fire. Last time I checked, canons and RPG'S arent small arms.
And you don't seem to grasp the diference. IFV is basically APC with simmilar or better armour, but with greater firepower and diferent doctrinal use. APC is a armoured taxi, supposed to go in drop off troops and drive back, with MG for self defence, while IFV are usually equiped with autocannons and some missles, but that's optional, yet popular, they are supposed to work with infantry and heavier armour alike.

[foggy gazelle]

I alredy do that. Like, I play the point whenever I can. If I am spawnlocked i will 'snipe'. If I see juicy target 200m away, I will 'snipe'. I do what is best atm.

You would be lucky to fing me camping

Tho you can try

[median edge]

considering my 249 can deal damage to the "IFV"(its a fucking apc by design, role and designation numbnuts), it cannot ignore small arms fire. also APCs can have autocannons too bud, IFVs don't need to have one either. APCs also don't just "drive back" they stay and still provide fire support, but not nearly as much as an IFV. like where do you think the infantry is going to go when the jobs done? walk back?

[foggy gazelle]

We are talking about in game version right?

M249 can't do shit to IFV's

[median edge]

it ticks damage, enough that a few supports laying into it can deal quite a bit of damage. not so much as HEAT or other explosives, but its possible.

[foggy gazelle]

No, no, no

That's totally wrong

M249 does have H vehicle dmg, only L one

[median edge]

still ticks damage, don't know what to tell you bud

[foggy gazelle]

It cannot

Show vid

[runic stream]

As soon as you start introducing nerfs to the issue, people are going to have a problem. Better to just make the c4 either do less damage, or to make the tanks stronger in other ways. Chopping things from classes should be looked as a last ditched effort to balancing.

[foggy gazelle]

No class other than engineer should be a deadly threat to AFV

There is 127 enemy players, everyone runs C4, having 127 hard counters make something that's a power multiplier barely usefull

Just look how much AFV's dies in few minutes after respawning, inclusing driving it to fight

We are 6 months post release, with somewhat stable playerbase, you can't dismiss that as lack of skill

[runic stream]

You're not going to get away removing a gadget from a class "Just because" medics have it.

[foggy gazelle]

Oh, not remove, replace it with something much more resonable than C4 which is OP

Breaching charge idea floats around here for a long time

You get all the utility, exept vehicle damage

You leave that for specialised class

[runic stream]

Im not even going bother, this is some cope

[foggy gazelle]

Well, elaborate nontheless, especially when you call it 'cope'

Why 'cope' exactly?

[runic stream]

This is some thrown together lazy way to go about balancing out the problems. Your solution is to remove things from the game, or nerf them.

Nerfing alone in game balance has to be very strictly looked at, much more than buffs do. Its always better to buff things over nerfing others. Your implications just sounds like you're upset medics have c4 more than having tanks/lav/btr be looked at.

C4 is not over powered. This is not an opinion.

[foggy gazelle]

Well, you need to interprete things more carefully then. I didn't even mentioned medics

[foggy gazelle]

This is definitely a opinion, good sir, and wrong to that

[runic stream]

My applogies i though you were OP.

Regardless. Im not here to debate on absurd topics. Its not worth my time. Tanks and BTR/LAV should start with buffs before anything.

[foggy gazelle]

You are stating that gadget which is

1. Avalible to everyone
2. Deals better dmg to inf than RPG.
3. Deals on par dmg to vehicles than HEAT
4. Has sizable radious
5. Can be thrown 15 away, sticks to surfaces, magnetises in 3m range
6. Everyone can has enough of it to at least kill a tank and BTR, or 24 people, on paper.
   Isn't OP?

That's a wierd take but ok

[runic stream]

Just so we're clear, my comment was directed exactly at medics and c4, and you replied to it.

[foggy gazelle]

No amount of buffs will make vehicles able to function in environment full of players with C4, without making them obnoxious to play against.

[runic stream]

Im not turning this into a why you think c4 is OP or not. Not even going to reply to any of that.

[foggy gazelle]

Running away from discussion, I see

Ok, you do you

[runic stream]

lmao, im not running away from anything. I dont bother with people trying to change things off emotions. Its not worth the time of day, sorry.

[foggy gazelle]

Where did my argument started off 'emotions'

You are doing a lot of assumptions here

[runic stream]

Starting off, giving the BTR LAV and TANKS could be given 3rd person. That way their reactions and awareness would be much better.

[foggy gazelle]

I see your point, and that would hepl, but I feel like it would increase your awerness, not ability to react.
C4 can still be thrown accuratly outside of your LoS.
And you still can be swarmed.
Not to mention lack of coax in LAV's, and very slow turret rotation in both AFV's, vehicles spot visible through smoke, or, most importantly, sheer amount of players running around with C4

[runic stream]

We could investigate vehicles being 'fully destroyed' after its disabled 3 times. In which disabling would mean taking it from 100% life to 0. Where as a engineer could come in and repair it to working order again. Maybe with a drawback of not full hp. This would mean if the it was disabled, it could throw its occupants out for revives, then they can repair it and continue on again. This would incentivize teamwork, because the vehicle can be repaired after 'Fully destroyed'

Adding more repair stations on flags would be a great feature as well, which can be destroyed, and repaired.

[foggy gazelle]

Even with all that buffs, C4 would still dominate on any AFV, due to sheer amount of players(things scale) and map design. Just look at Tensa Town, or Frugis.

[foggy gazelle]

That seems like overcomplicating things for the sake of it. It's basically Squad mechanic

[foggy gazelle]

That's true, can't disagree

[runic stream]

gives more things to do rather than click heads. There is some merit to it.

Moving up with tanks and defending it is a pretty decent way to flush out players, and capture points. This could incentivize people to give some more love to the frontline playstyle for vehicles.

[foggy gazelle]

Yes, for hardcore gamemode. Imllementing mission kills, which your proposed mechanic is, is very much out of scope of this game complexty atm.

[runic stream]

I dont see it being overall too complex, its just repairing a 'dead' vehicle until its 'alive' again.

[foggy gazelle]

By requiring them to babysit destroyed vehicles to protect them from capture or further destruction without any meaningful incentive?

[lapis current]

I still don't see why you even want to buff a tank or nerf C4s. Tanks are already very powerful, but driving them into enemy 'base' should never be the case - it should be destroyed in seconds.
Also, buffing a tank WON'T resolve an issue with tanks sniping - it will just give tank drivers another option - they can just drive closer, take kills in much less time and get blown. Sniping will still be possible and done - actually some nerf for that is needed, like accuracy nerf to resolve it.
I don't know why you want to make tanks that strong, so any player driving it, even carelessly, can do a lot before get blown.

[foggy gazelle]

No, tanks are not powerful. Majority dies in 5 min, those who don't need to sit far away, scared of anything. They extremely rarely are in top 5 by kills, outperformed by inf on daily basis. Doesn't sounds like OP.

[runic stream]

Another thing, which i think vehicles should have is just overall more explosive protection from fronts and sides. Destroying means having to dump your entire c4 to the backside, and backside only.

[foggy gazelle]

And saying that buffing them don't resolves problem with tank sniping, is literally wrong, they snipe only because they are incapable of doing anything else, without being sucisidal. Even LAV's can allow themselfs for more aggresive gameplay than tanks, while being much more squishy and vulnerable

[runic stream]

we could go with the 'shell' method where the strongest armor of the the vehicle are on the front and sides, and if they're damaged enough, then finally exposes the tank from taking some real damage.

bf4's my fav for tank gameplay. Could have a 'skill' ability to give tanks .5s of invulnerability on a long cooldown.

[rain wagon]

Maybe tank drivers are just bad?

[foggy gazelle]

BF4 aps is controversial idea

[rain wagon]

I have seen a few conq tank games that got 130+ kills with only a few deaths

surefour used to do them on waki when he still played

and he was not sniping

[foggy gazelle]

After 6 months after release, that's long time, and stable playerbase, when you meet the same people in lobbies everyday, I doubt that. People would learn and get better, but AFV's dies very fast since playtests

[lapis current]

That is good, it's not WoT, I don't want see tank drivers always in top 5 kills without any death - you forgot to add its ZERO risk atm.

[rain wagon]

Then why are there some tank players that do well without sniping?

[foggy gazelle]

Few, right, for every game because either conq or inv, 'a few' is small amount, especially when tanks are super hard to get because everyone uses them

[foggy gazelle]

Because sometimes you get better games, and sometimes you are top 0.1%. Doesn't change the fact that majority does terrible

Even if they try a lot

Very high skill floor, because of unbalanced gameplay

[lapis current]

Regarding 5 minutes - how long a tank should stay then? 5 minutes is the time a sniper can stay alive, if you go for kills

[rain wagon]

'a few' is not because tanks arent powerful, its because I don't play much conquest (and when i do im not paying attention to how well a tank player is), I dont spectate tank players, and there arent any tank driver streamers that I know of.

[foggy gazelle]

ZERO risk? LMAO. You are loosing tank for 6 minutes, and get 1 death. Its MUCH MORE risk than daying as inf

[lapis current]

but it looks to be working very well, that's why it will still be a case, unless tanks will the that OP that it would be a waste of time sniping

[foggy gazelle]

Yeah, not playing conq, have stong opinion about conq specific thing

[foggy gazelle]

Given its a power multiplier it should stay as long as you can keep it alive. You can do math of how many lives tank is worht by looking at respawn times, but that's not really accurate. Problem is that power multiplauer doesn't multiply the team power very much

[lapis current]

ok then how do you see tanks? because staying with them for 10 minutes is waaay to OP in this game

[rain wagon]

I've played enough conq to have an opinion on this.

I just havent played enough conq to find good tank players

[foggy gazelle]

So, you should stay alive less than 10 minutes, and then wait 6 minutes for respawn, right, LMAO

[rain wagon]

even though I know for a fact they exist because i have found atleast one

[lapis current]

well, gamemodes are a different issue - on 127v127 nobody cares about winning, people go for kills + you can switch a side any time

[foggy gazelle]

I play only conq/inv. I have seen two in past month

[rain wagon]

Cool

So why do they need a buff?

[foggy gazelle]

Because they are underwhelming in thier role as power multiplier and doesn't offer enjoyable expirience, especially compared to this game competition

But at this poitn they need more of a rework than buffs imo

[lapis current]

no enjoyable experience? tanks are taken in seconds after spawn

[rain wagon]

I think its a good thing that only very skilled people can be effective tank drivers.

considering how annoying they can be if they're overtuned

[foggy gazelle]

Yes. Yet thier gameplay lacks depth, balance and definitely is less fun than that of BF2--> 2042 (BF1 excluded, i didn't played it), PS2 and Squad. I will omit WW3 because it's dead

[foggy gazelle]

That's true. But subjective. Tho vehicles can be fun and serv as power multipliers without being ' overtuned'. Many BF games have achive that. (Aircraft excluded)

[foggy gazelle]

That's gatekeeps a game feature form majority of players. You seriously need to have previous expirience in other games to do well with them

Unless you are willing to leanr the ropes in BBR for a month or two

[lapis current]

well, agree that for less experienced players, tank driving won't be a long experience 😛
although there is no matchmaking and they can face very experienced enemies, they have no chances anyway

[foggy gazelle]

Amd it's very hard to learn too. Especially whem you want to snipe as less as possible. It took me 2k kills in playtest to get a hang of LAV's gameplay, with previous expirience.

The vehicle gameplay in this game is just wierd, unintuitive, and not well balanced

[earnest yarrow]

RON’s C5，Can only be used to break through doors

[sharp flicker]

a player getting close enough to a tank let alone having enough time to get 4-6 c4 on the tank is just fault on the drivers part

dont go near buildings and your fine

[foggy gazelle]

Right. No. It's too easy to do that, to put the blane 100% on tank driver

No 3rd camera, fucked up sound inside a tank, fuck tone of cover for inf, and 13m of range for C4

[sharp flicker]

oh cool yea its a tank, but game balance if your in a tank you are still a lot harder to kill than infantry

[foggy gazelle]

They still die to fast for a tank

[sharp flicker]

They still respawn with little to no detriment

[foggy gazelle]

After 6 fucking minutes

Not 5 seconds

[sharp flicker]

usualy several of them

[foggy gazelle]

There is no comparison

[sharp flicker]

ive been in sqauds full of engineers holding points close to spawn after we kill a tank there would be another one in the next 30 seconds

no comparison totaly

[foggy gazelle]

Tank have 6m respawn

The fact that 2 or 3 spawned at the same time is lottery

[sharp flicker]

entire round consistantly

[earnest shore]

Perhaps he is one of those people who call the APC a tank

[foggy gazelle]

You must be on some not official server

Tank respawn takes 6 min, IFV 4 min

[earnest shore]

You are sure? I always thought it was longer. Something like 10 minutes. Maybe my feelings are lying to me

[sharp flicker]

was before community servers

[foggy gazelle]

Yeah, no, Vilaskis posted some time ago on reddit

[foggy gazelle]

Idk man, jeeps must be tanks

[sharp flicker]

bro you dont have the texture pack that makes any vehicle a tank?????????????????

[foggy gazelle]

No I don't

I have maid skin tho

[sharp flicker]

xd

bro i know the solution to the tank problem

make them be able to fly

no one will be able to throw c4 high enough

[earnest yarrow]

gunship

doe

[foggy gazelle]

Unironicly, yes.

[tiny carbon]

And, if the tank have some kind of armor that reduces the amount of damage taken by explosives depending of the type of explosive?, C4 does damage only to the armor, and RPG Tandem penetrates the armor and does full damage (22 in the front 44 in the back/sides)

[placid vapor]

wait a minute you may actually be unto smth

[tiny carbon]

IDK

:c

[vestal forum]

This idea is actually good i kinda fuck with but first they need to fix how c4 works in general its got alot of issues

Hits not registering, throwing multiple at once, its decides to fly, and i mean literally fly ive seen my c4 goes in a straight line no arc, in random directions or the closest surface that magnet effect on c4 is broken

[tiny carbon]

Yeah, C4 is very wacky, sometimes one-shots the enemy, sometimes one-shot yourself, most of the time C4 fucks the tanks

[tiny carbon]

C4 needs a sound clue when it sticks in a surface

And an arming sound like a beep

[vestal forum]

Really? Guess that would explain all the inconsistencies

Oh im thinking of something else

[tiny carbon]

What?

Lemme see

C:

[vestal forum]

I thought you were explaining something about c4 but were making a suggestion lmao

Anyways a sound clue for c4 could be a nice touch but the overall mechanics of it need a good polish and cleanup to work more consistently

[tiny carbon]

Yeah

C4 needs a more consistent damage area

[vestal forum]

I think, i could be wrong but i heard this from a friend, that c4 explosion works by sending out a bunch of rays like shrapnel essentially and each one does damage so the closer u are the more that can hit but this might be the inconsistency of not getting hits when the c4 is on their face cause the rays are random. I think c4 should have like a sphere of damage but the further from the center the less damage

[tiny carbon]

Sorry if my eng grammar is weird

[vestal forum]

Nah your all good who cares about proper eng grammar

[low veldt]

Holy shit. Stop with what's it's like in IRL. It doesn't fucking matter, jesus christ. If that's your goal start by asking Oki to make any bullet to the face a one shot. Not just one shot, no resing: realism.

[foggy gazelle]

What the fuck are you talking about?

[low veldt]

"Yes, because version 82 was up armored, got spall liner and 30mm cannon, to make it as a light IFV , because BTR90 program failed"

"it's an APC the variants is just an upgraded versions"

Just randomly skimming

[foggy gazelle]

Man, we were just discussing

If you don't like it, don't read it

Otherwise shut up

[low veldt]

I could literally say the same thing...

Imagine the irony here.

[foggy gazelle]

Not really, you were ranting abuot "realism", and that "It doesn't fucking matter"

I would like to remind you that BBR will have Milsim mode

So discussion about reaslism is very much in place

[low veldt]

If you don't like, don't read it.
Otherwise shut up.

Irony

[rain wagon]

If youre making suggestions and giving feedback its reasonable to expect someone who disagrees with you to also give their feedback.

If there is no pushback against stupid ideas Oki is gonna think the stupid ideas are popular and implement them.

[foggy gazelle]

Oh, that was not feedback. He was simply buthurt that we brought realism into the conversation, and was an ass about it, so I responded in kind.

If that was feedback, or resonable response, I would be talking like with you rn

[low veldt]

https://tenor.com/view/the-irony-irony-ironic-gif-6233732

BTW nice pivot of we're talking about hardcore lol. I didn't see anyone talking about hardcore. The OP didnt mention hardcore. You guys are just in fantasy land with your head up your asses smelling each other's farts. You are extremely delusional.
If you don't like, don't read it.
Otherwise shut up.

[median edge]

considering his entire thing was "I dont like this and why the fuck are you talking about irl" that's not exactly feedback.

[low veldt]

Reality check maybe?

[median edge]

not feedback buck. go troll somewhere else

[low veldt]

https://tenor.com/view/no-bugs-bunny-nope-gif-4095597578532971838

You're really bad at definitions, like troll and exploit.

[median edge]

maybe you should actually add some feedback, instead of just being an ass.

[low veldt]

Feedback to what exactly? Oh, this LAV isn't exact on a fucking pixelated game? Just stop dude.

Just end this whole convo. It's all dumb, all of it. Bet you guys won't tho, prove me wrong.

[median edge]

man you read 3 sentences and decided to be an idiot

anyway, if you can't be bothered to actually read the conversation, don't comment on it.

[low veldt]

Yep, I thought so, couldnt help yourself. You guys enjoy your realism talk where it'll not get implemented, later.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
Otherwise shut up.

[median edge]

"oh I said something stupid, but I win if someone says something"

stop acting like a kindergartener.

[rain wagon]

Pot meets kettle

[median edge]

considering I have never said anything like that, you must be speaking of yourself.

[rain wagon]

You say idiotic stuff all the time what are you talking about.

[dry ravine]

https://tenor.com/view/holy-fuck-dude-eric-cartman-south-park-s14e3-medicinal-fried-chicken-gif-22899960

[median edge]

sure buddy, just because I call out your trolling attempts and failures.

anyway, mods are gonna lock this channel down too if you start this again.

[rain wagon]

Thats a risk im willing to take

would you like me to find you examples of you saying stupid things?

[dry ravine]

**Tank drawn sleigh, with lav buffs in tow ~ ! **

[gilded dawn]

Idk, decimal put it pretty well. If I'm not afraid to run up to a tank like at all, game prolly went wrong somewhere

[dry ravine]

Tanks and helis aren't scary anymore.

[hardy vessel]

idk man. they can flatten an entire capture point with relative ease.

[dry ravine]

How many hours do you have?

[hardy vessel]

Enough to see it happen. Moreso on the smaller maps where the capture point is a single building, but still.

[dry ravine]

You avoided the question, and you've got a greef leaf next to your name.. there is no still..

I've got 723h, not including play test.

[rain wagon]

I am afraid to run up to a tank in this game. Just not when its already within 10 meters from me with no infrantry around it to protect it.

[winter plume]

Somehow I feel like tanks and LAVs aren't going to stop camping just because c4 got nerfed or removed from certain classes

[gilded dawn]

Any piece of solid cover like a large building means I'm obi wan and they're Anakin

The moment they drive into the jungle gym they're alr dead

If a tank is actually out in he open with high visibility, they're also usually not near an obj

So realistically they're actually pretty balanced,just not for a situation that fits the game

[rain wagon]

They can do plenty of work on the objective if they actually stay behind their team

[gilded dawn]

It's the same vibe as recons, they're arguably balanced now, but balanced in a way that makes them kinda boring since you don't have mobility and are pretty visible, meaning you want to be far from the action

Like, the 7mm humvee is strong, but fun?

[hardy vessel]

I'm just saying I've seen it happen. I didnt expect you to reflect your insecurities

[gilded dawn]

I'm down for tanks to be like videogame tanks instead of realistic tanks, meaning you can chip away at them and kill them, but they're a constant presence in your face that you can choose to ignore at your own risk

Especially in an arcade game

(since that's what I think we've kinda id'd as right?

[gilded dawn]

This sounds like gameplay out of an actual milsim

[rain wagon]

Ok?

[gilded dawn]

The take im putting out here is not if a tank can be successful, but moreso does the gameplay fit the flow of everything else

I don't think it does

[rain wagon]

I dont think tank gameplay has to feel the same as other parts of the game

Since tanks can be so powerful it makes sense that there would only be a few effective tank players

[dry ravine]

The game is so infantry heavy the vehicle play just so fast to death, it's really boring to play on any other map but old_oildunes to get the real casual feel of the tanks, and the maps with boats and helis tend to be 'walking simulators for infranty' because no one has the sense to not spawn on a team-mate.

[gilded dawn]

As others have put it if I wanted to play war thunder I'll play warthunder

The 50cal humvees are probably the best "this feels fun and fits the game"

Could still be better but theyre the closest

[rain wagon]

I dont think the solution to that is to only give certain classes the ability to defend themselves against them.

[dry ravine]

Why not? If there's less people able to take them out and the chance of more none-camping plays being made..

[gilded dawn]

It's part of it, and removal is a bandaid

[rain wagon]

Because if I'm playing medic I dont want there to be nothing I can due to punish an out of position tank.

Other than just dying to it

[gilded dawn]

Then new gadget? Idk

[median edge]

that is how it is always done.

[dry ravine]

Smokes, hiding

[gilded dawn]

C4 as a punish is harsh as fuck tho

[dry ravine]

I don't know man.

[median edge]

this and 2042 are like the two games where anyone and everyone can challenge a tank and win

[rain wagon]

How do either of those things punish an out of position tank?

[dry ravine]

You're a medic what do you care?

[median edge]

if you are a medic its not your job to punish an out of position tank

[rain wagon]

What do tanks do?

Do you know what they shoot?

They shoot bullets and explosives that kill you

[median edge]

yeah, you are not alone fighting a dude in a tank.

[gilded dawn]

A dissuasion like AT grenades would still be better even as a compromise

[rain wagon]

obviously I want to be able to defend myself against that

[gilded dawn]

C4 specifically is too harsh

[dry ravine]

Yeah, but you should just avoid tanks if you're not and anti-tank person?

lol

[median edge]

smokes. not going to where tanks are? they aren't exactly subtle

if you want to punish a tank play engy

[rain wagon]

Why? I can just c4 the tank.

[median edge]

and thats not a good thing

[gilded dawn]

But that's the

That's like the issue

[dry ravine]

not when they eventually replace medics c4 with something like a breach charge? lol.

[median edge]

my mans be wanting a medic, to be AT.

if you want AT, or tanks are really that much of a problem, play Engy.

[rain wagon]

Why should I be forced to switch to smokes and or rely on my stupid teammates to allow for bad tank drivers to play the game?

[dry ravine]

Why not?

[rain wagon]

You can already do very well with tanks. You just have to not be stupid

[median edge]

because you are a class that is not meant to fight tanks

[rain wagon]

Because I dont want to use smokes or rely on my team

[gilded dawn]

That's like asking why you should play snipers to fight snipers

[dry ravine]

Lol. Why say that?

[median edge]

that's on you then.

[rain wagon]

No thats like asking why you should be forced to play snipers to fight snipers

[rain wagon]

Because I like playing solo??

[dry ravine]

[median edge]

so to bring up your argument, "Why should we care that you make yourself to play a certain way because you don't like the alternative?"

[dry ravine]

Solo medic, solo medic.

[gilded dawn]

Give players Light AT grenades ig

But C4 is an instant kill

[rain wagon]

Do you guys think it will feel GOOD or BAD to play against something with 0 counterplay?

[gilded dawn]

Most games counters aren't that bad

[gilded dawn]

A literal "battlefield did it" moment

[rain wagon]

Bacause thats what youre advocating for when you want to take away medic’s ability to destroy tanks

[median edge]

my man has never played battlefield in his life

[rain wagon]

I dont know what this means

[median edge]

you had Engy and support with very short range c4. that's it.

people didn't care because the classes did what they were supposed to do.

[foggy gazelle]

Depends on what you mean by camping. Because they will be killing you from 100m away after C4 nerf, but that's what vehicles are meant to do, They won't be getting their kills by road kills

[gilded dawn]

No battlefield game has medics that can even hurt a tank, let alone get a free C4 kill

Not to mention you get a max of 3 if you do run c4

[rain wagon]

c4 is not an instant kill. I’ve probably died more times with like 2 or 3 c4 attached to a tank than I have blown up a tank with c4

[foggy gazelle]

'0 counter play'?, assuming those exist: HEAT, Tandem, AV grenades, AP mine drones, other vehicles, please elaborate about 'zero counter play'

[rain wagon]

Isnt a huge complaint in battlefield about vehicles?

[median edge]

you misunderstand

[gilded dawn]

Kinda a skill issue since you only need 2 for a guaranteed kill on a tank

[median edge]

he wants to do everything

[median edge]

no lol. in fact the opposite once 2042 came out.

[foggy gazelle]

Oh, I get it

[rain wagon]

Medic has 0 of those things bud.

[foggy gazelle]

Then switch to engi, it costs you nothing

[gilded dawn]

Tanks? First I'd hear of it. Usually it's attack helicopters on servers that ban anti air

Which is a very specific case that we alr saw with littlebirds

[foggy gazelle]

Dedicated AT class, can't get better than that

[earnest shore]

Let's just remove all the vehicles and not say that we are a battlefield type. Will solve all problems🤔

[foggy gazelle]

Only complains about vehicles in BF were Attack/Scout helis, especially on Siedge of Sanghai.

[gilded dawn]

You could, id be unimpressed with the game but you could

[foggy gazelle]

Domination, frontline, Rush, elimination exist

[earnest shore]

I wouldn't even buy it if it didn't have vehicles

[gilded dawn]

Some people are unironic about that tho

Whatever the case, it's reasonable to want vehicle play be more Frontline friendly instead of considering being near an objective as bad placement

If you really want to be a long range menace then the 7mm does the job perfectly fine

[earnest shore]

Do you know what else makes the tank stand still? Fucking shaking of the second shooter while driving. That's just terrible

[gilded dawn]

Oh yeah

Turret stabilization shouldn't even be an option

It should unironically be default on any turret

Realism be damned that shit is nauseating

[earnest shore]

When I try to play the tank aggressively. The shooter simply cannot do anything and most often leaves the tank because he is bored

And maybe he even starts to feel sick

[rain wagon]

I dont consider that to be bad positioning. To get tanks to work you just have to either be very far away from enemies or not be on your own near enemies.

I dont think a tank needing to stay near its team is too milsimy

[gilded dawn]

I posted the clip of soloing a tank and 3 guys right?

It's not that hard

[rain wagon]

What?

[gilded dawn]

Suicide rushing a tankeven in a group isn't that hard

Doable on any map given any terrain advantage

[rain wagon]

3 people?

[gilded dawn]

It goes both ways

You're saying tanks should rely on an arguably dogshit team or be on the other side of the map

The tank, being on a 6 minute respawn timer is definitely supposed to be the one that gets to solo

Just bc it's a higher cost

Not to mention C4 doing more damage than an RPG bc funny

So the medic, the class that has no business fucking around with a tank, has advantage as a solo player vs the dedicated anti tank

And the counter is to stay away from medics over half the lobby or depend on teamates that we've already seen are rarely going to do much against a good player

[rain wagon]

I wouldnt be against buffing tandems

[gilded dawn]

I was talking about heat

[rain wagon]

Stay with your entire team, not a group of 4 people

A single player can pretty easily wipe a squad of 4, from there they can just solo the tank

although if youre a tank driver and you dont see that your squad is being killed thats more of a you problem

[gilded dawn]

This is just gonna be one of those things where youll have to try running a tank on obj

Cuz all it takes is one rat

[rain wagon]

I wish I could find the video of surefour going 180 and like 5 in a tank

[median edge]

so?

you're arguement is "one person can do good in tank, so lets make sure every class and every person on the enemy team has a way to kill him". there are very few maps where that will happen. very few game modes. using an exception to push your arguement is not a valid excuse for all of the classes being able to solo a tank.

[gilded dawn]

Unless we make tanks as frequent as jeeps

Then it's like sure whatever

[late bison]

With balancing, i would like to offer, to give some or more power to the Second or third seats you got in the vehicles

Tanks **second **seat is the "Commander"? i guess with Thermal sight and marking options. its ok but feels really not good and the points for marking/spotting someone is not satisfying

Tanks Third seat is a Machine gun with okay Dmg and okay accuracy but whenever the tanks moves, shots or gets shot, you cant hit anything and the ammunation is quite low on that part too.

[lapis current]

Even if C4s were taken from other classes, tank still should avoid going alone, it will just reduce chance its punished for that move. It should work together with some infrantry group in tight places - I thing it should go this way, promoting this kind of tank support, not some random nerfs for anti tank plays.

[median edge]

you forget how easy it is to just respawn in 10 seconds as a dedicated AT man with a tandem.

[late bison]

For APC´s/LAV´s quite good capacity to get a whole squad (and one more) into the Battlefield, tho is rarely used for this and just shots people with the 240 shots it got.

Its quite a thread and can do damage to the enemy vehicles and Soldiers.

My addition to this vehicle would be the first 2 or 4 seats get guns, could be like 20/24 dmg waepons, who have already a really narrow sight but helps the vehicle to be more effective to be driven into the battle to use the seats it got as a "transport"

[median edge]

making classes stick to what the class is supposed to do is great, because now you can balance the tank much better. you cannot balance around quantity without limiting spawns with it, which nobody wants.

[median edge]

BF3 apc mgs in passenger seats?

[late bison]

or make a "driver" and several gunner to be driven in Teams to be effectiv and incentivise teamplay

[late bison]

never did vehicles in BF3 (more a Footsoldier guy) but yeah and i was thinking about BF P4F APC that had this

[median edge]

that wouldn't change much really, a single dude would just drive out to his spot, and switch, like people do with the Humvee/tiger. though I wouldn't say no to it.

[late bison]

mhhh, without the driver having ALL the power it would change quite a bit i´d say but also would be get some really negative feedback

i would like to see a good balance in the Vehicles and the options to destroy it

but without the Arsenal other battlefield type games have, that is hard to pull off

(things like Rockets on Helicopter and Jets and Tracer with guided missles and MAW´s? MOW? the missle with a wire you can control)

[median edge]

TOW

turrets are always on option, buildable or not. more AT will be coming. maybe tanks could get counter measures and Reactive armor to help with survivability. course, even with lack or arsenal, the things deal so much damage as well as knock the vehicles around that it doesn't matter that we only have the RPG.

[foggy gazelle]

Do it, you will die. Your team doesn't care about you. Your team will fight for the E point when you are spawnlocked on A point. For like 5 minutes. People that use this argument didn't played armour, or didn't played it enough to realise that in reality BBR players lack computing power to even think that repairing a damaged friendly tank may be a good idea.

[foggy gazelle]

So you are saying that because top 0.5% is capable of occasionally going 180, because as far as I know that's either WR or close contender, we should balance a game in such a way when everyone one else has obnoxious expirience, and can't stay alive more than 5 minutes , to allow everyone being able to easily one shot a tank, no matter if his class is specialised or should even be able to do so.

[tiny totem]

I only think that we better wait for the hardcore/misilm mode to make the modifications we want to our liking xd

[foggy gazelle]

180 is not 'good in a tank'
180 puts you in contest for WR.
Highest we ever seen in BBR discord is around 180, and made on Waki bridge.

[foggy gazelle]

Oh, and if he went 180-5, that means he didn't played tank all the time, so there is some other gameplay sprinkled in

[tiny totem]

Don't think about it, you have to rebalance the classes so that some have what the other needs (for that, a class system was added in the first place) but of course the majority of players are going to make excuses for it not to be that way.

I mean, they hope that the class system is maintained, but at the same time they want all classes to be equal... who understands them?

[foggy gazelle]

No, one, most players don't understand eachother or themslefs

The fact is C4 is too prominent and good of a tool, not only against vehicles, but against everything else and because of that it needs changes

[tiny totem]

That's why I say xd, the vehicles will at some point have to be reworked to add customization (Oki himself has said it) but from there to balance the vehicles since the problem is the classes? It's just reorganizing the classes and that's it, nothing more, don't give the matter any more thought.

Stop the stupidity of percentages, that it does more damage, less, than dispersion, it's just reorganizing the classes so that each one has what the other doesn't have, basically creating synergy in this game, don't give the matter any more thought.

That they don't want to do it? Well then, let them continue playing the base game as they want while we wait for the hardcore mode or the Misilm mode to launch this idea and that's it.

But it already seems stupid to have to balance other things instead of focusing on solving the main problem, which is reorganizing the game's classes.

If the C4 is a good destruction device and everything, but just because the Medic doesn't have it doesn't mean the fucking end of the world, if you are there to revive allies, don't throw C4 around destroying buildings, that's what the assault is for

[sharp flicker]

get rid of zoom on tanks/lav/btr, nerf accuracy make the turrot turn quicker

what else could be something that makes them more effective closer and less effective far range in their spawn

possibly nerf c4 but buff engineer ads speed and storage idk why it doesnt get ranger or more than 6 tandom rounds at most

its like you may as well just run c4 and be able to move with some speed after tanks than just shooting them

[boreal cypress]

it sounds like fighting the effect of the problem, not the cause.

[sharp flicker]

wdym effect?

cause is that tanks are more effective in their spawn than in the battlefield

also resuplying at captured points could be good instead of constantly needing to head back to spawn

[vital portal]

or have an engineer build a resupply station?

[foggy gazelle]

You basically nerf the only way tanks and IFV'S can work rn now, but fail to provide any buffs to compensate.

Not only that, you also take away from them something that at this point can be considered their identity against other arcade FPS vehicles implementation. Ability to perform on range.

[tiny totem]

And we return to the same thing... as I tell you, if you do not reorganize the classes as I mentioned before, it is better not to do anything and wait for the Hardcore Mode/Misilm mode, the only thing you have to do is that, reorganize the classes and that's it, don't start with Stupid percentages, buffs, nerfs, etc., it's just that

[foggy gazelle]

Reorganising classes will not work as well as straight up rebalancing of all vehicle and AV side of the game

Amd waiting for Hardcore is basically ignoring ardace players

[tiny totem]

The same arcade players have said that they want to keep the same gameplay, or at least a majority, so if at least the majority want that, well, but then don't complain.

And Oki himself has said that for the same reason that arcade players want to keep their gameplay the same, he is going to do what he wanted to do at first with Battlebit in Hardcore mode, and I repeat, the majority of arcade players wanted this

So hey, he's not ignoring arcade players, he's just listening to what the majority asked for.

[median edge]

I find it funny that battlefields tried and true method of seperating the classes per role is now seen as "Milsim/hardcore". fucking hilarious.

[tiny totem]

That's what the class system is based on, organizing so that each one has something that the other needs and creating synergy, but apparently they want all the classes to be equal to each other

[tiny totem]

And brother check dm!

[sharp flicker]

did i not say to make the turret turn quicker the amount of times ive watched a tank die because it didnt turn around fast enough

[foggy gazelle]

I did say you fail to provide buffs to compensate. Faster turret rotaction is not worth being forced to play closer to enemies

[sharp flicker]

im sorry but game balance making tanks only stick to the way they cannot conceivably die isn't very fun

[median edge]

whats even less fun is taking that away, getting nothing in return but now you can only kill up close

[boreal cypress]

That's literally why I created this thread. I was just running around the field and "oh, freebies". Boom and ran on, and I'm not even in a class that should be able to destroy tech that easily. I even threw more than I needed to destroy it, and I had more left in my pocket

[foggy gazelle]

Sems right for something crated mostly to look good in the trailers and check the box on "bf/squad style game" list.

I have feeling that devs don't really intended for vehicles to be playable, not to mention good or fun

[winter plume]

bro is just chilling on the hill

[foggy gazelle]

Kind of only thing to do on sandy

[hexed elk]

I agree that tanks need to be less easy to instantly destroy, but I think all classes should have some way of getting through walls, since that’s really important in normal gameplay. This could mean keeping c4 for utility but making it kill tanks slower, or just giving other classes a way to get through walls to replace it, like the sledgehammer or something.

[boreal cypress]

I don't think everyone has to punch through. Assault? Yes, absolutely. That's his direct duty. Engineer? Indirectly, but yes. Medic? What the fuck? He's a medic with bandages and diarrhea pills, why the fuck is he demolishing buildings? Same logic for support and sniper.

[median edge]

wall breaching tools should be hammers and picks, and a small breaching charge with very little damage even when blown up right on someone. only because the game is paced enough that not being able to do that is a massive disadvantage.

[earnest moat]

Agree, hammer/pickaxe vs walls, c4 all classes is OP, 5 items is OP too, vs tanks/apcs

Its not OP in BF because of slower movement speed of soldiers, and no nerfs for sensitivity in vehicles like in APC. Also APC has no movement inertia in BF.

[foggy gazelle]

BF also has much less people, less C4 per player, its harder to use because slower animation speed and much shorter range. And it sticks, not magnetises

Same in PS2, much more limited in mechanics, power, and avalibity

Only BBR devs decided to give everyone enough C4 to singlehandedly fuck up multiple vehicles or take down buldings. And they doesn't seem to care about that, because that mostly affects vehicles. And it would nerf medic/assault meta, and we cannot have that

[boreal cypress]

Exactly. We have too many people on the map. And everyone's carrying a ton of explosives. I described this above in the main post. There are separate discussions about medic balance, I think this topic is not about medic and his balance. Stormtrooper will not be affected at all. I'm not suggesting to deprive him of c4. He will still be able to blow up 2 walls to get through. Or blow up the bars on the windows and the fence, but he won't be able to equally destroy a tank

On the topic of medic balance, I won't deny that the class is handy, also because of its versatility with c4, and with the latest patch the meta has shifted to stormtrooper. But I believe that the medic, if anything, should be balanced with edits that are geared towards the medic. For example, instant ally lifting, or even faster bandaging and so on, again there are separate threads about medic. The balance of c4 only touches him very indirectly

[quick laurel]

This is a bad solution imo. It’s a major nerf to everything but engineer, but will hit support and medic super hard for no real reason.

Why not just weaken C4 against tanks? It is not just an anti tank weapon, it is used mainly for movement and fighting at close quarters.

[foggy gazelle]

I mean, yes. Only engineer should be competent against heavy armour assets. Especially when this class easily makes 20% of lobby

They can literally one shot/two shot armoured vehicles, with ease and ammo left.

[sharp flicker]

only arguement i have against tank/lav buffs is vehicles being overbearing when 90% of the players in a round are infantry

[foggy gazelle]

They are FAAAAAAR from overbearing, and to make them such you would need to try make them OP. This argument doesn't hold any meaning when you compare BBR vehicles to any other game vehicles. Arw PS2 vehicles overbearing? No. They do thier job. Are BF4 vehicles overbearing? No. Generally not, with the exception of helis on servses with no AA.

[sharp flicker]

i ment becoming overbearing

[foggy gazelle]

Yes. They will not simply become such when buffed

They suck so much that literally dubling thier HP would be resonable buff, which I find extremely wierd and somewhat funny

[boreal cypress]

I don't see the solution to the problem in just buffing the HP of vehicles. Well, you will need not 3 c4, but 5 c4, which even now in the pocket of literally everyone and anyone seeing the technique, just make a boom and run further on their business. Meeting an infantryman is more dangerous than iron junk with a cannon.
(or just two infantrymen will quickly discount and all, or if the tank needs, for example, 8-10 charges of rpg - it even sounds ridiculous and only cancel the problem, making the technique unkillable for the same 1st engineer, who should be able to do it).

Globally I formulate the problem as "tech is weak because it maps to too many people who don't see it as a threat and who destroy it too easily" Too many and too easily. These are the two theses that I think need to be addressed. With quantity. The number of players, understandably, we don't touch. But we can make it so that NOT EVERYONE can destroy the tank.

[foggy gazelle]

Well, of course it would not solve it. It was just a example of how far you can go with buffs and still have relatively balancex vehicles.

[boreal cypress]

it can also indirectly solve the problem (it's already my personal dislike of such a thing) that at the end of the round there are no buildings left on the map at all. I personally don't like that.

[median edge]

alot needs to change. c4, RPGs mostly because of sheer quantity(and tandem), the damage profile of said vehicles, having strange hitboxes. this was solved by making most players not really have a way to deal with armor, with assault having a GL, Engy/recon having c4, and Engy with his launchers. launchers and C4 in bf used to do basically the same damage taking 4 to kill a tank, 5 if they had ERA. I belive the APCs were 3-4. there needs to be armor mitigation rather than just "massive weakspot".

likely the hit box would need to be changed to allow for far more hit locations other than Main hull/side/rear engine(does the rear of the turret also count for the weakspot?) maybe bf1's vehicle style and internal repairs could change that up instead of rear hits doing massive damage it slows down the vehicle severely instead while only doing a 1.5x or 2x damage to it.

the True Hp damage of RPGs needs to come way down, and have multipliers attached to deal more damage based on the target hit, rather than a blast radius for the AT options.

[quick laurel]

If the C4 always attached to the rear of the vehicle that’s correct, but that would still be a pretty major nerf. Would still take longer to deploy and would require the player to have not already expended any C4

Tank drivers are generally aware when C4 is being thrown onto them, it’s not like any C4 = instant death

Can often run over or kill people while they’re attaching it

[boreal cypress]

the video above is an example of what happens 80-90% of the time. I threw in more than I needed

[boreal cypress]

that's how it is very often, maybe it won't be the same with the new sounds, we'll have to wait and see.

[foggy gazelle]

Yes, they are generally aware. But they lack counterplay, there is no counterplay, you can't do anything consistently.
No, C4 is instant desth, unless opponent is totally stupid and throws not enough of it.

[quick laurel]

You can hear footsteps very well since the sound changes

You can probably start driving away before they get any on you if you were really paying attention

[foggy gazelle]

You don't play AFV's much do you?

[foggy gazelle]

Yes. Somethimes. Definitely not in a loud ass Abrams. Definitely not in the middle of the fight.

[quick laurel]

Not much no

I am much more likely to use a tank than one, since they’re just a lot worse to the point I don’t find it worth it

[foggy gazelle]

AFV as if armoured fighting vehicles. A umbrella term for anything that has armour and big gun

So tanks included

[quick laurel]

I use tanks sometimes, usually do pretty well with them

On many maps the main reason I die in tanks is because the positions of friendlies and enemies change and I don’t react far enough in advance, so end up a bit surrounded

On a map like sandysunset for example that won’t really ever happen, instead it’ll usually be the terrain that makes it impossible to defend yourself from infantry

[tiny totem]

Well, this is solved by leaving the C4 to the engineer and assault and that's it haha, to the default classes that must destroy vehicles

Currently all classes can do almost everything

[grim glacier]

Can't read the full thread but just want to leave my 2 cents. Completely on board with the concept of limiting C4. My only change would be to also allow support to have C4. This would just take C4 away from medic and sniper, which are the 2 most common classes anyway.

I think these changes would improve the teamwork element of the game and allow tanks a bit more leeway when operating. If classes are more restricted (in logical ways), we'll hopefully see more / better communication and less players running around like its COD. Tanks / APCs will still likely be used as support vehicles at range (true for tanks in real life anyway), but at least the tank crew will now have the option to make a risky play and try pushing the objective.

[tiny totem]

Maybe give the support a type of infiltration C4, or give it to the Assault, that is, a C4 without explosive damage or a very diminished one, which is mainly for breaking walls and things like that, but well, if it is the simplest, there is no need to give so many turns to this, it's just starting to limit the C4 to certain classes, and so that they don't like the idea that I know they will appear, then what is the point of the game's class system if they are going to give all the freedoms to all the classes? Can you explain it to me please?

[tiny totem]

At the end of the day they look for arguments for arguments, exaggerated percentages and more to something as simple as this, that we know that toxic Tryhards players do not like the idea, they are going to hate this (just as they hate any idea that finally repairs or balances broken mechanics that they overexploit against the casual players that they defended so much before) but of course, it's just showing the class system

Now I warn you because my balls are full of listening to excuses from players, whoever comes to put a "but" to FINALLY put a fucking balance on the classes using the system as such, a class system, I will automatically take it as a player who has never touched a shooter with a class system in his life, and I'm going to skip arguing with him, thank you very much for your attention

[rain wagon]

Rest assured I wont be reading all that. What I do know is that they shouldnt remove c4 from any classes. If they want to make it less oppressive to vehicles the obvious way to do it is to just adjust its damage against vehicles.

[ivory terrace]

medic/recon/support don't need to be restricted, let them play how they want.
removing c4 from these classes won't do much because most people killing tanks with c4 are on assault (or will switch to assault when c4 is taken away from them)

how about nerfing c4 vehicle damage instead to require 7 to kill a tank and 4 to kill a btr? (or something like that idk damage #s)

tanks should be temporary. if some guy manages to sneak up on a tank and land 7 c4 onto the thing without it escaping then he deserves the kill. (maybe c4 throw rate needs a nerf too)

we also should allow tanks to resupply farther up instead of having to drive back to spawn. the resupply/repair mechanic directly motivates tanks to play close to spawn.

[boreal cypress]

That's part of the thought I wrote about. Just not to add strength to the vehicles, but to reduce the number of c4's on a stormtrooper. Down to 2 pieces. For example. If adding strength to vehicles, then how many rpg charges would be needed for an engineer.

And C4 in medic and sniper, that's just dumb. I'm sorry

[ivory terrace]

why is it dumb? its a fun piece of kit that gives more player flexibility.

[tiny totem]

So why does the class system exist if in the end you are going to give all the freedoms to all the classes?

[ivory terrace]

are all the classes the same right now? there are still significant differences between classes that c4 does not need to be a part of.

can someone explain to me the actual reason why c4 shouldn't be a part of medic or support?

[tiny totem]

Explain the differences to me?

[boreal cypress]

Opportunity? Yes. But then I don't understand why there's a "classes" category. Just let there be a soldier and you hang the modules you need on him. So it would be more logical and everyone would collect a soldier himself. And when there are "classes" and they can almost everything, then the point is in them.

[rain wagon]

Its one single gadget?

How does everyone having it nullify every other difference between the classes that exists right now?

[ivory terrace]

sure, we could do that
but the way the game is right now is fine. there are differences but there are also similarities if you want to play a certain way

having specific class labels is at least beneficial for identifying what your squadmates are generally good at

[tiny totem]

And then you see a doctor fulfilling his role as a doctor, for example, or the Recon doing his recon work? Well of course not haha, if you give all kinds of freedoms to the classes in devices you will make the synergy not exist, because they will almost never need something from the other player and we return to where we started with the question, then why? Was the class system added?

[rain wagon]

"I think that we should remove grenades from medic because it doesnt fit their class"
"Thats stupid"
"OH YEAH?? Then what's the point of having classes???"

[tiny totem]

And again the toxic tryhards changing everything written at will.... pathetic

[tiny totem]

Boy, if you're going to run out of arguments, don't be ashamed, will you?

[rain wagon]

Why are you being mean to me?

[ivory terrace]

it doesnt have to be all unique or all the same, there can be a middle ground.

having classes is helpful to identify what people are good at in general.

that doesn't meant that classes have to be 100% different from each other. you can have some overlap because not all playstyles will fit into 4 categories.

[rain wagon]

Just engage with what im saying please

[tiny totem]

Please, don't play the victim here, don't embarrass others more than you are now, thank you 🙂

[rain wagon]

If you want to keep talking with me I urge you to engage with what I'm saying. Otherwise I will be liable to ignore everything you say to me.

Thank you.

[ivory terrace]

i think you are taking his joking interpretation way too seriously. try to understand his point instead of calling him pathetic

[rain wagon]

Some people have trouble with analogies

[tiny totem]

And we return to the same thing, why then introduce a class system? , but simply to introduce a system of free class creation like CoD where you can make one that completely suits your playing style

[boreal cypress]

A sniper with a bolt-action rifle is just as good at destroying vehicles as a medic, stormtrooper, support. Yeah, I already know that. They're very good, by the way.

[ivory terrace]

i don't think you understand what i said. having classes is helpful for general identification, but does not determine everything.

just because a class has c4 does not mean it is exactly the same as another class. there are still major differences.

[boreal cypress]

Crossing is a gun in your hand. What's not to like about intersectionality? Everyone is equally good at destroying their own kind. You don't need anything else.

[ivory terrace]

they aren't though. engis have rpgs, while all other classes have to run up and get close to vehicles to kill it.

[ivory terrace]

assault has passive speed buffs, medic has medkit and faster rez, support has exo and ammo box, recon has recon gadgets. obviously there are also gun type differences

[boreal cypress]

The problem isn't that everyone has a limited radius. It's that the technique is an easy target. As soon as it is heard or seen, a swarm of mosquitoes fly at it (me included) to make an easy boom. So the tech sits on the mountain and plays sniper.

[tiny totem]

And apparently you don't either, for my part, if you make a class system, for example with a class called "doctor" because it is a class that will have accessories related to it, so that you can fulfill your role, but at the same time have different devices to fulfill it, not to make types of mixed classes as they currently do in the game, like a doctor-assault, which games have you played with the role system?

[ivory terrace]

i know that role systems are very specific in other games. it doesn't have to apply here.

if we have a class called "doctor" because it is a class that will have accessories related to it, sure. but what if someone wants to be a doctor-assault and do both things (but be slightly worse at both)? why can't they play this way?

[rain wagon]

there's no class called doctor-assault, so you shouldnt be able to play that way.

[ivory terrace]

would reducing c4 vehicle damage not solve this issue? sneaking up and spending time putting a bunch of c4 on a tank is by no means easy either.

i'm also saying that c4 isn't the main reason tanks play so far back. part of it is that resupply/repair is annoying.

[grim glacier]

Sorry, I didn't see this for a bit. I agree that C4 should be curtailed to less classes. One of the main advantages of BBIT over other shooters is that the game encourages teamwork and a sense of comradery with your squad. I think restricting equipment would help accentuate that positive of the game. Unfortunately, I see too many people that run around like a modern FPS and think they can do it all themselves. You can't do it all, and you're supposed to rely on your squadmates for some things.

That being said, I think that Engineer, Assault, and Support should still have C4. Maybe Assault and Support would have access to less than the Engineer. Either way, just that small change should have a significant impact on gameplay. This is coming from a Medic who struggles with a LAV addiction.

[tiny totem]

Exactly brother and it's just that, and as I've been repeating, so why the class system?

[grim glacier]

Sorry, not sure what you mean by the class system.

[tiny totem]

Sorry, I'm referring to those who make excuses about not taking the c4 from the other classes, so why make a role system/class system if in the end everyone is going to have almost the same things as the other class? For that you create a system of free creation of classes like CoD

[grim glacier]

Ah, gotcha, and I'm 90-100% in agreement with you. If you don't want class restrictions, play another game like CoD or whatever else is popular these days. BBIT certainly isn't my game, I don't feel entitled to anything, and the community has certainly broadened out since I joined it. But, I will say that this game really shines when it differentiates itself from the mainstream. The best part of the game is holding a building until it collapses with a bunch of wackos and using the VOIP to yell in pain begging for a heal, scream in terror at the tank coming, call out a coordinate or even just small talk. I would prefer the game stick to what gave it such an appeal and try to reject the modern culture of "I am the Master Chief of my team. I will play sniper, C4 a LAV, then no scope a noob."

Sorry for the rant but in short I agree classes should be restrictive. I guess the reason in short for having it is I've always understood it to be a team-based game.

[tiny totem]

Well don't worry haha, we are the same in that opinion of not being the "master chief" of the game, that's why I liked games like Battlefield or Squad, where you are just another soldier, and it is shown that unity is strength

[grim glacier]

Amen. I'm 26 years old. I grew up playing the O.G. Star Wars Battlefront where you picked one of 5-6 classes and you got what you got. I would say that the whole culture shifted around 2015, but especially after Twitch streaming and pro-gaming blew up. BBIT to me was somewhat of a simplistic return to the old ways. If the game wants to continue thriving, I would recommend they stick to what makes them different rather than emulating the other FPS games on the market.

[tiny totem]

Well yes, since Battlefield went to hell with Battlefield 2042, it left a very big gap in the arcade tactical shooters, there are tactical shooters, yes, but these are Misilm, and those that try to be arcade like Battlefield do not prosper, I hope they with Battlebit know how to redirect this

[grim glacier]

Have never played Milsim but am considering it. I personally like the mix between Milsim and Casual that BBIT has to offer. Even though the graphics gradually burn out my eye sockets, it somehow keeps me deeply immersed.

[grim glacier]

Anyway man it was a pleasure. Gotta call it for the night (on New York time here). Good luck with your proposal. Keep up the good fight.

[tiny totem]

Thanks bro, have a good night

[foggy gazelle]

Seems like you do not understand how it works, which doesn't suprise me at all.
Lowering dmg doesn't change anything except requiring one or tww bricks of C4 more. That adds second or two max to the use. This doesn't fix anything.
Unless you lower the damage enough to make it impossible to destroy vehicles with C4 there will he no change, because it would still be very easy to pull of given lack of any real, consistent and intentional counterplay.
The only way to fix the problem C4 creates, is to decrease the amount of individuals that can engege with vehicles that are on the map.
That requires removign current C4 from them, and of course providing a alternative like breaching charge, or removing AT damage, which removes effectivnes against vehicles which is bad idea.

[rain wagon]

The counter play is to be aware of your surroundings as a driver.

[fast harness]

1 or 2 c4 more could mean that you need atleast a second player to dmg the vehicle to destroy it which would be a huge buff

• the extra use time

[foggy gazelle]

Yeah. No.

Lmao

In theory yes. In other games yes

But in BBR only viable counterplay you can employ is keeping yourself as far from enemy as possible, and that promotes camping

Other games give you 3d spot, minimap, 3rd person camera, and that allows you to be aware enough to identify and react to the threat fast enough. Though you still can and will die to well executed C4 attempt

In BBR player movement speed is very high, speed of use C4 is also very high. There is fucktone of players and 90%+ of them run C4 because that's meta.
Game pace is also fast and everything happens fast and everywhere is chaos.

Saying 'just be aware of your surrounding' is ignorant statement, at best

Especially when you try to not camp 300m away and play more actively, and your teamamtes are silent because that's EU

[foggy gazelle]

No it wont. You need 3 c4 to destroy a tank. 2 to destroy a LAV, 1 in the rear

Increase in bricks required won't solve the problem of 100 enemies running around with it

The damage is not a problem in this case. Avaliblility, accesibility and proliferation is

[fast harness]

no it won't decrease the amount but you are no longer able to blow it up alone if you don't hit the weak spots

[foggy gazelle]

Sure. People will complain that they can't destroy vehicles they get a jump on while having C4

[fast harness]

ppl gonna complain anyway

[foggy gazelle]

Easiest and best way is simple to remove AT damage from classes that aren't supposed to have it

Why recon on medic should be able to fight tanks?

[fast harness]

just for the notes: I'm totally for a c4 breaching charge instead of normal c4 for everyone

[foggy gazelle]

Why Support should?

[foggy gazelle]

Me too. That's best option

[long flicker]

Madly agree

[tiny totem]

And this is what it said, create an infiltration C4, that you can destroy walls, things like that, but that it does no damage or that it does VERY low damage, and leave the C4 as such to those who should have it such as the assault or engineer

[tiny totem]

You hope that with just that I can counter 8 or more players who can quickly run to one's position... incredible

[tiny totem]

And it's no joke, I would like to see him be attentive in an LAV while every 5 minutes Usain Bolts appear behind him to install C4's

[tiny totem]

haha I asked them this same question yesterday, and they didn't even know how to answer, it's the truth, why then introduce a class/role system if in the end all classes are going to have almost the same freedoms?

[tiny totem]

We 3 agree, better that than continuing to leave a C4 explosive to destroy vehicles for classes not related to it

[foggy gazelle]

people that say "just pay attention/be aware of your surrounding" only show that they do not have expirience with this side of the game. There is a lot of happening, and you can't just look for anyone in 20m radious because he may or may not decide to c4 you.
It's not BF when you have proper tools to do so

[rain wagon]

So maybe you should look into that to buff vehicles instead of deteriorating the game for everyone else?

[foggy gazelle]

buffing vehicles to a point when c4 stops being a problem is terrible idea

[rain wagon]

I agree

[foggy gazelle]

It woule require making them mostly immune to what C4 player alredy have, making it redundant in that role

That's why limiting acces to AT c4 is better options

[tiny totem]

brother, they literally only look for excuses so that they don't take stock of broken mechanics to continue overexploiting them

[foggy gazelle]

Not everyone should have it, not every class needs it

[tiny totem]

And who else besides you and toxic players does class balancing hurt?

[rain wagon]

I mena it seems pretty simple to me, if tanks are weak, you buff tanks.

[rain wagon]

Youre the only one who's being toxic here buddy.

[tiny totem]

But answer me the question, friend, who does it hurt the most? If you want to use the C4 it would be as simple as taking the assault and that's it.

And it would make sense

[foggy gazelle]

true. but that invalidates C4 as a tool against vehicles, which shouldn't happen. It still should be a option and a threat, but not nearly as much as right now. So it necesitates C4 changes first and foremost

[tiny totem]

And that is what the role system is for, each role has its gadgets for different styles of games, but these styles of play are based on the role

If you want a tank destroyer you have assault or engineer

[rain wagon]

So you dont buff tanks too much??

I dont understand what the issue is

You can just give tanks the ability to look at their surroundings more and the problem is solved

For example one way ofo doing this is to remove the limit to how fast a tank can turn.

[foggy gazelle]

I think you still fail to see a reason why people want to nerf C4. so I will explain it to you in as simple terms as I can.
C4 is very good against vehicles.
There is a lot of players.
A lot of players runs C4
A lot of players are very good against vehicles.
You can't buff vehicles to compensate without making them obnoxious and OP.
You can make less players good against vehicles, keeping AT to engineer and one other class, while not impacting the rest that much.

The problem doesn't lies in the fact that vehicles are weak to C4. There should be. c4 Should be a threat. But C4 shouldn't be as prominent as it is rn. It shouldn't be nearly as common threat.

[rain wagon]

I understand completely, I just disagree

You can't buff vehicles to compensate without making them obnoxious and OP.
Why not atleast try before taking the most drastic action you can think of?

[foggy gazelle]

So, dubling tanks HP and quadrupling LAV's.
Minimap, 3rd person camera,

Are those on the table in your opinion?

Sure, increasing turret rotation speed is needed, and would hepl, but definelty not enough to even pretend it solves the issue.

BF games have 3rd person camera, minimap etc and C4 ing is still possible, but much rarer than in BBR

[median edge]

my man, tanks already have a shitton of HP. the problem is not how squishy the tank is, its how powerful C4 and RPGs are. So please stop being a bitch trying to keep his crutch alive.

[median edge]

3rd person, thermals, motion sensor, ERA. C4 and RPGs did the same damage, actually working secondary turret and so on. of course they also had better physics but that goes without saying. Proper Spotting was a thing as well, plus lots of things that also had thermals, motion sensors and the like.

[ivory terrace]

if you make it 8 or 9 for a tank it will require 2 people

tanks need motion sensors though if they're going to be locked to 1st person view

i know this is about solving the tank camping issue but tanks really should not be that strong. you will end up with another littlebird situation.
we should also focus on other things like resupply time rather than just blindly buffing tanks.

[foggy gazelle]

Ressuply time alone will not solve the issue. As long as you can die in 15 seconds, because 2 guys decided they want those 6.4k xp people will camp

The moment you get shot, you are either dead or much less probably, you will survive, and you are shot a lot while not camping

[ivory terrace]

i didn't say resupply time would solve the issue, but it would certainly help. i think reducing c4 and rpg damage to tanks would go a long way, but we have to be careful not to make tanks indestructable (when played by decent players)

[tiny carbon]

Tanks an LAVs needs armor plates

Like the infantry

[boreal cypress]

Damage pricks can create another ligic problem. What kind of RPG projectile is it or what kind of explosive is it that does almost nothing to the tank. Now 3-4 C4 per tank is basically logical. Explosives tear metal to shreds, that's the way it should be. (I can't say on the number of RPGs, as I haven't played on the engineer).

And if they have a small damage, it will feel like RPG like fireworks, and C4 is a bag of potatoes that you hit the tank with. Bullshit.

Other than limiting the amount of explosives on the entire map I don't see a solution to the problem. Well, or in a more highly specialized C4 for all classes, which will not damage vehicles, and everything else will be

[foggy gazelle]

Limiting all explosived is a way to go. Especially when that correlates with class identity. Engineer is AT guy. Not medic, recon, assault or support.

Same can be said about DMR's. Why other than recon classes havr them?

[boreal cypress]

Yeah. That's right.
I understand guys who want to blow things up and are locked horns over this change. I like it too (blowing things up and being versatile)! But there is a problem that needs to be addressed for our overall enjoyment of the game.

[ivory terrace]

tbh i dont think tanks are that significant in terms of "overall enjoyment of the game"