Weekly BF

Tanks crippled and limping after first hit

Comments

  • DigitalHype
    779 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It's sad. Was pretty clear to me from the beginning given how un-fun tanks and planes were that BF5 was intended as an infantry only game with novelty vehicles.

    You can't design them that badly but have had the intention of them being fun.  It made no sense and still doesn't unless you realise they never really cared for anything but making an infantry BR experience.
    Agreed. I've been saying since before release that this game was being built for something BR-like. I think the Grand Operations and "final stand" mode were part of the original vision that DICE had for this game. They were trying to capitalize on BR, and at the same time, somehow integrate it in the Conquest/BF experience. But they never quite figured it out. Market demands shifted, deadlines arrived, and they had an unfinished/unrealized mess. So we get the old BF experience tacked onto this hybrid Battlefield/Battle Royal machine. And, just never really came together.


  • ProAssassin2003
    3439 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    disposalist said:

    It's sad. Was pretty clear to me from the beginning given how un-fun tanks and planes were that BF5 was intended as an infantry only game with novelty vehicles.

    You can't design them that badly but have had the intention of them being fun.  It made no sense and still doesn't unless you realise they never really cared for anything but making an infantry BR experience.
    Agreed. I've been saying since before release that this game was being built for something BR-like. I think the Grand Operations and "final stand" mode were part of the original vision that DICE had for this game. They were trying to capitalize on BR, and at the same time, somehow integrate it in the Conquest/BF experience. But they never quite figured it out. Market demands shifted, deadlines arrived, and they had an unfinished/unrealized mess. So we get the old BF experience tacked onto this hybrid Battlefield/Battle Royal machine. And, just never really came together.



    This is exactly what happened.
  • StealthAria
    334 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    There haven't been any front-end changes that directly effect tanks, however some of the changes they made to other things have negatively impacted tanks.
    When they "nerfed" the PIAT, the exact changes they made actually made them better at disabling tanks, additionally it encouraged players to switch back to the panzerfaust which is better still at killing tanks.
    There have also been some back-end changes to hit detection and the like that have both altered the effectiveness of tank shells and made tanks more easily moved by explosives and their own recoil.
  • DukeSan27
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Whoever say Tiger is a monster, please find me a Tanker in top 100 who uses it.

    For serious Tanker's its a joke.
  • StealthAria
    334 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 11
    DukeSan27 said:
    Whoever say Tiger is a monster, please find me a Tanker in top 100 who uses it.

    For serious Tanker's its a joke.
    If you want to be effective at everything maybe, but it does do really well as a tank killer.  Throw HEAT on there and you can take out anything without a repair monkey in just 3 shots even if the only shot you have is front hull, plus the velocity and blast on the shells are better than the 75mm guns on the StuG and Pz.IV.
    The large size and slow speed of operation definitely makes it an easy target though.

    Still, I've gone on some decent rampages in the Tiger against infantry and multiple tanks.  No footage though, I'm on Xbox and can't get the recording feature to work beyond taking retro-active 30s clips. (Okay, maybe it wasn't that impressive forcing back a Churchill and a Valintine and getting 20+ kills on Aerodrome, I ultimately got killed by explosives spam trying to repair and rearm at the cliff by the big hanger like an idiot)
  • jroggs
    552 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    Whoever say Tiger is a monster, please find me a Tanker in top 100 who uses it.

    For serious Tanker's its a joke.
    What exactly is a "serious tanker?" Really good tankers? Or just the guys who menu-camp for tanks all match and refuse to ever play infantry, safeguarding their KDRs jealously with cowardly play at the expense of their team's chances of winning? I guess I'm probably not a "serious tanker" given my time played and performance using them, but as a casual noob tanker I can say that Tigers work just fine for me in terms of both long streaks and team support when I play smart.

    Are they the best when it comes to what elite level players want for raw score output? Maybe not since they're slower and carry less ammo as I've already mentioned, but I don't think that makes them a "joke" in the greater scheme of the game. For a truly elite player, I could see how a 38t or Staghound could be better in skill-rewarding. But for the other 99% of players, heavy tanks have assets that compensate for less-developed skillsets.
  • DukeSan27
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    Whoever say Tiger is a monster, please find me a Tanker in top 100 who uses it.

    For serious Tanker's its a joke.
    What exactly is a "serious tanker?" Really good tankers? Or just the guys who menu-camp for tanks all match and refuse to ever play infantry, safeguarding their KDRs jealously with cowardly play at the expense of their team's chances of winning? I guess I'm probably not a "serious tanker" given my time played and performance using them, but as a casual noob tanker I can say that Tigers work just fine for me in terms of both long streaks and team support when I play smart.

    Are they the best when it comes to what elite level players want for raw score output? Maybe not since they're slower and carry less ammo as I've already mentioned, but I don't think that makes them a "joke" in the greater scheme of the game. For a truly elite player, I could see how a 38t or Staghound could be better in skill-rewarding. But for the other 99% of players, heavy tanks have assets that compensate for less-developed skillsets.
    Well, you decide what a "serious Tanker" is then. Don't the KDR salt run strong though. Everyone chooses to play they way they excel.
  • jroggs
    552 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    Well, you decide what a "serious Tanker" is then. Don't the KDR salt run strong though. Everyone chooses to play they way they excel.
    Your phrase, not mine.

    I've got nothing against good players, but yeah, I do have a problem with players who think KDR is all that matters and play selfishly in support of that idea. I saw an Aerodrome match recently where a tanker went 27-0. He placed on the middle of the scoreboard and his team got handily defeated because he did nothing but tanksnipe from the ridge near B and run all the way back into his team spawn anytime he took any damage. Even when our team controlled B, he never pushed into it himself. It's funny, because not only did he screw his team over by wasting one of their very limited tanks for the entire match, but he was also zero fun to play against because of the way he could abuse the map's boundaries to avoid any attempt to significantly shut him down. So the way that player "chose to play in the way he excelled" just made the game less enjoyable for 63 of the 64 players in that match. That's the kind of "serious tanking" that Battlefield can do without.
  • DukeSan27
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    Well, you decide what a "serious Tanker" is then. Don't the KDR salt run strong though. Everyone chooses to play they way they excel.
    Your phrase, not mine.

    I've got nothing against good players, but yeah, I do have a problem with players who think KDR is all that matters and play selfishly in support of that idea. I saw an Aerodrome match recently where a tanker went 27-0. He placed on the middle of the scoreboard and his team got handily defeated because he did nothing but tanksnipe from the ridge near B and run all the way back into his team spawn anytime he took any damage. Even when our team controlled B, he never pushed into it himself. It's funny, because not only did he screw his team over by wasting one of their very limited tanks for the entire match, but he was also zero fun to play against because of the way he could abuse the map's boundaries to avoid any attempt to significantly shut him down. So the way that player "chose to play in the way he excelled" just made the game less enjoyable for 63 of the 64 players in that match. That's the kind of "serious tanking" that Battlefield can do without.
    Yet, before this you gave it the definition of "menu-camp for tanks all match and refuse to ever play infantry, safeguarding their KDRs jealously with cowardly play at the expense of their team's chances of winning".

    To me, you seem far down the KDR etc road to make any reasonable arguments, hence I told you to define it yourself and be happy.

    If its otherwise, let me know, I'll make a serious discussion.
  • jroggs
    552 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    jroggs said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    Well, you decide what a "serious Tanker" is then. Don't the KDR salt run strong though. Everyone chooses to play they way they excel.
    Your phrase, not mine.

    I've got nothing against good players, but yeah, I do have a problem with players who think KDR is all that matters and play selfishly in support of that idea. I saw an Aerodrome match recently where a tanker went 27-0. He placed on the middle of the scoreboard and his team got handily defeated because he did nothing but tanksnipe from the ridge near B and run all the way back into his team spawn anytime he took any damage. Even when our team controlled B, he never pushed into it himself. It's funny, because not only did he screw his team over by wasting one of their very limited tanks for the entire match, but he was also zero fun to play against because of the way he could abuse the map's boundaries to avoid any attempt to significantly shut him down. So the way that player "chose to play in the way he excelled" just made the game less enjoyable for 63 of the 64 players in that match. That's the kind of "serious tanking" that Battlefield can do without.
    Yet, before this you gave it the definition of "menu-camp for tanks all match and refuse to ever play infantry, safeguarding their KDRs jealously with cowardly play at the expense of their team's chances of winning".

    To me, you seem far down the KDR etc road to make any reasonable arguments, hence I told you to define it yourself and be happy.

    If its otherwise, let me know, I'll make a serious discussion.
    No, what I said was "What exactly is a 'serious tanker?' Really good tankers? Or just... chances of winning?" Again, your phrase to define, not mine.

    Or don't. I made my point, whether you accept it or not.
  • MBT_Layzan
    1609 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Before I left I just could not get over how un-fun and frustrating the whole tanking experience was and I really tried to like it, regardless of doing well or not, it just sucked for me more than any BF game I played. It's also riddled with bugs and so many bad design choices, it's like they tried to tick a box for a fail in all criteria of tank game play. 
  • DukeSan27
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    jroggs said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    Well, you decide what a "serious Tanker" is then. Don't the KDR salt run strong though. Everyone chooses to play they way they excel.
    Your phrase, not mine.

    I've got nothing against good players, but yeah, I do have a problem with players who think KDR is all that matters and play selfishly in support of that idea. I saw an Aerodrome match recently where a tanker went 27-0. He placed on the middle of the scoreboard and his team got handily defeated because he did nothing but tanksnipe from the ridge near B and run all the way back into his team spawn anytime he took any damage. Even when our team controlled B, he never pushed into it himself. It's funny, because not only did he screw his team over by wasting one of their very limited tanks for the entire match, but he was also zero fun to play against because of the way he could abuse the map's boundaries to avoid any attempt to significantly shut him down. So the way that player "chose to play in the way he excelled" just made the game less enjoyable for 63 of the 64 players in that match. That's the kind of "serious tanking" that Battlefield can do without.
    Yet, before this you gave it the definition of "menu-camp for tanks all match and refuse to ever play infantry, safeguarding their KDRs jealously with cowardly play at the expense of their team's chances of winning".

    To me, you seem far down the KDR etc road to make any reasonable arguments, hence I told you to define it yourself and be happy.

    If its otherwise, let me know, I'll make a serious discussion.
    No, what I said was "What exactly is a 'serious tanker?' Really good tankers? Or just... chances of winning?" Again, your phrase to define, not mine.

    Or don't. I made my point, whether you accept it or not.
    I see, throw muck around and then claim "oh i was asking a question about throwing muck".
  • jroggs
    552 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    jroggs said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    jroggs said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    Well, you decide what a "serious Tanker" is then. Don't the KDR salt run strong though. Everyone chooses to play they way they excel.
    Your phrase, not mine.

    I've got nothing against good players, but yeah, I do have a problem with players who think KDR is all that matters and play selfishly in support of that idea. I saw an Aerodrome match recently where a tanker went 27-0. He placed on the middle of the scoreboard and his team got handily defeated because he did nothing but tanksnipe from the ridge near B and run all the way back into his team spawn anytime he took any damage. Even when our team controlled B, he never pushed into it himself. It's funny, because not only did he screw his team over by wasting one of their very limited tanks for the entire match, but he was also zero fun to play against because of the way he could abuse the map's boundaries to avoid any attempt to significantly shut him down. So the way that player "chose to play in the way he excelled" just made the game less enjoyable for 63 of the 64 players in that match. That's the kind of "serious tanking" that Battlefield can do without.
    Yet, before this you gave it the definition of "menu-camp for tanks all match and refuse to ever play infantry, safeguarding their KDRs jealously with cowardly play at the expense of their team's chances of winning".

    To me, you seem far down the KDR etc road to make any reasonable arguments, hence I told you to define it yourself and be happy.

    If its otherwise, let me know, I'll make a serious discussion.
    No, what I said was "What exactly is a 'serious tanker?' Really good tankers? Or just... chances of winning?" Again, your phrase to define, not mine.

    Or don't. I made my point, whether you accept it or not.
    I see, throw muck around and then claim "oh i was asking a question about throwing muck".
    Since you seem to have forgotten, you called me out. That's fine, but then you didn't go anywhere with it, you just got weird.
  • barnesalmighty2
    1555 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    One change I would like to see for tanks comes in the form of allowing supports able to fix broken tank parts. It gets annoying when trying to self repair but a support or two jump on me to help and I end up with 100 health and knackered tracks or turrets.

    This is about the only really needed change I can think of.
  • mf_shro0m
    1669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 14
    Well if you took a hit in the tracks you’d probably be in the plop in real life.

    I think also sometimes you are taking more than 1 hit. For instance I usually put my dynamite on before hitting you with my nade or PIAT.

    These threads make me lol as they often contain comments from ppl who scream for more ‘mersion, but they don’t like the reality of it when it effects a toy they wanna farm kills with.

    Systematic damage for tanks would be balanced if there was also systematic damage for humans. Like if a tiger shell explodes two feet away from you (no pun intended) then you’d lose a leg (or two, eehhhh) and have to crawl out of danger whilst bleeding out and if a medic doesn’t get to you within half a minute you die and even if they do there’s less than a 50% chance you’ll survive. All this assuming that the tiger hasn’t hit you with a second she’ll or splattered ya noggin with a good OL rifle round.
    Or if a tank hit you in the arm with his MG then you wouldn’t be able to use your PIATs anymore
    Post edited by mf_shro0m on
  • filthmcnasty
    500 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    One change I would like to see for tanks comes in the form of allowing supports able to fix broken tank parts. It gets annoying when trying to self repair but a support or two jump on me to help and I end up with 100 health and knackered tracks or turrets.

    This is about the only really needed change I can think of.

    I like that idea. Also make the Churchill's 95mm howitzer destroy buildings like..... all other tank rounds
  • Matty101yttam
    1050 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 14
    y_j_es_i said:
    Well if you took a hit in the tracks you’d probably be in the plop in real life.

    I think also sometimes you are taking more than 1 hit. For instance I usually put my dynamite on before hitting you with my nade or PIAT.

    These threads make me lol as they often contain comments from ppl who scream for more ‘mersion, but they don’t like the reality of it when it effects a toy they wanna farm kills with.

    Systematic damage for tanks would be balanced if there was also systematic damage for humans. Like if a tiger shell explodes two feet away from you (no pun intended) then you’d lose a leg (or two, eehhhh) and have to crawl out of danger whilst bleeding out and if a medic doesn’t get to you within half a minute you die and even if they do there’s less than a 50% chance you’ll survive. All this assuming that the tiger hasn’t hit you with a second she’ll or splattered ya noggin with a good OL rifle round.
    Or if a tank hit you in the arm with his MG then you wouldn’t be able to use your PIATs anymore
    That's pretty much exactly what happens, soldiers get downed...that's their disabled state, then they need medics to be revived/"repaired" if they aren't "repaired" they die.
    There's 2 thoughts of discussion on this matter, reality vs balance and both are clearly tank players viewing the situation with a bias that tanks should be gods of BF.
    If you were to discuss reality, then tanks reliability would be severely diminished...don't like disables? well machinery disables itself just from being used, it breaks down(usually at the worst times) and it doesn't need rockets for that.
    If you were to ask infantry whether they want a realistic tank, with realistic damage but also with all it's realistic faults they would prefer reality, i know i would just for the trade off from no 3rd person.
    Reality is also understanding that the reason tanks are as effective as they are is due to multi-crew teamwork, 

    (5:34 - 18:15)


    Tanks in bfv are however mostly manned by 1 person, so then if you instead talk about balance, then the tank needs to be balanced in accordance with only being manned by 1 person as well has being totally immune from the most common form of damage in the game...bullets.
    Also whether you love or hate it, DICE uses stats for balancing not public opinion so the stats must be showing they are balanced well enough.
  • jroggs
    552 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    One change I would like to see for tanks comes in the form of allowing supports able to fix broken tank parts. It gets annoying when trying to self repair but a support or two jump on me to help and I end up with 100 health and knackered tracks or turrets.

    This is about the only really needed change I can think of.

    If you've got a vehicle that's disabled but at 100 health, you can still run a repair cycle to fix the disable.
  • DukeSan27
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i said:
    Well if you took a hit in the tracks you’d probably be in the plop in real life.

    I think also sometimes you are taking more than 1 hit. For instance I usually put my dynamite on before hitting you with my nade or PIAT.

    These threads make me lol as they often contain comments from ppl who scream for more ‘mersion, but they don’t like the reality of it when it effects a toy they wanna farm kills with.

    Systematic damage for tanks would be balanced if there was also systematic damage for humans. Like if a tiger shell explodes two feet away from you (no pun intended) then you’d lose a leg (or two, eehhhh) and have to crawl out of danger whilst bleeding out and if a medic doesn’t get to you within half a minute you die and even if they do there’s less than a 50% chance you’ll survive. All this assuming that the tiger hasn’t hit you with a second she’ll or splattered ya noggin with a good OL rifle round.
    Or if a tank hit you in the arm with his MG then you wouldn’t be able to use your PIATs anymore
    That's pretty much exactly what happens, soldiers get downed...that's their disabled state, then they need medics to be revived/"repaired" if they aren't "repaired" they die.
    There's 2 thoughts of discussion on this matter, reality vs balance and both are clearly tank players viewing the situation with a bias that tanks should be gods of BF.
    If you were to discuss reality, then tanks reliability would be severely diminished...don't like disables? well machinery disables itself just from being used, it breaks down(usually at the worst times) and it doesn't need rockets for that.
    If you were to ask infantry whether they want a realistic tank, with realistic damage but also with all it's realistic faults they would prefer reality, i know i would just for the trade off from no 3rd person.
    Reality is also understanding that the reason tanks are as effective as they are is due to multi-crew teamwork, 

    (5:34 - 18:15)


    Tanks in bfv are however mostly manned by 1 person, so then if you instead talk about balance, then the tank needs to be balanced in accordance with only being manned by 1 person as well has being totally immune from the most common form of damage in the game...bullets.
    Also whether you love or hate it, DICE uses stats for balancing not public opinion so the stats must be showing they are balanced well enough.
    At the moment, I have very few issues with BFV Tanks, at least the medium Tanks I use. But some these arguments are not valid IMO.

    Regarding multi-man crew, it does not take team work to take down even a Heavy Tank, lone Rambo is enough. So a reverse team-work requirement does not really apply.

    3p view has been argued for long, whatever the pro and cons, its well known that driving in 1p view will make the tank get stuck on random obstacles and give the drive nausea. BFV already heavily penalizes 3p shooting, which is a good compromise.

    DICE did mention in last EA Play that a vehicle overhaul was coming. Maybe its delayed due to recent issues. So somethings are going to change. Lets see, I hope Heavy and Light Tanks get some work done to make them viable.

  • DukeSan27
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs said:
    One change I would like to see for tanks comes in the form of allowing supports able to fix broken tank parts. It gets annoying when trying to self repair but a support or two jump on me to help and I end up with 100 health and knackered tracks or turrets.

    This is about the only really needed change I can think of.

    If you've got a vehicle that's disabled but at 100 health, you can still run a repair cycle to fix the disable.
    The point is that at 100% health everything should be 100%.
Sign In or Register to comment.