Tanks crippled and limping after first hit

Comments

  • BogMogg
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BogMogg wrote: »
    While I don't enjoy tanks as much as I used to in BF4, where they were an asset of your team to be feared by the enemy and supported by your team. BFV tanks are not broken and can still be used in a way to do well for your team, albeit farther away from flags. 

    My only issue is that as infantry, tanks should be something to fear, it's an immersion type thing. Hiding from the tank while it rolls past, setting up an ambush praying it will work. 

    Also, some people on here who proclaim to be tank pros, are lying to themselves.

    Careful with the term immersion bro. Might unleash some crying from the legends around here.
    True, I fought some of these guys in BF4 ae they aren't special. 
  • barnesalmighty2
    1477 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    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.

    Never ever works for me even at a supply depot.
  • DukeSan27
    1154 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    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.

    Never ever works for me even at a supply depot.
    Chrchill Croc had an issue where disables could not be cleared, but I think it was fixed a patch or two back.

    Aside from that, if you have multiples disables (e.g. left track and engine) then you will need multiple internal repair cycles to fix them (one per disable).
  • barnesalmighty2
    1477 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 wrote: »
    barnesalmighty2 said:


    jroggs wrote: »


    barnesalmighty2 wrote: »
    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.



    Never ever works for me even at a supply depot.

    Chrchill Croc had an issue where disables could not be cleared, but I think it was fixed a patch or two back.

    Aside from that, if you have multiples disables (e.g. left track and engine) then you will need multiple internal repair cycles to fix them (one per disable).

    Again never works when I'm at 100% I can't even try to repair nothing happens.
  • jroggs
    293 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 wrote: »
    jroggs said:


    barnesalmighty2 wrote: »
    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%.

    On that we agree. In fact, external repairs should be better at fixing disables than interior repairs, not worse.
  • mf_shro0m
    1398 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    DukeSan27 wrote: »
    jroggs said:


    barnesalmighty2 wrote: »
    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%.

    On that we agree. In fact, external repairs should be better at fixing disables than interior repairs, not worse.

    Agreed
  • BadShotLarry
    46 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 wrote: »
    barnesalmighty2 said:


    jroggs wrote: »


    barnesalmighty2 wrote: »
    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.



    Never ever works for me even at a supply depot.

    Chrchill Croc had an issue where disables could not be cleared, but I think it was fixed a patch or two back.

    Aside from that, if you have multiples disables (e.g. left track and engine) then you will need multiple internal repair cycles to fix them (one per disable).

    Again never works when I'm at 100% I can't even try to repair nothing happens.
     Ive never personally had any supply depot bug, but ive seen it on videos. I wanna say, i have gotten out of my tank as the pilot with my torch and cleared the disable. but who wants to risk that all the time....best just drive off to the depot.....might as well pick up some more ammo while im at it lol. sorry team!!!
  • Matty101yttam
    871 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    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.

    That's my point, assault can solo rambo BECAUSE tanks aren't multi crewed, if tanks want to have more resistance against a solo person they also then need to multiple crew members, so it's either one or the other.
    1st person making people sick is a laugh, it's a 1st person game and if you get sick that's a personal problem not the general communities, also you only get stuck in 1st person if your not used to it which happens because people rely on 3rd person, otherwise it's just like driving irl, once you get used to making a mental 3d image of the area it happens less often. I play a lot of mech type games and even with all the extra legs and torso rotation you learn to mentally map areas.
  • DukeSan27
    1154 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    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.

    That's my point, assault can solo rambo BECAUSE tanks aren't multi crewed, if tanks want to have more resistance against a solo person they also then need to multiple crew members, so it's either one or the other.
    1st person making people sick is a laugh, it's a 1st person game and if you get sick that's a personal problem not the general communities, also you only get stuck in 1st person if your not used to it which happens because people rely on 3rd person, otherwise it's just like driving irl, once you get used to making a mental 3d image of the area it happens less often. I play a lot of mech type games and even with all the extra legs and torso rotation you learn to mentally map areas.
    Yep yep, drive around in 1p view in BFV tank and come back.
  • Matty101yttam
    871 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    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.

    That's my point, assault can solo rambo BECAUSE tanks aren't multi crewed, if tanks want to have more resistance against a solo person they also then need to multiple crew members, so it's either one or the other.
    1st person making people sick is a laugh, it's a 1st person game and if you get sick that's a personal problem not the general communities, also you only get stuck in 1st person if your not used to it which happens because people rely on 3rd person, otherwise it's just like driving irl, once you get used to making a mental 3d image of the area it happens less often. I play a lot of mech type games and even with all the extra legs and torso rotation you learn to mentally map areas.
    Yep yep, drive around in 1p view in BFV tank and come back.
    I've never used 3rd person, in any bf...ever.
    I work on rail in australia, quite often the terrain we have to get through with vehicles gets more extreme than any game that will ever be made and i don't have some 3rd person to rely on, it's just something you get used to.
    Mental mapping is a skillset that should be applied to vehicles, like strafing or jumping for inf, people will learn it over time and is something that should be encouraged rather than just making it easy for people because this one group doesn't want to have depth based gameplay.
  • DukeSan27
    1154 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    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.

    That's my point, assault can solo rambo BECAUSE tanks aren't multi crewed, if tanks want to have more resistance against a solo person they also then need to multiple crew members, so it's either one or the other.
    1st person making people sick is a laugh, it's a 1st person game and if you get sick that's a personal problem not the general communities, also you only get stuck in 1st person if your not used to it which happens because people rely on 3rd person, otherwise it's just like driving irl, once you get used to making a mental 3d image of the area it happens less often. I play a lot of mech type games and even with all the extra legs and torso rotation you learn to mentally map areas.
    Yep yep, drive around in 1p view in BFV tank and come back.
    I've never used 3rd person, in any bf...ever.
    I work on rail in australia, quite often the terrain we have to get through with vehicles gets more extreme than any game that will ever be made and i don't have some 3rd person to rely on, it's just something you get used to.
    Mental mapping is a skillset that should be applied to vehicles, like strafing or jumping for inf, people will learn it over time and is something that should be encouraged rather than just making it easy for people because this one group doesn't want to have depth based gameplay.
    Video game?

    Real world / IRL has real depth of view to make things much easier. You can play HC 1P model whole day but that’s not really enjoyable from a gaming perspective for vast majority.

    Of course play ARMA for realistic gameplay, BF is not that.
  • jroggs
    293 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    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.

    That's my point, assault can solo rambo BECAUSE tanks aren't multi crewed, if tanks want to have more resistance against a solo person they also then need to multiple crew members, so it's either one or the other.
    1st person making people sick is a laugh, it's a 1st person game and if you get sick that's a personal problem not the general communities, also you only get stuck in 1st person if your not used to it which happens because people rely on 3rd person, otherwise it's just like driving irl, once you get used to making a mental 3d image of the area it happens less often. I play a lot of mech type games and even with all the extra legs and torso rotation you learn to mentally map areas.
    Yep yep, drive around in 1p view in BFV tank and come back.
    I've never used 3rd person, in any bf...ever.
    I work on rail in australia, quite often the terrain we have to get through with vehicles gets more extreme than any game that will ever be made and i don't have some 3rd person to rely on, it's just something you get used to.
    Mental mapping is a skillset that should be applied to vehicles, like strafing or jumping for inf, people will learn it over time and is something that should be encouraged rather than just making it easy for people because this one group doesn't want to have depth based gameplay.
    Mental mapping is smart, but it doesn't help you see someone stacking dynamite or AT mines behind you, and looking around in those no-turret tanks is a really miserable experience when the only way to do so is to turn the entire vehicle.

    I've never particularly loved the concept of the magic 3rd person view, but it's there and you're handicapping yourself pretty hard if you're not using it.
  • filthmcnasty
    421 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The criticals make it MUCH easier to Rambo a tank, and their slow as hell reverse doesn't help. In BF4 you could back away from a Rambo quickly, the tanks flew. Here, you take a crit, engine or tracks, and you're toast. The aiming is, well, off. It feels odd and I've never gotten use to it unlike every other BF game since BC1. With the changes made to tanks to make them stronger but less numerous started in BF1, the infantry in BF5 are too strong vs tank. In BF1 you had to go prone to use AT rockets, and the dynamitw fell, it didn't stick. Those 2 simple things worked wonders to balance tank vs infantry combat
  • ragnarok013
    3057 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    edited August 17
    The criticals make it MUCH easier to Rambo a tank, and their slow as hell reverse doesn't help. In BF4 you could back away from a Rambo quickly, the tanks flew. Here, you take a crit, engine or tracks, and you're toast. The aiming is, well, off. It feels odd and I've never gotten use to it unlike every other BF game since BC1. With the changes made to tanks to make them stronger but less numerous started in BF1, the infantry in BF5 are too strong vs tank. In BF1 you had to go prone to use AT rockets, and the dynamitw fell, it didn't stick. Those 2 simple things worked wonders to balance tank vs infantry combat
    Don't minimize that tanks in BF3\4 also had thermals, proximity scan, and there was 3D spotting so you could find the infantryman hiding in the bushes rather easily and kill him before he could launch rocket or C4 ending your run of terror. Tanks are strong in BF5 like in previous entries but lost some of their advantages by going back to a historical era; tack on the hardcore lite aspects of no spotting and things can get dicey if you're not paying attention.
  • mf_shro0m
    1398 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The criticals make it MUCH easier to Rambo a tank, and their slow as hell reverse doesn't help. In BF4 you could back away from a Rambo quickly, the tanks flew. Here, you take a crit, engine or tracks, and you're toast. The aiming is, well, off. It feels odd and I've never gotten use to it unlike every other BF game since BC1. With the changes made to tanks to make them stronger but less numerous started in BF1, the infantry in BF5 are too strong vs tank. In BF1 you had to go prone to use AT rockets, and the dynamitw fell, it didn't stick. Those 2 simple things worked wonders to balance tank vs infantry combat

    Exactly. They need to make it so assaults have to stand still (bracing irl) and ADS to fire fausts and PIATs accurately, make dynamite non-sticky and bring back player momentum to nerf ADAD spamming
  • Jezzzeh
    753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I like that the tanks have systematic damage. It makes some sense to me.
  • Hawxxeye
    5351 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Jezzzeh said:
    I like that the tanks have systematic damage. It makes some sense to me.
    Does it not highlight that the tanks and the infantry play a different game with separate rules?
    In a game where systematic damage exists for tanks, when a tank shoots to the side of a rock behind which an enemy assault is hiding at, the soldier should be sent rolling the other way by the blast with multiple leg and arm injuries from the shrapnel
  • jroggs
    293 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    Jezzzeh said:
    I like that the tanks have systematic damage. It makes some sense to me.
    Does it not highlight that the tanks and the infantry play a different game with separate rules?
    In a game where systematic damage exists for tanks, when a tank shoots to the side of a rock behind which an enemy assault is hiding at, the soldier should be sent rolling the other way by the blast with multiple leg and arm injuries from the shrapnel
    Sure, give systemic damage to infantry, it's only fair. And then make it so tank MGs don't hurt infantry at all and hitting an infantry with a cannon shot does 10 damage.
  • Matty101yttam
    871 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DukeSan27 said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    DukeSan27 said:
    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.

    That's my point, assault can solo rambo BECAUSE tanks aren't multi crewed, if tanks want to have more resistance against a solo person they also then need to multiple crew members, so it's either one or the other.
    1st person making people sick is a laugh, it's a 1st person game and if you get sick that's a personal problem not the general communities, also you only get stuck in 1st person if your not used to it which happens because people rely on 3rd person, otherwise it's just like driving irl, once you get used to making a mental 3d image of the area it happens less often. I play a lot of mech type games and even with all the extra legs and torso rotation you learn to mentally map areas.
    Yep yep, drive around in 1p view in BFV tank and come back.
    I've never used 3rd person, in any bf...ever.
    I work on rail in australia, quite often the terrain we have to get through with vehicles gets more extreme than any game that will ever be made and i don't have some 3rd person to rely on, it's just something you get used to.
    Mental mapping is a skillset that should be applied to vehicles, like strafing or jumping for inf, people will learn it over time and is something that should be encouraged rather than just making it easy for people because this one group doesn't want to have depth based gameplay.
    Video game?

    Real world / IRL has real depth of view to make things much easier. You can play HC 1P model whole day but that’s not really enjoyable from a gaming perspective for vast majority.

    Of course play ARMA for realistic gameplay, BF is not that.
    Already mentioned video game references where i've applied it, referenced real world to state that is is in fact a skill to be learnt, playing in 1st person is just like the AD spam and movement dynamics, ppl will say it's less fun to change it but that's only because your comparing it to an unrealistic sense of freedom/feedback given by the game now, people adapt to their limitations if they were forced to use 1st person and the game was rebalanced for it people would play it all the same.

    As to people sneaking up behind you thats the trade off, when i mention removing 3rd person it's never a straight removal, i do think fairly when it comes to tanks and want them to be strong, just not in ways that are unrealistic and abstract from the viewpoint of other players(like when you think your hidden behind a wall as infantry but the tank can just see over the top with 3rd person). I've mentioned before that i'd like to see teamwork re-implemented in vehicles, having extra crew members and giving them more interaction with the tank as a whole(other than simply manning mgs) would be a better way of doing things. Removing 3rd person and having people on your tank to cover other angles would make tanking much more fun.

    My suggestion has always been:
    -Tank driver keeps driving, main gun and abilities like smoke but loses secondary gun, repair and 3rd person. Driver also gets the ability to lock tank to squad and lock crew class requirements(like keeping 1 slot for a support/repair person, 2 slots for assault(if they want) etc.)
    -Crew gets manned mg's to cover angles
    -Crew has secondary functions dependent on class, like:
        Support gets the drivers repair ability as well as another ability to choose between system restore OR ammo resupply that's on a cooldown for balance
        Recon can fire a flare out the top hatch and gives the tank a small intermittent AOE radar around the tank(like a pulse every 5 seconds that reaches 5-10 meters)
        Assault gets a longer run on mg's before overheating and maybe have the option of swapping with a flamethrower
        Medics don't gain much for the tank directly however they make the tank become a resupply station for inf, meaning infantry will constantly hang around the tanks giving them extra protection from sneaking enemy

    That way your tank becomes more effective the more teamwork you use, infantry will find them easier to understand what their dealing with because there's no guessing what the other player may be seeing in 3rd person, tanks become more independent from the repair stations and can play more aggressively if manned by a good crew while the lonewolf hill campers get a reduction in combat ability. Tanks also become a WHOLE lot more fun because coordinating teamwork has always been the best part of bf when it happens right. 
    It's just like the attack helicopters and transport choppers in older games as well as the tanks in bf3 and assault boats in bf4, when you get a crew that clicks, people calling out targets and angles...repairing, coordinating abilities like flares etc that is where bf has the absolute best moments that very few games ever can replicate. 
  • Hawxxeye
    5351 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 18
    jroggs said:
    Hawxxeye said:
    Jezzzeh said:
    I like that the tanks have systematic damage. It makes some sense to me.
    Does it not highlight that the tanks and the infantry play a different game with separate rules?
    In a game where systematic damage exists for tanks, when a tank shoots to the side of a rock behind which an enemy assault is hiding at, the soldier should be sent rolling the other way by the blast with multiple leg and arm injuries from the shrapnel
    Sure, give systemic damage to infantry, it's only fair. And then make it so tank MGs don't hurt infantry at all and hitting an infantry with a cannon shot does 10 damage.
    and also make it so that only 2 to 5 infantry can spawn with a cooldown of minutes. As well as increasing their size/hitbox  by 10 times and give them tank movement physics with that tortuously slow acceleration.
    Slippery slope arguments are fun.
    Did you just implied that tanks can take 10 fausts?
    Post edited by Hawxxeye on
Sign In or Register to comment.