It's time to look at updating the Repair Tool

13»

Comments

  • MONEYPYR0
    828 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Very well thought out, and well presented, but here's my main issue.

    There's no Engineer class anymore.

    There isn't a dedicated Repairman anymore, since the repair tool has been repurposed to the Support class, and I can bet that not many Support players will be using the Repair Tool often. I noticed in BF1, most vehicle repair happens from the vehicle operator, instead of from a soldier on the outside. People just didnt seem to care to repair vehicles, unless they were the one driving. So I feel the lack of a real Engineer class is going to mean there's less people looking to repair vehicles, unless they're the one driving. I dont know, I never see people repairing tanks in BF1, and I feel like BFV won't be much different.

    Honestly I'd don't know what DICE is thinking going with this "oh now we've got these combat roles" or "archetypes"-thing, instead of just introducing more than 4 classes.

    Personally, I'd love more classes to come back, like they had in BF2. But I can see why they dont do that. Because people would complain about X class being useless, or Y class being overpowered. Even with 4 classes that still happens. I think the main reason they reduced the amount of classes, is because most classes in BF2 only had one specific job, which I loved. If you played as Anti-Tank, well, your job was to destroy tanks. Played as Support? Resupply friendlies. But I guess that moving forward, DICE wanted a single class to be more flexible in what they do.

    Assault in BF3/4 was a mixture of Medic, Assault, and Special Forces from BF2. They got Assault Rifles (all three of those classes had an M16/M4, but lets just say that this is Special Forces specific), Medic Bags, Defibs, and Grenade Launchers (BF2 Assault). They had more equipment, so they could be played in more ways.

    Engineer is a mix of BF2 Engineer and Anti-Tank, where you could now choose to focus on one of those (Rocket Launcher and Mines to be AT, or Repair Tool and EOD Bot to be Engineer), or mix them together to do both.

    I think that both systems work well, but I'm still upset that Engineer has now been thrown in with Support. At its core, Support is a LMG class meant to suppress enemies, and give friendlies more ammo. I've never thought that the class name meant "General team support", I've always seen it as "Support fire". But again, I'm just a really upset Engineer who doesn't have his main class anymore
  • DingoKillr
    3466 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    rainkloud wrote: »
    >A Vehicle camping with Support at distance might survive longer but thanks to attrition system that vehicles is not going to be much use beyond a MG pillar box.

    I don't get what you mean. A vehicle camping with a support (regardless of distance) will be in a good position to sponge damage and fully expend ammo and then repeat after replenishing.
    If that is how a driver and repairer are going to play fine as nothing you suggested changes that, in fact your suggestion encourage it more.
    rainkloud wrote: »
    > 1) Block repair requires no interruption so a Support player can only repair when it is ok to do so, and when is that? When a tank is behind cover or far behind the lines, which means that half the time a Support player is not going to be near.

    Which is fine. Unless you're working with people you know you're not always going to have someone around to repair. Repairs aren't something that you can expect all the time. People seem to have the impression that it is an entitlement but the reality is that it is a bonus. If there are no supports around to repair then you have the option to self repair and then jump back into the fray at less than 100 health or drive back to a depot. There's risks to both strategies and that makes for good game design. Tanks are supposed to aggressive yes but not to the point of absurdity. There's an ebb and flow to combat and while you're retreating your tank back behind lines that means that other players on both teams are adapting and taking advantage of that situation. Your "bad" times are there "good" times and if people exercised more macro thought and empathy then they would be able to see the bigger picture and not always focus on ME ME ME.

    Good teams will have good supports that will be able to see when a vehicle is getting tagged and then follow them into safety and repair them. Bad teams will have bad supports who try to repair during combat and will end up wasting their time as punishment for their lack of situational awareness. Block repair adds depth and requires perception and these are generally interpreted as positive things to incorporate into game mechanics.
    This is what you misunderstand.
    BF4 - Yes there where more Repairers. Why? Better teamwork hell no, simple class option.
    BF1 - Less yet Repairers had the same ability to teamwork but again class option is the man reason.

    So what it looks to me is DICE is changing
    1) Repairs of any vehicle(include Stationary) should not be a chore requiring dedicated player to achieve just like any other role.
    2) Support Repairers are still a bonus and not entitlement to vehicle operators the difference is the numbers that are that available so now it less of a surprise.
    Just because more have access to the repair tool in combat does not mean we need to make the tool more difficult to use, that like saying AT Infantry weapons impossible to use.

    Macro thought and empathy strange choice of words when you first thought is to make it harder for vehicle operators and repairers with what seems to be a push to more realism and no thought of actual game impact. You also seem to complain about campers sponging damage while saying it good strategy and game design for tanks to always be in rear. While overlooking in the number of AT infantry, Stationary, Aircraft, Terrain or Tanks(new damage impact) and how they effect ability to repair.

    Saying a repairer needs to be aware of their surroundings how? BF main mode is Conquest the whole map is the front line a single Infantry could easily parachute anywhere so focus on ME is required when being asked to stand between a damage vehicle and aggressor.
  • Trokey66
    8155 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Class choice and more specifically, gadget choice, has been a factor but is not the biggest in my opinion.

    The main factor in lack of repairs in BF1 is the fact that gunning and therefore supporting Tonks can be mind numbingly boring!

    In BF3/4, if not repairing, you had a 360 degree turret with a machine gun plus gadgets such as CITV or the 'burny thing' making you feel more of a Tonk crew.

    BF1? If not repairing you see a letterbox of landscape totally dependant on which way the driver is facing.

    That aside, I agree with what you say above and I don't think OP has fully thought this through.
  • rainkloud
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    If that is how a driver and repairer are going to play fine as nothing you suggested changes that, in fact your suggestion encourage it more.

    I beginning to suspect there is either a language barrier or a mental one on your part as it should be excruciatingly painful to see there is little point in a support camping a tank if interruptible repairs are implemented since any repairs they attempt to make while under constant fire will be totally invalidated.
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    So what it looks to me is DICE is changing
    1) Repairs of any vehicle(include Stationary) should not be a chore requiring dedicated player to achieve just like any other role.
    2) Support Repairers are still a bonus and not entitlement to vehicle operators the difference is the numbers that are that available so now it less of a surprise.
    Just because more have access to the repair tool in combat does not mean we need to make the tool more difficult to use, that like saying AT Infantry weapons impossible to use.

    The tools itself won't be more difficult to use (using my first option, interruptible repairs) but rather require more thought into when to implement. This is consistent with other aspects of the game like building structures, reloading weapons, and buddy revives. These all have a delay before the intended result is achieved.
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Macro thought and empathy strange choice of words when you first thought is to make it harder for vehicle operators and repairers with what seems to be a push to more realism and no thought of actual game impact. You also seem to complain about campers sponging damage while saying it good strategy and game design for tanks to always be in rear. While overlooking in the number of AT infantry, Stationary, Aircraft, Terrain or Tanks(new damage impact) and how they effect ability to repair.

    It is expressly and explicitly because of game impact that I suggest that this be implemented. That it is a nod to realism is just a nice side effect. I've made this very clear but I will keep hammering this home: The motivation and goal is to stop damage from being negated while the recipient vehicle is in the midst of sustaining that damage. You should be able engage in combat or recover damage but not both simultaneously. The current system is totally at odds with the surrounding systems and also thematically incorrect as well.

    And not I don't seem to be saying it is a good strategy and design for tanks to always be in rear and the fact that you could utter such a statement leads me to believe that you are either disingenuous or warped. Everything I've pointed to should lead a reasonable person to conclude that I am promoting rather a system of ebb and flow, attack and withdrawal that is intuitive, balanced and in line with the other concepts being introduced in the game.
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Saying a repairer needs to be aware of their surroundings how? BF main mode is Conquest the whole map is the front line a single Infantry could easily parachute anywhere so focus on ME is required when being asked to stand between a damage vehicle and aggressor.

    In every map there are areas that are more secured than others. You don't need to hold PhD to know that repairing a tank that is facing off against another tank and supporting AT infantry is a bad idea and isn't going to end well. Instead if that tank finds an area of the map that is relatively secure and obscured (inside a building, at the edge of the map, behind some trees or hills) then that would present a reasonable time and place for repairs to take place. These places are commonly found even in conquest. Certainly you are never 100% safe but you can greatly reduce the potential for ambush by smartly positioning one's self to mitigate the risks.


  • DingoKillr
    3466 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    rainkloud wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    If that is how a driver and repairer are going to play fine as nothing you suggested changes that, in fact your suggestion encourage it more.

    I beginning to suspect there is either a language barrier or a mental one on your part as it should be excruciatingly painful to see there is little point in a support camping a tank if interruptible repairs are implemented since any repairs they attempt to make while under constant fire will be totally invalidated.
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    So what it looks to me is DICE is changing
    1) Repairs of any vehicle(include Stationary) should not be a chore requiring dedicated player to achieve just like any other role.
    2) Support Repairers are still a bonus and not entitlement to vehicle operators the difference is the numbers that are that available so now it less of a surprise.
    Just because more have access to the repair tool in combat does not mean we need to make the tool more difficult to use, that like saying AT Infantry weapons impossible to use.

    The tools itself won't be more difficult to use (using my first option, interruptible repairs) but rather require more thought into when to implement. This is consistent with other aspects of the game like building structures, reloading weapons, and buddy revives. These all have a delay before the intended result is achieved.
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Macro thought and empathy strange choice of words when you first thought is to make it harder for vehicle operators and repairers with what seems to be a push to more realism and no thought of actual game impact. You also seem to complain about campers sponging damage while saying it good strategy and game design for tanks to always be in rear. While overlooking in the number of AT infantry, Stationary, Aircraft, Terrain or Tanks(new damage impact) and how they effect ability to repair.

    It is expressly and explicitly because of game impact that I suggest that this be implemented. That it is a nod to realism is just a nice side effect. I've made this very clear but I will keep hammering this home: The motivation and goal is to stop damage from being negated while the recipient vehicle is in the midst of sustaining that damage. You should be able engage in combat or recover damage but not both simultaneously. The current system is totally at odds with the surrounding systems and also thematically incorrect as well.

    And not I don't seem to be saying it is a good strategy and design for tanks to always be in rear and the fact that you could utter such a statement leads me to believe that you are either disingenuous or warped. Everything I've pointed to should lead a reasonable person to conclude that I am promoting rather a system of ebb and flow, attack and withdrawal that is intuitive, balanced and in line with the other concepts being introduced in the game.
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Saying a repairer needs to be aware of their surroundings how? BF main mode is Conquest the whole map is the front line a single Infantry could easily parachute anywhere so focus on ME is required when being asked to stand between a damage vehicle and aggressor.

    In every map there are areas that are more secured than others. You don't need to hold PhD to know that repairing a tank that is facing off against another tank and supporting AT infantry is a bad idea and isn't going to end well. Instead if that tank finds an area of the map that is relatively secure and obscured (inside a building, at the edge of the map, behind some trees or hills) then that would present a reasonable time and place for repairs to take place. These places are commonly found even in conquest. Certainly you are never 100% safe but you can greatly reduce the potential for ambush by smartly positioning one's self to mitigate the risks.
    To get repaired with interrupted repairs a vehicles needs to leave combat no if or buts, so vehicles camps away from combat to make it easier for the dedicate Support to repair. The Support player is playing the objective of keeping the teams vehicle healthy while neither is playing the flag.

    The goal of repair is not the using the repair tool but 100% vehicle health.
    Reloading a weapon can not be interrupted.
    Building a fortress is not negated by bullets hitting the non completed fortification just like the current repair.
    I have yet revive test or have seen anything that says hitting a dead player during buddy revive interrupts revive.
    Repair, Revive, Reload or Build can be interrupted by killing the player performing the action.

    Needing to leave combat to restore a vehicle for health or supply is already in place what you are asking for makes it harder for a random team mate to assist keeping that vehicle in action a little longer. Which happend to health or ammo for Infantry.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3251 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    MONEYPYR0 wrote: »
    Very well thought out, and well presented, but here's my main issue.

    There's no Engineer class anymore.

    There isn't a dedicated Repairman anymore, since the repair tool has been repurposed to the Support class, and I can bet that not many Support players will be using the Repair Tool often. I noticed in BF1, most vehicle repair happens from the vehicle operator, instead of from a soldier on the outside. People just didnt seem to care to repair vehicles, unless they were the one driving. So I feel the lack of a real Engineer class is going to mean there's less people looking to repair vehicles, unless they're the one driving. I dont know, I never see people repairing tanks in BF1, and I feel like BFV won't be much different.

    Honestly I'd don't know what DICE is thinking going with this "oh now we've got these combat roles" or "archetypes"-thing, instead of just introducing more than 4 classes.

    It could be a way of having more than four classes, but having them categorised, so that classes in the same category would share a few things. It would have probably been a lot easier to just make new classes, but then again, you don't have to make new gadgets for a new class if you put it in as a combat role in an existing category.

    I'd rather just have normal classes, but let's see what happens when the game comes out.
  • It could be a way of having more than four classes, but having them categorised, so that classes in the same category would share a few things. It would have probably been a lot easier to just make new classes, but then again, you don't have to make new gadgets for a new class if you put it in as a combat role in an existing category.

    I'd rather just have normal classes, but let's see what happens when the game comes out.

    It seems like we have new classes, but the difference is that you have to grind for them, or at least some of them. I don't mind that. I mean as long as it isn't some absurd grind like some of the ones in BF1 and .. what was that star wars game called again ? Some of the unlocks were basically impossible, or at least so annoyingly improbable that it wasn't worth going after.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3251 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It could be a way of having more than four classes, but having them categorised, so that classes in the same category would share a few things. It would have probably been a lot easier to just make new classes, but then again, you don't have to make new gadgets for a new class if you put it in as a combat role in an existing category.

    I'd rather just have normal classes, but let's see what happens when the game comes out.

    It seems like we have new classes, but the difference is that you have to grind for them, or at least some of them. I don't mind that. I mean as long as it isn't some absurd grind like some of the ones in BF1 and .. what was that star wars game called again ? Some of the unlocks were basically impossible, or at least so annoyingly improbable that it wasn't worth going after.

    I hope that the grind won't be too tedious, and they better not be tied to silly things. Imagine them making you unlock a 'Special Forces' class by getting ten wins in bloody Firestorm or something.
  • Foot_Guard_Tomei
    438 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    It could be a way of having more than four classes, but having them categorised, so that classes in the same category would share a few things. It would have probably been a lot easier to just make new classes, but then again, you don't have to make new gadgets for a new class if you put it in as a combat role in an existing category.

    I'd rather just have normal classes, but let's see what happens when the game comes out.

    It seems like we have new classes, but the difference is that you have to grind for them, or at least some of them. I don't mind that. I mean as long as it isn't some absurd grind like some of the ones in BF1 and .. what was that star wars game called again ? Some of the unlocks were basically impossible, or at least so annoyingly improbable that it wasn't worth going after.

    I hope that the grind won't be too tedious, and they better not be tied to silly things. Imagine them making you unlock a 'Special Forces' class by getting ten wins in bloody Firestorm or something.

    Stop giving them ideas. We know how they like to listen to community feedback ;)
  • rainkloud
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    To get repaired with interrupted repairs a vehicles needs to leave combat no if or buts, so vehicles camps away from combat to make it easier for the dedicate Support to repair. The Support player is playing the objective of keeping the teams vehicle healthy while neither is playing the flag.

    The goal of repair is not the using the repair tool but 100% vehicle health.
    Reloading a weapon can not be interrupted.
    Building a fortress is not negated by bullets hitting the non completed fortification just like the current repair.
    I have yet revive test or have seen anything that says hitting a dead player during buddy revive interrupts revive.
    Repair, Revive, Reload or Build can be interrupted by killing the player performing the action.

    Needing to leave combat to restore a vehicle for health or supply is already in place what you are asking for makes it harder for a random team mate to assist keeping that vehicle in action a little longer. Which happend to health or ammo for Infantry.

    1) The vehicle doesn't need to be far from combat. You may need to just roll behind a hill or turn around a corner. Nowhere is it written that you have to drive all the way back to spawn in order to achieve conditions reasonably secure enough to initiate external repairs. And the support player might very well be your gunner who simply hops out and does the repairs - no big deal.

    2) You are missing the point. The point isn't that the hitting the thing being built/revived/reloaded doesn't stop the action. The point is that there is a delay to reflect that something substantial in the game world takes time to achieve.

    3) Again, I think you are equating leaving combat with traveling long distances to achieve relative safety conducive to external repairs. I'm not saying that is never going to be the case. There are going to be some maps and situations where you might have to travel a ways to get to safety but I reckon if it is anything like previous games those will be few and far between. What is more likely is that you will simply need to break line of site and find a point that gives you some modicum of cover. Preferably, by not necessarily, one that minimizes flanking.



  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stuka + 1,000lbs bomb = -1 tank. 👍
  • DingoKillr
    3466 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    rainkloud wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    To get repaired with interrupted repairs a vehicles needs to leave combat no if or buts, so vehicles camps away from combat to make it easier for the dedicate Support to repair. The Support player is playing the objective of keeping the teams vehicle healthy while neither is playing the flag.

    The goal of repair is not the using the repair tool but 100% vehicle health.
    Reloading a weapon can not be interrupted.
    Building a fortress is not negated by bullets hitting the non completed fortification just like the current repair.
    I have yet revive test or have seen anything that says hitting a dead player during buddy revive interrupts revive.
    Repair, Revive, Reload or Build can be interrupted by killing the player performing the action.

    Needing to leave combat to restore a vehicle for health or supply is already in place what you are asking for makes it harder for a random team mate to assist keeping that vehicle in action a little longer. Which happend to health or ammo for Infantry.

    1) The vehicle doesn't need to be far from combat. You may need to just roll behind a hill or turn around a corner. Nowhere is it written that you have to drive all the way back to spawn in order to achieve conditions reasonably secure enough to initiate external repairs. And the support player might very well be your gunner who simply hops out and does the repairs - no big deal.

    2) You are missing the point. The point isn't that the hitting the thing being built/revived/reloaded doesn't stop the action. The point is that there is a delay to reflect that something substantial in the game world takes time to achieve.

    3) Again, I think you are equating leaving combat with traveling long distances to achieve relative safety conducive to external repairs. I'm not saying that is never going to be the case. There are going to be some maps and situations where you might have to travel a ways to get to safety but I reckon if it is anything like previous games those will be few and far between. What is more likely is that you will simply need to break line of site and find a point that gives you some modicum of cover. Preferably, by not necessarily, one that minimizes flanking.


    2) the goal is a health vehicle, standing around repairing is the delayed to achieve that goal. It can be the longest delay in the game and occurs least frequent then reload or revive thus the rewards why doing it.

    3) what? Have you every played Volga river, Somme or Glacia. Where Support repairs are less frequent, if you had block or panel repair for that. Just for the record heligo bight is an example of block repair not working for vehicles.
    Post edited by DingoKillr on
  • MacaqueX
    674 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    It would be great if only engies or supports in bfv could repair tanks vs self repairing tanks,
    But repairing should net you much more points, engies/supports in past bfs who repair whole game and help immensely to win game where always in middle to bottom of the scoreboard.
    Instead of giving more points for flags and revives with every new bf game, repair is only mechanic that needed huge buff in points since bad company.
  • Trokey66
    8155 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    It would be great if only engies or supports in bfv could repair tanks vs self repairing tanks,
    But repairing should net you much more points, engies/supports in past bfs who repair whole game and help immensely to win game where always in middle to bottom of the scoreboard.
    Instead of giving more points for flags and revives with every new bf game, repair is only mechanic that needed huge buff in points since bad company.

    This is true in BF1 but because of the other gadgets available to a Repair Monkey in the gunners seat in BF3/4, high scores were a distinct possibility.

    One of my favorite rounds in BF3 (sadly, the report is no longer available) saw me with a 1-13 KD but second overall in score.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    the ultimate problem with almost all the mechanics in battlefield games these days; when you really think about it, is that there's too many people to please, not enough leeway in terms of server options. (and no mod support to experiment/truly attempt alterations to the existing mechanics).

    So you'll have a proposal for something that would mean (essentially) "slower/more-in-depth" repairing; but this isn't going to work all that well due to the "Pacing" the game encourages via it's spawn system and movement speed.

    I encountered a lot of a feeling of "disconnect" from Battlefield 1... This sense that there was "potential" but it wasn't actually exploited like it could've been.

    To put it another way; I think that a more "in depth" repair system would/could be fun... but would require a lot of other changes in order to fit.
Sign In or Register to comment.