Weekly Debrief

Still no buffs to tanks.

«1
YourLocalPlumber
3010 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
Another patch, another disappointment. Dice, whats the point of adding a new tank, when tanks in general are useless metal boxes in this game? Why can't you buff them finally?

Heavy and medium tanks (Especially heavy tanks) are in great need of a buff. They're too slow, their armor is too weak, and their main cannons do no damage. Why can't you apply Tiger I maneuverability from "Last Tiger " where it drivers ALOT better compared to multiplayer? That, or buff their armor making them alot harder to kill. Right now, any support or assault players can 100 to 0 heavy tank in less than 5 seconds if he manages to sneak up on it, and considering how slow those tanks are, anyone can do it.

Or ok, if you have such boner for tank realism, why does dynamite even damage heavy tanks? Blast of a few sticks of dynamite in real world would bounce off and scratch the paint at best, dealing no physical damage. Same goes for AT mines. Pressure mines are set in such a way to detonate and damage tanks only when tank rolles over them with it's tracks triggering pressure fuse, only then the explosion is contained enough to destroy tank's tracks. So why am I able to run up to a heavy tank, drop 2 mines NEXT TO IT, shoot them and 100 to 0 the thing in an instant?
As for gun, how come a Staghound survive 3 shots from a Tiger I? A single shot should be able to penetrate and explode it, yet in the game it does 30-40 damage. You even said it and showed in the "Last Tiger" story. "A single shot from a Tiger I would penetrate and kill any allied tank" proceeded by Tiger I oneshoting Churchill tank.

So can we get some devs working on it already?

Comments

  • lllTheSentinelll
    115 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    No buffs to tanks?

    Good.
  • WinterWarhurst
    1319 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Tiger is also the most broken because it’s tracks are so huge frontally, and hitting them does max side damage multipliers... T-34s and Panthers will suffer from the same BS if we ever get them!
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Or ok, if you have such boner for tank realism, why does dynamite even damage heavy tanks? Blast of a few sticks of dynamite in real world would bounce off and scratch the paint at best, dealing no physical damage. Same goes for AT mines. Pressure mines are set in such a way to detonate and damage tanks only when tank rolles over them with it's tracks triggering pressure fuse, only then the explosion is contained enough to destroy tank's tracks. So why am I able to run up to a heavy tank, drop 2 mines NEXT TO IT, shoot them and 100 to 0 the thing in an instant?
    So let's get this straight. Your complaint about dynamite is that in the real world dynamite won't hurt a heavy tank (we'll pretend that's true). Ditto with mines, they should have to be under the tracks to cause damage because that's how it is in the "real world". Okay, explain how in the real world a tank commander has a magic floating camera over his vehicle which shows him everything around him including enemies who are behind solid cover. Explain how a real world tank instantly switches from an armor-piercing round to canister or HE or whatever. Tell us how in the real world a tank with a three, four or five-man crew can suddenly operate with one crew member who can simultaneously drive, load and fire the main gun and operate the coax machine gun all while seeing everything around him, who can even instantly switch to another crew position if he pleases.

    Gee, it almost seems like a reference to the "real world" opens up a can of worms, doesn't it. Turns out you should be careful what you ask for, because you might get it. And in the case of making tanks in BFV more like the "real world", tankers would be in a lot of trouble. In the real world a hastily trained 16 year old with one Panzerfaust could destroy any tank--one shot, one burning tank, five dead crewmembers. In the real world the U.S. Army assumed any hit that penetrated the armor would kill one crew member and seriously wound another, making the tank useless. Is that how you want it in BFV, not a game, but a simulation of the real world? LOL, the screams from the turretheads would be deafening.
  • ProAssassin2003
    3445 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 29
    Yeah. I don't even use Tanks. What's even more funny is I do better using Mobile AA against Infantry then a Tank and the Mobile AA is horrible against Planes.

    DICE is like check out this new Tank that the Turret doesn't rotate so Infantry that had absurd running speed can run circles around you and laugh.

  • ProAssassin2003
    3445 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Or ok, if you have such boner for tank realism, why does dynamite even damage heavy tanks? Blast of a few sticks of dynamite in real world would bounce off and scratch the paint at best, dealing no physical damage. Same goes for AT mines. Pressure mines are set in such a way to detonate and damage tanks only when tank rolles over them with it's tracks triggering pressure fuse, only then the explosion is contained enough to destroy tank's tracks. So why am I able to run up to a heavy tank, drop 2 mines NEXT TO IT, shoot them and 100 to 0 the thing in an instant?
    So let's get this straight. Your complaint about dynamite is that in the real world dynamite won't hurt a heavy tank (we'll pretend that's true). Ditto with mines, they should have to be under the tracks to cause damage because that's how it is in the "real world". Okay, explain how in the real world a tank commander has a magic floating camera over his vehicle which shows him everything around him including enemies who are behind solid cover. Explain how a real world tank instantly switches from an armor-piercing round to canister or HE or whatever. Tell us how in the real world a tank with a three, four or five-man crew can suddenly operate with one crew member who can simultaneously drive, load and fire the main gun and operate the coax machine gun all while seeing everything around him, who can even instantly switch to another crew position if he pleases.

    Gee, it almost seems like a reference to the "real world" opens up a can of worms, doesn't it. Turns out you should be careful what you ask for, because you might get it. And in the case of making tanks in BFV more like the "real world", tankers would be in a lot of trouble. In the real world a hastily trained 16 year old with one Panzerfaust could destroy any tank--one shot, one burning tank, five dead crewmembers. In the real world the U.S. Army assumed any hit that penetrated the armor would kill one crew member and seriously wound another, making the tank useless. Is that how you want it in BFV, not a game, but a simulation of the real world? LOL, the screams from the turretheads would be deafening.



    Dynamite also needs a direct line to the explosive to explode. It's not C-4. But in Battlefield it can be thrown like C4 and exploded.
  • TuxedoBanana279
    345 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    No buffs to tanks?

    Good.

    Hmm... you must be one of those assault/support players. Well, hopefully your unfair advantage against tanks will be taken away by dice soon.
  • fakemon64
    898 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I wouldn't even mind tanks having so little ammo if it didn't take so much of it to get anything done in the first place.

    To kill even a single enemy behind hard cover, i have to use multiple shells or hope he peaks out and that i get him with my MG. Not to mention the amount of shots i have to dump into an enemy tank.

    I wish they had more bang for their buck. Either that or just give me more ammo. I hardly run out of ammo on foot what with all the scavenging and support, but in a tank at least a quarter of my time is spent on the way to a resupply depot.

    I know planes pretty much work the same way but its easier to resupply in a more natural manner, especially if you already have an idea of the bombing runs you want to make and there angles you need to be in to make them. Plus it usually only takes seconds to resupply in a plane, reloading the ammo is more time consuming than getting it.
  • TuxedoBanana279
    345 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Or ok, if you have such boner for tank realism, why does dynamite even damage heavy tanks? Blast of a few sticks of dynamite in real world would bounce off and scratch the paint at best, dealing no physical damage. Same goes for AT mines. Pressure mines are set in such a way to detonate and damage tanks only when tank rolles over them with it's tracks triggering pressure fuse, only then the explosion is contained enough to destroy tank's tracks. So why am I able to run up to a heavy tank, drop 2 mines NEXT TO IT, shoot them and 100 to 0 the thing in an instant?
    So let's get this straight. Your complaint about dynamite is that in the real world dynamite won't hurt a heavy tank (we'll pretend that's true). Ditto with mines, they should have to be under the tracks to cause damage because that's how it is in the "real world". Okay, explain how in the real world a tank commander has a magic floating camera over his vehicle which shows him everything around him including enemies who are behind solid cover. Explain how a real world tank instantly switches from an armor-piercing round to canister or HE or whatever. Tell us how in the real world a tank with a three, four or five-man crew can suddenly operate with one crew member who can simultaneously drive, load and fire the main gun and operate the coax machine gun all while seeing everything around him, who can even instantly switch to another crew position if he pleases.

    Gee, it almost seems like a reference to the "real world" opens up a can of worms, doesn't it. Turns out you should be careful what you ask for, because you might get it. And in the case of making tanks in BFV more like the "real world", tankers would be in a lot of trouble. In the real world a hastily trained 16 year old with one Panzerfaust could destroy any tank--one shot, one burning tank, five dead crewmembers. In the real world the U.S. Army assumed any hit that penetrated the armor would kill one crew member and seriously wound another, making the tank useless. Is that how you want it in BFV, not a game, but a simulation of the real world? LOL, the screams from the turretheads would be deafening.

    Game balance ALWAYS trumps realism. Tanks, are not balanced right now. We want it to be harder for infantry to single handedly kill a tank. Also I love how you equate the "realism" of a few sticks of dynamite not being able to destroy a tiger, and then using that as a springboard to talk about the other game mechanics for tanks that aren't realistic. This is a video game. It needs to be balanced. Not catered to favor realism. I would argue that wanting nerfs to dynamite and some of the other things in the original post is to balance the game for tankers, not to be more realistic. On a final note, I can think of a list of things that assault players do in game that aren't "Realistic" so it's not like the tanks are the only thing that aren't like real life.
  • ProAssassin2003
    3445 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    As long as Systemic Damage stays in the game Tanks will be useless unless used as Stationary Camping Coffins.
  • Nummydoughnuts
    32 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I see so many folks going on and on about tanks having poor balance, even some of the good ol' Content creators who make Battlefield Videos n stuff and yet every time a patch rolls around there is quite literally a teeny tiny nudge to the tanks, and that's it. I've always got a literal butt load of ideas to make the tanks much better in Battlefield V, ranging from some pretty far out and weird ones to ones that basically everybody and their cousin has already griped about like "Cannon damage buff", "Ammo capacity buff" and "Remove systematic damage". The Systematic damage thing was "Good On paper" but the execution was terrible. The big thing I would be totally happy with seeing would be a simple "Damage and Ammo buff" to tanks and then a rework of how AT Gadgets work.

    Most of the AT Gadgets require almost no skill to use. Its either plop on ground and wait, run up and in circles around enemy toss and explode, or just aim, fire, and disable or destroy. I liked the AT in Battlefield 1 because by yourself, the most you could do is just pester and annoy tanks unless you were sneaky, along with like the AT-rocket gun where you had to prone or prop it up on something to use in the first place. One of the biggest ideas I've had for a change would to make it so the Panzerfaust and Piat are wildly inaccurate unless you're ADS and either crouched or prone, basically a proper firing position. Trying to shoot it on the move or any other way and basically you wouldn't even be able to hit the broad side of a barn. The other idea I've thought of is more basic changes like mines can't really be thrown anymore just plopped straight onto the ground and have an arming animation, and dynamite has a shorter throw distance and will only stick to stuff if your character can quite literally place the dynamite on it.

    Either Buff the Tanks, Nerf the AT, or Both. Personally I want both, especially because I find the AT change ideas fun and challenging, and the tanks could use a cannon/ammo buff. 85 damage from a near direct hit with a 88mm shell is pretty sad, along with the fact that I have to pump 5 rounds into the side of a house just to tickle it while the support class's grenade pistol can literally level houses in single shots.
  • DingoKillr
    3655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Another patch, another disappointment. Dice, whats the point of adding a new tank, when tanks in general are useless metal boxes in this game? Why can't you buff them finally?

    Heavy and medium tanks (Especially heavy tanks) are in great need of a buff. They're too slow, their armor is too weak, and their main cannons do no damage. Why can't you apply Tiger I maneuverability from "Last Tiger " where it drivers ALOT better compared to multiplayer? That, or buff their armor making them alot harder to kill. Right now, any support or assault players can 100 to 0 heavy tank in less than 5 seconds if he manages to sneak up on it, and considering how slow those tanks are, anyone can do it.

    Or ok, if you have such boner for tank realism, why does dynamite even damage heavy tanks? Blast of a few sticks of dynamite in real world would bounce off and scratch the paint at best, dealing no physical damage. Same goes for AT mines. Pressure mines are set in such a way to detonate and damage tanks only when tank rolles over them with it's tracks triggering pressure fuse, only then the explosion is contained enough to destroy tank's tracks. So why am I able to run up to a heavy tank, drop 2 mines NEXT TO IT, shoot them and 100 to 0 the thing in an instant?
    As for gun, how come a Staghound survive 3 shots from a Tiger I? A single shot should be able to penetrate and explode it, yet in the game it does 30-40 damage. You even said it and showed in the "Last Tiger" story. "A single shot from a Tiger I would penetrate and kill any allied tank" proceeded by Tiger I oneshoting Churchill tank.

    So can we get some devs working on it already?
    Assault is the premier class.

    It is better at anti-vehicle then vehicles.
    Aircraft 1HK
    Tanks 2HK
    Name any vehicle that can do that to another vehicle.
    Just like it is better at every gun range then other infantry.

    It is a bad joke. Will it change? NO.
    As it appears DICE is fixated on making a FPS battle royale.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1911 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DICE has changed too many things in BFV from previous games and not everything is working well together. We needed evolution not revolution from bf1. WW1 weapons/vehicles are similar to ww2 equivalents. What we needed from bf1 to bfv was tweaks, not wholesale changes which blatantly werent tested together properly.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 29
    Game balance ALWAYS trumps realism.
    Ah, but some of you are highly selective in what you consider "balanced", aren't you. The guy I responded to tried to use "real world" considerations to justify nerfing AT weapons, you know, for "balance". But he's quite happy to ignore any "real world" factors that are inconvenient to the position of full-time tankers who think they have it tough. That's the whole point, you guys want to cherry pick only some things while ignoring others, and in the end what you really want is to go 60/4 every round because you think being in a tank comes with the right to dominate. You remind me very much of the chopper, err, tramps of previous games who assumed massively lopsided scores in their benefit were how it should be and anything that interfered in that should be done away with. And don't even bother to bring up PTFO, we all know very well that given the choice between capping a flag and hanging back to harvest kills for a high KDR, most tankers will keep their distance, slaughter infantry and then sneer, "Git gud " if anyone complains. This story is as old as BF, and it's more evidence of why specialist players are the last people DICE should listen to when it comes to game balance.
  • Panzerkeks85
    141 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Jep, I agree, Tanks need a (small) buff or some rework of the game elements:
    - Increase MG ammo to 1000 shoots
    - Slightly increase splash damage of regular tank gun
    - Rebalance damage tank vs. tank. The gun of the valentine should not do more damage than the 88 of the tiger
    - Slightly buff damage resistance of tank modules like turret and tracks
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5653 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Jep, I agree, Tanks need a (small) buff or some rework of the game elements:
    - Increase MG ammo to 1000 shoots
    - Slightly increase splash damage of regular tank gun
    - Rebalance damage tank vs. tank. The gun of the valentine should not do more damage than the 88 of the tiger
    - Slightly buff damage resistance of tank modules like turret and tracks

    This.
    While tank vs infantry is slightly better after Dice nerfed panzerfaust, tank vs tank is still a complete mess as it seems like main cannons of all tank types deal the same amount of damage and armor piercing rounds don't perform any better against tanks. Which leads to stupid things when Staghound can obliterate Tiger because of high speed and fast cannon reloading.
Sign In or Register to comment.