State Of Armor -- EA do you know anything about balance?

«13
BSPlissken
119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
edited February 7
Look I've stewed on this for a while now and I'm just sick of it.

Simple fact, EA doesn't know what armor is... like at all. They clearly think that infantry should be able to easily solo a tank or that infantry should be able to soak more damage (to scale) than a tank.


Ex:


I shoot a Heavy AT from my Pzr.4 at another tank. We have a tank fight of shooting shots, maybe win, maybe lose, or maybe we just retreat. We hit one another like 5-6x depending on the location of the hit. Mind you, THIS IS WITH HEAVY AT/MEDIUM AT. We are talking 70-76mm Rounds that will turn a person into mist.

Ok, now explain to me why infantry can run up with a flat charge like tnt and just roll through with instantly killing you? Why can a PIAT, A PIAT!, penetrate my front armor and do MORE damage then a 70-76mm cannon?

Another one!




I run the light tank, panther or staghound, and I want to use that sweet sweet 20mm auto cannon. That thing would destroy infantry.... if this wasn't battlefield. Again, I have to still hit a dude dead on 4x to kill him with 20mm.... why don't I just use the machine gun?

EA: But sir, thats used for tank combat!

No its not. Its pointless vs anything larger than a light tank... like seriously you won't go toe to toe with one unless you run away constantly. But even still! Why does a dude soak many many many times more over than anything else when it comes to armor. Like, do you want all your armor to sit back and do nothing all match because we are afraid to get sneezed on by a light assault?


I don't know what else to say, I'm a little ranty, but I'm trying to prove a point in where tanks a pretty darn well useless in this game for anything other than sitting in the back and waiting for another tank....



You want infantry to be able to take out a tank? Fine, AT grenades should only disable them and not do actual damage. Unfair? You drive a tank that can't move, oh wait... you can't.

Piat should do minimal damage to the front... minimal, I'm tanking maybe 10 dmg. Thing was a SPRING loaded non shape charged AT.

Panzerfaust should do the same damage but the range needs to be kicked in the nuts hard or at least lose effectiveness, thing was designed to hit a tank a close range.... like I should be able to throw a rock and hit the tank. This long range max damage BS needs to stop.

If EA want's reliable AT damage for infantry it should use the AT Mines or release the Panzerschrek or the Bazooka, and then it should have a reasonable reload time and should only be used by support players.

Comments

  • BSPlissken
    119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    reviving this post. Armor is still flaming piece of garbage vs inf.

    Shot 105mm rounds close to the enemy, still can soak that. Kill radius of 30m but yet a guy with a piat will hit me a few times and blow me up.

    GG EA, you killed anything fun about armor combat.
  • full951
    2111 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    yeah. the way damage is dealt and received from tanks VS all possible targets is immersion breaking.

    I get they don't want tanks dominating the maps but that's kinda what they were invented and designed to do. a tank is never really a threat unless it's hanging back or you just aren't kitted out to handle it and with the prolific use of assault, that's generally isn't the case.
  • rifle77
    94 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    A good tanker with support is almost unstoppable. It's like a unicorn when those circumstances come together, but they do, and if they buff armor too much, you are going to make for a perfect storm where this scenario destroys a server and causes everyone to leave. It's the same as the heli with a good pilot and good squad support in BF3/4, going 100-3 in games like it's nothing and it's a constant stream of people quitting and joining to get away from that crap.
  • Z3r0Fear
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I find tanks to be incredibly weak in the game as almost anything can damage them to the point of why even bother getting inside of one when its so easy to take them out. They need to remove sticky dynamite no idea who thought this was a good idea to add in the game. Tanks need to be a team effort to remove on the field not something someone should be able to solo on there own.
  • olavafar
    1847 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Odd to bring up balance and then mainly reason by reality argument. Tanks are weak BECAUSE they are balanced, just like planes. I enjoy to use both tanks and planes now and then. When it comes to tanks I'd say its rather rare I get killed by a single assault player. Mostly there are three to five of them, any less than that one can mostly handle them or escape.

    I do agree tank vs tank could do a bit more damage (except the AA tanks who do too much damage as I see it). Tank battles are a bit ridiculous anyways as it is just a matter of shooting first and fastest. One cannot really miss the shots because they move so slow and are so large, even at quite long distance. I do not see much point in making them so stretched in time.
  • Hawxxeye
    4111 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 11
    rifle77 wrote: »
    A good tanker with support is almost unstoppable. It's like a unicorn when those circumstances come together, but they do, and if they buff armor too much, you are going to make for a perfect storm where this scenario destroys a server and causes everyone to leave. It's the same as the heli with a good pilot and good squad support in BF3/4, going 100-3 in games like it's nothing and it's a constant stream of people quitting and joining to get away from that crap.
    If tanks are balanced around having 2-3 engineer supports repairing from behind then I do not know what to say...
  • parkingbrake
    2387 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Z3r0Fear wrote: »
    I find tanks to be incredibly weak in the game as almost anything can damage them to the point of why even bother getting inside of one when its so easy to take them out. They need to remove sticky dynamite no idea who thought this was a good idea to add in the game. Tanks need to be a team effort to remove on the field not something someone should be able to solo on there own.

    LOL, this cracks me up, it's the same old turrethead argument--it should take teamwork to destroy a tank.

    How come the shoe is never on the other foot? Why shouldn't it take teamwork to keep a tank rolling? My squad kept a Tiger alive and smacking down the enemy team all over the Twisted Steel map for 25 minutes, he took out five enemy tanks and dozens of infantry. We repaired that tank, we repaired vehicle supply stations, and we killed any enemy Assaults that got near him. Gee, imagine that, teamwork made that tank very strong indeed.

    If you roll into trouble in a tank without a squad to protect you, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. This game is supposed to be about teamwork, so that should apply to everybody, not just infantry.
  • BSPlissken
    119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    olavafar wrote: »
    Odd to bring up balance and then mainly reason by reality argument. Tanks are weak BECAUSE they are balanced, just like planes. I enjoy to use both tanks and planes now and then. When it comes to tanks I'd say its rather rare I get killed by a single assault player. Mostly there are three to five of them, any less than that one can mostly handle them or escape.

    I do agree tank vs tank could do a bit more damage (except the AA tanks who do too much damage as I see it). Tank battles are a bit ridiculous anyways as it is just a matter of shooting first and fastest. One cannot really miss the shots because they move so slow and are so large, even at quite long distance. I do not see much point in making them so stretched in time.

    I think making tanks weak because of "balance" is a dumb argument. Armor takes time to respawn, takes time to drive to location, and has to resupply in a few mins depending on the fight. Infantry respawn in 10sec, spawn on squad mates, and can resupply on a ton of different things.

    Its not a question about balance, its EA thinking this is CoD with vehicles vs Battlefield with infantry. Vehicles have been the main part of any BF game for a long time and they should really be stronger then they are atm. I'm not saying OP or anything like that, but when you can't walk into an area without getting sneezed on to be insta disabled/destroyed it really makes for crappy gameplay.

    20mm should destroy Inf no matter what, its on a light tank that hits its toe and explodes.

    76-88mm AP should 2-3 shot a tank on good penn.

    105mm should clear an area easily in 1 shot, should have the motar sight like the PIAT does. Thing shoots slow and has impossible sights at long range.

    Piat/Panzerfaust should take 5+ hits to destroy medium+

    AT grenade only disables

    AT Mines kill on 2-3

    AT Grenade Launcher shouldn't dmg a medium/heavy tank

    Panzershrek/Bazooka should be able to kill a medium/heavy tank on 2-4 hits depending on location. Long load times but good team cooperation can take a tank out. None of this run and shoot crap.
  • BSPlissken
    119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Of note; fully disabled armor (all red) can't move or shoot forcing the crew to jump out and either repair/ abandon. Great gameplay mechanic if you disable a tank to death and then to kill the crew and capture it for yourself.
  • parkingbrake
    2387 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Piat should do minimal damage to the front... minimal, I'm tanking maybe 10 dmg. Thing was a SPRING loaded non shape charged AT.
    Your case is not helped when you make hilariously uninformed statements such as this, you clearly have no idea how a PIAT worked. Hint: it did indeed use a shaped charge, one capable of putting a hole in the thickest armor on the hull of a Tiger tank.
    Panzerfaust should do the same damage but the range needs to be kicked in the nuts hard or at least lose effectiveness, thing was designed to hit a tank a close range.... like I should be able to throw a rock and hit the tank. This long range max damage BS needs to stop.
    Range has no effect on the damage caused by a shaped charge, if the projectile makes it to the target that is all that is required--30 meters or 100, the armor penetration will be the same. The later model Panzerfausts (such as modelled in BFV) had an effective range of 60-100 meters, probably further than you can throw a rock. Seriously, if you're going to bring real world performance into it your argument falls apart because the facts don't back you up.

    Game balance is another issue, and in that regard DICE just makes it up, they've always done that. It doesn't matter what the real weapons did, they create fictional capabilities for the purpose of gaming. In the case of BFV they appear to have decided that tanks were a bit OP in previous games, so they took away infinite ammo, gave them more realistic speeds, and made tanks without close infantry support more vulnerable. It's interesting that all these things bring tanks closer to what happens in the real world, where the big impact of the Panzerfaust (and similar weapons) was to force Allied tanks to move with close infantry support so some hastily trained 16 year old didn't turn them into scrap metal with one shot. The turretheads don't like those changes, they remember those 100/2 rounds in previous titles. Oh well. Adapt or die.
  • BSPlissken
    119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Piat should do minimal damage to the front... minimal, I'm tanking maybe 10 dmg. Thing was a SPRING loaded non shape charged AT.
    Your case is not helped when you make hilariously uninformed statements such as this, you clearly have no idea how a PIAT worked. Hint: it did indeed use a shaped charge, one capable of putting a hole in the thickest armor on the hull of a Tiger tank.
    Panzerfaust should do the same damage but the range needs to be kicked in the nuts hard or at least lose effectiveness, thing was designed to hit a tank a close range.... like I should be able to throw a rock and hit the tank. This long range max damage BS needs to stop.
    Range has no effect on the damage caused by a shaped charge, if the projectile makes it to the target that is all that is required--30 meters or 100, the armor penetration will be the same. The later model Panzerfausts (such as modelled in BFV) had an effective range of 60-100 meters, probably further than you can throw a rock. Seriously, if you're going to bring real world performance into it your argument falls apart because the facts don't back you up.

    Game balance is another issue, and in that regard DICE just makes it up, they've always done that. It doesn't matter what the real weapons did, they create fictional capabilities for the purpose of gaming. In the case of BFV they appear to have decided that tanks were a bit OP in previous games, so they took away infinite ammo, gave them more realistic speeds, and made tanks without close infantry support more vulnerable. It's interesting that all these things bring tanks closer to what happens in the real world, where the big impact of the Panzerfaust (and similar weapons) was to force Allied tanks to move with close infantry support so some hastily trained 16 year old didn't turn them into scrap metal with one shot. The turretheads don't like those changes, they remember those 100/2 rounds in previous titles. Oh well. Adapt or die.

    I stand corrected by some **** online that wants to make things personal and can use wikipedia.

    Good for you.
  • Ploodovic
    1456 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Z3r0Fear wrote: »
    I find tanks to be incredibly weak in the game as almost anything can damage them to the point of why even bother getting inside of one when its so easy to take them out. They need to remove sticky dynamite no idea who thought this was a good idea to add in the game. Tanks need to be a team effort to remove on the field not something someone should be able to solo on there own.

    LOL, this cracks me up, it's the same old turrethead argument--it should take teamwork to destroy a tank.

    How come the shoe is never on the other foot? Why shouldn't it take teamwork to keep a tank rolling? My squad kept a Tiger alive and smacking down the enemy team all over the Twisted Steel map for 25 minutes, he took out five enemy tanks and dozens of infantry. We repaired that tank, we repaired vehicle supply stations, and we killed any enemy Assaults that got near him. Gee, imagine that, teamwork made that tank very strong indeed.

    If you roll into trouble in a tank without a squad to protect you, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. This game is supposed to be about teamwork, so that should apply to everybody, not just infantry.

    Pretty much this.
  • MeFirstThenYou
    111 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Armor is just not fun at all, even when you understood how to best use them against infantry. Sadly this means you will generally speaking not use your main cannon, unless the infantry is behind some sort of cover. Otherwise just use the coaxial machine gun in the turret. You are more accurate and you can do more damage because you can do headshots. Your also have a higher rate of fire and often even less bullet drop.

    Armor vs armor of infantry versun armor Gameplay feels extremely unreliable. You can do what looks like very good hits and you do minimal to no damage. Sometimes you do absurd damage. The only reliable way to damage vehicles as infantry appears to be C4 or Mines.
  • One_Called_Kane
    156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    I stand corrected by some **** online that wants to make things personal and can use wikipedia.

    Good for you.

    This just in: knowledge on a subject makes you a Wikipedia ****. Give me a break. Just because you were ignorant on the subject doesn't mean the rest of us were.

    For what it's worth I feel that it's fair for the tanks to carry a more realistic amount of ammunition and instead of being forced to choose only one type of ammo they should be able to choose "mixes" of HE, APC, and HESH/APCR/etc. to suit the type of combat they expect to engage in. When I am gunning for my squaddie's tank we have to fall back to re-arm probably once every 5 minutes.

    I would love to see them continue to build up the armor and penetration systems in the game and to further flesh out the differences in the different vehicles. There are a lot of iconic WW2 vehicles and hopefully we end up seeing a wide variety of them that aren't just reskins.
  • BSPlissken
    119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    I stand corrected by some **** online that wants to make things personal and can use wikipedia.

    Good for you.

    This just in: knowledge on a subject makes you a Wikipedia ****. Give me a break. Just because you were ignorant on the subject doesn't mean the rest of us were.

    BREAKING!

    You can correct someone and now be a total ****. A "hey, PIAT fire shape charges and did prettty well against tigers."

    Back to you Richard.


  • Dreatlan
    5 postsMember, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think the armor balance goes beyond the weapons. I think they should have had more of a plan going in. I made my own post but, I will just give you a link to the chart

    What I was trying to point out in the post and in the chart, is that there isn't a dedicated role in any aspect of the game. Everyone is able to do more than 1 thing. When I created the chart, I looked at the current vehicles. Then I made an organized list for them based on needs. For example, I determined the UK already has two Anti Infantry vehicles.. The Staghound, and a Churchill with a Mortar. That is when I got the idea to put the 17 pounder SP Achilles under "Special" (replacing the Churchill GC). It would give the UK a fast moving, dedicated Anti Tank specialist
    In short, I am saying the Staghound should of been dedicated Anti Infantry, while the Churchill is a choice. I looked at the Staghound models and did not find a 20mm Auto Cannon model. I did find an AA model using twin .50 MG's. It doesn't say if the AA model was used against infantry but, I know how powerful the MG is. Perhaps give it that instead of an Auto Cannon for an upgrade
  • parkingbrake
    2387 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Piat should do minimal damage to the front... minimal, I'm tanking maybe 10 dmg. Thing was a SPRING loaded non shape charged AT.
    Your case is not helped when you make hilariously uninformed statements such as this, you clearly have no idea how a PIAT worked. Hint: it did indeed use a shaped charge, one capable of putting a hole in the thickest armor on the hull of a Tiger tank.
    Panzerfaust should do the same damage but the range needs to be kicked in the nuts hard or at least lose effectiveness, thing was designed to hit a tank a close range.... like I should be able to throw a rock and hit the tank. This long range max damage BS needs to stop.
    Range has no effect on the damage caused by a shaped charge, if the projectile makes it to the target that is all that is required--30 meters or 100, the armor penetration will be the same. The later model Panzerfausts (such as modelled in BFV) had an effective range of 60-100 meters, probably further than you can throw a rock. Seriously, if you're going to bring real world performance into it your argument falls apart because the facts don't back you up.

    Game balance is another issue, and in that regard DICE just makes it up, they've always done that. It doesn't matter what the real weapons did, they create fictional capabilities for the purpose of gaming. In the case of BFV they appear to have decided that tanks were a bit OP in previous games, so they took away infinite ammo, gave them more realistic speeds, and made tanks without close infantry support more vulnerable. It's interesting that all these things bring tanks closer to what happens in the real world, where the big impact of the Panzerfaust (and similar weapons) was to force Allied tanks to move with close infantry support so some hastily trained 16 year old didn't turn them into scrap metal with one shot. The turretheads don't like those changes, they remember those 100/2 rounds in previous titles. Oh well. Adapt or die.

    I stand corrected by some **** online that wants to make things personal and can use wikipedia.

    Good for you.

    My first knowledge of the PIAT came from my father who was trained to use that weapon in WWII. They hated it BTW, it was big and heavy and loading the first shot was a real pain in the back. However it did work, it could kill any tank with one shot. Since then history, military history in particular, has been a passion of mine and I've read more about this stuff than you can imagine. I've also hung out with folks who own tanks and other military vehicles--have you ever ridden a real tank, do you have any idea how nearly blind a tank crew is when the vehicle is "buttoned up"? Should I apologize for knowing what I was talking about while you didn't?

    If pointing out that your post contained factual errors--and it did--amounts to a personal attack in your mind, well that's on you, not me. You tried to **** your argument with the real world performance of weapons, and you got it wrong. And then you called me something which the language filter removed, but I suppose that wasn't personal.

    Your later rant in which you pulled numbers out of thin air was entirely arbitrary, the numbers could have come from flipping a coin. You figure it should take at least five Panzerfaust hits to kill a medium tank--why five, by what logical process did you arrive at that number? You say you don't want tanks to be OP, then you proceed to list changes that would do just that, make tanks OP (again). You say Battlefield is a game about vehicles with infantry playing a secondary role. Apparently it's escaped your attention that most of the players in a BF Conquest game are infantry, only a few will be in tanks or aircraft, yet you believe the small minority in vehicles are the ones who count. You also overlook that some of the most popular servers in BF history (back when servers could run maps chosen by the operators) ran small infantry maps--whether you approve or not, a lot of BF players seem to enjoy that style of play at least some of the time. So you're entitled to believe the real BF is big maps and vehicles dominating, but that's just your opinion and millions of BF fans who were happy on maps like Grand Bazaar and Norshar Canals TDM and Guilin Peaks and Pearl Market etc. disagree. I loved those big maps, Dragon, Caspian, Kharg, Silk, Giants, but I had fun playing those CQ maps too--I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say that one way of playing is the real BF and everything else is wrong. Your mileage clearly varies.
  • SOULJ4R
    220 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Tanks now balanced....
    CroDRvyWAAAcIMF.jpg
  • parkingbrake
    2387 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    I stand corrected by some **** online that wants to make things personal and can use wikipedia.

    Good for you.

    This just in: knowledge on a subject makes you a Wikipedia ****. Give me a break. Just because you were ignorant on the subject doesn't mean the rest of us were.

    For what it's worth I feel that it's fair for the tanks to carry a more realistic amount of ammunition and instead of being forced to choose only one type of ammo they should be able to choose "mixes" of HE, APC, and HESH/APCR/etc. to suit the type of combat they expect to engage in. When I am gunning for my squaddie's tank we have to fall back to re-arm probably once every 5 minutes.

    I would love to see them continue to build up the armor and penetration systems in the game and to further flesh out the differences in the different vehicles. There are a lot of iconic WW2 vehicles and hopefully we end up seeing a wide variety of them that aren't just reskins.

    Agreed, the ammo loadout for some tanks is too small, I'd be fine with increasing it. I'd also be okay with different types of shot/shell being carried although switching between them should take a moment. Most WWII tanks had both HE and AP rounds available, one exception in the game being the Valentine with a 2lber gun, that weapon had only solid AP shot, no HE.

    I also like your idea of making the various vehicles perform differently with some relationship to their real designs. I realize DICE will always put gameplay ahead of realism, but it does seem silly to me when an armored car with a relative popgun can take out a Tiger. If it were up to me the guy in the Staghound would try to hit the Tiger in the tracks and then get behind cover because he has no chance of penetrating the armor. I think the game versions of vehicles should have significant differences just as the real ones did, that would add to the challenge of mastering the various vehicles. Unfortunately DICE often falls into the trap of convergent evolution, and by the time they're finished nerfing and buffing weapons they tend to end up all working the same.
  • BSPlissken
    119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Piat should do minimal damage to the front... minimal, I'm tanking maybe 10 dmg. Thing was a SPRING loaded non shape charged AT.
    Your case is not helped when you make hilariously uninformed statements such as this, you clearly have no idea how a PIAT worked. Hint: it did indeed use a shaped charge, one capable of putting a hole in the thickest armor on the hull of a Tiger tank.
    Panzerfaust should do the same damage but the range needs to be kicked in the nuts hard or at least lose effectiveness, thing was designed to hit a tank a close range.... like I should be able to throw a rock and hit the tank. This long range max damage BS needs to stop.
    Range has no effect on the damage caused by a shaped charge, if the projectile makes it to the target that is all that is required--30 meters or 100, the armor penetration will be the same. The later model Panzerfausts (such as modelled in BFV) had an effective range of 60-100 meters, probably further than you can throw a rock. Seriously, if you're going to bring real world performance into it your argument falls apart because the facts don't back you up.

    Game balance is another issue, and in that regard DICE just makes it up, they've always done that. It doesn't matter what the real weapons did, they create fictional capabilities for the purpose of gaming. In the case of BFV they appear to have decided that tanks were a bit OP in previous games, so they took away infinite ammo, gave them more realistic speeds, and made tanks without close infantry support more vulnerable. It's interesting that all these things bring tanks closer to what happens in the real world, where the big impact of the Panzerfaust (and similar weapons) was to force Allied tanks to move with close infantry support so some hastily trained 16 year old didn't turn them into scrap metal with one shot. The turretheads don't like those changes, they remember those 100/2 rounds in previous titles. Oh well. Adapt or die.

    I stand corrected by some **** online that wants to make things personal and can use wikipedia.

    Good for you.

    My first knowledge of the PIAT came from my father who was trained to use that weapon in WWII. They hated it BTW, it was big and heavy and loading the first shot was a real pain in the back. However it did work, it could kill any tank with one shot. Since then history, military history in particular, has been a passion of mine and I've read more about this stuff than you can imagine. I've also hung out with folks who own tanks and other military vehicles--have you ever ridden a real tank, do you have any idea how nearly blind a tank crew is when the vehicle is "buttoned up"? Should I apologize for knowing what I was talking about while you didn't?

    If pointing out that your post contained factual errors--and it did--amounts to a personal attack in your mind, well that's on you, not me. You tried to **** your argument with the real world performance of weapons, and you got it wrong. And then you called me something which the language filter removed, but I suppose that wasn't personal.

    Your later rant in which you pulled numbers out of thin air was entirely arbitrary, the numbers could have come from flipping a coin. You figure it should take at least five Panzerfaust hits to kill a medium tank--why five, by what logical process did you arrive at that number? You say you don't want tanks to be OP, then you proceed to list changes that would do just that, make tanks OP (again). You say Battlefield is a game about vehicles with infantry playing a secondary role. Apparently it's escaped your attention that most of the players in a BF Conquest game are infantry, only a few will be in tanks or aircraft, yet you believe the small minority in vehicles are the ones who count. You also overlook that some of the most popular servers in BF history (back when servers could run maps chosen by the operators) ran small infantry maps--whether you approve or not, a lot of BF players seem to enjoy that style of play at least some of the time. So you're entitled to believe the real BF is big maps and vehicles dominating, but that's just your opinion and millions of BF fans who were happy on maps like Grand Bazaar and Norshar Canals TDM and Guilin Peaks and Pearl Market etc. disagree. I loved those big maps, Dragon, Caspian, Kharg, Silk, Giants, but I had fun playing those CQ maps too--I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say that one way of playing is the real BF and everything else is wrong. Your mileage clearly varies.

    Your first paragraph is anecdotal. Just because your father did x doesnt mean you know anything; but I'm going to assume that you DID research.

    That whole paragraph could be summed up as "I did research, I have family and friends who were in the war with first hand accounts of the weapon". But no, you gotta show off your Richard.

    You used pointed language that is clearly unnessary to correct people on any subject. If I said you were hilariously uninformed about the Quantum Theory, if we were talking about that, you would be like "Hey, you could just say you are mistaken and here is the truth." But again, you gotta be a butt about it.

    Oh and your last paragraph is can be answered with simply this... you've spent less than an hour in a tank. I'm almost at 24 hours. What do you know? Your entire gameplay exp. has been playing support; and yet you want to get on my butt about being entitled? We can obviously disagree about gameplay but you want to act like you know so much but yet have done, in scope, nothing when it comes to armor. I've spent 1/6 of my game time in a tank and maxed out all the types of tanks. So as far as "milage" goes, I think I'm pretty well versed in the tank department.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!