Weekly Debrief

increase more tanks in conquest

2

Comments

  • ElliotLH
    8392 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    viper63x wrote: »
    (Quote)
    well i joined hamada and saw only one tank. i waited for around 15 mins before giving up. so unless it takes longer than that for the other tanks to spawn in i dont know, also same with twisted steel i only noticed one tank per side.

    Both Axis and Allies get at least two tanks on those maps in Conquest.

    There are a few reasons why you might only see one team tank on the map from the redeploy screen, for example the enemy could have stolen your other tank rather than destroying it.
  • filthmcnasty
    477 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Jeffmaxs6 wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Golmud Railway your more likely to see a tank on
    the hill camping. HaHa. 2-3 tanks taking flags. Same high ping players in the
    tank every game that seem more worried about their kd then winning the game. 3-4
    tanks sitting on the out side looking in. A BF player should be able to do more
    then one thing, besides living in a tank.
    Sounds like the player OP already described in the tank.

    Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively.
    And if someone wants to "live in a tank" then so what? I don't condone it, but it's their money, their choice, and there are plenty of ways to counter it.
  • filthmcnasty
    477 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 3
    I would love to see them return to BF4s timer system, where they let you know when a vehicle slot was close availability. This new system, implimenteed in BF1, just causes players to sit and wait. Whereas before they could play infantry until the availability became closer.
    I constantly wonder, how did they have things so right before, but all wrong now?
    I can understand the lack of tanks in BF1, it was WW1. But they also had elite classes and the awesome behemoths. This is WW2, the golden age of tanks, and the war that contained the largest tank battle in history, Kursk.
    Post edited by filthmcnasty on
  • xKusagamix
    948 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 3
    As the way the OP said, i could see that he's a lone tanker and would just let the enemy destroy his tankmate just to get one for himself.

    If a tanker playing safe that actually has a squadmate using the machine gun and doing his job effective as defending or suppressing fire enemy's objective, i would gladly jump in to eneme's Panzerfaust/PIAT and die just to cover his butt. What's wrong with people today? This is a god dang team based game.
  • jroggs
    430 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively.
    And if someone wants to "live in a tank" then so what? I don't condone it, but it's their money, their choice, and there are plenty of ways to counter it.

    Not true. It's very easy for tanks to play extremely cautiously and retreat into the team spawns or even just use map boundaries to prevent stealthy flanks. And aircraft often aren't available or there are too many other complications preventing you from acquiring that target and laying into it enough to destroy it. And even if you do manage to get a plane and destroy that tank, that enemy player is just going to menu-camp until he can get another tank.

    Aerodrome is probably the worst offender, because there's zero (usable) aircraft, and the team spawns and terrain offer great fields of fire with easy real estate control for campy tankers. But most other tank maps offer similar (if a bit lesser) benefits.

    Now, it's frustrating and annoying to face this kind of gameplay, and often better to find ways to just minimize your exposure to them. But when that tanker is on YOUR team, you're just screwed. That critical and very limited piece of equipment is being completely wasted and your team's job is that much harder because of it.

    And as my tank gameplay Carthago delenda est, I maintain that resupply points need to be removed from team spawns and placed better centrally and near objectives, and tanks need to be unable to retreat to or fight from team spawns.
  • filthmcnasty
    477 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively.
    And if someone wants to "live in a tank" then so what? I don't condone it, but it's their money, their choice, and there are plenty of ways to counter it.

    Not true. It's very easy for tanks to play extremely cautiously and retreat into the team spawns or even just use map boundaries to prevent stealthy flanks. And aircraft often aren't available or there are too many other complications preventing you from acquiring that target and laying into it enough to destroy it. And even if you do manage to get a plane and destroy that tank, that enemy player is just going to menu-camp until he can get another tank.

    Aerodrome is probably the worst offender, because there's zero (usable) aircraft, and the team spawns and terrain offer great fields of fire with easy real estate control for campy tankers. But most other tank maps offer similar (if a bit lesser) benefits.

    Now, it's frustrating and annoying to face this kind of gameplay, and often better to find ways to just minimize your exposure to them. But when that tanker is on YOUR team, you're just screwed. That critical and very limited piece of equipment is being completely wasted and your team's job is that much harder because of it.

    And as my tank gameplay Carthago delenda est, I maintain that resupply points need to be removed from team spawns and placed better centrally and near objectives, and tanks need to be unable to retreat to or fight from team spawns.

    I was referring to BF4, that was the game in discussion, a la Golmud.
    I agree, in BF5 campy tankers are awful. But given the terrible tank/infantry balance, the low number of tanks and the high respawn wait it's not hard to see why is so prevalent in BF5
  • Hawxxeye
    5593 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively.
    And if someone wants to "live in a tank" then so what? I don't condone it, but it's their money, their choice, and there are plenty of ways to counter it.

    Not true. It's very easy for tanks to play extremely cautiously and retreat into the team spawns or even just use map boundaries to prevent stealthy flanks. And aircraft often aren't available or there are too many other complications preventing you from acquiring that target and laying into it enough to destroy it. And even if you do manage to get a plane and destroy that tank, that enemy player is just going to menu-camp until he can get another tank.

    Aerodrome is probably the worst offender, because there's zero (usable) aircraft, and the team spawns and terrain offer great fields of fire with easy real estate control for campy tankers. But most other tank maps offer similar (if a bit lesser) benefits.

    Now, it's frustrating and annoying to face this kind of gameplay, and often better to find ways to just minimize your exposure to them. But when that tanker is on YOUR team, you're just screwed. That critical and very limited piece of equipment is being completely wasted and your team's job is that much harder because of it.

    And as my tank gameplay Carthago delenda est, I maintain that resupply points need to be removed from team spawns and placed better centrally and near objectives, and tanks need to be unable to retreat to or fight from team spawns.

    I was referring to BF4, that was the game in discussion, a la Golmud.
    I agree, in BF5 campy tankers are awful. But given the terrible tank/infantry balance, the low number of tanks and the high respawn wait it's not hard to see why is so prevalent in BF5
    Almost every team has so many assaults that an agressive tanker will get saturated with AT gadget attacks. Assuming 1 tank equals 2 average assaults in terms of being taken down from range (without dynamite etc) and that there are over more than 10 assaults per team one can do the math about how in most maps the tanks are painfully outnumbered.
  • filthmcnasty
    477 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Almost every team has so many assaults that an agressive tanker will get saturated with AT gadget attacks. Assuming 1 tank equals 2 average assaults in terms of being taken down from range (without dynamite etc) and that there are over more than 10 assaults per team one can do the math about how in most maps the tanks are painfully outnumbered.

    Exactly. The tank/infantry balance is beyond broken. I like the idea of criticals but with so few tanks per side you just get swarmed if you DON'T camp. BF1 did a better job by making rocket users go prone and the dynamite not being sticky.
  • Hawxxeye
    5593 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Almost every team has so many assaults that an agressive tanker will get saturated with AT gadget attacks. Assuming 1 tank equals 2 average assaults in terms of being taken down from range (without dynamite etc) and that there are over more than 10 assaults per team one can do the math about how in most maps the tanks are painfully outnumbered.

    Exactly. The tank/infantry balance is beyond broken. I like the idea of criticals but with so few tanks per side you just get swarmed if you DON'T camp. BF1 did a better job by making rocket users go prone and the dynamite not being sticky.
    and BF1 tanks not having the acceleration of a combine harvester 
  • filthmcnasty
    477 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    and BF1 tanks not having the acceleration of a combine harvester (Image)

    Lol, and reverse is worse
  • xKusagamix
    948 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    and BF1 tanks not having the acceleration of a combine harvester (Image)
    And neither the bull crap asymmetrical vehicles.
    The Staghound is basically a suicide tank with a decent bomber hunter ability.
  • Hawxxeye
    5593 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    and BF1 tanks not having the acceleration of a combine harvester (Image)
    And neither the bull crap asymmetrical vehicles.
    The Staghound is basically a suicide tank with a decent bomber hunter ability.
    Meanwhile the Valentine tank is the king of tanks
  • xKusagamix
    948 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Meanwhile the Valentine tank is the king of tanks
    And the Tiger Tank roll out into battle with 24 tank shells at max. Next the King Tiger probably will have less than 30 shells, same speed but maybe a little bit more tank shell bouncing. No wonder the German lost the war.
  • filthmcnasty
    477 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    xKusagamix wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Meanwhile the Valentine tank is the king of tanks
    And the Tiger Tank roll out into battle with 24 tank shells at max. Next the King Tiger probably will have less than 30 shells, same speed but maybe a little bit more tank shell bouncing. No wonder the German lost the war.

    If they make it historically accurate the King Tiger will breakdown before it even gets to the battlefield
  • VincentNZ
    2917 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I'd very much rather have the gunner positions improved to BF4 levels, that should help enormously for tanks in close quarters. Remote turrets, proximity scan or flares, or 3rd person view.
  • Jeffmaxs6
    225 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Jeffmaxs6 wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Golmud Railway your more likely to see a tank on
    the hill camping. HaHa. 2-3 tanks taking flags. Same high ping players in the
    tank every game that seem more worried about their kd then winning the game. 3-4
    tanks sitting on the out side looking in. A BF player should be able to do more
    then one thing, besides living in a tank.
    Sounds like the player OP already described in the tank.

    Yeah, you would see that in games, just like you would see guys like me that played the objectives very aggressively.
    And if someone wants to "live in a tank" then so what? I don't condone it, but it's their money, their choice, and there are plenty of ways to counter it.

    Maybe it depends when you started gaming. I started with UT, first person shooter. DM to be the best player. Beat the noobs, even when they camped and hung around the power up. Because that was about the only way they could helpfully get a kill.  Now if you started with world of tanks.  lol   What about sportsmanship and close games? Sportsmanship, if you are a good player and like competition you don't camp the spawn points for cheap kills. Tank > infantry is not equal and the tank clearly has the upper hand. It's almost like two diff games, just one brought a tank to a gun fight or vs.  BF4 is gets tiring fighting a tanks, since they blast from the out side in and you run out of rockets to be farmed. 2-3 tanks doing this with air support and the game can be unbalance, but who cares right?  So to much organization just ruins the game, where close games are better. So the players are some what responsible for close games. Like clans fighting against each other vs being on one side. And when the tank is worried about his kd he'll just sit back and farm while the team is losing vs take risk. It's just a game and should be fun and dare I say fun for all.  Tanks should be valuable vs abused farm equipment and that's what happens when there's lots of them.




  • jroggs
    430 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I was referring to BF4, that was the game in discussion, a la Golmud.
    My bad, then.
  • Elephante33
    219 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    More tanks and more vehicules is what we need. WW2 was a MOBILE war, a MECHANISED war. We should see squads moving around with their armoured support, and thats really hard to do when, despite every battlefield so far being EARLY WW2, tanks seem to be as rare as if both sides were Germany at the Fall of Berlin
  • SlowOldWarrior
    451 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Make Medic like they were in BF3/4, the most lethal vs infantry, but useless against armor.  Give Engineers SMGs and Carbine with rockets, but lesser infantry lethality.  Give Support support C4 and MG, lethal but without pinpoint accuracy and suppression - yes, bring back suppression.  Give Recon C4 and harder to use more powerful rifles.  And finally, give us a greater number of tanks with more maneuverability.

    TLDR: Make a BF3/4 class balanced game set in WWII.

    Too easy.
  • Elephante33
    219 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Make Medic like they were in BF3/4, the most lethal vs infantry, but useless against armor.  Give Engineers SMGs and Carbine with rockets, but lesser infantry lethality.  Give Support support C4 and MG, lethal but without pinpoint accuracy and suppression - yes, bring back suppression.  Give Recon C4 and harder to use more powerful rifles.  And finally, give us a greater number of tanks with more maneuverability.

    TLDR: Make a BF3/4 class balanced game set in WWII.

    Too easy.
    I agree, whos decision it was to make the Assault class the jack of all trades, and a very good jack at that, needs to rethink the value of fostering co-operation between classes, because there is literally no job the Assault cant do save build AT guns and revive non squad mates
Sign In or Register to comment.