Weekly Debrief

Give the PIAT and panzerfaust to support?

«1
LINKERBLOX
95 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
This way the support class can have a better counter against tanks and the assault class wont be so OP

Comments

  • LOLGotYerTags
    13077 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    But you would just be making the support class OP then..  


  • LINKERBLOX
    95 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    But you would just be making the support class OP then..  
    How, support would only have the PIAT as an AT gun whilst assault would have the grenade pistol, AT grenade and dynamite
  • LOLGotYerTags
    13077 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Support has AT mines remember.
  • YourLocalPlumber
    2896 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 16
    Whats the point if AT Pistol does the exact same damage and can also destroy structures.

    What needs to be done is either a damage nerf or count nerf.  Damage should be less of an RNG battle. Currently you can hit a tank for 10 damage with Panzerfaust, yet with 2nd shot in the same relative area you get 20+ damage. That must be fixed. Damage should be standardized for the sake of consistency.

    Or amount of Panzerfaust/Piat should be reduced to 1+1 instead of 2+1.There are way too many ammo stations around the map that allow Assaults to have 4-5 easy shots on a tank at any given moment. Also, ammo boxes should not be able to resupply Panzerfausts and Piats. AT Pistols, TNT, Mines etc is fine. But not AT launchers. 
  • jroggs
    433 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Whats the point if AT Pistol does the exact same damage and can also destroy structures.

    What needs to be done is either a damage nerf or count nerf.  Damage should be less of an RNG battle. Currently you can hit a tank for 10 damage with Panzerfaust, yet with 2nd shot in the same relative area you get 20+ damage. That must be fixed. Damage should be standardized for the sake of consistency.

    Or amount of Panzerfaust/Piat should be reduced to 1+1 instead of 2+1.There are way too many ammo stations around the map that allow Assaults to have 4-5 easy shots on a tank at any given moment. Also, ammo boxes should not be able to resupply Panzerfausts and Piats. AT Pistols, TNT, Mines etc is fine. But not AT launchers. 

    If a tanker is letting someone take "4-5 easy shots" at him with the PIAT or Panzerfaust, he deserves to lose.

    Agreed on making damage consistent, though.
  • Hawxxeye
    5595 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Imagine just popping down an Ammo Box and having infinite PIATs wherever you want.

    No, thanks.
    As a tanker the enemy PIATs and fausts already feel infinite
  • NeilSmith1986
    21 postsMember, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This way the support class can have a better counter against tanks and the assault class wont be so OP
    So then Support will be OP instead? They can self-resupply. Unlimited PIAT and Panzerfausts......

    Personally I wouldn't mind the AT Pistol to have a little buff, or for them to add something like the Limpet from BF1 (there is something in single player, but I forget its name)
  • ElliotLH
    8397 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    This way the support class can have a better counter against tanks and the assault class wont be so OP
    So then Support will be OP instead? They can self-resupply. Unlimited PIAT and Panzerfausts......

    Personally I wouldn't mind the AT Pistol to have a little buff, or for them to add something like the Limpet from BF1 (there is something in single player, but I forget its name)
    Think that'd be the shaped charge: https://battlefield.fandom.com/wiki/Shaped_Charge
  • M_Rat13
    1064 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I feel BF4 had the right idea. Assault was Medic, and had mid range guns, and Engineer was anti tank, and had CQB weapons. There was a clear trade off for having that much firepower available.
  • StealthAria
    296 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Funny thing about the AT pistol, it actually should be doing more damage than the panzerfaust, it has higher damage numbers. However, it seems Assault's AT gear gets some kind of multiplier that other classes don't.

    M_Rat13 wrote: »
    I feel BF4 had the right idea. Assault was Medic, and had mid range guns, and Engineer was anti tank, and had CQB weapons. There was a clear trade off for having that much firepower available.

    Assault ended up OP in infantry battles though, those "mid range guns" out performed every other class of weapon in their field. Assault primaries had >25 max damage compared to SMGs with <24, meaning an SMG took an extra bullet with no actual advantage over an AR.
    Carbines didn't fare any better either, they also suffered from low damage and even had poor hip-fire, spread and recoil. And then Assault also had medical supplies so they could heal any damage they sustained in mere moments, originally even letting them heal while still taking damage.
  • M_Rat13
    1064 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Funny thing about the AT pistol, it actually should be doing more damage than the panzerfaust, it has higher damage numbers. However, it seems Assault's AT gear gets some kind of multiplier that other classes don't.

    M_Rat13 wrote: »
    I feel BF4 had the right idea. Assault was Medic, and had mid range guns, and Engineer was anti tank, and had CQB weapons. There was a clear trade off for having that much firepower available.

    Assault ended up OP in infantry battles though, those "mid range guns" out performed every other class of weapon in their field. Assault primaries had >25 max damage compared to SMGs with <24, meaning an SMG took an extra bullet with no actual advantage over an AR.
    Carbines didn't fare any better either, they also suffered from low damage and even had poor hip-fire, spread and recoil. And then Assault also had medical supplies so they could heal any damage they sustained in mere moments, originally even letting them heal while still taking damage.
    Oh, hidden stats are the worst. Anyway, obviously, I agree weapon balance was terrible in BF4, despite what the cult might tell you. However, I meant that the idea of those classes worked well. BF1 has a similar system that worked, but I feel the stigma of 'medic' didn't help. No one wants to be the 'medic', but, call it Assault, and it works. If Medic in this game had been Engineer (with the AT stuff), and Assault got the Medic equipment, while still being called Assault, the game would have worked out a lot better, and you'd probably see more tanks too.
  • DukeSan27
    1163 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Giving Dynamite to Support make more sense (and removing it from Rambo).
  • IDazzlerazzle
    434 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sure give all classes rocket propelled grenades x3 , x3 Panzerfaust and dual wielding AT tank rifle ability it's gonna be fun /s
  • M_Rat13
    1064 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sure give all classes rocket propelled grenades x3 , x3 Panzerfaust and dual wielding AT tank rifle ability it's gonna be fun /s

    Again, Engineer/Assault worked in BF4/BF1, by limiting the ability for AT players to close range against players, meaning you could pick them off as friendly infantry to help your tanks. Although BF4 tank physics meant that you didn't need to of course, lol. It was like trying to swat a fly at times, a fly with a one shot gun aimed at you. Anyway, as I was saying, Medic should have been Engineer, with AT equipment, and Assault should have been BF4 Assault, with Medic equipment.
  • CSO7777
    1197 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    M_Rat13 said:
    Sure give all classes rocket propelled grenades x3 , x3 Panzerfaust and dual wielding AT tank rifle ability it's gonna be fun /s

    Again, Engineer/Assault worked in BF4/BF1, by limiting the ability for AT players to close range against players, meaning you could pick them off as friendly infantry to help your tanks. Although BF4 tank physics meant that you didn't need to of course, lol. It was like trying to swat a fly at times, a fly with a one shot gun aimed at you. Anyway, as I was saying, Medic should have been Engineer, with AT equipment, and Assault should have been BF4 Assault, with Medic equipment.
    There is not enough vehicles in BFV to have an engineer class. They would just run around and have nothing to do most of the time.

    This was the reason why it was removed from BF1, when Dice reduced the number of vehicles (in BF1), the engineer class became obsolete. In BF1 assault was more or less the old engineer-class from BF4 (smgs, antitank), this actually worked ok (even though their anti-tank-role was a little too weak), but they had a problem with medium to long range (just like medics have now).

    Because people complained about medics not being on the frontline (having slrs), Dice apparantly mixed things up again and now the medics got the smgs (though smgs were stronger in BF1).

    I understand what they are doing, it's not perfect, but perhaps in the next game they will get balance right.
  • M_Rat13
    1064 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    CSO7777 said:
    M_Rat13 said:
    Sure give all classes rocket propelled grenades x3 , x3 Panzerfaust and dual wielding AT tank rifle ability it's gonna be fun /s

    Again, Engineer/Assault worked in BF4/BF1, by limiting the ability for AT players to close range against players, meaning you could pick them off as friendly infantry to help your tanks. Although BF4 tank physics meant that you didn't need to of course, lol. It was like trying to swat a fly at times, a fly with a one shot gun aimed at you. Anyway, as I was saying, Medic should have been Engineer, with AT equipment, and Assault should have been BF4 Assault, with Medic equipment.
    There is not enough vehicles in BFV to have an engineer class. They would just run around and have nothing to do most of the time.

    This was the reason why it was removed from BF1, when Dice reduced the number of vehicles (in BF1), the engineer class became obsolete. In BF1 assault was more or less the old engineer-class from BF4 (smgs, antitank), this actually worked ok (even though their anti-tank-role was a little too weak), but they had a problem with medium to long range (just like medics have now).

    Because people complained about medics not being on the frontline (having slrs), Dice apparantly mixed things up again and now the medics got the smgs (though smgs were stronger in BF1).

    I understand what they are doing, it's not perfect, but perhaps in the next game they will get balance right.

    Well, it also comes down to map design. BF1 had so many flank routes, if you knew where to look. Plenty an enemy sniper got surprised when I came from behind to melee or shotgun them.
  • DingoKillr
    3556 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Moving aggressive explosive to be with extra ammo is bad even the AT grenade pistol is bad enough.

    If you want less Rocket Launcher users put a gadget in that slot that can be useful. Like zip line or spotting scope.

    Image on a zip line flying over a tank dropping dynamite onto it. You have fun and BF moments without creating overpower weapons.
  • dannyB0i87
    50 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    Imagine just popping down an Ammo Box and having infinite PIATs wherever you want.

    No, thanks.
    As a tanker the enemy PIATs and fausts already feel infinite
    Only infinite thing I'm seeing is **** tankers whining
  • CSO7777
    1197 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    M_Rat13 said:
    CSO7777 said:
    M_Rat13 said:
    Sure give all classes rocket propelled grenades x3 , x3 Panzerfaust and dual wielding AT tank rifle ability it's gonna be fun /s

    Again, Engineer/Assault worked in BF4/BF1, by limiting the ability for AT players to close range against players, meaning you could pick them off as friendly infantry to help your tanks. Although BF4 tank physics meant that you didn't need to of course, lol. It was like trying to swat a fly at times, a fly with a one shot gun aimed at you. Anyway, as I was saying, Medic should have been Engineer, with AT equipment, and Assault should have been BF4 Assault, with Medic equipment.
    There is not enough vehicles in BFV to have an engineer class. They would just run around and have nothing to do most of the time.

    This was the reason why it was removed from BF1, when Dice reduced the number of vehicles (in BF1), the engineer class became obsolete. In BF1 assault was more or less the old engineer-class from BF4 (smgs, antitank), this actually worked ok (even though their anti-tank-role was a little too weak), but they had a problem with medium to long range (just like medics have now).

    Because people complained about medics not being on the frontline (having slrs), Dice apparantly mixed things up again and now the medics got the smgs (though smgs were stronger in BF1).

    I understand what they are doing, it's not perfect, but perhaps in the next game they will get balance right.

    Well, it also comes down to map design. BF1 had so many flank routes, if you knew where to look. Plenty an enemy sniper got surprised when I came from behind to melee or shotgun them.
    I agree on map design. Snipers were very powerful in BF1, but when you learned the maps they weren't really a big issue (mostly them not PTFO'ing). And assualt was more viable in BF1 than medics are in BFV, because almost all maps had multiple engagement distances (and there were no Hamada or Panzerstorm). BF1 had perhaps the best class balance of the recent BF-games and a big factor in this was map design (weapon balance was better as well).
Sign In or Register to comment.