Tank Overhaul Complete Breakdown - Update 5.2

Comments

  • VincentNZ
    3844 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    talhaONE said:
    I dont get the turret hits also. Turrets are the most vulnerable parts of tanks, aside engines, high risk high reward principle. Hits to the turret unless angled or front, should be counted normal/critical. Basically if a tanker wants to camp behind an obstacle he will be better protected including his most exposed part.
    They are decreasing the damage to turret hits for rewarding hulldown play style i guess.
    Which I can get behind as the inconsistent damage model from parts paired with angling make it really unnerving for tankers to judge how many damage they can still tank.
  • SmokeD_BabooN
    490 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Funny, "no skill" is exactly how I would describe tankers who cannot manage to use birds eye view to detect enemies or their one-hit kill weapons to ward off the players who have to sneak up right next to them and slowly deploy their mediocre-damage gadgets to have a chance to get a kill.

    You re not the guy asking for dogfight tips? Well first learn to master vehicles and then share opinions. Cause all I see is an easy mode assault arguments. Vincent didnt know that one assault can solo a full tank. So you share the same views or do we need to explain in depth? The reason tanks are camping is the flood of assaults and easy mode kits. In case you havent noticed support can lay mines also. But I can agree with you those changes are not needed.
  • VincentNZ
    3844 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Funny, "no skill" is exactly how I would describe tankers who cannot manage to use birds eye view to detect enemies or their one-hit kill weapons to ward off the players who have to sneak up right next to them and slowly deploy their mediocre-damage gadgets to have a chance to get a kill.

    You re not the guy asking for dogfight tips? Well first learn to master vehicles and then share opinions. Cause all I see is an easy mode assault arguments. Vincent didnt know that one assault can solo a full tank. So you share the same views or do we need to explain in depth? The reason tanks are camping is the flood of assaults and easy mode kits. In case you havent noticed support can lay mines also. But I can agree with you those changes are not needed.
    You can solo a tank, if you are topped off, are 1/4th of the classes AND also make use of the Dynamite in slot 4, when the tank is also stationary and at close range, and oblivious to you. That is quite a few "ifs" in this game, is it not?
  • Elephante33
    317 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I feel AP shells should do MORE damage, its literally a shell MADE to kill tanks, as for HE getting a splash buff, i agree, its painful to fire an HE shell at a running bunny hopper and have it not kill him because he so happened to be a meter away from the centre of the explosion, cose thats how that works apprently
  • wasp9166
    311 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I feel AP shells should do MORE damage, its literally a shell MADE to kill tanks, as for HE getting a splash buff, i agree, its painful to fire an HE shell at a running bunny hopper and have it not kill him because he so happened to be a meter away from the centre of the explosion, cose thats how that works apprently
    agreed , you basically have to land it on him
  • Cerben1
    302 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    so an at mine is just a way to say i have been there after this so called fix. who will use them after this? and when you drive tank its so easy to see at mines, why not up the dmg on them and max them out at 2 insted of 3? less spamy and more deadly more in the line of fun i think. hmg nerf intresting way of making them useless, lmg buff on tanks finaly. when do the ppl designing the game realise itsnot the at mines that is the big problem its the  assaults preferd tools panzerfaus/piat  dynamite and at granade that is an op combo as you can solo an heavy tank easy whit that 
  • DingoKillr
    3870 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It is a little strange all this talk of Assault needing long range AT weapons. No, they don't they are meant for close to mid range combat. 
    They can still solo a tank with 1 AT mine and 3 Piat my not be your preferred kit and you always have the AT grenade on top. So you can ambush and kill tanks.

    This is a good BF setup. Hard but still possible if done individual, while easier done as a team, which is the same for Assault v Aircraft.

    As for long range AT infantry you have Recon AMR, if that is not good enough may be you should look at improving AMR instead of having the Anti-Infantry Kit be able to solo any vehicle any time. 


    P.S. Wish they could make it more important to be a vehicle buster v light infantry role. 
  • RamFrog
    117 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Cerben1 said:
    so an at mine is just a way to say i have been there after this so called fix. who will use them after this? and when you drive tank its so easy to see at mines, why not up the dmg on them and max them out at 2 insted of 3? less spamy and more deadly more in the line of fun i think. hmg nerf intresting way of making them useless, lmg buff on tanks finaly. when do the ppl designing the game realise itsnot the at mines that is the big problem its the  assaults preferd tools panzerfaus/piat  dynamite and at granade that is an op combo as you can solo an heavy tank easy whit that 

    I think you can have 6 AT mines planted simultaneously in the new patch and they are going to inflict more track and/or engine hits.

    Just spread them all over and it might get so annoying to tankers when they cannot drive 20 meters without having to repair, that we'll see new "nerf AT mine" threads pretty soon.
  • Cerben1
    302 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    At mines are easy to spot when you drive tank. and potential death for running behinde a enemy  tank  and place max dmg 60% behind them whit the slowest moving class no ty i use them for anoy inf insted shoot them to hurt there egos. if i ever play support agen 

  • bigjon
    32 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2019
    So if I'm reading this right does this mean that the Valantine with the 6 pounder HE round is doing 17 damage per shot to the side armour of a medium tank average, the 75mm Panzer 20, and the Tiger 23?


    Honestly this all sounds like an improvement to me, though I like the complex nature of armour penetration in theory the inconsistency when fighting other tanks is frustrating, angle should play a role however having shells repeatedly glance off can be really frustrating as a Tiger player, angle of approach is much less under my control making the whole, get a 45% angle and backup over the hill before getting destroyed strategy really annoying. I liked waiting in trees to get that critical hit but hitting a staghound with 4 shells to have it survive because it's on an angle is both frustrating and does not make a lot of sense when taking fire from an 88mm gun...


    In the lighter tanks I wasn't as annoyed by glancing off shells but in a slow firing tank that is also slow to move its extremely frustrating.
  • bigjon
    32 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2019
    talhaONE wrote: »
    I dont get the turret hits also. Turrets are the most vulnerable parts of tanks, aside engines, high risk high reward principle. Hits to the turret unless angled or front, should be counted normal/critical. Basically if a tanker wants to camp behind an obstacle he will be better protected including his most exposed part.
    They are decreasing the damage to turret hits for rewarding hulldown play style i guess.

    Makes sense too, the turrets on most tanks on the front especially had a lot of armour packed onto them.
  • Matty101yttam
    1304 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    RamFrog said:
    Cerben1 said:
    so an at mine is just a way to say i have been there after this so called fix. who will use them after this? and when you drive tank its so easy to see at mines, why not up the dmg on them and max them out at 2 insted of 3? less spamy and more deadly more in the line of fun i think. hmg nerf intresting way of making them useless, lmg buff on tanks finaly. when do the ppl designing the game realise itsnot the at mines that is the big problem its the  assaults preferd tools panzerfaus/piat  dynamite and at granade that is an op combo as you can solo an heavy tank easy whit that 

    I think you can have 6 AT mines planted simultaneously in the new patch and they are going to inflict more track and/or engine hits.

    Just spread them all over and it might get so annoying to tankers when they cannot drive 20 meters without having to repair, that we'll see new "nerf AT mine" threads pretty soon.
    hamada airstrips going to look like it's got the pox
  • jroggs
    990 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Funny, "no skill" is exactly how I would describe tankers who cannot manage to use birds eye view to detect enemies or their one-hit kill weapons to ward off the players who have to sneak up right next to them and slowly deploy their mediocre-damage gadgets to have a chance to get a kill.

    You re not the guy asking for dogfight tips? Well first learn to master vehicles and then share opinions. Cause all I see is an easy mode assault arguments. Vincent didnt know that one assault can solo a full tank. So you share the same views or do we need to explain in depth? The reason tanks are camping is the flood of assaults and easy mode kits. In case you havent noticed support can lay mines also. But I can agree with you those changes are not needed.

    I did indeed start a thread for sharing fighter insight, because it was an area of the game in which I thought I had more to learn. See, when I don't fully understand something, I prefer to examine it and compare notes with others before I start yelling about how unfair it is. Meanwhile, most of the self-asserted masters in threads like these struggle from problems I have solved. The difference is they're not open to advice, they just want to complain and complain.

    If you see a desire to educate oneself before making declarations as a weakness, that is sad. Attempting to throw it in my face to discredit me is laughable.

    I've seen all the arguments about how OP or easy-mode Assault is, or how impossible it is for tankers to survive without hiding. None of them hold water, factually or anecdotally. Bad tankers misunderstand both tanks and AT infantry, and they frequently exaggerate or lie about the problems. Building the game around these unskilled and ignorant players is not going to improve the game.
  • Hawxxeye
    6610 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2019
    jroggs said:
    jroggs wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Funny, "no skill" is exactly how I would describe tankers who cannot manage to use birds eye view to detect enemies or their one-hit kill weapons to ward off the players who have to sneak up right next to them and slowly deploy their mediocre-damage gadgets to have a chance to get a kill.

    You re not the guy asking for dogfight tips? Well first learn to master vehicles and then share opinions. Cause all I see is an easy mode assault arguments. Vincent didnt know that one assault can solo a full tank. So you share the same views or do we need to explain in depth? The reason tanks are camping is the flood of assaults and easy mode kits. In case you havent noticed support can lay mines also. But I can agree with you those changes are not needed.

    I did indeed start a thread for sharing fighter insight, because it was an area of the game in which I thought I had more to learn. See, when I don't fully understand something, I prefer to examine it and compare notes with others before I start yelling about how unfair it is. Meanwhile, most of the self-asserted masters in threads like these struggle from problems I have solved. The difference is they're not open to advice, they just want to complain and complain.

    If you see a desire to educate oneself before making declarations as a weakness, that is sad. Attempting to throw it in my face to discredit me is laughable.

    I've seen all the arguments about how OP or easy-mode Assault is, or how impossible it is for tankers to survive without hiding. None of them hold water, factually or anecdotally. Bad tankers misunderstand both tanks and AT infantry, and they frequently exaggerate or lie about the problems. Building the game around these unskilled and ignorant players is not going to improve the game.
    Too bad, the AT infantry meta is already built around unskilled and ignorant infantry being a serious threat to a tank.
    .
    While a smart and successful flank by infantry should be rewarded with a tanker barbecue, it is ridiculous that it is safe enough for infantry to make a frontal attack (within its FoV) to a tank. Frontal attacks should always mean a swift death by the MG or the cannon, which thanks to the slower turrets and the horrible vertical angle of these turrets (and to an extent the uselessness of the top gunner) are a lot harder to happen than imho they should.
    .
    .
    Many thanks for taking the time to deliver your information here in the forums!
    I had already seen the video but it is also nice to have it in written form like that now.
    .
    Would you like if possible to give us your own opinion over the vertical angles of the tank turrets in BFV as well as the viability of the top gunners?
    Post edited by Hawxxeye on
  • SmokeD_BabooN
    490 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    jroggs said:
    jroggs wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Funny, "no skill" is exactly how I would describe tankers who cannot manage to use birds eye view to detect enemies or their one-hit kill weapons to ward off the players who have to sneak up right next to them and slowly deploy their mediocre-damage gadgets to have a chance to get a kill.

    You re not the guy asking for dogfight tips? Well first learn to master vehicles and then share opinions. Cause all I see is an easy mode assault arguments. Vincent didnt know that one assault can solo a full tank. So you share the same views or do we need to explain in depth? The reason tanks are camping is the flood of assaults and easy mode kits. In case you havent noticed support can lay mines also. But I can agree with you those changes are not needed.

    I did indeed start a thread for sharing fighter insight, because it was an area of the game in which I thought I had more to learn. See, when I don't fully understand something, I prefer to examine it and compare notes with others before I start yelling about how unfair it is. Meanwhile, most of the self-asserted masters in threads like these struggle from problems I have solved. The difference is they're not open to advice, they just want to complain and complain.

    If you see a desire to educate oneself before making declarations as a weakness, that is sad. Attempting to throw it in my face to discredit me is laughable.

    I've seen all the arguments about how OP or easy-mode Assault is, or how impossible it is for tankers to survive without hiding. None of them hold water, factually or anecdotally. Bad tankers misunderstand both tanks and AT infantry, and they frequently exaggerate or lie about the problems. Building the game around these unskilled and ignorant players is not going to improve the game.
    Well you read it wrong. My first advice is to have a relevant experience with both sides, cause you lack experience in vehicles. I am a good tanker and a pilot, and I cap flags in tanks like no tomorrow. Tanking in bfv has major issues: movement is clunky, slow, bounces from everything, gets angled by everything, shakes and trembles if by chance a fellow tonker is miles away throttling his engine, your crosshair gets up and down like in a latino dance. 
    While assault has both air and ground capabilities in one man army show to do everything. Seriously aside medics I do not see the point of support and recon. Useless.

    This debate is not about nerfing assault is more about balance within classes and assault vs vehicles. In my opinion assault should remain the same but with any of those options:
    1.Decrease his carrying capacity.
    2.If he chooses to go with aa weapons then remove his ability to tackle ground and viceversa.


    Easy fix, easy to do, no nerf of range and damage of his weaponry.
  • xKusagamix
    1045 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Still no word about nerfing the 4000lb bomb of the Mosquito against heavy tank. It's ridiculous that a big fat Tiger tank with a really low speed can get 1HK by that thing.
  • Hawxxeye
    6610 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Still no word about nerfing the 4000lb bomb of the Mosquito against heavy tank. It's ridiculous that a big fat Tiger tank with a really low speed can get 1HK by that thing.
    I think that this bomb falls almost as slow  as a tiger can move.
  • VincentNZ
    3844 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    jroggs said:
    jroggs wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Funny, "no skill" is exactly how I would describe tankers who cannot manage to use birds eye view to detect enemies or their one-hit kill weapons to ward off the players who have to sneak up right next to them and slowly deploy their mediocre-damage gadgets to have a chance to get a kill.

    You re not the guy asking for dogfight tips? Well first learn to master vehicles and then share opinions. Cause all I see is an easy mode assault arguments. Vincent didnt know that one assault can solo a full tank. So you share the same views or do we need to explain in depth? The reason tanks are camping is the flood of assaults and easy mode kits. In case you havent noticed support can lay mines also. But I can agree with you those changes are not needed.

    I did indeed start a thread for sharing fighter insight, because it was an area of the game in which I thought I had more to learn. See, when I don't fully understand something, I prefer to examine it and compare notes with others before I start yelling about how unfair it is. Meanwhile, most of the self-asserted masters in threads like these struggle from problems I have solved. The difference is they're not open to advice, they just want to complain and complain.

    If you see a desire to educate oneself before making declarations as a weakness, that is sad. Attempting to throw it in my face to discredit me is laughable.

    I've seen all the arguments about how OP or easy-mode Assault is, or how impossible it is for tankers to survive without hiding. None of them hold water, factually or anecdotally. Bad tankers misunderstand both tanks and AT infantry, and they frequently exaggerate or lie about the problems. Building the game around these unskilled and ignorant players is not going to improve the game.
    Too bad, the AT infantry meta is already built around unskilled and ignorant infantry being a serious threat to a tank.
    .
    While a smart and successful flank by infantry should be rewarded with a tanker barbecue, it is ridiculous that it is safe enough for infantry to make a frontal attack (within its FoV) to a tank. Frontal attacks should always mean a swift death by the MG or the cannon, which thanks to the slower turrets and the horrible vertical angle of these turrets (and to an extent the uselessness of the top gunner) are a lot harder to happen than imho they should.
    .
    .
    Many thanks for taking the time to deliver your information here in the forums!
    I had already seen the video but it is also nice to have it in written form like that now.
    .
    Would you like if possible to give us your own opinion over the vertical angles of the tank turrets in BFV as well as the viability of the top gunners?
    I just do not see it. Mobility and convenience issues aside, the notion that Assault AT is "easy-mode" is ridiculous. You need to chew through 100 damage, which is only possible with a certain loadout, when topped off, when playing a certain class and when choosing to engage at both range and point blank. And that is without taking into account instant repair.
    Yet whenever I look people up here, they man a tank designed for two or more people with 100% efficiency, and have a K/D much higher than with their infantry? How does that argument hold up that Assault is easy mode. Heck, my most-used vehicles are the halftracks and I probably have a K/D of 8 with them, now that is easy, regardless if I am on the objective or far away, I can only dream to achieve that with any infantry class. Why is that? Because, whenever you enter a vehicle you are suddenly invincible to 2/4 of the classes and the chip damage of the rare AT pistol support can be shrugged off, easily.
    When my PF does 11 damage and my AT pistol does 9 damage, and I have 2-3 or 3-4 of them, I will simply not engage the targets it stands to reason. There is little incentive as it is to engage a vehicle right now. For what? For the chance of getting 45 points of damage? And yet DICE insists to create a more hostile environment for actually going AT.
Sign In or Register to comment.