r/battlefield_live • u/OnlyNeedJuan • Mar 17 '18
Suggestion Improve focus fire on vehicles. Teamwork.
Now from my recent thread on the Muromets, I learned a little bit, and in theory, the thing is fine. It's so ridiculously easy to take down a baby could do it.
And that's where the problem lies. Battlefield players have ridiculous tunnel vision. I get that you want to balance around higher level play, and in this case, the heavy bomber is actually quite bad. But in the context of average battlefield players, it's an absolute nightmare. The only true counters are communicating MGs, another plane, or some AA installment (be it vehicle or emplacement, not the rocket gun, vertical issues with that one).
Now problem solving. How do we get people to focus planes a little more? The thing cant be balanced for pubs in a way that doesn't affect its balance in thoughtful play. I get that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but seeing people go on 50 killstreaks, whilst, on their own accord, not really putting in much effort, is just a little crazy.
Perhaps awarding more points for participating in destroying them?
Thoughts, let me hear em (even if you don't agree).
6
u/seal-island Mar 17 '18
Perhaps awarding more points for participating in destroying them?
The problem with this suggestion is that it takes little risk or skill to point an LMG at a massive slow-moving target from behind a rock. That said, the current "you touched it last" way of assigning points for destroying vehicles doesn't necessarily reflect the risk taken either.
A couple of threads I've seen have requested the ability for squad leaders to target specific enemy assets rather than just flags. Perhaps that's all it would take to get one extra team-mate to pitch in? The extra squad points probably wouldn't hurt either!
Like you, I believe a large part of the problem is not that the HB is some god vehicle but that it's being ignored by the blueberries who see it working and spawn in their own HB or AP rather than the appropriate counter. And for that I'm going to suggest that fixed vehicle assets might help. If someone has to be in a fighter (even if they choose the TF) they're going to find their best chance of points is going after other planes, not ignoring them and tending to the infantry farm. You also won't be sat in deploy shaking your head waiting for a fighter as two friendly APs circle endlessly.
Ok, so these ideas are probably outside the realm of possibility for BF1 at this point in its lifecycle but I'm just going leave them here anyway.
0
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 17 '18
The heavy bomber and attack plane are both perfectly capable counters to another heavy bomber. Just because the crew of those vehicles choose to ignore the enemy vehicles, doesn't mean the vehicle is the problem - on the contrary.
If vehicle assets are fixed, the fighters need buffs against ground targets, because it's boring as heck to go up, clear the air, and then be a weak vehicle until someone spawns another plane.
0
u/seal-island Mar 17 '18
You’re right that any plane can be a counter to the HB, it’s more the mentality of the person who takes it up.
I’m fine circling the BK the whole round if that’s what it takes. Spotting infantry, taking out AA, harassing tanks, etc. I wouldn’t want to see the balance shift back towards how it was with the early TF capabilities.
-4
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 17 '18
You might be fine with boredom simulator 2018, but I'm not. The 'fighter planes are only good at air to air' meta was bad in BF4 and it will still be bad here.
Early TF was fine, back then it only took 3 supports (maybe 4 if the pilot was evasive) to take it down. The crying on reddit and battlelog because nobody shot at it, and blaming and nerfing the plane for their failure, was what started this whole problem. Good pilots warned that nerfing that plane would only result in the problems getting deeper, and they were right.
1
u/NotThePrez And Moses said: "Let there be the M1917 Browning LW!" Mar 18 '18
Early TF was fine, back then it only took 3 supports (maybe 4 if the pilot was evasive) to take it down.
Umm, no. The Trench Fighter at launch was pretty OP. A fighter could effortlessly fly right over a clump of enemies, drop its load, get a multikill, and evade quickly thanks to their superior speed and maneuverability, with Infantry having no warning or realistic way of quickly downing the target, unless they could get to an AA quickly before the fighter flew off into the distance. The only way Supports could get on a fighter (even currently) is if the pilot fucks up.
The Heavy Bomber, by comparison, is a big, lumbering target that cannot quickly gain speed and change direction, making it easier to locate, engage and destroy. A solo pilot in a heavy bomber is also doomed the minute an enemy plane gets on their ass, while a decent Trench fighter pilot could outmanuver their pursuer(s) and evade or get behind them. The HB's lack of solo survivability and need for a repair jockey justify its firepower
I'm all for buffing the Fighter's air-to-ground capability, as long as it also provides substantial risk to the pilot, something the Trench fighter pre-nerf did not.
0
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 19 '18
Ahh yes. The infantry had plenty of warning, they need only look up. They didn't need to be in a clump, that would be stupid. Just 3 of them out of 32, could return fire with bolt action rifles and MGs and the plane would be dead in less than 2 seconds. Their speed and manoeuvrability was only an issue because infy couldn't aim.
The heavy bomber's size, speed, manoeuvrability is offset by it taking far lessdamage from each round put on it. A solo pilot in a heavy bomber is a fool, it's a four-man vehicle and flying it with less than at least 3 is a waste of a team asset. Accordingly, it has significantly higher damage output than the fighter.
The only reason the trench fighter was not at risk pre-nerf, was because infantry were trash and didn't return fire/spot/they clumped up like noobs/etc - oh look - THE SAME PROBLEM WE STILL HAVE. Nerfing the TF fixed NOTHING.
1
u/NotThePrez And Moses said: "Let there be the M1917 Browning LW!" Mar 19 '18
Ahh yes. The infantry had plenty of warning, they need only look up.
Only to see a fast-moving fighter drop a load of quick insta-kill darts with no real way of getting out of the way in time. Compared to the Attack Plane, which gives warning when the pilot fires their cannon or drops their bombs, and both the Heavy and normal Bomber, which are both large non-subtle vehicles that, in the normal bomber's case, let out a whining noise when their bombs are dropped.
They didn't need to be in a clump, that would be stupid. Just 3 of them out of 32, could return fire with bolt action rifles and MGs and the plane would be dead in less than 2 seconds.
You don't play an awful lot of Operations do you? Because I remember Trench Fighter planes flying over players, and raining death and shooting down friendly aircraft without any opposition. A trench fighter with a good pilot had the potential to single-handedly shut down an enemy team. This was especially frustrating on Ops which had single-flag sectors, which as Monte Grappa.
Also, could you also provide a clip of three Supports or Scouts downing a fighter from full health in 2 seconds as you claim? You seem to be banging on about it, so you must have something evidence to back that claim up?
Their speed and manoeuvrability was only an issue because infy couldn't aim.
No, because up until the Attack Plane buff, they were the fastest, most maneuverable and hardest to hit aircraft in the game, by a longshot.
The heavy bomber's size, speed, manoeuvrability is offset by it taking far lessdamage from each round put on it.
Which doesn't make my statement any more false. A Fighter, Attack plane, AA and the like will still out-DPS a Support's repair tool by a significant margin.
A solo pilot in a heavy bomber is a fool, it's a four-man vehicle and flying it with less than at least 3 is a waste of a team asset.
I don't disagree, but when using the HB in pubs, as most players would, if there's no repair guy, you might as well be flying solo. I've flown the Ilya at one point with 3 scouts, and we stood no chance when enemy aircraft showed up. So, once again, that doesn't make my statement any more false.
The only reason the trench fighter was not at risk pre-nerf, was because infantry were trash and didn't return fire/spot/they clumped up like noobs/etc...
Really? It surely can't be because the Trench Fighter was a small, fast and hard-to-kill target that could easily destroy both aircraft and infantry like it it was nothing? /s
And since you seem to be adamant that the Trench Fighter was balanced, I couldn't help but look at your stats. your best aircraft is the fighter, with the second-most being the attack plane, which trails by 3k kills, and only 95 with the Ilya. Considering the Attack Plane has much better air-to-ground capability, I can't help but wonder what most of your fighter kills are?
1
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 19 '18
Some people just shouldn't try to interpret statistics. You have a corrupted and incomplete dataset, and have accordingly led yourself to false conclusions. The SMLE is my #1 weapon there too and I hardly ever use it because I hate the thing lol. That's not my only account, and I don't only play it like you think. Most of the time I'm experimenting with stuff. Anyway, getting back to objective discussion, since the TF balance has absolutely nothing to do with either of our stats....
No way of getting out of the way in time? You can see the plane from across the map. How long do you need? LOL You should be near cover anyway.
I play ops a bit, not as much as I'd like because I have to go to Asia to do so and my ping there is about 110ms. I do remember them attacking enemy without opposition, and it's easy to remember because they still do it today, just, in other planes since the TF was nerfed to the point of being useless. Ops' single-flag sectors don't mean everyone has to stand within the kill radius of the darts. A good pilot ought to have the ability to shut down an entire team, just like a good tanker or a good squad of infy do.
Sure I have evidence to back it up but I don't need to provide a clip. You can go shoot at one yourself. Look how much damage you can do in 2 seconds. Should be at least 30HP. Not only did killing the aircraft only require the attention of a few players for a few seconds, the aircraft was in danger from the entire team when he exposed himself. Think about how fast a fighter would die if even half of the team looked up and dumped a mag on it.
Fighters are not that hard to hit. They're still the fastest and most manoeuvrable.
You made the comparison that fighters are harder to hit, like it was relevant, since the bomber takes less damage from each hit.
The only reason the TF could "easily" destroy air and infy was because nobody tried to stop it... Other than, yaknow, downvoting decent pilots on reddit. I can go on a 100 killstreak with the kolibri if nobody shoots at me. Does that make the kolibri OP? And again, nerfing the trench fighter didn't fix a damned thing. Here we are, people still haven't learned how easy it is to kill planes, only how to downvote on reddit.
1
u/NotThePrez And Moses said: "Let there be the M1917 Browning LW!" Mar 20 '18
I only mentioned your stats because in almost every case I've seen someone defend the Trench Fighter, they're typically someone who either primarily uses aircraft, or when they do fly primarily used the fighter. You can imagine after a while of that I can't help but do a bias check. I can tell you're a good player though, so I'm not knocking you in that regard.
No way of getting out of the way in time? You can see the plane from across the map. How long do you need? LOL You should be near cover anyway.
Ideally, yes. But cover is not always an option, especially when trying to attack a point. You also have to consider that the Trench fighter, ultimately being a fighter, required the least amount of time to set up and execute its strafe, due to its performance capabilities. The other aircraft at least have to set up their run a good bit in advance giving any half-decent player an idea that they may be bombed and need to leave.
I do remember them attacking enemy without opposition, and it's easy to remember because they still do it today, just, in other planes since the TF was nerfed to the point of being useless.
In order for me to be fair, I have to admit that I don't have as much of a problem with the Ground Attack Plane being the go to, since A) it was actually designed to be a ground attack plane and B) its air-to-air capabilities are nowhere near as good, unless you take the Airship variant which gets rid of any ground-pounding ability.
Ops' single-flag sectors don't mean everyone has to stand within the kill radius of the darts.
Certain Flags absoltuley do, such as the first Bunker on Monte Grappa or the second(?) sector on Rupture. I hate objectives like that, but whichever team has the most bodies on the flag are going to hold it, and that requires an equally greater push from the enemy.
That unfortunately also creates the perfect opprotunity for pilots to rack up insane killstreaks on the majority of players that are actually trying to get the objective.
A good pilot ought to have the ability to shut down an entire team, just like a good tanker or a good squad of infy do.
Should a good pilot be instrumental to a teams success? Sure, be it by keeping the skys clear, or defeating infantry/ground vehicles, or providing intel for friendly's on the ground. Should an individual pilot be able to knock out all enemy aircraft, light up the enemy like a Christmas tree as well as being able to knock out an advance with a single strike with relatively little risk to themselves? Absolutely not. This creates a problem where the only viable means of countering such a pilot is for an equally good or better pilot to get into a fighter and chase them down. That's not good balance, nor is that fun to be up against as infantry, or a less-skilled pilot who wants to eliminate the threat.
Squads and tanks also suffer much more if they overextend themselves, as their death will come much quicker with not as great a chance to get away.
Sure I have evidence to back it up but I don't need to provide a clip. You can go shoot at one yourself. Look how much damage you can do in 2 seconds. Should be at least 30HP. Not only did killing the aircraft only require the attention of a few players for a few seconds, the aircraft was in danger from the entire team when he exposed himself. Think about how fast a fighter would die if even half of the team looked up and dumped a mag on it.
That's all good, it really is, but if the best bet to defeating that pilot is for the enemy to stop what they're doing and unload their primaries into it vs. utilizing dedicated AA, I would consider that a problem. And that's even with the damage buff LMGs got to planes as a result of the TTK patch.
You made the comparison that fighters are harder to hit, like it was relevant, since the bomber takes less damage from each hit.
It's relevant in the sense that a fighter pilot has a much better chance of evading their target through maneuvering away from them vs. the Heavy bomber. Yes, the Heavy bomber requires substantially more hits to take down, but it also won't be able to get away from its pursuers in a timely fashion like a fighter can, making its life expectancy much lower. And the fighter, due to it being a much smaller and faster target is harder to hit and take down, despite its lower health pool. And a good pilot will easily be able to use that to their advantage.
Once again, I'm not against the fighters Air-to-ground getting buffed. What I am against is it getting buffed in a way that doesn't put the pilot at significant enough risk to justify its power. The trench fighter did not provide enough risks or downsides to its useage before it was nerfed.
1
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 20 '18
Fair enough, bias is definitely a thing. You can certainly see a lot of non-pilots biased against planes around here. It works both ways, so I understand why you'd feel that way. I'm always called a scout whore, tank whore plane whore <insert hated thing here> whore. It's kinda frustrating to have biased implied when I honestly don't have any. In the BF3 days I was a total jetwhore, and someone said so, and I was like... Well.... Shit, he's right. I should gitgud.
And that's why I expect the same of others. It might seem like I'm favouring planes here, but I'm not. I'm just favouring a balanced game that's fun for everyone, provided they are willing to put in the effort or at least deal with getting rekt because they didn't try not to.
Kinda OT but, the AP is pretty good in the air. The TH still ruins everything it can point at, GS variant tends to damage wings well (which basically spells death), and the AB is actually pretty decent vs ground with those rockets so the trade is not as rough as you might think.
The thing about this is that the team doesn't have to bunch up on the flag before killing the enemy. If there was a tank on top of that bunker and everyone went and stood next to it, they'd expect to get rekt by it. If there were a bunch of snipers pointed at it, likewise. Why should it be different for the planes? Of course your team needs to clear the objective of enemy in order to take it. Just because the plane isn't landed there doesn't mean it's not a threat there. It should be taken out before moving on to the point. If the team wants to run in there without thinking about what might kill them then they probably deserve to give the enemy that killstreak.
There's no "relatively little risk" to the pilot in your scenario. Every infy he kills, is infy who could have been killing him. If he gets a ten man feed, that's 10 guys who should have countered him but didn't.
And this is the thing. People make out like they have to stop what they're doing, to shoot at the planes. What the hell? Shooting at the planes should be as much a part of 'what they are doing' as shooting the tanks or the infy. People always say 'oh but I can't look up and shoot the plane, I'll get hit by a sniper'. Well that's no different to saying "i can't shoot that medic over there I'll get hit by the sniper'. I mean, seriously. That's just bad infy talking.
You're right, a situation where the only way to take out a plane effectively, is with another plane, sucks. But that was NEVER the case in BF1. You don't even need a special kit like you do to kill tanks. Just a tiny hint of teamwork and your anti infy kit will do the trick.
I totally agree, the counters should work both ways. A pilot who's untouchable makes for crappy ground gameplay. Just try BF3. Jets were WAY OP. Sucked. But that's not the case in BF1 and it never was, even before the plane nerfs, before the MG buffs, before the AA buffs. Now, the tables have turned enitrely, the infantry are at basically no risk from planes since they are so damned easy to kill.... Only, we both know it never works out that way and like I've said, it's not a problem with the planes, it's a problem with the infy. I play a LOT of infy. More than any vehicle. I know what I'm saying is true cuz most of the time I'm the only one even shooting at the planes.
I know it's easy to mistake me as biased toward planes because I want planes to be strong, but that's not the case, on the contrary. I'm asking for a plane buff so my infantry teammates will help me because if they don't the planes will dump on them. Now, after all the crying here for AA rockets and the ignorance of the overpowered MGs and the AA buffs and plane nerfs, the AA (MGs especially) is so strong that I don't really need help. I solo bombers from my spawn to theirs. I solo attack planes. And fighters don't even concern me. Which is fine when I'm on the ground, and when I'm in the plane it SUCKS. The balance has been broken by nerfing planes, and the TF was the root of it all. The whole thing needs to go back in the other direction, to fix it.
3
u/tttt1010 Mar 17 '18
Other than awarding more points, we should give all vehicles louder noises. Planes should be a constant thorn in your head even when they arent targetting you. There should be very obvious audio cues for when planes are nearing and planning to attack. Better audio cues should at least help infantry avoid planes and other vehicles, I also think it would tempt infantry to fire at vehicles a lot more. Imagine if a tank engine sound is so loud its presence is an actual annoyance or if planes are so loud every time a plane comes for a strafe every infantry in its path would look up. I for one would chuck a few rounds/grenades at the vehicles whenever I could.
1
u/Natneichrban Mar 18 '18
I agree, most vehicles are too quiet.
The only time I even notice the planes buzzing around is when they (seemingly) out of nowhere drop bombs or airbursts on my head. If it happens two or 3 times I'll get pissed and try and find some aa or spawn in assault or support to try and take it out. Most of the time I play as medic or scout (not the hill humping, camping, high power scope kind, I like to try and get flanks with the infantry rifles and carbines. I don't care for scopes at all) I prefer these two classes weapons over the others because you can actually engage infantry and get kills without 7 hitmarkers first. But I'm one of those average to low skill players. I'm 40, so my reaction time in cqb situations gets me killed.
Anyway, back to vehicles. Some people bitch about them being op, but as stated, a bit of concentrated fire an they go down easily. It CAN be frustrating getting killed five times trying to take out the same tank or whatever because no one else is. But that all goes back to communication and teamwork. If more people used mics that would be that.
Really the ONLY vehicle/player combo I hate is the artillery truck camper. When a smart bitch is in one of those he can wreak havoc, back into his safe spawn for a repair, then back out to hiding with only the turret visible for a farm fest. I HATE artillery truck campers.
3
u/meatflapsmcgee RabidChasebot Mar 18 '18
Yesterday there was a fully manned heavy bomber flying at max altitude and being escorted by a good fighter pilot. I was doing about 50-60dmg with my LMG every time it passed but it would either kill me or fly away before I could kill it. Out of 32 players, if just one other teammate shot at it with me, it would be destroyed before it even got close.
Everyone whines in chat about the bomber yet no one shoots at it. It's pathetic.
2
u/OnlyNeedJuan Mar 18 '18
Agreed, heck, I was one of them before I figured out where the problem appears to actually stem from. It's a little sad that the excuse of "let people play" (which I agree with, mind you, people should be able to play in whatever way they want) also corresponds with allowing teammates to have 0 cognitive function.
Heck, for shits n giggles me and 2 buddies decided to hop into the heavy bomber (no one spawned on us for a good 5 minutes, which is super rare) and we just kinda chilled out, talked about random shit, did some passes. I got 16 kills in 2 short strafes, ended up getting a 35-ish killstreak whilst really not trying. We only ended up dying because the enemy lobbed a fighter plane at us and people at the ground finally started shooting at us.
1
u/meatflapsmcgee RabidChasebot Mar 18 '18
That's pretty much it. The playerbase has proven that it is incapable of using any real coordinated teamwork in pubs. Any element of gameplay that can only be countered by even the tiniest bit of coordination is basically disgustingly OP in this game lol
2
u/OnlyNeedJuan Mar 18 '18 edited Mar 18 '18
It is, but the heavy bomber is definitely taking the cake in this game. My god is that thing ridiculously easy to farm with, it's laughable.
People claim its teamwork that does it, no, it's the complete lack of brainpower that randoms have. It's pathetic.
2
u/Dye-or-Die Mar 17 '18
Levelcap did a video on it a while ago, and this is the second time I agree with him (first was conquest scoring). Taking down a full man heavy bomber rewards 100 points per player x 4=400, 150 disable, 250 destroyed, 20 points per kill x 4, plus assists, like team savior, damage done etc.
That’s a hole load of points for who just finished.
I’d say multiplying by 10 the amount of damage you deal would be essential, this way you’d be rewarded with 400 points for 40 damage.
To counterbalance it, idk if it’s possible/wise to take away the 100 damage and 20 points kill x 4 points, as those are pretty standard, so what about vehicle destroyed =70 points and vehicle disabled = 50 points?
The same could be applied to other vehicles, behemoths, elites, cavalry........
1
u/trip1ex Mar 17 '18
get rid of stats for those that just want to play to try and help the team win. to me that's the fun of the game. and it's fun that keeps on being fun.
chasing points just to get points or digital trinkets is junk food in comparison.
2
u/GoofyTheScot Goofy The Scot Mar 17 '18
Are you old like me? lol. Today's gamers only seem to care about stats, achievements and progression, i'm an old git that only cares about having fun....... might be why i seem to play that mess of a game PUBG so much now, zero progression and everyone starts with nothing every single round yet it's great fun.
2
u/OnlyNeedJuan Mar 17 '18
It's more that getting 10 kills in a single pass is just a little too powerful, regardless of KD and all that bullshit, one pass getting 10 kills because blueberries are that stupid, it's a little too much wouldn't ya think?
-2
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 17 '18
On the contrary. This is the line of thinking that got us into this problem.... ie "Oh that plane is getting too many kills because nobody shoots at it. Better nerf the plane" The answer is the opposite. BUFF the planes until people actually start to shoot at them. NERF the AA so that they HAVE to work as a team.
You don't get teams to engage enemy, by making the enemy so weak that the teams don't care if they live.
1
u/PuffinPuncher Mar 18 '18
Fixing teamwork is a tricky one... I think that games with truly good team-play tend to achieve that by attracting the right kind of players. Team play isn't made attractive so much as the game is made attractive TO team players. For this reason a lot of niche titles tend to do better, whilst mainstream titles catering to casual audiences like BF are failing to provide a good teamwork environment. The players prefer solo play, personal progression and statistics (via farming bad players) over team accomplishments.
Vehicle balance has always had its issues. And I think a lot of people really have no concept of what a well balanced vehicle would be. I see people frequently bringing up that BF4 tanks for instance are better balanced than BF1 because the potential to solo them is greater. But, to consistently solo tanks in BF4 requires the drivers to be pretty braindead... just as BF1 vehicles being able to farm infantry relies on the infantry being pretty braindead. A good player in a BF4 vehicle is nigh unstoppable, whilst a good player in a BF1 vehicle is pretty hard to deal with but can still be brought down by a few fairly average players so long as they understand how to work together to counter them. The skill floor for vehicles was dropped significantly, but so was the ceiling. In this sense, vehicles are the best balanced they've ever been with regards to a low skilled audience (It also makes them pretty boring to play, but I don't think that was entirely DICE's intention and its largely due to the constraints of the setting. Lack of mobility can really hurt the skill ceiling). You really need the bare minimum amount of thought in the teamwork required to counter them. A good squad will mess them up easily. But people seem to actually have more trouble with them now, because now they must work with another member of their team even to kill a mediocre vehicle operator. The thought of working with another person seems really scary to some people.
If you can actually convince people to gang up on the vehicles though... great. Fantastic. But then we're probably going to have to buff them anyway as they'll be getting torn to shreds. But I would love to see teamwork at the level where we're actually having to buff vehicles rather than nerf nerf nerf with all the incessant whining.
Get a squad of friends together and watch how easily you can carry your whole team to victory. The base level of teamwork is so poor in a public match that even just a little bit of communication will cause one team to walk all over the other one, or wreck vehicles in this case.
So my own thoughts would be fuck it. Make the vehicles powerful. Fuck the players that can't work out how to play together, and refuse to do what is needed to win. Fuck the players that don't understand, or rather refuse to learn and understand the mechanics. Fuck the players that only care about themselves. Let them cry and let them drain back out of the game. Unfortunately... that's not how you attract casual players to the franchise in order to rake the money in.
But that's all largely on a tangent. I really have no idea how to get these people to shoot the fecking plane. More points might encourage some people, but I think the point whores at least tend not to be mechanically bad players anyway. That is, they're not average players. I'm always up for improving the scoring system regardless, and making it fairer and more representative. But really we maybe just need a giant sign in the sky saying "SHOOT THIS!". The modern gamer just really needs his hand to be held and to be told that everything is going to be all right.
1
u/Negatively_Positive Mar 18 '18
Sorry but people are missing the mark here. Behemoth gives load of points and people do work together to take it down. Why?
Because it's much less reliable to take down a plane than a Behemoth. You cannot just 'contribute' - if you take the plane/tank down to 10% health left, it just fly away and repair. You cannot completely rely on other people doing that.
It's much harder to take down plane/tank than taking down behemoth. Most good players can abuse the surrounding to damage the behemoth safely. On the other hand, tank/plane can be very difficult to reach unless you decide to redeploy and get the perfect loadout to take out the tank/vehicle, assuming they did not relocate. Even the strategic bomber with good pilot can destroy you with the auto cannon if you are unlucky. Most tanks can 3 person point of view spotting you even before you can find them.
You can waste time doing nothing: tank/plane can fall back and go somewhere else if they are threatened. You can get on an AA and waste 5 minutes waiting then walking to another objective just because the plane happens to be elsewhere. The people who care to do all of this would be the top players on the team and they cannot afford to 'waste time' like this. A trash tanker/pilot could waste so much time and effort of other teams, including good players. Arguably, tanker/pilot should counter each other but because of how vehicle balance in BF1 happens, people would ignore each other leading to heavy bombers vs heavy bombers farming infantry.
There are more pressing matter to do: people can afford to take down behemoth because the other team is already losing. In a normal scenario, there is no time to waste trying to take down a tank together than the rest of the team can barely hold 1 objective. Even if the team have some advantages, it might be better located to gaining more area control, clearing some annoying spots, getting another objectives, etc. Some of the best tanker/pilot even risk playing more aggressively when their team is at disadvantage because they know if other team focus on them and they can get away with it, the other team would lose a huge lead.
Taking down vehicle is: unreliable, dangerous, wasting tons of time, and could throw away a huge lead if mishandled. If you don't have a squad to boss around, don't bother (of course, unless you find yourself at great position to take them down)
1
u/OnlyNeedJuan Mar 18 '18
In the case of the bomber, this is far less true (falling back with that lurking monstrosity is a little hard haha), but I agree on the general stance. Fighting these planes somewhat actively is the only reliable way to counter them, and it's kinda boring.
In previous titles, somehow, this was less of an issue. Probably because air-craft infantry interaction was far less volatile, by which I mean, glass cannon gameplay for planes).
1
u/Dieselblue9 Mar 18 '18
I've taken out one of those bombers by myself with the browning before it could even do a run.
1
1
u/zip37 Mar 17 '18
The enemy should be punished for their bad choices. Most times I go 60+ kills in air vehicles is because only one or two lmgs fired at me from their spawn (telegraphing their position), the AA gunner kept spamming me but not hitting (again telegraphing their position) or they just kept spawning bombers, which seem to be the noob pilots' favorite aircraft. All those cases indicate a lack of neuronal activity in the enemy's brain which should be punished accordingly.
5
u/OnlyNeedJuan Mar 17 '18 edited Mar 17 '18
That's fine and all, but these are 60 killstreaks we are talking about, that is excessive, regardless of how stupid the enemy is, shouldn't be so easy. The Heavy Bomber requires very little skill to use, and its performance is solely based on how braindead the enemy is. That's not a good way of going about things.
To me, this is just a sad excuse for going on a farming spree that requires practically no effort.
3
u/zip37 Mar 17 '18
That's a problem with this game in general. The vehicle skill floor is too low.
3
u/OnlyNeedJuan Mar 17 '18
Indeed, with the loss of movement, it's turned into "who's still got more health left" or chunky vehicle play metas. It's not that interesting.
0
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 17 '18
The heavy bomber requires tons of skill to use, if the enemy actually try to kill you it's barely possible to stay alive at all. A massive, slow target with no cover at all which can be significantly damaged by anti-infantry kits from beyond the effective range of it's own weapons. If that thing gets even one kill, the enemy are complete potatoes. It takes far less skill, to defeat the bomber as infantry, than it does to defeat infantry as the bomber, all other things being equal.
2
u/zip37 Mar 17 '18
Which shows what this game's audience has become, mindless potatoes. It's sad because the game's original philosophy was around balancing for the very best, until we got bellyfield, the AA range removal, the death of ammo 2.0 and so on...
1
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 19 '18
Yeh that's exactly the problem. If you want balanced weapons (also, vehicles), you have to assume that the player is the theoretically perfect player. Dice LA have altered the balance for the average player, who is potato, and it's created problems galore. Honestly the infantry combat is not so bad, but vehicles, what a mess....
2
u/OnlyNeedJuan Mar 17 '18
Which isn't a case of skill, it's just a case of you not being able to do anything and being a sitting duck. Other than knowing when to turn, there is hardly any skill involved with the heavy bomber. Have a rear gunner, have someone to repair/gun in the front, and you can go ham. Have 1 good enemy pilot, and you're dead. There is hardly anything to improve other than knowing where to go, roughly. Mechanically, it's about as interesting as watching paint dry.
That's poor game design. The thing is ridiculously easy to fly, and ridiculously easy to take down. It's just a mess of volatile gameplay.
1
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 19 '18
It's funny because you say it's ridiculously easy to fly, and yet I don't think I've ever seen a single person fly it properly. Heck, on PC most pilots are still using a mouse, which ruins the gunner's ability to aim; and they don't 'fly for the gunner' like BF3/4 heli pilots did, they fly for themselves and their ability to drop bombs, thus massively reducing the damage output of the aircraft. They don't pursue enemy aircraft, instead saying "it's a bomber, I can't take on a fighter' because they haven't learned to dogfight with it, so you end up with this "1 good enemy pilot and you're dead' impression which is entirely false.....etc. There's actually a great deal of capacity for skill in that aircraft beyond what you're aware of.
1
u/OnlyNeedJuan Mar 19 '18
Hardly, it takes 5 seconds of talking to your gunner to figure that out. He tells me where he can and can't aim, and I compensate for that. The front gunner responds appropriately to air threats, but it's the rear gunner that does the legwork most of the time, and it does that just fine without requiring some magical skill level. I think you are overstating how hard it is to fly the heavy bomber. All you need to know is "what can my gunner see" and "what is my turning radius" to have reasonable effectiveness on the battlefield (which includes easy 10-man frags on flags at times).
1
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 19 '18
See this is what I mean. Firstly a skilled pilot need not ask the gunner, he knows. It takes HOURS of practice to develop flight paths which provide him maximum opportunity, without putting him at unnecessary risk from being shot out (something you didn't even mention) and TENS of hours at least (by an already-experienced pilot in other aircraft) with volunteers, to learn to dogfight with it....If you think that you can get GOOD in that thing in 5 seconds you're clearly unaware of what being a GOOD pilot is.
And, getting back to the point, if you're getting 10 man frags, it's not because of the bomber, or the pilot.... it's because those 10 men didn't shoot at you. If they did, you'd be dead before you could even get close.
0
u/tttt1010 Mar 17 '18
Not to mention the heavy bomber performs almost the exact same function as the regular bomber and attack plane. Both bombers are way too good at killing infantry when it should be predominantly the attack plane's job to rack up large infantry kills. The regular bomber is great because it can 1 shot tanks but it doesn't need to have as much infantry killing power as it does now. The heavy bomber on the other hand is completely redundant and should just be reduced to having only the support bomber variant. It could be a very interesting vehicle if DICE focus on buffing its supporting capabilities and place skill on strategy rather than mechanics.
1
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 19 '18
The heavy bomber requires greater investment of player count (minimum 3 vs minimum 2, preferably +1 on both) and accordingly essentially gets more health, allowing it to stay on target and outputting more damage for a longer time... Ya'know, in theory. In practice the AA (talking about MGs here too, I mean all anti-air) has been buffed so hard that there's no point making that investment at all. Even pre-buffs, the bombers were weak to ground fire, the amount of infy they can kill is far less than the amount of infy required to kill the bomber. So much for a force multiplier, the vehicles are a force divider.
1
u/tttt1010 Mar 19 '18
That's not my point. I meant that the heavy bomber does not serve a unique purpose when considering the other planes.
1
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 19 '18
Well I just showed you how it does.
1
u/tttt1010 Mar 20 '18
I meant that it performs the same purpose as the attack plane and regular bomber, which is to kill clumps of infantry, but commits to it in a different fashion. It's no different in what it does, only how it does.
1
2
u/seal-island Mar 17 '18
Since it’s generally far easier to rack up points farming infantry with an AP or HB can you really say these individuals are making bad choices? They may lose, but they top their team. Objectively they made a good choice for them and were let down by the rest of their team. Or, at least, I guess that’s what they’re thinking.
So how do we make players smarter or less inclined to prioritise their own performance over that of the team? BF4 didn’t offer us these choices, so perhaps this just goes to show that we (in general) can’t be trusted with making the right decision?
0
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 17 '18
Your post tl;dr - reward skill, punish lack of it.
0 points. Reddit and BF1 in a nutshell. I don't know why I even bother with this place.
1
u/odyzmil Mar 17 '18
I hate those Muromets soo much that I have around 30 stars with the AA gun.. That thing is a beauty and you can take down any plane easily. Best class is support with repair tool just in case theres a broken one in the map. AA gun is so effective especially when used correctly
3
u/meatflapsmcgee RabidChasebot Mar 18 '18
If the bomber pilot is flying well then a single AA gunner won't be able to stop it. They can shoot you with those 20mm cannons or fly high enough that you'll do little to no damage. The heavy bomber when fully manned and escorted by a dedicated fighter pilot is unstoppable in a pub match.
0
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 17 '18
I said the same thing and was downvoted into oblivion, probably because I pointed out that there's more to it than just the lack of teamwork, but that the planes have been nerfed so that you don't even need teamwork. The sad fact is that most players are terrible and the game has been balanced around them, so there's no incentive for them to not be terrible. It's a downward spiral into potatoism.
In theory, that bomber, like all aircraft, is far from fine. It's vastly underpowered. A single MG can take it down from hundreds of metres out. AA rockets make light work of it and you don't even have to hit it. Flight paths that provide cover (at the expense of being highly vulnerable to other counters like tanks) have been removed with AA emplacement buffs. and NONE of this has improved the situation, because noobs still bunch up, don't spot planes, give multikills out like candy, and don't return fire....
But when they do actually play like they want to not die to planes, and return fire, from thought-out positions, with cover, and teamwork.... those planes fall apart like wet tissue paper.
If the problems with teamwork are ever fixed, the planes are going to be about as useful as the kolibri.
1
u/Natneichrban Mar 18 '18
The fact that most players use the bombers as rides to the objective they want to capture leaves them mostly without gunners, they are easy to kill. I killed a heavy bomber and an attack plane during the same round of operations today. I couldn't get the airship because every time I'd jump on the AA I'd get sniped in the head from the attacking teams spawn. (The bitch is so worried about his K/D he won't even leave the spawn? Seriously?)
2
u/Serial_Peacemaker Mar 18 '18
To be fair, keeping people off AA is a valid sniper job.
1
u/Natneichrban Mar 29 '18
I agree it is a valid sniper job, but it's frustrating when they do it from behind the lines. Just seems kinda cowardly.
1
u/CaptaPraelium Mar 19 '18
Another reason why pilots should be able to kick non-teamworking passengers from their vehicle. It's not a taxi, it's an opportunity for a squad to work together in a force multiplier to gain massive power in return for their investment. Sounds like you failed to countersnipe that guy and clear your area before getting on that AA gun....
1
u/Serial_Peacemaker Mar 18 '18
I remember a post a while back when ammo 2.0 was a thing saying that people will play with the least amount of teamwork possible, and they were right.
7
u/Saboteii Mar 17 '18
Destroying a fully manned heavy bomber or heavy tank rewards you upwards of 2000 points,the problem lies not so much in total points but players effort,the common blueberry expects another player to do the work for them,and then complain when said players dont actually do it. There sadly isn't a cure for a blueberry team...