Re: Just remove the tanks from the game, honestly.

@cso7777You are sort of making my point, though. The best “counter” to infantry getting farmed by vehicles is . . . Wait for it . . .

VEHICLES!

Some BF4 maps had up to 5 tanks per team, plus AA, plus multiple attack aircraft, plus transports, and more, for 64 player matches! That 2042 has a fraction of that vehicle capability for 128 players is pathetic, and a HUGE part of the problem. A Bolte with a 50 cal won’t be farming infantry for long if your team has a couple of tanks providing cover of an objective. Same for helis if your team has a couple of AA platforms in the field.

EDIT: Changed original word to “farmed”. I did not use a curse word originally but I guess these filters are way too sensitive. 

@IPFreely_C4SI don't agree.

The Bolte was a joke when the game launched, because of its high movement speed and overpowered weapons no amount of tanks would have changed that (they cannot even hit the bolte...)

And maps in BF4 with many vehicles is often not very fun for infantry, which is the big problem, too many vehicles makes the game not fun for the majority of players (infantry), which is just bad for keeping players interested in playing the game.

BF2042 has become a ghost-town, mostly because the maps are awful. The only players that have fun on the launch-maps of 2042 are snipers and vehicle players. Infantry are struggling with traversing large open areas and too often cannot hide from vehicles and therefore vehicles ruins the fun for most of the players. If the game is not fun, players leave.

---

@IPFreely_C4S wrote:

@cso7777You are sort of making my point, though. The best “counter” to infantry getting farmed by vehicles is . . . Wait for it . . .

VEHICLES!

---

I see this argument often in these discussions.  More vehicles = vehicles spending more time worrying about other vehicles and less about infantry = better for infantry.

It doesn't really add up for me though.  

I think people offering this argument figure that there'd be less infantry killed per vehicle per game, thus better for infantry.  I don't dispute the first part, but I disagree with the second part.

Infantry cares more about the percentage of deaths due to vehicles and less about per vehicle deaths.

As a baseline example let's say each team gets a single tank and those tankers get 20 infantry kills per round.

If we add four more tanks for a total of 5.  How many combined infantry deaths due to vehicles do you think we'd have?  More or less than 20 per round? I'd wager more. Way more. 

That said if the goal is to improve the infantry experience I'd prefer the maps get re-worked offering more infantry friendly zones rather than reducing vehicle slots. Funnel the vehicles together. Funnel the infantry together elsewhere.  Golmud Railway did a decent job of this.

---

@AngrySquid270 wrote:

---

@IPFreely_C4S wrote:

@cso7777You are sort of making my point, though. The best “counter” to infantry getting farmed by vehicles is . . . Wait for it . . .

VEHICLES!

---

I see this argument often in these discussions.  More vehicles = vehicles spending more time worrying about other vehicles and less about infantry = better for infantry.

It doesn't really add up for me though.  

I think people offering this argument figure that there'd be less infantry killed per vehicle per game, thus better for infantry.  I don't dispute the first part, but I disagree with the second part.

Infantry cares more about the percentage of deaths due to vehicles and less about per vehicle deaths.

As a baseline example let's say each team gets a single tank and those tankers get 20 infantry kills per round.

If we add four more tanks for a total of 5.  How many combined infantry deaths due to vehicles do you think we'd have?  More or less than 20 per round? I'd wager more. Way more. 

That said if the goal is to improve the infantry experience I'd prefer the maps get re-worked offering more infantry friendly zones rather than reducing vehicle slots. Funnel the vehicles together. Funnel the infantry together elsewhere.  Golmud Railway did a decent job of this.

---

We agree on some of your last paragraph, but your baseline example illustrates part of the problem with this game. You are focused on the raw kills per round on a vehicle and assuming a linear increase with the number of vehicles. All I’m saying is that in classic BF when in a sizable map and a commensurate amount of armored and air attack vehicles on both sides, players focus more on PTFO and those in vehicles actually try to provide cover from enemy vehicles for infantry so they can take the objective together. With enough vehicles on the field (and properly designed map, as you said) the entire style of play actually changes, and the end result is a less chaotic and more enjoyable experience for all, including foot soldiers. 

Does providing cover mean vehicles do not engage infantry at all? Of course not. But I’m telling you if I’m covering an objective in a tank, and I see a few enemy on foot AND an enemy tank or two covering the same objective, I’m more worried about the tanks than the infantry (unless I’m dumb enough to drive my tank to the middle of the objective) and that becomes my priority until that threat is gone. I engage an enemy tank, he’s not picking off my teammates, and I’m not picking off his until one of us is out. Same logic applies to aircraft and an objective. 

Me changing your mind at this point is about as likely as you changing mine, and that’s fine. At least we kept it civil. 

In the 0.0001% chance any developer has seen any of this thread, I’ll just say: if reducing access to impactful vehicles even remotely looks like a solution to a balance or quality of play issue  in a “Battlefield” game, you need to start over.