Forum Discussion

Anti-Tank-Kille's avatar
Anti-Tank-Kille
4 years ago

Re: Overlooked issue of Vehicle number changes (yes this effects you infantry)

@OskooI_007 How does 'look what these changes might do' translate to 'vehicle players are having fun' ???? Nowhere did I say anything initially about or even hint at 'I'm having fun/I dont want to play infantry'

This is just another example of that tunnel vision mentality of "me see word vehicle in post, me try to say edgy thing unrelated to post because vehicle players mad now me mad"

If anything we will see more posts complaining about getting pounded out by overgunned transport heli's but like I said, I could be 100% wrong in what I am seeing.
Not to excuse the running simulation at all, which I agree the map designs, and mechanics are super * poor, but I am pretty sure no one wants to babysit the air with buggy AA missiles or get pounded to dust by literal flying castles.

If I am mad at anything, it's the handling of this and the possible big oversight. So I'd have to say your 'confirmation' that only vehicle players are having fun seems pretty bad right now. I didn't have fun in any aspect of the game which is why I haven't touched it in about 3 months, so besides bolte players and nightbirds, who actually is having fun?

19 Replies

  • thepuppetmaster's avatar
    thepuppetmaster
    4 years ago

    @Anti-Tank-Killer Your name says it all! If you don't like vehicles go play team deathmatch on portal or make your own portal servers where there are no vehicles. Battlefield has always been about combined arms. And these changes go way too far to cater to infantry only players... Thats not what I bought the game for. I bought it for the grand all out warfare experience that we currently have in that mode. Yes the balance isn't perfect but less punishing changes can be made for the vehicles. Panzerstorm on BF5 had 7 tanks per team on 64 conquest and you are * telling me we are now only going to get 2 per team on 128 conquest with 2 minute cool down?! Yeah hell no! 

    More cover is being added which will help with the balance 

    Bolte/night bird should be put into their own categories and capped at 2 or 3 per team. That will greatly reduce the complaints from infantry 

    Some of these maps need more tanks than what we currently have. The biggest map in the game only has 3 tanks per team. That is extremely sad

    The truth of the matter is if this change takes place, the vehicle oriented players will stop playing this game and thats a large amount of players. (Majority who enjoy combined arms). This aspect of battlefield is what attracts these people.  And the people who already stopped playing aren't going to be coming back. So the player count is going to drop even further. 

  • DeepSixxxx's avatar
    DeepSixxxx
    4 years ago

    Battlefield with extremely limited vehicles in 128 player mode is like a PB&J sandwich with limited jelly...at first it sounds healthy, until you choke to death...

    BF 2042 without vehicles is a generic version of COD.  

    And as I posted in another "Please don't kill BF by removing vehicles" thread:

    Apex Olympus map has 11 Trident vehicle transports for 60 players, yet Battlefield 128 player modes will now have less vehicles than Apex 60 player mode?

    Is this the final hint from EA that they want us all to transition from BF 2042 to Apex?

  • cso7777's avatar
    cso7777
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @DeepSixxxx The problem is that the maps are a big disaster and Dice has so far promised 2 maps 'fixed' during S1. S1 is still not here (for at least a couple of months), and at the moment they cannot do much else than what they do now.

    Perhaps when all the maps have been fixed, they can adjust the number of vehicles, but at the moment the maps are not made for combined warfare on a large scale, so the vehicles must be nerfed.
  • Anti-Tank-Kille's avatar
    Anti-Tank-Kille
    4 years ago
    @thepuppetmaster7 If you're actually referring to my name I really think you might want to do a double check on that one lol.

    No idea where this came from but I think you're foaming at the wrong person, or somehow someway completely jumped to some random farfetched conclusion that any of what you said was something I was trying to say.
  • DeepSixxxx's avatar
    DeepSixxxx
    4 years ago
    @cso7777 at the moment the maps are not made for combined warfare on a large scale, so the vehicles must be nerfed.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is pretty demoralizing then you 120mm tank shell an enemy soldier 3 foot from their feet and they take minimal damage and they fairy dust the tank with C5 magic.

    Direct shooting players in the face with 30mm Bolte shots and having them laugh kind of funny too.

    At this point, Dice is simply destroying one aspect of the game in an attempt to band-aid broken structural game mechanics.

    I believe the game is getting less fun with each Band-aid...as each fantasy change pushes the game farther from legacy BF to fantasy Apex/Fortnite.

    It would seem the "BattleRoyale Dice Managers" are "winning" the battle and losing the war...
  • cso7777's avatar
    cso7777
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @DeepSixxxx On the other hand it takes several rockets to kill a tank which is not very realistic either...
  • Psubond's avatar
    Psubond
    Legend
    4 years ago

    the only downside for this change is less vehicles for me to turn into a smoking hole in the ground

  • Anti-Tank-Kille's avatar
    Anti-Tank-Kille
    4 years ago
    @cso7777 Uhhh... that is not true at all, google is a thing, so is youtube, or just ask people with you know... actual combat experience and you can see plenty of cases of armored vehicles taking a pounding. And before you sight the current conflict as your basis for 'balance wants' as you've done before, you are seeing modern systems vs older less capable tech.

    You're harping on armored 'realism' while you have a flying squirrel suit rocket into the air after jumping off a pebble like they are rocket assisted, or someone latching a grappling hook into dirt and somehow getting purchase and sling shotting across the map without snapping bones but go off I guess lol
  • cso7777's avatar
    cso7777
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @Anti-Tank-Killer The argument was about splash-damage being too low, must be a realism thing.

    And having to use 5 rockets for killing a tank is pretty far from realistic...
  • Anti-Tank-Kille's avatar
    Anti-Tank-Kille
    4 years ago
    @cso7777 Your source of"trust me bro" is not really a valid statement, seeing as how you have nothing besides essentially that to say on the subject.
    If you're argument is about splash damage then again, I'm pretty sure you've never actually seen the aftermath of what someone looks like after having a projectile like that land anywhere near them. Hint: If you can find anything to look at-

    Splash damage is low, direct hitting a little target with a 5 seconds reload each time is not 'realistic' or even remotely as effective as it should be

    But again, sorry you can't squirrel suit rocket propel yourself into orbit to use 1 rocket as you're proposing to kill a heavily armored vehicle, you truly have my sympathy that your version of realism is not realized
  • Anti-Tank-Kille's avatar
    Anti-Tank-Kille
    4 years ago
    @Psubond Huh... it's almost like I predicted this kind of response from a post that is suddenly missing... strange. Thanks for winning me $50!

    On that note I do hope I am wrong about the beefy transport helo's and the power gap or else you're going to relive your circle strafe Hind nightmare all over again, except they wont have to circle strafe to pound the ground this time
  • Psubond's avatar
    Psubond
    Legend
    4 years ago
    @Anti-Tank-Killer wrote:
    @PsubondHuh... it's almost like I predicted this kind of response from a post that is suddenly missing... strange. Thanks for winning me $50!

    On that note I do hope I am wrong about the beefy transport helo's and the power gap or else you're going to relive your circle strafe Hind nightmare all over again, except they wont have to circle strafe to pound the ground this time

    na, i'll switch to soflam and the transports will get smoked if they try that with all the M5 launchers on the battlefiled

    **edit** what was missing anyway?  i haven't deleted anything

  • filthy_vegans's avatar
    filthy_vegans
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @Psubond wrote:
    @Anti-Tank-Killer wrote:
    @PsubondHuh... it's almost like I predicted this kind of response from a post that is suddenly missing... strange. Thanks for winning me $50!

    On that note I do hope I am wrong about the beefy transport helo's and the power gap or else you're going to relive your circle strafe Hind nightmare all over again, except they wont have to circle strafe to pound the ground this time

    na, i'll switch to soflam and the transports will get smoked if they try that with all the M5 launchers on the battlefiled

    **edit** what was missing anyway?  i haven't deleted anything

    The moderators deleted his original reply to your post on page 1, probably because it was rude to you.

    It was in the same vein as his general tone throughout the rest of the thread.

  • cso7777's avatar
    cso7777
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    @Anti-Tank-Killer Wow you seem pretty upset...

    People complain about splash damage being too low and I just point out that the game makes you put 5 rockets in a tank to kill it.

    You can find stories of tanks taking several rocket hits and still being able to run, but you can find just as many stories of tanks blowing up from just one rocket (just look at whats going on at the moment in Ukraine).

    My point is that the game is not realistic in any way and if people complain about splash damage being weak, why not buff anti-tanks weapons as well.

    It's all a matter of balance, if tanks were realistic, they would be far more deadly, but on the other hand, a tank roaming alone would never survive for long, if anti-tank weapons were more realistic.
  • Psubond's avatar
    Psubond
    Legend
    4 years ago
    @filthy_vegans wrote:
    @Psubond wrote:
    @Anti-Tank-Killer wrote:
    @PsubondHuh... it's almost like I predicted this kind of response from a post that is suddenly missing... strange. Thanks for winning me $50!

    On that note I do hope I am wrong about the beefy transport helo's and the power gap or else you're going to relive your circle strafe Hind nightmare all over again, except they wont have to circle strafe to pound the ground this time

    na, i'll switch to soflam and the transports will get smoked if they try that with all the M5 launchers on the battlefiled

    **edit** what was missing anyway?  i haven't deleted anything

    The moderators deleted his original reply to your post on page 1, probably because it was rude to you.

    It was in the same vein as his general tone throughout the rest of the thread.

    ah.  i'm also wondering who "owes him 50 bucks" cause i sure as hell didn't bet him 50 bucks

  • Psubond's avatar
    Psubond
    Legend
    4 years ago
    @cso7777 if vehicles aren't invincible and a point and click infantry farming simulator then vehicle mains will always complain. i've been playing since battlefield 2 (skipped V cause of sonderland) didn't start looking at forums for the games until BC2 but even in that game people would complain if infantry could kill a vehicle (air or ground). i'm sure they were complaining in previous games. the two main complaints in BC2 were bush wookies and infantry killing vehicles (i loved running tracer dart and rpg to kill helos)
  • Anti-Tank-Kille's avatar
    Anti-Tank-Kille
    4 years ago
    @cso7777 How is pointing out the flaw in your statement turning in to me 'being upset', if anything I'm trying to broaden your horizon a bit, but as usual people are set in their mind sets and wont budge because 'this isn't how it should be' Seems to be a pretty common cop out in this forum lol, can't offer a valid counter point, oop they mad!

    Also I already addressed the whole UA situation which you seemed to miss.

    Your point, as you've made clear in your previous post is you want balance to lean towards realism in one aspect and not another and all I did was point that out and offer a counter point, so if me giving a counter point is 'being upset' then sure I guess?
  • Anti-Tank-Kille's avatar
    Anti-Tank-Kille
    4 years ago
    @Psubond Apparently me saying stop trying to derail my thread and keep it relevant was me 'being mean online'
    Trying to have an actual discussion about what the changes might mean and having it turn into inf/veh/air/sniper BS arguments is old, and annoying because no one wants to budge on anything and everyone keeps going in circles. If anything it was simply calling out your habits you have when you jump in any thread that has anything to do with vehicles.
    But again you won me $50 so I cant be to annoyed lol

About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and game information around Battlefield 2042 in the community forums.16,085 PostsLatest Activity: 4 minutes ago