1) My position is the weapon lethality has to be considered in the context of the game which at its core involves 128 players and quite often multiple enemies targeting a single entity simultaneously. The countermeasures for jets in BF 2042 are multi purpose and although the in game description is limited to IR and radar I would venture that it would not be a stretch to conclude that they simultaneously have a mechanism that messes with a missile's ability to see and track the laser designation. As far aircraft limping off without being able to be KO'd I would contend that is where other aircraft or the MAA cannons come in to finish the job.
2) Fun in a multiplayer game is almost always derived at someone else's expense. Your enjoyment in killing comes at my expense at dying. In MP, the designers should never concern themselves with making sure that everyone has "fun" as that is a surefire recipe for disaster as you descend into a never ending game of whackamole trying to appease one faction's unreasonable desires only to evoke the ire of another. Rather, designers should look at the game as a whole and how all the various components fit in it and in what environment and conditions it takes place. If done correctly, then they'll have created a harmonious system and the bulk of players will flock to such a system because rather then exploit them, it provides them with a variety of well thought out mechanics and solutions to utilize resulting in a rewarding experience regardless of which vehicle, rifle, gadget and so on that they choose.
We know that even in such an environment the Jet pilot advocates will still complain because they want an experience that gives them the edge. Tankers will do the same with their agenda. All these extremist factions will still lobby just as corporations and interests do in "real" life as it is the nature of life in capitalism. That is to be expected, but is not cause for alarm for they are the fringes and do not represent the more sensible core that compromises the largest chunks of players. The developers must be the mature voice of reason in the room and provide education to the playerbase. They bear the responsibility of fostering years of asymmetrical balance where attack plane pilots went 120 - 1 and glitched Little Birds could sustain more abuse than heavily armored vehicles.
"It's like every other vehicle stat was decided with "well I wouldn't want this to potentially be OP" as the first and only thought in mind..."
My sense was they were employing many of the painful lessons learned from BF3/4 era combined with adapting the damage outputs/ranges towards the 128 player experience.
3) 2 AGM's bring the Bolte down to 16 health and in my proposal the 25mm would penetrate and do even better damage than the 30mm to help make finishing it off a forgone conclusion. This is especially true if you are providing CAS near your friendlies who are in a position to capitalize on your work even if the first AGM is CM'd and if the Bolte runs Missile Launcher then they forgo CM's which means they eat the AGM's. If they choose any of the mine options then they can't use system repair meaning their speed advantage is moot.
While I personally wish for the FLIR cam and same missile deployment style of BF4 in terms of balance I understand why this was requested by portions of the community and why DICE acquiesced. It gives ground forces and other aircraft an opportunity to pounce on you and compels you to closer range than the old style. This also allows the devs to make the dual MAA cannons have shorter range than in the past which is good as one of the near universal complaints of past BF's was the enormous range of the AA which made it difficult to balance it when it had to be tweaked for both jets and helicopters. The 1000m may have worked for jets but was oppressive to helicopters. Forcing AGM's to be deployed closer to target simultaneously allows the MAA guns range to be reigned in.
The F35 does fulfill that CAS role in the anti vehicle sense. The 30mm in conjunction with the AGM provides excellent effects against ground vehicles. A10 style CAS is only really possible when you have air superiority so in lieu of that you have multirole aircraft that can focus on air superiority when equipped with 25mm and AA missiles or for GA when equipped with 30mm and A2G missiles that allow them quickly hit targets and then get out of range of reprisal.
I was a leading proponent of and loved the fortification system in BFV, but I can understand its omission in 2042 as the focus is on mobile warfare - vehicles are faster, you have wingsuits and fast transports like the Condor. It probably just didn't make as much sense to invest a lot in static defenses so instead they went with things like Ranger and Boris's sentries.
"What I want is for vehicles to be feared and respected, not something infantry either casually ignore because they do so little damage..."
I'm afraid I can't offer much sympathy for this POV. Vehicles, even in their current state, have overwhelming advantages in TTK when employed correctly, especially when all the gunner positions and the spotter are filled. If they were as truly ineffective as you say they'd be collecting dust at spawn.
1. I feel like this is a result of 2042's oversimplification of mechanics. BF3 had flares, which countered normal lock ons. SOLFAM countered that, but was in turn countered by ECM jammers. There was also below radar to avoid A2A missiles. We're currently missing the last 2, which I think removes a lot of gameplay options from players. If I'm trying to kill a heli on the ground, their flares will spoof me no matter what. If I'm going after a heli in a jet, (height ceiling cheese aside) they have no way to avoid my lock-on after they've flared.
I've also never really been a fan of the quick-repair system. In BF3, once you were disabled, you would either have to land a jet or heli to manually repair, bail out, or die. Any way you slice it, that vehicle is now out of action for a while. Quick repair gives drivers and pilots a regenerating get out of jail free card, letting them get away with more than they should and turning them into nuisances.
2. That's how it looks on the surface, but I think the devil lies in the details on that one. I think Win-Win, Win-Lose, and Lose-Lose scenarios are all possible outcomes of an encounter, but game design determines which ones are most likely, and the context gives the player different sensations.
Win-Lose is your typical "Shoot someone and they die" gunfight. Someone had better accuracy, got the drop, or had the better gun for the fight and won. What should be the majority of kills and deaths.
Win-Win are the times when players have for lack of a better term "an epic battle". The times when I would be in a 4 minute long dogfight with another ace pilot, trying to see who could maintain their high-G turning the best, using terrain to their advantage, and employing every flight maneuver we could think of to gain an advantage. Two snipers engaging in a cat and mouse battle between various windows, alleys, or pieces of foliage. Two tankers angling their hulls to let reactive armor absorb shells and maneuvering to force a miss. Helicopters having TV missile contests across the map. No matter who eventually dies, we both had a great time trying to get the other hand. Yes my examples are mostly duels, but they're things that should exist in their own little universe while chaos unfolds around them.
Lose-Lose, or just -Lose in some cases, are unfortunately a lot more common. Getting stuck on a rock and being unable to move. A grenade bouncing off an invisible hitbox to land in your lap, or your bipod deploying right into one and getting you killed. Not being able to snipe as a tank because my tracks have no traction on a hill and I keep sliding around. Not firing a stinger because the game doesn't show that you're locking on until you're fully locked, so you give up a split second before you could fire without knowing it. Being in a Tiger tank and losing a head-on fight to a scout car that could literally never even penetrate your armor anywhere in real life. Shooting an enemy from behind, only for them to instantly 180 and kill you with the most broken gun in the game at that moment. Alternatively, only using the FOTM OP weapon, either because kills are the only thing they care about, or they're forced to because everyone else is using it. Being in a full squad with friends working together, but dying over and over again because the game spawns you in open areas where the enemy waits with deployed LMGs. Trying to uselessly flank because there's a dozen people with a dozen auto-spotting gadgets near any hot spot. Spawning in a transport that is 0.2 seconds away from crashing, then being locked out of spawning into any other vehicle for over a minute because the game seems to actively discourage vehicle use. Trying to shoot a vehicle that you can't hit or kill with rockets, can't kill you in less than 6 shots, but can stun lock you so you can't get cover. Repeatedly strafing a tank that uses APS to absorb almost all your missiles and cannon rounds, while repairing whatever little damage you could do and recharging their APS before you can line up another run. Dying over and over again in a match, but seeing a victory screen that feels completely disconnected with whatever was happening around you.
My point is that not all encounters and deaths are created equally, some are a lot more cheap and frustrating than others, and some are a lot more common than others. And when the cheap ones feel like the most common ones no matter what you do, unless you give in to whatever is most overpowered at the moment in order to get anything done, you're not playing a fun game.
As for lessons, from what I've heard about internal issues with management over the years, there's probably been enough brain drain that the people who learned those lessons are long gone, and their less experienced replacements, no matter how good and hardworking they are, end up making the same mistakes all over again, plus some new ones on top.
3. I already feel like Botles need less HP as they survive rockets and tank shells more than I feel they should too. I need to test more when I unlock it to confirm tho.
I don't mind the high RoF AA cannons having less range, but I think the higher caliber cannons with finite ammo should have more range to even things out.
As for CAS, I feel like they could be holding back dedicated ground pounders as part of some future update for us to grind for, and I feel their absence is negatively impacting overall balance as a result. The issues I already have would make more sense if the A-20 Boar or whatever they wanna call it 20 years from now was in the game and was much more effective as a low, slow gun truck. But it just makes the shortcomings all the more obvious when almost everyone wants to choose a chopper over any other air vehicle most of the time. If jets were as OP people claimed, we'd be seeing a lot more of them on Breakthrough matches.
Maybe it's because I never have luck filling those positions that I have issues with these vehicles, but even then it doesn't excuse poor balancing.
https://youtu.be/josZHol8gog?t=1372
The prerequisites for vehicles to be employed correctly feel too cumbersome when, even if the overall DPS of a fully occupied tank is more than it was in BF4, the number of people trying to kill you is doubled, and the number of allied tanks over BF4 has not increased either. If someone can play a tank perfectly, but their teammates still can't cap the objective they're trying to push, then either their team is bad, or the overall impact heavy armor has on a match is smaller than it should be.
I know these are walls of text, but hopefully I can come up with other videos that get the message across without making people's eyes glaze over.
