Re: Mortars - Why Bother?

That's very detailed. I'm not an expert but I agree with you. I do remember being able to follow the strike. The mortar is actually useless right now. Feels like using them now actually give more benefit to the opposing team.

Mortar uses should stay in 1st person because if given 3rd person view it would be too powerful to avoid being ambushed.

Mortars should deal more vehicle damage especially for direct hits

Mortars should allow you to pick them up again (because the equipment is literally designed to be man portable)

Mortars should have the SMOKE rounds buffed to be just as big as the thrown smoke grenades, current implementation is a joke (too small and no duration)

Mortars HE shells should have damage buffed where a 2.5 meter radius should be lethal (over 100 damage) vs standing infantry and leave crouched/prone infantry barely alive, with damage dropping off towards 20 meters (more realistic).

Mortars airburst shells (if implemented) should have more consistent damage spread throughout the entire radius but have a reduced lethal radius as a balance tradeoff. So therefore it would be less effective at killing at point of impact but deal overall more damage near its more distant radius limits.

Mortars should not be able to just hold down fire and shoot indefinitely as they currently are. They should behave similar to vehicles ammo or engineer rockets where there is a quantity of shots to be fire and then it must be replenished via ammo crates etc. This way when fully stocked, a mortar uses can hold e.g. 20 rounds and then they must restock with resupply (either with teammates or stop firing and drop it).

When mortars fire, the explosions to propel shells in the air should be much louder (its very loud in real life).

After all this, mortars would be in a better place in the game.

"Mortars should allow you to pick them up again (because the equipment is literally designed to be man portable)" <-- That's always been a problem, even in past Battlefields. We have to waste an ammo crate in-order to reposition the mortar, which is silly.

Haha, I completely agree with your point of view, but I think the game studio deliberately weakened the mortar, and I believe their goal has been achieved. The mortar is now a dispensable little toy.

For any FPS game, a weapon that can easily kill enemies outside the player's field of vision is devastating to the fairness of the game. In fact, this has already been confirmed in Rainbow Six and Battlefield 1.

Players will find the easiest way to play this game, such as the loiters in 2042, the drones and c4 in Battlefield 4, the mortars in Battlefield 1, and the sniper rifles that can one shot one kill. Then they will start to imitate each other. Eventually, you will find that almost everyone will play these things behind cover instead of taking points.

This is intolerable, but I still think that the current mortars should be better. The shells should be fired and land faster, and the shells should be changed to skill recovery, with a cd of one recovery in 15 seconds, allowing for the accumulation of three. This way, it should be balanced enough.

The biggest issue for me is in Breakthrough. When you are attacker, the friendly zone end so close to the objective that you can't really use mortar. Each time you are so close of the front line, 

I dont said we should shot across the map, but a better balance should be done.

Also drone killing mortar team is just stupid nd broken , mortar can't be placed behind friendly zone, but the enemy can stay in his zone and killing you with pinpoint accuracy each team, that's not far and completely stupid. Deone could destroy the mortar without killing the players, I could deal with it.

For now mortar have enough downside, so no meed to being killed by drones plus of that.

After the last 2 BF games not even having a mortar, I am glad to just have it again.

But it definitely sounds like if it needs some improvements.

The spawn zone restrictions are probably not negotiable to prevent abuse of the spawn zones. But surely they can somehow compensate for the extra risk of using them close to the enemy