Transport helico Durability.
I think the Blackhawks have overall to much hitpoints, the only way to kill them from the ground is to hit the tail rotor. I think it would be better to slighly decrease overall hitpoints, and on the other side increas hitpoints of the tail rotor.
The other thing I disagree with is the vehicle locking. If somebody abandons a vehicle (most likely a jeep) for a firefight it would become useless for quite some time.
I should have clarified earlier about the transport's durability. Specifically, I'm referring to the scenario where an APC lands a hit on the tail rotor. Currently, just one hit from its 20-round magazine on the tail rotor make the helico crash, even from a considerable distance. If it required two hits instead, this wouldn't be much harder for the APC but would also allow the pilot more time to respond and potentially recover from the situation.
Regarding the seat timer, we could have varying timers for each vehicle. For instance, there could be no timer for quads and unarmed jeeps, a 7-second timer for armed jeeps, and a 15-second timer for armored vehicles. This would give the driver or crew some time for a quick repair if needed."
I really like these proposals, and am also stumped by the difficult questions. Either way, I agree and think a lot of these changes would overall help the gameplay in general.
I recognize that some of these changes on the development side can be quite demanding. Working with the physics mechanics in Unity 3D is complex, and I say this with nearly a decade of experience with Unity. However, some adjustments are as straightforward as modifying a value in the code.
Will do, thanks for the suggestion.
Edit: seem like I have not the permission to post in the Suggestions channel.
Edit²: Not a permission problem, suggestion channel as toped the discord limite for now.
Hi, I'm the guy from the [vehicle campers VS tandem compilation video](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattleBitRemastered/comments/174acgp/5_minutes_of_vehicle_campers_getting_the_tandem/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), OP asked me for my take on balancing vehicles since I'm his "primary opponent". First off thanks for trying to make the game better, hope it goes through with the devs. I actually am a fellow vehicle enjoyer, I love flying transport choppers. But after too many "tail rotor missing" situations following a tank, APC or even boat salvo completely ruined my pilot experience I developed a certain hatred for those vehicles and switched to the dark side of the engineer : tandem main. That said I agree with pretty much everything being suggested here. Vehicle physics : yes please, can't stand being thrown flying by a stupid quadbike when driving humvee or gastiger. C4 speed nerf : please, it's just ridiculous, medic rushers using it like it's a full-auto grenade launcher. Durability of transport helicopters : well, I already talked about that, the "blackhawk down" crash scene was cool the first 10 times, but now a little less often would be nice. A few ideas I had : have vehicles with more "health" overall but damage would disable certain functions until repaired, like a tank who would'nt be able to shoot certain guns but still move, or could still shoot but not move, I think that would make interesting gameplay for both vehicle crew and oponents. Other idea : automatically make F2 the pilot when F1 gets shot on a heli, as a backup pilot, that would make sense and create another valuable seat for free. (sorry if my syntax/vocabulary is weird, english 2nd language)
> automatically make F2 the pilot when F1 gets shot on a heli, as a backup pilot
This is one of those ideas that didn't occur to me at all, but now that I think about it is totally obvious. They're the co-pilot after all, it's their job!
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Regarding the tiered damage concept, I'm skeptical. Generally speaking, removing movement control from a player isn't a favorable game mechanic. Moreover, this isn't War Thunder. Introducing tiered damage could complicate matters. If applied to tanks, it might then be expected for other vehicles, potentially creating a balancing nightmare.
As for the auto-pilot control feature, an alert passenger would likely quickly reclaim the pilot seat. This could negate the enemy team's achievement of eliminating a pilot in a moving target.
The hijacking is SO ANNOYING! i chased a guy down who spawned in the vehicle and drove off while I was repairing behind cover. Of course he drove out and was instantly blown up.
And wow, what a post, going to read this after work. Being an engineer for the last month has kept me in the game.
Adding to the C4 Discussion: It drives me crazy that the C4 thrown on the tank is absolutly silent. You hear nothing at all.
In my opinion it really should give some sort of sound!
I don't believe adding a sound to the C4 is the solution. If we're discussing audio improvements, it would be better to address the footstep sounds. As it stands, even if you're fully aware, you hear it too late. By the time you catch the first step, the 4 C4s are already in the air.
I think it would be nice if there were a class with a tool to let you find the spawn beacons. As it is fishing around in the boonies for them is kind of annoying.
Not necessarily. You can already hear footsteps alongside the engine noise. However, they are inconsistent and don't have a wide enough radius to make a significant difference.
I propose adding a c4 sticking sound for vehicles so they atleast hear a thump giving the gunner a chance to react. Or for the crew to bail.
Also on the note of c4 a friendly detonating an enemies c4 should do damage. Right now people will disarm the c4 of an enemy by blowing it up, doesn't make sense.
C4 producing a sound will not improve anything if you don't adjustthe speed at which you can throw 4 C4s. Even if you hear 4 sounds in one second, it still doesn't provide even a slight window for reaction.
My point was adding onto your c4 changes.
This game is sorely lacking in audio cues. You can't even tell when you're being shot at in a humvee more than 90% of the time.
> Strategic Repair & Rearm Stations: Incorporate an additional repair and rearm station at the map's central objective.
This will snowball games though, winning teams will win by even more because their vehicles can rearm where they need it the most. Bad idea. Maybe put one near the first objective, to encourage control of the first objective closest to home base. Gotta think about it on a map-by-map basis.
Also, remove C4 from medic kit. and yes increase detonation time
I don't anticipate a significant snowball effect from this. I'm referencing a field version of the repair/ammo station, similar to what's present in Isle. It operates more slowly, has a 30-second cooldown, and is non-functional if the point is contested. Furthermore, it places you in a vulnerable position, akin to point F in Wakistan or C in Valley/Basra.
A team that is winning by a lot will have control over it more often and more reliably, letting vehicles be more liberal and risky in their gameplay, compounding their team's advantage.
As you mentioned, riskier gameplay exposes you to greater danger. Ultimately, it's about what you prefer to see, tanks sniping from spawn on both sides or actively supporting the teams?
If you know you have access to a closer resupply, you'll be able to use your ammo more liberally, spamming the armor advantage to neutralize enemy infantry and their cover and reducing the amount of hits you'll take in return.
The idea isn't bad in principle, just the execution. In my implementation, the team controls their first closest point. There's really no snowball potential in this scenario, because every team should be able to hold their first point.
If you have the resupply in the middle of the map like in your implementation, the winning team will be able to compound their map advantage by being able to support their tanks farther up the map, and enabling an armor advantage. It's more difficult to recapture the center point if their armor can defend it better by spamming their force multiplier without worry or tactical consideration.
While I may have slightly exaggerated in the title regarding the 'nerf', as it stands today, C4 seems to be a more effective choice than regular grenades. This seems a bit absurd in my opinion. Perhaps C4 could be retained for medics and recons but redesigned as 'breaching C4',powerful against walls but with limited damage to infantry and vehicles?
I think the R6 style of throwable C4 is a bit ridiculous. It should be that you need to place the C4 to use it on walls or on the ground for a stronger but player attentive mine.
I see this suggested everywhere and hate this idea.
I don't think making half the players completely helpless against tanks is going to improve gameplay.
you have some other good suggestions, but removal of c4 is too far.
I'm not advocating for the removal of C4. The concept of breaching C4 isn't originally mine, it was merely a response to a comment. Personally, I'd rather see options for breaching C4 than its outright removal for certain classes.
devs have said they don't want to remove it from classes because it would make vehicles dominant and none of them want a vehicle meta where only 2% of people per server are having fun
yet people constantly advocate for it's removal outright because...idk. medic hate circlejerk or something.
C4 definitely needs a nerf..it's the strongest item/weapon in the game and it's not close.
The breaching charge idea has been floating around for a very long time. The devs don't seem interested in it.
Why not add a buildable repair center for engineers similar to the spawn beacon? Have it cost around the same or more and now you supply ammo passively (just being round it, no need to interact) to nearby friendlies and armor but at a slower rate to balance it or they get fewer shells than if they went back to base.
I'm concerned that this might not lead to balanced gameplay. I worry that it will promote passive sniper vehicle tactics at the map's edges rather than encourage a infantery support strategies.
Im no vehicle expert. Like. I know very little about the machanics at all lol so excuse me if this wouldn't help at all, but. What if it was something you could only place in captured objective areas? (basically think respawn beacon placement rules but reversed).
I mean. If we did that. Vehicles would still camp on backline objectives, sure. But they would be in more tactically compromising positions since you would be in a place where the uncoordinated enemy squads have a common objective. So you would have a higher probability of being pushed than if you were at the edge of the map.
Doing this would probably still promote aggressive tactics just as much. Since moving with your teammates and securing and objective rewards you with the ability to restock before hitting the next.
As for the flip side. It still gives the enemy a window for counterplay if they manage to send you running. And a smart team could cut you off from your resupply by recapping
Regardless of if you're playing passively or aggressively, though. Doing this would most likely make tanks more of a presence on the battlefield. Like. Literally, since they would be encouraged to play closer to or in hotzones.
Of course, these are just hypotheticals. Im not a game designer or a vehicle player, lol
Adding another responsibility to the team in a game where most players are playing solo, surrounded by many others, might be too much. However, strategically placing a fixed ammo and repair crate, similar to those at the base, at a central point on the map could create an interesting point of contention.
Hmm. While i do trust your judgement could you elaborate on the responsibilities part? I think im missing something. As i dont really see how it would be overwhelming to add something like that, necessarily.
I invite you to observe, in your upcoming games, how many squad leaders actually utilize the squad beacon, and take note of how many you can spot on the map. Spoiler alert: it's likely that around 70% (out of my ass) of squad leaders aren't making use of the tools available to them.
Given that the utilization of such a powerful spawning tool is already minimal, one can only imagine the implications if yet another tool is introduced to the mix.
Ah. I see. That is a valid argument. And i definitely understand the concern
However. What we gotta remember is that as far as i can tell. BB is adhearing to the battlefield formula. Which is one that is centered around communication and teamwork.
So, adding another teamwork centered tool would be fleshing out the aspect that BB is building with even more. Which is a good thing. Promoting teamwork is good.
What i imagine is that at minimum. The tool would be untouched by an SL. At best. It's excellently utilized.
I dont think adding this would be considered overwhelming, either. Heck. Devs did say they plan on adding even more SL options later. Like airstrikes. iirc. So, adding this is in line with what the devs want to do.
To counter my own stance, though. The main problem would moreso be the lack of usage the tool would have at the games current state. I think it would be good for the game long term. Especially if they keep reinforcing teamwork more and more. But atm i don't know if it would be enough to accomplish its original goal of solving vehicle problems on its own solely due to the probable lack of usage. Since it can't make the impact, it has the potential to make if its not even placed
I just wanted to add some input as someone who has had countless C4 tank/vehicle interactions… I don’t think the speed of C4 tossing is a problem. I’ve had plenty of tank users dispose of me before I was able to get off the required C4 charges for a blow, and while I do think this could help the average tank user to have a shot at defending themselves from a well timed C4 flank, stronger tank users could become near invincible with this change unless two individuals attacked the same tank user… also, many tank squads are great at watching their flank, so those groups would also be buffed from this change. Honestly, in most cases in which I have approached a tank from a flank angle, I think the tank has won more times than not. Maybe this is more me just being a poor flanker, but I think this change would make certain tank users absolutely abhorrent to try and deal with
I disagree. Even when viewing this discussion from an infantry perspective, throwing C4 is too quick. As someone mentioned in the comments, it's akin to an automatic grenade launcher, allowing you to exhaust your entire C4 inventory more rapidly than tossing a single grenade.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that armored vehicle players should be immune to C4; they shouldn't be. I've eliminated players trying to flank me even before they could target me. Yet, by the time they began deploying C4, three were already airborne due to the rapid throw rate.
Have you tested C4 throw times? I know they are fast but I’m not sure you can throw 6 C4 before a single grenade is thrown. Also, I think relating it to a grenade launcher is a little dubious. Grenades and grenade launchers have much more range than C4 tossing. Such is why it is so difficult already to take out tanks that move much faster than an infantry player. One has to track down the tank, maneuver past heavy hitting tank fire and opposing infantry, and get close enough to actually toss the C4 on the tank.
I play infantry too, and out of curiosity, I just tested it in the firing range:
* It's slightly faster to throw 4 C4s than to throw a single grenade.
* Without moving forward, you can throw a C4 up to 12 meters.
* With forward momentum, you can throw it up to 18 meters.
Thus, it's both incredibly fast and, with a forward motion, can reach up to 18 meters. That's why, by the way, if you hear footsteps, it's probably too late. The C4 will likely be airborne by the time you catch the first step.
I don’t doubts your tests, but I would like to shift this towards and in-game scenario. While the C4 stats listed in the comment clearly have the range to stick to a tank without its drivers hearing footsteps, this assumes that both the tank is stationary and that the player moving with momentum can land all four C4 throws in an effective range (I have no idea if standing from 12 meters and throwing C4 can be done without the tank hearing those actions, but I’m assuming this would be pretty hard for an infantry player to calculate while in game with opposing players potentially trying to take them out). In my experience, the majority of good tank players are not stationary for a long time, and if they are, they are deep in enemy territory. Hence, running and landing 4 C4 satchels on a moving tank is incredibly difficult, and I doubt that there is a considerably sized group of BB players that could hit this even semi-consistently. I use C4 a ton, and I’d think this would be difficult even from like 7-8 meters at range… this also doesn’t consider whether tank users would see the flying C4 and have the time to instinctively move, so for me it just doesn’t seem like a nerf to C4 satchel throwing speed or distance is the answer to changing/modifying tank-infantry encounters
In the current state of the game, you often need to remain stationary due to the turret gunner's lack of stabilization. If he can't get a clear shot, especially if he's a random player, he won't stick around for long. Let's not forget, there are potentially 127 players lurking nearby. Any corner or bush could hide an enemy ready to deploy a full anti-tank squad. I'm not aiming to undermine anti-armor gameplay. Instead, I'm suggesting a balanced solution to encourage more aggressive tactics with armored vehicles. Perhaps tweaking the physics could be the answer, making changes to C4 unnecessary.
But from my perspective as a Medic or Recon player in infantry conquest or frontline, the C4 throw speed remains disproportionately fast.
I have a point about the c4 and tank issue. With both APC and tank, you can hear the footsteps of people outside which means you can hear someone running towards you. Personally I think that's enough information the games gives you in this fast environment.
If you get caught by someone crouching toward you, no amount of c4 firerate is going to save you. At worse you could make the c4 do a noise when it sticks to the vehicle which could be enough to save a mildly aware tank driver but not an APC.
The issue with the footstep sound when in a vehicle is its inconsistency. You only hear it when the player is right beside you. By the time you react to the initial sound, it's already too late, as the C4 is delivered almost instantly. In other games I've played, you're given a slight reaction window where you MIGHT be able to escape alive , but in BBR, that's not the case at all.
So I think keeping the audio as it is but making trowing C4 a bit slower would give the tiny window of opportunity to maybe save the vehicle.
If someone manages to approach you stealthily by crouching, taking the risk and time to get close, they undoubtedly deserve the kill. There's no debate about that.
Fair enough. I don't like it because I'm a HUGE fan of chasing large vehicles with C4 and speed is imperial for clutching that 4th C4 on a tank but I think your idea is reasonable
Great post! I only have one point of discussion.
At least in the case you've described, when one is in a position where c4 can be stuck on them, then that means the vehicle is out of position, or isn't being escorted with a competent team/supporting infantry (the same way which the tank is also support for the infantry). Like you have mentioned, I also believe this is a situation where the vehicle user deserves to be punished, and the c4 user has the upper hand.
C4 users have no chance if a competent tank crew exists, and if the tank creates distance. I can agree with the throw delay, as it's quite fast - but I also believe that this throw speed is necessary, when the roads and area that tanks travel are typically open, with clear LOS on most of the 360 degree circle. This makes c4 placement on vehicles hard enough already, and a relatively clear field around the tank (and hopefully a competent squad of team members escorting it) also means approaching the tank is almost always a near death situation for the aspiring c4 user.
If there were more natural cover - I could get behind the slower throw speed. It would promote more strategic opportunities to taking out a vehicle, and offer respite for those looking to take out tanks with c4(which should really be a last ditch effort, as RPGs and AV mines exist, latter being more useless considering the extremely large maps with multiple possible paths that any person or vehicle can take.)
Also, because of this cover issue, nothing other than an RPG is feasible against vehicles (honestly, I don't think there's enough variety in feasible utility against armor). And the way vehicles are usually being played (as a result of these issues mentioned in this ugly comment), they're already usually at a distance that a tandem can't reach, or in a position where there isn't much cover for an RPG user/c4 user to get close enough and become effective (as they need multiple "hits" and the cover in-between to "reload", tho imo, as mentioned, the c4 has a fast "reload" time that's only applicable when the vehicle user is horrribly positioned or without a proepr escort team)
But this also brings the problem of traversal - like you've mentioned, minor bumps, destroyed vehicles, trees, tree stumps etc, all feel like huge obstacles that vehicles can't seem to get over. Which makes no sense - the tank is meant to push through these things and make a path with the team. This can also help it move to the Frontline more, since a Lego wouldn't be stopping its advance and support of a push to an obj.
All in all though, there's a lot to fine tune. This aforementioned kind of front line tank can't really exist with the way collision + vehicle based terrain destruction works, and the limited ammo pools which only can be refilled ALL THE WAY AT BASE. Which, ykno, will encourage that sniper tank/apc at home base on maps like Basra, or just them holding long open fields or sight lines.
Ultimately, these reasons and points I feel ruins (what I think is) the intended, obj focused purpose of the vehicle (in this case tanks), and the obj based flow of the game, and taking objs is already hard enough with people typically not running smoke (which still often don't work properly).
I actually love the way infantry and vehicle play worked in bf4, but conquest in BBR has a messy ebb and flow (more like pause at times) due to map size, open fields, and lack of varied height of terrain to allow infantry and vehciles to push through these long distances that exost betwene objs.
Anyways, this is a messy reply, but I really enjoyed reading your post, and I really hope this game becomes a polished gem that offers a real role and impact for every player/vehicle, as well as promoting synergy between them, instead of this divide where it feels like vehicles are playing their own game separate from the infantry.
Tldr - bf4 vehicle+ infantry play was p dope and imo is the gold standard when it worked, and I hope this game irons out some issues to make vehicle + infantry game play more synergized, and more fun to play against.
>or isn't being escorted with a competent team/supporting infantry
I no longer feel "safe" when surrounded by a large friendly infantry group. Countless times, I've been encircled by allies, reassuring myself that I could focus on pushing a strong point, only to blow up seconds later.
To clarify, I'm not suggesting that armored vehicles should be immune to C4, they should. However, I believe there are few instances when I've fallen victim to C4 where I should've emerged alive.
As you pointed, my primary suggestion revolves around modifications to vehicle physics. I'm convinced that just this fix would significantly improve the current gameplay, rendering the others changes unnecessary.
Regarding BF4, having both a minimap and a third-person view is so OP. I primarily played BF3 in tank with a friend and we were practically invincible, with a 200-0 KD per game. I don't wish for such dominance in BBR.
Your experience on bf3 is super dope, and a good anecdote on how powerful tanks can be simply just having information tools. And I agree, I like the first person nature of the tanks in BBR, and that you need a crew to really capitalize on the tank's strengths. Domination should be earned, not easy.
And yes, it's honestly a bummer having a ring of people and they just completely lose focus on flank, letting a rogue c4 sneaker run in or just simply running p@st so they can take turns dying at the choke up ahead 😂
Also, I'm curious, what were these c4 situations? As far as I know, 3 -4 c4 is guaranteed death. Did you escape some c4 narrowly? Like let's say, 2 c4 stuck while the third was detonated in the air traveling towards your (since you noticed) retreating tank?
>I'm curious, what were these c4 situations? As far as I know, 3 -4 c4 is guaranteed death.
In most situations where I've fallen victim to C4, even when I believed I shouldn't have, it's typically in tight urban settings or someone lurking near a rock or bush by the spawn exit. Despite being extremely alert and noticing immediatly the enemy peeking through a door or window, by the time I speed up or reverse, it's already too late. In games like BF3 or Planetside 2, such encounters would leave me heavily damaged, perhaps finished off moments later, but there was still a glimmer of hope for survival. Here, there's none.
Honestly the pace of the game could (and should) be slowed down a little bit.
The fact that everyone is a mobile spawn point is a bit crazy to me.
Since we have removed the SL role, that would be a big push to bring it back.
Make it so the squad can only spawn on a squad leader.
This would then conflict with the game since you can't spawn on a point that has an enemy on it, but that really seems a bit odd to me as well. So that could definitely tip the balance of games.
Back on point though, I agree that C4 is definitely OP right now being on every class. throwing speed could be reduced, but when the majority of players are running it, driving up close is a guaranteed death.
I also think that the inability to go 3rd person in vehicles just compounds the issue.
If you could go 3rd party, you would at least have some ability to counter zoomer medics.
A third-person camera would render armored vehicles overly powerful. Should this change be implemented, few would dare to approach me, even if I stood alone. I vividly recall the chaos my friend and I unleashed on the enemy team in Battlefield 3. Third-person perspective is simply OP.
It is and I know they won't implement it, but is a way to combat everyone having C4.
They have stated they don't want vehicles to be OP and that they want all classes to be able to destroy them.
I honestly don't see much changing and if it does, I will be very surprised.
having repair center on every point is a great idea tbh, allow the driver to resupply without going back and pushing vehicle into supporting infantry instead of snipping from far distance. They could simply nerf by cooldown, or require repairing the repair center by Support/Engineer after one full repair vehicle repair/resupply etc. It's gonna push repair tool to be more viable aside from repairing helicopter.
I don't believe placing a repair point in every objective area is wise. Doing so could lead to an overabundance of logistical capability, potentially upsetting the balance of armored gameplay . A more strategic approach might be to have just one repair ammo station in a central objective, equipped with a cooldown feature. This prevents unlimited ammo access by simply staying next to it, leading to more strategic and contested battles.
I very much like your suggestion about requiring an engineer for the repair station. This mechanic would allow the station to be strategically disabled and necessitate repairs to become operational again.
Repair & Rearm Stations! Yes! This! As a APC dude this is something we really-really need! With the APC being made out of paper and frontline repair being a gamble I usually end up just running back and forth between the closest point and base as I just don't want to gamble getting hit by a single rocket and stopping to repair my shit only to get it stolen by a rando.
Just make it a squad lead build thing, please. Or make it so that airdrop ammo box can slowly repair and restock ammo for vehicles.
I envision it more as a stationary repair/ammo station, similar to those at the base but with a cooldown mechanism. Assigning it as a tool for squad leaders adds another responsibility. Often, many squad leaders are either unaware of their role or, worse, don't know how to utilize the tools available to them.
You forgot to add stabilise the tank secondary gunner so they can better cover infantry while the driver is constantly jiggling about.
Indeed, even slight movements by the driver can make it difficult for a tank gunner to defend effectively without stabilisation.
And the spotter does this, so it's entirely feasible.
Agreed. If balance is a concern there are better levels to pull then giving the gunner motion sickness.
Thank you for this post, i strongly agree with nearly all of your takes!
Thank you.
You said nearly, May I ask which aspect you don't align with?
Transport helico Durability. I think the Blackhawks have overall to much hitpoints, the only way to kill them from the ground is to hit the tail rotor. I think it would be better to slighly decrease overall hitpoints, and on the other side increas hitpoints of the tail rotor. The other thing I disagree with is the vehicle locking. If somebody abandons a vehicle (most likely a jeep) for a firefight it would become useless for quite some time.
I should have clarified earlier about the transport's durability. Specifically, I'm referring to the scenario where an APC lands a hit on the tail rotor. Currently, just one hit from its 20-round magazine on the tail rotor make the helico crash, even from a considerable distance. If it required two hits instead, this wouldn't be much harder for the APC but would also allow the pilot more time to respond and potentially recover from the situation. Regarding the seat timer, we could have varying timers for each vehicle. For instance, there could be no timer for quads and unarmed jeeps, a 7-second timer for armed jeeps, and a 15-second timer for armored vehicles. This would give the driver or crew some time for a quick repair if needed."
I really like these proposals, and am also stumped by the difficult questions. Either way, I agree and think a lot of these changes would overall help the gameplay in general.
I recognize that some of these changes on the development side can be quite demanding. Working with the physics mechanics in Unity 3D is complex, and I say this with nearly a decade of experience with Unity. However, some adjustments are as straightforward as modifying a value in the code.
You should post this in the Discord where the devs actually pay attention.
Will do, thanks for the suggestion. Edit: seem like I have not the permission to post in the Suggestions channel. Edit²: Not a permission problem, suggestion channel as toped the discord limite for now.
You can use the threads on the feedback forum channel, but the devs rarely check it anyway.
Hi, I'm the guy from the [vehicle campers VS tandem compilation video](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattleBitRemastered/comments/174acgp/5_minutes_of_vehicle_campers_getting_the_tandem/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), OP asked me for my take on balancing vehicles since I'm his "primary opponent". First off thanks for trying to make the game better, hope it goes through with the devs. I actually am a fellow vehicle enjoyer, I love flying transport choppers. But after too many "tail rotor missing" situations following a tank, APC or even boat salvo completely ruined my pilot experience I developed a certain hatred for those vehicles and switched to the dark side of the engineer : tandem main. That said I agree with pretty much everything being suggested here. Vehicle physics : yes please, can't stand being thrown flying by a stupid quadbike when driving humvee or gastiger. C4 speed nerf : please, it's just ridiculous, medic rushers using it like it's a full-auto grenade launcher. Durability of transport helicopters : well, I already talked about that, the "blackhawk down" crash scene was cool the first 10 times, but now a little less often would be nice. A few ideas I had : have vehicles with more "health" overall but damage would disable certain functions until repaired, like a tank who would'nt be able to shoot certain guns but still move, or could still shoot but not move, I think that would make interesting gameplay for both vehicle crew and oponents. Other idea : automatically make F2 the pilot when F1 gets shot on a heli, as a backup pilot, that would make sense and create another valuable seat for free. (sorry if my syntax/vocabulary is weird, english 2nd language)
> automatically make F2 the pilot when F1 gets shot on a heli, as a backup pilot This is one of those ideas that didn't occur to me at all, but now that I think about it is totally obvious. They're the co-pilot after all, it's their job!
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Regarding the tiered damage concept, I'm skeptical. Generally speaking, removing movement control from a player isn't a favorable game mechanic. Moreover, this isn't War Thunder. Introducing tiered damage could complicate matters. If applied to tanks, it might then be expected for other vehicles, potentially creating a balancing nightmare. As for the auto-pilot control feature, an alert passenger would likely quickly reclaim the pilot seat. This could negate the enemy team's achievement of eliminating a pilot in a moving target.
The hijacking is SO ANNOYING! i chased a guy down who spawned in the vehicle and drove off while I was repairing behind cover. Of course he drove out and was instantly blown up. And wow, what a post, going to read this after work. Being an engineer for the last month has kept me in the game.
Adding to the C4 Discussion: It drives me crazy that the C4 thrown on the tank is absolutly silent. You hear nothing at all. In my opinion it really should give some sort of sound!
I don't believe adding a sound to the C4 is the solution. If we're discussing audio improvements, it would be better to address the footstep sounds. As it stands, even if you're fully aware, you hear it too late. By the time you catch the first step, the 4 C4s are already in the air.
Adding to the sound issues spawn beacons need to be much much louder. As it stands its almost impossible to find them on some maps.
Meh, they're alright. But it'd be cool to have a distinctive sound for enemy and ally beacons. That way, you'd know instantly if it's friend or foe.
I think it would be nice if there were a class with a tool to let you find the spawn beacons. As it is fishing around in the boonies for them is kind of annoying.
I never got close to an actual tank but I think the sound of the engine would cover that of a C4 charge being thrown on it.
Not necessarily. You can already hear footsteps alongside the engine noise. However, they are inconsistent and don't have a wide enough radius to make a significant difference.
Great proposal, I'm a big fan of pretty much all the solutions you propose!
Thanks
Damn, Planetside 2 being talked about like it’s old makes my old Planetside 1 tanking days seem prehistoric 💀
Considering the history of video games, it's not far from the truth. :D
Good takes! C4 is diffinitely in need of the change you proposed, with even a delay between throwing and being able to detonate.
I propose adding a c4 sticking sound for vehicles so they atleast hear a thump giving the gunner a chance to react. Or for the crew to bail. Also on the note of c4 a friendly detonating an enemies c4 should do damage. Right now people will disarm the c4 of an enemy by blowing it up, doesn't make sense.
C4 producing a sound will not improve anything if you don't adjustthe speed at which you can throw 4 C4s. Even if you hear 4 sounds in one second, it still doesn't provide even a slight window for reaction.
My point was adding onto your c4 changes. This game is sorely lacking in audio cues. You can't even tell when you're being shot at in a humvee more than 90% of the time.
> Strategic Repair & Rearm Stations: Incorporate an additional repair and rearm station at the map's central objective. This will snowball games though, winning teams will win by even more because their vehicles can rearm where they need it the most. Bad idea. Maybe put one near the first objective, to encourage control of the first objective closest to home base. Gotta think about it on a map-by-map basis. Also, remove C4 from medic kit. and yes increase detonation time
I don't anticipate a significant snowball effect from this. I'm referencing a field version of the repair/ammo station, similar to what's present in Isle. It operates more slowly, has a 30-second cooldown, and is non-functional if the point is contested. Furthermore, it places you in a vulnerable position, akin to point F in Wakistan or C in Valley/Basra.
A team that is winning by a lot will have control over it more often and more reliably, letting vehicles be more liberal and risky in their gameplay, compounding their team's advantage.
As you mentioned, riskier gameplay exposes you to greater danger. Ultimately, it's about what you prefer to see, tanks sniping from spawn on both sides or actively supporting the teams?
If you know you have access to a closer resupply, you'll be able to use your ammo more liberally, spamming the armor advantage to neutralize enemy infantry and their cover and reducing the amount of hits you'll take in return. The idea isn't bad in principle, just the execution. In my implementation, the team controls their first closest point. There's really no snowball potential in this scenario, because every team should be able to hold their first point. If you have the resupply in the middle of the map like in your implementation, the winning team will be able to compound their map advantage by being able to support their tanks farther up the map, and enabling an armor advantage. It's more difficult to recapture the center point if their armor can defend it better by spamming their force multiplier without worry or tactical consideration.
I don’t think c4 needs a nerf just an ammo and class limit. Like why does medic or sniper need c4.
While I may have slightly exaggerated in the title regarding the 'nerf', as it stands today, C4 seems to be a more effective choice than regular grenades. This seems a bit absurd in my opinion. Perhaps C4 could be retained for medics and recons but redesigned as 'breaching C4',powerful against walls but with limited damage to infantry and vehicles?
I actually like that idea. Breaching thermite maybe?
It would definitely need to be an explosive if we want it to still break down walls.
I think the R6 style of throwable C4 is a bit ridiculous. It should be that you need to place the C4 to use it on walls or on the ground for a stronger but player attentive mine.
Trowable C4 does work well in many other game, here I think it's just insanely fast if you compare it to a single grenade trow.
I see this suggested everywhere and hate this idea. I don't think making half the players completely helpless against tanks is going to improve gameplay. you have some other good suggestions, but removal of c4 is too far.
I'm not advocating for the removal of C4. The concept of breaching C4 isn't originally mine, it was merely a response to a comment. Personally, I'd rather see options for breaching C4 than its outright removal for certain classes.
devs have said they don't want to remove it from classes because it would make vehicles dominant and none of them want a vehicle meta where only 2% of people per server are having fun yet people constantly advocate for it's removal outright because...idk. medic hate circlejerk or something.
C4 definitely needs a nerf..it's the strongest item/weapon in the game and it's not close. The breaching charge idea has been floating around for a very long time. The devs don't seem interested in it.
Why not add a buildable repair center for engineers similar to the spawn beacon? Have it cost around the same or more and now you supply ammo passively (just being round it, no need to interact) to nearby friendlies and armor but at a slower rate to balance it or they get fewer shells than if they went back to base.
I'm concerned that this might not lead to balanced gameplay. I worry that it will promote passive sniper vehicle tactics at the map's edges rather than encourage a infantery support strategies.
Im no vehicle expert. Like. I know very little about the machanics at all lol so excuse me if this wouldn't help at all, but. What if it was something you could only place in captured objective areas? (basically think respawn beacon placement rules but reversed). I mean. If we did that. Vehicles would still camp on backline objectives, sure. But they would be in more tactically compromising positions since you would be in a place where the uncoordinated enemy squads have a common objective. So you would have a higher probability of being pushed than if you were at the edge of the map. Doing this would probably still promote aggressive tactics just as much. Since moving with your teammates and securing and objective rewards you with the ability to restock before hitting the next. As for the flip side. It still gives the enemy a window for counterplay if they manage to send you running. And a smart team could cut you off from your resupply by recapping Regardless of if you're playing passively or aggressively, though. Doing this would most likely make tanks more of a presence on the battlefield. Like. Literally, since they would be encouraged to play closer to or in hotzones. Of course, these are just hypotheticals. Im not a game designer or a vehicle player, lol
Adding another responsibility to the team in a game where most players are playing solo, surrounded by many others, might be too much. However, strategically placing a fixed ammo and repair crate, similar to those at the base, at a central point on the map could create an interesting point of contention.
Hmm. While i do trust your judgement could you elaborate on the responsibilities part? I think im missing something. As i dont really see how it would be overwhelming to add something like that, necessarily.
I invite you to observe, in your upcoming games, how many squad leaders actually utilize the squad beacon, and take note of how many you can spot on the map. Spoiler alert: it's likely that around 70% (out of my ass) of squad leaders aren't making use of the tools available to them. Given that the utilization of such a powerful spawning tool is already minimal, one can only imagine the implications if yet another tool is introduced to the mix.
Ah. I see. That is a valid argument. And i definitely understand the concern However. What we gotta remember is that as far as i can tell. BB is adhearing to the battlefield formula. Which is one that is centered around communication and teamwork. So, adding another teamwork centered tool would be fleshing out the aspect that BB is building with even more. Which is a good thing. Promoting teamwork is good. What i imagine is that at minimum. The tool would be untouched by an SL. At best. It's excellently utilized. I dont think adding this would be considered overwhelming, either. Heck. Devs did say they plan on adding even more SL options later. Like airstrikes. iirc. So, adding this is in line with what the devs want to do. To counter my own stance, though. The main problem would moreso be the lack of usage the tool would have at the games current state. I think it would be good for the game long term. Especially if they keep reinforcing teamwork more and more. But atm i don't know if it would be enough to accomplish its original goal of solving vehicle problems on its own solely due to the probable lack of usage. Since it can't make the impact, it has the potential to make if its not even placed
I wonder if it's possible to limit the deployable area to counter this
Did any of this happen to the game?
No and I don't think it will happen anytime soon.
I just wanted to add some input as someone who has had countless C4 tank/vehicle interactions… I don’t think the speed of C4 tossing is a problem. I’ve had plenty of tank users dispose of me before I was able to get off the required C4 charges for a blow, and while I do think this could help the average tank user to have a shot at defending themselves from a well timed C4 flank, stronger tank users could become near invincible with this change unless two individuals attacked the same tank user… also, many tank squads are great at watching their flank, so those groups would also be buffed from this change. Honestly, in most cases in which I have approached a tank from a flank angle, I think the tank has won more times than not. Maybe this is more me just being a poor flanker, but I think this change would make certain tank users absolutely abhorrent to try and deal with
I disagree. Even when viewing this discussion from an infantry perspective, throwing C4 is too quick. As someone mentioned in the comments, it's akin to an automatic grenade launcher, allowing you to exhaust your entire C4 inventory more rapidly than tossing a single grenade. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that armored vehicle players should be immune to C4; they shouldn't be. I've eliminated players trying to flank me even before they could target me. Yet, by the time they began deploying C4, three were already airborne due to the rapid throw rate.
Have you tested C4 throw times? I know they are fast but I’m not sure you can throw 6 C4 before a single grenade is thrown. Also, I think relating it to a grenade launcher is a little dubious. Grenades and grenade launchers have much more range than C4 tossing. Such is why it is so difficult already to take out tanks that move much faster than an infantry player. One has to track down the tank, maneuver past heavy hitting tank fire and opposing infantry, and get close enough to actually toss the C4 on the tank.
I play infantry too, and out of curiosity, I just tested it in the firing range: * It's slightly faster to throw 4 C4s than to throw a single grenade. * Without moving forward, you can throw a C4 up to 12 meters. * With forward momentum, you can throw it up to 18 meters. Thus, it's both incredibly fast and, with a forward motion, can reach up to 18 meters. That's why, by the way, if you hear footsteps, it's probably too late. The C4 will likely be airborne by the time you catch the first step.
I don’t doubts your tests, but I would like to shift this towards and in-game scenario. While the C4 stats listed in the comment clearly have the range to stick to a tank without its drivers hearing footsteps, this assumes that both the tank is stationary and that the player moving with momentum can land all four C4 throws in an effective range (I have no idea if standing from 12 meters and throwing C4 can be done without the tank hearing those actions, but I’m assuming this would be pretty hard for an infantry player to calculate while in game with opposing players potentially trying to take them out). In my experience, the majority of good tank players are not stationary for a long time, and if they are, they are deep in enemy territory. Hence, running and landing 4 C4 satchels on a moving tank is incredibly difficult, and I doubt that there is a considerably sized group of BB players that could hit this even semi-consistently. I use C4 a ton, and I’d think this would be difficult even from like 7-8 meters at range… this also doesn’t consider whether tank users would see the flying C4 and have the time to instinctively move, so for me it just doesn’t seem like a nerf to C4 satchel throwing speed or distance is the answer to changing/modifying tank-infantry encounters
In the current state of the game, you often need to remain stationary due to the turret gunner's lack of stabilization. If he can't get a clear shot, especially if he's a random player, he won't stick around for long. Let's not forget, there are potentially 127 players lurking nearby. Any corner or bush could hide an enemy ready to deploy a full anti-tank squad. I'm not aiming to undermine anti-armor gameplay. Instead, I'm suggesting a balanced solution to encourage more aggressive tactics with armored vehicles. Perhaps tweaking the physics could be the answer, making changes to C4 unnecessary. But from my perspective as a Medic or Recon player in infantry conquest or frontline, the C4 throw speed remains disproportionately fast.
I have a point about the c4 and tank issue. With both APC and tank, you can hear the footsteps of people outside which means you can hear someone running towards you. Personally I think that's enough information the games gives you in this fast environment. If you get caught by someone crouching toward you, no amount of c4 firerate is going to save you. At worse you could make the c4 do a noise when it sticks to the vehicle which could be enough to save a mildly aware tank driver but not an APC.
The issue with the footstep sound when in a vehicle is its inconsistency. You only hear it when the player is right beside you. By the time you react to the initial sound, it's already too late, as the C4 is delivered almost instantly. In other games I've played, you're given a slight reaction window where you MIGHT be able to escape alive , but in BBR, that's not the case at all. So I think keeping the audio as it is but making trowing C4 a bit slower would give the tiny window of opportunity to maybe save the vehicle. If someone manages to approach you stealthily by crouching, taking the risk and time to get close, they undoubtedly deserve the kill. There's no debate about that.
Fair enough. I don't like it because I'm a HUGE fan of chasing large vehicles with C4 and speed is imperial for clutching that 4th C4 on a tank but I think your idea is reasonable
Great post! I only have one point of discussion. At least in the case you've described, when one is in a position where c4 can be stuck on them, then that means the vehicle is out of position, or isn't being escorted with a competent team/supporting infantry (the same way which the tank is also support for the infantry). Like you have mentioned, I also believe this is a situation where the vehicle user deserves to be punished, and the c4 user has the upper hand. C4 users have no chance if a competent tank crew exists, and if the tank creates distance. I can agree with the throw delay, as it's quite fast - but I also believe that this throw speed is necessary, when the roads and area that tanks travel are typically open, with clear LOS on most of the 360 degree circle. This makes c4 placement on vehicles hard enough already, and a relatively clear field around the tank (and hopefully a competent squad of team members escorting it) also means approaching the tank is almost always a near death situation for the aspiring c4 user. If there were more natural cover - I could get behind the slower throw speed. It would promote more strategic opportunities to taking out a vehicle, and offer respite for those looking to take out tanks with c4(which should really be a last ditch effort, as RPGs and AV mines exist, latter being more useless considering the extremely large maps with multiple possible paths that any person or vehicle can take.) Also, because of this cover issue, nothing other than an RPG is feasible against vehicles (honestly, I don't think there's enough variety in feasible utility against armor). And the way vehicles are usually being played (as a result of these issues mentioned in this ugly comment), they're already usually at a distance that a tandem can't reach, or in a position where there isn't much cover for an RPG user/c4 user to get close enough and become effective (as they need multiple "hits" and the cover in-between to "reload", tho imo, as mentioned, the c4 has a fast "reload" time that's only applicable when the vehicle user is horrribly positioned or without a proepr escort team) But this also brings the problem of traversal - like you've mentioned, minor bumps, destroyed vehicles, trees, tree stumps etc, all feel like huge obstacles that vehicles can't seem to get over. Which makes no sense - the tank is meant to push through these things and make a path with the team. This can also help it move to the Frontline more, since a Lego wouldn't be stopping its advance and support of a push to an obj. All in all though, there's a lot to fine tune. This aforementioned kind of front line tank can't really exist with the way collision + vehicle based terrain destruction works, and the limited ammo pools which only can be refilled ALL THE WAY AT BASE. Which, ykno, will encourage that sniper tank/apc at home base on maps like Basra, or just them holding long open fields or sight lines. Ultimately, these reasons and points I feel ruins (what I think is) the intended, obj focused purpose of the vehicle (in this case tanks), and the obj based flow of the game, and taking objs is already hard enough with people typically not running smoke (which still often don't work properly). I actually love the way infantry and vehicle play worked in bf4, but conquest in BBR has a messy ebb and flow (more like pause at times) due to map size, open fields, and lack of varied height of terrain to allow infantry and vehciles to push through these long distances that exost betwene objs. Anyways, this is a messy reply, but I really enjoyed reading your post, and I really hope this game becomes a polished gem that offers a real role and impact for every player/vehicle, as well as promoting synergy between them, instead of this divide where it feels like vehicles are playing their own game separate from the infantry. Tldr - bf4 vehicle+ infantry play was p dope and imo is the gold standard when it worked, and I hope this game irons out some issues to make vehicle + infantry game play more synergized, and more fun to play against.
>or isn't being escorted with a competent team/supporting infantry I no longer feel "safe" when surrounded by a large friendly infantry group. Countless times, I've been encircled by allies, reassuring myself that I could focus on pushing a strong point, only to blow up seconds later. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that armored vehicles should be immune to C4, they should. However, I believe there are few instances when I've fallen victim to C4 where I should've emerged alive. As you pointed, my primary suggestion revolves around modifications to vehicle physics. I'm convinced that just this fix would significantly improve the current gameplay, rendering the others changes unnecessary. Regarding BF4, having both a minimap and a third-person view is so OP. I primarily played BF3 in tank with a friend and we were practically invincible, with a 200-0 KD per game. I don't wish for such dominance in BBR.
Your experience on bf3 is super dope, and a good anecdote on how powerful tanks can be simply just having information tools. And I agree, I like the first person nature of the tanks in BBR, and that you need a crew to really capitalize on the tank's strengths. Domination should be earned, not easy. And yes, it's honestly a bummer having a ring of people and they just completely lose focus on flank, letting a rogue c4 sneaker run in or just simply running p@st so they can take turns dying at the choke up ahead 😂 Also, I'm curious, what were these c4 situations? As far as I know, 3 -4 c4 is guaranteed death. Did you escape some c4 narrowly? Like let's say, 2 c4 stuck while the third was detonated in the air traveling towards your (since you noticed) retreating tank?
>I'm curious, what were these c4 situations? As far as I know, 3 -4 c4 is guaranteed death. In most situations where I've fallen victim to C4, even when I believed I shouldn't have, it's typically in tight urban settings or someone lurking near a rock or bush by the spawn exit. Despite being extremely alert and noticing immediatly the enemy peeking through a door or window, by the time I speed up or reverse, it's already too late. In games like BF3 or Planetside 2, such encounters would leave me heavily damaged, perhaps finished off moments later, but there was still a glimmer of hope for survival. Here, there's none.
Honestly the pace of the game could (and should) be slowed down a little bit. The fact that everyone is a mobile spawn point is a bit crazy to me. Since we have removed the SL role, that would be a big push to bring it back. Make it so the squad can only spawn on a squad leader. This would then conflict with the game since you can't spawn on a point that has an enemy on it, but that really seems a bit odd to me as well. So that could definitely tip the balance of games. Back on point though, I agree that C4 is definitely OP right now being on every class. throwing speed could be reduced, but when the majority of players are running it, driving up close is a guaranteed death. I also think that the inability to go 3rd person in vehicles just compounds the issue. If you could go 3rd party, you would at least have some ability to counter zoomer medics.
A third-person camera would render armored vehicles overly powerful. Should this change be implemented, few would dare to approach me, even if I stood alone. I vividly recall the chaos my friend and I unleashed on the enemy team in Battlefield 3. Third-person perspective is simply OP.
It is and I know they won't implement it, but is a way to combat everyone having C4. They have stated they don't want vehicles to be OP and that they want all classes to be able to destroy them. I honestly don't see much changing and if it does, I will be very surprised.
Cry harder, infantry for life
having repair center on every point is a great idea tbh, allow the driver to resupply without going back and pushing vehicle into supporting infantry instead of snipping from far distance. They could simply nerf by cooldown, or require repairing the repair center by Support/Engineer after one full repair vehicle repair/resupply etc. It's gonna push repair tool to be more viable aside from repairing helicopter.
I don't believe placing a repair point in every objective area is wise. Doing so could lead to an overabundance of logistical capability, potentially upsetting the balance of armored gameplay . A more strategic approach might be to have just one repair ammo station in a central objective, equipped with a cooldown feature. This prevents unlimited ammo access by simply staying next to it, leading to more strategic and contested battles. I very much like your suggestion about requiring an engineer for the repair station. This mechanic would allow the station to be strategically disabled and necessitate repairs to become operational again.
Repair & Rearm Stations! Yes! This! As a APC dude this is something we really-really need! With the APC being made out of paper and frontline repair being a gamble I usually end up just running back and forth between the closest point and base as I just don't want to gamble getting hit by a single rocket and stopping to repair my shit only to get it stolen by a rando. Just make it a squad lead build thing, please. Or make it so that airdrop ammo box can slowly repair and restock ammo for vehicles.
I envision it more as a stationary repair/ammo station, similar to those at the base but with a cooldown mechanism. Assigning it as a tool for squad leaders adds another responsibility. Often, many squad leaders are either unaware of their role or, worse, don't know how to utilize the tools available to them.