a new look on weapon bans

[o1oo1]

last campaigns bans:

SOFLAM
PLD
M2 SLAMs- SLAMs: Damage and blast radius reduced slightly. Three Slams will no longer take out a MBT on their own. The disabled MBT will need a single rocket to be finished off.

MBT LAW-MBT LAW: This underwent a big change based on community suggestion. You will need to aim slightly more accurately to engage the tracking. It is much harder to have it track a random vehicle between you and your target. It will no longer lock on targets behind cover. It has been slowed down slightly. It now begins tracking at 100m instead of 15, this gives the target slightly longer to react to the lock warning.
SUAV
UCAV
Active Radar Missiles
AA Mines-dont know why they are banned
Javelin-Fix for an issue where players could have two Javelin projectiles in the air at the same time
Javelin damage has been reduced from 34% to 30%

battle pickups
AC130 Gunship-they changed respawn timer to 60seconds, i would still keep it banned

i think we need to look into reintroducing laser desigation. were removing a big part of the game and a major part of teamwork

[matsif]

I disagree with the thoughts on laser designation, especially when paired with an unbanned javelin. Vehicle play is awful when you're getting locked from 500m away or a high roof/mountain/hill and have absolutely nothing you can do about it except 1 IR smoke that gives you protection from maybe 1 missile out of the 4 that most certainly will be fired at you or popping your APS before you need it and having to run away. That and imo there's not that much teamwork going on when there's 3-5 SOFLAMs on the map and tanks and helis can't go anywhere because of the lock on spam.

It sucked in BF3 when IR smoke actually was decent enough to block a lockon or 2, it sucked in BF4C1 where vehicle countermeasures are laughable at best (except for APS), and it completely kills most risk to infantry for maximum reward.

[Gonzo]

SLAMS: I'm not a fan, even with this nerf. Perks allow you to put down more than 3, you can still put them all in the same spot and because of the weird draw range issue this game has with mines, they're practically invisible.

MBT LAW: I haven't tried this one in a while. I haven't been killed by one in forever. Is it even a viable weapon? And if no, do we need to discuss a weapon nobody wants to use?

Javelin: Still somewhat bugged. You can shoot a missile on a target, reload, re-lock the target and as long as you don't fire a second missile, the first one will reaquire it's target. You can then shoot a second time and do lots of damage in a very short amount of time.

I'm torn about Laser designation. On the one hand I like the concept of one person locking and other persons shooting since it's a great form of teamwork in my eyes. Since the person locking can't do anything else in the meantime, it's somewhat okay on a balancing scale. On the other hand, this would kill vehicle play on any open map.
The main issue IMO is the SRAW in that context. If the lock-on rockets were as useless without laser designation as they were in BF3, I'd be all for putting this mechanic back in, but with the SRAW you have a weapon that is very good against both ground and air targets without Laser locking and even better with it.
It also doesn't make a difference if the lock is broken after the missile is fired. As far as I know, it will still hit the target (I'm gonna test this later to make sure).
All in all, I'd be okay with laser locks if the only weapons able to lock on were the MBT LAW and the Javelin, but with the SRAW it seems overpowered.

Edit:
We tested it out and the SRAW does 55 damage on a tank if it's fired while locked on. It's only 24 damage when not locked on and fired at the roof of a tank. Even if the lock is brocken when the missile is flying, it hits and does the full 55. I'd say that's still pretty broken.
SOFLAMs have a range of 500m btw, so two or three can potentially cover the whole map.

[Jokerle]

The changes to the MBT law sound significant, too. Not used it in a long time, though.. any input?

Do SRAWs still lock onto laser designated targets? That would still be pretty bad and my major point against PLDs and co.

[matsif]

Do SRAWs still lock onto laser designated targets? That would still be pretty bad and my major point against PLDs and co.

Yes.

[cancel_man]

MBT LAW: I haven't tried this one in a while. I haven't been killed by one in forever. Is it even a viable weapon? And if no, do we need to discuss a weapon nobody wants to use?

It does low damage, that's why nobody uses it. But it is effective against transport vehicles (jeeps, bikes, quads) which makes it useful in infantry only and Black Ops. IMO, this one's safe to unban now that the lock-on distance is increased to 100m and the other fixes.

[o1oo1]

The issues previously talked about slams were that they could glitch through the terrain, in some remote place and would instantly kill the tank.
That has been removed now. You can by default get 3 slams, 6 with the anti-tank perk. However this is the 3rd rank on the perk. Allowing slams would make teamplay more worth it because the rewards are bigger.

lazer targeting:
soflam:-range 500m
stationary , can spot without intervention from a player. requires line of sight
direct counter-MAV, emp uav
pld:can only spot with direct input from player: range 300m ,requires line of sight
direct counter: any weapon in the game. vehicles will get notification from the direction of lock
suav-not really a thing
gunner soflam-range 500m

weapons that can use the lazer lock:
mbt-law-lock range 350
sraw-lock range 350
javelin-lock range 500
stinger-range same as default/350
igla-range same as default/450


counters to lasers:
http://symthic.com/bf4-vehicle-stats?MBT
IR Smoke-breaks locks
Smoke Screen-all rockets to min damage
Active Protection-no hits.
breaking line of sight.
MP-APS-no hits.


do not forget that after firing on a locked on target all rockets will make a straight line to that target. Taking cover is still an effective counter to it.

Allowing laser locking would make our campaign more infantry centric , requiring more communication between players and vehicles to identify and remove threats and targets.
It also makes vehicles play more defensively and coordinate more with their crew and army.
It also works to deal with army drafts, gives an army an option if they do not get to draft the top tier vehicle players or if their players suddenly become inactive, otherwise this would instantly deal a massive blow to the armies effectiveness.

If you are still against laser targeting javelins and mbt-laws should still be unbanned. This would force vehicles to use or consider using something other than the super counter everything APS


I think the more we will allow(the less we ban) the more interesting gameplay will be as players work out effective tactics and counters to things in the game.

[Necromancer]

Laser designation is good in theory, but thanks to SRAW / very tall buildings, it can be insanely overpowered. Don't forget hitting a designated target does ~50+ damage.

[matsif]

If you are still against laser targeting javelins and mbt-laws should still be unbanned. This would force vehicles to use or consider using something other than the super counter everything APS

It's not going to force anything of the sort, the only way that ground vehicle countermeasure use will change is either via DICE balancing them or us banning APS. 25 second cooldown on IR smoke effectively makes it useless, especially in a GC like situation where multiple SOFLAMs (and probably more than a few PLDs) and lock angles are pretty much guaranteed. And even if we allow MBTLAW and Javelin tankers aren't going to stop taking APS for IR smoke when APS deploys faster and can protect against everything (except TV missiles) instead of just lock ons. Smokescreen is semi usable, but nowhere near as effective as APS. Extinguisher is basically useless, removing one mobility hit only to get another one pretty much right after it is pointless. APS vastly outclasses everything else and until DICE actually balances that out no one in their right mind is going to actually use anything other than APS.

Vertical gameplay and bad countermeasure balance ruins laser designation balance. If IR smoke could block every 2nd missile and if smokescreen offered denser smoke in a much larger radius, maybe it's something to think about. But current countermeasure balance is basically "use APS or be at a disadvantage at all times." Coupled with GC strategic gameplay that basically states that there will be multiple SOFLAMs at pretty much all times and the huge amount of PLD use that we would see (because let's face it, it's really good with a javelin/SRAW if you actually do it in public play), ground vehicle gameplay would suffer horrendously.

[Bock]

Since some comparisons have been made between BF3 and BF4 lazing, I'll start off with my thoughts on the differences in philosophy. The primary thing is that (once they finished balancing everything out), in BF3, laser-guided weapons were a soft counter to vehicles. You never got killed by something that locked on to you unless you were retardedly out of position, massively outplayed, or your countermeasures bugged out and failed to properly work. Lock-ons were mainly used to zone out vehicles. Tanks could indefinitely avoid lock-on hits thanks to the duration and cool-down of smoke. However, if the enemy was really persistent, they could force the tank to either sit in a cloud of its own smoke or back off to somewhere with more cover. Helicopters had to stay out of range of soflams and could dodge one stinger with ecm and have to back off until that recharged again. You could argue that its the same in BF4, however, due to the reduced effectiveness and (massively) increased cooldowns on countermeasures, and increased stigla range, you basically get no time on target when trying to hit and run with a helicopter and simply can't cross large open spaces with tanks. This makes playing in vehicles extremely frustrating on many maps. Even with only laser designations coming from the occasional tank gunner, maps like Silk Road have been hella obnoxious to play in a ground vehicle these last couple campaigns. Given the fact that we don't have an over-abundance of vehicle players, I'd lean towards keeping most of these things banned.

Slams - Can still place 3 into the space of one slam, making spotting them difficult. Can still glitch into surfaces, making them impossible to spot. I'd say keep them banned.

MBT LAW - It's pretty weak now and actually requires some aiming to get a hit. I still think the concept of things locking on in flight with no lock-on period by the user is stupid broken, but after all the many nerfs to this thing and the strengths of the alternatives, if someone wants to use it I wouldn't mind allowing it for a couple scrims and making a decision then.

AA mines - I think these can be unbanned as long as laser designation remains mostly disallowed. Since you can't equip a stinger/igla at the same time and they're fairly easy to destroy, I think they're balanced. However, if we get PLDs and soflams back into the game, I think these then allow too much anti-air/anti-vehicle power for one engineer to have.

Javelin - In theory, I'd say that the un-designated javelin is balanced at this point, since the user has to maintain line of sight. However, much like the igla, you can fire a missile, bait out enemy countermeasures, disengage their lock, reload, wait for cm effect to dissipate, and then reacquire the target (or just acquire a different target) as long as you don't fire a second missile. Between this and having a 500m, beyond LOS, fire and forget, 50% damage nuke to tanks when laser-designated, it still seems a bit OP with the current state of vehicle countermeasures. I'm for keeping it banned.

Battle pickups - They're OP by design. Everyone knows where they spawn. They have limited ammo. I think they should be allowed to give something more for people to fight over.

AC-130 - I haven't tested this out yet. Is the cooldown reasonable now?

SRAW - This isn't going to be popular with a lot of people, but I think we should consider banning it. It's too good at too many things. Unguided, it does almost as much damage as an rpg with a shorter reload. It can be used to snipe vehicles and infantry at long range using the user-guided mechanic. It can be fired in a straight line from the hip. It does a retarded amount of damage to laser-designated targets. It can be used to clear rooftops like a mini cruise missile.

PLD - If the only laser-locking missiles we allow are vehicle-based guided weapons and maybe the MBT LAW and SRAW, I think we should consider unbanning this. It has a shorter range than the soflam, requires a squishy infantryman to maintain LOS and it's a very useful spotting tool for the recon class. Honestly, I'd say ban gunner soflam and stationary soflam and have the only laser-designations come from this gadget.

[elchino7]

Short version: who really want to use any of the banned weapons?

If only countermeasures weren't as bugged as in BF3...
You can still track something after they flare and smoke doesn't break lock as much to be viable vs AP. If we include cooldown it's just a joke.

SLAMS: they still glitch into terrain and have problems with render drawing. I haven't made the math but doesn't 2slams + mine destroy a tank.
You could say that you have to unlock it first but since the perk system is bugged, i don't want to put high emphasis on this. What i'm trying to say is that i don't want to force people to not play during warm up because they will unlock the perk system sooner getting a huge edge in comparison.

MBT LAW: does anyone want to use it ? The only thing i can imagine is
-"Easier" to hit boats, eventhough i don't know if they are still bugged doing only 5damage against armored boats.
-Does it still inmobilizes air vehicles? MBT LAW + SRAW = Profit ?

Javelin: the drawback of having to keep lock is huge in comparison to BF3. Eventhough i just think it's going to be used against boats mostly.

SRAW: SRAW is love, SRAW is life...
I agree that it outperforms other AT forms on versatiliy and it only lacks when used at CQC.

AA mines: do we really need more AA ? I hope they don't lock against friendly targets


PD:
Pickups...Definetely no regarding the "HVM" the Javelin on Steroids, the next Railgun and probably Wally 2.0.

[o1oo1]

The reason to not unban the mbtlaw because nobody wants to use it or would use it is not adequate.

To combat the top down attack damage of lock on weapons vehicles can use smokescreen- 5 second cooldown with a duration of 7 seconds. No weapon will crit and it removes you from the minimap plus creates a cloud of smoke.

You keep talking about weapon systems like they are separate and function only against each other. There are more things happening. Things can be countered by other things they are meant to be a counter of. That is what battlefield is all about. Ground doesnt only fight ground . If a soflam is annoying, somebody can bring a mav. If a tank has gunnersolfam running, a jet / helicopter /infantry can blow it up. If there is a guy using a pld. shoot him, if he is behind cover use xm25 on him.


regular mines can be put multiple times in the same place just as slams can. The only difference is that slams are not limited to the ground. Slams will be detected by gunner proximity, and so will mines.
If slams do anything is they prevent tank drivers from going on solo rampages and escaping under the cover of APS.