# It's time to NERF Planes!!! **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [March 26, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102 "2017-03-26T21:26:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![knasenn](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/9f8e36/32.png) [@knasenn](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/knasenn)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 7:20pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/121 "2017-04-09T19:20:00Z")
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NERF THESE GODDAMN PLANES, EVERY GAME I GET TO ENJOY GETTING 0:10 FROM 1 PLANE USER ALONE. I shoot at plane, he takes about 2-4 damage and bombs me and my whole squads to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ dogfood after which he sustained a total of 30 combined damage from about 20 of my 32 team members (the others dead from plane) he then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ off to the edge of the map OUTSIDE the range OF ANY WEAPON IN THE GODDAMN GAME and HEALS TO FULL (while reloading ofc) AND REPEATS IT ALL OVER AGAIN. Get in AA? If you are lucky you might DAMAGE it if he flews RIGHT past you and most probably would kill you if he aimed at you. He then OUTRANGES THE ONLY ANTI AIR IN THE GAME AND HEALS TO FULL. REMOVE THE GODDAMN SELF-REPAIR it is so MUCH ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯ I can’t believe it. Make them have higher initial HP sure but NO LONGER SELF REPAIR. ---
**Author:** ![jjsf24](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/839c29/32.png) [@jjsf24](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/jjsf24)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/122 "2017-04-09T19:22:00Z")
> [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > [@jjsf24](#): > > > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > > > [@jjsf24](#): > > > > > > > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > > > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > > > > > > > > [@Exequtoer](#): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Something needs to be done with Trench Fighter ASAP. All other planes/vehicles are okay, except this OP crap. > > > > > > > This is perfect example, when 3 clanmates will squad-up and take 3 trench fighters (which have much faster respawn rate than MAA): > > > > > > > ![img]]([Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://i.imgur.com/IPbB4l3.jpg/img)]) > > > > > > > > > > > > This one for a start… > > > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, we also had one guy complain earlier about a team of level 100’s that stacked a team and did this sort of thing. You can do the same thing with tanks, and if some group were to get together you can get an anomaly like that. Ie. when YouTubers group together in a lobby and pub-stomp. I’m asking you in general, enter any game of plane enabled conquest. What will you see…lol if what you are saying were the trend, we would see planes at the top of that chart instead of heavy tanks. Even the light tanks are higher up in kills…how many light tanks are even available at any given time compared to how many planes are available? If despite that, planes are only beating out horses, what does that tell you? > > > > > > > > > > You’re avoiding logic now and I can almost track your every little “trick” to avoid basic stats… > > > > > > > > Planes are actually more available than tanks on maps with them, they only respawn faster. > > > > > > > > Only reason any tank has more kills than planes on a leader board is cuz most maps allow tanks and only some allow air. > > > > > > Suez has tanks but no planes. Generally, though, if tanks are there so are planes. Not enough to mess with the stats like that. We should be talking about tanks. > > > > > > And the point is, indeed, that there are more planes available. So if so many planes are in use, why are they not on par with tanks? > > > > Suez, amiens, and theres one more with no planes and 2 dlc maps have tanks. Several locations in ops hav tank spawn but no plane spawns as well. Youre also forgetting game modes where there are tanks but no planes like in rush. > > > > Tanks arent rapidly spawning like planes because people dont wanna play world of tanks. And even if they were, it wouldmt be an issue like aeroplanes as every class can atleast carry an at grenade that deals 16 damage to a tank. Assaults(most popular class btw) can take a tank by themself, support has limpet 50 +at grenade 16, and perhaps HE crossbow so theres 2 classes that can reck a tank solo. > > > > How many infantry classes can wreck a plane solo? Oh right none if them. Maybe scout k bullet? Lol but only 5-10 damage and 5 bullets. Nothing like the counters against tanks. > > Infantry classes have more tools to deal with tanks because tanks are ground vehicles and will be far more successful at taking out infantry than a typical plane user. With overwhelming odds, a randomly picked player will get more infantry kills in a tank than they will with a plane. So it makes sense that infantry also has a harder time killing planes than tanks, that’s forgetting the massive effect of the stationary AA. > > I think Amiens and Suez are all (for the base game, idk about the DLC). But look at how much higher the tank kills are. The amount by which tank kills out-do planes are far more than how much their availability is higher than that of planes Did u forget about different game modes and ops at to why tanks hav more kills? And yes its easier to use tanks than planes. However, thats for another thread. Sorry your favorite fighter is getting nerfed. ---
**Author:** ![Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/trokey66/32/103889_2.png) [@Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Trokey66)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/123 "2017-04-09T19:31:00Z")
> [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > > > > [@Exequtoer](#): > > > > > > > > > > Something needs to be done with Trench Fighter ASAP. All other planes/vehicles are okay, except this OP crap. > > > > > This is perfect example, when 3 clanmates will squad-up and take 3 trench fighters (which have much faster respawn rate than MAA): > > > > > ![img]]([Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://i.imgur.com/IPbB4l3.jpg/img)]) > > > > > > > > This one for a start… > > > > > > Yes, yes, we also had one guy complain earlier about a team of level 100’s that stacked a team and did this sort of thing. You can do the same thing with tanks, and if some group were to get together you can get an anomaly like that. Ie. when YouTubers group together in a lobby and pub-stomp. I’m asking you in general, enter any game of plane enabled conquest. What will you see…lol if what you are saying were the trend, we would see planes at the top of that chart instead of heavy tanks. Even the light tanks are higher up in kills…how many light tanks are even available at any given time compared to how many planes are available? If despite that, planes are only beating out horses, what does that tell you? > > > > > > You’re avoiding logic now and I can almost track your every little “trick” to avoid basic stats… > > > > It is the same one, not very observant are you? > > > > But hey, I answered you question so move the goal posts again what don’t you. > > > > Let me get this straight, you are saying that Air is never at the top of the leader boards because tank therefore the TF is not OP? > > > > Oh dear… > > If it’s the same case, then your point is even less valid. We’re bringing up the same unusual case that doesn’t represent the trend. The goalposts were always to address the general trend. You answered the wrong goalpost to begin with by giving me one anomaly. I’m saying that if air use is comparable to tank use, and tank success rate is so much higher than air success rate, then on average, people are having an easier time with tanks (and just about any other tool in the game) than they are, on average, with planes. So it makes no sense to nerf something that, on average, a lower proportion of people using are succeeding with. Why do Fighters have more kills than Light Tanks and Landships combined despite being on fewer maps? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_DarIing](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/captain_dariing/32/101459_2.png) [@Captain\_DarIing](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Captain_DarIing)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/124 "2017-04-09T19:32:00Z")
> [@Trokey66](#): > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > > > > > > [@Exequtoer](#): > > > > > > > > > > > > Something needs to be done with Trench Fighter ASAP. All other planes/vehicles are okay, except this OP crap. > > > > > > This is perfect example, when 3 clanmates will squad-up and take 3 trench fighters (which have much faster respawn rate than MAA): > > > > > > ![img]]([Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://i.imgur.com/IPbB4l3.jpg/img)]) > > > > > > > > > > This one for a start… > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, we also had one guy complain earlier about a team of level 100’s that stacked a team and did this sort of thing. You can do the same thing with tanks, and if some group were to get together you can get an anomaly like that. Ie. when YouTubers group together in a lobby and pub-stomp. I’m asking you in general, enter any game of plane enabled conquest. What will you see…lol if what you are saying were the trend, we would see planes at the top of that chart instead of heavy tanks. Even the light tanks are higher up in kills…how many light tanks are even available at any given time compared to how many planes are available? If despite that, planes are only beating out horses, what does that tell you? > > > > > > > > You’re avoiding logic now and I can almost track your every little “trick” to avoid basic stats… > > > > > > It is the same one, not very observant are you? > > > > > > But hey, I answered you question so move the goal posts again what don’t you. > > > > > > Let me get this straight, you are saying that Air is never at the top of the leader boards because tank therefore the TF is not OP? > > > > > > Oh dear… > > > > If it’s the same case, then your point is even less valid. We’re bringing up the same unusual case that doesn’t represent the trend. The goalposts were always to address the general trend. You answered the wrong goalpost to begin with by giving me one anomaly. I’m saying that if air use is comparable to tank use, and tank success rate is so much higher than air success rate, then on average, people are having an easier time with tanks (and just about any other tool in the game) than they are, on average, with planes. So it makes no sense to nerf something that, on average, a lower proportion of people using are succeeding with. > > Why do Fighters have more kills than Light Tanks and Landships combined despite being on fewer maps? Good point. ---
**Author:** ![lllTheSentinelll](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/lllthesentinelll/32/100928_2.png) [@lllTheSentinelll](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/lllTheSentinelll)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/125 "2017-04-09T19:42:00Z")
> [@Trokey66](#): > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > > > > > > [@Exequtoer](#): > > > > > > > > > > > > Something needs to be done with Trench Fighter ASAP. All other planes/vehicles are okay, except this OP crap. > > > > > > This is perfect example, when 3 clanmates will squad-up and take 3 trench fighters (which have much faster respawn rate than MAA): > > > > > > ![img]]([Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://i.imgur.com/IPbB4l3.jpg/img)]) > > > > > > > > > > This one for a start… > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, we also had one guy complain earlier about a team of level 100’s that stacked a team and did this sort of thing. You can do the same thing with tanks, and if some group were to get together you can get an anomaly like that. Ie. when YouTubers group together in a lobby and pub-stomp. I’m asking you in general, enter any game of plane enabled conquest. What will you see…lol if what you are saying were the trend, we would see planes at the top of that chart instead of heavy tanks. Even the light tanks are higher up in kills…how many light tanks are even available at any given time compared to how many planes are available? If despite that, planes are only beating out horses, what does that tell you? > > > > > > > > You’re avoiding logic now and I can almost track your every little “trick” to avoid basic stats… > > > > > > It is the same one, not very observant are you? > > > > > > But hey, I answered you question so move the goal posts again what don’t you. > > > > > > Let me get this straight, you are saying that Air is never at the top of the leader boards because tank therefore the TF is not OP? > > > > > > Oh dear… > > > > If it’s the same case, then your point is even less valid. We’re bringing up the same unusual case that doesn’t represent the trend. The goalposts were always to address the general trend. You answered the wrong goalpost to begin with by giving me one anomaly. I’m saying that if air use is comparable to tank use, and tank success rate is so much higher than air success rate, then on average, people are having an easier time with tanks (and just about any other tool in the game) than they are, on average, with planes. So it makes no sense to nerf something that, on average, a lower proportion of people using are succeeding with. > > Why do Fighters have more kills than Light Tanks and Landships combined despite being on fewer maps? How many light tanks are available compared to planes? Generally, people want to use heavy tanks when they have the chance…do you want to comment on the gap between heavy tanks a planes? Didn’t think so. And we’ve been over the “fewer maps” thing with jffs144 (some name like that). I’m surprised the planes aren’t much higher. The fact that fighters only reach barely above light tanks only is quite low…they ought to be right in the center or a bit higher in between light and heavy tanks. The overall tank availability is more comparable to planes. Again, there are 2 maps in the base game that have tanks without planes, but that’s not enough to explain the massive difference between overall tank kills and plane kills. ---
**Author:** ![StalHamarr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/stalhamarr/32/103601_2.png) [@StalHamarr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/StalHamarr)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 7:44pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/126 "2017-04-09T19:44:00Z")
How is that relevant? I think you are just trolling now. That’s an entirely different topic. That’s the heavy tank being unreasonably better than the other tank options, wich is acknowledged by everyone. The landship requires teamwork and the light tank is made of paper and has no speed advantage over the other tanks. They have few kills because everyone picks the heavy tank. ---
**Author:** ![Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/trokey66/32/103889_2.png) [@Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Trokey66)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/127 "2017-04-09T20:07:00Z")
> [@StalHamarr](#): > > How is that relevant? I think you are just trolling now. > > That’s an entirely different topic. That’s the heavy tank being unreasonably better than the other tank options, wich is acknowledged by everyone. > The landship requires teamwork and the light tank is made of paper and has no speed advantage over the other tanks. > > They have few kills because everyone picks the heavy tank. Firstly, Sentinel has not made any distinction between different tanks. Secondly, if we assume he is talking about just the Heavy being the reason Fighters are not OP, the relative kill count between fighters and other tanks is relevant given that Fighters have significantly more kills than than the 2 other tank types. ---
**Author:** ![lllTheSentinelll](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/lllthesentinelll/32/100928_2.png) [@lllTheSentinelll](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/lllTheSentinelll)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 8:23pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/128 "2017-04-09T20:23:00Z")
> [@Trokey66](#): > > > [@StalHamarr](#): > > > > How is that relevant? I think you are just trolling now. > > > > That’s an entirely different topic. That’s the heavy tank being unreasonably better than the other tank options, wich is acknowledged by everyone. > > The landship requires teamwork and the light tank is made of paper and has no speed advantage over the other tanks. > > > > They have few kills because everyone picks the heavy tank. > > Firstly, Sentinel has not made any distinction between different tanks. > > Secondly, if we assume he is talking about just the Heavy being the reason Fighters are not OP, the relative kill count between fighters and other tanks is relevant given that Fighters have significantly more kills than than the 2 other tank types. You are literally handicapped. I just distinguished the tanks and said that people use heavy tanks far more than they do light tanks because they are far superior. Light tanks are one of the least used tank types, so the fact that planes just barely beat them out in total kills means that planes are about on par in terms of average effectiveness to the LESSER USED tank type…what does that mean about their effectiveness overall? lol.. And the fact that fighters have \*slightly more kills than the LESS PREFERRED tank type and \*far less kills than the commonly used tank types is the reason that planes are far under-performing compared to tanks, in general. I can’t believe I have to explain basic statements like this, and so consider that my last time reading/responding to your posts. I’m saying ABC and you’re responding as if I’ve said XYZ, saying I’ve “changed the goalposts”…maybe you didn’t understand the goalposts to begin with. smh ---
**Author:** ![PrecisionWing](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/precisionwing/32/103161_2.png) [@PrecisionWing](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/PrecisionWing)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 8:35pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/129 "2017-04-09T20:35:00Z")
> [@Trokey66](#): > > 30 kills in jets total in BF4, over 300 in BF1 Air. > > That’s a 1000% increase. > > My stats are not locked and easy to check. We did check it, but the way you calculated that 1000% is fundamentally wrong. If we following your way, I had around 91000kills in bf4 with attack plane and only around few thousand in bf1 attack plane and just around 15000 kills in TF, can we concluded that planes are around 600%-1000% weaker than those in bf4? Of course not, so it’s yours. ---
**Author:** ![jjsf24](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/839c29/32.png) [@jjsf24](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/jjsf24)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/130 "2017-04-09T20:42:00Z")
> [@PrecisionWing](#): > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > 30 kills in jets total in BF4, over 300 in BF1 Air. > > > > That’s a 1000% increase. > > > > My stats are not locked and easy to check. > > We did check it, but the way you calculated that 1000% is fundamentally wrong. > If we following your way, I had around 91000kills in bf4 with attack plane and only around few thousand in bf1 attack plane and just around 15000 kills in TF, can we concluded that planes are around 600%-1000% weaker than those in bf4? Of course not, so it’s yours. Well how many hours in bf4 and how many hours in bf1? If you have like 12343 hours(not sure how many u hav just a guess cuz the games older) in bf4 and like 300 in bf1 of course itll be lower. Id say trokey point is valid in the stat increase. Planes are definitely easier to use in this game, i actually like that, i just dont think tf should be a one man army. Buff its mg, nerf darts a bit, nerf its speed a bit and u got a balanced plane imo. ---
**Author:** ![PrecisionWing](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/precisionwing/32/103161_2.png) [@PrecisionWing](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/PrecisionWing)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 8:49pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/131 "2017-04-09T20:49:00Z")
> [@jjsf24](#): > > > [@PrecisionWing](#): > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > 30 kills in jets total in BF4, over 300 in BF1 Air. > > > > > > That’s a 1000% increase. > > > > > > My stats are not locked and easy to check. > > > > We did check it, but the way you calculated that 1000% is fundamentally wrong. > > If we following your way, I had around 91000kills in bf4 with attack plane and only around few thousand in bf1 attack plane and just around 15000 kills in TF, can we concluded that planes are around 600%-1000% weaker than those in bf4? Of course not, so it’s yours. > > Well how many hours in bf4 and how many hours in bf1? If you have like 12343 hours(not sure how many u hav just a guess cuz the games older) in bf4 and like 300 in bf1 of course itll be lower. Id say trokey point is valid in the stat increase. > > Planes are definitely easier to use in this game, i actually like that, i just dont think tf should be a one man army. Buff its mg, nerf darts a bit, nerf its speed a bit and u got a balanced plane imo. I agree with you, if dice could greatly buff main gun, I’m OK with nerf the darts even harder than current CTE setting. ---
**Author:** ![Feed4u](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Feed4u](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Feed4u)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/132 "2017-04-09T20:52:00Z")
> [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > > > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > > > > > > > > [@Exequtoer](#): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Something needs to be done with Trench Fighter ASAP. All other planes/vehicles are okay, except this OP crap. > > > > > > > This is perfect example, when 3 clanmates will squad-up and take 3 trench fighters (which have much faster respawn rate than MAA): > > > > > > > ![img]]([Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://i.imgur.com/IPbB4l3.jpg/img)]) > > > > > > > > > > > > This one for a start… > > > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, we also had one guy complain earlier about a team of level 100’s that stacked a team and did this sort of thing. You can do the same thing with tanks, and if some group were to get together you can get an anomaly like that. Ie. when YouTubers group together in a lobby and pub-stomp. I’m asking you in general, enter any game of plane enabled conquest. What will you see…lol if what you are saying were the trend, we would see planes at the top of that chart instead of heavy tanks. Even the light tanks are higher up in kills…how many light tanks are even available at any given time compared to how many planes are available? If despite that, planes are only beating out horses, what does that tell you? > > > > > > > > > > You’re avoiding logic now and I can almost track your every little “trick” to avoid basic stats… > > > > > > > > It is the same one, not very observant are you? > > > > > > > > But hey, I answered you question so move the goal posts again what don’t you. > > > > > > > > Let me get this straight, you are saying that Air is never at the top of the leader boards because tank therefore the TF is not OP? > > > > > > > > Oh dear… > > > > > > If it’s the same case, then your point is even less valid. We’re bringing up the same unusual case that doesn’t represent the trend. The goalposts were always to address the general trend. You answered the wrong goalpost to begin with by giving me one anomaly. I’m saying that if air use is comparable to tank use, and tank success rate is so much higher than air success rate, then on average, people are having an easier time with tanks (and just about any other tool in the game) than they are, on average, with planes. So it makes no sense to nerf something that, on average, a lower proportion of people using are succeeding with. > > > > Why do Fighters have more kills than Light Tanks and Landships combined despite being on fewer maps? > > How many light tanks are available compared to planes? Generally, people want to use heavy tanks when they have the chance…do you want to comment on the gap between heavy tanks and the other tanks? Didn’t think so. And we’ve been over the “fewer maps” thing with jffs144 (some name like that). I’m surprised the planes aren’t much higher. The fact that fighters only reach barely above light tanks only is quite low…they ought to be right in the center or a bit higher in between light and heavy tanks. The overall tank availability is more comparable to planes. Again, there are 2 maps in the base game that have tanks without planes, but that’s not enough to explain the massive difference between overall tank kills and plane kills. The amount of time LT & LS are picked are obviously shown in game and statistics. Are you telling me in general people would rather pick HT over the other 2? Currently the only viable LT is LFT post howitzer nerf and Tank hunter LS. Before you comment further about asking me to constantly look at stats, I would ask you to consider your play experience and how much those tanks are used in comparison to HT or the new AT which has better capabilities at shooting bomber. Now to begin the so called ratios let’s look at tank to plane ratios in maps before proceeding further. We shall go by default map rotations followed by expansion maps(I won’t do expansion in order). SQ: 6 planes - 4 tanks EE: 5 planes - 4 tanks AF: 0 vehicles MG: 8 planes - 4 tanks SD: 7 planes - 4 tanks Suez: 0 planes - 2 tanks MG: 8 planes - 4 tanks Amiens: 0 planes - 4 tanks FF: 2 planes - 2 tanks BB: 4 planes - 4 tanks GS: 4 planes - 4 tanks 40 planes vs 36 tanks Despite there being 4 more planes on default maps, and TF being as popular as HT, and more planes available across all maps. HT no. of kills out weight total plane kills. For expansion maps Verdun : 0 vehicles Fort : 0 vehicles Soisson : 4 planes - 8 tanks Rupture : 6planes(soon to be 4 ☹ ) - 4 tanks Situation is same here I would get into deeper statistics if you guys want me to too, but I believe this is enough for a wall of text for now. EDIT: sorry sentinel I was not referring to you, so don’t take it personally. I am just using your comment as an illustration to further authenticate your statement. The post was meant for other forum readers not aimed at you ---
**Author:** ![Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/trokey66/32/103889_2.png) [@Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Trokey66)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 10:32pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/133 "2017-04-09T22:32:00Z")
> [@PrecisionWing](#): > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > 30 kills in jets total in BF4, over 300 in BF1 Air. > > > > That’s a 1000% increase. > > > > My stats are not locked and easy to check. > > We did check it, but the way you calculated that 1000% is fundamentally wrong. > If we following your way, I had around 91000kills in bf4 with attack plane and only around few thousand in bf1 attack plane and just around 15000 kills in TF, can we concluded that planes are around 600%-1000% weaker than those in bf4? Of course not, so it’s yours. What? It is a simple mathematical fact that I have 1000% more kills in BF1 Air than I did in BF4. The reason being, Bf1 air is easier. > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > [@StalHamarr](#): > > > > > > How is that relevant? I think you are just trolling now. > > > > > > That’s an entirely different topic. That’s the heavy tank being unreasonably better than the other tank options, wich is acknowledged by everyone. > > > The landship requires teamwork and the light tank is made of paper and has no speed advantage over the other tanks. > > > > > > They have few kills because everyone picks the heavy tank. > > > > Firstly, Sentinel has not made any distinction between different tanks. > > > > Secondly, if we assume he is talking about just the Heavy being the reason Fighters are not OP, the relative kill count between fighters and other tanks is relevant given that Fighters have significantly more kills than than the 2 other tank types. > > You are literally handicapped. I just distinguished the tanks and said that people use heavy tanks far more than they do light tanks because they are far superior. Light tanks are one of the least used tank types, so the fact that planes just barely beat them out in total kills means that planes are about on par in terms of average effectiveness to the LESSER USED tank type…what does that mean about their effectiveness overall? lol.. > > And the fact that fighters have \*slightly more kills than the LESS PREFERRED tank type and \*far less kills than the commonly used tank types is the reason that planes are far under-performing compared to tanks, in general. > > I can’t believe I have to explain basic statements like this, and so consider that my last time reading/responding to your posts. I’m saying ABC and you’re responding as if I’ve said XYZ, saying I’ve “changed the goalposts”…maybe you didn’t understand the goalposts to begin with. smh Missed that bit but hey… To maintain that Trench Fighters are not OP because Tanks do better is ridiculous. You are comparing apples and oranges. This is why I have avoided bringing tanks into it because it is irrelevant. There are also issues with tank balance but that is for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Feed4u](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Feed4u](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Feed4u)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 10:41pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/134 "2017-04-09T22:41:00Z")
> [@Trokey66](#): > > > [@PrecisionWing](#): > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > 30 kills in jets total in BF4, over 300 in BF1 Air. > > > > > > That’s a 1000% increase. > > > > > > My stats are not locked and easy to check. > > > > We did check it, but the way you calculated that 1000% is fundamentally wrong. > > If we following your way, I had around 91000kills in bf4 with attack plane and only around few thousand in bf1 attack plane and just around 15000 kills in TF, can we concluded that planes are around 600%-1000% weaker than those in bf4? Of course not, so it’s yours. > > What? > > It is a simple mathematical fact that I have 1000% more kills in BF1 Air than I did in BF4. > > The reason being, Bf1 air is easier. > > > [@lllTheSentinelll](#): > > > > > [@Trokey66](#): > > > > > > > [@StalHamarr](#): > > > > > > > > How is that relevant? I think you are just trolling now. > > > > > > > > That’s an entirely different topic. That’s the heavy tank being unreasonably better than the other tank options, wich is acknowledged by everyone. > > > > The landship requires teamwork and the light tank is made of paper and has no speed advantage over the other tanks. > > > > > > > > They have few kills because everyone picks the heavy tank. > > > > > > Firstly, Sentinel has not made any distinction between different tanks. > > > > > > Secondly, if we assume he is talking about just the Heavy being the reason Fighters are not OP, the relative kill count between fighters and other tanks is relevant given that Fighters have significantly more kills than than the 2 other tank types. > > > > You are literally handicapped. I just distinguished the tanks and said that people use heavy tanks far more than they do light tanks because they are far superior. Light tanks are one of the least used tank types, so the fact that planes just barely beat them out in total kills means that planes are about on par in terms of average effectiveness to the LESSER USED tank type…what does that mean about their effectiveness overall? lol.. > > > > And the fact that fighters have \*slightly more kills than the LESS PREFERRED tank type and \*far less kills than the commonly used tank types is the reason that planes are far under-performing compared to tanks, in general. > > > > I can’t believe I have to explain basic statements like this, and so consider that my last time reading/responding to your posts. I’m saying ABC and you’re responding as if I’ve said XYZ, saying I’ve “changed the goalposts”…maybe you didn’t understand the goalposts to begin with. smh > > Missed that bit but hey… > > To maintain that Trench Fighters are not OP because Tanks do better is ridiculous. > > You are comparing apples and oranges. Trokey66, as an individual who has recently spent more time in the air(extremely hopeful you have continued your practice), you will eventually far surpass the number of vehicles kills you will have in comparison to BF4. You have actually taken the choice to learn to fly for your own education and experimentation, with my hopes as your final goal to be more all rounded than just being a solely infantry player. As previously mentioned bf1 and bf4 plane mechanics are very different, same way tank mechanics are not the same. In BF1 vehicles are more powerful and have more interaction with Infantry than BF4 has. On top of that the vehicles move a lot faster and there are maps which are much bigger(I mean a ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯ load bigger, like that map with a lot of MBT chopper and plane spawns, can’t recall name I just remember my favourite maps Locker and Rogue). For example, some choppers in BF4 can be repaired by an individual on the chopper, and HT in BF1 have up to 6 slots and act as respawn points unlike BF4 MBT which has only 2 slots.. We are not explicitly saying TF is more OP than HT, we are simply looking at statistics and saying that a skilled HT driver in general would have way more impact than any TF Ace pilot would have on a game. ---
**Author:** ![Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/trokey66/32/103889_2.png) [@Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Trokey66)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 10:58pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/135 "2017-04-09T22:58:00Z")
As I have said through out this thread, the specific merits of BF1 and BF4 air is irrelevant other than in a similar time frame, I achieved more kills in BF1 than BF4 because flying is easier in BF1, especially inthe TF. As to comparing tanks and air, apples and oranges. An interesting thread that was linked a while back: forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/73911/definitive-proof-planes-are-not-op/p1 There are issues with tank balance I believe but again, that is irrelevant to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Feed4u](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Feed4u](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Feed4u)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/136 "2017-04-09T23:06:00Z")
> [@Trokey66](#): > > As I have said through out this thread, the specific merits of BF1 and BF4 air is irrelevant other than in a similar time frame, I achieved more kills in BF1 than BF4 because flying is easier in BF1, especially inthe TF. > > As to comparing tanks and air, apples and oranges. An interesting thread that was linked a while back: > > forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/73911/definitive-proof-planes-are-not-op/p1 > > There are issues with tank balance I believe but again, that is irrelevant to this thread. Trokey66, sorry I am really not in the state of mind to read through 160 post(I am not sober). Would you be kind enough to just tell me which pages are the crucial ones to filter through? Much appreciated. Edit: Thanks for directing me to this post, reading OPs post is actually interesting as he really does the stats for us. The stats would have changed by now however. ---
**Author:** ![StalHamarr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/stalhamarr/32/103601_2.png) [@StalHamarr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/StalHamarr)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 11:22pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/137 "2017-04-09T23:22:00Z")
Trokey: As I have said through out this thread, you are basing your tirade about the the different impact of planes in BF1 vs BF4. Wich, as I have said through out this thread, is incredibly stupid because: - no helicopters on BF1; - _your stats and your experience_ matter absolutely nothing when it comes to game balance. After 47 pages, I still fail to see how “I think planes are easier” should be considered a valid argument. Who are you to say what should be easy and what should be hard? What do you know about DICE’s plan for this game? Why should be BF1 the copy of BF4 with different models? Why isn’t DICE allowed to make flying easier? Because you said so? You keep basing your entire monologue around the easiness of flying on BF1. Yes, flying planes in BF1 is easier. So ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯ what? By your logic, we would be playing BF1942 with modern graphics and exactly the same game mechanics because, by your logic, if something works in a certain way, then it must remain the same in the next Battlefield. Sniping in BF4 was harder. Why is it easier now? Because DICE decided it must be easier this time. End of story. Medic rifles are more difficult to use in BF1 than BF4’s full-auto laser guns. Should we start a 50 page thread about it? And you are starting to sound like a broken record. You seem to be pretty obsessed, for someone who casually entered the discussion to offer his constructive and unbiased feedback. ---
**Author:** ![DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/dingokillr/32/101728_2.png) [@DingoKillr](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DingoKillr)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 4:11am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/138 "2017-04-10T04:11:00Z")
> [@StalHamarr](#): > > Trokey: > > As I have said through out this thread, you are basing your tirade about the the different impact of planes in BF1 vs BF4. > > Wich, as I have said through out this thread, is incredibly stupid because: > > - no helicopters on BF1; > - _your stats and your experience_ matter absolutely nothing when it comes to game balance. After 47 pages, I still fail to see how “I think planes are easier” should be considered a valid argument. Who are you to say what should be easy and what should be hard? What do you know about DICE’s plan for this game? Why should be BF1 the copy of BF4 with different models? Why isn’t DICE allowed to make flying easier? Because you said so? > > You keep basing your entire monologue around the easiness of flying on BF1. Yes, flying planes in BF1 is easier. So what? > > By your logic, we would be playing BF1942 with modern graphics and exactly the same game mechanics because, by your logic, if something works in a certain way, then it must remain the same in the next Battlefield. > > Sniping in BF4 was harder. Why is it easier now? Because DICE decided it must be easier this time. End of story. > Medic rifles are more difficult to use in BF1 than BF4’s full-auto laser guns. Should we start a 50 page thread about it? > > And you are starting to sound like a broken record. You seem to be pretty obsessed, for someone who casually entered the discussion to offer his constructive and unbiased feedback. You miss the point like so many have, skill and powerful are to different aspects. Any level of player should not be able to pick a weapon and dominate. That is the power of the weapon not the skill of the user. There is no justification for a solo player to out perform a team effort. Can any infantry class weapon dominate. NO Can a Solo bomber dominate? NO it needs help from others. Can a Trench Fighter dominate. Yes. Trokey points is the skill threshold level is lower, but the power of the planes is higher ---
**Author:** ![bearpatroI](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/bearpatroi/32/101305_2.png) [@bearpatroI](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/bearpatroI)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 4:24am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/139 "2017-04-10T04:24:00Z")
> [@PrecisionWing](#): > > I agree with you, if dice could greatly buff main gun, I’m OK with nerf the darts even harder than current CTE setting. I wouldn’t even care if they removed the darts if they buff the rockets. Right now they are useless against infantry unless you land most of your salvo as direct hits. Bomber killer is the most fun load out to me because you have to actually aim but there is too much down time between fighting other planes and you have nothing to do. ---
**Author:** ![trip1ex](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/779978/32.png) [@trip1ex](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/trip1ex)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 4:39am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102/140 "2017-04-10T04:39:00Z")
> [@bearpatroI](#): > > > [@PrecisionWing](#): > > > > I agree with you, if dice could greatly buff main gun, I’m OK with nerf the darts even harder than current CTE setting. > > I wouldn’t even care if they removed the darts if they buff the rockets. Right now they are useless against infantry unless you land most of your salvo as direct hits. Bomber killer is the most fun load out to me because you have to actually aim but there is too much down time between fighting other planes and you have nothing to do. Yep the downtime is why I imagine we will hardly see any fighters being flown after this nerf. All attack planes and bombers will be what we see. [Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102.md?page=6) [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/its-time-to-nerf-planes/259102.md?page=8)