Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Posts: 7,809

Date of registration
: Feb 25th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: italy


Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message


Friday, September 23rd 2016, 4:24am

you say cam p i read defend... defending backcap flags i extremely important, even on sinai, having just 2 guys out of 32, one in a tank and one oth AA on the e flag meant you held 1/7 objectives, and that was the objective furthest away from the rest of the map, meaning it was of focal importance to winning the game.

personally i don't like the zerg rush mentality, which is why i never liked the old system, however by giving so many points for capping points they just made it not an incentive only for those who already do not care about points anymore, making the game feel feel and play completely different about a couple weeks/months after release, as the general mentaliyty will go from a selfish zerg rush mentality to a selfish lazy mentality, the sweetspot is in the middle, literally, imho a game is balanced when after getting the majority of flags your team is incentiviced to hold position for a safe but lenghty win or toattack for a faster but riskier win as they can risk backcaaps, rather than constantly attacking or constantly defeniding(snipers on A)

constantly attacking flags in circles doesn't make for good gameplay, not in pracitce, only appearence, that was visible in the alpha and older games, only defending also doesn't give a satisfying gameplay, as seen from sinai, there should be a nice balance between the two while thinking about making all the roles matter, the old system incentivized barrage rushing, basically attacking lal the objectives at the same moment without caring about defense, the bf1 system incentivized running in circles in relatively small maps and heavy defense on big maps, this both for th epoints given and how the scoring worked.

and honestly, i've lost track of what i was saying and i don't have a point anymore, still, i do feel that class variations would have a bigger meaning with my system rather than the old one, in which constant flag burn is needed due to how the system works in case of a high killperminute ratio, as it less or more incentivizes the uses of all classes, the old system rather incentivized only the uses of engineer and medic, as once you had the flag advantadge you could just not care about dying, which also meant less need for support players, but not about medics as you still needed cannon fodder(which means it would usually go in a way that you would be revived and then killed after a couple seconds, ending to the spawnscreen) from the little i thought about my system, staying alive is incentivized just that little bit more that makes support players more useful.

but seriously... i'm awake from almost 24 hours, whle listening to music, while needing to go to the bathroom and not trying to focalize my point before typing, half of what i've written, i don't even have i dea what it is, pretty much only the strarting arguments in each paragraph are garateed to make a slim amount of sense... is should retake on the topic when my mind is more lucid, meanwhile, i'd like for someone who already has a more lucid mind to analyze my post about that other conquest system.(basically, think something that makes sense in my place)

and look at all those damn typos
"I'm just a loot whore."

stuff mostly unrelated to BF4 that interests nobody

on 13/05/2016
23rd M320FB user on pc(13/05/16)
rush mode score RANK:2794 TOP:2% OUT OF:215398
obliteration mode scoreRANK:994 TOP:1% OUT OF:159466
handgun medals RANK:2236 TOP:2% OUT OF:143874
longest headshot RANK:9512 TOP:4% OUT OF:257589
recon score RANK:10871 TOP:4% OUT OF:274899
general score per minute RANK:10016 TOP:4% OUT OF:294774

31/3/2012 4:58:

Headshot distance RANK:493* TOP:0%
Revives per assault minute RANK: 6019 TOP: 3%
Headshots / kill percentage RANK:25947 TOP:13%
MVP ribbons RANK:18824 TOP:11%

*= 6 if we not count the EOD BOT headshots





link to full-size old avatar:

Posts: 17

Date of registration
: Apr 14th 2016

Platform: PS4

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message


Friday, September 23rd 2016, 5:15am

Haha no, everything you said makes sense, and I agree with everything you're saying.

I'm not so concerned with people that defend and ensure a flag is owned, as I am concerned with the 10-20% of the population that sits back on the outskirts of an objective, all game long.

Your example of the AA defending an objective is reasonable- the AA is a high-value asset, with long-range Area-Denial capabilities. It doesn't need to be in a foward placement, to be useful. It might actually be the quintessential asset for defending a flag (long-term), yet still being effective with regard to many other objectives.

Anyways, yes- mindless Zerg-conquest is so annoying, and it is one of the reasons I only played Rush during the BC series! Not sure why Rush in BC was so superior to Rush in BF3/4, but I totally hear you. And, I'm totally guilty of playing in to the Zerg-Rush Conquest mode, as much as the next guy (although my Capture to Defend ratio is approx 1.07 to 1).

Anyways- yes, neither old nor new system is balanced, like you talked about in your first two paragraphs.

Maybe you could get involved with the CTE process for BF1? It's at least worth a try.