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.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,156)

Posts: 7,231

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

31

Monday, November 21st 2016, 12:56pm

Shooting mechanics are a nuisance to me compared to BF4 which just felt natural in all aspects.

At least BF4 had a somewhat understandable foundation of shooting, where damage was based on calibre and barrel length determined damage range and base spread, while ROF largely determined recoil.


Is this somehow not true anymore?

What I grant them is that they created an immersive WW1 game


WWI historians have heavily criticized BF1 as NOT being even remotely accurate.

If it is not even remotely accurate, I don't quite think it can be "immersive."

What it does do is provide a romantic view of the setting, same as nearly every other war game.

I don't even feel like this is WWI at all. It's just Battlefield using WWI-era tech.

Battlefront with it's casual, fun and shallow gameplay also did not inspire hopes for a decent successor to 2142


Nor should it have. Battlefront and Battlefield are separate franchises with separate audiences.

Battlefront was geared towards Star Wars fans, not just shooter fans.

Expecting Battlefront to be representative at all of a second futuristic Battlefield does not make sense.

hero classes that are mostly used to negate "skill"-differences in a round


Hero Classes introduce secondary objectives that can boost your ability to take the more relevant objectives.

It is not there to completely negate a skill-gap.

Sure it can provide a boost to a noob player and they can probably now match a handful of better ones combined.

A good player using it will still experience in increase in their ability to take down enemies.

If it was really about negating skill difference, then it would benefit bad players alone and probably serve no purpose or even drag down better players.



Since it does not, the Hero Classes are simply another resource for players to use against their enemies.

Ground vehicles and especially behemoths are things anyone can get in, farm ten kills, and get a nice shiver when looking at the scoreboard in the end.


If people care about farming kills as a statistic rather than a gameplay advantage, then they are caring about the wrong thing.

Vehicles have always been particularly good at farming infantry, I am not sure why this is being brought up in the context of making players feel good about themselves.

They also eased up sniping so much, with the intent of eliminating the bushes, but I see even more of them.


I doubt they eased up sniping with the intention of eliminating bushes.

It is far more likely they eased up sniping with the intention of making bushes more useful.

you are bound to be shot at by a sniper that you can not see and no chance of retaliation.


If you see a sniper, then they are not doing their job properly.

A sniper taking you down without retaliation or being seen is.

Sure this can be frustrating. Unfortunately, they are using a weapon that is not particularly flexible and is overspecialized into that kind of engagement.

Generally since they increased engagement ranges this is just natural.


What?

Ranges near globally have been reduced.

DMRs in BF4 could be used out to 300m.

We don't have any weapons close to operating at that range.

Even Sniper Rifles are now confined to ~150m, 200m if you want to stretch it.



Pissing contest range used to be at 500m+.

Now it is at 300m.

the shooting mechanics are overly complex and unintuitive to the point that players are forced to look here and are still not likely to understand it.


They are not actually overly complex. There are tips that tell you how some of these mechanics work.

There is a tip that tells the user LMGs get more accurate the longer they are fired.

There is a tip that tells the user SLRs get inaccurate when fired rapidly.



And there is one thing that very intuitively tells players something is wrong with their shooting style.

The number of tracers, another complaint made by WWI buffs, serves well to inform the player of their weapon's accuracy.

The more the player is missing, the more they have to adjust their shooting style.

Just by watching the tracers, you can observe how spread functions work and figure out how to fix it.



For both SLRs and SMGs, it should be intuitively obvious at this point that if you are missing a lot, either slow down your fire rate or move closer.

Even if they did not know that, there is already a tip for SLRs in that department. I would not be surprised if one was written for SMGs as well.

Furthermore, it is trivial for a player to just pause a second and experience really good spread again.

The more they observe this phenomenon, the more they internalize it. At least, if they have any measure of critical thinking.



The game already provides good enough feedback for what I would think is the average player.

Not sure how the game could provide any more than it already does with tracers and tips.

Every weapon also has a very precise niche and when caught out of this particular niche, you are pretty much fucked.


Yes and what is the problem with this?

Play and counterplay.

The absence of such a thing in previous titles was the problem.

Not its inclusion.



Vehicles already reflected this before with MAAs being pretty bad at AT but fantastic as AA.

The concept of Rock-Paper-Scissors balance has always existed in Battlefield and is a core philosophy.

This philosophy has finally been extended to infantry weapons more in-depth than before.



Previously, SMGs and Shotguns were the only weapons that really suffered when played outside their designed purpose.

ARs by design were meant to be flexible, LMGs were just ARs with extended magazines and worse hipfire, Carbines were all-kit ARs with better hipfire and worse ADS.

DMRs had access to low power optics and canted ironsights to enable CQB.

Bolt Actions of course were not even close to being useable at long range.



A lot of weapon categories overlapped.

There was really no clear counter to each other, just a general rule of thumb.

Now there is a clear zone between each set's effectiveness and the player's job is to play around that.

Controlling the spacing in a fight is a fundamental concept in PvP.

Battlefield has simply incorporated that at long last.

much more effective than the average player can ever muster up.


Those weapons also have some limitations like the Auto .35 being confined to 1v1s.

I am actually quite astounded that people argue for the concept of these weapons, while arguing that BAs, the very epitome of skill cannons, were deemed the bane of that game.


The difference being the skill cannon is not the sole option available to the player.

BAs made up the entire set of weapons and players had no alternatives.

The class of weapons as a whole were too hard to be effective with.



If a player is unable to do well with the Auto .35 or Cei Rigotti, they are not forced to use those choices.

They can select something like the Mondragon or 1916.



Compare this to BF3/4 where if you sucked at sniping with the M40A5, chances are you sucked with the SV-98 or any other rifle for that matter.

Regardless of your choice, the skill floor was still the same: can you headshot?

The game still makes decently fun with friends and the launch was rather unproblematic, but I rarely log in alone, often because I have no goal beyond the rounds. In BF4 I wanted to play out all weapons, so I went and got every mastery dogtag that I could, and then, somewhere early this year, when I finished, settled for the one that suited me best.
Now this is gone, you get that medal with 100 kills and most people just use one in any case, I myself even have little incentive to play each weapon, nevertheless I am done with most Assault weapons and all SLRs bar the 1906. Since I have trouble with the hugely different weapons I wonder if I will get to playing the LMGs at all.
Then the medal system is flawed, I've finished one so far and will not really bother finishing another. They are a mixture of assignments and medals of BF4, but instead of doing them once, or passively in any round you are forced to work heavily on them constantly for multiple rounds. Also I doe not see them enforcing teamplay or objectives in a way that encourages people.
Another thing that encourages people is personal development, but the stat page is laughable, so you do not see any progression of your character at all. While Battlelog had issues with that as well, a simple browser plug-in helped greatly. Now we are again bound to third party programs just to see how far we are in completing this or that, or how the accuracy increased over the last rounds.


While side pursuits are common these days, not everyone plays the game for the pursuit of dogtags, medals, or other shiny collectibles.

Some people simply like playing the game for its gameplay.

Quite obviously DICE has felt it should focus on that first. And I would applaud them for that.

Of course, if this truly negatively impacts player counts I would become very sad for it indicates players do not enjoy gameplay but rather enjoy jumping through hoops.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

32

Monday, November 21st 2016, 1:05pm

It's fun, but there's a lot of work to be done:

- LMGs, Support gadgets, and the Support class in general are flat out garbage now in this iteration of BF, compared to 3 and 4. They occupied a great niche as a jack-of-all-trades class that can deal with infantry and vehicles simultaneously, but never as effective as their actual infantry/AT counterparts (Assault and Engineer). Indirect fire is a joke, Limpets will always be shit compared to C4 and UCAV, and gadgets that should belong to Support are given to Scouts so they can be left to collect dust in their tower or hill.

- Conversely, Sniper rifles are at their strongest now with insane m/s, less bullet drop to compensate, and sweet spot kills, making the retarded hill sniper feel like an actual team contributor and much more of a threat to your team.

- Wide open maps in general, which heavily favors Snipers and vehicles. Lack of armored transport vehicles to shield yourself from small arms fire, the unarmored transports and especially motorbikes are impossible to drive a straight line, and the armored transport vehicles get oneshotted by a Heavy Tank/Artillery Truck/Howitzer FT

- Tanks are simultaneously at their weakest AND strongest they've ever been in BF. Instant self-repairs, being able to self-repair while staying inside vehicles, the AT Rocket being cumbersome to use on top of not doing as much damage for meaningful medium range AT, and a bunch of other factors make it very, very easy to farm infantry and maybe push objectives if the driver has balls/team has the brains to capitalize

I still enjoy this iteration very much, but I have little faith DICE will actually address my complaints about the game and will just have to live with them. Here's to hoping they don't continue these design decisions in BF1944 two years from now, I really would like to see a proper WWII title that takes the best aspects of BF1 (Assault being its own class and separated from Medic for one) and BF4 pre-Reddit

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,305)

Posts: 2,736

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

33

Monday, November 21st 2016, 2:17pm

Well first thank you Noctyrne for your selected answers.

Let's keep in mind that this thread is solely about your subjective feelings towards BF1, though. For me nearly all shooting mechanics are uncomprehensive, unauthentic, intransparent and unintuitive. Since you are a senior member of symthic and dabble with mathematics, stats on a daily basis like dozens others here, I totally see your point.
As for different roles of weapons, we had that before, but the transition was more fluid and the weapon classes themselves filled the role, not individual weapons within the class. Now when I use a certain weapon I fully acknowledge that it fills a role, and can play accordingly, I do not want however be tied strictly into a distance, or playstyle. For example, if I use the F2000 I give myself an edge in CQ, but still wield an AR. When I use an SMG I know that I will still be able to use that weapon to some effectiveness at ranges beyond 20m. I can further define my role with the attachment system and to much more nuanced degree than the weapon variants of BF1.

As for engagement distances, yeah they might reduced 600m sniping, but getting shot at from 100-150m is a really common thing now. At the same time my options are very limited. Cover is scarce and the prospect of fighting laughable, since the amount of weapons feasible for that engagement is very low.

As for longevity, and side-atctivities, this is hugely important for me. Advancing statistically and having meta-goals is a thing to support the actual gameplay, regardless of the implementation. Yeah gameplay itself might carry a game, but obviously this is not the case for BF1 for me. So that hurts. That said even CS and Overwatch, games where largely only the round you play right now matters, have very popular side-stuff, just look at the skins that are traded in CS.

Posts: 1,111

Date of registration
: Jun 24th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Winner's podium

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

34

Monday, November 21st 2016, 2:19pm

Quoted

Anyone else just a bit disappointed with BF1?


Not as much as The World Champion is disappointed in all of you for saying revolvers shouldn't headshot.

Quoted

AT rocket guns b hard 2 use because eye need to aim dem.


The World Champion knows people are to used to being able quickly spam 7 rockets at a tank. because you know screw trying to out play a tank I wants me spams back. :rolleyes:
Holy shit do AT grenades smash tanks, but their use would involve...

No.1: one of 30 snipers on the team to play assault.
NUMBAH 2: said sniper to actually having scored enough points to buy Anti-Tank Knuckle Nagasaki™....it isn't likely.
Thrace: Somehow getting enough the numbskulls together to do it at once. If only they put as much effort in to taking out tanks in the game as they do bitching about tanks on the internet.

Quoted

Machineguns REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The World Champion is loving Machine Guns That Aren't So Light, since the patch. Well he loved BAR before the patch, but now with bi-pods everywhere, the hordes of unfortunate souls who waddled their soon to be corpse in front of a MGTASL operated by The World Champion soon find themselves equipped with an addition of speed holes in their abdomen and cranium. Then again The World Champion isn't some Irishman who stands out in an open field, firing the gun into the air, instead of at enemies.
You have just read a Post by The World Champion and now feel smarter for doing so.
-------
Cham·pi·on
noun \ˈcham-pē-ən\

1 : Warrior, Fighter
2 : a militant advocate or defender <a champion of civil rights>
3 : one that does battle for another's rights or honor <God will raise me up a champion — Sir Walter Scott>
4 : a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority <The champion of the World>

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "The World Champion" (Nov 21st 2016, 6:10pm)


Posts: 172

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

35

Monday, November 21st 2016, 4:59pm

^^ This is the greatest message to the world I've read in the past 9 years. I can go back to meditation and do it peacefully for another 9 years, knowing that people like you have their one eye on the internets. True skill in motion.

Posts: 62

Date of registration
: Jan 11th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

36

Monday, November 21st 2016, 5:27pm

WWI historians have heavily criticized BF1 as NOT being even remotely accurate.


I can't imagine any of those stuffy old codgers looking at a video game and saying "Super! Spot on!". Just remember that they weren't even there. The main difference between this game and the real WWI is this: trench warfare was boring. You sat in a muddy pit crammed with smelly soldiers while a hundred yards away your enemies did the same thing. What was that movie...the guy couldn't take it anymore so he held his hand up at night with a cigarette in it so he'd get shot in the hand and could go home.

As for the rocket gun conversation, I have to throw my vote on the side saying it's a bit weak. It's comparable to the RPG from BF4, right? The RPG could be fired standing up, and everybody took cover immediately after firing. They either stepped to the side behind a building or they immediately went prone behind a rock. You fire the rocket gun from a prone position, and cover is nowhere to be taken. You might as well say "quack". Half the time I try to fire the rocket gun I end up cursing the foliage for blocking my sight. The anti-tank grenades are so much safer to use, and right now I'm into the anti-tank mines. Find a divot and put a few of those guys on the front slope of it and they're almost invisible.

Posts: 445

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

37

Monday, November 21st 2016, 10:07pm

WWI historians have heavily criticized BF1 as NOT being even remotely accurate.

As for the rocket gun conversation, I have to throw my vote on the side saying it's a bit weak. It's comparable to the RPG from BF4, right? The RPG could be fired standing up, and everybody took cover immediately after firing. They either stepped to the side behind a building or they immediately went prone behind a rock. You fire the rocket gun from a prone position, and cover is nowhere to be taken. You might as well say "quack". Half the time I try to fire the rocket gun I end up cursing the foliage for blocking my sight. The anti-tank grenades are so much safer to use, and right now I'm into the anti-tank mines. Find a divot and put a few of those guys on the front slope of it and they're almost invisible.

Is it me, or do tankguns do more splashdamage in BF One compared to BF4? It also seems it goes through solid cover to kill you.

AT gun is frustrating to use, as you usually cant escape from the tanksplash, contrary to the RPG potshots from BF4 (that also did more damage with more ammo with the right squadperk). You could say ''but attack it from an angle where it cant see you'', but that is often not an option with the little amount of cover and foilage found on maps. Not to mention the layout of the map will not allow succesful, survivable AT gun shots against good tankers, like on Amiens or many Operation layouts.

I get your point on the AT Grenades, they are indeed really powerful, but alas useless against tankers keeping distance at all times while hunting infantry.
RIP Sraw

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,305)

Posts: 2,736

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

38

Monday, November 21st 2016, 11:31pm

WWI historians have heavily criticized BF1 as NOT being even remotely accurate.


I can't imagine any of those stuffy old codgers looking at a video game and saying "Super! Spot on!". Just remember that they weren't even there. The main difference between this game and the real WWI is this: trench warfare was boring. You sat in a muddy pit crammed with smelly soldiers while a hundred yards away your enemies did the same thing. What was that movie...the guy couldn't take it anymore so he held his hand up at night with a cigarette in it so he'd get shot in the hand and could go home.


That was Downton Abbey. :D Well we just revealed someone who watched the whole show. Well, two, since I knew that bit as well. :D

I think DICE present the setting in a respectful way and that was the most important thing to me. It was the most terrible war in history and it was the one to end all wars. I think they did a proper job portraying the futility and some desperation. I am talking about the campaign mostly, but I think on Multiplayer they are still spot on jsut from the general art direction and the many details. It really does immerse me.

Posts: 62

Date of registration
: Jan 11th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

39

Monday, November 21st 2016, 11:52pm

That was Downton Abbey. :D Well we just revealed someone who watched the whole show. Well, two, since I knew that bit as well. :D


I've never seen but one episode of Downton Abbey so I'm afraid you've only outted yourself ^^ . However I did find out what movie it was and it might be even worse for me. It's a French movie starring Audrey Tautou called "A Very Long Engagement". Not exactly a dude movie or a bro show, but it had some good WWI trench warfare scenes and got nominated for a couple Oscars.

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

40

Tuesday, November 22nd 2016, 8:36am

WWI historians have heavily criticized BF1 as NOT being even remotely accurate.


I can't imagine any of those stuffy old codgers looking at a video game and saying "Super! Spot on!". Just remember that they weren't even there. The main difference between this game and the real WWI is this: trench warfare was boring. You sat in a muddy pit crammed with smelly soldiers while a hundred yards away your enemies did the same thing. What was that movie...the guy couldn't take it anymore so he held his hand up at night with a cigarette in it so he'd get shot in the hand and could go home.


That was Downton Abbey. :D Well we just revealed someone who watched the whole show. Well, two, since I knew that bit as well. :D

I think DICE present the setting in a respectful way and that was the most important thing to me. It was the most terrible war in history and it was the one to end all wars. I think they did a proper job portraying the futility and some desperation. I am talking about the campaign mostly, but I think on Multiplayer they are still spot on jsut from the general art direction and the many details. It really does immerse me.
And then WW2 came around and snatched that title not even a generation later.