Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-09 at 00:56. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

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.

## Unlocked the Huot, but is it a high skill weapon?

PvF 2017 Champion

Posts: 7,304

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 2:41am

I never said those elements were irrelevant.

I have said before that ideally the art should complement the stats. BF4 Jet Cannons are a good example. Nice deep bass. A little cockpit shake. Surely this is a highly damaging weapon. No, land your 3s jet cannon burst and you deal 1 damage to other jets.

I have been saying the benefit they provide is flimsy because, as seen in the Jet Cannons, players soon realize that the art isn't actually a good indicator of anything.

Do not overestimate the contribution of such elements.
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?

### Quoted from "blahdy"

If it flies, it diesÂ.

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 2:43am

### Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

players soon realize that the art isn't actually a good indicator of anything.

Sure, if they aren't properly representative. But then they should be fixed so they are, just like anything else.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 3:01am

Guys. You're missing entirely what BU is saying.

Good design extends much further than making something mechanistically good. A good design also has to get people to use it. It doesn't matter if you are working on guns for a video game, cars, or any number of widgets, products, fiction, movies, etc, etc.

IOW, good designs have to sell.

There are innumerable examples of technically amazing things (music, electronic gadgets, hardware, software apps, etc) that have failed not because they were technically sound, but because they weren't really attractive for consumption. I don't mean just physically attractive either.

Now - back to guns. BF4 was a disaster because of under-explained gun mechanics, too many guns, and generically availlable attachments leading to a phenomenal number of false choices with really only a handful of viable guns with specific combinations.

BF1 fails because it is obsfucating. The only way I can really figure out the guns/variants is comparing them here. That's bad design to require/rely on an external group of people to explain things to the player base. Even with Sym, it's still not obvious, hence all of the debate. And while it's fun to argue that people who don't get it are dumb, in reality it's that things just are not well explained.

Instead of trying to sell me battlepacks, BF1 should have a main menu window that says "gun mechanics" - where it very simply describes recoil, spread, spread ic/dec and Mgs wind up. It should then explain what the different variants mean: better recovery, better min-spread, etc, etc, etc.

Certainly - understanding Meta is part of being good at a game, and it wraps into being a better player, but BF has traditionally given ZERO tools to the player to understand it other than brute for playing.

To go back to the Huot, it should be described as having a variant package, and the sliders for dmg, acc, control, etc should actually represent the gun's capabilities. Sliders are stupid, just add a number.

Now. I actually like the Huot. I use it when I don't want to melt face (and thus take the bar or Madsen), or countersnipe and thus find the scope on the BM intrusive. On the balance though, I prefer playing to the strengths of either of those weapons rather than using the Huot. It makes for more coherent gameplay for me.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 3:26am

And I'm saying that the Huot, by BF1's definition of variants, cannot gain access to better usability features without taking a hit to two of the attributes that make it so good. Low Weight/ Factory versions cannot have scopes and optics because those features are designed specifically for the Telescopic, Suppressive, and Optical variations each with their own set of stat values differing from weapon to weapon in conjunction. Low Weight/ Factory is stuck with Iron Sights because higher magnification via optic or scope would make this variant too good; it places a hard cap on the weapon's potential just by limiting how far one can see with it without placing a stat-based hard cap.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.2
SnapZoomPostTime 0.2
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 1.2
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier 1.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom -1.0
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.0
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 0.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.0
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

 AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### My "Contributions"

Posts: 62

Date of registration
: Dec 17th 2015

Platform: PC

Location: Marine Barracks, Washington D.C.

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 4:18am

I think we've reached a consensus that technically speaking, the Huot is in the position it is now and while the execution is "awkward" to say the least, it's still technically at the place it should be because of the Low Weight variant affecting the spread of the gun in the first place.

Game design can be a bit like a joke in a figurative sense: A meh or even bad joke told well with the right punchline will get you laughs, a great joke or even the best one in the world told poorly makes you feel awkward. (Ironically...)

I'm inclined to believe Bleeding Uranium on a broader sense but also disagree because of the technical aspects that make the Huot as good as it is right now. But if they wanted to keep Low Weight as the variant but execute it just as effectively as the Hellriegel was, slap on those little optics from the optical variant and everyone would be inclined to believe its ranged performance because of how gullible players are. Win-Win scenario to me at least...

But then you enter this compatibility issue, because the variants are separated into these categories where even though Hellriegel is a storm yet called factory, it still uses only iron sights. So for the Low Weight Huot, you either have to break that rule of exclusively keeping guns irons or optics, or make it the exception. I'm personally favoring the latter but to each their own.

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 4:20am

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

It doesn't say anywhere that the TH landship has 57mm AT and not 57mm HE.

All the tank and plane weapons are listed in the customize screen, on that info panel on the right.

The Luger 1906 is actually a Marksman without a scope. But I'd rather see this silly not-actually-itself variant setup be done away with and actually have all three for the 10s, then everyone would be happy.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 105

Date of registration
: Oct 28th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 4:21am

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

Guys. You're missing entirely what BU is saying.

Good design extends much further than making something mechanistically good. A good design also has to get people to use it. It doesn't matter if you are working on guns for a video game, cars, or any number of widgets, products, fiction, movies, etc, etc.

IOW, good designs have to sell.

There are innumerable examples of technically amazing things (music, electronic gadgets, hardware, software apps, etc) that have failed not because they were technically sound, but because they weren't really attractive for consumption. I don't mean just physically attractive either.

Now - back to guns. BF4 was a disaster because of under-explained gun mechanics, too many guns, and generically availlable attachments leading to a phenomenal number of false choices with really only a handful of viable guns with specific combinations.

BF1 fails because it is obsfucating. The only way I can really figure out the guns/variants is comparing them here. That's bad design to require/rely on an external group of people to explain things to the player base. Even with Sym, it's still not obvious, hence all of the debate. And while it's fun to argue that people who don't get it are dumb, in reality it's that things just are not well explained.

Instead of trying to sell me battlepacks, BF1 should have a main menu window that says "gun mechanics" - where it very simply describes recoil, spread, spread ic/dec and Mgs wind up. It should then explain what the different variants mean: better recovery, better min-spread, etc, etc, etc.

Certainly - understanding Meta is part of being good at a game, and it wraps into being a better player, but BF has traditionally given ZERO tools to the player to understand it other than brute for playing.

To go back to the Huot, it should be described as having a variant package, and the sliders for dmg, acc, control, etc should actually represent the gun's capabilities. Sliders are stupid, just add a number.

Now. I actually like the Huot. I use it when I don't want to melt face (and thus take the bar or Madsen), or countersnipe and thus find the scope on the BM intrusive. On the balance though, I prefer playing to the strengths of either of those weapons rather than using the Huot. It makes for more coherent gameplay for me.
I'd be inclined to agree that the communication from the devs about how to play their game is not complete; that being said, I think it still would not make enough of a difference to be significant. Regardless of how well a developer explains their game, there are still going to be players out there that do not understand how to play it and why it works that way.

Take Overwatch, a game that I feel does a fantastic job of both technical gameplay and subtle dev-to-player communication. Besides the accessible sources of information regarding each hero and respawn tips, the game does a fantastic job at immediately informing its players about what is occurring in-game with its visual effects, sound and UI. Obviously, enemy Ultimates are broadcast to the player in higher decibels and are highlighted in red. Receiving a debuff immediately tells the player about what status effects are being applied (ex. SLEEP for Ana's Sleep Dart, STUNNED for Roadhog's Hook). You can almost always tell which role each hero has simply by looking at their model (e.g. Mercy looks like an angel, obviously she's DPS.)

And yet, how many inexperienced and ineffective players do we find in an average public match of Overwatch? May I point out the hundreds upon thousands of clueless-to-sub par players who main a DPS character (looking at you, Genji/Hanzo players!), don't know how to stand on a payload or cap zone, don't stay close to their healers and blame the rest of their team to make up for their deficiencies?

Battlefield One has not chosen to inform their players so readily about how to play their game. It is technically well-balanced, yet its theme, sound and visual design reflect a focus on an immersive, semi-realistic experience. Exact statistics about weapons and where they function best is difficult to discern without third-party sites. This is a problem that DICE will have to solve for themselves, but it cannot be done by violating the technical balance of the game, nor will it be completely rid of by handily supplying the player base with all of the necessary analyses and understanding on a single menu page. Not everybody has the time to read it; some probably won't even care to read it at all.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 4:22am

### Quoted from "sgtCrookyGrin"

So for the Low Weight Huot, you either have to break that rule of exclusively keeping guns irons or optics, or make it the exception. I'm personally favoring the latter but to each their own.

If DICE breaks this rule, there's no stopping the community for begging and pleading to break it again with other selections. It's best to leave it as it is in this context.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.2
SnapZoomPostTime 0.2
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 1.2
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier 1.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom -1.0
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.0
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 0.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.0
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

 AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0