Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-09 at 00:59. 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?

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Wednesday, February 8th 2017, 9:37pm

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

The BM has a sweet scope. The Huot doesn't. Optical performance has a big impact on ranged engagements.

This right here is the major flaw with both the Luger 1906 and Huot. They're both ultra-accurate, long range skill cannons... with only iron sights. Fantastic. If the Rank 10 guns got the variants they were supposed to get, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion and they wouldn't be considered such ineffective, or at least extremely awkward guns.

The Huot is to the BM what the Lewis is to the MG15: the former are the more accurate, but otherwise worse options. The current setup would be like having only a Lewis LW, but keeping the MG15 Suppressive and trying to tell people the Lewis is actually the better ranged option.

It's also rather ironic that the M1903 Infantry was being argued against for being in the exact same position as the Luger and Huot currently are.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Can't get a title

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

Wednesday, February 8th 2017, 10:33pm

### Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

It's also rather ironic that the M1903 Infantry was being argued against for being in the exact same position as the Luger and Huot currently are.

The 1906 and Huot only have to be able to shoot out to 80 m max.

The M1903 Infantry has to shoot out to 150 m. Almost double.
something something Model 8 bestgun

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

Next, wanna try adding a guy that you KNOW is bad, and just testing to see that? Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.

Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:

Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

But... You can't be counting for the fact that it takes 9 bullets to kill at "long" range... Don't you dare tell me my A-91 is worse than a 9 BTK 650 RPM mediocre PDW.

Also. Just go heavy barrel. The recoil is low enough.

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

Well, technically...

Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).

And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.

In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.

Mind blown.

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

### Quoted from "Veritable"

Zer0Cod3x explained it very well. If you look at the raw numbers right here on Symthic Comparison, you can see how that happened:

A-91 vs PP-2000 | BF4 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

A-91's "23%" RPM advantage only afforded it 1 extra round.

Velocities are wash.

V-Recoil are wash (and this is HBar on PP2k vs. A-91 without).

Hipfire and ADS - Moving are better on the PP2k, but it's a PDW and not the surprising part.

The surprising part is that, as equipped (and we see above that PP2k HBar has almost same V-Recoil as A-91 without HBar so why not?), the PDW performs better at 50 - 100m than a bloody Carbine. Why?

SIPS, 42% better on the PP2k.

And here is the most important part. ADS - Not Moving Spread, 0.35 vs. 0.2, 43% improvement.

Without HBar then of course the PP2k loses, which is why when I add all the attachments together for an Overall Ranking, it would slot below the A-91. Run HBar on it, though, then... I'm sorry

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

@Veritable
@Zer0Cod3x
I... I...
But...
Wha...
I AM HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE OF YOU TWO.

FUCK YOU NERDS AND YOUR FANCY NUMBERS

SEXY RUSSIAN BULLPUPS FTW.

In all seriousness, thank you both so much for giving me the numbers. I still don't want to accept them. You have led the horse to water. I still need to drink.

Posts: 105

Date of registration
: Oct 28th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Wednesday, February 8th 2017, 11:01pm

Jesus, I didn't want my comment to start a second argument. :/

Anyway, I'd actually agree that the convenience and magnification of a scope is not something to pass up. Having an easier time aiming at far-away targets is a sweet benefit, but not one that affects gunplay directly. It just so happens that most players prefer to use optics on their guns, as Zer0 mentioned.

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Wednesday, February 8th 2017, 11:02pm

### Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

It's also rather ironic that the M1903 Infantry was being argued against for being in the exact same position as the Luger and Huot currently are.

The 1906 and Huot only have to be able to shoot out to 80 m max.

The M1903 Infantry has to shoot out to 150 m. Almost double.

They're equivalents, not identical.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 105

Date of registration
: Oct 28th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Wednesday, February 8th 2017, 11:14pm

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

This right here is the major flaw with both the Luger 1906 and Huot. They're both ultra-accurate, long range skill cannons... with only iron sights. Fantastic. If the Rank 10 guns got the variants they were supposed to get, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion and they wouldn't be considered such ineffective, or at least extremely awkward guns.

The Huot is to the BM what the Lewis is to the MG15: the former are the more accurate, but otherwise worse options. The current setup would be like having only a Lewis LW, but keeping the MG15 Suppressive and trying to tell people the Lewis is actually the better ranged option.

I don't see how the lack of magnification for both the Luger and Guitar severely affects their ranged performance. Sure, it's slightly harder to see targets, but this is not enough to hamper skilled players who can distinguish contrast well.

We literally just mentioned why the Huot is better at range than the BM. Better hitrates at range = better ranged performance than their counterparts. Same thing with the Lewis and MG15.

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Wednesday, February 8th 2017, 11:24pm

And this is right around the point where relying on only math breaks down the link between it and real gameplay situations, events, and usefulness. No one is going to take the most accurate guns in the game seriously if they don't have optics, nor should they.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Wednesday, February 8th 2017, 11:55pm

With how weapon variants work now, I can see how the uninformed would look at the Huot and think, "Hmmm, Iron Sights - no scope or optic. Must be good for close or medium range." The uninformed then proceeds to use it closer than what they should be and gets dunked on by higher fire rates. The uninformed then curses the Huot for being trash, writes a nasty Battle"lol"g post about it and vows to never use it again for being the utter trash he thinks it is.

This decision is not justified, but I imagine this is the thought process of those who do not actually know what a monster the Huot can be. Before criticizing a weapon because of preconceived notions (i.e. No Telescope or Optic must be good at medium-close range), research it. That is if you actually care.
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

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

the Sebstalder is quiet good since it can 3hit kill at any distanc ,but In my opinion i actually thikn the sweeper is better, its got a really really fast firerate that can beat alll those Noobmaticos, Helregall adn shitguns in close quarters , and its also really accurate out to like l;ong range,. overall great allround gun, jsut my 2\$ tho

### My "Contributions"

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 12:10am

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

With how weapon variants work now, I can see how the uninformed would look at the Huot and think, "Hmmm, Iron Sights - no scope or optic. Must be good for close or medium range." The uninformed then proceeds to use it closer than what they should be and gets dunked on by higher fire rates. The uninformed then curses the Huot for being trash, writes a nasty Battle"lol"g post about it and vows to never use it again for being the utter trash he thinks it is.

This decision is not justified, but I imagine this is the thought process of those who do not actually know what a monster the Huot can be. Before criticizing a weapon because of preconceived notions (i.e. No Telescope or Optic must be good at medium-close range), research it. That is if you actually care.

I'm going to have to disagree. Much like BF4's attachment system, this is a failure of game design. It's not intuitive, nor is it logical. You could make a Sniper Rifle work like a Shotgun, and make it the most balanced weapon every created, but it would still be a failure of game design, because it doesn't make sense.

Game design has a much, much larger scope than just hard math-based stats and balance. If you make a weapon sound weak, players will think it's weak, and same in reverse. This is not the players' fault, this is the designers' fault for poorly designing that aspect of the weapon. If you're only looking at game design through the lens that is math and hard stats, your game likely isn't going to be very functional or enjoyable in practice.

If the Huot wants to be the most accurate MG, it needs to act the part.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 105

Date of registration
: Oct 28th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 12:22am

### Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

And this is right around the point where relying on only math breaks down the link between it and real gameplay situations, events, and usefulness. No one is going to take the most accurate guns in the game seriously if they don't have optics, nor should they.
Statistics and mathematics rely upon real in-game elements, and reflect genuine gameplay. They are factual statements that accurately tell what will happen in a game with skilled players, and cannot be refuted. How are they unreliable as a determiner for in-game analysis?

There are several skilled players who use the more accurrate weapons of BF1 without scopes, and so rather effectively.

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 12:41am

### Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

And this is right around the point where relying on only math breaks down the link between it and real gameplay situations, events, and usefulness. No one is going to take the most accurate guns in the game seriously if they don't have optics, nor should they.
Statistics and mathematics rely upon real in-game elements, and reflect genuine gameplay. They are factual statements that accurately tell what will happen in a game with skilled players, and cannot be refuted. How are they unreliable as a determiner for in-game analysis?

There are several skilled players who use the more accurrate weapons of BF1 without scopes, and so rather effectively.

Because that's not a full picture, and a weapon being usable is not a measure of it being a good or proper addition to the sandbox in its current implementation.

There's intention and there's implementation, and t. Math and stats are a fantastic way of quantifying implementation on the technical side of things, but only there. Such stats also come after intention. What this means is one doesn't say "The Huot is a very accurate weapon because the stats are that of a very accurate weapon", one would say "The Huot is designed to be a very accurate weapon, and the stats reflect this". The key difference is that the former is (or can be) simply a justification of anything currently implemented into the game, and amounts to saying "It is what it is, because it's that thing".

And so we look at the intention first, and then check off the list of areas of game design (simplified here) needed to create a full and functional weapon. Intent: The Huot is supposed to be a very accurate weapon.

Does the Huot have the appropriate accuracy for a very accurate weapon?

Does the Huot have the appropriate recoil for a very accurate weapon?

Does the Huot have the appropriate velocity for a very accurate weapon?

Does the Huot have the appropriate damage for a very accurate weapon?

Does the Huot have the appropriate attachments for a very accurate weapon?

Does the Huot have the appropriate firing sound for a very accurate weapon?

Does the Huot have the appropriate firing animations for a very accurate weapon?

Does the Huot have the appropriate weapon hold stance for a very accurate weapon?

Does the Huot have the appropriate list-of-a-dozen-more-things for a very accurate weapon?

Intention comes first, and then must be analyzed under every lens to see if it actually fill the role it's supposed to. The Huot succeeds as some of these and fails at others. If one cannot look through all of the required lenses, they won't be able to properly design and implement a weapon.
Who Enjoys, Wins