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.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

81

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 12:51am

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

The problem is that it is effectively a Low Weight version and cannot get an optic - unless Optical - or scope - unless Telescopic - of which all three have completely different accuracy stats (spread and recoil included). Low Weight has a separate predetermined recoil recovery rate of 10.002; this is true for all Low Weight variants, so an Optical or Telescopic would get the default of 6 which is one of the aspects that sets the Huot apart from the other, fairly accurate MGs being Low Weight and still pinpoint accurate without the need for a scope or optic.

The other significant Low Weight aspect is a much higher spread recovery rate, (not a universal value, but clearly better overall) in both ADS and Hip stances, excluding the Madsen for some reason. The two Optical options of the Benet Mercie and Lewis Gun having 5.625 ADS spread recovery probably because of a similarly low rate of fire, the two Telescopics of the BAR and Benet Mercie at corresponding 2.525 and 5.8 also indicative of differences in rate of fire, and the two Suppressives of the MG15 and Lewis Gun with 2.75 and 5.1 probably due to magazine size and/ or min. damage. I don't know specifically how these were values were determined against one another, but these reasons are of my own quick analysis.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

Nope. Aim Assist or bust; here's why:

Default Aim Assist Data

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

No Slowdown Data

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


No Auto Rotation Data

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

Prepare your laughbox

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

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (Feb 9th 2017, 1:08am)


Posts: 105

Date of registration
: Oct 28th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

82

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 1:24am

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.
The features and statistics instilled into BF1 are of clear designer intent and thousands of iterations of repeated testing, i.e. real implementation. The devs of a well-known studio supported by a multi-million dollar publishing company won't simply input theoretical numbers into an engine and then declare the game balanced.

To make BF1's gunplay balanced, the devs would have had to use theoretical game design with some statistics to determine what would be the best way to balance their weapons. They would have had to create a pre-alpha version of the game, implement the numbers resulting from their early statistical experiments for their weapons, and then test them again by playing their demo. Such tests were probably something along the lines of firing their weapons against a blank wall with a small target the size of an average player model, and then determining how much effective damage is landing on it (including headshots). Most statistical nuances or imbalances resulting from engine or coding issues, bugs and other variables would have been fixed and then tested again to make sure they were resolved.

After that, they would have had to account for other in-game factors and variables such as different map sizes, elevations, introduction of vehicles, etc. There would been even more testing and adjustments to the game's engine/code to ensure that the guns were both enjoyable to play with and balanced in reference to these additional features.

Hence, we get the weapons that we currently have in BF1. In regards to the Huot, your first 5 questions are answered with a resounding yes, because the statistical and in-game performance of the weapon is exactly what DICE intended, and their testing of actual gameplay scenarios reflects that. Your following 3 questions are related to features substantial to the truthful interpretation of the weapon from real life, not significantly relevant to the weapon's balance. (Though I'd argue that the weapon's visual appearance and sounds in-game are very accurate.)

Essentially, DICE has already looked through all of the required lenses you have suggested, and worked their game accordingly.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,345)

Posts: 7,304

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

83

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 1:34am

People with zero aesthetic sense aren't going to do any worse from bad art.

People who focus on aesthetics aren't going to do any better if the art isc ool.

The Huot isn't going to be any more or less accurate based on its animations.

Not to mention what is an accurate animation or posture supposed to even look like?



Art tricks are only going to work on people who don't know better.

These players are probably not worth caring about in terms of balance anyways.

If these players are watching the firing animation or other art decisions for the player feedback loop on how these weapons are best used, they are looking in the wrong place.



Should the perception created by the art match the statistics of the weapon? Of course.

But only one of these actually changes the effectiveness of the weapon which is what people playing to win should care about.

For example, making the A7V sound weaker by increasing the treble of its engine noises isn't going to make it any less effective.

It'll only fool people who interpret the audio as an indicator of the tank's strength.
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: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

84

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 1:46am

Yeah, like I said, looking through one tiny lens.

----

I wasn't disagreeing with most of that. The Huot fails at one important point, which is lacking the appropriate attachments for its intended role. You can ignore stats entirely and still determine what role a weapon is supposed to fill by looking at what variants it has; this works for every gun and is an example of fantastic game design. Or rather, you can for all but the Rank 10 weapons.

Let's look at this another way: The M1903 is the single longest ranged BA. This can be seen just looking at the fact that it has a Marksman and Sniper variant, and a totally different setup instead of Infantry. The SMLE is closer ranged and aggressive, and this has a Infantry, Carbine, and Marksman setup, but no Sniper, telling you it's not a very long range weapon; an SMLE Sniper would be inappropriate for its role. Automatico has no variants with optics, due to being very CQB-focused. And so forth. Weapons have variants that match how the gun should be used. Makes sense, we all understand that.


Now, hypothetically, if we were to remove the variant setup and leave every weapon with only one (like the Rank 10s), the most important question that needs to be asked is: Which variant is the most representative of its role?

If we had only one M1903, it would obviously be Sniper. One SMLE would be Carbine or Infantry (which are very similar, but that's another discussion). One Automatico would most likely be Trench. One Model 8 would be .35 Factory. One M1907 would be Trench. One Cei-Rigotti would be Factory. One B-M would be Optical or Gunner. And so forth.

So out of the intended variants, which should be the one Rank 10 variant? The one most representative of the gun and its role? The Hellriegel (which is actually Storm) and M-H make sense where they are, but the Luger 1906? Between Factory, Marksman, and Sniper, obviously one of the latter two. And the Huot, between LW, Trench, and Optical? Definitely Optical. Telescopic would actually make more sense, but it was likely cut early simply because the scope wouldn't fit well on the already off-centre side of the gun.
Who Enjoys, Wins

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,345)

Posts: 7,304

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

85

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 1:59am

Implying that the Huot factory is not capable of its intended range.

The 1906 Factory is the same thing.

These are weapons that offer superior accuracy using a Factory package.
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: 7,809

Date of registration
: Feb 25th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: italy

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

86

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 2:00am

i mean... kep in mind how the br was thought to be op when halo first launched, when the devs discovered it was really just because it sounded too good... stuff like that can really mess up with the ignorant people.
"I'm just a loot whore."


stuff mostly unrelated to BF4 that interests nobody



bf4
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

bf3
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

@kataklism

ARGUMENT DESTROYED 100

ENEMY KILLED [REASON] JSLICE20 100


WRITING SPREE STOPPED 500

link to full-size old avatar:
http://i.imgur.com/4X0321O.gif




NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,345)

Posts: 7,304

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

87

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 2:06am

I recently saw some HALO devs talk about fooling players.

Can't find the video but what I remember off the top of my head is:

They had a weapon that was very effective but a lot of their players felt that it didn't "feel rewarding."

They then performed a test by tripling blood spatter, making victims of the weapons scream louder, and a whole bunch of other smoke and mirrors.

They did not touch the stats whatsoever.

Suddenly everyone was talking about how good it felt.



Yeah. Players are gullible.
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: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

88

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 2:10am

I recently saw some HALO devs talk about fooling players.

Can't find the video but what I remember off the top of my head is:

They had a weapon that was very effective but a lot of their players felt that it didn't "feel rewarding."

They then performed a test by tripling blood spatter, making victims of the weapons scream louder, and a whole bunch of other smoke and mirrors.

They did not touch the stats whatsoever.

Suddenly everyone was talking about how good it felt.



Yeah. Players are gullible.


I've been long aware of this example, as I basically started gaming with Halo (and still do play it). This is exactly why these are elements of good (or bad) game design just as much as stats are. It's the designers' job to properly communicate to the players what a tool's role is and how it performs using all of these elements. Just because a gun is implemented properly statistically does not mean the gun is implemented properly as a whole. That's only part of the puzzle.
Who Enjoys, Wins

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,345)

Posts: 7,304

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

89

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 2:21am

That is because designers and scrubs are completely opposite sides of a spectrum.

Any player who knows better would instantly see through the deception easily.

Then the devs would have to go in and actually change the stats because that is what actually matters in balance.

Besides, the fact that these art decisions can be "completed" in such a token fashion shows how much it really matters.



Oh sure some people might REALLY care about it.

Is it mission critical? Hell no.
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: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

90

Thursday, February 9th 2017, 2:28am

If you think such elements are irrelevant, then you would also not care if they were fixed/improved for those who do, making it rather irrelevant to you.
Who Enjoys, Wins