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

Posts: 3,440

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

81

Saturday, February 11th 2017, 4:39am

It breaks the monotony up a bit


That's exactly what it does, it does it well, and I think that's all it really needs to do. Fighting a slow losing fight isn't fun, but fighting a slow winning one isn't much fun either if both sides are dug in or evenly matched. The Behemoth basically adds a level of fun, chaos, and breaks up what would otherwise be a stalemate. And that's a good thing.

So I guess I'm pretty happy with them as a whole, though the Airship could use a bit more health and the Dreadnought needs some work.


However, if we want to improve the chances of comebacks, something I think needs to be looked at regardless of the Behemoth. A losing team is never in anything approaching a reasonable scenario going to be able to hold all flags and also not lose people, which is exactly why comebacks don't happen. Kills need to not count towards score, and the rate at which you score for holding a higher number of flags needs to go up (or rate for holding few flags goes down, or both).

Kills counting simply lets a winning team slaughter its way to victory without too much care for flag control late-game, and further discourages defenders from being too aggressive in trying to take flags. The rates should be adjusted because a winning team can simply sit on a couple flags late-game and still earn enough points to win. If the point rate for lower flags held was slowed down, while holding a higher number was sped up, there would be a much higher chance a team could cap most of the flags and turn the score around, while for the winning team simply sitting on one of two wouldn't necessarily ensure the win.

These two have to be fixed if we want to talk about comebacks, the Behemoths don't even factor in so long as these exist as they are.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 212

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

82

Saturday, February 11th 2017, 8:40am

The big issue in BF4 was that the bleed system made it so that a consistent flag majority made the tickets show a sort of landslide victory even if the fighting was fairly close. Lots of matches where you are taking flags and fighting well but the other team is always flipping that one extra flag. Fairly even match but you look like you got crushed.

The behemoth results in so few victories that if it flips a round it was because of an exceptional play, or combination of a strongly crewed behemoth plus a strong armor+squad push in combination. So it's very rare that anyone feels cheated because of an imbalanced mechanic.

The real issue to me is that it doesn't really DO anything in the meta sense of a round. It breaks the monotony up a bit (unless it's a blimp that eats fire from the uncap, E, D, B on grappa and it goes down before it can even reach B), and it farms kills. Thats it.
If you want to go on to how the score should "represent" the actual gameplay, I would argue that the ticket bleed system represents the actual round more. My premise is that the gamemode is called Conquest, not Sector Control. My definition of Conquest is that you are awarded from the control of the MAP, not individual points. At which point do you have control of the map? Capturing more than half the flags. So the score should reflect how often do you have more than half of the flags. If over the course of a round your team never had 3/5 flags captured at any time, your team never had control of the map, and should not be awarded any ticket bleed on the enemy team. As I have said before, BF1 conquest is a 64man domination.

Posts: 1,888

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

83

Saturday, February 11th 2017, 8:57am

The big issue in BF4 was that the bleed system made it so that a consistent flag majority made the tickets show a sort of landslide victory even if the fighting was fairly close. Lots of matches where you are taking flags and fighting well but the other team is always flipping that one extra flag. Fairly even match but you look like you got crushed.

The behemoth results in so few victories that if it flips a round it was because of an exceptional play, or combination of a strongly crewed behemoth plus a strong armor+squad push in combination. So it's very rare that anyone feels cheated because of an imbalanced mechanic.

The real issue to me is that it doesn't really DO anything in the meta sense of a round. It breaks the monotony up a bit (unless it's a blimp that eats fire from the uncap, E, D, B on grappa and it goes down before it can even reach B), and it farms kills. Thats it.
If you want to go on to how the score should "represent" the actual gameplay, I would argue that the ticket bleed system represents the actual round more. My premise is that the gamemode is called Conquest, not Sector Control. My definition of Conquest is that you are awarded from the control of the MAP, not individual points. At which point do you have control of the map? Capturing more than half the flags. So the score should reflect how often do you have more than half of the flags. If over the course of a round your team never had 3/5 flags captured at any time, your team never had control of the map, and should not be awarded any ticket bleed on the enemy team. As I have said before, BF1 conquest is a 64man domination.
The bleed system just makes ticket counts all or nothing. Sustain bleed equals a landslide even when the fighting is even but one team just had slightly better position. Holding a flag does not equal controlling the map. In fact the flags are oftened designed to be landmarks but poorly positiioned relative to other pieces of the map.

On the linear maps in BF1 where an early mid-flag cap and a sweep of the enemy fast movers locks in a 3:2 flag lead that is very difficult to break, it would be disastrous.

I've said this before, but I think conq is gimped because the maps were designed with Operations in mind, indeed the behemoth mechanic fits in far better with OPs than it does as a comeback crutch in Conq.

The design of these features just doesn't translate well to conq, which is a shame because the overwhelming player body plays classic conq, just like with every other BF title (on PC at least). Look at that pie-chart:

Battlefield 1 Insights - Detailed Population Statistics

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,607)

Posts: 6,965

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

84

Saturday, February 11th 2017, 8:59am

Back in BF4, we have a ticket bleed system. In order to keep the ticket bleed, your team has to hold the majority of flags (usually 3/5). This is not an easy task, as BF4's (and previous BF titles') map design is less linear, but with a wider front. Other than holding the central flag, you have to defend your gimme and the other flag. For example in Lumpini Garden, you have to make sure the other team does not flank your back 2 flags, IN ADDITION TO holding C. The front is extremely wide, and actually spans the entire diagonal of the map.


Keeping half + 1 flags was not a monumental effort.

BF3/4 had vehicles with extremely long range and/or extremely fast movement capabilities.

After securing half + 1, all you really had to do was shore up your defenses on what you possessed and let bleed do the work.

It was a system that rewarded turtling on your 1 flag lead.

If you want to go on to how the score should "represent" the actual gameplay, I would argue that the ticket bleed system represents the actual round more. My premise is that the gamemode is called Conquest, not Sector Control. My definition of Conquest is that you are awarded from the control of the MAP, not individual points. At which point do you have control of the map? Capturing more than half the flags. So the score should reflect how often do you have more than half of the flags. If over the course of a round your team never had 3/5 flags captured at any time, your team never had control of the map, and should not be awarded any ticket bleed on the enemy team. As I have said before, BF1 conquest is a 64man domination.


You have control of the map if you have all the points.

Possessing just half the map is not control of "the map." It is exactly control of however many flags you possess.

If my team has control of 2/5, the score should represent that I had 2/5 of the objectives not that I had 0.

The current score does reflect how much more of the map, or flags rather, you have in comparison to the other team.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.


Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 212

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

85

Saturday, February 11th 2017, 10:39pm

Noctyrne, my point is that its harder to keep half + 1 in previous BFs than in BF1 due to map design, and as you said due to the vehicles with fast movement. I would not say its "turtling" on half + 1 because the front is wide, but what do I know, I am not anywhere near competitive level.

We have different definition of what control is therefore we arrive at different conclusions about how the point system should behave. I believe control of a map is like control of a company. If you have 50.1% you have control. You either have control or you dont have control. And its not possible to have half control, just like it is not possible to be half pregnant. I believe your way of representing points is good for a gamemode called Sector Control (aka Domination), because that actually represents how many sectors your team controls. But anyways, it doesn't really matter what we believe, the devs have already made up their minds about that.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,586

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

86

Sunday, February 12th 2017, 1:19am

How can you argue that the BF4 system was just about turtling on your one flag lead, when the BF1 system basically enforces hard frontlines with combat waging between the center flags? If anything BF1 is about turtling in your 1 flag lead, because it is the only thing that matters.

In BF4 you had to constantly watch the flags which were attacked because losing one could turn the bleed around and make you lose the round in the end. In BF1 you just push up to the flag and sit there. If your gimme gets taken you just push up to the next or stay where you are if your lead is comfortable enough.

The monotony that people see is real, and while it gets breaken up by the behemoth, BF4 achieved the same with the old ticket system.

Conquest means to vanquish or overcome the enemy not enforcing a stalemate, if we are arguing semantics again. Right now we are playing sector control. :D

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,607)

Posts: 6,965

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

87

Sunday, February 12th 2017, 1:21am

In BF4 you had to constantly watch the flags which were attacked because losing one could turn the bleed around and make you lose the round in the end.


Maybe if your team's coordination was bad. Same thing will happen in the new system.

Also, the new system makes coming back from a 1 flag turtle much easier because the difference won't be huge.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.


Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,586

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

88

Sunday, February 12th 2017, 1:28am

In BF4 you had to constantly watch the flags which were attacked because losing one could turn the bleed around and make you lose the round in the end. In BF1 you just push up to the flag and sit there. If your gimme gets taken you just push up to the next or stay where you are if your lead is comfortable enough.


Maybe if your team's coordination was bad.

Also, the new system makes coming back from a 1 flag turtle much easier because the difference won't be huge.


That was quick. :D I am not so sure about that. It just sums up over time, I recall a round of Sinai, the last round I played two weeks ago. It was basically about C and D and who had the lead and while it was very close (20-50 tickets or so) it really summed up so that we had a difference of 200 with a behemoth. One tick every 5 seconds, for example, more than your enemy already gives 12 tickets every minute. If a round goes on for 25 minutes on average and the advantage is on one team for 15 minutes then the difference will be 180. Usually I daresay that the "defending" team has the ticket advantage from kills as well, but this is hard to measure I guess.

Posts: 1,888

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

89

Sunday, February 12th 2017, 5:19pm

We should be careful to distinguish between talking about gameplay design, map design, and accounting.

Practically speaking BF4 and BF1 have the same basic gameplay design. You need to keep control of flag things and be relatively efficient in killing your enemy vs dying. Neutralizing enemy tanks and air while making sure yours kill a lot of guys has measurable impact on matches, both in terms of raw ticket production and killing for flag control.

The only thing that has changed moving to BF1 is the means by which these things are account for. BF4 disproportionately accounted bleed, such that relatively close fought games appeared lopsided in tickets if the winning team consolidated major flag control for most of the match. I think BF1 has the opposite problem but it's overall better.

The issues of getting locked in to major flag control are a map design issue. Indeed it's been my observation that things only start pitching if the dominant team over-pushes and gives the losing team the space to maneuver and infiltrate. This is a problem with what I see as overall lackluster map design in BF1. But it's a different subject than the whole accounting thing. Really I don't think accounting is that interesting. Win/Loss is ultimately binary in the statistical sense, and what matters is your personal score next. IIRC the only way tickets factor into player consequence is from score mults at the end of the round, which can be substantial at 50% for big wins. But since progression is all early-level locked it matters little other than if you care about ranking.

Which brings us to the topic at hand: behemoths. Behemoths really only do one thing, and they do it poorly. Break up the monotony of a well turtled flag imbalance. The reason I sadly badly is that the response to a behemoth is the same 90% of the time. People drop what they are doing and go to gank mode (AA guns, HMGs, tanks change focus, people plant mines for the train). It blows up and then people go back to business as usual. It's not a very dynamic mechanic.