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: 225

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

211

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 12:28pm

Is there a problem with them trying to stop people from overstacking one class and trying to make balanced comps better?

I think encouraging diversity leads to more interesting gameplay than simply seeing one class.
The problem is pigeon holing people from overstacking, instead of letting people stack however they want and deal with the consequences. This has always been the spirit of the Battlefield franchise. If people want to stack Assaults, let them do it at the cost of missing Supports, Medics, and Scouts.

They would actually get punished if the minMags was set to 0 like an actual CD system.

Normally, the CD would tick passively and spawn you with 0 charges.

What the minMags field did was make sure you were not spawned in with 0 ammo but you still had to wait for your cooldowns as if you had never died.
They still started out with less AT gadgets than they would normally spawn in (on top of already spawning in with -1 AT Rocket compared to Live), which is a thing that shouldn't even happen. Again, all DICE had to do was implement the positives of the Ammo 2.0 system without any of the arbitrarily contradictory or negative aspects as I've mentioned, and very few people would've actually objected to it. I'm utterly baffled why they have to make something that EVERYONE stands to gain outweighed by things that further punish people for not being resupplied by a Support (through no fault of their own), while making people more independent from Supports for something complained about the most during infantry engagements... yeah.

EDIT: I also wanna add another reason why Ammo 2.0 flopped; suppression affecting resupply timers. DICE openly stated that they wanted Support to have the same level of team buffing abilities like the Medic, and I think they expected the same system copy/pasted from Medic to translate well for Support. With Medic though, it's already quite intuitive to the average player that if you're getting shot at, your health is going to stop regenerating, and that you need to move away from the combat area to be at 100%. This was another blunder that DICE didn't think thoroughly for Support and resupplying, because how is the average player supposed to make the leap from being unable to regenerate HP to being unable to refill their AT gadgets under fire? There was nothing implemented to communicate this. Things like Medic spotting dead teammates and shouting to them that they're attempting to revive them is a great example of a new feature being conveyed without having to read a FAQ or patch notes.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Ritobasu" (Apr 20th 2017, 12:46pm)


VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(1,632)

Posts: 2,425

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

212

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 12:48pm

I agree that taking ammo from a support is a very casual workaround to a non-existing problem. The BF1/4 system is way better, firstly you will die anyway before you are depleted, then there are enough supports out there that drop crates and pouches and if they are not there are other ways to alert them.

The only problem I see is the mindset. It is not the Support players fault that you depleted all your ammo. It is also not the support's job to actively seek out the other 31 players to give them ammo. If you are out of ammo you are responsible for getting it back. And there are mutliple ways to do so. Locate a crate, locate a support, locate a kit to pick up or redeploy.

Well yeah this non-issue can be annoying at times, when you can not get ammo, when you need it, but this could have been solved much easier, by simply removing the pouch, letting crates last longer, being able to deploy more than two crates, adding passive resupply after walking over a crate, improving the UI, minimap and communication to make localizing easier, and a dozen other things. No magic resupply needed.

And Ammo 2.0 had a lot of issues, but the marketing they did for it was immensly wrong. At a time where everyone was complaining about grenade spam they introduced a system that suddenly made grenades available at all times, by 64 people and introducing maps and a mode that creates a lot of incentives for throwing grenades.
Also it is a bit shortsighted by them to include passive regen to make support relevant, because you would still die before your ammo was depleted and to address that they had the glorious idea of spawning with less ammo. Suddenly you are punished if you are playing the Assault and throw yourself at a tank over and over again to bring it down. At the same time you are changing the support-assault meta I explained earlier, since you know desperately need a support to engage armour and do your designated job. So now the Assault HAS to fill up the ammo of the Assaults and actively has to seek these guys out, making their role purely defined by one gadget. At the same time though, passive resupply creates less incentive to actively seek a crate for other classes. The Scout now has less downtime on the flare, the support is quite versatile with the limpet/crossbow and the mortar, and the medic might leave out the syringe for the rifle grenade. This is passively hurting the already low communication and teamplay between players.

Also the whole concept was rather complicated and much harder to grasp. So it was tested and found to not be worthwhile, no need to further talk about it.

Teamplay, and that is taking it back on topic (sort of) should be easy and incentivized an a very low level. You are on an objective, you use your teamplay tool. You get instant gratification through points, feedback etc. So that it becomes an instinct for everyone. The fact that you can throw your mates a pouch at 10m is such a feature. Aim at him, press Q or 3 and get points. Simple, efficient, and still requires activity. Lovely elegance. Squad perks from BF3 are another example for this. Simple thing, has effect on the whole squad.

And to add to the Fighter/Tank meta. BF1 fails to reward you appropriately for thinking out of the box and/or on your own unless you have a vehicle or have very good aim. Self-dependency is encouraged on the top of the food chain only at the cost of the people below that aiming threshold. That is why the game is frustrating.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "VincentNZ" (Apr 20th 2017, 12:54pm)


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(8,982)

Posts: 6,847

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 18

  • Send private message

213

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 12:52pm

This has always been the spirit of the Battlefield franchise. If people want to stack Assaults, let them do it at the cost of missing Supports, Medics, and Scouts.


They still could stack though. That would never have gone away.

If they want to forgo Support or Medic and stack Assault, that would have been possible.

However, a diverse comp would actually be meaningful.

They still started out with less AT gadgets than they would normally spawn in (on top of already spawning in with -1 AT Rocket compared to Live), which is a thing that shouldn't even happen. Again, all DICE had to do was implement the positives of the Ammo 2.0 system without any of the arbitrarily contradictory or negative aspects as I've mentioned, and very few people would've actually objected to it. I'm utterly baffled why they have to make something that EVERYONE stands to gain outweighed by things that further punish people for not being resupplied by a Support (through no fault of their own), while making people more independent from Supports for something complained about the most during infantry engagements... yeah.


CD reductions were planned but not carried out.

The resupply speed was supposed to have been based on average lifetime on Conquest and set up so that you would have the same ammo expenditure as you do in retail right now. Basically, the cooldowns would have approached Average CQ Lifetime divided by retail ammo count.

The system would have really shown how regen and scarcity could work together.

Too bad the plug was pulled from a knee-jerk reaction.

The only problem I see is the mindset. It is not the Support players fault that you depleted all your ammo. It is also not the support's job to actively seek out the other 31 players to give them ammo. If you are out of ammo you are responsible for getting it back. And there are mutliple ways to do so. Locate a crate, locate a support, locate a kit to pick up or redeploy.


Indeed, personal resource management is great.

It can only exist in a resource system that permits it. As in proper sinks and sources.

Health is something you can personally manage. You lose it from engagements you decide to conduct and can replenish it yourself by staying out of combat long enough. A Medic can expedite the healing process by offering their tools.

Ammo is something you can personally manage. You lose it from engagements you decide to conduct and can replenish it yourself by... oh wait. That's right. You can't actually replenish it yourself. Because there is no reliable source, there is actually a non-functioning resource system here and you can't really manage it aside from "be conservative." A "be conservative" policy is barely a management strategy by itself. It's literally clinging on to the resource and never actually liking when you expend it.

Or in the case of Battlefield, so much of the resource is provided that you die before you ever spend it all. Real great resource management system here.

Locating a Scout kit isn't going to give me more ATRG shots. Locating a Medic kit isn't going to give me more Flares or K Bullets. Why do people still bring up kit-switching as if it is an actual answer? It effectively is just you getting a new set of resources that may have nothing to do with your previous set or what you actually need or want to manage.

adding passive resupply after walking over a crate


We don't need to walk to Medkits or Bandage Pouches to heal.

It was and would have continued to be fine to not have to walk to a crate or pouch to resupply.

Suddenly you are punished if you are playing the Assault and throw yourself at a tank over and over again to bring it down.


So having a bad strategy doesn't work anymore? Oh my.

The alternative is what we have right now: to give the Assault player a full supply of ammo each spawn and wait for it, he just fires as much as he can because he has a short time to do it. And if he dies, no worries. He gets a full stock when he respawns and he gets to once again unload his AT ammo as fast as possible.

Top resource management right there.

At the same time you are changing the support-assault meta I explained earlier, since you know desperately need a support to engage armour and do your designated job. So now the Assault HAS to fill up the ammo of the Assaults and actively has to seek these guys out, making their role purely defined by one gadget. At the same time though, passive resupply creates less incentive to actively seek a crate for other classes. The Scout now has less downtime on the flare, the support is quite versatile with the limpet/crossbow and the mortar, and the medic might leave out the syringe for the rifle grenade. This is passively hurting the already low communication and teamplay between players.


Not really? Passive regen exists so that the Ammo Box is not absolutely necessary but provides a very attractive boost.

And as previously stated, there were going to be reductions in the CDs so that you wouldn't have to wait as long to get ammo back.

The answer to "ammo doesn't come back quickly enough" wasn't "scrap the system." It was "decrease the time ammo takes to come back."

Also the whole concept was rather complicated and much harder to grasp.


No, it really wasn't.
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™.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "NoctyrneSAGA" (Apr 20th 2017, 1:09pm)


Posts: 225

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

214

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 3:58pm

Quoted

They still could stack though. That would never have gone away.

If they want to forgo Support or Medic and stack Assault, that would have been possible.

However, a diverse comp would actually be meaningful.

A diverse comp is already meaningful if you want a general all-purpose squad to handle everything. DICE implementing Ammo 2.0 is a hamfisted way to force diversity on an absurd notion that "Assault/Medic/Support/Scout >>> 4x Assaults when fighting tanks". It makes no distinction between Assaults who spam their gadgets mindlessly vs those who are trying their best to serve their team role: demolishing enemy armor.

Quoted

So having a bad strategy doesn't work anymore? Oh my.

A class doing his intended role and dying repeatedly during the process is now bad strategy? Really activates my almonds

Quoted

No, it really wasn't.

Yes, it really was hard to grasp. You've got independent resupply timers for primary weapons, gadgets, and grenades without any way of knowing when they'll magically appear loaded, you have a suppression mechanic introduced to ammo resupply that isn't communicated at all to the player, and now people who die with all their gadgets expended respawn with them partially filled and no explicable reason why (for the sake of promoting "good resource management" and making Support even more of a necessity).


It might've been a neat system with further internal testing and thought before being presented on CTE, but Ammo 2.0 failing lays squarely on the developers' shoulders for flopping the introduction to begin with. On top of that, implementing all of Ammo 2.0 with its positives and negatives would be such a radical departure from the standard BF formula everyone knows so well, I can't think of anything else but it being a disaster. At a time when BF1 should be focusing on bringing disillusioned players back to recoup its dwindling population, a mechanic that completely changes how the game flows and can be perceived as a net nerf to AT gadgets would not be welcome.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(1,632)

Posts: 2,425

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

215

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 4:48pm

@NoctyrneSaga

I still can not handle multi-quotes here, so I will deliver a general reply.

First off, I do not see the analogy of health and ammo, because health is something you need in every engagement and is therefore needed to passively replenish, so that you can meet on the same terms, especially in a game with such a high TTK like BF1. Ammo and especially gadget ammo are not mandatory and quite situational. You do not need to have a flare, your class works without it. However you should have your gadgets when you need to fulfil your specific role, i.e. when you want to engage tanks as Assault. It should also be enough ammo to make a difference, too.

I do not see any resource management at all with ammo 2.0. Either you have an absurd amount of it at all times, or you are severely lacking it. Basically depending on the availability of an acitve support at your position to put constant pressure on enemy armour. I do not see that happening in a public environment.
And yes I do not see an Assault trying to engage a tank and dying in the process as a bad idea, I find that dedicated and I admire that. That is why I naturally think it is the most awful idea to punish a player for this. It is his basic role and he tries hard to achieve it. That is the core of teamplay.
It is just common sense. I am less incentivized to risk my life in engaging a tank, when I can not inflict a meaningful amount of damage. If I need more and more people to destroy a tank or make him retreat, I will wait for another guy to start the engagement.

So all ammo 2.0 did, was make the life harder for the public players that work for the team on their own, or not in a full squad. Nothing changed for the Zerg, teamplay was not incentivised there because nothing changed, and only the "skilled" people profited. So you had a couple of guys that are self-dependent and many semi-dedicated players that got screwed.

And of course the system is more complicated. You have a ton of gadgets, each with their own passive resupply and crate resupply timer, different capacities for each gadget and depending on suppression. It is also hard to explain why one would suddenly spawn with less ammo than before, but can suddenly carry more when he picks up stuff from a small crate lying around.

And I am sure it worked well in internal testing and I see why it is so popular on this site. It is a typical idea that sounds good on paper, and would work in a highly competitive environment, too. However we have a highly dynamic game with 64 players interacting with one another or not. It is totally absurd to expect this system to work on a game that is only focused around public play and in this scale.
It is the paradox of BF1 really, the incredibly detailed, coldly calculated gameplay mechanics, paired with such barebone social features, public play focus and lack of anything close to a game philosophy. Nothing to identify, anyway. Does DICE really think that the game is only played by symthic users, and/or guys that otherwise play Overwatch, Guild Wars or LoL?

Nah Ammo 2.0 was too drastic for this kind of game, BF1 is too big. It is gone now, and it might have pushed DICE to rething who it is that is playing their game.

Edit: It is also good to have them see, how a marketing stunt like CTE can backfire as well. Also if they'd been really sure that Ammo 2.0 was good for the game they should have fine-tuned it in internal testing, put it on live and leave it there. If you want something to change you need to either trickle it in over a long period of time, so that nobody really cares or notices it, or you put it in once and make it hit hard, if it is indeed the right thing. Make change happen so fast that people are still perplexed and with no chance of the old system coming back and people will adapt after the initial shitstorm.

Battlefront which will likely resemble Battlefield 1 more than the last Battlefront is a blank slate, so they can try out all their wet dreams there and nobody can really be pissed off, if they do some crazy shit there. So if DICE really thinks passive regen is the way to go they can create their own new franchise of Overbattlewars of Legends.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "VincentNZ" (Apr 20th 2017, 4:57pm)


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(8,982)

Posts: 6,847

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 18

  • Send private message

216

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 9:31pm

"Assault/Medic/Support/Scout >>> 4x Assaults when fighting tanks". It makes no distinction between Assaults who spam their gadgets mindlessly vs those who are trying their best to serve their team role: demolishing enemy armor.


Being better at general purpose engagements isn't that great.

If bringing a diverse comp hurts more than it helps when engaging, then class stacking will continue to be the obvious answer.

There's no point in bringing a Medic to keep Assaults alive or a Support to keep them resupplied if the drop in DPS is too great.

The other three classes do not have AT damage worth losing an Assault over unless that damage can be made up somehow. Like through faster resupply.

Yes, it really was hard to grasp. You've got independent resupply timers for primary weapons, gadgets, and grenades without any way of knowing when they'll magically appear loaded, you have a suppression mechanic introduced to ammo resupply that isn't communicated at all to the player, and now people who die with all their gadgets expended respawn with them partially filled and no explicable reason why (for the sake of promoting "good resource management" and making Support even more of a necessity).

And of course the system is more complicated. You have a ton of gadgets, each with their own passive resupply and crate resupply timer, different capacities for each gadget and depending on suppression. It is also hard to explain why one would suddenly spawn with less ammo than before, but can suddenly carry more when he picks up stuff from a small crate lying around.


They did say that they were going to put in UI to indicate when something was resupplying.

This UI element exists right now for vehicles and was also present for BF4.

Too bad the plug got pulled.

On top of that, implementing all of Ammo 2.0 with its positives and negatives would be such a radical departure from the standard BF formula everyone knows so well, I can't think of anything else but it being a disaster. At a time when BF1 should be focusing on bringing disillusioned players back to recoup its dwindling population, a mechanic that completely changes how the game flows and can be perceived as a net nerf to AT gadgets would not be welcome.


Implying Ammo 2.0 was not going to help with that issue.

Players don't stick around to play terrible games unless they are masochists (though given the BF community's propensity for it, I shouldn't be surprised).

Improving the core gameplay is a single step towards fixing many of the push factors BF1 has right now.

Others include team balance that works, better matchmaking, and making players feel rewarded for progression. Expecting the gameplay department to go about handling what other departments should be doing or to wait for other departments to finish their work before starting Ammo 2.0 is absurd.

You do not need to have a flare, your class works without it. However you should have your gadgets when you need to fulfil your specific role, i.e. when you want to engage tanks as Assault.


This sentence contradicts itself.

The point of Scout is better spotting capability compared to the other three classes.

It cannot perform this role using the Flare Gun without ammo.

Either you have an absurd amount of it at all times, or you are severely lacking it.


You have an absurd amount of it right now because there is no reliable source. Having scarcity without a source is stupid.

Scarcity with regen is fine because you have a consistent source.

And yes I do not see an Assault trying to engage a tank and dying in the process as a bad idea, I find that dedicated and I admire that. That is why I naturally think it is the most awful idea to punish a player for this. It is his basic role and he tries hard to achieve it. That is the core of teamplay.


It is not about the effort you put in. It's about the results you can achieve.

This isn't The Little Engine That Could.

Also, if they die before expending AT ammo, guess what. They're not spawned with minMags.

minMags is only used if the ammo they died with is less than minMags. Therefore, weapons with minMag like the ATRG actually did not punish you as hard as it could.

This means if the dumbass died with 2 ATRG shots, they'd respawn with 2. If you died with 0 ATRG shots left, you'd respawn with 1 instead of 0.



What I'm seeing here is complaints about a system that wasn't finished and was alien to players that never ventured into other genres beyond shooters.

I see a distinct lack of understanding of how cooldowns work in the context of resource management as well.

Basically, players have no idea what they are talking about and were not willing to learn.



The best example of this lack of knowledge is the complaint that cooldowns reduce resource management: "players will mindlessly spam because they'll eventually get it back anyways."

Burning your own cooldowns simply because they are available will get you killed when you actually need said cooldown.

For example, if I burn all my movement skills and gap closers outside combat, I will fail to chase anyone once I am actually in combat.

Of course, these people pretty much don't play with cooldown based games so they never believed it.

But for people that do play other games, they would actually say "I'm totally fine with this. I already play DOTA, HotS, LoL, etc. Seems like a pretty cool idea."
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: 3,138

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

217

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 10:37pm

It might've been a neat system with further internal testing and thought before being presented on CTE, but Ammo 2.0 failing lays squarely on the developers' shoulders for flopping the introduction to begin with. On top of that, implementing all of Ammo 2.0 with its positives and negatives would be such a radical departure from the standard BF formula everyone knows so well, I can't think of anything else but it being a disaster. At a time when BF1 should be focusing on bringing disillusioned players back to recoup its dwindling population, a mechanic that completely changes how the game flows and can be perceived as a net nerf to AT gadgets would not be welcome.


Nailed all three points, you're exactly right.

I have a shocking, incredible theory that people play Battlefield to play Battlefield, not an RPG/MOBA, not Overwatch, not CounterStrike or similar pro/comp shooter styles, but Battlefield. Yet a lot of devs-slash-influential-people in BF1's development are extremely intent on pushing their own vision and preferences into the game, visions that are those of Battlefield veterans, but of "BF should play more like something else".

That's not to say innovation and new ideas are inherently bad, but the death of Ammo 2.0 (and dislike for other elements) hasn't come from supposed ultra-conservative, change-fearing die-hards like its supporters would like to believe. Really, the biggest problem has been, and continues to be, those people telling the community that it's objectively better, that people who dislike it are casuals, idiots, don't understand it, and are objectively wrong. There's an extreme sense of elitism surrounding a lot of these novel ideas, when all they are is a different way of doing things, only better if you prefer the results that they give.

This sense of "we know better than you" has put off a lot of people that might have otherwise supported or accepted the system. Just because you can design a well-thought-out system doesn't make you a good marketer and people person, as some have been finding out. Or rather, not finding out because they're still insisting its the "dumb community's" fault.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(1,632)

Posts: 2,425

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

218

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 11:02pm

Of course it is about the effort you put in, not about the result. The guy throwing himself into the line of fire is very likely trying to make a difference. The result is what is irrelevant and the effort is the basic element of teamplay. This thing should be encouraged, not trying to be the last guy that throws his grenade to get the points and kills or to not engage because the reward is not worth the effort. You are calling that "being a dumbass". ANd he is actively punished for it, either way, if he has two left he will still spawn with less ammo than a fresh one.

You are only seeing your POV, the well-educated, elite in knowing the extra mechanic but oblivious of the main player base.

And yes cooldowns does reduce resource management, especially with the magic grenades and especially with people that tend to live longer. It became obvious when you watched any gameplay video. MarbleDucks video on Ammo 2.0 was a real eye-opener for me. He argued that passive regen for grenades was better for certain reasons, and of course it was, because he threw them all the time. The cooldown was irrelevant. You are assuming that people throw it whenever the CD is up. The important thing is that they could throw it whenever they wanted to. Before MarbleDuck had one grenade in his whole life, which could very well be 5 minutes or longer. Then there was suddenly no choice involved anymore. That is not resource management, that is irrelevance of a system.
And you must have noticed it yourself. I certainly threw more grenades than before, in the knowledge that I would have one so soon it would not matter. And all the talk about less grenades being thrown is futile as well, because when you can throw one in every firefight, but the spam in chokepoints decreased the perception is still that you get hit more by grenades and this is then equally true.

I played my share of Guild Wars and similar games, but even there competitive gaming makes up a minimal amount of the playerbase, most people still play for fun and will never touch the high skill ceilings. Has it crossed your mind that people play BF because of it's simple elegance of a shooter? While we are at it. Dawn of War III just comes out and they have an intriguing resource management. Why not make flags give resources, with which we can then purchase vehicles and elite classes? After all it is just another successful mechanic from another genre. People have a distinct view of Battlefield and want it to play out that way.

By the way, I acknowledged that in an enclosed testing area Ammo 2.0 in full implementation could have worked. However we are not in a secluded experimental area and if it had not been for the CTE the playerbase would have never known about it. So they decided to test the waters, and it was too cold. So either, they were not convinced at all, that this system would have worked, or they just did a half-assed job. In any case, this mechanic is dead for this game and any more argument about it is futile, the two sides will not get together. Compromise is not a very prominent thing here.

Posts: 1,601

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

219

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 11:36pm

I don't know why I keep having to repeat this:

Because of the multi-hit damage resistance of armor plus it's mobility and ability to dish out OHKs at a fairly high rate, high burst damage wins tank fights. It especially wins tank fights that are support by a repair gunner, where the tank can indefinitely repair through 1-2 weapons attacking continuously. Point finale.

Since burst damage is unambiguously the best attack strategy, the correct way to deal with an enemy tank is pile on fire from every derp weapon at your team's disposal. The ideal squad loadout for fighting tanks if you can grab anything at your team's disposal is actually tanker class + support repairs + a bunch of assaults.

If you do not have a friendly tank, the ideal number of assaults is N+1 up to 5. Burst damage always wins out, and if the tank is competent you'll probably suffer 1-2 casualties anyway and those guys can come back as medic to flesh out the squad's general utility after you kill said tank.

Fighting other armor solo in anything but a double gunned landship is actually very risky. If you're both at 100HP its basically a race to mag dump. The TTK is thus very slow and the fight is largely static which means there is lots of time for some sort of infantry fire to edge the fight one way or another. So even for tanks, the correct number of AT guns to bring to a fight is N+1 and assaults are the best source of AT guns in the field.

Support is already HIGHLY relevant to tank combat because they provide the external repair support for tanks and their participation in a fight can generally determine how that fight goes down. If you want to make support more relevant to fighting tanks, get more people to repair. Support also has the limpet and HE mortar. Two great AT gadgets.

Medic does not need to be relevant in fighting tanks directly, there is no balancing law that says that all classes need to be equally relevant in all things. Hell I think that's actually a terrible premise for balancing.

IMO, ammo 2.0 comes from a fundamentally flawed premise: namely it seeks to make support relevant by making it the throttle for AT ammo (as opposed to it's current relevance with three excellent vehicle related gadgets). Net result is evidently going to be less available shots over time which is principally balanced by making those shots deal more average damage. This is in fact a more complex and more troublesome balance to fix a problem I don't see as existing. Hell it won't even remove the "burst damage wins" N+1 paradigm. It'll just make it more frustrating for everyone (tanks taking more average damage because of the 32 enemy players - individual players running short on ammo).

It also assumes that class stacking (at least in squad) is a static thing. In reality, assault stacking lasts just the tank fight, a couple of people are throw aways and then the dead spawn in with more diversity. I've seen way more class stacking to get SMGs/Buck guns for Argonne, Vaux, etc than I have to fight tanks. Outside of CQB maps Assault stacking on average is a non-problem.

I think the overall premise of ammo 2.0 is alright: namely making ammo actually relevant outside of the 1% kill streaks. But it's messy, byzantine and requires some tortured logic as applied to AT combat.

It also unambiguously shifts the game more into the - you must have coherent squad play to do ok, paradigm I've been yammering on about in my recent posts. I actually think this is a good thing and rather like it, I don't think it's a good thing for the community. Instead of being "you must have healer to start playing", it becomes "you must have non apathetic friends to avoid misery". Just not viable with the realities of the player base, one that constantly whines about casualfield but actually wants anything but.

Posts: 3,138

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

220

Thursday, April 20th 2017, 11:44pm

I've definitely been throwing more grenades, and also getting more hits, more kills, as well as gun kills by flushing people out, distracting them, or making them panic. Every time I want a grenade it's just there; bottomless ammo with a low rate of fire.

In fact, I've been running a highly amusing Support setup of Crossbow, Mortar, and Gas Grenades, for maximum enemy annoyance. And I can't run out of anything but my MG, which doesn't happen because you get so much ammo, without actually using any Ammo gadgets. Far more grenades, no ammo gadgets. That was the goal, right? Because this is what the vast majority of Support players would have looked like.


All this talk of resource management is missing that there are many different forms of resource management. One form is management of limited resources. You get X uses of Y. Use them wisely. That's also resource management, and is neither a better or worse concept, simply a matter of preference and style.

"Oh but then you can just redeploy for ammo". Guess what? People don't do that, even people that understand that you can. Because the number of people that play with the "Exploit ALL the things" mindset (which is also not The One True Way To Play™) numbers in the hundreds, out of all the whole of the community. You don't design around exploits, you fix them. You don't implement a massive change and new system to appease a tiny subset of the community so they can keep tryharding, you fix their exploits. Make redeploying and suiciding to get ammo harder and less appealing. Maybe it can't be made perfect, but as long as it's small enough of a factor and annoying enough to perform, it will be a non-factor.