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

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(1,606)

Posts: 2,408

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

241

Friday, April 21st 2017, 11:20am

Ah that was not the point I was trying to make. The key factor of a game still is to have fun. I am all for winning and rewarding and stuff, but alongside having fun is the key factor, even when you lose. Otherwise, what is the point? Games are supposed to berecreational. Now I firmly believe in scores and stats and telling a player that doing certain things is beneficial, and to reward effort and actual results. But telling people they are shit and make the game frustrating for everyone but the top 10%. That has no recreational value anymore.

Or another analogy. I used to play Tennis, I was an average player. When we had competitions I was put at place 5 of 6, which happened to be a bit low. So I won more than I lost, but especially in the doubles I would have a lot of fun simply by playing. That feeling is missing in BF1.

It turns a bit when you factor in professionality or competitivity. If DICE paid me to play BF1 I would do so. Alas, they do not, but I paid them alongside thousands of others to get something that I and the others enjoy. Similar to a fee for joining a sports team. However I am also a customer and bought a product with a certain expectation of the fun it should give me. Obviously it failed to deliver this for me and many others out there. That is a problem for both ends. The reasons are different, Ammo 2.0 is just a mere detail of why people do not have fun.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(8,982)

Posts: 6,844

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 18

  • Send private message

242

Friday, April 21st 2017, 11:39am

Well, I am sure this is not what you want to teach your kids, right? You might want to rephrase that. Effort is always a valuable asset and should not be dismissed in all aspects of life. Geez I sound like a communist, but it is true.


The last time I was told or even got an A for effort was... never.

Nor do I expect any boss to accept "I tried" as a valid excuse for why I shouldn't be fired for poor performance.

That is simply ludicrous.

Results are what matter. Effort isn't a substitute for it.

Also nobody suddenly comes along to chess players, wipes the board and suddenly declares that the game is better without the dame, but with the implementation of the Mesmer, the new figure that can jump ten squares in a spiral movement. I wonder what the Grandmasters would say to that. Let alone the guys that play Chess with their greatgrandfather to pass time until it is time for cake.


I'd surmise they'd give you a weird look about why you are suddenly changing the rules and humor you if they are patient (wish the BF community did the second part more).



Also, everyone seems to have completely missed the point I was making about the grandmaster and novice.

The fact of the matter is that the novice simply does not have the experience to make qualified judgments about the game.

No one should be taking comments from a novice who doesn't know how to play seriously. Would you seriously believe a novice saying "The King is overpowered" or "Queens are useless" when they haven't put in the effort into learning how to play?

That is what I was getting at and clarified in a subsequent post.



DICE chose to listen to players who didn't put the effort into learning how to play. And almost like clockwork, things go wrong.

Anyway, I am happy to see that the new Conquest system is indeed deemed worse than before. I argued heavy against it, but was adamantly for the implementation of kills to the tickets.


Yes, because it is the result of a half-assed blend of two separate systems.

The Beta era version showed great promise but DICE caved to players whining about how kills did not have an immediate effect on the score.

Flick on the "Kills Count For Score" switch without changing anything else and of course things start falling apart.



The current CQ system is dumb. The Beta version was fine.

DICE, instead of seeing if restoring the Beta version to see if that will fix the problem, has seemingly elected to go back to a system that it already has plenty of experience working with to "test how it works."

They are doing the same thing with Ammo 2.0. Instead of waiting for a WIP system to actually finish development, they are pulling it due to knee-jerk reaction despite its already promising performance.

The guy that went 51-49 on the flags was as good to have on the team as the guy going 51-14.


Not even close. The guy going 51-49 gave away 35 tickets to the enemy team over the guy who went 51-14.

The K/D ratio itself even indicates one is more valuable than the other.

You cannot just ignore the cost they incurred. This is just absurd.
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 1 times, last edit by "NoctyrneSAGA" (Apr 21st 2017, 12:23pm)


VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(1,606)

Posts: 2,408

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

243

Friday, April 21st 2017, 1:24pm

Well let us just say you will not hit your kids over the head if they fail to achieve YOUR goals. I am sure this is what you mean.

Well, for everything else in life, especially in the job personal capability is important, no doubt. Nobody expects you to use an excuse. As an example: I am getting my doctoral degree, this is made possible by my own capabilities as well as my boss, who gave me the tools and the assignment in the first place. If he had just given me a pen then the effort, albeit futile, would still be valiant.
You also do not give a mechanic apprentice a screwdriver, tell him to disassemble an engine and beat him around the block if he fails. If my kid wants to play tennis I do not give him a cricket bat and send him to court either. You need the appropriate tools and education to achieve goals, well go figure if DICE did so in this game.

The chess analogy holds up even better, because it is still a game. If Garri Kasparow came to any chess player good or bad and tells you that the new spiral-moving figure was the hot shit for the game you would likely still respond: I would like the game to be played as it is now, thank you very much. That is independent of your own skill.
I, as a novice player can make assessments about it just as well as any other player, I have the same value. Because, if the grandmasters make the rules they affect my game as well, and this is the core issue. A round of Blitz-Schach might be fun in a tournament, but is not very feasible if my hobby is to play a couple of rounds at the park every week.
To bring it back to BF, Ammo 2.0 is an example for brute-forcing a possibly competitive feature ruleset onto everybody. And of course the amount of competitive/professional/non-recreational players is so marginally small, as in every other game or sport, that it is better to make them rules up by themselves. Basically how it is handled in any sport.

I can agree with your beta assessment, with small adjustments. Either change it and have it work, or do not bother to change. Keep the old conquest system or implement a new one. Keep the old resupply system or invent something new. MOst importantly, if you want to change stuff DO NOT do it mid-way in the game cycle, if you are not willing to see it through. If you want a fundamental change, wait for the new game, or even better, a new franchise. So why was ammo 2.0 was pulled back? Not because of the community, the outrage was predictable. It was pulled back because it was not the best idea or feature, shown by the fact that they did not have the guts to pull it off. DICE is the sole responsible factor, not anyone or anything else.

If you want an example from another game: I do not know if anyone of you plays Ark, a survival game with dino-taming. The devs figured that players basically only used flying dinos because they are so convenient as you do not have to worry about T-Rexes and such on the ground. So they made flying dinos rather unuseable, they are now slow, can not carry a lot and constantly have to land. This was followed by a huge outcry but the Devs made it clear that is not really going to change. Now that is a risky move, too, but they had balls and were really thinking that they are right.

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,137)

Posts: 1,505

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

244

Friday, April 21st 2017, 4:55pm

My personal problem with BF1 is that there seems to be a confusion as to the design direction. There are some elements of the game that are brilliant when considered in a competitive setting, but the game is fundamentally a non-competitive game.

I think a large number of problems in BF1, or perceived problems, can be explained through this: the vehicle pick system, the longer TTK, infantry vs vehicle (especially plane) balance, Ammo 2.0, the Automatico/Hellriegel being OP.

All these elements work fine if everyone could communicate well or had high enough levels of skill. But in your regular pub, that simply isn't the case.
something something Model 8 bestgun


How to ice an A-91

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...)

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

PP-2000 added. Y'know, it's not that bad....

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.

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.

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.

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

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.

Reload times are wash.

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?

H-Recoil Spread, 0.525 vs. 0.45, advantage PP2k.

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

@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: 216

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

245

Friday, April 21st 2017, 6:03pm

Let's pretend for a second that neither BF4 or BF1's Conquest ticket system benefited from enemy respawns. BF4's ticket-bleed communicates much more clearly that scores are dynamic, and what looks like a huge lead of 300-400 tickets can easily be caught up to, and the losing team's ticket bleed completely halted. Yes, BF1's ticket-gain system accurately depicts a team's map control throughout the entire game, but it also gives the illusion of games being "close" when they are not. I question why this is actually needed, when the net result is a loss either way? To me, it's a feel good pat on the back, a "You were only behind by 100-150 tickets, here's your sticker!" On top of this, it's much harder to guage if the game is salvagable for the team behind in tickets, because everyone is constantly gaining tickets. For that reason alone, I consider BF1's system to be inferior.

Oh yeah, the Grandmasters that you hold yourself and DICE up to? The ones that accepted the community idea of making kills affect ticket-gains, instead of replying with a vigorous defense of why it wouldn't work, or at least toning down how much of an impact kills have on tickets. You have a Chess Grandmaster who changes the rules of the game, and someone (who's not an ignorant plebian, and not unreasonably) asks for certain features from the previous version of Chess to return. The Chess Grandmaster grants their request, and suddenly this new version of Chess is completely unenjoyable. Who really is the responsible party for breaking the game now?

Another reason why DICE changed to ticket-gains was to create a clearer threshold of introducing Behemoths in Conquest, another complete blunder. I believe you touted this feature as something similar to "rage meters" from fighting games, except we can all count with the fingers on our hands (or single hand) the times a Behemoth actually turned a game around 6 months after launch. Expecting a fighting game mechanic to translate successfully into a 64 player Battlefield game demonstrates the massive disconnect between theorycrafting/expecting a game to play a certain way VS things that actually happen in pubs.

So no, this isn't a simple matter of the uneducated masses not being able to grasp radical innovations in Battlefield gameplay design. It's DICE lacking a coherent vision for the game, and having really fantastic ideas but executing them in the most flawed and asinine ways possible and expecting everyone to play along with their puppet show. BF1's Conquest tickets epitomizes this. Ammo 2.0 flopping epitomizes this. The myraid of other completely stupid/frustrating and avoidable things that still exist (some of them thought to be gone for good since BF4's CTE) just serve as reminders that DICE is completely lost.


EDIT:

I also want to chime in on the absolutely ridiculous notion that an Assault throwing everything they have at a tank and dying in the process is dismissed as "bad strategy" for "dumbasses," and it's simply wasteful effort without getting results. All this really seems to me is a piss poor defense of Ammo 2.0's biggest flaw. And why?

"Because Assaults should have to deal with resource management... in Ammo 2.0".

We've already stated our case why this awful for the current infantry vs. tank meta. I've yet to hear a convincing counter-argument on why Assaults should have to suffer in this system, and why they should not spawn endlessly with maximum ATRG and Nade capacity to continue their job harassing tanks. And before you say "Vehicles have been using Ammo 2.0 since BF4, it's high time infantry gadgets do as well," or "Mortar/UCAV works under Ammo 2.0 and stopped abuse," these are not convincing arguments. Vehicles don't operate in the same way as infantry, and the ATRG/Nade are not the same as BF4's Mortar/UCAV.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Ritobasu" (Apr 21st 2017, 7:15pm)


  • "JSLICE20" started this thread

Posts: 3,080

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

246

Friday, April 21st 2017, 7:27pm

To bring it back to BF, Ammo 2.0 is an example for brute-forcing a possibly competitive feature ruleset onto everybody.

Not even! I'm far, far, FAR from a comp player and I was thrilled to see the would-be implementation of Ammo 2.0. It just makes the game work better in every possible manner knowing that you CAN get your class-specific, ammo-dependent gadgets back reliably and consistently. The fact of the matter is that resupplying from another player is neither reliable nor consistent enough. Just the concept alone enables more fluid gameplay let alone actual implementation, but the closed-minded wrote it off as "magical" and "contrary to teamwork" when it really creates more potential for teamwork to occur. Gadget ammo is scarce. Regenerable gadget ammo could've finally made gadgets potent and truly role-defining, but now they're stuck being largely mediocre because it delays or prohibits a player from dealing with a gadget-necessary threat if they happen to be out of ammo, which is usually 30s after spawning in each life (after the Deployment) if they constantly play in or near the action. How people don't see this is mind-boggling.

DICE is the sole responsible factor, not anyone or anything else.

I'm going to give you an analogy: in a heterosexual relationship we have one man and one woman. In this case DICE is the man and EA is the woman. The woman is always right and the man must always agree with the woman and say she is right otherwise she may withhold sex or leave him altogether. His balls are rolling around in her purse. The man does whatever the woman tells him according to her agenda.

The devs figured that players basically only used flying dinos because they are so convenient as you do not have to worry about T-Rexes and such on the ground. So they made flying dinos rather unuseable, they are now slow, can not carry a lot and constantly have to land. This was followed by a huge outcry but the Devs made it clear that is not really going to change. Now that is a risky move, too, but they had balls and were really thinking that they are right.

Ark is an indie game whose developers don't have an EA-caliber publisher to answer to. They can do what they want to their game despite community outlash because they KNOW it's THEIR game and not the community's. It really doesn't appear to be the case with Battlefield. DICE does not own Battlefield, EA does and whatever they say goes. As we have seen, EA is all about people pleasing the majority regardless of the stupidity and ignorance involved. DICE's balls belong to EA.

-------------------------

AAA title developers really don't have enough time to fully develop a game nowadays. In order to compete with one another, they have to release unfinished and unpolished games to meet certain deadlines near other competing games' deadlines. Now that pretty much everything is becoming Internet accessible it reduces that time even more. I say this is why Ammo 2.0 had to wait until 6 months after the release date. It surely wasn't a split decision at the last second, I can tell you that much.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.
For 'skill cannons,' that is.

Nope, Aim Assist or bust.

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" (Apr 21st 2017, 7:36pm)


VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(1,606)

Posts: 2,408

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

247

Friday, April 21st 2017, 7:44pm

Well for the first part, we can only agree to disagree. I will never see Ammo 2.0 as a good mechanic for BF1 or any of it's predecessors.

For the second part, you are not wrong, but even then, DICE is still responsible. They need to pitch their product to the players, that includes their vision. Money is indeed an issue, I just did not want to include it in my post. The are of course driven by the fear that the prorduct will not sell well. Honestly, I could not blame them if they reinvented BF to accomodate a highly skilled but small playerbase, or if they ditched the franchise to make something else. Well they might lose me as a customer, but with no hard feelings.
It is still their choice, but I believe EA holds the rights for BF now, right?


Edit: On the ticket system and behemoth part I would want to chime in. It is clear that these system synergize with each other, they would not work on their own. Without a behemoth every round would be lopsided and still stale (quite an effort to achieve both) and without the new ticket system the behemoth would lose most of it's force multipliying potential. I do really wonder wht feature came first, where they looking for a new feature to show off and then realised the ticket system would need reworking, or did they see that their ticket system was flawed and needed mechanical help?

Also Behemoths would have even less of an impact if the ticket system did not account for kills. I daresay a behemoth altogether nets between 25-75 tickets? The Dreadnought and the train's impact on Suez would be minimal if the kills did not close the ticket gap. It does provide fire support, but it can not take flags and is incredibly depending on the users.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "VincentNZ" (Apr 21st 2017, 7:57pm)


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(8,982)

Posts: 6,844

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 18

  • Send private message

248

Friday, April 21st 2017, 8:09pm

Yes, BF1's ticket-gain system accurately depicts a team's map control throughout the entire game, but it also gives the illusion of games being "close" when they are not.


How is it an illusion?

I question why this is actually needed, when the net result is a loss either way?


Because the scoreboard should actually be describing the gamestate accurately?

There's a big difference in saying you lost 700-0 and you lost 1000-800 when the difference was just one flag.

Oh yeah, the Grandmasters that you hold yourself and DICE up to? The ones that accepted the community idea of making kills affect ticket-gains, instead of replying with a vigorous defense of why it wouldn't work, or at least toning down how much of an impact kills have on tickets. You have a Chess Grandmaster who changes the rules of the game, and someone (who's not an ignorant plebian, and not unreasonably) asks for certain features from the previous version of Chess to return. The Chess Grandmaster grants their request, and suddenly this new version of Chess is completely unenjoyable. Who really is the responsible party for breaking the game now?


You answer this with this.

It's DICE lacking a coherent vision for the game


There is an expectation now that DICE will lend its ear to any Dick, Tom, or Harry.

Rather than trust their own designers and telemetry (which has already demonstrated extremely promising results), they'd rather trust the community and their feels (intuition is fine but you need sufficient experience before it is reliable which they typically do not have).

And yes, a great majority of those people are ignorant plebians. Go read CTE subreddit. Hardly anyone in there actually has a grasp of what they're talking about.

But if the mods actually enforced Rule 6: Know what you are talking about, there would be no traffic.



So the answer to your question is: whoever at DICE believes that it's a great idea to listen to the community instead of the people they hired to actually design the game.
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.

(1,606)

Posts: 2,408

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

249

Friday, April 21st 2017, 8:55pm

Well it is the path they chose. Hardly the player's fault. Well players have no idea about game design, they do have rightful expectations of a game, if they are not met then the new stuff needs to be sold. You know community feedback works both ways. The devs can share their philosophy and take input from the community.

They could also just say: Screw the lot of them and keep interaction to a minimum. Nothing wrong with that either. They do appear to have "lost" to the community now, but considering how fast Ammo 2.0 disappeared I would say it was a hot topic internally as well. I just bet there was a lot of controversy involved.

Geez, if they really think it would have been a good idea then use your marketing tools to sell it as a good feature. Make a video on it. Show the telemetry, get these so-called influencers on board, that should help greatly. Heck, sign up here, throw some nice words arounds and everybody would be definitely more inclined to listen. People can be manipulated easily.
Still you could also see it in the way that DICE listened to the players and is continuing to develop the best product for their customers, bla, bla, bla.

Posts: 3,119

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

250

Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 2:06am

My personal problem with BF1 is that there seems to be a confusion as to the design direction. There are some elements of the game that are brilliant when considered in a competitive setting, but the game is fundamentally a non-competitive game.

I think a large number of problems in BF1, or perceived problems, can be explained through this: the vehicle pick system, the longer TTK, infantry vs vehicle (especially plane) balance, Ammo 2.0, the Automatico/Hellriegel being OP.

All these elements work fine if everyone could communicate well or had high enough levels of skill. But in your regular pub, that simply isn't the case.


Very well said, this is exactly it. It's a case of significantly differing visions within DICE as well as among those in close contact/influence with them, as many around here are. The problem is a certain "faction" (or at least many members of it) seems to be dead-set on thinking they're objectively correct, as well as smarter than the others.


I'm not going to pretend to know the in-office politics at DICE, I may talk with and around a lot of them often, but that kind of stuff naturally stays behind the scenes. But I can say for sure we're looking at at least three different groups and mindsets within DICE & co, the original DICE guys (mostly Sweden), the LA-formerly-Danger-Close guys who worked on the recent MoH games, and the latest addition, a few notable members of Symthic (along with their friends that come along with that). I could give more examples and such, but I'm going to keep this simple to get the point across.

The LA guys come from MoH, we all know what kind of games those were, more military-ish than BF, far more attention to realism/accuracy, and all that. Not simulators certainly, but a style and vision closer to Tom Clancy games and the like.

The Symthic guys are competitive by nature, and are essentially on the complete opposite end of the FPS spectrum, in all aspects of vision and intention. What an MoH player wants and what a theoretical-Symthic-made-game player wants are extremely different things.


As an example, I had passed on that the pocket pistol reloads are wrong, as they use heel-mounted mag releases and should therefore drop mags as the Mle 1903 does, and also pointed out that guns like the M1911, though correct, definitely reload very, very fast. And as a response to that I got agreement, but that "design wants everything fast", so they're staying as they are. This shows several things at once. The LA guys are a lot of the reason we have authenticity and realistic aspects we do, but they also realize that their own ideal game is not Battlefield, it's more like MoH. But they're not trying to turn Battlefield into Medal of Honor.

And there's the key distinction. The Symthic crew side of things really, really does not have this sense of designing someone else's vision and game. There's no realization (at least among some of them) that they're here to build a solid Battlefield game, not build a game that appeals to them. I don't know if it's getting carried away with newfound influence and power, being new to the concept of designing a AAA game, trying to "prove themselves", or something else, but I don't believe they're trying to do anything negative in terms of intentions. I honestly think they're trying to do the best job they can.

But they don't fully understand what that job is.


That need for faster actions like the pistol reloads can keep seen and heard voiced by members of the Sym comp types too, like a certain Youtuber who was chatting with another comp player and were both complaing that certain actions take too long / are too slow, like vaulting or equipping the gas mask. And I would argue (in a court of law even) that it's this same mentality that got us the crazy fast, animation-less, fuse timer-less grenades we have in BF1. This is the kind of "doing things fast" mentality that comes with this group.

Why? Because it's a group that fundamentally enjoys something other than Battlefield, really. 8v8s, 5v5s on small maps, with no vehicles. Tight, infantry gunplay, something more along the lines of CounterStrike and other small comp-type shooters. These same people saying that Conquest is trash, planes should be gone, tanks should be less common, wanting more infantry gunplay, and loving Frontlines all show what kind of gameplay is preferred here. Things like the MOBA/RPG-inspired Ammo 2.0, the gun balance focused on 1v1s and similar engagements, and so on, it's very clear at this point what a Symthic-built game would look and play like. And that's okay. It really is, everyone likes different styles of games, with different motivations and goals.

What's not okay is the same group pushing Battlefield to be more like their ideal game. Which is exactly what's happening, and why BF1 has such a disjointed and fragmented design and implementation process. There are "good ideas" and there are "good ideas for Battlefield"; not all of those overlap. If we implemented every design intention and concept from the Symthic side of things, we would have a game that, while probably very good, would not be recognizable as a Battlefield game.


Ironically, Hardline as a concept could have been amazingly well put together and successful if that side-project had been given to the Symthic crew. The smaller, tighter cops and robbers setting and spin-off nature of the title would have been perfect for the kind of gameplay and design that this group loves.