Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 22:49. 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: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California


Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message


Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 2:11am


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.

To someone who knows how both scoring systems actually work, the scoreboard conveys the exact same thing in the end: the losers failed to hold the majority of flags for the vast portion of the game.

The original Conquest was always about bleeding the enemy's reinforcements, and they accomplished mainly this through controlling the majority of flags. BF1's Conquest is about a race to the top where majority flag control gets you ahead, but token effort is recognized on part of the losers who are then rewarded with the oh-so-gamechanging Behemoths. Is it a more accurate depiction of the flag control gamestate throughout the entire match? Yes. Does that really matter when a 1000-800 loss is just as catastrophic as a 700-0? No, and that is one reason why I disagree that BF1's ticket-gain is the superior system.

The advantage of BF4's presents the game in dichotomous terms; are you controlling most of the flags on a map? If not, then you will bleed resources. If yes, then you won't. To both the average joe-shmoe casual, the street smart veteran, and the Grandmaster, it paints a much clearer picture of how games can be won or lost when you're in the middle of one. It is easier to tell at a glance that a 300-400 ticket difference can be recovered in a bleed system, than a 100-150 ticket difference in a gain system. If the price of that is staring at a scoreboard in the end that doesn't award my team a figurative cookie for being behind in flags, that's perfectly acceptable to me (and from the sound of it, most of the BF Conquest community).


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.

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.

I'm glad you actually somewhat agree on this point, but you put far too much weight on the community pressuring DICE rather than DICE themselves. The developers are perfectly putting their feet down and communicating clearly what they want and don't want for the game. This thread complaining about tanks is a perfect example of this.

Person A complains about tanks being OP. Kenturrac replies that they are designed to be OP, gives advice on how to deal with it, and offers some agreement that the 3rd person camera needs adjusting to tone down their visibility/ease of use but nothing else.

Why could they not accomplish this for Ammo 2.0? Because they could not convincingly defend the major flaws of it that they acknowledged themselves (making tanks more powerful by nerfing Assault gadget capacity), and completely failed to address the point of the community outcry over explosive spam. How is Ammo 2.0 supposed to stop Frag grenades from becoming like deadlier RGO Impacts that can also be easily dropped in the middle of a gunfight? How is grenade self-resupply supposed to alleviate grenade spam when it encourages them to be thrown in every engagement possible?




Posts: 440

Date of registration
: Apr 14th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Germany


Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message


Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 4:37am

Thread has gone quite far off topic a while ago. Locked.
Bro of Oscar, the gentleman ninja
Rules. Read them, follow them.


[22:09:20] Failure117: Legion: Tank Expert and Pokemon Afficianado

[16:21:16] Oscar Perez Lijo: In soviet russia legion is top poster