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: 419

Date of registration
: Dec 24th 2011

Platform: PS3


Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message


Sunday, April 9th 2017, 9:14pm

While I'm actually used to Battlefield 1's gunplay for the most part meow, I still do have to question why DICE thought making guns that fire from 450 to 650 rounds per minute five-shot kills was a good idea. I mean, sure you can definitely balance the guns quite well around the current damage models, and many may argue that it makes the game more skillful, but DICE doesn't seem to have THAT sort of vision with their games. Battlefield has always been focused on platoon-sized combat (whether it'd be infantry-heavy or vehicle-heavy maps, doesn't matter) where flanking a group of enemies should be quite advantageous and rewarding. Although, maybe not at "simulator" levels of advantageous where you can drop an entire nine man squad with one or two shots each with your LMG/GPMG. But still, better than gunning down one or two people, and then being gunned by the third person, whom is likely a Medic.

This is why the 1-vs-1 weapons in the game, such as the Automatico M1918 and Autoloading 8 .35, are deemed to be the best guns in the game by number crunchers. You're very likely not going to live long enough to use the entire magazine of the Selbstlader 1916, and those that cling to that gun would quite likely do even better if they were to use the Mondragon instead. And whatnot. . .

That's another thing. Visual recoil. I find that it's much easier to use SMGs and many handguns (mostly revolvers) by hipfiring than actually using the sights. Most of my headshots with the MP18 Optical probably came from hipfiring.

Posts: 3,073

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message


Monday, April 10th 2017, 7:46am

I don't necessarily know what the ramifications of upping the max damage of SMGs and MGs from 23 to 25 would do, but it reduces max damage BTK by 1 which translates to a faster and more manageable TTK against several opponents up close. This is certainly something that can be experimented with in the CTE to see if it's an approach worth pursuing. At first glance, this could definitely improve the, seemingly, inability to deal with multiple targets when appropriate however there could also be a problem associated with this suggestion that I'm not aware of.
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 10th 2017, 8:04am)

Posts: 213

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On


Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message


Monday, April 10th 2017, 12:07pm

I would really like to see a 1-less BTK damage change on all Assault/Support weapons tested on the CTE, along with even more buffs to Medic SLRs to keep pace with them. Of course, there would have to be special consideration for certain weapons (2-hit kill up close from a Chauchat doesn't sound fun)

Visual recoil needs to go, completely. It took years for people to finally have then removed on BF4 weapons, only for them to show up again in BF1. Some guns like the MP18 and RSC have so much more potential to be better than what they are currently, if only visual recoil was completely eliminated

Posts: 1,585

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message


Monday, April 10th 2017, 1:31pm

I'm a mediocre player at best and probably the definition of a casual player. Yet, I enjoy BF1 immensely more at the 192 hours I have into it than I have BF4, which I have 1471 hours in. I played BF4 again for a few rounds yesterday and it really feels like the unbalanced mess it is and the vehicle play still sucks ass. People considering BF4 the pinnacle of FPS shooter design might want to reconsider what it is they want from an FPS game. For me, BF1 is better in pretty much every aspect. It has flaws, sure. The UI sucks and its slow. I don't trust some of the mechanics. Oftentimes I'm really not sure if my fog or sandstorm is the same as everyone elses as I can't see shit and I see pilots and scouts farm kills from distance with impunity. Same goes for smoke, really. I don't trust that what I see is what everyone else is seeing (usually nothing). The totally weird points system doesn't make sense to me either. It needs a serious rework to make me able to gauge my own performance properly, let alone explain why the other team won while the match's summary is clearly showing a home team advantage. It simply doesn't reflect anything usefull. But that aside, I think BF1 is great. Too bad it does seem to be dying off, though sofar I haven't had any problems finding games or gamemodes I want to play filled up to the max. Maybe it's just a north american problem, I don't know.

Most whining I see on the youtubes is from people who complain that BF1 isn't made specifically for them or their playstyle. They fail to recognise that maybe they're simply playing the wrong game, and probably alsways have. They complain about vehicles. The open map design. The lack of "good at every situation" weapons. The fact they cannot singlehandedly make a difference to influence a match win or loss. They bitch about behemoths, Elite classes (which I've pretty much never seen make much difference), grenade spam (granted, the gas nades are annoying as hell), basically everything that isn't pointing a gun at a random scrub (that would be me, thanks asshole) and go "pewpew" sucks. What they're basically looking for is CS:GO with BF3 gun mechanics or ARMA3 with hitmarkers. I'm bored by most youtubers discussing Battlefield and I'll probably unsub from most of them. They used to have fun content, now it's only one whine after another saying BF1 isn't made for them. My message to them (including MarbleDuck, who comes off as the elitist prick most SYM team members seem to be): Go away, we don't want you in our game.
When battlefield first came out it wasn't sold on its shooter pedigree - it had no shooter pedigree. It was sold on expansive environments, freedom of action with many different useful (and many not so useful) roles, big teams, all these cool vehicles and planes and ships and shit, etc.

Even as early as BFV, DICE realized that infantry combat sold games and they have consistently been improving the pedigree of their shooter mechanics. I think they really hit their stride as a shooter with BFBC2 as a game that not only had amazing environmental/world options, but also went toe to toe, if not outright beat the rest of the shooters out there on a mechanics basis.

And so that is great on one level: you draw in all these shooter players to your open-environment combined arms game. But it's also a problem because all of these people you've drawn in aren't necessarily appreciative of, or are merely agnostic of the combined arms stuff, specifically being fed as cannon fodder for shitbucket tankers. This really reached a head with BF3 and the introduction of the "true" infantry grinder that was Metro. That really set the stage for both expectation and many of the problems that have carried through in the last few iterations of the franchise.

There have always, always, always been people who have whined about tanks/airpower in BF games, and vehicle balance/meta hasn't always been great. BF2 was widely regarded as an amazing game but it had shitty shooter mechanics and objectively awful vehicle balance when air was thrown into the mix. The BF franchise is old, and BF3 and BF4 were really just one long extended experiment, and so people rightfully should be allowed some higher expectations about the pedigree of the game and that it should be delivered as something that is close to a polished, balanced game with every release moving forward from BF4.

But with BF4 and definitely now with BF1 they have really shown a unique failure to learn from the mistakes they have already made. And with BF1 they've made a whole slew more: the first title without dedicated server support, a huge step back in UI, big step back in coordinating social play, etc, etc.

You can criticize the Youtubers all you want. I frankly don't really care about them one lick insofar as I'd prefer the lot of them cut down a few sizes so that their impact on the game matches their actual relevance (approximately zero). One thing you cannot deny is the overall sentiment that BF1 really missed it's mark. As a package it's just lacking in fun relative to it's predecessors for the typical player. I'm feeling fairly tapped out with BF1 after ~300 hours, which is about 1/4 of what I usually dump into a BF game. I don't think it has the fun factor that will let people overcome the issues and play it out like with BF4. I also think that after being fed a development cycle that is really something like 2011-2016 with BF3 and then BF3.5 *cough* BF4 people had the rightful expectations that we would have something really well put together but BF1 just manages to miss the mark somehow.

While one should avoid tyrannies of the majority, it's also tough to avoid the fact that BF1 player base is softening.

Posts: 158

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message


Monday, April 10th 2017, 6:18pm

I don't have the stats to back that up, but I think 300 hours is above and beyond typical for any game that is sold out there. As for the sentiment, it is really treated as one-off blockbuster journey into the wilds of the Great War, for several reasons. Shooting is not remarkable and frankly is made for pro's, while mediocre and average players have zero chance to become any good with it, imho. Not only one has to be incredibly accurate, there is also pronounced tactical element, which immediately punishes a slightest mistake in positioning. 99% of people won't ever become good enough to elevate themselves above 1k/D "philosophy". On the other hand, there are people like myself, and while I know how to shoot well in this game, I still find that shooting mechanics and their evolution as the player progresses bring less satisfaction than other titles, like CS and bf3/4. Personally, I see it as WW1-themed shooting mechanics gone wild. Subjectivity aside the game is pretty darn demanding on hardware. I imagine only a small fraction of people have means to play @ 200 fps. Would be curious to know how many people actually play at 60 fps or more.

When I add it all up, it seems that it's a kind of game I would showcase to a friend as a remarkable achievement in graphical fidelity. Maybe years to come will polish it, now that there is post-launch testing facility. Actually, I haven't a slightest bit of doubt they will, given their track record. Also, it hopefully is obvious now that WW1 is a niche thing and if I was them, I'd speed up production of BF5.