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: 143

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

41

Yesterday, 9:25am



There is speed control though.

It's just not mashing WSWSWS to stay at one speed the entire time. That's just boring.

Play "Friends in High Places" to see why.


Boring is what you get when take speed control out of the dogfight. Not only that, but people who are very good at flying won't stay with the game for long, because, well.. it's simplistic, it presents no real challenge, no progression. The sticker basically says: "competent pilots not needed, go play something else" ;).

Quoted

How is learning how to handle four different weapons with their own style more casual than the tapfire meta of BF4?


Didn't say casual, just shallow. I liked exploring a 100+ weapons of bf4, liked customizing them, figuring out the best combo for me on a particular map. Even if the system was flawed in some ways, surely there were ways to improve it, but no - "customization beyond skins is bullshit, let's get rid of it".

Btw, what's wrong with "tapfire meta" of bf4? You get your sweet spot with every weapon, where you can spray/burst, much like in bf1, plus you can score little damage outside that zone, which bf1 for some strange reason decided not to do, because bullets, apparently didn't fly as far and accurate during WW1. OK, now we have same spray, but no tap and that's exactly half the system we had before. Why? Counterstrike (and BF4) does it so well - you can spray and burst up close with predictable deviation or you can tap at a distance picking off even snipers if you're very very good. This allows progression. Being accurate at a distance, plus mastering up close shooting patterns - are skills you pick up through 100s of hours and it's interesting, and intuitive. It works the same in real life too: you spray up close and tap at a distance... Why mess with that principle in such radical way? IMO what we have have now is severe case of overspecialization.

I hope the experimentation trend of "let's chuck out speed control", "let's get rid of customization" and "let's try to get rid of tap fire" stays with bf1 and won't spill over to the next titles.

Posts: 2,921

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

42

Yesterday, 10:35am

I liked exploring a 100+ weapons of bf4, liked customizing them, figuring out the best combo for me on a particular map. Even if the system was flawed in some ways, surely there were ways to improve it, but no

Right, because having a set of attachment choices that can be applied to practically any gun with thousands, if not ten thousands, of combinations, many of which were false, is good for competitive gameplay...Just because BF4 has a lot of gun models doesn't mean jack; in the ARs alone there are about 3 categories: slow fire rate, medium fire rate, and fast fire rate. All of BF4's ARs can be sorted into these 3 categories because of how the shooting mechanics work, of which is tapfire and profit. Yeah, quite a lot of depth there, just tap as fast as you can for basically zero spread or recoil...In this case shallow is the definition of casual, just take a look at Battlefront's gameplay. It is super casual, maybe even more casual than Call of Duty. Why? Because it lacks depth in firing mechanics. You just point and shoot because spread and recoil are basically non-existent. What does tapfiring do? It basically eliminates the effects of spread and recoil. So yeah, tapfiring is an uber-casual mechanic.

Okay, good for you if you enjoy wasting time with trial and error at the helm because I surely didn't. If a game forces people to look at the hard stats concerning attachment selection because there were both really good and really bad combinations, then it's a flawed system and is terribly imbalanced. Between players of equal ability with the same weapon, gunfights can literally be decided by who has the optimal attachment combination where positioning doesn't even play a factor. This is clear evidence of a flawed system that could not be improved. Oh wait just a minute, they did with the variant system we have now! This is basically all DICE could do to ensure a balanced system, by having them dictate what modifiers can be used on what guns. Free reign for the player only accelerates potential imbalances, just look at the "pick whatever the fuck you want" vehicle spawn system; it instigates horribly imbalanced games and needs to be ended.

Btw, what's wrong with "tapfire meta" of bf4? You get your sweet spot with every weapon, where you can spray/burst, much like in bf1, plus you can score little damage outside that zone, which bf1 for some strange reason decided not to do, because bullets, apparently didn't fly as far and accurate during WW1.

The tapfire meta eliminates the RoF barrier that should separate slow firing guns from fast firing guns. If you can tapfire a fast RoF gun at long range more efficiently than a slow RoF gun, then the slow RoF gun becomes obsolete. Look no further than the AEK for AR options.

BF1 weapons absolutely do not cease to do damage outside of their intended range, but it's much more difficult or rather impossible to do meaningful damage now with how spread and recoil decrease work, and by 'work' I actually mean work as in they functionally differentiate the various firing mechanics now. And don't play that "guns suck more, because more primitive, because WWI" card. The setting has nothing to do with the shooting mechanics, but has everything to do with designing a more balanced and competitive game for everyone involved and emphasizing positioning and intellect over technical ability.

I hope the experimentation trend of "let's chuck out speed control", "let's get rid of customization" and "let's try to get rid of tap fire" stays with bf1 and won't spill over to the next titles.

Huh yeah, I don't think that'll happen. Battlefield is evolving and not devolving. The changes concerning gunplay and flight controls are positive, not negative. I'd be appalled if DICE returned to the worse mechanics of BF3/4 because that would imply they are giving into the whims of whiners who choose not to adapt or won't accept progress. Progress for the sake of progress itself is a stupid endeavor, but BF1 doesn't fall under this situation. DICE is making meaningful progress that enhances what they created in the past, and I encourage them to continue with their work. Battlefield will be the better for it.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.
For 'skill cannons,' that is.

Nope, Aim Assist or bust.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (Yesterday, 2:47pm)


Posts: 143

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

43

Yesterday, 12:12pm

How good is current system for competitive gameplay? Do you see a thriving competitive scene in BF1? Do you see a competitive scene in CS, where tap firing, spray and positioning are the thing? Having just spraying (and little to no tap) puts a hard cap on certain aspects of shooting skill, while leaving positioning and prioritization skills intact. Which is kinda strange, to me, in a shooter. I do realize that the game is made for more casual audience than CS or BF4, but being quite accurate marksman I find little incentive to get better in BF1, for obvious reasons. I can try to guess why they ended up following this direction, as most people, more than ever, play BF1 with a gamepad, none of them have means to become super accurate/responsive outside of using aim assist. So, a natural solution is brought forward with accuracy being deeply secondary to positioning. So, no, I don't see progress nor evolving here, I see certain adaptation, which didn't stand the test of competitive community. Add on top the missing necessary tools any competitive game of 2016 needs to have, which completely destroys all prospects of the game becoming a go-to title for competitive-minded people, but still makes a ton of money. Fair enough.

To reiterate, my main criticism is that playing BF1 will never make you a kind of marksman BF3/4 or CS can make you. In terms of shooting, positioning and everything else that comes with it. Which is a kind of a missed opportunity.

Quoted

The tapfire meta eliminates the RoF barrier that should separate slow firing guns from fast firing guns.


I don't see how. Marble Duck, for example, used to point in the direction of QBZ and how a well trained marksman can have an edge over AEK consistently given the positioning advantages and I agree with him, even though I'd still mainly take AEK and try to eliminate weak sides of the gun with positioning. Would you rather use QBZ or AEK on Hangar 21? How about many other maps with vast distances both bf1 and bf4 have? Plenty. The tap-fire meta weighs, yes, but doesn't eliminate that barrier.

Quoted

The changes concerning gunplay and flight controls are positive, not negative. I'd be appalled if DICE returned to the worse mechanics of BF3/4 because that would imply they are giving into the whims of whiners who choose not to adapt or won't accept progress.


Very positive, for a mediocre pilot. Jump in = tons of kills. What's there not to like, right?

Posts: 177

Date of registration
: Oct 30th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

44

Yesterday, 2:32pm

The qbz would only have an edge over the AEK if you are 35+ meters away from the AEK.
Even then a player that is very accurate could still have the possibility of killing the qbz user at 40 meters or more.

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(910)

Posts: 1,487

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

45

Yesterday, 2:34pm

@Mori4rte

Tapfiring requires no skill at all. It's just mindless clicking whilst pulling down on the mouse/stick. TBH, it requires about as little skill as simply holding down the trigger does.

Bursting at specific intervals, however, does take skill. It requires the user to identify what range the target is at, and then click at a very certain speed to optimise his TTK. It requires both substantial cognitive effort and practice to master.

And this is the meta that BF1 has adopted (well, for SMGs at least). If you try to hold down the trigger, your spread will quickly grow much too large to be effective. If you tapfire, you won't allow enough time for your spread to reset, and it'll achieve much the same effect as holding down the trigger. Bursting is clearly the way to go.


As for LMGs, I would like to see a rework of their spread mechanics, because, ATM, they're pretty boring and require no real skill to use. As for what this would be, I have no idea.
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.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Zer0Cod3x" (Yesterday, 2:44pm)


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(8,661)

Posts: 6,785

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 18

  • Send private message

46

Yesterday, 7:44pm

Boring is what you get when take speed control out of the dogfight. Not only that, but people who are very good at flying won't stay with the game for long, because, well.. it's simplistic, it presents no real challenge, no progression. The sticker basically says: "competent pilots not needed, go play something else" .


I literally just said speed control is not about hammering about WSWS anymore.

Play Friends in High Places for an explanation for how flying works now.

Or if you're still too lazy to do that:

An optimal turning speed was something we deliberately avoided when designing the planes of Battlefield 1.
The optimal turning speed of previous games did two things, it made dogfighting more shallow and posed a huge barrier of entry for new players. Being forced to fly at one speed restricted the set of viable moves, all maneuvers had one speed at which they were best used, at any other speed they'd be beaten by a player doing the same maneuver at the "correct" speed. For new players to have any chance in a dogfight, they had to know the optimal turn speed, which was tribal knowledge explained nowhere in game. Without that knowledge, they lose every dogfight in seconds, giving them little chance to learn. For experienced pilots speed control became trivial, almost a non-factor in fights.
You seem to imply that the best way to fly in BF1 is to fly at max speed all the time. If this was the case, wouldn't gameplay be the same at high levels as previous games, with everyone flying at the same speed and only maneuvers making a difference?
However that's not the case because the BF1 planes are tuned to take advantage of their entire speed range. Low speeds offer a tight turn radius but low turn rate, while high speeds offer a high turn rate but wide turn radius. Every speed in between offers a different mix of radius and rate. This adds another layer of depth on top of maneuvers because now not only does what maneuver you use matter, you also need to choose what speed to use for it.


How good is current system for competitive gameplay? Do you see a thriving competitive scene in BF1?


BF1 has logistical problems that preclude any sort of gameplay issues the most glaring of which is the lack of password-protected servers.

Though gameplay itself already has more depth than tapfiring every weapon which is the problem of the tapfire meta. Also, by sacrificing (last I checked) about 10-33% of your maximum fire rate through tapfire, you get to shoot at minSpread constantly.

The tapfire meta made every weapon pretty much handle the same (tapfire).

Now there are 4 unique playstyles for players to master.

OK, now we have same spray, but no tap and that's exactly half the system we had before. Why? Counterstrike (and BF4) does it so well - you can spray and burst up close with predictable deviation or you can tap at a distance picking off even snipers if you're very very good. This allows progression. Being accurate at a distance, plus mastering up close shooting patterns - are skills you pick up through 100s of hours and it's interesting, and intuitive. It works the same in real life too: you spray up close and tap at a distance... Why mess with that principle in such radical way? IMO what we have have now is severe case of overspecialization.


You can still spray up close if you have a good hitrate.

You can still tap for distant enemies. You'll just be giving up a lot more RoF than before.

DICE did not remove your ability to tapfire. They just made sure tapfire did not come with so little cost in your damage output.
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" (Yesterday, 7:55pm)


TheMightyVoice

The Pantless Messiah Returns

(1,700)

Posts: 773

Date of registration
: May 22nd 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Behind my M240B

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

47

Yesterday, 8:02pm

The extreme depth of tap firing in BF3 killed my EC-1 eVo's left mouse button.
Eat your heart out, Badger.

Spoiler Spoiler


<elementofprgress> yummm baby jesus
<elementofprgress> but i'd prefer jesus with ketchup

<cloon> women are allowed to play hockey?
<daddygreeenjeans> body checks are a fundamental part of women's suffrage

<Riesig> "... I'M GAY..."

steamboat28: the doctors at the ER found my nipples, too!
steamboat28: it just..y'know...took them a razor and two orderlies.

<Legion> And damn, now I really want some [redacted] penetrator measurements

<Rezal> peipin, why did you tell them you brought your phone?
<Pepin_the_Short> Because there’s like a one in five chance of getting searched on the way out
<Pepin_the_Short> And trying to sneak the fucker out is way worse than letting them look at Cloon’s dick pics.

17:52:08 <Rezal> Unfortunately, this video is not available in your country because it could contain music, for which we could not agree on conditions of use with GEMA.
17:52:15 <ToTheSun> lolgema
17:52:15 <TheMightyVoice> lolgema

<Legion> But I literally am Hitler right now
Somehow my bullets are magnetically attracted to popular Youtubers, but theirs rarely seem to hit me.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(1,250)

Posts: 2,308

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

48

Yesterday, 8:17pm

I do not get the hate tap-firing receives here. It is a matter of feel, very intuitive, too. Once you start missing you stop shooting. Also spread, recoil and your sight really synergized well, comapred to BF1, where you might miss although recoil is no problem, or while your crosshairs are on the target. That is the main reason, why I find BF4 shooting mechanics superior to BF1, the gun feels like it is an extension of your arm, very natural and instinctive and still uses comprehensive mechanics to adjust accuracy across player skill levels. Very enjoyable.

Yes all automatic weapons worked the same with the old mechanics, but that is also a strong point, because every weapon worked. I would not agree at all that any gun was really obsolete, and I played them all. You still had some niches that were filled, and you could customize your weapon according to your playstyle.
Also with the customization you could not ever really fuck up, because overall the effect was marginal. Now calling the whole shooting mechanics and gun options of BF4 deep is not true, wide is the better word.

I do not see the difference though with BF1, as if the different variants turn the factory version into a totally other weapon. The automatico will still kill well in hipfire, even if it is the storm variant. Also a spread reduction of 0.2° is not hoing to turn any SMG into a laserbeam.
The only way the variations differ from the grips and barrel options is that they clutter the UI and are only presented as separate weapons because of marketing reasons, which is totally unnecessary. Everybody knows that the amount of WW1 weaponry that is applicable for BF1 is very limited. So the customization options are not deeper either, but more limited for obvious and understandable reasons.

What I did like about the whole system of BF4 is that you never really felt out of place on the objective with any weapon, although the whole bandwith is really wide. In BF1 more often than not I find myself stuck with a weapon that is rather unsuitable for the type of combat that is up ahead. Funnily that excludes the BAs. They are the weapon class that works everywhere and still gets consequently better with higher range. So for me the amount of obsolete weaponry is indeed way higher than before.

Posts: 3,027

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

49

Yesterday, 9:15pm

What I did like about the whole system of BF4 is that you never really felt out of place on the objective with any weapon, although the whole bandwith is really wide. In BF1 more often than not I find myself stuck with a weapon that is rather unsuitable for the type of combat that is up ahead. Funnily that excludes the BAs. They are the weapon class that works everywhere and still gets consequently better with higher range.

So for me the amount of obsolete weaponry is indeed way higher than before.


That's... sort of the whole idea. Different weapons and weapon classes actually play differently and do different jobs.

This is only true in an individual player sense, not as a whole. A player most comfortable with the M1916 is likely to consider the Rem 8 .35 useless, and same in reverse. That doesn't mean either of them are actually useless, it just means weapons are varied enough that it's unlikely any single player will equally enjoy all weapons. That's exactly what variety means.


I do, however, miss the number of weapons in BF4, and do miss being able to use and enjoy any of them. BF1 is arguably the better design on paper, but I don't think it's more fun. When I'm stuck using one or two weapons per class and three or four sidearms total, it's simply not fun. It's repetitive and grindy. Battlefield 1 does what it wants to do well, but what it wants to do doesn't necessarily line up with what the playerbase as a whole really wants.

The huge kill requirements for the new Rank 10 weapon variants only emphasize the disconnect with what players have been asking for since release. We finally get more weapons, even if just variants, and they're locked behind a 300 kill grindfest? There's simply too much of a disconnect between some of the people calling the shots, and the players.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(1,250)

Posts: 2,308

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

50

Yesterday, 9:50pm

Nicely put. As you say, on paper BF1 offers a large bandwith of playstyles it just does not work out that way, because the game is indeed so much more than just the guns.

I do not like the new gun mechanics, but I can at least acknowledge that they were trying for something new, that is still working on the whole. They also have to work with the limits of their setting, which is admittedly hard. However the meta of the game does not really agree with the designers.
For example, I was playing Soissons on Frontlines yesterday. The map is a bit tank heavy, so you would expect a lot of Assaults. However the map is also really open, and if you position yourself in a clever way, you can lock down certain areas completely and noone bar other Snipers will be able to touch you. The fight was around B, which is just a trench in an open field (this design!) and on the hill behind it is a spot in trenches from where you can overwatch the whole point, the areas between the spawn and the flag as well as possible flanking routes.
So I as a sniper was picking off Assaults, that were trying to get the tank that was destroying their team. That felt awful because the poor buggers could not reach it. BUt they could also not take the flag, because I could shoot that one as well.
Generally the map design allows such things all the time, you have a rather safe time as a sniper, while being rather dangerous yourself. On the other hand, when you are playing the objective, you are very often cramped into very dense spaces, like the houses on Suez. It is like the map designers only know extremes. So as a medic that likes to be in the thick of it and reviving his teammates is left with rather poor choices.
And then again I strongly believe that there are too many viable choices in CQ, basically everything works, from melee to SMGs and Shotguns to BAs. And that is because timing, flanking and positioning still plays a huge role there. In medium ranges however, many weapons show how weak they are, because there, meta stuff like flanking does not matter a lot, because of the high TTK, it is just the weapon choice.

In BF4, if you managed a decent flank you could drop three guys with one mag, in rather short time at a longer range that could ever be possible in BF1. It is really frustrating.