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.

BF community's reaction to new LVL 10 weapon variants.

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: 115

Date of registration
: Dec 20th 2016

Platform: PC

Location: Malta

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

Sunday, April 30th 2017, 2:05pm

The Huot Optical is pretty incredible

It takes the Huot LW and turns it into an aggressive weapon. The optical sight enables easy headshots and the buff to the ads moving spread is extremely noticable. Single shots also work wonderfully thanks to that sight. Would still go for the LW for defensive play as the bipod is quite useful. Just went 53-8 with not much time into it.

The 1906 Sniper is too good, in the sense that the factory variant does not offer much, especially considering it lacks the recoil/spread reduction of other factory variants. It just feels like a flat upgrade, which is defiantly not good. Amazing at taking out snipers.

Have not used the defensive hellriegel much but I did enjoy it. Have not unlocked Martini Sniper.

Posts: 103

Date of registration
: Mar 4th 2017

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

Sunday, April 30th 2017, 4:41pm

I struggle with the "LMG" term as well. Technically they're all Automatic Rifles except the belt-fed MG15. I hear the Colt Potato Digger is coming, which was also belt-fed.

Through most of its service life, the BAR was designated Squad Automatic Rifle.

In WWI, the U.S. organized what we're termed Machine Gun Companies equipped with Hotchkiss guns (Benet), so the term MG was applied to mag-fed weapons. Plus the tripod would've made it a fire-team-served weapon.

Different armies, first war where Automatic weapins were widely deployed, and a century of development, deployment strategies and nomenclatures vary widely.

While on the subject, let's clear one thing up: while waiting for a game to load recently, one of the factoids that appeared on the screen claimed the moniker has f Worst Design Ever applied to the Chauchat was a false internet rumor.

That "internet rumor", is absolutely true and not just the echoed blog posts of pseudo-experts.

The shortcomings of the "Showshit" as the Doughboys came to call it, were very real and documented during the war.

For one, the open slot in the magazine, which looked good on paper, was a disaster in field conditions and especially in the trenches, where all manner of mud & debris could get in and screw up the works.

The magazine also meant rounds had to be turned 90-degrees as they were fed, a design seldom seen except the P90, which has a century's worth of knowledge and modern materials/manufacturing techniques going for it. In the infancy of automatic weapons, this was likely a very complex design requiring close manufacturing tolerances and meticulous hand-fitting by skilled workers, two more aspects that were ill-suited to both field-conditions and war-time production. It also probably limited ROF considerably.

In fairness, the Madsen was also known to jam under sustained fire. I assume it's problems were resolved, since the Madsen went on to a service life that last end into the 21st. century

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,636

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Sunday, April 30th 2017, 8:01pm

Quoted from "Dantheminigunfox"

The 1906 Sniper is too good, in the sense that the factory variant does not offer much, especially considering it lacks the recoil/spread reduction of other factory variants. It just feels like a flat upgrade, which is defiantly not good. Amazing at taking out snipers.

Now that we have a proper ranged version, the Factory should probably be made into a real Factory variant.

The magazine also meant rounds had to be turned 90-degrees as they were fed, a design seldom seen except the P90

Where did you get this idea? The rounds are definitely not sideways.
Who Enjoys, Wins

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "BleedingUranium" (Apr 30th 2017, 8:11pm)

This post by "BleedingUranium" (Sunday, April 30th 2017, 8:11pm) has been deleted by the author himself (Sunday, April 30th 2017, 8:11pm) with the following reason: double post

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Monday, May 1st 2017, 4:41pm

I struggle with the "LMG" term as well. Technically they're all Automatic Rifles except the belt-fed MG15. I hear the Colt Potato Digger is coming, which was also belt-fed.

Through most of its service life, the BAR was designated Squad Automatic Rifle.

In WWI, the U.S. organized what we're termed Machine Gun Companies equipped with Hotchkiss guns (Benet), so the term MG was applied to mag-fed weapons. Plus the tripod would've made it a fire-team-served weapon.

Different armies, first war where Automatic weapins were widely deployed, and a century of development, deployment strategies and nomenclatures vary widely.

While on the subject, let's clear one thing up: while waiting for a game to load recently, one of the factoids that appeared on the screen claimed the moniker has f Worst Design Ever applied to the Chauchat was a false internet rumor.

That "internet rumor", is absolutely true and not just the echoed blog posts of pseudo-experts.

The shortcomings of the "Showshit" as the Doughboys came to call it, were very real and documented during the war.

For one, the open slot in the magazine, which looked good on paper, was a disaster in field conditions and especially in the trenches, where all manner of mud & debris could get in and screw up the works.

The magazine also meant rounds had to be turned 90-degrees as they were fed, a design seldom seen except the P90, which has a century's worth of knowledge and modern materials/manufacturing techniques going for it. In the infancy of automatic weapons, this was likely a very complex design requiring close manufacturing tolerances and meticulous hand-fitting by skilled workers, two more aspects that were ill-suited to both field-conditions and war-time production. It also probably limited ROF considerably.

In fairness, the Madsen was also known to jam under sustained fire. I assume it's problems were resolved, since the Madsen went on to a service life that last end into the 21st. century

The difference between an LMG and an automatic rifle is largely semantic: both are designed to be operated by the "automatic rifleman" (or equivalent), in a maneuver section. Tons of "lmgs" use mags or drum mags. The only really important factor is whether the weapon is fielded as a squad automatic weapon or not.

The Chau was the only automatic rifle used in any meaningful quantity throughout the war. Only the re-chambered version in American hands was extensive in it's failure - again that only existed because there was NO alternative LMG availlable in quantity. The open mag was a problem for the 8mm version as well, but the weapon otherwise worked well enough given the derth of viable alternatives until 1918. The versions rechambered to 7.65x53 mm also worked quite well.

An unreliable LMG is still infinitely better than no LMG. The only alternative to the Chau in the numbers required was no LMG at all. People also forget that trench warfare didn't dominate the entire 4 years of the war, and the Chau did well from 1914-1915 and also performed well in the 1918 offensives once they moved out from the mud. It had zero competitors in any number anyway.

Also I have no idea what you're talking about when you say the rounds needed to rotate. They are ramped into the chamber like almost every other mag fed weapon ever made. They just go through a 180 deg arc instead of a more typical straight-ish mag. Makes the rest of the post laughable as an attempt to "correct the facts".

This post has been edited 4 times, last edit by "tankmayvin" (May 1st 2017, 5:01pm)

Posts: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

Tuesday, May 2nd 2017, 3:18am

Grinding the Huot Optical makes me realize how much I hate this fucking thing. It's like taking the Lewis which I already hate, then giving it a smol 25 round capacity for better accuracy and spread... but it's still mediocre. It fails to make any notable impression in the BF1 weapon meta, so it gets dumpstered by pretty much everything. I've had to completely adapt my playstyle around the Huot by playing passively, and using smokes to let me flank and disengage. And I've had to do the latter plenty of times, because I couldn't stand a reasonable chance against most weapons.

Makes me want to punch my monitor even harder than grinding the 1906 Selb. At least that rifle had no problems killing people if you could aim, the Huot sadly does.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Tuesday, May 2nd 2017, 3:28am

"I've had to completely adapt my playstyle around the Huot by playing passively."

And? If you were trying to use it aggressively, then that's simply on you because it isn't a gun you can use effectively with an aggressive playstyle. Which brings me to the question of why are you grinding it in the first place when the Optical doesn't really perform any different? It isn't magically going to make the gun good for aggressive play so I don't see why you're trying to unlock it in the first place.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.2
SnapZoomPostTime 0.2
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 1.2
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0

Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier 1.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom -1.0
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.0
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 0.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.0
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

 AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

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

Posts: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

Tuesday, May 2nd 2017, 3:51am

I'm grinding it to satisfy my itch of having all weapons unlocked, something I did even for all Scout rifles and I hate Scouts. And it's good to have a feel for every weapon in the game, something which I did while grinding all accessories on nearly every primary in BF4.

There's arguably better options for passive LMG play, like the Benet-Mercie Telescopic or MG15 Suppressive. I have never thought once, even while staring at the statistical data here, that it's a great idea to take the Huot. Excellent accuracy, recoil, and spread sounds fantastic on paper, but when you actually use it in-game, the limitations of having the worst velocity, minimum damage, 2nd worst mag capacity, and RPM of its class makes me question if its worth putting up with.

Posts: 36

Date of registration
: Oct 25th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: AU

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

Tuesday, May 2nd 2017, 5:56am

I've come to love the Huot and the optical variant is useful too in a more CQ situation, it seems a bit more accurate than the LW but I dislike the added time to ADS and the bobble of that optical sight. As the DUCK said about the auto loading 8.35, i think you need to get a 1000 kills with it to really understand how to use it effectively.
With the low weight I've found that if you hold your nerve and just stand still and hold down that trigger in a 1 v 1, then more often than not you will win. The accuracy just works for you.
I've had good success with it playing aggressively and in fact believe that it is the best suited LMG for that role. I think I still prefer the LW for its versatility over different ranges.

IGN - VonReisler.

Posts: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

Tuesday, May 2nd 2017, 9:06am

The Huot is a great gun if both you and the enemy are stationary 30-50m away, and you get to fire first.

That is a whole lotta "ifs" though. I really don't think it warrants comparison with the Auto8, because the only glaring weakness it has is mag capacity. The Huot has a lot more bad things going for it, accuracy isn't going to mean anything when an enemy is just as capable of returning deadly fire back. Or disengaging, which is also a lot easier to do compared to other LMGs thanks to the Huot's flaws.