Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 22:50. 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.

  • "Mori4rte" started this thread

Posts: 172

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message


Thursday, March 30th 2017, 3:22pm

Why I "don't have time" to play BF1

I could use a different title, but that would mean I am describing someone else's experiences and not my own. Also I'm genuinely interested what people with opposing views have to say as well as people with similar attitude towards the latest and marvelous title in the Battlefield series. I recently got hooked to a sizzling hot new title called "battlegrounds", plus, bf4 community is very much alive, which leaves no room in my schedule for bf1 and frankly I am not in a least bit upset about it. But, I am asking myself - how did it happen that the latest BF title with 10/10 graphics and sound, somewhat decently balanced, leaves me indifferent? Doesn't make any sense.. The setting? The balance? So, what I try to do is dig deep in the underlying mechanics, under the thick layer of graphics, and see if the game has infinite replayability potential, for me that is. Is it worthy of previous titles, most of which possessed the same trait?

I think several things need to be in order for the game to be very replayable before talks of individual weapon balance can even commence. First - absence of competition (okay, just kidding). Map design, soldier animations and movement, shooting mechanics. Are they addictive? Satisfactory? Unremarkable? I'd say they are a mix of satisfactory and unremarkable, and this where the house of cards starts to fall apart for me.

The map design is nothing to brag about really. I could take Sinai as an example, and while this is the map I played most by far I can see glaring issues, which are commonplace in new map design philosophy.

1. Huge open spaces with no trace of cover - serious mistake on part of FPS developer. Why? It promotes steamrolling, camping and generally unfair advantages vehicles get on infantry. Making such mistakes is unprofessional and I can only attribute it to normal ongoing development process, which may eliminate them at some point. Also, it's kind of appalling to have to descend back into the stone age of fps shooters, where they didn't have resources to create verticality, all we could do is run around through a linear maze, like in a game called Wolfenstein. Some of that verticality was remarkably done in bf4 and the fact that it is missing is a heartbreaker, for me. Yes, the era didn't have that many tall buildings. But some were present. In the end of the day this is a real life aspect, which brings new and fresh strategies, when have to combat elevated enemy or when defending an elevated position, while using it to your advantage.

2. Soldiering is certainly a dull life, it took bf1 to fully appreciate it. Running around feels cumbersome and more slow, multitude of animations fail to work as intended and when trying to layer one animation on top of the other in the thick of the battle, the whole thing completely disintegrates and leaves you standing, more often than not, with bare ass in siberian frost. I got to like bf4 and counterstrike's pace and fluidity. This fluidity of movement inspires you to become better, while carrying bricks in pockets de-prioritizes the importance of footwork in a fps game. And what the hell is wrong with delay in strafing and in some other movement aspects?!? Is this really a simulator? By the way, why do we even need that many animations, what do we gain from this philosophy of press X to win, hmm? Well, It's easy to use on console for that wow factor. Anything else?

3. I am yet to understand how one enjoys remington for it's precision, when you have to reload after killing every single guy. This isn't even AS VAL, which I love, but was a mild annoyance, since it had to be reloaded after killing two people. Which was on the edge of fair trade for me. In the case of remington it's laughable that an accurate gun is balanced in such unnatural way, making one run around between hills and cover like a reload monkey. Anyway, that's not even my criticism, just a demonstration, how balancing can lead to absurdity. What I am really getting at is general inaccuracy of all weapons bar sniper rifles. Be it SMG's or Mondragon the issue is present. There is inherent satisfaction to having accurate weaponry in fps game. It enables fluid progression of both accuracy and tactical skills. I my opinion, bf1 decides to emphasize tactics well above all else, de-emphasizing the importance of learning to be accurate at various ranges. That is step back to me, not step forward.

Finally, the subject of explosive spam is such a serious issue it completely alters classic battlefield experience for me - it is fun to watch, I guess, but at the same time the amount of randomness is unbearable for someone like me. Anyway, I enjoyed bf1 for 170 hours and, as mentioned before, interested in hearing people who plan to sink in 2k hours as well as people like me, who recently stopped until further notice.

Do you still have time to play BF1?


Symthic Developer


Posts: 3,750

Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013

Platform: PC

Location: __main__, Finland

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message


Thursday, March 30th 2017, 4:21pm


Do you still have time to play BF1?

Not really, but that's mostly because of studies + other co-op games my friends also have.

BF1 is still a game I like to jump in sometimes for some "simple fun". I know the drill inside-out and doing something silly-stupid does not harm you unlike in some games.
That said, being the game I have always enjoyed also means the familiarity moves from other BF games to BF1, and it is not as fresh. I wouldn't call it all out bland, but I have grown a taste for other type of gameplay (recently been into battle royal stuff).
Links to users' thread list who have made analytical/statistical/mathematical/cool posts on Symthic:
  • 3VerstsNorth - Analysis of game mechanics in BF4 (tickrates, effects of tickrate, etc)
  • InterimAegis - Weapon comparisons/scoring.
  • leptis - Analysis of shotguns, recoil, recoil control and air drag.
  • Veritable - Scoring of BF4/BF1 firearms in terms of usability, firing and other mechanics.
  • pmax - Statistical analysis of BF4 players/games.
  • Miffyli - Random statistical analysis of BF4 battlereports/players and kill-distances. (list is cluttered with other threads).
Sorry if your name wasn't on the list, I honestly can't recall all names : ( . Nudge me if you want to be included


Holy War? No Thanks.


Posts: 2,836

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message


Thursday, March 30th 2017, 4:22pm

Hmm interestign view on things. While you come to a similar conclusion I do not enjoy BF1 as much because of other things, or I come to other conclusions.

Well the map design is surely nothing special, the lack of cover between flags while the cover on flags mostly forces point blank engagements is indeed something that I do not understand. I agree that this creates dynamics that creates lopsided matches. However I can not agree with the verticality of BF4. There there was always one major major high point that gave the controlling team a huge advantage. Also getting rid of the people in, what were technically redzones, took a lot of ages and mostly did not work, rather annoying.
Good verticality is not where you can sit all day and camp, but a situational high point that gives you an edge, but can be flanked fast. I've often said this before, Scrapmetal was the map with the best amount of verticality I've ever seen. Awesome.

However you got a point in saying that the structures in general are too small, why did they not flesh out the castle on empire's edge? Just as an example. You could have easily added a big church or cathedral on the maps, or some kind of palace similar to Azadi.

The animations are buggy sometimes and I personally do not agree with being able to climb over a wall etc. This just creates a lot of chaos over clear lanes, since enemies can always come from everywhere. Animationwise, I think it is alright, but I do not like the increased acceleration for strafing, especially considering the amount of hipfire engagements and low mag counts. I was rather perplexed about this, because this is something that they have adjusted in BF4 before. But I guess this was done to easier avoid the sniper fire, but, well this could be avoided with other things. Other than that it seems rather on point, not too fast and not too slow.

The shooting mechanics really have two sides, personally my accuracy went down with every weapon, with BAs as an exception for BF4, since I did not play them a lot to have significant data. I was more accurate in BF3 though, if I recall correctly. Considering that recoil and ROF dropped or stayed the same, this is rather unusual. But spread does not really matter either with the engagement ranges I am forced into, so my precision went down, because of other things like horrible sights, gun smoke, firing animation, visual recoil, muzzle flash, poor contrast on maps, visual suppression and a couple of other things. Interestingly my accuracy ranges between 15%-25% for most weapons regardless of weapon class (bar BAs where visual stuff plays no role).
However there are a lot of people that are much more accurate with these weapons than I am on average, which is intriguing because in BF4 everyone was within a 10% accuracy range for any weapon. I think this is an issue because it rewards accuracy over other things and creates a larger gap between the players, that was unneeded.

Explosive spam is incredibly subjective, because game mechanics have little impact on it, it is purely a phenomenom of map design. If DICE insist to make maps (and this ties to the first point) that have no cover from above then of course rocket guns, mortar shells and grenades are bound ot get thrown everyhwere. They also design chokepoint heavy very destructible maps, modes that make all players fight around few objectives and generally insist on a playercount that is very high. Furthermore they do not allow the community to sort this stuff out by themselves by disabling explosives etc.. So naturally you have a lot of it, and people find it annoying and complain, however they should not be complaining about the mortar or indirect fire gagdets, but about poor map design choices.

That about sums it up, I guess.

Oh yeah, Persoanlly I am not fed up by the franchise at all, and will keep playing the franchise. Also I've never been a fan of the Battle Royale mode, be it Arma, H1Z1 or the new one. But my mates play it and enjoy it, mostly because it is simple fun as well.