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.

## Is Frontlines headed to an early grave?

Smoked Salmon Best Salmon

Posts: 995

Date of registration
: Dec 25th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Yakima. WA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 12

Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 3:32pm

"If it has existed for a long time, it must be good!"

Platoon Marble Duck

### Hate Mail

"you obviously don't know what an argument is as there is only one person battling. Do you really fucking think I want subs? You think you can act all big and powerful just because you sit on a computer at least 6 hours a day like the probably nerdy unwanted retard you are with 4.3k subs? You think 4.3k subs is a lot? LOL you need medicine man. I don't want any subs as i just have a google account for other media and writing comments. Think twice before you act. You even said in your video you aren't that great of a player, and the comments agree you aren't. Maybe you should once again think twice before you act, stop being such an annoying, ignorant bastard that everyone wants to shut up, and god, literally, just shut up. Your voice gave me a headache :s﻿"

"As a youtuber shouldn't be trying to be reeling in your viewers with exciting stuff being said not your boring ass commentary for your video"

"The more you watch his vid the dumber he gets I swear he's borderline autistic look I got shot behind cover beacuase thin sheets metal are unpenetrable. Bf4 is just as quiet and tactical as bf3 random explosion in the background . Player has dissconected from chat
You started playing bf3 and never touched bfc1/2. Please do yourself a favor and shutdown your generic cod channel down"

"Nice clickb8 Faggot w8ting for your shit tier video to disable comments . Fucking newfag cancer go play some cod you activisiom cock faggot"

"I don't see why he [MarbleDuck] always tries to shit on levelcap he is better and has a million more subs...and also "there isnt a best gun in she game there are guns that are better that others at different engagement distances" yes thats true and whichever is the best/most average at all of them is the "best gun""

"Marbleduck you don't know shit lol levelcap knows more than you do you cant talk about how someone puts up garbage when you do yourself your a newcomer to YouTube acting like you know shit step up in the food chain first then you have the right to talk otherwise your just a fish trying to compete with sharks"

"Why don't we just witness "LevelCap vs MarbleDuck" One on One both on Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 seen as there is so much Controversy about the Two Youtubers"

"stfu cunt, BF3 was way better end of discussion"

"Stfu man, you're be littleing the most looked upon Battlefield Youtuber. No one cares about you, how much of an ego you have, or quite frankly your opinion. It's a fucking game.... Does it really fucking matter? Pathetic man."

"fuck you asshole, dont talk shit about total"

"Wtf is your problem? You have no subs and he has millions, yet you pick on him like some kind of stubborn, ignorant, rude child born with a silver spoon is his mouth. It's easy to do that, for example... You said there was no background noise yet there is. You say you're a fairly good player, you're not."

"please talk like a normal person and not like a professional"

Posts: 158

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 5:17pm

### Quoted from "marbleduck"

God forbid something breaks tradition and does something better than any prior mode has before, right?

Wrong. Some prior modes were a lot more inventive compared to "frontlines". Obliteration, for example. Bombs spawning randomly, people often come up with creative ways of securing and delivering, and, more importantly, every game is unique experience. Not without it's flaws, obviously, but the line of thinking appeals to me. That is why I would generally prefer Dragon Valley or Gulf of Oman over locker/metro cql any day of the week. When they stick a pole in the ground and say "this is where we all fight and die!!!" I immediately lose interest, because I'd rather play quake or doom for that sort of thing. Battlefield is more than just the shooting/movement skills. It's also tactics and strategy when dealing with rapidly changing reality. Tug of war game play on offer is just a TDM variation, narrow-minded design. Not much thought required, brute force wins, or, more likely, randomness. This statement mainly stems from my observations, limited indeed, of how my opponents and team mates play front lines. Perhaps creators had something different in mind or luck of the draw when matchmaking, idk.

Posts: 1,589

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 5:46pm

### Quoted from "marbleduck"

"If it has existed for a long time, it must be good!"
Uh, yeah well here's the thing.

Something that continues to see excellent sales after 15 games and 10 years of releases in a fairly fluid industry across multiple platforms probably has some solid merit. Things that have enduring, popular relevance actually do tend to be good.

I think people are, on average pretty dull and unimaginative - but they are not so stupid as to keep sinking money and time into a game whose overwhelmingly most played mode is unfun.

People buy a BF to play conquest.

And here is the rub: I've watched your videos. Your position on why frontlines is "good" is that you feel that your highly skilled abilities mean that you can influence the game mode more. IOW you are having more "fun".

Hate to break it to you but that is an entirely and unequivocally subjective opinion. You can dress all your stuff up in pithy prose and obfuscate the issue (or try to impress people not sure which) with pithy latin phrases but the subjectivity is painfully evident.

You keep saying "better", as if it's objective. You mean "that I like more". Stop the gaslighting.

Posts: 1,589

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 5:51pm

### Quoted from "marbleduck"

God forbid something breaks tradition and does something better than any prior mode has before, right?

Wrong. Some prior modes were a lot more inventive compared to "frontlines". Obliteration, for example. Bombs spawning randomly, people often come up with creative ways of securing and delivering, and, more importantly, every game is unique experience. Not without it's flaws, obviously, but the line of thinking appeals to me. That is why I would generally prefer Dragon Valley or Gulf of Oman over locker/metro cql any day of the week. When they stick a pole in the ground and say "this is where we all fight and die!!!" I immediately lose interest, because I'd rather play quake or doom for that sort of thing. Battlefield is more than just the shooting/movement skills. It's also tactics and strategy when dealing with rapidly changing reality. Tug of war game play on offer is just a TDM variation, narrow-minded design. Not much thought required, brute force wins, or, more likely, randomness. This statement mainly stems from my observations, limited indeed, of how my opponents and team mates play front lines. Perhaps creators had something different in mind or luck of the draw when matchmaking, idk.
Actually the most coherent, concentrated force wins, and wins handedly. A single squad of good players will utterly steamroll an entire team of blueberries because they can secure absolute local superiority while the opposition throws in piecemeal.

Posts: 1,589

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 6:17pm

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

I've already been on the opposite end of the spectrum; I was more "feelsy" than objective and I don't agree with that line of thinking anymore. Call it what you will, but heavy reliance on "feel" or emotion isn't a particularly smart route to travel down in my estimation. Objectivity is consistent and reliable; it is fact-based and literally the truth of the matter. Obviously, concepts that really have no measurable, objective approach don't apply. Although I truly believe the viability of Conquest as a whole can be approached with objectivity and it isn't just based on feels or pure opinion.

By the way, Frontlines is very different from the crap gameplay that Metro offered. I don't see how the two are even remotely comparable. Just because both share linearity doesn't make them the same.
Objectivity is great until you stop being objective but still pretend to be doing so.

I seriously question if people know what the words subjective and objective actually mean. Because what I mostly see around here is people thinking that a well argued opinion is all that is required to be objective. Yeah no.

Please objectively define the concept of "fun" that can be applied to gaming. Assessing the technical reasons behind why things reach mass popularity, or are widely (as opposed to nichely) lauded as good is very hard, very, very, very hard. People try to come up with all sorts of metrics but they never work. You can engineer the perfect piece of entertainment from the top down starting with a kernel definition of fun. We know, by experience some game features/design choices that ruin fun, but defining the opposite: maximized fun is practically impossible because it finally hinges on the subjectivity of the individual.

You can just drop the word science and expect it to magically solve your problems. Science turns out to be hard and limited in ways.

I will repeat myself again, objectivity can only answer the problem of: the following game design choices cause a certain aggregate player behaviour (game meta) to emerge. It stops there. Whether you like the resulting meta is entirely and unambigiously a personal, IOW subjective opinion.

I get quickly bored of the meta that results from the lockers/metro type of map when 64 players are involved. Some people love it. There is no "right" answer here.

The only other way to be objective is to come up with an agreed up metric of points on which a game mode is judged. Effectively you are granulating and focus the subjectivity in order to produce a more representative response.

The notion that you can be simply an consistently objective, and that objectivity can answer all questions is preposterous. Art simply could not exist without subjectivity.

Posts: 158

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 7:18pm

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

I get quickly bored of the meta that results from the lockers/metro type of map when 64 players are involved. Some people love it. There is no "right" answer here.

Objectively, the game is designed to be 64p large scale warfare with lots of vehicles and infantry, everybody knows this and it is advertised as such. A good example would be Shanghai. St. Quentin. Conquest is the center piece of the puzzle, historically, the rest of the modes are there to experiment, satisfy all sorts of non-standard tastes and to attract players from other titles, so that they can have familiar fun and bring their friends. So, no, objectively, 64p locker is not full battlefield experience, merely a wild experiment gone right, measured by it's popularity within the community.

So far there were many experiments, none of them matched CQL in popularity. Usually they end where it becomes apparent that the game was designed specifically around CQL. So yeah, designing new modes is not an easy endeavor. Should they stop with designing new modes? Probably not. But special care should be given specifically to conquest mode due to it's interconnection with other mechanics and relevance in historical dynamics. I'd love to see evolution of the CQL mode eventually, perhaps borrow elements of other modes, not stagnate in one form for decades. Yet, we see other games which "stagnate" in one form for a long time and their player base is healthy at levels way above BF.

I think, eventually, it's a question of what works best for the main audience.

Posts: 3,076

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 14

Saturday, April 22nd 2017, 10:02pm

Since BF3, Conquest has been plagued by aspects that heavily enable the slippery slope concept: once a team is at a deficit they continue to fall deeper into that deficit. While this isn't guaranteed in every round of Conquest, the mechanics of the system are always present for one team to take advantage of the other provided they are aware of the existence of these mechanics and how to properly use them. Conquest is inherently symmetric; both teams have an equal amount of players and assets available to them, but then the maps themselves can introduce asymmetry in the forms of level design and flag-spawned assets. Asymmetry isn't all bad because it makes the game interesting, but there comes a point where certain asymmetrical aspects favor one team over the other and thus we have imbalance.

Frontlines is thoroughly symmetric before and during the match, so matches are truly only determined by the overall ability of the teams involved. There don't exist any map-specific variables that can influence how the game flows, just pure momentum and strategy.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.
For 'skill cannons,' that is.

Nope, Aim Assist or bust.