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?

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: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Sunday, April 23rd 2017, 9:38am

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

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.
Symmetry implies good balance, but it doesn't guarantee gameplay that is very fun.

I would actually argue that the games with the best gameplay have traditionally delivered well balanced but asymmetric configurations.

Conquest has actually traditionally NOT been symmetric. Sometimes this has led to great gameplay, sometimes this has led to maps with notoriously flawed meta (Gulf of Oman strikes me in particular because it's the "full package": big map with all the air and almost all the armor). Often it's led to some amazing maps: Strike at Karkand for eg.

Battlefield was never designed as a e-sports title, it doesn't MATTER that you'd need to configure the matching so that every map was played twice with the teams switched so that both sides has to play the "assaulting" side. That doesn't make the game bad or unfun.

Also 99% sure soissons fronline is NOT a symmetric match. Maps are not mirrored, that automatically introduces what could be decisive differences.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Sunday, April 23rd 2017, 11:01am

I've been enlightened to the fact that dead space in between objective sectors is pretty much irrelevant; it's specifically where the flags are positioned that will impose potential imbalance.
However, this isn't really applicable to Frontlines because each team has a spawn equidistant (or pretty goddamn close at least) to the current objective. The design of the map doesn't need to be a perfect mirror for symmetry to exist. As long as the spawns relative to the objective are equal, then it retains symmetry.
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

### My "Contributions"

Holy War? No Thanks.

Posts: 2,701

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Sunday, April 23rd 2017, 11:15am

Yeah, I think we all see where you are coming from, but the outside of flags do matter. Take Rupture B and C for example. B is basically a trench, surrounded by fields. Furthermore you have another trench system with full oversight of the B flag, AND possible flanking routes. Taking this flag is incredibly hard for one team and rather easy for the other one. C flag on the other hand has good cover for both sides. Initially that is. But destruction plays a huge role now, because retaking this flag becomes harder and harder with the barns being levered to ground level and most of the cover gone.

At the same time possible flanking routes are still almost entirely controlles from spawn areas of the other teams. This does create a lopsided match, but still a very long match because you still have to press onward. So this is not really balanced or symmetrical, just the time it takes to take these flags make the round appear balanced.

I mean there are issues with conquest, like flag assets, which was stupid. Suddenly the winning team has four tanks and the "losing" or rather slacking team has two. That is stupid. Or letting only one MAA spawn as a flag asset in the middle of the map, which is incredibly air heavy. I was so outraged by Karelia...
But other things about asymmetry can be challenging. Now a squad on Rogue holding E is really annoying but a good tactical choice if you aim to win, because it puts pressure on the enemy team all the time and the flag is defendable. Here mirroring the map would have been better.
On the other hand, a game of Noshar Canals or Oman, Karkand etc. can be fun because of it's asymmetry, by providing more of a challenge and by breaking up the monotony of having mirrored maps by assets and design. Inherently unless we are playing Facing Worlds on Unreal Tournament, which was a very popular map, we will always have asymmetry to a varied degree and it does not per se make the map better or worse. It definitely makes the map visually more appealing though.

Posts: 941

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

Sunday, April 23rd 2017, 3:18pm

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

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.
Symmetry implies good balance, but it doesn't guarantee gameplay that is very fun.

I would actually argue that the games with the best gameplay have traditionally delivered well balanced but asymmetric configurations.

Conquest has actually traditionally NOT been symmetric. Sometimes this has led to great gameplay, sometimes this has led to maps with notoriously flawed meta (Gulf of Oman strikes me in particular because it's the "full package": big map with all the air and almost all the armor). Often it's led to some amazing maps: Strike at Karkand for eg.

Battlefield was never designed as a e-sports title, it doesn't MATTER that you'd need to configure the matching so that every map was played twice with the teams switched so that both sides has to play the "assaulting" side. That doesn't make the game bad or unfun.

Also 99% sure soissons fronline is NOT a symmetric match. Maps are not mirrored, that automatically introduces what could be decisive differences.

Well, IMHO Dragon Valley 2k15 is THE best 64p Map of all BF4.

That being said, its DICE choice to play around with different game modes, I dont really care, because good ones will find a large audience and bad ones won't. See Weaponmaster.

However, I still demand a gamemode dedicated for 6v6 or 5v5s. This isnt about competitive players, but also for those who love the gunplay, but all other game modes become too chaotic for them.

I recently had a 6v6 Domination game on Guilin Peaks and for once I enjoyed the game time.

I know its BF1, but general problems like game modes have a bad history in BF4 as well.
still playin' Motorstorm

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,636

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Sunday, April 23rd 2017, 7:53pm

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

But other things about asymmetry can be challenging. Now a squad on Rogue holding E is really annoying but a good tactical choice if you aim to win, because it puts pressure on the enemy team all the time and the flag is defendable. Here mirroring the map would have been better.

Boop.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Holy War? No Thanks.

Posts: 2,701

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Sunday, April 23rd 2017, 8:14pm

I never saw that. Really makes sense. E is also just so defendable, we used to hold that for whole rounds and win all the time. You do not even have to do a lot of fighting there, the presence alone binds so potentially so many people that the rest of your team are relieved on other flags, especially when a chinese tank keeps on firing into your building to no avail. You can also drive off a valuable IFV flag asset.
It must be really annoying, but I still say it is a tactical move, you also rarely saw guys like us using a building there with a motion sensor, an engi and an assault/support.

Posts: 293

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

Tuesday, April 25th 2017, 12:45am

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

But other things about asymmetry can be challenging. Now a squad on Rogue holding E is really annoying but a good tactical choice if you aim to win, because it puts pressure on the enemy team all the time and the flag is defendable. Here mirroring the map would have been better.

Boop.

I do like Rogue on CQ small and 32p a lot more. 4 flags and 32p plays out exceptionally well.

1 guests