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.

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: 3,674

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

41

Friday, April 28th 2017, 6:49am

@sid_tai

You're entirely forgetting that damage is tied to caliber, just as it was in BF4. The 1916, Mondragon, and 1906 fire the same round, Lewis and Huot fire the same round, MG 15 and Madsen fire the same round, and BAR and M1909 fire the same round, just to name a few.

Also, the 1906 should most definitely not be 2HK up close, use the RSC. In fact, I'm seeing far too much up-close damage buffing, which is where it's really not necessary for almost any gun, and at the same time still seeing awful 6/7/8HK at range. The last thing we need is even more imbalance in favour of CQB fights.
Who Enjoys, Wins

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,416)

Posts: 2,810

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

42

Friday, April 28th 2017, 8:41am

Pff...Honestly I think this was all rather placebo, we, as in my mates, never had any problems whatsoever.

Vincent, not this again. "If it doesn't happen in my gaming experience it must not have been true." This is a silly way to perceive anything, really. There was bountiful documentation for the existence of one frame kills/ deaths; you can't simply toss that evidence aside and cry "placebo!"


Ah I meant no disrespect, but it was exaggerated. Here is where I would agree that players should have been educated better. You know, sometimes you die and you think you were behind the corner already and then you blame it on the netcode. Or you run into a guy and he kills you almost instantly, or it just seemed that he must have seen you earlier. But in fact, the killcam shows up a second after your death and your enemy moved, so of course the angle is flawed. Or maybe you joined the server and have a higher ping, which gives your enemy just that split second more. Or maybe it was just bad luck or lack of skill.

And then somebody comes along and says there are issues with the netcode and that there is a bug where headshots do double damage and suddenly it all makes sense. Then all deaths suddenly are caused by these issues, and anything suspicious is suddenly filed under "netcode" even if its just a mechanical bug, or something totally unrelated to the game at all. Were there problems with this? Yes and very likely more than in previous iterations, but it was totally bloated.
When you got killed behind cover it was very likely perceived fishy because of the killcam, the angle and the delay. So your perception was deceived. Personally I find the tank spawn swap of BF1 much more annoying and gamebreaking as these netcode issues or even the BF3 M26 Dart bug.


I mean he is right here in one sense:

"Netcode" was to BF4 what "Casual" is to BF1.

There was always a litany of whining about "netcode" whenever players weren't having engagements go their way.


Yeah and it is similar to BF3's suppression. Kills under suppression, or times where you are affected by it where so marginal compared to the whole game, but once the hype got flowing everyone blamed suppression for stuff that would have been "netcode" in BF4. I guess people just need to put a label on everything.

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

43

Friday, April 28th 2017, 8:51am

@sid_tai

You're entirely forgetting that damage is tied to caliber, just as it was in BF4. The 1916, Mondragon, and 1906 fire the same round, Lewis and Huot fire the same round, MG 15 and Madsen fire the same round, and BAR and M1909 fire the same round, just to name a few.

Also, the 1906 should most definitely not be 2HK up close, use the RSC. In fact, I'm seeing far too much up-close damage buffing, which is where it's really not necessary for almost any gun, and at the same time still seeing awful 6/7/8HK at range. The last thing we need is even more imbalance in favour of CQB fights.


Yeah.Guns are already plenty damn lethal at close range if you actually score hits. It's the 30-50m gameplay that needs work.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,416)

Posts: 2,810

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

44

Friday, April 28th 2017, 11:47am

@sid_tai

You're entirely forgetting that damage is tied to caliber, just as it was in BF4. The 1916, Mondragon, and 1906 fire the same round, Lewis and Huot fire the same round, MG 15 and Madsen fire the same round, and BAR and M1909 fire the same round, just to name a few.

Also, the 1906 should most definitely not be 2HK up close, use the RSC. In fact, I'm seeing far too much up-close damage buffing, which is where it's really not necessary for almost any gun, and at the same time still seeing awful 6/7/8HK at range. The last thing we need is even more imbalance in favour of CQB fights.


Yeah.Guns are already plenty damn lethal at close range if you actually score hits. It's the 30-50m gameplay that needs work.


Yeah as you say, there are tons of issues that affect the "ranged" performance. Most notably visibility things, like muzzle flash and smoke that make you lose your target at that range. Also all that grey soldier on grey ground and grey barrel stuff. Contrast could be adressed. Then you also have things like horrible sights, firing animation, visual recoil, sight wobble etc. play a role.
But the most glaring issue, and here we are sure on the same page, is the map design not really allowing for medium engagements on the objective and "long" engagement ranges in between the flags. In CQB, while a lot of weapons are rather unusable when compared to other options it is still about reflexes mostly in the 1vs1 engagements. Now these 1vs1 do not really happen on the objective either, but many weapons still work.

  • "sid_tai" started this thread

Posts: 294

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

45

Friday, April 28th 2017, 11:49am

@sid_tai

You're entirely forgetting that damage is tied to caliber, just as it was in BF4. The 1916, Mondragon, and 1906 fire the same round, Lewis and Huot fire the same round, MG 15 and Madsen fire the same round, and BAR and M1909 fire the same round, just to name a few.

Also, the 1906 should most definitely not be 2HK up close, use the RSC. In fact, I'm seeing far too much up-close damage buffing, which is where it's really not necessary for almost any gun, and at the same time still seeing awful 6/7/8HK at range. The last thing we need is even more imbalance in favour of CQB fights.



Oh I did not know that. Please excuse my ignorance. I have since corrected my post.

Regarding to your concern of upclose damage buffing, which weapons are you referring to specifically that will cause problems?

Posts: 63

Date of registration
: Feb 1st 2017

Platform: PS4

Location: Somewhere safe and boring

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

46

Friday, April 28th 2017, 2:46pm

4BTK
It seems like BF1 is lack of 4BTK gun in the current build. The dev are trying to avoid those things. Marbleduck said in his previous video that 4BTK is very inconsistence but I never know the reason why whether it is about the server logic loop or what. If that is true ,"4BTK is something you should never touch", I guess the thing you purpose won't let dev to be consider since you basically decrease most of the automatic gun's 5btk to 4btk.

  • "sid_tai" started this thread

Posts: 294

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

47

Friday, April 28th 2017, 8:43pm

4BTK
It seems like BF1 is lack of 4BTK gun in the current build. The dev are trying to avoid those things. Marbleduck said in his previous video that 4BTK is very inconsistence but I never know the reason why whether it is about the server logic loop or what. If that is true ,"4BTK is something you should never touch", I guess the thing you purpose won't let dev to be consider since you basically decrease most of the automatic gun's 5btk to 4btk.

That's very interesting. I would like to know if this is confirmed in BF1. Because even the Hellriegel with 4BTK has higher TTK than the Automatico with 5BTK. My opinion is that if we keep 5BTK and the low ROF for the "average" automatic weapon (~540-550ish) in BF1, it is not taking us where we want to be, which is the BF4's state of same BTK but higher ROF for the "average" automatic weapon (~750ish).

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

48

Friday, April 28th 2017, 10:21pm

4BTK
It seems like BF1 is lack of 4BTK gun in the current build. The dev are trying to avoid those things. Marbleduck said in his previous video that 4BTK is very inconsistence but I never know the reason why whether it is about the server logic loop or what. If that is true ,"4BTK is something you should never touch", I guess the thing you purpose won't let dev to be consider since you basically decrease most of the automatic gun's 5btk to 4btk.

That's very interesting. I would like to know if this is confirmed in BF1. Because even the Hellriegel with 4BTK has higher TTK than the Automatico with 5BTK. My opinion is that if we keep 5BTK and the low ROF for the "average" automatic weapon (~540-550ish) in BF1, it is not taking us where we want to be, which is the BF4's state of same BTK but higher ROF for the "average" automatic weapon (~750ish).


It depends on the way you design it.

If it's an < 25 dmg gun that relies on a HS for a 4 BTK it's inherently very unreliable. If it's a flat 25-6 dmg gun it will be made unreliable due to limb modifiers. If it's a 27-32 damage gun you'll be finding yourself with a lot of 3 shot kills from engaging enemies that have been pinged by a single bullet.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

49

Friday, April 28th 2017, 10:31pm

All this talk and I've really yet to see a definitive 'why' concerning BTK reduction at max damage and min damage ranges.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

Nope. Aim Assist or bust; here's why:

Default Aim Assist Data

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

No Slowdown Data

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


No Auto Rotation Data

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

Prepare your laughbox

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


  • "sid_tai" started this thread

Posts: 294

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

50

Saturday, April 29th 2017, 9:59am


All this talk and I've really yet to see a definitive 'why' concerning BTK reduction at max damage and min damage ranges.



Long TTK reduced effectiveness of a single skilled infantry against multiple. Running as a blob has so much effectiveness against enemy resistance that zerging is the meta right now. It is not that zerging was not effective against resistance in previous titles, but a good flank will break apart a zerg easily. Long TTK reduced the effectiveness of flanking because one cannot kill that many before getting killed, thereby increasing efffectiveness of zerging.

Long TTK is by no means the only cause of zerging, but it contributes to a significant part of it.

Also, due to the reduced effectiveness of a single infantry, the sense of agency diminishes while playing the game, eg the ability to affect a push, affect the outcome of the game. Long TTK is also not the only factor, but it is a significant part.

What is your take on this?