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: 3,265

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

61

Sunday, April 30th 2017, 7:30am

I'll say this, sid_tai. Zerging is the result of a poorly designed mode that lacks direction. Zerging is not teamwork, but a collection of players coincidentally moving to the same objective. I believe true teamwork can only be achieved through voice or text based communication. Now please leave it at that and do not include me in further discussion. If that can't be managed I'll just remove my posts from this thread so you guys can do as you please with it.
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


This post by "Ritobasu" (Sunday, April 30th 2017, 8:57am) has been deleted by user "yugas42" (Sunday, April 30th 2017, 6:41pm) with the following reason: rule 5

yugas42

Moderator

(1,359)

Posts: 1,481

Date of registration
: Sep 1st 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

63

Sunday, April 30th 2017, 6:42pm

Thread gets shut down if we have to remove more posts, carry on without harassing people or making useless posts. All parties are at fault.

Posts: 171

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

64

Sunday, April 30th 2017, 10:37pm

I'll say this, sid_tai. Zerging is the result of a poorly designed mode that lacks direction. Zerging is not teamwork, but a collection of players coincidentally moving to the same objective. I believe true teamwork can only be achieved through voice or text based communication. Now please leave it at that and do not include me in further discussion. If that can't be managed I'll just remove my posts from this thread so you guys can do as you please with it.


If it lacked direction, wouldn't everyone run around like headless chickens? It seems to me zerging in it's worst form is facilitated when direction is clearly defined and there is little to no option of flank. (map too open/too linear/cramped) Locker is one place where zerging is the best available option, not all have grown to realize that, but that's another matter. There is literally nothing anyone can do when 15 people are constantly pushing using smokes, defibs and flashes.. Guilin peaks, on the other hand, uses a neat circular design and while the zerg is real there too, there is always an option to break it up. I like Guilin, played it many a time and I will say that there is something to this "circular design" (sorry, don't have a better word yet) - teamwork often occurs naturally there without the need for SMS or phone call. People somehow get pushed towards each other and get into zerg-packs only to be broken up by incidental or cleverly conceived set of events. Zerg-packs are rarely big there too, which is key, to me. Additionally, we have pearl market and wave breaker, rooting from the same principle. Perhaps Nivelle Nights is designed in the same manner? It looks to me that way, yet I never played on it, merely seen other people do it.

I think "mode problem" is secondary here to map problem. The map "lacks direction", among other things, is little means of cleverly self-organizing players outside of conspiring on teamspeak. Of course, that can be seen as a player problem, but I also think it's a design problem, or, rather, an opportunity for future development.

  • "sid_tai" started this thread

Posts: 218

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

65

Monday, May 1st 2017, 10:11am

I won't quote JSLICE20 anymore because it seems he does not want to be included in this discussion, but we of course are open to dissenting opinions.

On the topic of team work, DICE has been encouraging support "team work" of giving ammo, which also happens within a zerg. I think team work is not simply the act of helping each other out in terms of our role deficits, but also plugging the holes in your team's positions, diffusing an incoming push by flanking etc. We don't need voice comms for that. A minimap and a comma rose command is pretty good for that. Currently, IMO due to the low TTK, the above team-work oriented tactics are not effective enough to break up an incoming push. And an incoming push can rolls on from point to point is what we observe as a zerg.

I agree 100% that map design is also a significant factor determining if the zerg tactic is going to appear, but it is another topic and I hope to see a future thread on that. But to touch on that a bit, Mori4arte mentioned Guilin and I think it is a perfect example of a zerg-prone map in BF4. In that map a zerg happens naturally for various reasons. But in BF4 the TTK is lower and I still find that defending a point head-on is although possible, quite hard. 2 good player defending would be a likely feat. But armed with a suppressed AWS and getting a flank off on a zerg, I could have a much higher possibility of stopping a zerg, and letting my team mates finish off the remaining enemy. And I think lower TTK enables such tactical maneuvers that keep the zerg in check.

Posts: 1,889

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

66

Monday, May 1st 2017, 12:37pm

I'll say this, sid_tai. Zerging is the result of a poorly designed mode that lacks direction. Zerging is not teamwork, but a collection of players coincidentally moving to the same objective. I believe true teamwork can only be achieved through voice or text based communication. Now please leave it at that and do not include me in further discussion. If that can't be managed I'll just remove my posts from this thread so you guys can do as you please with it.


If it lacked direction, wouldn't everyone run around like headless chickens? It seems to me zerging in it's worst form is facilitated when direction is clearly defined and there is little to no option of flank. (map too open/too linear/cramped) Locker is one place where zerging is the best available option, not all have grown to realize that, but that's another matter. There is literally nothing anyone can do when 15 people are constantly pushing using smokes, defibs and flashes.. Guilin peaks, on the other hand, uses a neat circular design and while the zerg is real there too, there is always an option to break it up. I like Guilin, played it many a time and I will say that there is something to this "circular design" (sorry, don't have a better word yet) - teamwork often occurs naturally there without the need for SMS or phone call. People somehow get pushed towards each other and get into zerg-packs only to be broken up by incidental or cleverly conceived set of events. Zerg-packs are rarely big there too, which is key, to me. Additionally, we have pearl market and wave breaker, rooting from the same principle. Perhaps Nivelle Nights is designed in the same manner? It looks to me that way, yet I never played on it, merely seen other people do it.

I think "mode problem" is secondary here to map problem. The map "lacks direction", among other things, is little means of cleverly self-organizing players outside of conspiring on teamspeak. Of course, that can be seen as a player problem, but I also think it's a design problem, or, rather, an opportunity for future development.


Locker/Metro is exactly the opposite of a zerg map if you think about it though. Because of the heavily choked nature of the key features you actually end up with groups of players from each team congregating around the most choked map feature and lobbing HE and other indirect toys at each other and trading kills, but only a very small minority of players actually trickling through the chokes and generally end up getting farmed. This milling around but attacking piecemeal is basically the opposite of a zerg rush.

Locker/Metro would actually play dramatically differently if larger groups of say 5-10 players all tried to spam, pop smoke and then run through the chokes together in a zergy pack of players. This would result in frequent decisive plays and breakthroughs. It might actually approximate fun instead of the slow, locked-in grind you typically get.

BF1 zerging is actually large roving packs of players rotating from flag to flag as a semi-coherent blob, as opposed to intelligently breaking off, etc.

For me the definitive BF1 zerg map is Fort Vaux. You get basically two rotating packs of large players moving from flag to flag with a trickle of players trying to act independently and generally running into one of the packs and getting stomped. Sometimes the main zerg packs meet head on and lock each other down until their grenades are depleted.

So maps with plenty of maneuvering space also devolve into zerging: clearly the ability to move around and taking different paths doesn't limit zerging. Heavily bottlenecked maps turn into a grind at the choke points not zerging. Maps with lots of routes have more zerging as a result. So the issue is that NOT moving with the bulk mass of the team confers no advantage - whatever rewards in doing so are not worth the risk. Certainly part of the problem causing this is TTK, but the bigger problem is that there is no incentive to back cap and maintain a persistent presence on gimme flags because the bleed doesn't reward much. So the only way back camping works is if the enemy tanks and a numerically larger number of enemies can be distracted into trying to flush out your squad. Otherwise it's not winning your team anything. And with the lack of beacons and the like, if you get a squad wipe, you know you're good until someone makes their way back again.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "tankmayvin" (May 1st 2017, 12:44pm)


Posts: 63

Date of registration
: Feb 1st 2017

Platform: PS4

Location: Somewhere safe and boring

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

67

Monday, May 1st 2017, 4:59pm

If it lacked direction, wouldn't everyone run around like headless chickens?
If we are chicken not human, Yes we will do that. But We are human, we will blindly follow large group of people because we think "Majority won't be wrong, even they are wrong we have a huge amount of backup taking the same risk with us." It is a nature of gregarious animals. People think someone know the direction they will follow it and that how zerging begin. That is unavoidable.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,586

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

68

Monday, May 1st 2017, 5:11pm

Zerging is, by the very definition, a mindless swarm of creatures running to wherever the Overmind wants it to go.

It surely is a map problem and many modes always have been prone to it. It gets worse and worse when you eliminate options, that is why I say Frontlines, is catering towards it. One objective with a very open field all around, and no reward mechanically or by points to step outside. That is how it portrays itself to the players. So people will run straight to the objective, indeed like Zerglings.

  • "sid_tai" started this thread

Posts: 218

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

69

Tuesday, May 2nd 2017, 1:08pm

Zerging is, by the very definition, a mindless swarm of creatures running to wherever the Overmind wants it to go.

It surely is a map problem and many modes always have been prone to it. It gets worse and worse when you eliminate options, that is why I say Frontlines, is catering towards it. One objective with a very open field all around, and no reward mechanically or by points to step outside. That is how it portrays itself to the players. So people will run straight to the objective, indeed like Zerglings.

I would say Frontlines plays out more like Metro. Make all people clash at one point and throw stuff at each other. The winning side will stand there capture it and move on to the next point. Just like how it happens at Metro initially at B, then at A or C. However in Metro if you are on the Russian side, one recon with a beacon sneaking through to back-cap Train station could distract a number of people, giving your team a chance to relieve pressure on Cafe. Frontlines doesn't have that.

Now the relevant question is, do you guys think that an appropriate map design, WITHOUT decreasing TTK could solve the zerg problem? or Is TTK decrease necessary? This is also the question that I am still trying to figure out. In my mind I am thinking Seine Crossing, a map where we rarely see zergs, with BF1 TTK.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,586

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

70

Tuesday, May 2nd 2017, 2:44pm

Zerging is, by the very definition, a mindless swarm of creatures running to wherever the Overmind wants it to go.

It surely is a map problem and many modes always have been prone to it. It gets worse and worse when you eliminate options, that is why I say Frontlines, is catering towards it. One objective with a very open field all around, and no reward mechanically or by points to step outside. That is how it portrays itself to the players. So people will run straight to the objective, indeed like Zerglings.

I would say Frontlines plays out more like Metro. Make all people clash at one point and throw stuff at each other. The winning side will stand there capture it and move on to the next point. Just like how it happens at Metro initially at B, then at A or C. However in Metro if you are on the Russian side, one recon with a beacon sneaking through to back-cap Train station could distract a number of people, giving your team a chance to relieve pressure on Cafe. Frontlines doesn't have that.

Now the relevant question is, do you guys think that an appropriate map design, WITHOUT decreasing TTK could solve the zerg problem? or Is TTK decrease necessary? This is also the question that I am still trying to figure out. In my mind I am thinking Seine Crossing, a map where we rarely see zergs, with BF1 TTK.


It would not get rid of the mid-range issue, and it would certainly not close the gap between the average player and people like MarbleDuck. Flanking would still be subpar because you would still get thrown into engagements where you are at a disdvantage. Giving out appropriate cover from above and giving out properly usable routes could get rid of the situations where you want to flank but are stopped by a sniper that has sightline and control over a half-circle with a radius of 50-150m. Indirect fire gadgets would be more situational instead of always being a good option.
Also map design does not solve issues that can not really be measured like something that has direct effects on conflict albeit being only visual features. I just aimed at a dark guy in front of a dark wall with dark iron sights, of course I could not hit anything with it. Ar round before that I could not hit a guy because my and other shots launched smoke and debris all around the place so we both lost target. Or the shaking of the screen when an explosive detonates close to you. There are a lot of overdone visual features that have a direct effect on gameplay and not for the better either.

There is also the discrepancy between recoil and spread that is huge now. You might be totally on target but your shot will go off. In previous iterations you bursted as long as you could control the gun and that often enough was exactly the time where spread would start to kick in heavier as well. So these two intertwined nicely.
Now we have a lower ROF with the same or less recoil, but on average increased spread and spread mechanics. This is not very intuitive either because weapons are more controllable yet more inaccurate. It does not synergize well.
It does not change the overall usability buff the BAs got compared to the poor performance of every other weapon class outside of the intended range.

A good map design does not decrease the player count either so you will still be playing with more engagements per minute, but with weapons less designed for this. And so forth.

Map design is still a very important factor on how the game plays out, and BF1 certainly has not done a very good job in these terms. Personally I can not think of one map that I would consider "good" from a gameplay POV, they are all sub-par, and despite the visual appearance all follow the same design pattern. There are no maps that I would consider abominations either, I am really indifferent about them, they cause no feelings, which is likely the worst thing one can say.
That being said, general BF4 design was definitely worse, as they were vehicle heavy with long sight lines and a perverted sense of verticality. Yet custom servers were relevant so you could mostly chose which maps you would want to play and there were many options for guys that enjoy combined warfare over the few infantry centric maps or the huge amount of maps that forced you into a vehicle. Gunplay was certainly more enjoyable for me in BF4 so that made up for the poor map design of Lancang, Dragon Valley, Sunken Dragon, Altai, Karelia and similar oddities.

As for your question: Well, I did like Seine crossing and Amiens has a close resemblance. However Amiens definitely plays out much worse. This is indeed due to changed map design, but I think Amiens would play much better if it was transferred to BF4. Gunplay is as important as the design.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "VincentNZ" (May 2nd 2017, 2:50pm)