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.

## Making Vertical Recoil random, just like H-Recoil

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

The Pantless Messiah Returns

Posts: 793

Date of registration
: May 22nd 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Behind my M240B

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

Wednesday, May 24th 2017, 11:32am

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

Yep, I think the CTE is a marketing stunt, I said so a dozen times. Yeah, BF4 progressed through CTE, but that just made the testing public. It also gave everyone the illusion of having a say in the development of the game, which I have a huge problem with. The game should the result of the devs unified vision, although in a franchise as big as that, players have certain expectations. Creating the CTE opened up a dangerous precedent, that surfaced when Ammo 2.0 was brought up. Now I think it was a flawed system and brought nothing to the table, but suddenly the community did not want it either. Before they had avoided direct conflict on that level, but with a totally new mechanic they hit the boundaries of what the players tolerated.
So then they were in a dilemma, although Ammo 2.0 was likely a hot potato internally as well: Should they drop the mechanic and heed the masses, or should they follow their design concept and direction? This is indeed dangerous.

The CTE is a nice thing for basic stuff and small improvements like the Defib timer and the hertz update. Stuff that nobody could argue were wrong or polarizing, but have marginal effects on the whole. Weapon balance is a rational thing to do here as well. But now it is all out in public and every major move is closely watched. It also creates the illusion that everything needs to go through CTE or that CTE is the only place where they test stuff. A lot of testing is still done internally (it has to) and some people in the community have more say or influence over the development, for good and bad.

By the way, Ammo 2.0 would change a core and foundation mechanic. Active resupply has been in the game since ever, after all, if I am not mistaken.

I also never said BF1 was losing players because of singular aspects, but because of a plethora of issues that make the game unfun and the feeling that the games is missing a sense of direction. Missing stuff like server support, a terrible UI and similar things make it even harder to cope with things like the flawed conquest system, overspecialization, feature bloat and shooting mechanics. Basically BF1 is a gumbo, and not a very tasty one.
1.) CTE was not a marketing stunt. There was no illusion. If you had something to say worth hearing out, a lot of the time, it got heard out. This is true for everything from uniform soldier aiming to weapon and vehicle balance. Saying it's a marketing stunt a dozen times doesn't make you right, it makes you a spam bot.
2.) CTE was the only possible place testing could reasonably be done for ammo regen. It needed testing before implementation, DICE didn't have the time to test multiple implementations of it prior to release, and I would much rather have had it tested in BF1 and had a solution for it found prior to the release of the next game, where it could be a solid mechanic in a game with a setting that isn't dog shit.
3.) My understanding is that ammo regen was dropped because there were mixed feelings internally and someone who got a promotion they weren't qualified for pulled rank.
4.) Internal testing is used, yes. Internal testing is also limited in scope of possibility and total hours put in. In fact, it could be argued that trying randomized vertical recoil would make much more sense internally anyways instead of wasting everyone's time in an update to the CTE. If it doesn't go over horribly, then you can push it to CTE to try out. Also, I have absolutely no idea where you're getting the idea people think the CTE is the only place anything gets tested. Maybe you should get higher standards for friends.
5.) The way you phrased that originally, "strikes at the foundation of the game", sounded as if that was some kind of egregious offense, as if it was to be removed completely. It was meant to change the mechanic, yes. It was not to remove it, not to make it useless, not to make it so you're shooting yourself in the foot if you play support. It wasn't what all the Reddit Reactionaries™ said it was after playing with it for exactly 0 minutes. It was to change it so you weren't actively penalized for not carrying a pocket support with you everywhere you go.
6.) BF1 was a bumbling disaster of a game. I'm not saying that every point you made about why it's a disaster is wrong, but that some of them were misguided at best.

### Spoiler

<elementofprgress> yummm baby jesus
<elementofprgress> but i'd prefer jesus with ketchup

<cloon> women are allowed to play hockey?
<daddygreeenjeans> body checks are a fundamental part of women's suffrage

<Riesig> "... I'M GAY..."

steamboat28: the doctors at the ER found my nipples, too!
steamboat28: it just..y'know...took them a razor and two orderlies.

<Legion> And damn, now I really want some [redacted] penetrator measurements

<Rezal> peipin, why did you tell them you brought your phone?
<Pepin_the_Short> Because there’s like a one in five chance of getting searched on the way out
<Pepin_the_Short> And trying to sneak the fucker out is way worse than letting them look at Cloon’s dick pics.

17:52:08 <Rezal> Unfortunately, this video is not available in your country because it could contain music, for which we could not agree on conditions of use with GEMA.
17:52:15 <ToTheSun> lolgema
17:52:15 <TheMightyVoice> lolgema

<Legion> But I literally am Hitler right now
Somehow my bullets are magnetically attracted to popular Youtubers, but theirs rarely seem to hit me.

Holy War? No Thanks.

Posts: 2,705

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Wednesday, May 24th 2017, 12:40pm

@NoctyrneSAGA

Yeah these were the only two examples I could think of. I guess they went that way because they had to make the decision of going for authenticity or convenience. Otherwise the medic would have likely had to actively heal the other guy. I never considered the bags to be passive though. I never thought about it at all to be honest, the stuff was just there, and should be. I am glad they went for that.
In BF4 they just did it for convenience as well. Personally I did like the BF3 mortar more that you would just pick up and carry again. As for the unlimited ammo it was a balance tool. The UCAV did resupply from the crate at first, right? That gadget was never well balanced and tere the passive resupply was a necessity to counter a rare, but possible abuse.
In BF1 it is even more convenience. The support stuff gets resupplied passively, but you could have just done it via the ammo pouch. Who cares if you have to stand on top of one for ten seconds? Or you could have used resupply over time mechanic of the pouch, which I find rather neat.
I mean you are throwing down stuff for your primary anyway so why not add that. Otherwise it just creates an incentive to not run ammo at all, as discussed elsewhere.

@TheMightyVoice

We are exchanging opinions here. Nothing more. Keep that in mind. My reasoning is not more true than yours and vice versa.

1.) So there is the first problem: Who decides what is worth hearing? I guess you would say Youtubers bring nothing to the table? Do symthicians or inner circle symthicians have more say? Can create entitlement. If you do not intent to hear all voices you might just leave it altogether. CTE was also launched as a response to the bad perceived launch of BF4, because many players experiences problems, and was therefore created to show direct progress. So yeah, these are sole marketing reasons to gain back trust. Personally, even at launch I did not quite understand the trouble, my gaming experience was similar to BF3, but something seemed wrong for many players.
2.) Of course you get more hours in, although I do not know the number of regular CTE users. Still somebody must have thought it was a good idea and I am sure they tested it before in a smaller environment, because exposure to a large mass is always a problem.
3.) See that is the whole issue, I do not know the details and I do not want to know them either. But there are reasons you know a little more and that is bad, and the source has a perception as well. As a sidenote, what we see here is indeed a problem of symthic's social dynamics over the last year and the grade of involvement in the game.
4.) I have a reasonable standard for relationships, thanks for caring. But of course, such large scale testing does raise expectations of one's own importance in voicing opinions, critic and concerns. Also why not use the CTE to test stuff, there is obviously no waste of time, because it is just testing. If we call random vertical recoil, a waste of time then Ammo 2.0 was stole a month of everybody's lifetime. It is good they tested it, possible options should be researched. Yes, it could be done internally, but why not use the great exposure they have with the CTE?
5.) I certainly found it unneeded and dangerous in the state of the game. I thought they were totally oblivious of how the game is perceived. Well that would have been my feelings if it ever made it into the game. I still expect it to be fully implemented in Star Wars Irrelefront 2, though. New games (and especially franchises) are indeed where you should change stuff on this scale, mostly for community reasons.
6.) Again this is perception. If I find the shooting mechanics that others find only praise for, unauthentic, exaggerated or detrimental to gameplay, my opinions is just as valid as anyone's. Saying otherwise just shows entitlement and elitism that is a core problem between and within the different communites. However BF1 is not a very fun game and has a lot of problems, both in-game and outside of it. That is indeed the common denominator many players can agree on.

It does go to show that every thread will, at some point turn into, an exchange of the poor state of the game.

Well a long post, as expected by me. I think we should revert to to original topic though. I actually do not see how random vertical recoil would turn the game into a screen shaker especially for automatic weapons where you get hit by mutliple recoils damn fast. For slow semi-auto shots it depends on how much more average recoil there will be and how spread synergizes.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Wednesday, May 24th 2017, 2:16pm

>Medic bags regenerate

"I am glad they went for that."

"...it was a balance tool."

VS.

>All gadget/ primary ammo regenerate

"...just creates an incentive to not run ammo at all..."

The hypocrisy is palpable.

------------------------------

Everything is just an opinion -> False, facts are not opinions; facts are fact and facts are the only viable options - proven truth is not relative nor can one be selective regarding truth, otherwise this is known as being ignoranta.k.a. a liberal

"I actually do not see how random vertical recoil would turn the game into a screen shaker"

[See Noctyrne's video]
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"

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (May 24th 2017, 2:32pm)

Holy War? No Thanks.

Posts: 2,705

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Wednesday, May 24th 2017, 3:04pm

Geez, really calm down. Of course the need of regenerating gadgets for the mortar and limpet/bow is unneeded, you could just pick up the damn thing again, and sitting on a crate or running over a pouch could achieve the same to replenish the limpet and the grenades achieves the same as passive regen, with the additional benefit of an extra crate laid down for team use.

Regenerating mortar shells is a must in order to balance the tool. It is solely there to limit the ROF and total damage output, because if it came with 10 shells off the bat you would have a lot more balancing work to do. That is common sense. The medic tools indeed passively regenerate and I am totally on board with that, but the important thing is where one draws the line, and that is a personal opinion.

Yeah I know Ammo 2.0 is your baby since you've been convinced and seen the light by speaking to an exclusive circle. That's cool, people make up their mind and develop an opinion and share with others. But maybe what is true for you and what is true for someone else is somewhat different, because they made up their own mind?
And what are the facts, exactly? The video from Noctyrne was indeed informative, but it did lack a bit of information, like values, numbers and stuff and also interpretation through analysis that could put it into perspective. So that was left for us. So, I really do not see why an Automatico with 0,4 vertical recoil will shake more or less on the screen at 900 RPM as an Automatico with an average 0,4 vertical recoil, because your eye and your hand will not be able to make out the difference between the individual shots. As I stated this could be different for slower weapons and would have no real effect on BAs, but yeah it is worth a try. And that is all there is to it. BU posted this as a suggestion, we discussed it, the reptrain went choo-choo. Then symthic social meta strikes and it suddenly becomes a personal issue for people.

Instead of forum titles, wouldn't it be about that time to choose a colour and make teams? Team Edward/Jacob or maybe shirts on/off?

Can't get a title

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

Wednesday, May 24th 2017, 3:40pm

@VincentNZ

There is a difference between a fact and an opinion. Everyone has an opinion, and one is no more valid than the other. However, a fact is done that should be agreed upon by everyone. If we take the example of Ammo 2.0:

If you think that Ammo 2.0 is too confusing or convoluted, or you think that Supports should have to be absolutely necessary, then sure, even though I might disagree, you're entire to your own opinion.

What is NOT an opinion is saying that "Ammo 2.0 increases grenade/explosive slam," or "Ammo 2.0 reduces the amount of teamwork in the game." These are facts that you are asserting, and they are also completely false. That's what I take issue with.

In regards to random VREC: it is a FACT that making VREC random will increase screenshake. If the recoil of an Automatico is consistently 0.4 degrees (excluding the 10% random factor and FSM), then it is possible to control it completely and eliminate all screenshake. If you make it random, then it is impossible for the player to perfectly account for it, and thus you will encounter vertical screenshake.

The OPINION is whether or not the increased screenshake is worth it for the authenticity factor. I would heavily disagree, but then again, that's just my opinion, and you're entitled to yours.
something something Model 8 bestgun

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

Next, wanna try adding a guy that you KNOW is bad, and just testing to see that? Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

PP-2000 added. Y'know, it's not that bad....

Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.

Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:

Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

But... You can't be counting for the fact that it takes 9 bullets to kill at "long" range... Don't you dare tell me my A-91 is worse than a 9 BTK 650 RPM mediocre PDW.

Also. Just go heavy barrel. The recoil is low enough.

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

Well, technically...

Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).

And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.

In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.

Mind blown.

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

### Quoted from "Veritable"

Zer0Cod3x explained it very well. If you look at the raw numbers right here on Symthic Comparison, you can see how that happened:

A-91 vs PP-2000 | BF4 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

A-91's "23%" RPM advantage only afforded it 1 extra round.

Reload times are wash.

Velocities are wash.

V-Recoil are wash (and this is HBar on PP2k vs. A-91 without).

Hipfire and ADS - Moving are better on the PP2k, but it's a PDW and not the surprising part.

The surprising part is that, as equipped (and we see above that PP2k HBar has almost same V-Recoil as A-91 without HBar so why not?), the PDW performs better at 50 - 100m than a bloody Carbine. Why?

H-Recoil Spread, 0.525 vs. 0.45, advantage PP2k.

SIPS, 42% better on the PP2k.

And here is the most important part. ADS - Not Moving Spread, 0.35 vs. 0.2, 43% improvement.

Without HBar then of course the PP2k loses, which is why when I add all the attachments together for an Overall Ranking, it would slot below the A-91. Run HBar on it, though, then... I'm sorry

### Quoted from "Pastafarianism"

@Veritable
@Zer0Cod3x
I... I...
But...
Wha...
I AM HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE OF YOU TWO.

FUCK YOU NERDS AND YOUR FANCY NUMBERS

SEXY RUSSIAN BULLPUPS FTW.

In all seriousness, thank you both so much for giving me the numbers. I still don't want to accept them. You have led the horse to water. I still need to drink.

Holy War? No Thanks.

Posts: 2,705

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Wednesday, May 24th 2017, 5:12pm

I see your point and I can agree with your statement. However I can not acknowledge what goes around as a fact here. And I really hate that this topic mentions this dead thing so much that is Ammo 2.0. The only fact here is that it was dropped, for whatever reasons.

The rest are just assumptions. In short: Some people here assumed it would make active supports more necessary because of how scarce the ammo is, especially in terms of infantry-armour balance. On the other hand people argued that it made the classes more self-sufficient, which I could only find true with the Flare/K-bullet recon. Basically we had two sides arguing about ammo 2.0 and I will not get into further detail. And everyone based their opinion out of extrapolating personal or close gaming experience and putting it into perspective. And how else could you, Ammo 2.0 was so limited in time tested and how can anyone measure teamplay anyway, so everyone just made an educated guess. Ammo 2.0 was dropped, end of story. Nobody lost or gained anything through it.
As far as grenade spam goes there is a distinct difference I had a problem with, especially how it was implemented on live. So grenade kills went down by 2% if I recall correctly? However there are other things that contribute to spam besides chucking them into chokepoints. Suddenly grenades became available in all engagements, where otherwise you would likely only have one per life. C0llis once said they were free DPS because of how fast they were thrown. So you might only receive two instead of three grenades every ten seconds in your trench, but the use would be made so damn convenient in a firefight that the perceived grenade spam was much worse.

As fas as random vertical recoil goes, let me put it this way: If you fire three bullets at 900 rpm with a V-rec of 0,4 each, or if you fire three rounds at 900 rpm with an individual recoil of 0,2, 0,4, and 0,6 you will virtually feel no difference. Oscar said that V-rec is partially random anyway and the FSM as well as zoom level needs to be accounted for as well. BU only ever wanted this to work as an additional accuracy factor. Do I like it? How would I know, it is a bit more authentic, but unless someone puts it into perspective we can again only guess the effects. I appreciate the video. Does the vid look horrible? Yes, but what values for recoil are used, how are they distributed, is it just a showcase or does it use the same mechanics as BF1 recoil does? So this stuff all needs to be put into perspective, before anyone can make claims.

And as soon as someone mentions the CTE and that maybe this could be an idea for testing people emerge and resurrect Ammo 2.0. Everyone was glad that it was tested, and was judged as unneeded. Somebody would like a new concept tested and the same guys emerge and say it is a waste, because it does not suit the personal taste. So that is a double standard. I am the first to acknowledge it if it does not work on CTE and I do not really care if it makes it in there, but why not discuss it and if people do not agree they can just step off the stage when everything is said. In this case I do appreciate your input onto the topic, and maybe we can all let go of Ammo 2.0 for this game finally.

Posts: 260

Date of registration
: Jun 5th 2015

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Hoth

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

Wednesday, May 24th 2017, 7:29pm

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

The rest are just assumptions. In short: Some people here assumed it would make active supports more necessary because of how scarce the ammo is, especially in terms of infantry-armour balance. On the other hand people argued that it made the classes more self-sufficient, which I could only find true with the Flare/K-bullet recon. Basically we had two sides arguing about ammo 2.0 and I will not get into further detail. And everyone based their opinion out of extrapolating personal or close gaming experience and putting it into perspective. And how else could you, Ammo 2.0 was so limited in time tested and how can anyone measure teamplay anyway, so everyone just made an educated guess. Ammo 2.0 was dropped, end of story. Nobody lost or gained anything through it.
As far as grenade spam goes there is a distinct difference I had a problem with, especially how it was implemented on live. So grenade kills went down by 2% if I recall correctly? However there are other things that contribute to spam besides chucking them into chokepoints. Suddenly grenades became available in all engagements, where otherwise you would likely only have one per life. C0llis once said they were free DPS because of how fast they were thrown. So you might only receive two instead of three grenades every ten seconds in your trench, but the use would be made so damn convenient in a firefight that the perceived grenade spam was much worse.

7%. But as you know that wasn't the final figure.

In chokepoints suppression affecting timers would massively reduce spam. This is great because it makes grenade spam almost self-regulating, and one no longer has to balance explosives around chokepoint maps.

In normal 1v1 firefights, the long timers would reduce spam because on average, a player lives shorter than it takes to get a frag back with A2 in place.

On the reducing or increasing teamwork argument, it's a pointless one because it isnæt an either/or situation.

Resupply rates can be tuned. If there is a point where ammo gadgets are useless, just slow the default regen. If they are too useful, speed up the default regen.

This balance won't be found immediately, but it exists. Also, it depends on how the rest of the system is tuned (thinking about ammo counts etc.), but that too can be tweaked to something fun.

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

As fas as random vertical recoil goes, let me put it this way: If you fire three bullets at 900 rpm with a V-rec of 0,4 each, or if you fire three rounds at 900 rpm with an individual recoil of 0,2, 0,4, and 0,6 you will virtually feel no difference. Oscar said that V-rec is partially random anyway and the FSM as well as zoom level needs to be accounted for as well. BU only ever wanted this to work as an additional accuracy factor. Do I like it? How would I know, it is a bit more authentic, but unless someone puts it into perspective we can again only guess the effects. I appreciate the video. Does the vid look horrible? Yes, but what values for recoil are used, how are they distributed, is it just a showcase or does it use the same mechanics as BF1 recoil does? So this stuff all needs to be put into perspective, before anyone can make claims.

The randomness of Vrec could probably be increased to something less than 100%, but I think too much shake will be reached rather quickly.

I'm sure Noctyrne could dish up some illustrations if he wants to.

However, uncounterable recoil also has the effect that it moves your sights off the target, increasing chances of losing it entirely. Which happens enough as is in Bf1 due to magazines, sights, smoke, camouflaged enemies ...

When reading the OP at first I thought to myself "huh why hasn't anyone thought about this before". But based on the prospect of it just being screenshake (and losing my target more often than currently), I'm very sceptical.

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

And as soon as someone mentions the CTE and that maybe this could be an idea for testing people emerge and resurrect Ammo 2.0. Everyone was glad that it was tested, and was judged as unneeded. Somebody would like a new concept tested and the same guys emerge and say it is a waste, because it does not suit the personal taste. So that is a double standard. I am the first to acknowledge it if it does not work on CTE and I do not really care if it makes it in there, but why not discuss it and if people do not agree they can just step off the stage when everything is said. In this case I do appreciate your input onto the topic, and maybe we can all let go of Ammo 2.0 for this game finally.

This isn't comparable at all though. One dev could judge if it shakes too much on his own computer. Ammo 2.0 requires many players to interact, preferably as many times as possible, to be tested properly. Preferably those people are a bit open minded too, which sadly wasn't the case.

Things I support

ammo regen pls

_____

### Quoted from "Skanic"

When I play with it [Autoloading 8] I feel like I am batman taking out 1 after 1 baddie while they feel helpless and don't know who is talking out their mates.

### Quoted from "TheSkillCommittee"

Remove 3D spotting. It’s a mechanic that rewards bad eyesight.

### Quoted from "Rezal"

Wanna help your team by sneaking through enemy territory to provide spawns? THIS IS NOT TEAMWORK FGT I HOPE YOU RUN OUT OF MOTION BALLS TOO EARLY TO BE SUCCESSFUL
Wanna be Javelin squad but only have two guys? BETTER NOT GET YOUR SOFLAM KILLED FGT THIS IS NOT TEAMWORK WITHOUT A SUPPORT DUDE DROPPING AMMO ON YOU EVERY 2 MINUTES

### Quoted from "Hau_ruck"

Please post your best M1916 clips Magazines *fixed*.

### DICE pls

Squadmate Healthbars in the HUD
Minor console QoL improvements
Ping Tool idea
"Wants to talk" tag for squad menu
Spotting suggestions

Posts I should finish sometime:
Squad priority vehicle system (and anti stealing suggestion)
Scoring system flaws (and concept)
Battlefield definition
New helicopter idea
Suppression rework
Flow, immersion and fun in battlefield
Specializations: ideas and system rework
Gadget reworks and ideas
Why limited infinite ammo would be awesome
Other bitesize ideas

### Cool/Useful Links (never updated)

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,636

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Thursday, May 25th 2017, 12:27am

### Quoted from "potetr"

One dev could judge if it shakes too much on his own computer.

Actually no, that's missing the point of the change and why it should be tested. If all you're interested in is mechanics and hard, mathematical results/balance, then using spread or recoil doesn't matter at all, because (with random V-Recoil, Recoil Increase/Decrease Per Shot, etc) they're functionally identical. This is purely a question of feel and style, what the players as a whole would prefer.

I am in no way surprised, for a number of reasons, that this community (especially certain members) are hell-bent on spread over recoil, but no matter how much anyone claims to like one over the other, it's personal preference. It's what kind of feel and experience you want, and any attempt to claim objective superiority is either knowingly attempting to make one's opinion sound like a fact to sound more credible, or legitimately thinking their preferences are objectively superior (which they are not).

This can include turning a normal word into something with a negative connotation, or replacing it with one. "Spread" has become this for the community at large, but while mocking those people for doing this, some of the very same people have already started doing the exact same thing, in the exact same way with the term "Screenshake". "Spread" is at least the proper term, but "Screenshake" is actively taking "Recoil" and giving it a negative spin to make a personal dislike of it seem worse. It's basically PR spin, and this is the exact kind of toxic elitism and refusal to accept other perspectives that have become all to common here over the last while. The thoughts and opinions of Symthic members used to mean a lot more outside of this site than they do now.

The whole idea behind getting this tested by the community is to see which method is preferred in practice. Playing both is the only true way to understand how both would play out, especially for the community as a whole, meaning "most people who play the game". This is the exact kind of game element that is best decided with an opinion poll.

I also don't honestly know what the general reactions and consensus would be, but either way would be a win. That's the key point here. If we let people play with minimal spread, replaced with recoil, we have two possible results: Either people don't like it, and having experienced both they stop whining about spread and become content with what we have, or they really like it, and the recoil-favouring system is adopted to the joy of the community. Or, seeing the two ends of things, people want something more in the middle.

But no matter which result it ends up being, the players win. It's a zero-sum game.
Who Enjoys, Wins

PvF 2017 Champion

Posts: 7,191

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

Thursday, May 25th 2017, 12:53am

### Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

this is the exact kind of toxic elitism and refusal to accept other perspectives that have become all to common here over the last while. The thoughts and opinions of Symthic members used to mean a lot more outside of this site than they do now.

Don't know which Symthic you've been to, but from what I remember toxic elitism has been a part of this forum since time immemorial.

Not to mention people didn't really appreciate the members. They appreciate the numbers the site provides but the forum and members were never really seen in a positive light.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.

Are you a scrub?

### Quoted from "blahdy"

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

Thursday, May 25th 2017, 1:45am

I've been lurking Symthic since BF3, and things have definitely changed since then, which probably has a lot to do with some Symthic members now actively being involved with the development process. Instead of simply digging up numbers and debating among themselves, there's been a shift towards more vitriolic arguments against "Reddit" and the average playerbase being too unintelligent to know what they want, to justify certain game mechanic decisions made for BF1, and that "Symthic's" preference is objectively best.