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: 1,889

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

121

Friday, June 16th 2017, 6:15pm

I probably should have mentioned that yes, BC2 had it's flaws and yes Port Valdez was pretty awful (rush AA tank aside). But it actually had destruction that made a real difference to gameplay rather than barely any destruction at all (BF3) or gimmicky levolution (BF4). Obviously there's more to gameplay than that, and it definitely lacked the bells and whistles we're used to now. I just see people look back fondly on maps like bazaar and seine and remember that when I first played BF3, I was really dissappointed with the maps. Endless explosive spams over the same indestuctible bit of corridor is nothing to be celebrated imo.

I also see a lot of complaining about the wide open spaces of BF1, but I'm just really glad that mid-long range weapons are actually useful at their job now. On a map like zavod, there was always something for your target to get behind, so firing at anything other than point blank was mostly futile (soldier movement didn't help). In BF1, if I bring a long range weapon, yes I'm going to have a harder time in close spaces around flags, but at least my benet mercie or Huot has a significant advantage in other parts of the map. Enough to make them worth using over "muh high ROF" guns.


The problem in BF1 is that weapon performance is pretty binary so that if you want to be good at flag ranges, you're going to be totally ineffectual between flags. Infantry moving from one flag to another are extremely vulnerable to snipers, plus tanks, plus planes. That makes some pretty toxic meta.

Posts: 223

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

122

Friday, June 16th 2017, 11:09pm

I don't get why people don't like indestructible buildings and structures. They give the map a flow, where you can expect where people can pop up. That is the reason why BF3 maps are decent to good. Without them, you get BF1 except Amiens and Argonne, vast open space with no cover, example Suez. I don't have to re-iterate here how that map plays out.

Posts: 1,889

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

123

Friday, June 16th 2017, 11:52pm

I don't get why people don't like indestructible buildings and structures. They give the map a flow, where you can expect where people can pop up. That is the reason why BF3 maps are decent to good. Without them, you get BF1 except Amiens and Argonne, vast open space with no cover, example Suez. I don't have to re-iterate here how that map plays out.


I like that BF1 has introduced destructibility that can only be caused by certain caliber/tonnage of weapons.

Posts: 3,453

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

124

Saturday, June 17th 2017, 12:35am

I like that BF1 has introduced destructibility that can only be caused by certain caliber/tonnage of weapons.


I didn't realize just how much of this there is until I started playing War Pigeons a lot recently, to work on the 300-kill assignments.
Who Enjoys, Wins