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: 3,440

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

11

Friday, June 2nd 2017, 1:37am

Map design is a significant part of why BF1 and BF4 maps are frustrating to play on. From what I have deduced from my experience, a good map needs cover between capture points. And you generally cannot shoot from one point to another. Now think BF1 Ballroom. The sniper structure in the second floor overlooks the B and D points of both sides, with little to no cover. This is bad, extremely bad. Frustrated the hell out of me. Another example Suez. Capture points are just islands in the middle of the desert (like every other BF1 map), and it is very frustrating to run across while there are no ways to dodge sniper fire. The only map I can think of that plays out well is Argonne Forest, but NOT WITH 64 PLAYERS GODDAMIT. 24 to 32 would play out perfectly on that map, without elites and behemoths.



Exactly right about fighting tanks. The rocket gun is just nothing compared to the ready-to-fire RPG and SMAWs. Infantry need to be able to peek tanks, unless you remove all the splash damage from tank shells, which is ridiculous. Compounded with the removal of ass shot disable, infantry also lost the positioning advantage.


That's very true, though I like the majority of BF4's maps. Personally, I never enjoyed Karkand, Seine, the Aftermath DLC, or Amiens in BF1; any of the mid-sized, urban-ish maps with significant infantry focus, a little armour, and no aircraft. I did, however, love Zavod, which sort of bridged those types of maps and the large, terrain-based, vehicle-heavy maps I love.

Argonne is interesting as, as much as I don't enjoy hectic infantry maps, it has among the best map design in BF1.


Examples of a BF4 maps that suffers from BF1's trademark "stuff is only on flags, and is all shotgun range, but there's literally nothing between points" style would be Silk Road, Altai Range, and sort of Lancang Dam when considering LoS over the water. In BF1, even Amiens suffers this issue, with nearly every range either being nearly Sniper Rifle range, or face-stabbing range, with little in between. At least BF4's only suffered the "to open" half, without the "shotgun range" half.

I don't think any other BF4 maps really suffered from this enough to actually be on a list, and Golmud Railway is a fantastic example of how to do a very large, very open, extremely vehicle-heavy map right; it's still one of my favourite BF maps.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 1,888

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

12

Friday, June 2nd 2017, 1:39am

@oba
@tankmayvin
Exactly right about fighting tanks. The rocket gun is just nothing compared to the ready-to-fire RPG and SMAWs. Infantry need to be able to peek tanks, unless you remove all the splash damage from tank shells, which is ridiculous. Compounded with the removal of ass shot disable, infantry also lost the positioning advantage.


The general crummyness of aiming tanks and the weakness of their weapons actually more than compensates for the vulnerability of the rocket gun unless you go prone with it right down the sight of the tank. But the end result is not necessarily fun.

Posts: 3,440

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

13

Friday, June 2nd 2017, 1:41am

I'll take dolphin diving, corner-jump-peeking, zou-zou jumping or whatever to the ADADADADADADADADADADA meta in BF1.


Put like this, I definitely would too. I don't think I really ever saw those in previous games, simply because the players that can and did use them were rare, and I'd assume even rarer on console. There were silly and probably should have been fixed, but were also effectively non-issues.

The ADAD is brainless and effortless, to the point where you don't even have to be aware it's a thing to do it. We traded silly exploits only useful and usable to a tiny group of comp players for silly exploits used by everyone and their grandma.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 1,888

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

14

Friday, June 2nd 2017, 1:45am

I'll take dolphin diving, corner-jump-peeking, zou-zou jumping or whatever to the ADADADADADADADADADADA meta in BF1.


Put like this, I definitely would too. I don't think I really ever saw those in previous games, simply because the players that can and did use them were rare, and I'd assume even rarer on console. There were silly and probably should have been fixed, but were also effectively non-issues.

The ADAD is brainless and effortless, to the point where you don't even have to be aware it's a thing to do it. We traded silly exploits only useful and usable to a tiny group of comp players for silly exploits used by everyone and their grandma.


You didn't play BF2 then I take it? Dolphin diving was about as endemic to BF2 as ADADADADA is to BF1. 2142 was a huge step ahead simply by removing dolphin diving as the go-to mechanic.

BF1 is the first BF game since BF2 that has had a brainless go to mechanic in firefights, and I still find ADADADADADA to be more obnoxious than dolphin diving it.

Posts: 212

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

15

Friday, June 2nd 2017, 7:08am





Quoted from "sid_tai"



@oba
@tankmayvin
Exactly right about fighting tanks. The rocket gun is just nothing compared to the ready-to-fire RPG and SMAWs. Infantry need to be able to peek tanks, unless you remove all the splash damage from tank shells, which is ridiculous. Compounded with the removal of ass shot disable, infantry also lost the positioning advantage.


The general crummyness of aiming tanks and the weakness of their weapons actually more than compensates for the vulnerability of the rocket gun unless you go prone with it right down the sight of the tank. But the end result is not necessarily fun.
I guess so, but I think we can all agree that balanced does not necessarily lead to fun ;) I am willing to bet that tankers like you find that BF1 tanking being less fun due to the loss of mobility and tanking generally being "easier".




Quoted from "sid_tai"



Map design is a significant part of why BF1 and BF4 maps are frustrating to play on. From what I have deduced from my experience, a good map needs cover between capture points. And you generally cannot shoot from one point to another. Now think BF1 Ballroom. The sniper structure in the second floor overlooks the B and D points of both sides, with little to no cover. This is bad, extremely bad. Frustrated the hell out of me. Another example Suez. Capture points are just islands in the middle of the desert (like every other BF1 map), and it is very frustrating to run across while there are no ways to dodge sniper fire. The only map I can think of that plays out well is Argonne Forest, but NOT WITH 64 PLAYERS GODDAMIT. 24 to 32 would play out perfectly on that map, without elites and behemoths.



Exactly right about fighting tanks. The rocket gun is just nothing compared to the ready-to-fire RPG and SMAWs. Infantry need to be able to peek tanks, unless you remove all the splash damage from tank shells, which is ridiculous. Compounded with the removal of ass shot disable, infantry also lost the positioning advantage.


That's very true, though I like the majority of BF4's maps. Personally, I never enjoyed Karkand, Seine, the Aftermath DLC, or Amiens in BF1; any of the mid-sized, urban-ish maps with significant infantry focus, a little armour, and no aircraft. I did, however, love Zavod, which sort of bridged those types of maps and the large, terrain-based, vehicle-heavy maps I love.

Argonne is interesting as, as much as I don't enjoy hectic infantry maps, it has among the best map design in BF1.


Examples of a BF4 maps that suffers from BF1's trademark "stuff is only on flags, and is all shotgun range, but there's literally nothing between points" style would be Silk Road, Altai Range, and sort of Lancang Dam when considering LoS over the water. In BF1, even Amiens suffers this issue, with nearly every range either being nearly Sniper Rifle range, or face-stabbing range, with little in between. At least BF4's only suffered the "to open" half, without the "shotgun range" half.

I don't think any other BF4 maps really suffered from this enough to actually be on a list, and Golmud Railway is a fantastic example of how to do a very large, very open, extremely vehicle-heavy map right; it's still one of my favourite BF maps.

Interesting. We have vastly different tastes in maps. But I actually don't mind playing the small versions of the large maps, like Golmud, Lancang, Shanghai CQ small, with 32-40p. I much prefer 32p on smaller vehicle maps vs 64p on large versions of them.

IMO if roof tops were removed in BF4 maps like flood zone, shanghai, dawnbreaker, they would get a 20% bonus points in my map rating immediately.

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

16

Friday, June 2nd 2017, 1:11pm

Fuck it, I made a huge post and then closed my browser before I could post it.

BF3 is perceived as a more fun game, mostly because of nostalgia and the weak BF1. Also the gunplay is comprehensible, as authentic as it should be, is always referred to as snappy. BF1's gunplay is dominated by highly specialized niche weapons, working best on full moon and a 16 round burst while strafing in a prone position within a range of 17-23m. BF1 follows a very binary setup of 1 and 0s, and thinks that everything is better when it is overcalculated, but leaves out the subjecitve perception of the average player and caters to a a very small niche of players.
BF3 offered the same foundation for every weapon, where all the "gamebreaking" flaws are in fact irrelevant though, the whole microburst meta, M16 best gun as well as 10hz and netcode issues have no effect on the average player. BF1 creates a huge gap between and within weapon classes ranging from unuseable to obsolete to godlike for large portions of the players.

It also suffers from schizophrenia by adding features like the elites and the behemoth that are the archetype of casual mechanics, and that can only be seen as crutches. So everybody asks the question what the game wants to be and there is no answer, so BF1 offers the worst of both worlds. Not directly competitive, not accessible either.

Also: Where as BF3 offered a map design of clear routes, predictable engagements, encouraged flanking and generally a mind over matter approach as well as combined warfare that resulted in a good flow on every map that still supported different playstyles and did not disturb the unconcerned zerger, BF1 offers a grey to brown barren landmass, where the one vehicle rules from far away and infantry fighting is cramped into very small confined areas or long range engagements on one ever waging frontline trying to win by throwing body after body at the enemy.

So is BF1 actually a bad game? No, I would really call this game decent if it was made by another studio and published by someone else then EA. Alas, it is part of a franchise and it turns out as a bad battlefield game, because it spits on it's predecessors, so I and many others got really tired by this game very fast, personally I do not think though that the setting has a lot do to with it, I can only say good things about this.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "VincentNZ" (Jun 2nd 2017, 2:19pm)


Mofixil

Sometimes I just get blinded by hate. And tears.

(374)

Posts: 1,403

Date of registration
: Jul 27th 2013

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

17

Friday, June 2nd 2017, 11:28pm


- BF3 had no casual gimmicks like elite classes, Behemoth, bayonett charge, etc.


BF series as a whole is casual. BF3 technically saw Behemoth-like instances in one of the DLCs (AC130 on rails), as well as there were other mechanics that rewarded bad players (because suppression rarely if ever was used to actually suppress enemies).


- there was no Automatico/quote]

Instead there was a bunch of other close range bullethoses like AEK, FAMAS and even AN94 if someone bothered to either learn how to click or just to make a macro.


- Battlelog was great in retrospect, never believe I'd say that, but compared to the BF1 server browser it was downright brilliant


Battlelog as a whole was a nice addition once they made it actually functional but it's hardly a worthy replacement of a proper server browser.

The browser in BF1 is solid 5/10.


The things BF1 does better than previous titles:
- the unlock system


I honestly have no clue if this... odd, unlock system is that much better than in previous games.

It's fundamentally the same but you also need currency to buy a weapon you have unlocked, instead of having access once you reach certain XP threshold.

It would make more sense if you could unlock a gun by levelling or buy it outright if you have enough warbonds, but it's not possible and makes little sense. Unless I missed something?

Posts: 181

Date of registration
: Mar 5th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message

18

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 12:34am

Wow, probably not news to most but have you seen how quickly the BF1 pop has dropped?

Battlefield 1 Population History
Battlefield 4 Population History

PC 120K to 20K in just 7 months
Sure BF4 had a lot worse initial numbers due to its shitty launch and bad PR but look how steady the numbers are across 3 years!

Posts: 88

Date of registration
: Jun 23rd 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

19

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 4:06am

I think BF3 is an easier game to play than BF1. It mainly results from a few causes that others have already mentioned: map design, weapon mechanics, and available information.

Map design: BF3 maps were in general better designed as game maps. Better cover, better pathing, whatever. BF1 maps are designed more like real maps, which is great from an authenticity standpoint, as it is based on historical battlefields, but it results in maps that don't flow all that well. Too little cover and a lot of wide open spaces. Such things are realistic, but they don't always make for good gameplay. BF3 maps, from my memory, have a good combination of compartmentalization and connectivity. There are both locations of strategic importance that overlook other areas and areas that are protected from those overlook areas. The lessons learned from the BF4 community map (which I think is a pretty good map) seem to have been forgotten when designing the BF1 maps (I get that different studios handled the development, but maybe some sharing of notes would have been nice). As others have said, in BF1, many flags overlook other flags or over their own approaches while in BF3 as I remember it, overlook points usually looked over lanes between flags rather than flags themselves and flags were rarely ever overlook points. This separation is important as capping a flag does not give a team an automatic overlook point and holding an overlook point requires division of forces and promotes team/squad coordination.

Gun mechanics: players like their guns to have 3 things: accuracy, ease of use/intuition, and big magazines. Assault rifles have all 3. They are very accurate (especially in BF3 due to HB), they are easy to use (full-auto, with simple spread models), and they have generous magazines. Of course, this led to the AR meta of BF3 and BF4 when the class with ARs also got the ability to heal themselves, but ARs are easy to use and easy to understand. And people like that. BF1 however, does not have big magazines, and usually forces players to make a tradeoff between accuracy and ease of use. Want the full-auto EZ spray weapons? Then bad accuracy. Want accuracy? Then burst control or single-shot weapons, both harder for players to do/use, are needed. This model is easier to balance, but most shooter players don't like the trade-offs that are necessary.

Available Information: This is something that affects me a lot in BF1 which makes the game less enjoyable for me. In BF1, there seems to be less battlefield information available to me. Due to the removal of auto-spotting when firing an unsuppressed weapon, the amount of information available to me from the minimap is greatly reduced. You can call me a minimap scrub, but the minimap in BF3/4 allowed each player to quickly see the flow of battle because most people run unsuppressed weapons. Should the gunfire spot have showed the player's direction? No, but it provides players with a lot of information on the general flow of the match and this is really important in maps and games the size of Battlefield. Players need the information about the overall distribution of the enemy team in 64 player matches on large maps because it is nearly impossible for players to enumerate the possible locations of opposing players. In BF1, it is harder to understand the flow of battle and thus a lot easier to get caught unaware. This is compounded by how well players blend in with the environment in BF1. I often cannot distinguish at a glance distant players from distant tree stumps and the audio cues aren't that easy to distinguish either. When I die in BF1, the thought that usually goes through my head is, "where the heck did he come from?" or "seriously, he was there?". Deaths just seem more random and harder to learn from. Map design exacerbates this issue by presenting more angles from which to be attacked due to the open nature of most maps.

The reduction in available information also makes information asymmetry more imbalancing, especially given the spotting flare. The closest BF4 equivalent is probably the UAV, so I'll use that as an example. In BF4, even if the enemy had a UAV in your area and you were constantly spotted, unsuppressed enemy fire would show you their position and you could still react accordingly and have a fighting chance. Yes, there was the counter UAV and suppressed weapons, but those required either commander support or a tradeoff made by the enemy players. In BF1, once a spotting flare lands near you, it's like the enemy having a UAV and a counter UAV at the same time because enemy fire is not auto-spotting. The power difference between you and the enemy is greater than it was in BF3 and BF4 while requiring less effort on the part of the enemy. Adding to this is the fact that spotting doesn't work as consistently as it did in past titles.

Anyways, those are my 3 main observations about the difference between BF3 and BF1. The biggest to me would be the availability of information because I fired up BF1 for the first time in a while this afternoon and was quite frustrated by the randomness of encounters. A few other problems I have with BF1 are the ADAD spam (less of a problem in BF3, more of a problem in BF4 but not to the extent it is in BF1) and the iron sights (but I find all irons sights in BF titles hard to use and iron sights are basically the only authentic option for optical attachments).

Posts: 923

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

20

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 10:51am

TLDR

Yes, I enjoyed BF3 a lot, but there are only a handful of actually good playable maps. Noshahr as TDM, Domination Maps, Rush on Damavand Peak, and a few I cant remember, but not that many, because once there was a good AirCraft Pilot the round was ruined.

BF4 exploited the all-out warfare a lot more so any vehicle can be used on them. To support this, the maps have changed to Whole Areas, with almost zero Pathing... The problem was the lack of Paths for each type of player.

BF1... no experience, sorry


In terms of Maps it would be a lot better if they offer good pathing routes for all types of Class/Vehicles. As it stands now, its easier and cheaper to place a few flags with structures on a surface and then let the players find routes between them. DICE has to keep the current map design, but they need to introduce better pathing possibilities.

In terms of GunPlay... Is there a comprehensive table with parameters, that have changed from BF3 to BF4/1 ? Including movement speed/acceleration, any type of FOV, which cannot be changed on console... average TTK, amount of threats (BF3 was simpler in terms of threats that can happen)

Note: From BF3 to 4 I noticed a downgrade of Gunplay. Did they increase the FOV and therefore the recoil felt so underperforming ?
still playin' Motorstorm