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: 87

Date of registration
: Dec 20th 2016

Platform: PC

Location: Malta

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

21

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 12:12pm

There is very little I enjoyed about BF3. True, the gun play felt satisfying but in the end I found the dominance of the assault class, particularly the 'top tier' guns to be unbearable. Not to mention that it had terrible hit registration, exacerbated by the faster time to kill than BC2.

I enjoyed Bad Company 2 far more at the time as it had a stellar Rush mode. Rush and Deathmatch were my staple game modes, I never really enjoyed conquest all that much mainly due to the chaotic nature of 64 player games and the prevalence of vehicles.

I Enjoyed BF4 alot, particularly after the Rush placement updates. Though BF4 was mostly TDM and Rush for me as I did not find the other game modes all that enjoyable, for similar reasons to BF3.


BF1 on the other hand is my favourite out of BC2,BF3,BF4 and BFH. I am having just as much fun as I did in BC2's rush mode, if not more so thanks to the well done weapon/class balance, 24 player limit and the much reduced explosive spam.* The map design is overall superior to BF4 and BF3 vanilla (in the rush mode).


To put it briefly, BF1 has the most enjoyable core gameplay and has also allowed me to enjoy other modes such as conquest. Not to mention that Frontlines and Operations (not oil of empires) are really enjoyable. The issues BF1 has are easily fixed with a few balance passes, e.g Excessive artillery in Rush, Minimum range for bayonet, Elite classes should make a distinct sound imo too.

Alot of this is subjective, but personally I always viewed BF3 as the least enjoyable entry in the series, mostly because kills felt unrewarding as the game was incredibly easy to play, even without using M16a3's, AN94's.

*Yes Bad Company 2 had far worse explosive spam than BF1, something that many people seem to forget

Posts: 179

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

22

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 12:56pm

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).


I am not sure how you can draw a conclusion that BF3 is easier to play than BF1, but I agree with your points.

Map design wise, since BF4 they took the design philosophy of Operation Firestorm, Armored Kill and End Game maps. There are no lanes on those maps. Even in Caspian Border the hills, ridges and walls kind of form sight lines that we can consider as lanes. That is why I wonder if they play on their own maps.

Gun play wise, I surmise that having trade-offs that you cannot overcome by skill is not fun. In BF3 pitting an AK74M against an AEK in long range, given the same attachments, the AK74M is more likely to win. This is the inherent trade-off. But if you can control your recoil and burst properly, there is a small chance that you can win the firefight. This is the element that makes BF3 gun play fun. It makes you think "if I had better skill I could have won the fire fight. I need to get better." In BF1, the weapons are niched in a way that the chance to overcome weapon trade-off is so slim that it can be considered impossible. Just like how Duck said in the video that there is a point where the skill requirement is so high that skill is no longer relevant.

In terms of spotting, the only thing is I can say is that, spotting flare OP.

I agree that randomness of encounters are extremely frustrating. This phenomenon was also prevalent in BF4 where the verticality got out of hand and there were so many rooftops that people can get to. I believe that player count is also the culprit. I find that in 32p Shanghai CQ small, the rooftop problem is much less severe. Same for 32p Flood Zone CQ small. BF1 has open maps and no lanes (Amiens and Argonne Forest are the exceptions). You can be shot from any direction. Coupled with 64p only, you are guaranteed to get random deaths. (Maybe it was DICE's intention all along, I do not know)

Posts: 179

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

23

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 1:05pm

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

Comparing BF3 to BF4 as of current version, it FEELS like BF4 has a slightly faster directional acceleration in terms of magnitude, but I am not sure.

In BF3 the red dots have an FOV of 40, while in BF4 they have 50 with ADS FOV scaling off. If you have it on, most likely the FOV is going to be higher.

They also changed something with the recoil control so that the recoil compensation you did during a burst does not get applied at the end, i.e. the all the pulling-down you do with your mouse. In BF4 after a long burst you are no longer looking at the ground.

Posts: 912

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

24

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 1:27pm

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

Comparing BF3 to BF4 as of current version, it FEELS like BF4 has a slightly faster directional acceleration in terms of magnitude, but I am not sure.

In BF3 the red dots have an FOV of 40, while in BF4 they have 50 with ADS FOV scaling off. If you have it on, most likely the FOV is going to be higher.

They also changed something with the recoil control so that the recoil compensation you did during a burst does not get applied at the end, i.e. the all the pulling-down you do with your mouse. In BF4 after a long burst you are no longer looking at the ground.


Ok, so the FOV when ADS was increased, which definitely resulted in a decreased perceived recoil. And YES I DO COUNT PERCEIVED RECOIL AS IMPORTANT FACTOR TO GUNPLAY. It probably was decreased to decrease the effect of motion sickness.

But still the recoil is just one part of gunplay mechanics. The whole movement system and precision of the weapons (is 'precision' the correct term now, or should it be 'accuracy' ?), including glitches and finesses.
still playin' Motorstorm

Posts: 3,297

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

25

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 4:58pm

Something that often gets overlooked when it comes to map flow and pathing is the BF1 ability to vault 8-foot high walls. Go take a walk around Scar's town without vaulting over anything more than knee-high.

It would actually have flow and pathing, destruction of walls to make paths would actually mean something, doors and gates would actually mean something, it would play so much better. Right now you can travel in a complete straight line through the town (or anywhere else) by just bouncing over everything like Mario, and it's awful.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 787

Date of registration
: Dec 3rd 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

26

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 5:08pm

I'm honestly surprised at the BF3 love on here and the complaints about BF1. For me, BF1 is at least tied with BF4 for best entry yet. I feel BC2 would be higher had I been able to play on dedicated servers without lag.

For me, BF1 has done a lot of things right that never seem to get a mention. The biggest is probably doing away with the awful "shooting makes you appear on the minimap" mechanic that COD and BF had adopted almost dogmatically. Now we have to rely on sound, tracer fire, watching what teammates are shooting at and just general situational awareness.

This game also has much better class balance. No matter what match I'm in, I genuinely have to pause for a second to decide which class would be most effective. In BF3 it was "hmm do I want to play assault with medbag and paddles,... or assault with medbag and paddles"? In BF4 it was "do I want to play assault with medbags and paddles, or engineer with rocket and mines/ repair torch". Support with mad bipod MG was fun in both games, but hardly effective; mainly due to support gadgets being consistently nerfed into the ground.

BF1 also got rid of bunny hopping and "turn on a dime" movement. This makes mid range weapons actually good at their job.

I do agree there are serious problems with map design though. This is only exacerbated by the fact that sniper rifles are actually powerful now.

One other complaint I see a lot is that flanking is useless now. Then I see people saying 5 rounds SLRs, the BAR and the Automatico are great weapons and that large mag "ease of use" weapons aren't relevant. I've found flanking works fine in this game if you bring a high capacity weapon. The fact I don't immediately pop up on the map of the people I'm flanking certainly helps.

I hope this doesn't come off as a rant. i know I've done that in the past and want to stress this is just my opinion/ "feels". I'm having a blast with BF1 and just wish they'd hurry up and release some more DLC.

Posts: 24

Date of registration
: Jan 1st 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

27

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 7:13pm

Oh wow, I completely forgot about auto spotting on the minimap. That's indeed a major advantage of BF1.

Posts: 7,748

Date of registration
: Feb 25th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: italy

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

28

Saturday, June 3rd 2017, 11:44pm

@Hau_rock

pretty sure nobody with a brain here thinks bf3 was a better game, but those might seem they do, porbably just mean that for them was a more fun game, and saying that a game which is more fun is automatically better isn't exactly true, for while fun can be the main if not only point for a normal gamer in a videogame, for people who look at more than that, fun is just a secondary value.
bf1 isn't a really fun game after just merely 50 hours of gameplay, on the other hand you get that bored after like, 400 hours of something like bf4 or for some bf3(for me that was not the case because of ragequits given by the terrible state of bf3 for me, on ps3 it would crash every 2-3 rounds, and the hit detection was so bad that i can easily claim bf3 is the game that made me rage the most in my entire life), yet bf1 is clearly the better designed game when you look at things like weapon balance and game mechanics.

you people also have to remember that usually when a person on the internet, most of all a youtuber says somehting akin to "x game was better" they mean almost everytime "i had more fun with x game" clueless about what they actually mean, as they are clouded by their opinion's shadow, which is that fun=good=more fun=better game regardless of anything else
so keep that in mind.

i don't want to get too much into this discussion though, as my opinions are quite controversial and unrelatable due to how after all these years bf3 still doesn't work well enogh to make it playable on my pc while bf4 almost gave me no problems since launch.
"I'm just a loot whore."


stuff mostly unrelated to BF4 that interests nobody



bf4
on 13/05/2016
23rd M320FB user on pc(13/05/16)
rush mode score RANK:2794 TOP:2% OUT OF:215398
obliteration mode scoreRANK:994 TOP:1% OUT OF:159466
handgun medals RANK:2236 TOP:2% OUT OF:143874
longest headshot RANK:9512 TOP:4% OUT OF:257589
recon score RANK:10871 TOP:4% OUT OF:274899
general score per minute RANK:10016 TOP:4% OUT OF:294774

bf3
31/3/2012 4:58:

Headshot distance RANK:493* TOP:0%
Revives per assault minute RANK: 6019 TOP: 3%
Headshots / kill percentage RANK:25947 TOP:13%
MVP ribbons RANK:18824 TOP:11%

*= 6 if we not count the EOD BOT headshots

@kataklism

ARGUMENT DESTROYED 100

ENEMY KILLED [REASON] JSLICE20 100


WRITING SPREE STOPPED 500

link to full-size old avatar:
http://i.imgur.com/4X0321O.gif




VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,022)

Posts: 2,537

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

29

Sunday, June 4th 2017, 12:55am

Well I certainly think that more fun equals the better game, for me that is. Games by definition should involve fun. :D What good is a product that is well thought out, but has the sexual appeal cockroach? Personally I think that BF1 balance is worse in every aspect to it's predecessors. You could throw me into battle with any weapon in BF3 and 4 and my experience would not change a bit. Oh yeah, people say, that M16 is best gun and that ARs and Assaults have the upper hand, but in the end the difference is maybe 5% in terms of accuracy and 0,2 in KPM from top to bottom.
Now they replaced working weapons with weapons that often enough will not work at all, yet the game puts you into these engagements. All these fancy numbers do not mean anything if you constantly receive 70+ damage hits from snipers and the automatico users will greet you on the flags that force you into CQ. In BF3 and 4 you were only at a slight disadvantage when wielding an LMG against an AR against a Carbine against a PDW in CQ.
And most importantly you could choose your engagements because of the information gathered. I actually do not see an issue with being spotted whilst shooting, it is not far from authentic either, especially with the pisspoor audio BF1 has. Fact is you can not mimic hearing in a realistic way, so mechanics are needed that offset this.
And you would need that extra bit of information desperately because, as others pointed out, the player count has doubled, there is no pathing on maps, and the stupidly long TTK at range makes you expose yourself way too long. That all results in situations that you can not control. That leads to frustration and less fun.

In BF3 and 4 the player could control the situation, could plan the engagements and even when surprised could come out on top. That is where fun stems from.

I do not know if DICE acknowledges anything here, or if they are just content with the huge sales, but BF1 has this one issue and that is the reason it is not played as much as it should. Each player has a certain opinion of what a game should entail, yet BF1 does not seem to fulfil this simple checklist for a lot of people, which is a shame for a game that had high standards.

Posts: 179

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

30

Sunday, June 4th 2017, 2:26am

Something that often gets overlooked when it comes to map flow and pathing is the BF1 ability to vault 8-foot high walls. Go take a walk around Scar's town without vaulting over anything more than knee-high.

It would actually have flow and pathing, destruction of walls to make paths would actually mean something, doors and gates would actually mean something, it would play so much better. Right now you can travel in a complete straight line through the town (or anywhere else) by just bouncing over everything like Mario, and it's awful.

Vaulting is certainly a major problem. However with the chaos that is found in 64p CQ the walls certainly come down in no time.

I think destruction is good till a certain point. In BF3, maps in B2K contain buildings that can be hidden inside, and thus can be destroyed. At the same time, there are some buildings that you cannot enter and you cannot destroy, like the Hotel in Gulf of Oman. It preserves some kind of pathing while allowing you to expose people hiding inside buildings.


BF1 also got rid of bunny hopping and "turn on a dime" movement. This makes mid range weapons actually good at their job.


What do you mean by "turn on a dime" movement?


One other complaint I see a lot is that flanking is useless now. Then I see people saying 5 rounds SLRs, the BAR and the Automatico are great weapons and that large mag "ease of use" weapons aren't relevant. I've found flanking works fine in this game if you bring a high capacity weapon. The fact I don't immediately pop up on the map of the people I'm flanking certainly helps.

Flanking is not useless only when 1. you actually got a close range flank off with a shotgun, and 2. you got a cross fire flank with a sniper. See the similarities here? Low TTK. For the other situations, it does not do much good. Reason is that in a close range flank, your TTK is not low enough for someone in the bunch to notice you and kill you after maybe one kill. For the mid or long range flank, your TTK is so high that they can easily dodge your optimally paced SL M1916 shots, while you are exposing yourself to more enemy fire. It is not that flanking has no rewards, but the rewards often do not outweigh the risks.

@iota-09

I certainly define a better game as having more fun with that game, because I play games to have fun. Better and more fun are subjective comparisons, while more balanced is objective.

@VincentNZ

I am delighted to say that we really share similar views in what we look for in BF games.