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.

  • "The_D0lph1n" started this thread

Posts: 86

Date of registration
: Jun 23rd 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

1

Sunday, June 11th 2017, 5:24am

Revisiting Chainlink

A common complaint that I'm seeing about BF1's maps and conquest system is that because of the flag-proportional ticket gain, back-caps don't matter at all because they become much less able to stop an enemy from winning. I think making conquest more like Chainlink could solve that problem and also fix the long-standing problem of flag defense being undervalued. My idea is that every captured flag must be linked with the team's uncap in order for it to contribute points towards winning. Any flag that is cut off from the home base contributes nothing to the score. This way, back caps become incredibly powerful because a team can go from getting 5 flags worth of points to 0 flags worth of points by losing just one flag. It would in fact be more powerful than a BF4 flag cap which might not actually stop the dominant team from bleeding tickets from the other.

Changes I would make from the original chainlink are that the links should not be distributed in a line, but instead in a graph; and that this should be added to the standard conquest gamemode rather than being infantry-only like in BF4. Making the link structure like a graph rather than a line would make flags that connect more than 2 other flags strategically more important. These links would also create more regular lanes in these maps, thus giving the developers a new way to create pathing within maps which people (including me) complain lack enough proper paths.

Also, this mechanic could bring in a nice historical touch to the game. A major problem faced by both sides during the war was that successful offensives would often outpace the extension of supply lines needed to keep the offensive going. Capturing a back flag could represent cutting off a supply line from the home base to the "front lines" of the battle. Teams will need to dedicate some people to protect their rear flags or risk completely losing (effectively) all of their flags due to a single undefended flag being captured.

Finally, credit where credit is due: I partially got this idea from Planetside 2 where regions need to be connected to each faction's home base to give points or whatever. And the developers could change the way the continent played out by changing the links between regions.

I think bringing elements of chainlink into BF1 could really improve how maps play out and prevent the BF1 conquest scoring system from making matches boring.

Posts: 3,199

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

2

Sunday, June 11th 2017, 6:54am

Then we get terribad gameplay that's even more focused on back-capping than it already is. I don't know about you, but I despise back-capping and having to deal with that shit because it incites chaotic, circle-jerk gameplay. Whoever claims that back-capping does not have an impact is delusional and shouldn't be taken seriously or even acknowledged. Battlefield still does the stupid flag-spawned vehicle assets on gimmies, so taking away a gimme is removing a tank spawn. People just bitch because they don't understand what the new scoring system coupled with the Behemoth catch-up mechanic intend to accomplish. They see the current implementations of both and immediately label them as bad, when, with some tweaking, can be really good. Much better than getting skunked in BF3/4 even though Team A actually held flags but didn't get points because they didn't fulfill the sole criteria of having >50% of flags which Team B did. This made it either really hard or really easy to comeback depending on Team B's defense (or even acknowledgement that literally all they had to do to win was defend which was super easy to do) or Team A's offense.
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


Posts: 1,203

Date of registration
: Dec 7th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

3

Sunday, June 11th 2017, 9:51am

Back capping is already a highly effective tactic. Not so much because of the score (though that certainly helps) but because it gives your team a spawn point letting you attack the central points from both sides, and it forces the enemy to pull soldiers from the front to recapture the gimmie point.
bob

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

4

Sunday, June 11th 2017, 11:11am

Chainlink is a better version of Frontlines, because it spaces the battling out, so that higher playercounts work and certain points do not turn into point blank clusterfucks.

I do not get the back-capping hate. It is a strategic maneuver and opens up new frontlines, draws forces away from a locked chokepoint or might even allow a steamroll of the opposing team. It is a legitimate tactic that can even turn the tide. Something that is inherently not likely at all in BF1.

Somewhere along the line someone at DICE decided that zerging with 64 players around one objective is the key to fun. Well how good that went. Back-capping is far from valuable in a game that centers around one line of combat and where flag-capping takes minutes. Also in situations like this every man you draw from the frontline will cause power to shift, so if a squad of cognitive people want to break out by a sudden attack of tactical thinking, it can really hurt the team.

People probabyl hate it because of the pisspoor map design from BF4 where some maps could easily be held by the enemy, like E on Rogue, or a on Zavod. Chainlink did have it spot on, capping was fast, enforced flanking maneuvers and had a fast speed. I still preferred Conquest.

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,528

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

5

Sunday, June 11th 2017, 5:00pm

Backcapping is alright when done in a local area to the main fight.

Backcapping is not alright when you have to run for 5 minutes doing absolutely nothing just to kill the two people who sneaked onto your gimmie.

Is it a legitimate tactic? Yes. Is it fun to deal with? No. That's why we hate it.
something something Model 8 bestgun


How to ice an A-91

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...)

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.

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.

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.

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

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

@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.


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

6

Sunday, June 11th 2017, 5:30pm

Well maybe then they should not make maps where you need to drive five minutes to get from one flag to another, and just make some decent maps, where distance evolve between 50-200m? So you do prefer 32 players clashing on one frontline where there is only one direction you need to look at?

Edit: sorry that came off a bit rude.

I just think, that it is not appealing gameplay to have 64 players run into each other at an ultimate zergfest, especially if you want to encourage squadplay. The games turn stale and undynamic increadibly fast and lartge portions of maps stay unused. Just look at Suez, Fao etc. Many are just never contested.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "VincentNZ" (Jun 11th 2017, 5:47pm)