Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 22:58. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

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.

## CTE Patch 2 [3231681 - XP1] 20.2.2017: Offical Patch Notes, Symthic Changelog, New Weapons Discussion

Posts: 460

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

Tuesday, February 21st 2017, 5:21pm

No vehicle changes in this patch? Weird.
RIP Sraw

Posts: 126

Date of registration
: Nov 29th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: Florida

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

Tuesday, February 21st 2017, 5:34pm

Well geez, i wondered why my ears were burning when I woke up!

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

It isn't just a bucket. That's a fricken mine of salt deposits. To think, that's the direction this forum would go if it weren't for users like Labby, Noctyrne, Rezal, element, marbleduck, Miffyli, Veritable, etc. who, in conjunction, interpret, analyze, and format confusing stat changes. Seriously, this community is blessed to have such intelligent community members.

I agree, but it's a shame none of them could be bothered to respond when i posted the exact same thing in this thread. As a matter of fact i feel like maybe my last 5-7 questions have been ignored. Look, I get it... I'm not in the cool club, I'm just a new guy, I'm a scrub, I dont have a degree in rocket surgery, I'm not as smart as many of you. My bad.

### Quoted from "Zer0Cod3x"

Because the community is dyslexic. They see the orange text, they complain. They don't see what is actually written in the orange-coloured text.

Well, you got me there, I am dyslexic. (If I would have posted that, I feel like I would've been moderated for personal attacks, but again, I'm not in the club.) I saw exactyl what was written. What was NOT written was the whole part about recoil scale, recoil as a whole being reworked, or whatever the hell is going on with this patch (of which I am still unclear). Maybe the patch notes could've come with a disclaimer or something. I'm not sure how you expect the "community" to react when we see huge nerfs to guns that were just buffed.

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

I do not know, did I miss anything? I think that post is still sensible, even by symthic standards. And concerning the author, I was off for quite a while, and still am, but Oak_beard seemed decent enough to me. So why the criticism, if I may ask?

Careful, I don't want anyone else to end up on the shunned list.

### Quoted from "rhazeal"

Could it be because he does not examine the actual changes, merely complain about the nerfs while ignoring the larger picture they fit into? The title "Huge amount of nerfs incoming!" is laden with negativity and omits the fact that the weapons are not being "nerfed" -- They're being balanced.

Not nerfed, but balanced. Now you're just playing semantics. The larger picture? Are you referring to how recoil is being reworked? If so, like i said, that info wasn't included in the notes.

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

Point taken, but from the facts we had at that point a thread like "Huge Balances" does not really show the real changes. Increasing horizontal recoil across the board by 30% or so, is a huge nerf, not a slight adjustment. I do believe that an author has to adjust his tone to the medium and reddit is a bit more loose, I guess. But even on here I would find the term "huge nerfs" acceptable for the changes I have seen, even though, as Labby pointed out, it might have little effect on the battlefield.

Exactly. Honestly, I did go back and do some edits soon after posting. I wanted to change the title as well, but on reddit you can't.

### Quoted from "rhazeal"

That is valid enough, but the point I was (in a crass manner, I suppose) trying to get across was that he singled out the nerfs and did not provide any meaningful context, ie. try to construct a scenario in which the changes may be justified. This, in my opionion at least, paints an overly negative picture of the changes and what the balancer is trying to accomplish, and does not engender any sort of follow-up conversation that can be anything but "BUT MAH BELOVED X IS RUINED!"

There was no way my feeble little mind COULD construct a scenario in which the changes may be justified! All Symthic has said for the last three months is the 1916 is the biggest joke of a gun in the game, that it's a horrible option for anyone, save scrublet mouthbreathers who aim with their toes, and a fiery death would be preferable to playing a single round with it.

On what planet does this gun sound deserving of a nerf???

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Oak_Beard" (Feb 21st 2017, 6:35pm)

Posts: 6

Date of registration
: Nov 18th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

Tuesday, February 21st 2017, 7:00pm

### Quoted from "Oak_Beard"

Not nerfed, but balanced. Now you're just playing semantics. The larger picture? Are you referring to how recoil is being reworked? If so, like i said, that info wasn't included in the notes.
This was in reference to having a loaded title, not the content of the post per-se -- The larger picture could, for example, be the changes to suppression in the previous patch and the impact they're having on the achieved accuracy within the given sweet spots of the rifles?

### Quoted from "Oak_Beard"

There was no way my feeble little mind COULD construct a scenario in which the changes may be justified! All Symthic has said for the last three months is the 1916 is the biggest joke of a gun in the game, that it's a horrible option for anyone, save scrublet mouthbreathers who aim with their toes, and a fiery death would be preferable to playing a single round with it.

On what planet does this gun sound deserving of a nerf???
I'm going to give it a shot then; Is it plausible that the rifles are somehow now overperforming outside of their intended ranges and reducing the impact of properly paced fire versus fully automatic "sweeper" fire? I'm sure you're a creative man when it comes to it, there is bound to be a sound argument for why it is done -- We've merely to find it.

And as for the 1916, maybe the argument could be the same, that it is somehow overperforming outside of its intended range, or achieving too high effective accuracy within its intended range for a given rate of clicks? Otherwise, it could be an attempt to wean people off the security of a single weapon. Maybe we're looking at broader, sweeping changes to make room in the model for less accurate weapons with a higher specific damage?

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Tuesday, February 21st 2017, 7:26pm

### Quoted from "Iwo_Jima"

No vehicle changes in this patch? Weird.
There are:

### Quoted

VEHICLES

AA cannons:

• Removed blast and impact impulse to prevent them from pushing and rotating planes
• Reduced impact damage to planes by 50% for fighters and attack planes and by 40% for bombers

A7V:

• Reduced A7V flamethrower range from 44 to 24 meters to better match the VFX
• Reduced A7V flamethrower speed inheritance and velocity and increased time to live for more predictable behavior
I think the AA changes are exactly what was needed. Impulsive effects were still too great since last update.

The flamethrower changes are incomprehensible though - the flamethrower tank is barely usable as it is because of positioning of the flamers - they can't be brought into play while the driver is engaging with the main gun. With the range nerf they can't even sweep the flanks of grenade attacks effectively anymore since the beaten zone of the flamers got really small.

The whole core of good tanking in BF1 is preventing enemies from flanking at close-ish ranges. The flamers used to sort of mitigate against that and so the tank had some use on the likes of amiens, but it was marginal pre-nerf. Now it's just a dustbin vehicle since it lost the ability to reach those corners.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Tuesday, February 21st 2017, 9:17pm

### Quoted from "Oak_Beard"

I agree, but it's a shame none of them could be bothered to respond when i posted the exact same thing in this thread. As a matter of fact i feel like maybe my last 5-7 questions have been ignored.

To be fair, some of your posts have been...questionable. As a result of this, you are less likely to be taken seriously by some of the more experienced members. Terms like 'nerf' have obvious negative connotations. 'Reductions' or 'changes' is more appropriate, because it eliminates the "whine" that is synonymous with 'nerf.'

### Quoted from "Oak_Beard"

I saw exactyl what was written. What was NOT written was the whole part about recoil scale, recoil as a whole being reworked, or whatever the hell is going on with this patch (of which I am still unclear).

Which is exactly why it is unproductive to jump to conclusions without analyzing the data. If you cannot analyze it, wait for someone who can, REP 'em for it, and learn from their conclusions so you can provide constructive input in the future. That's another thing. Posting when you really have no idea what you are talking about is just not smart. THIS will get you "shunned" more than anything. Trust me, I was there before.

### Quoted from "Oak_Beard"

The larger picture? Are you referring to how recoil is being reworked? If so, like i said, that info wasn't included in the notes.

Well, seeing as how EVERY SLR was changed in some aspect it could be inferred that these aren't individual inspections but rather a blanket transformation. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

### Quoted from "Oak_Beard"

from the facts we had at that point a thread like "Huge Balances" does not really show the real changes. Increasing horizontal recoil across the board by 30% or so, is a huge nerf, not a slight adjustment.

Vincent, you know what the feeling is behind the term 'nerf.' Don't play dumb. "Huge Changes" is far more acceptable. "Huge Nerfs Incoming" is equivalent to click-bait. Nobody respects click-bait.

### Quoted from "Oak_Beard"

I wanted to change the title as well, but on reddit you can't.

Here is a prime example of neglecting to think before you act. Let this be a lesson to learn and grow from.

### Quoted from "Oak_Beard"

All Symthic has said for the last three months is the 1916 is the biggest joke of a gun in the game, that it's a horrible option for anyone, save scrublet mouthbreathers who aim with their toes, and a fiery death would be preferable to playing a single round with it.

On what planet does this gun sound deserving of a nerf???

As has been established, the SLRs are being reworked concerning recoil scale, and it appears horizontal recoil needed to take a hit to accommodate this change. Seeing as how the 1916 is, indeed, an SLR it is included with this blanketed reduction.
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"

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,695

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

Tuesday, February 21st 2017, 11:34pm

@Oak_Beard

Okay, hold on, let's everyone take a step back here. I honestly had no idea Oak Beard was the poster of that thread until it was pointed out here, and more to the point it's actually irrelevant. I linked that post mainly because of the conversations going on inside it, not the post itself. I did not in any way mean to call out any individuals, pick on anyone, or anything at all like that.

I may have earned the "Salt Miner" title from the time I spent arguing against misinformation and false assertions with regards to balance and the like on BF4's CTE subreddit, and doing so in a rather blunt and straightforward manner, but I always try my best to never, ever make things personal; it's all business to me. I just want bad assumptions and misunderstood balance changes gone because those things hurt everyone as a whole, and get in the way of us getting a better game, one improved despite what the users of X nerfed item may have to say. But it's all business, I can't think of a single person here or from there that I actively dislike, ignore, think less of, or anything like that. I argue against and dislike opinions and factually wrong statements, but not really the people behind them.

I truly value all those opinions, even factually wrong ones, because even a factually wrong opinion has a reason it came to be, and that is and of itself is valid, even if the conclusion is not. It's very important to get opinions from every kind of player across every range of understanding of the game.

I also did NOT link the thread so everyone could circlejerk and laugh at noobs or anything of the sort. I was hoping that a few people who actually know what they're talking about may actually post over there to help clear things up, where appropriate. Spreading elitism is also not productive.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Heretic

Posts: 210

Date of registration
: Dec 21st 2016

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Spokane, WA, USA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Tuesday, February 21st 2017, 11:56pm

### Quoted from "Iwo_Jima"

No vehicle changes in this patch? Weird.
They nerfed the flamethrower tank so you cant get sniped form 50 Meters away with invisible flames anymore
Official heretic of the Symthic forums. Avid M1907 factory user and complete casual pleb.
Iplaysgames96 - Profile Overview - Battlefield 1 Tracker

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Tuesday, February 21st 2017, 11:57pm

### Quoted from "Iwo_Jima"

No vehicle changes in this patch? Weird.
They nerfed the flamethrower tank so you cant get sniped form 50 Meters away with invisible flames anymore
IOW flamethrower tank now useless.

Heretic

Posts: 210

Date of registration
: Dec 21st 2016

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Spokane, WA, USA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

Tuesday, February 21st 2017, 11:59pm

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

he flamethrower changes are incomprehensible though - the flamethrower tank is barely usable as it is because of positioning of the flamers - they can't be brought into play while the driver is engaging with the main gun. With the range nerf they can't even sweep the flanks of grenade attacks effectively anymore since the beaten zone of the flamers got really small.

The whole core of good tanking in BF1 is preventing enemies from flanking at close-ish ranges. The flamers used to sort of mitigate against that and so the tank had some use on the likes of amiens, but it was marginal pre-nerf. Now it's just a dustbin vehicle since it lost the ability to reach those corners.
They also fixed the speed inheritance which is the issue you spoke of where you couldn't aim the stupid flames while the driver was moving about
Official heretic of the Symthic forums. Avid M1907 factory user and complete casual pleb.
Iplaysgames96 - Profile Overview - Battlefield 1 Tracker

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Wednesday, February 22nd 2017, 12:39am

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

he flamethrower changes are incomprehensible though - the flamethrower tank is barely usable as it is because of positioning of the flamers - they can't be brought into play while the driver is engaging with the main gun. With the range nerf they can't even sweep the flanks of grenade attacks effectively anymore since the beaten zone of the flamers got really small.

The whole core of good tanking in BF1 is preventing enemies from flanking at close-ish ranges. The flamers used to sort of mitigate against that and so the tank had some use on the likes of amiens, but it was marginal pre-nerf. Now it's just a dustbin vehicle since it lost the ability to reach those corners.
They also fixed the speed inheritance which is the issue you spoke of where you couldn't aim the stupid flames while the driver was moving about
That's not a big deal since it's an area weapon with relatively low TTK, the bigger issue is that the firing arcs suck which means you can't really defend the tank or clear out buildings while the driver is engaging stuff because of the shitty fields of fire.