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 Battlefield Roots Initiative

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: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 12:07am

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

He's right. 2142, BF3, BF4 were all comp-friendly titles. Some game devs are trying to do with e-sports what sporting goods companies (bikes, hockey stuff, etc) do with competitive sports. The translation has just been generally shitty compared to real sports for reasons, often the same reasons why $4000 race bikes don't sell to average joe that is well served by the$200 walmart bike.

With BF1 decided to not have dedicated, independantly hosted and privately controlled servers - ignoring everything else that is completely removing BF1 from anything remotely e-sports. They don't even want you to have large blobs of coordinated players anymore.

That's fair, and yeah, if they're going for comp/e-sports, they're starting for the complete wrong angle here. BF1 is a fantastic example of how to make normal players feel alienated because the gameplay isn't what they want, while at the same time also alienating competitive communities and organizations (and non-comp too, for that matter) by having precisely zero community-oriented features. Well done.

If they had done the reverse, nearly everyone would be happy instead.
I'm fairly confident that didn't want comp/e-sports in BF1. Or rather just didn't care about it.

How exactly is BF1 alienating to "normal" players though? The production quality is amazing and the game plays well. I just think it's missing in fun because the low-fi tech just doesn't play as well as the modern stuff. And then the maps suck. But those are things that are true regardless of player skill.

Like we just waited 6+ months for a DLC pack and none of the maps are even that great dammit....

Holy War? No Thanks.

Posts: 2,660

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 12:08am

You would probabyl think that I am rather excited about this, but I am not really, because I can at least acknowledge that a lot of thinking, work and time went into this. That is indeed a shame.

I still think the whole mechanic was unneeded and could have been fixed differently. It was also a big change right in the middle of the life cycle, which always comes out bad.

However, I do not think this should be counted as a failure by DICE or anyone esle. The CTE is, or should be, nothing more than a test environment. A sandbox to dabble around with ideas. So the whole tone to "give up" is certainly just unneeded. Nobody needs to abandon anything, because it never was part of the game. So nothing is really lost gameplay-wise.

There are still some open questions. I guess this means that you will still have full ammo after dying and they will not touch the minimum and maximum ammo? Because that stuff basically was the whole point of there thing.

Having grenades and gadgets resupply at different timers is indeed nothing unusual. But why they would not give the same passive resupply capabilities of the ammo pouch to the ammo crate as well is beyond me. You could also increase the number of deployable ammo crates to three or even five to make sure there is always a crate on chokepoints. Also one could expand the range of the resupply for crates.

But the biggest hit for grenade spam is to promote custom servers, reduce the convenience of a grenade throw, or, a revolutionary thought, to make maps and modes that do not reward spamming so much.

Holy War? No Thanks.

Posts: 2,660

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 12:12am

Also on the e-sport/competitive topic:

If you want competitive gameplay, why would you exclude so many players from it totally? Why not draw inspiration from Overwatch, LoL and others. Not from the mechanics, but from what has been done to include people into these challenges. Where are the tournaments, leagues, ladders, clans, leaderboards, community building features?

Or if that is all too much for DICE, why do they not give it back to the players with real private and custom servers, so that they can play their modded version of BF and call it competitive.

Posts: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 12:15am

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

You would probabyl think that I am rather excited about this, but I am not really, because I can at least acknowledge that a lot of thinking, work and time went into this. That is indeed a shame.

I still think the whole mechanic was unneeded and could have been fixed differently. It was also a big change right in the middle of the life cycle, which always comes out bad.

However, I do not think this should be counted as a failure by DICE or anyone esle. The CTE is, or should be, nothing more than a test environment. A sandbox to dabble around with ideas. So the whole tone to "give up" is certainly just unneeded. Nobody needs to abandon anything, because it never was part of the game. So nothing is really lost gameplay-wise.

There are still some open questions. I guess this means that you will still have full ammo after dying and they will not touch the minimum and maximum ammo? Because that stuff basically was the whole point of there thing.

Having grenades and gadgets resupply at different timers is indeed nothing unusual. But why they would not give the same passive resupply capabilities of the ammo pouch to the ammo crate as well is beyond me. You could also increase the number of deployable ammo crates to three or even five to make sure there is always a crate on chokepoints. Also one could expand the range of the resupply for crates.

But the biggest hit for grenade spam is to promote custom servers, reduce the convenience of a grenade throw, or, a revolutionary thought, to make maps and modes that do not reward spamming so much.
It's a failure in the sense that it is dev time wasted (and thus money wasted), on something that went nowhere in a game that needs some big stuff to bolster the player base.

The map configuration and hotbutton throwing are truly the biggest issues here. However DICE has also learned that meatgrinder maps sell extremely well due to the popularity of metro-lockers. It's only logical that they will stick with the paradigm of serving that demand with at least one grinder basemap and then toss in a few more with DLC.

And since the grinders get heavily played and have such high rates of killing/dying they dominate the discussion of things like pam.

PvF 2017 Champion

Posts: 7,155

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 12:16am

Logistical issues are the problem with BF1. Not so much the gameplay.

The infantry guns balance is as competitive as it has ever been.

Compare this to the M16A3 in BF3 and tapfire in BF4.

Furthermore, there was ESL making BF into CounterStrike: DICE Edition.

It's important for the game spectators watch to be the game they'll pick up and play.

That was a major failure in the past because people would be watching 5s, 8s, 10s, etc. with their various rulesets, pick up BF3/4 and wind up playing a completely different game. Absolutely terrible.

DICE has already clamped down on this with the emphasis on Official servers, replacing 3rd-party plug-ins with their own version, and EA's establishment of a Competitive Gaming Division.

DICE needs to be making official pushes for competitive instead of leaving organization to communities and other parties.

The best approach is described by David Sirlin.

The game has to be deep to keep players interested for years.

The game has to be accessible so many people can pick it up and play.

Players should be picking up the game because the gameplay they watched on stream was interesting and fun.

Just because a game is fun for the average player doesn't mean it'll be viable as a competitive title. Of course, that doesn't matter if DICE abandons Battlefield as an e-sport.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.

Are you a scrub?

### Quoted from "blahdy"

If it flies, it dies™.

Holy War? No Thanks.

Posts: 2,660

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 12:35am

We can agree on that. Then maybe BF needs a new publisher?

Honestly I say that they emphasised on their own servers and that they sell the servers themselves because they could squeeze more dollars out of it. But it failed though, nobody knows if they ever played on a community server, because nobody really uses the serverbrowser.

They used the most horrific launcher ever invented with Origin, a program that has the worst reputation and furthermore they tied it into the UI. The UI and the menus themselves are rather complicated and not in the slightes convenient. And they dropped Battlelog for that, a website that could be modified easily, was rather practical to use, showed a lot of info and had social features.

Now they have to start a whole new infrastructure and have not delivered anything six months after release. However one would get the feeling that they wanted to endorse this scene, for whatever reason. It is a game, it is somewhat entertaining, but beyond that nothing has been delivered. I do not see how they can change that any time soon, there is a lot of damage done.
I think binding players to a franchise for years is a good strategy for companies, but I do not see any feature in BF1 that would count as a service.

Posts: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 1:37am

### Quoted from "VincentNZ"

We can agree on that. Then maybe BF needs a new publisher?

Honestly I say that they emphasised on their own servers and that they sell the servers themselves because they could squeeze more dollars out of it. But it failed though, nobody knows if they ever played on a community server, because nobody really uses the serverbrowser.

They used the most horrific launcher ever invented with Origin, a program that has the worst reputation and furthermore they tied it into the UI. The UI and the menus themselves are rather complicated and not in the slightes convenient. And they dropped Battlelog for that, a website that could be modified easily, was rather practical to use, showed a lot of info and had social features.

Now they have to start a whole new infrastructure and have not delivered anything six months after release. However one would get the feeling that they wanted to endorse this scene, for whatever reason. It is a game, it is somewhat entertaining, but beyond that nothing has been delivered. I do not see how they can change that any time soon, there is a lot of damage done.
I think binding players to a franchise for years is a good strategy for companies, but I do not see any feature in BF1 that would count as a service.
The way I see it was that this was a bid to completely vertically integrate themselves into the game and its lifecycle. They wanted to control not only sale, patching, distribution, DLC. But also control the community environment people play in. This curbs both the asshole mods, arbitrary banlists, often lame custom rulesets, etc but also eliminates good things like community comraderie, kicking/banning individual hackers as they crop up once observed in the while. Stomping out the homophobia/racism/shitchatting, etc.

The problem is that they removed a bunch of stuff but put in nothing to replace it.

Posts: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 1:39am

### Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

Logistical issues are the problem with BF1. Not so much the gameplay.

The infantry guns balance is as competitive as it has ever been.

Compare this to the M16A3 in BF3 and tapfire in BF4.

Furthermore, there was ESL making BF into CounterStrike: DICE Edition.

It's important for the game spectators watch to be the game they'll pick up and play.

That was a major failure in the past because people would be watching 5s, 8s, 10s, etc. with their various rulesets, pick up BF3/4 and wind up playing a completely different game. Absolutely terrible.

DICE has already clamped down on this with the emphasis on Official servers, replacing 3rd-party plug-ins with their own version, and EA's establishment of a Competitive Gaming Division.

DICE needs to be making official pushes for competitive instead of leaving organization to communities and other parties.

The best approach is described by David Sirlin.

The game has to be deep to keep players interested for years.

The game has to be accessible so many people can pick it up and play.

Players should be picking up the game because the gameplay they watched on stream was interesting and fun.

Just because a game is fun for the average player doesn't mean it'll be viable as a competitive title. Of course, that doesn't matter if DICE abandons Battlefield as an e-sport.
Well considering this has been the utterly worst BF release in terms of supporting any sort of community based stuff, AND the worst in terms of supporting/fostering e-sports you cannot escape that it's an overall failure.

Posts: 3,292

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 2:13am

I'm legitimately pissed about this. This had so much potential for infantry-vehicle combat and now it's just gone; gone before it could even be tested for fuck's sake. The Battlefield "community" has gotten out of hand thinking they know how to balance the game better than the fricken developers themselves: "DICE pls, auto-regen gadget ammo just enables lone wolfing. C'mon, use your heads." Closed-minded ignoramuses, I swear. I adore the Battlefield series, but the stubborn nature of the playerbase irritates the hell out of me. The franchise is going to fail if DICE mindlessly continues to give into the whims of armchair developers who don't have the slightest clue as to how to create a more enjoyable and balanced Battlefield experience. Ammo 2.0 contained aspects that could improve balance and improve the experience, but we'll never fuckin' know now. Great work Battlefield community, you own DICE for certain now because you shun any innovation they try to install without careful analysis of the potential their ideas retain. Have fun running the series, you mules.
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"

Posts: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

Wednesday, March 29th 2017, 2:26am

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

I'm legitimately pissed about this. This had so much potential for infantry-vehicle combat and now it's just gone; gone before it could even be tested for fuck's sake. The Battlefield "community" has gotten out of hand thinking they know how to balance the game better than the fricken developers themselves: "DICE pls, auto-regen gadget ammo just enables lone wolfing. C'mon, use your heads." Closed-minded ignoramuses, I swear. I adore the Battlefield series, but the stubborn nature of the playerbase irritates the hell out of me. The franchise is going to fail if DICE mindlessly continues to give into the whims of armchair developers who don't have the slightest clue as to how to create a more enjoyable and balanced Battlefield experience. Ammo 2.0 contained aspects that could improve balance and improve the experience, but we'll never fuckin' know now. Great work Battlefield community, you own DICE for certain now because you shun any innovation they try to install without careful analysis of the potential their ideas retain. Have fun running the series, you mules.
DICE has a pretty terrible track record for balancing.

Ammo 2.0 had terrible potential with the damage tweaks and persistant supply for infantry vs vehicles.

It wasn't good, and the K bullet was OP from an on-paper perspective.

1 guests