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.

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

41

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 12:23am

No honestly I am not trying to be overly educating. I just have these high standards in this game that I despise everything that looks like a used glitch to me. When my mate is up on the third floor, I tend to leave the game or switch teams. I do not despise the people behind it, of course. That does mean that these standards might be too high in some cases, but that is just me. I find seat switiching in the Attack chopper annoyingly unfair (not really in the scout though). I do like to bring my point across though and since english is not my mother tongue, the answers are usually drawn out.

So if you feel a bit put off by my argumentation, sorry for that, I am not here to convince you of my rather firm and blunt opinion. From what I see this applies to you as well. :D Ah and I laughed hard at my new underavatar thingy. :D I was wondering for ages where people get them from.

J0hn-Stuart-Mill

GW2 N00B... also old.

(1,909)

Posts: 1,142

Date of registration
: Apr 10th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

42

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 12:24am

the case of seat switching so far could just as easily be made for the case of MAV riding. It didn't break the game, both teams could do it and it didn't give any one player a direct combat advantage over another.

Disagree. MAV riding did break the game on maps without air vehicles. The reason is because on those maps there were enormous volumes of places in which you could not reach by any other means. The highway on Tehran, the rooftops on seine, the ledges on bazaar, etc, etc. Spots with perfect cover, and no possible way for an enemy to come get you. It's those places that made MAV riding problematic.

It was kind of a stupid concept because of it's absurdity, but had it been used on maps like Kharg or Firestorm, or Caspian, maps where every place is accessible with a beacon anyways, no one would have cared about it on those maps.

Posts: 179

Date of registration
: Mar 5th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message

43

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 12:30am

Was about to respond but Aenonar once again makes a great post and summarises everything I wanted to say :D

Posts: 1,487

Date of registration
: Jul 20th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

44

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 1:08am


Lack of complexity just means the developers have failed.


maybe, but purposely reducing complexity that's already there is always a bad thing, no matter how unintentional it is.

and you may have 20 years of experience, but i seriously doubt you have any idea about the sheer scope of a modern AAA game. you wouldn't say the things you did otherwise.

It's not about reducing complexity. It's about removing things that simply shouldn't be in the game in the first place. Complexity isn't about having lots of bugs and glitches to abuse. You've got this whole thing wrong.


Good complexity is something like pilot bailing and gunner taking over, using extinguisher and then land to pick up the pilot. But when there's a double seat switch back and forth or even repairing mid air, that's just plain silly.


A perfect example of awesome complexity is old WoW warrior class: For anyone not familiar with it they have 3 combat stances with various abilities. Some can be used in any stance and some can only be used in one. So an unskilled warrior would simply sit there in their default stance because that's what they made their char to play like. But a skilled player could stance dance as it was called to utilize more abilities in certain situations, getting double charges (move to the target) or overpower someone who dodges, remove fear effects or reflect spells with your shield etc etc.

It was awesome and lots of fun. Difficult, but well within the game mechanics yet very complex. It was designed to be complex, not due to bugs and glitches or even creative use of game mechanics.

Blizzard had an awesome system, but they went the wrong way and simplified everything so even idiots get equal chances and they didn't replace it with something new, hence why the game now sucks, unless you're an idiot who can now finally play everything... The only thing somewhat "hardcore" are the raids, but the basic stuff is ruined so it's not worth anything.. Stance dancing is completely dead now, it only changes energy generation for abilities now and all the bonus skills are gone because you're now locked to one specialization... /fail "pretty much everyone plays the same so lets make everyone play the same to make things even"



It's kinda hard to make a shooter like battlefield complex, mostly it just results in stuff like teamwork based stuff like laser tagging which fails because people just don't cooperate.. But purposefully leaving bugs and glitches is not the way to do it. Suppression is one way of making it more complex and you see how that went :|

A lot of things are becoming more complex in BF4, I just hope they're reducing all the bugs and glitches at the same time... Though I must say I am worried since Demize seem to like stuff like that...


i fail to see any functional difference between your "good complexity" and the so called "bad complexity". one is planned by the developer. the other was discovered by the community. both are perfectly acceptable.

the only argument against heli seat switching atm (since we've basically defeated all other arguments), is that is is "lame", which really isn't an argument, but an opinion. i personally see nothing wrong with it. battlefield was never designed to be a simulator.

i also find your example to be interesting, since that will also happen if you indiscriminately fix every exploit and bug. it leads to a similar loss in complexity. which as you so kindly pointed out, is not good.

rainkloud

jet proximity scan <3

(595)

  • "rainkloud" started this thread

Posts: 649

Date of registration
: Apr 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

45

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 6:12am





Here's a list of things that are so prevalent as either bugs or unintended aspects of 'rock, paper, scissors' that they dictate how the game is played:
The list goes on and on and on and on. Creative teamwork/gameplay is at the very core of the game itself. To me, a game breaking unintended exploit is something like getting into the metro ceiling and shooting out of it while invincible. But using the tools in the game in creative ways, especially ones that require teamwork, that both teams can do, honestly, Dice loves that, and those things demonstrate how rich the engine is.


I have no clue why you keep bringing up 3. And to bring up all those bugs and use them as justification? I'm at a loss really. That whole list is cleanup. It's a shamefru dispray of stuff that should have never reached consumer's hands. John, 3 is dead. RIP. I feel like this is you and me here:


Monty Python - Dead Parrot - YouTube



unfortunately there really isn't a clear-cut answer to which/what kind of things should be allowed or disallowed. they all have to be judged on a case by case basis.


This is literally the only thing I've found common ground with you on.




getting to the third floor on metro is banned in every competitive setting. it should've been fixed by DICE, but they didn't for a variety of reasons, so the community stepped in and disallowed it among themselves. this also has nothing to do with seat switching in the attack chopper; they aren't even remotely the same thing.


Except that they are. To different degrees certainly but they trace the same bloodlines. They both confer an advantage outside of the scope of design. Sandboxing is fine for things benign in nature but when they come to effect the balance and circumvent the counter measure system then that is when we need put the brakes on it and reevaluate.




Correct! having x2 TV missiles would be an advantage BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS DOES.

as Labby described before, this DOES NOT GIVE YOU 2x of ANYTHING, only allows you to deploy two DIFFERENT countermeasures ( ECM + flares, ECM+extinguisher, ect ) under certain circumstances it's quite useful. It's equally available to BOTH TEAMS and is therefore, not an advantage OVER an opponent.

I'm totally in favour of this and awesome creative uses of the game mechanics like this, as moriz suggested before, you CANNOT have a "solved" game if you want it to be good, interesting, or even remotely worth playing.
It most certainly does give you 2 of something. Two countermeasures. It scarcely matters what variety and combination they are. The counter measures are simply a means to an end. And that end is the avoidance of death and the increase of Time in Action. There was a very clear and conscience decision to remove counter measures from the gunner's seat. A simple trick involving some timing and teamwork is not ample justification to send the bull through the china shop with regards to counter measures.

Vincent also makes a powerful point. The poor sap who's done his job properly by timing the enemy's CM's is unduly punished.



Well the metro ceiling is so 100% a glitch that I'm glad we all agree it is. No textures up there, you can fire out of your hidey hole through a wall that the enemies can't even see you through, etc. It's game breaking IMO. The Heli seat switch simply uses the game engine in a creative way. Entering vehicles in BF3 is an instantaneous thing, therefore, if you can exit and enter before gravity pulls you back down, and seat switch with a teammate, then I say great. It makes a whole new set of AH unlocks viable (like extinguisher) and if you can pull all of that off and survive a fight, then I think it's the best example of BF3's sandbox creativity.

Think of the implications of what you're saying. Take a tank in BF4 for example: You could conceivably run ir smoke and then active protection. Seat swap away for missile and lock immunity! Yay!. We obviously don't know all the timings but the potential is certainly there and sadly likely. We can circle around and around but we'll always arrive back at this:

Was the game's balance designed with one countermeasure or 2,3,4?
Why do we punish lock on weapons who have already had their damage balanced?
Is there a legitimate reason to circumvent this balance? Are vehicles so weak that this is a necessary means to affect balance?

Demize's answer aside I feel these put me in a very strong position.



maybe, but purposely reducing complexity that's already there is always a bad thing, no matter how unintentional it is.


Do you not recognize how completely irresponsible and factually untrue that statement is? Restrain yourself.


as other people have already said, seat switching in the AH isn't about gaining a second set of countermeasures, but to allow for a faster recovery AFTER a fight. doing a seat switch mid battle is almost certainly suicidal, so it doesn't really give you much of an advantage, if any.


You don't seem to fully grasp the concept. It prevents death and the destruction of your helo and increases TIA. That's all that matters. That extinguisher can mean the difference between you losing your helo which means the enemy has an advantage and so on. The ripple effects are profound.





i fail to see any functional difference between your "good complexity" and the so called "bad complexity". one is planned by the developer. the other was discovered by the community. both are perfectly acceptable.

the only argument against heli seat switching atm (since we've basically defeated all other arguments), is that is is "lame", which really isn't an argument, but an opinion. i personally see nothing wrong with it. battlefield was never designed to be a simulator.

i also find your example to be interesting, since that will also happen if you indiscriminately fix every exploit and bug. it leads to a similar loss in complexity. which as you so kindly pointed out, is not good.

Well you're to be congratulated on your cheaply won self proclaimed victory but per the usual you've done little except exclaim that your experience as a developer provides you carte blanche to trample over everyone's arguments. Sorry rockstar, we don't roll like that. BTW since you're so keen on your work, would you mind expanding on your portfolio? I'd love more info on what makes you so much superior than the rest of us.

Not only have you not defeated the arguments made. You haven't even attempted it. What you have to confront is: Based on the info known thus far, why do you feel that vehicles are at such a disadvantage that they need expanded counter measures to cope? Is it more likely that we'll find vids of vehicles mauling infantry or the opposite?

Alright Shigeru Molyneux, I'm all ears ^^

J0hn-Stuart-Mill

GW2 N00B... also old.

(1,909)

Posts: 1,142

Date of registration
: Apr 10th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

46

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 6:45am

Hey guys, lets all remember here that this is Symthic, and we are all mature enough to debate a topic without becoming emotional or insulting. Ad Hominim attacks only demonstrate that your position is weak and that you've run out of supporting evidence and serve to undermine your own position. I hope no one here drops to that level.

3.) MBT sprint bug forces tanks to engage at a distance without advancing on an enemy, and ensures any attempt to rush the enemy in your tank fails.

I have no clue why you keep bringing up 3. And to bring up all those bugs and use them as justification? I'm at a loss really. That whole list is cleanup. It's a shamefru dispray of stuff that should have never reached consumer's hands. John, 3 is dead. RIP.

Two questions, what do you mean by "dead" ? The sprint bug is as bad as it ever has been. It is not dead, nor is it any less prevalent than it ever was. It's repeated inclusion through every patch and every update indicates to me that Dice likes the balance it has struck. It forces tanks to play conservatively, unlike the aggressive BF2 sprinting while circling tank style.

As far as the rest of the list of "bugs", whether they are bugs or not, they are still in the game, and most of them have been the whole time. They DICTATE gameplay, and I feel they've each been left in because of the gameplay they provide. Whereas gamebreaking bugs and glitches like the M26 dart and the Metro ceiling, and mortaring through ceilings, (etc, etc, etc) have all been removed promptly, at the fastest pace possible by Dice given their patch schedule.

Is there a legitimate reason to circumvent this balance? Are vehicles so weak that this is a necessary means to affect balance?
At the end of the day Dice has to decide which things add value to the game, and which things do not. The M26 bug dealt 300% too much damage. The Metro glitch allowed access to an unfinished part of the map. But the seat switching in mid air trick takes teamwork, coordination, and is exceptionally difficult to do while under fire, not to mention risky. If one pilot falls out, you are done, your heli loses, period.

So when creative aspects of the game are discovered, then the analysis happens: This was unintended, but is it worth leaving in? If the aspect discovered is fair to both teams, then It comes back to realism and does that matter? Personally I say realism is irrelevant in gameplay except when it comes to visual appearance.

------------

And I ask everyone again, lets keep it civil. We're all on the same side here, and it's okay if we have different opinions. We love the game and want it to be better, so lets respect each other in the mean time.

Posts: 1,487

Date of registration
: Jul 20th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

47

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 6:48am

Quoted

Not only have you not defeated the arguments made. You haven't even attempted it. What you have to confront is: Based on the info known thus far, why do you feel that vehicles are at such a disadvantage that they need expanded counter measures to cope? Is it more likely that we'll find vids of vehicles mauling infantry or the opposite?


this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and you know it. kindly stop dragging completely irrelevant things into the discussion just to muddle it up.

you have no experience with game design. you have no experience with competitive gaming outside of getting your face blown off (yes, we have long memories). repeatedly. let me let you in on a little fact: EVERY competitive game EVER existed basically functioned off of unintended bugs and glitches. EVERY. ONE. OF. THEM. from mutalisk stacking to rocketjumping to the Valle CC to yes, seat switching to take advantage of additional perks.

so before you attempt to insult me/call me out and then make a post about something completely unrelated, THINK to yourself: "maybe i don't have all the facts, maybe i don't have all the knowledge, and MAYBE i should just listen to someone who happens to have all that." maybe there's a REASON why demize made that statement, and maybe it isn't just because DICE is lazy.

since you like your monty python so much, this video describes your lack of knowledge perfectly (thank you element). sums up your problem perfectly.
John Cleese Explaining Stupidity - YouTube

elementofprgress

Wizard moderator

(3,544)

Posts: 1,618

Date of registration
: Jun 28th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: RI, USA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

48

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 6:56am

If a developer obviously knows a tactic exist, and then only limits it(ie. you can't double ECM) and not out right prevents it. Would it not be working as intended?

Symthic Forum Rules
Battlefield Data Browser
Come join us on teamspeak!!!
Symthic/Team Symthic Teamspeak: TeamSym.Nitrado.net

theaha

Moderator

(1,051)

Posts: 706

Date of registration
: Jul 19th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Washington State

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

49

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 7:26am

Alirght guys settle down.

no more personal attacks or BAM! locked.
----------------------------
<Haemoglobin> I was like LOLOLOLOL HERE COMES THE PAIN
----------------------------
<J0hn> if it's a computer, i touch it... professionally
---------------------------

J0hn-Stuart-Mill

GW2 N00B... also old.

(1,909)

Posts: 1,142

Date of registration
: Apr 10th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

50

Tuesday, September 17th 2013, 7:42am

I think temporary 1 week bans are better than locking a thread. A topic may be interesting to all of us, and it would be sad if one or two offenders can get any thread locked they want.

Just an idea.