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: 3,639

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

101

Saturday, August 30th 2014, 4:46am

It's like a pure boxer expecting to do well in MMA. Infantry arguing for hard counters against aircraft (as opposed to deterrents) is like a boxer saying he should be able to just punch people out of grappling states.


No. The only anti-infantry vehicles are the Scout and IFV, the rest can kill infantry but specialize in other things. Infantry are far more all-round than vehicles, which specialize (though the Attack Boat and Attack Helo are all-round). Infantry are your MMA, while vehicles are pure boxer/pure whatever.
Who Enjoys, Wins

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,156)

Posts: 7,231

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

102

Saturday, August 30th 2014, 5:09am

@NoctyrneSaga

No one who flies jets and is any good at them will run out of mouse space. They only pitch with the mouse to aim, and do all turning with a key bound to "pitch up." I'll admit that 15 seconds may be a slight exaggeration, but it's apparent that the average strafe from a called out enemy that you then have to find is going to be within 8-15 seconds by the time they are destroyed.

Maybe my opinion is mostly due to my experiences as a pilot who plays along side friends who are on the ground. Try flying the stealth jet on Oman or Caspian while you have one or two friends who are playing on the ground (infantry or tank). Try to pay attention to what they are doing through comms and support them as best as you can. I guarantee that you will feel completely and utterly useless and will basically allow them to die 95% of the time there is an encounter. My repeated experience with this kind of event, even in the attack jet, leads me to believe that I would be better off supporting those guys by sitting in their tank or just walking up with them as whatever missing link they need on their infantry squad.

Edit: I don't know what relevance the Sirlin articles are supposed to have here. They certainly don't prove a point. If there was a tag-team styled game mode of SF2 that featured a 5 vs. 5, and 1 character on each team was Akuma, I'm sure Sirlin would not find this type of game imbalanced. Akuma may be overpowered, but each team is limited to 1, and taking out the enemy Akuma while keeping yours as healthy as possible would be an important strategy. If someone sucks with Akuma, then that's the player's fault and not the game's balance. It's the players that expect to be able to play Battlefield without having a grasp on all three elements of the game that really irritate me. It's like a pure boxer expecting to do well in MMA. Infantry arguing for hard counters against aircraft (as opposed to deterrents) is like a boxer saying he should be able to just punch people out of grappling states.


Like I said, I've done plenty of support for my friends as well. I've had no problem dealing with enemy armor threatening them be it maneuvering or killing them. Your own subjective experience is a far cry from mine. You are taking your experience and citing it as a game-deep problem. However, the fact that someone such as myself has an experience to the contrary means that it is not a game-deep problem. It is simply a problem with the player.

The Sirlin articles are here because it is relevant for any discussion regarding game balance. Read the Sirlin articles or go through a similar game development class before you start making comments about "game balance."

The fact that you said that more main battle units were better than denying the enemy their support units points out how you are grossly ignorant about game balance and even common sense.



Your own example with Akuma has a glaring game imbalance problem. It is something called "Nash Equilibrium." Now, I'm not a big player of DOTA but judging from what you have written, both teams have a single strategy for victory and that is to keep their Akuma alive. Your team knows this. Your enemy knows this. Both of you know what your team's go-to or "dominant strategy" is. This is Nash Equilibrium in game development and it is really bad for gameplay because it means there is one predictable outcome. It is boring for both players and spectators. There is no freedom to utilize other strategies. Either keep your Akuma alive or lose.

In Battlefield, there is one map that clearly demonstrates Nash Equilibrium and that is Operation Metro. Rush B Flag if you want to win. Boring. As. Hell.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "NoctyrneSAGA" (Aug 30th 2014, 5:16am)


Natsu

Aye sir!

(15)

  • "Natsu" started this thread

Posts: 43

Date of registration
: Aug 26th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

103

Sunday, August 31st 2014, 2:24am

@ Uranium

Well I guess I have completely different expectations for what an attack helicopter's IRL role is compared to everyone else's. I think of this vehicle to be a completely dominant force that slaughters any and all ground. It should decimate all infantry and tanks, including any form of ground to air. That's just the kind of unit it seems to be from a design standpoint. Instead, in this game's universe it acts like an AC-130. That's just unacceptable to me. It shouldn't be a long-range fire support unit, but an in-your-face main battle unit.

@ Noctyrne

If it's a player problem, then it's due to you playing against garbage players who cannot deal with air support. I'm sure if you were in my shoes after a game was over, you would be happy with the score you got while playing in the air. But I'm not, because I realize that it is the enemy team's fault that I was so successful. Try playing against an entire team of an elite clan with air units before you write them off as useful. The enemy will tank shell your chopper before you leave the spawn no matter what you do. Lock-ons aren't even necessary, the game simply isn't balanced for air when every opponent on the enemy team has 85% accuracy with RPG's and tank shells at all ranges.

And my example wasn't the nash equilibrium any more than chess is. Akuma in this case acts as the Queen of chess. It's not the *only* strategy in chess to take out their queen while keeping your own alive. It's just a common strategy. Akuma isn't some unstoppable force, you could also kill off the other characters so that you have more low-tier characters to use as attrition fodder against the opponent. It's really no different than chess unless you assume Akuma cannot be defeated by other characters. Remember, in this example, the characters do not get health back, even if tagged out.


Edit: And I still disagree with you about the importance of support units, at least in BF4. Supporting roles have minor uses in some other games, but in this I would have to maintain that they are not viable until proven otherwise. I would be very interested if a youtuber with 64 friends could construct a single-blind gaming study. Basically, it would be Caspian Border CQ Large. One team is regimented to filling up all of the vehicle seats at all times, besides transports. So that is the two jets, attack chopper, 3 tanks + the ones at A/E, and the AA. The rest of their players would be infantry as Assault, Recon, and Support. The vehicle users would all be repair engineers. That would be the vehicle supported team, and they would face off against the infantry-only team. This army would cut all extraneous, supporting roles. They would only be allowed to use Assault and Engineer, as well as transport vehicles. They would be prohibited from using tanks and choppers. Jets could be used as transport. This team would consist of 16 assault medics and 16 engineers.

Now just think about this for a second. Do you really think the vehicles of the other team would be able to accomplish anything at all against the infantry? That's 16 engineers all with the AT squad perk. That's what, 7 rockets on each one with 6 AT mines? There are going to be at least 50 land mines down at all times. Tanks would simply be unable to play the game. Even if they get close, there's a swarm of rockets coming from all angles. The chopper would be obsolete due to the stingers and SRAWS. Jets would do nothing at all, but they would be forced to stay in them to simulate what happens when they obtain air superiority. The lesser number of infantry on the vehicle supported team would be slaughtered by having less numbers all around. I expect a complete blow-out in favor of the infantry team. If you think otherwise, then I don't think we're playing the same game. Main battle units all the way in BF4.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Natsu" (Aug 31st 2014, 2:45am)


Posts: 451

Date of registration
: Nov 21st 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

104

Sunday, August 31st 2014, 4:01am

Instead, in this game's universe it acts like an AC-130. That's just unacceptable to me. It shouldn't be a long-range fire support unit, but an in-your-face main battle unit.


Why would an attack helicopter be an in your face main battle unit? That is just stupid... You even state in your scenario that engineers spam rockets at helicopters. Even in the real world do you think a attack helicopter pilot is going to just hover around in their face and bombard them? No their not. That is how you take an RPG to the fuselage or get the rotors shot at and have a Black Hawk Down scenario. The attack helicopter is fine as it is. As a hit and run vehicle. You co-ordinate with you gunner who has TV missiles take out the target/targets and peace the fuck out when it gets too hot.

What are you even arguing? There have literally just been walls on convoluted text...
Your scenario is irrelevant to how Battlefield 4 plays anyway. Why would there ever be a situation where the whole team plays in vehicles? People rarely want to play in the passengers of vehicles.

You talk about versing coordinated teams and getting essentially fucked on. Obviously they have found some use in their vehicles if they are completely dunking on you. This comes back to the point that I made before on this thread. Teamwork = Winning, and Teamwork = OP. The team with people on VOIP or in party chat will majority of the time decimate the enemy team.
"As I walk through the valley of the Shadow Of Death, I have no fear because I am the meanest mother ****er in the whole valley"
- Gen. George S. Patton

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Retribution Iv" (Aug 31st 2014, 4:12am)


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,156)

Posts: 7,231

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

105

Sunday, August 31st 2014, 4:09am

@ Uranium

Well I guess I have completely different expectations for what an attack helicopter's IRL role is compared to everyone else's. I think of this vehicle to be a completely dominant force that slaughters any and all ground. It should decimate all infantry and tanks, including any form of ground to air. That's just the kind of unit it seems to be from a design standpoint. Instead, in this game's universe it acts like an AC-130. That's just unacceptable to me. It shouldn't be a long-range fire support unit, but an in-your-face main battle unit.

@ Noctyrne

If it's a player problem, then it's due to you playing against garbage players who cannot deal with air support. I'm sure if you were in my shoes after a game was over, you would be happy with the score you got while playing in the air. But I'm not, because I realize that it is the enemy team's fault that I was so successful. Try playing against an entire team of an elite clan with air units before you write them off as useful. The enemy will tank shell your chopper before you leave the spawn no matter what you do. Lock-ons aren't even necessary, the game simply isn't balanced for air when every opponent on the enemy team has 85% accuracy with RPG's and tank shells at all ranges.

And my example wasn't the nash equilibrium any more than chess is. Akuma in this case acts as the Queen of chess. It's not the *only* strategy in chess to take out their queen while keeping your own alive. It's just a common strategy. Akuma isn't some unstoppable force, you could also kill off the other characters so that you have more low-tier characters to use as attrition fodder against the opponent. It's really no different than chess unless you assume Akuma cannot be defeated by other characters. Remember, in this example, the characters do not get health back, even if tagged out.


Edit: And I still disagree with you about the importance of support units, at least in BF4. Supporting roles have minor uses in some other games, but in this I would have to maintain that they are not viable until proven otherwise. I would be very interested if a youtuber with 64 friends could construct a single-blind gaming study. Basically, it would be Caspian Border CQ Large. One team is regimented to filling up all of the vehicle seats at all times, besides transports. So that is the two jets, attack chopper, 3 tanks + the ones at A/E, and the AA. The rest of their players would be infantry as Assault, Recon, and Support. The vehicle users would all be repair engineers. That would be the vehicle supported team, and they would face off against the infantry-only team. This army would cut all extraneous, supporting roles. They would only be allowed to use Assault and Engineer, as well as transport vehicles. They would be prohibited from using tanks and choppers. Jets could be used as transport. This team would consist of 16 assault medics and 16 engineers.

Now just think about this for a second. Do you really think the vehicles of the other team would be able to accomplish anything at all against the infantry? That's 16 engineers all with the AT squad perk. That's what, 7 rockets on each one with 6 AT mines? There are going to be at least 50 land mines down at all times. Tanks would simply be unable to play the game. Even if they get close, there's a swarm of rockets coming from all angles. The chopper would be obsolete due to the stingers and SRAWS. Jets would do nothing at all, but they would be forced to stay in them to simulate what happens when they obtain air superiority. The lesser number of infantry on the vehicle supported team would be slaughtered by having less numbers all around. I expect a complete blow-out in favor of the infantry team. If you think otherwise, then I don't think we're playing the same game. Main battle units all the way in BF4.


The way you wrote the Akuma example made it sound like the only way to win was to keep it alive. This is far different from chess where the Queen isn't necessary to victory. That is why your Akuma example, as it was originally written, is a clear example of Nash Equilibrium. Neither team can win without their Akuma.

Furthermore, the game should not be balanced around competitive or Youtubers (see my sig for why this is the case). Many Youtubers are clearly misinformed and so full of shit they simply let their ass do the talking. The competitive scene is also guilty for wanting an entirely different game (see: Suppression).

Land mines, though hard to see, can be simply be detonated by air support. The SRAW is easily affected by Suppression (of which vehicles have copious amounts of) and vehicles across the board have much longer ranges than infantry could ever hope for. On top of that, all 32 players on the vehicle team would be capable of viable damage. The infantry team would have to rely on their 16 Engineers. Stingers only have a 350m range which the attack helicopter can clearly stay out of. Tanks are not going to be paralyzed simply due to mines or rocket fire. There are vehicle attachments specifically designed to increase survivability. Furthermore, the infantry inside transport vehicles are actually far from useless. Since they have to be engineer, they could be firing rockets at infantry, all the while getting Resupplied by the Support player that's piloting it. The infantry team gets no such benefit. Why is the pilot Support? Because it is pointless to have the pilot be an Engineer and force him to hop out to Repair.

Also, as you said, there will be infantry that the vehicles will be supporting.

I'm not sure how in the hell you think a team comprised exclusively of infantry will win over a team that utilizes all its assets.

A complete blowout in favor of the team that uses everything at its disposal is more likely to win compared to some sort of perceived game imbalance.





From what I have gathered so far, you seem adamant that vehicles are an extraneous afterthought. You have no idea how wrong you are when it comes to vehicles and Battlefield.

Again, I encourage you to read the Sirlin articles regarding game balance. Making the game revolve exclusively around infantry is the most boring thing you could do to Battlefield. You would know why if you had any idea about balance.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 159

Date of registration
: May 18th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

106

Sunday, August 31st 2014, 8:15am

A team with total air superiority (are we including Ac130 here?) and full armored corps getting raped by just engineers and assaults without even laser painters or ammo?

Trying to imagine this in an actual game...
.
..
...
Error. Exception 0x00001a: Logic rape.

Nope sorry I can't do it.

I can see where you're coming from on some points, not being able to fly low ever because OMGSABOT sucks, doesn't make attack choppers very scary. While I havn't been killed by an attack jet too many times as infantry because they're usually busy with something more important, the speed at which I've been dropped tells me that if it could sit back and make strafe run after run with total air superiority it would lay some serious hurt on infantry. Not sure what the Stealth jet would be doing besides adding a bit of fire support.

Interestingly I have some experience in balance in all vehicle situations, I was lead balancer for the MechWarrior Living Legends mod before it was shut down, I basically spent 3 months of almost fulltime job level work on it along with my Russian Colleague. I encountered tons of the arguments of numbers/experience/ideals and had to come up with a comprehensive system. It was a hoot because I had been a huge fan of the game since its beta day 1 and always dreamed of working on it, I had been an Alpha Tester for about a year prior.

It was just sad to work under crunch time conditions and knowing I only had one shot at it but I imagine that's how many older games had to tackle balance. One of the most interesting dynamics was "this is how things SHOULD be!" In that case we not only had basic real world logic, "fun factor", and "pro.vs.scrub balance" but overhanging all was that most "numbers" for weapons and vehicles were taken from Battletech, the old tabletop role playing game, so we had tons of jolly neckbeards always wanting it to stay "true" but always had to take into consideration that people were manually aiming rather than rolling dice based off hit probabilities.
Due to that I considered it a far more complicated situation to balance than say, an FPS game like BF or CoD, on the other hand, most fights and engagements were drawn out, sometimes over minutes.
So it lacked that fraction of a second effect that makes people really mad when something feels "off" in balance due to people failing or dying so fast that they feel powerless.

Just wanted to share that I got to "live the dream" with balance once in life! :D

Anyways, I've found this thread to be very interesting even though its been very, erm, well lets just say this is usually how these discussions go even among very mature communities! 8)

Natsu

Aye sir!

(15)

  • "Natsu" started this thread

Posts: 43

Date of registration
: Aug 26th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

107

Sunday, August 31st 2014, 11:53am

This discussion has been interesting to me as well. And your whole "Logic rape, does not compute" thing is exactly what I am experiencing with your views and Noctyrne's. I simply cannot fathom vehicles helping at all. I feel like we play completely different games altogether. Almost everything that Noctryne mentioned in the last post has been so far off from my standpoint that I had to re-read every line. The whole "attack helicopter" can stay outside of stinger range was the biggest WTF I have had in this thread. The chopper's effective kill range is much shorter than that. Not to mention that the stinger user is probably hidden completely from an aerial view, along with any and everyone else on their team. I have NEVER had a gunner who is even remotely capable of SEEING infantry from over 150 meters even with zoom optics and a 50 inch TV. They are ants that are far too difficult to see, let alone damage.

I guess chopper-wise, I just hate the role that they have. I want them to be fast-paced, high octane units with high amounts of mechanical input per second. Constant moving, swirling, dodging, etc. I don't like the idea of a chopper hovering, regardless of whether it's true to reality. Another thing was Noctryne mentioning vehicles having longer range than infantry. LIke, do you even play this game at all? How is your tank dealing with infantry camping on a large rock 100% concealed until you are very close, and then head-clipping for half a second to get an RPG off while you are closer and busy dealing with 75 mines? Also, did you just say aircraft can detonate mines? Lol. Da fuq? A jet simply cannot do it, the laser guided does not lock onto them. Chopper pilot cannot do it, so that leaves the gunner who will need to waste about 5-10 bullets per mine due to chopper drift and sway.

Posts: 159

Date of registration
: May 18th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

108

Sunday, August 31st 2014, 12:35pm

The Logic rape doesn't so much come from the fact that you think vehicles have a very small part to play in the strategic game "flags" but from the fact that you created a scenario where only one side has access to all vehicles and the other does not and claim that the one that does not can easily win. I simply cannot fathom this, a single engineer with a Carbine\PDW\Shotgun\DMR simply CANNOT put the amounts of small arms damage that say, a tank with a coaxial 50 cal can, we're talking two hit kills to extreme ranges and ONE hit headshot kills to far ranges too, with a far faster travel time with a rocket. Remember that guided rockets need to be maintained, the SRAW must stay on target and the javelin needs a lock, dumb fire rockets will be easily dodged by the tanker at longer ranges.

And their launcher is deadly yes, but not as deadly as a tank's main cannon which flies extremely fast and has mega splash damage for the AP and HE rounds, and a single engineer is not immune to small arms fire, a tank IS.
You're basically saying single engineer > single tank or IFV or Helicopter or Jet. This simply isn't true!
The tank has FAR more health, immunity to most weapons in the game (small arms), and bigger stronger weapons. Your scenario would require a map where the majority of flags are TOTALLY inaccessible to vehicles whether they be ground or air. The Jets and helicopters can FLY!

You're taking an example like: Tanker who gets tons of kills but stays back doesn't help flag and team loses and equating him to a sniper who stays back and gets tons of leet headshots but ultimately does nothing. This is a valid take.
But then you're going for massive hyperbole and equating the tank itself with having as much usefulness as a bolt action sniper with long optics and this is just simply not true.
Furthermore, the example I was given wasn't a singular, well one team gets one less tank or no air or some such, it was ONE TEAM GETS NO FIGHTING VEHICLES AND OTHER TEAM GETS ALL OF THEM.
There would be LAVs and MAAs that could speed around those rocks and kill the engineers being held down by tank gunfire, without even the help of the infantry. The vehicles could go full anti infantry loadout! IFV with the canister rounds and a 50 cal? My God. You never see these because they have to worry about other vehicles.

Remember also that the engineers must split their loadouts between stingers, short range rockets, and long range rockets, which would dilute the theoretical overwhelming firepower they would have focusing a single ground or air target.

Every BF round I have ever played where one team had vehicles (gulf of oman this happens often because most all the vehicles spawn on capture flags) has shown me the team with the vehicles wins OVERWHELMINGLY. It is one thing to argue that the game should be different, it is another to claim that it IS completely different than all my 500 hours of play time (and from the looks of it many others here) shows.

Again, it would be one thing if we were talking, one team with some vehicles but barely any infantry support, but its 32 vs 32 right? The 10 or so players lost from the vehicles team would each individually be capable of far more destruction and resiliency than their infantry counterparts on the other team. Its a purely hypothetical scenario that stands against a mountain of experience suggesting otherwise.

Hating the attack choppers playstyle is understandable, but I guess that is what the scout choppers are for, wooshing around getting in close tearing things up, the attack chopper is so stupidly vulnerable it has to float off somewhere and pick on vehicles.

Posts: 451

Date of registration
: Nov 21st 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

109

Sunday, August 31st 2014, 1:36pm

I will agree the attack helicopter isn't nearly as good as it was in BF3. In BF4 it is a more hit and run style vehicle. You need to be in comms with your gunner if you plan on utilizing the attack helicopters to their full potential. Maybe if they made them a tad more mobile they would be more popular. But if you play it smart you can decimate with the attack helicopter on most maps.

One map that I will say is absolute shit for helicopters is Langcang Dam. The Mobile AA can literally sit on spawn and shut down enemy helicopters, it is the most douchebag tactic on that map. It also makes it hard for jets to take it out because of the Auto AA at spawn. However if the jet pilots play it smart they can take it out. The helicopters on the other hand... pretty much dependent on that Mobile AA being dead. Golmud Railway can be bad too for Helicopters as it's so open...
"As I walk through the valley of the Shadow Of Death, I have no fear because I am the meanest mother ****er in the whole valley"
- Gen. George S. Patton

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Retribution Iv" (Aug 31st 2014, 3:41pm)


C0llis

Up and down. Bounce all around

(3,334)

Posts: 3,100

Date of registration
: Apr 15th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

110

Sunday, August 31st 2014, 2:34pm

Every BF round I have ever played where one team had vehicles (gulf of oman this happens often because most all the vehicles spawn on capture flags) has shown me the team with the vehicles wins OVERWHELMINGLY. It is one thing to argue that the game should be different, it is another to claim that it IS completely different than all my 500 hours of play time (and from the looks of it many others here) shows.
Gulf of Oman single-handedly shows how powerful vehicles are. Once the RU team gets most/all of the vehicles (why DICE keeps clinging to flag spawned assets is beyond me, it just doesn't work out) the US team will get steamrolled off of all the beach flags the minute they start capping them. After that happens the US are mostly only able to hold onto one/two of the city flags because the RU team cannot bring their vehicular advantage to bear on the US forces there. This happened in BF3 as well when there wasn't a sandstorm that rendered air support all but useless. Infantry alone cannot push out from the city flags to the beach flags through the vehicular advantage of the RU team.

Things people said

And reading Youtube comments still gives me Turbo Cancer.

It really is quite frustrating when Helen Keller sets up her LMG in the only doorway in/out of an area.

What kind of question is that? Since when is cheese ever a bad idea?

Hardline is a fun and sometimes silly Cops and Robbers sorta thing and I think that's great. Or it would be if it didn't suck.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "C0llis" (May 29th 2015, 12:00am)