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

Labby

Moderator

(6,444)

Posts: 1,941

Date of registration
: Sep 26th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: State of Confusion

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

41

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 2:22am

Weapon models are purely cosmetic. There's no reason there couldn't be a shared group of base weapons that have a faction specific skin stuck to them. So "generic high RPM AR" would appear as the M16 for US, and the AEK for RU. In either case the stats would be identical.
[Aetherblade Medium Boots]

JOIN THE TEAMSPEAK (L)EVOLUTION: teamsym.nitrado.net


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,156)

Posts: 7,231

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

42

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 2:40am

@Labby

And when someone chooses a Shotgun with slugs, it gets the CoD4 M40 skin.
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: 7,809

Date of registration
: Feb 25th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: italy

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

43

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 3:04am

Weapon models are purely cosmetic. There's no reason there couldn't be a shared group of base weapons that have a faction specific skin stuck to them. So "generic high RPM AR" would appear as the M16 for US, and the AEK for RU. In either case the stats would be identical.

well, if the stats are identical then it's fine for me, as long as it's only a thing of animations, look and sound...
"I'm just a loot whore."


stuff mostly unrelated to BF4 that interests nobody



bf4
on 13/05/2016
23rd M320FB user on pc(13/05/16)
rush mode score RANK:2794 TOP:2% OUT OF:215398
obliteration mode scoreRANK:994 TOP:1% OUT OF:159466
handgun medals RANK:2236 TOP:2% OUT OF:143874
longest headshot RANK:9512 TOP:4% OUT OF:257589
recon score RANK:10871 TOP:4% OUT OF:274899
general score per minute RANK:10016 TOP:4% OUT OF:294774

bf3
31/3/2012 4:58:

Headshot distance RANK:493* TOP:0%
Revives per assault minute RANK: 6019 TOP: 3%
Headshots / kill percentage RANK:25947 TOP:13%
MVP ribbons RANK:18824 TOP:11%

*= 6 if we not count the EOD BOT headshots

@kataklism

ARGUMENT DESTROYED 100

ENEMY KILLED [REASON] JSLICE20 100


WRITING SPREE STOPPED 500

link to full-size old avatar:
http://i.imgur.com/4X0321O.gif




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

44

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 4:30am

Faction specific weapons helps differentiate the different factions and spices the game up a bit. I hope we get it in the next title (and I assume Battlefront will have it).


Player options should not be arbitrarily locked from them.

Everything should be laid out on the table for everyone to use.
No, they shouldn't, and that's why faction imbalances like M1A1 vs the other tanks, or RCB vs. DV-15 are bad.

However, kit specific unlocks are usually very easy to unlock and at the "level" where "I don't have weapon X" is a problem "I don't have weapon X" isn't actually a real problem, unless game balance is really botched (like BF3 air unlocks where flares weren't available at lvl 1). What I mean is that when a player is so new to the the game/class/weapon class/whatever that he/she doesn't have weapon X the fact that the player doesn't have weapon X isn't a real problem: the player's (in)experience with the game/class/weapon class/whatever is usually the real limiter in that case.

I agree completely with you in the case of "you cannot use/spawn with X no matter what", but when it's possible to use/spawn with X but a player doesn't have enough experience to make full use of X no matter what it's another case.

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.

Posts: 328

Date of registration
: Jun 12th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: US

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

45

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 7:04am

32-48 players is more than enough for any map and mode. The 64 players are just a marketing gag. It adds nothing to the gameplay until they design maps or modes that really work with so many players.

I think it because flags alone are not enough objectives. They have to have critical base facilities that need to be protected. Just imagine if vehicle spawning could be disabled by knocking out airfields, bridges, or radios. People would have a reason to defend instead of clustering around hotspots.

Some of the design videos for BF3 and BF4 show them starting with either a conquest or rush map, then building layers or zones for the other map types to occur in the same geometry. You even see they had the areas wireframe color coded. So what happens is the hotspots occur in the TDM cover props or Rush bottlenecks, while the rest of the map is the obvious empty space with small "islands" Conquest was built in.
That is why the every map on every mode doesn't work. Each area ends up being designed with different player densities because they are effectively different maps stacked on top of each other. Good Conquest and Domination/TDM maps have to be built with nearly consistent density in mind throughout for symmetrical balance reasons, but Rush can mix it up at the start of each set MCOMs to support a variety of gameplay.

There is probably a hidden rule/metric for paths based on how much firepower is available on a map vs how much you can fit through the path at the same time. I'd guess if the firepower on the other end is greater than 3x the flow through the bottleneck in a path, there is no reasonable way anything is moving through. This means on 64 player densities the narrowest doorways/hallways will start bottlenecking if they are smaller than the width of roughly 10 infantry players. So for a balance perspective you could treat each objective like a room. If there isn't 10 infantry players worth of width to all the entrances combined, then the map is not built for 64 players. If any of the entrances are attached to rooms which are already bottlenecked, then you have to factor the lower flow to what could fit through that room defended and then into the entrance. If you don't, you end up with defense-in-depth style compounding, which makes it harder to move the deeper you push.

So for proper map balancing they need to have critical objectives to generate flow towards them and proper player count, flow-limiting, widths to the paths to make them interesting to attack and defend.
The fact that someone has an opinion, doesn't make their opinion a fact. Making just arguments first requires an acknowledgement of intellectual humility, while valid arguments require you to not commit fallacies of logic and rhetoric.

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

46

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 8:22am

As primarily a rush player I was a little disappointed as to how many unbalanced rush maps there were in BF4 compared to BF3. To be honest, I think that having the mentality "let's stick every gamemode on every map just for advertising" is wrong. I'll make a list of how many rush maps I like or neither dislike or like:

- Golmud Railway
- Dawnbreaker
- Locker (yes, I know what you're thinking)
- Zavod
- Rogue Transmission

And my list of ones that I actually genuinely like:

- Golmud Railway

That's it. Golmud is the only one that I think is properly balanced and that is worthy of being up there in vanilla BF4. I haven't played BFBC2 but I think Golmud is one of my favourite rush maps including Seine Crossing and Grand Bazaar from BF3. Rush, even though it was only introduced in BC (I think), is now a staple of the Battlefield series and I really just don't like how it's virtually been ignored by Dice or used as a marketing tool.

I'd say Dice needs to make either rush only maps or at least balance them out so they work better. I actually wouldn't even mind if they reduced the number of sets of MCOMs to two or even one - as long as it works, I'm happy. Actually, just that I'm thinking about it, that would be really cool, having a "mini rush" sort of gamemode, reduce player counts to maybe 20-24 or less and have just one MCOM that needs to be armed and destroyed, with the time to explode somewhere around Obliteration time and have rounds like in Defuse.

Of course, that's just my two cents.
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.


Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,678)

Posts: 1,411

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

47

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 8:51am


I'll make a list of how many rush maps I like or neither dislike or like:

- Golmud Railway

And my list of ones that I actually genuinely like:

- Golmud Railway


k.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"


Posts: 234

Date of registration
: Aug 28th 2014

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

48

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 10:50am


I'll make a list of how many rush maps I like or neither dislike or like:

- Golmud Railway

And my list of ones that I actually genuinely like:

- Golmud Railway

k.

Nothing incorrect here. The first list should by definition contain every map from the second.

OT: With the massive number of maps that we have, I'd prefer to have 10 very good rush maps, 5 great infy maps and 15 excellent conquest ones. I can see it being somewhat lacking to vanilla players, though.
Why I don't use lasers:

Quoted

The Green Laser Sight you should almost always turn off as it gives away your vacation.


Quotes Corner

Double Ass-Ault Tank Lunch - YouTube

Most fun ever in this game mode.

BF4: Competitive Tank Launching

Rated on explosives used, launch, flight trajectory, style/tricks, and landing.

Shitgun: Whoops did I spell that wrong? Nah, I don't believe so.

Anyone got any ideas about what the UGL Rail on the L86 is for? (13/04 Patch notes.)

XM25 can't mount, can it? Looking forward to my Underslung Ammo box!

Is there any way for anyone that doesn't have mod powers to know what the IE on 360 thread is? I feel so left out...

Nope. Deleted so only mods can see the contents. It has some... interesting stuff there... *squints @Riesig <.< *

*Nick 30075's Application for Moderatorship follows:*

HURR DURR I IS GOOD MOD GIB IE ON 360

My application would be better.
"Totally not Tapatalk only. Pls gib pwor"

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,305)

Posts: 2,736

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

49

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 11:07am

As always our Darktan shows great insight.

@untamedone

Yeah, I guess you are right.It is funny though, that the Domination maps, as smallest factor work better than the larger versions. And I believe C0llis stated it, part of the problem is the "Domination-flag" one side has to cope with on Conquest like D on Lancang or E on Transmission. Places that are designed to be held by Infantry. This explains the lopsided games as well.
So I guess making every Domination part of a Conquest map is not a solution at all. What I think is possible is to make maps that use the assets of certain maps and create the feeling of said map. And I really rthink they should scrap either Domination or TDM, much rather TDM, as BF is more about objectives than killing. Also Defuse, Squad Rush and Squad DM, and even Obliteration (though it is quite fun) More modes is nice and all, but rather focus on the ones you have and can.

Your formula is probably right as well. I am still sure that DICE develops the maps and modes with a certain playercount in mind, and this is somewhere between 24 and 40, 48 is already stretching it with a commander, but nobody will have figured out 64 players is the way to go on any map. That really is marketing only.

To fix 64 players and avoid this notorious clusterfuck, you need to stretch objective centered modes out more either by creating areas besides flags worth fighting for, or, for conquest at the moment impossible, increase the amount of objectives that can and will be attacked simulataneously. Maybe if one team controls A-D and the enemy holds E (thus creating a clutter in between), the capture of flag A or B will stop or decrease the bleed, much like the chainlink approach. Yet this offers a whole new lot of problems.
Another thing would be to develop a "side game" with different objectives. So say, an MCOM popping up at certain points of the map at certain times, destroying it will grant a 10% ticket loss for the enemy. Carrier Assault showed that concept but as it was still a sequence of Conquest, then a broken down version of rush, it also never worked better, and is now, as a mode, rightfully forgotten.

Posts: 87

Date of registration
: Apr 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

50

Saturday, January 24th 2015, 11:43am

Faction specific weapons helps differentiate the different factions and spices the game up a bit. I hope we get it in the next title (and I assume Battlefront will have it).


Player options should not be arbitrarily locked from them.

Everything should be laid out on the table for everyone to use.
No, they shouldn't, and that's why faction imbalances like M1A1 vs the other tanks, or RCB vs. DV-15 are bad.

However, kit specific unlocks are usually very easy to unlock and at the "level" where "I don't have weapon X" is a problem "I don't have weapon X" isn't actually a real problem, unless game balance is really botched (like BF3 air unlocks where flares weren't available at lvl 1). What I mean is that when a player is so new to the the game/class/weapon class/whatever that he/she doesn't have weapon X the fact that the player doesn't have weapon X isn't a real problem: the player's (in)experience with the game/class/weapon class/whatever is usually the real limiter in that case.

I agree completely with you in the case of "you cannot use/spawn with X no matter what", but when it's possible to use/spawn with X but a player doesn't have enough experience to make full use of X no matter what it's another case.
On that topic, I cannot stress how much I hate unlocks. Shouldn't have ever been added to FPS games. Grinding is boring. And unlocks shouldn't be used by EA as another source of revenue - I'm talking about kit shortcuts - after players have already spent their $60 or whatever buying the game. Just give players the content they paid for already.

As a side note, I disabled in-game reward popups long ago. I don't need to be given some ribbon for getting an arbitrary number of suppression assists. Stop showering me with useless post-CoD4 crap already.