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

Hau_ruck

Tow me daddy!

(1,081)

  • "Hau_ruck" started this thread

Posts: 877

Date of registration
: Dec 3rd 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

1

Saturday, November 17th 2018, 4:19pm

Why have Battlefield devs made the same mistakes over and over since BC2?

1. BFV may feature the worst stationary MG of all time. It has zero visibility, has a firing angle of about 90 degrees and even then barely seems to equal the damage of the MG-34. Whoever has been creating these garbage-tier MGs since BC2 needs to go. They have clearly never played the game before. I feel like I've been patient with DICE over the years.

But I just know that somewhere out there, there is a guy who sits down with each new entry, cracks his knuckles and thinks... "Ok so nobody used my stationary MGs last time. Top tier players ignored them. They had a whopping 550 rpm with the same damage model as an assault rifle despite being modelled as a .50 cal (BF4). Only this one moron name How Rook seems to use them despite my best efforts. Ok so now I'll make them have a shield that does more to hinder than to help (Bf1/ BFV). I know, with BF1 I'll give it 40 max damage to create the illusion of a powerful weapon. Then i'll make the damage drop off so fast that any basic primary is just as effective." (this can be demonstrated by firing the MG on Argonne Forest. Simply shoot at the enemies on the other side of the bridge at C and watch your damage. It will be in the low 20s).

Then he thinks: "Now with BFV I'll let players (or in this case just this How Rook fellow) build them everywhere on the map but put in this massive "shield" that does nothing to protect the gunner from the instant one shot primaries all over the map, but does successfully block his view. A pathetic fire rate and middling damage model should prevent anyone in their right mind from ever using this garbage-tier weapon for the entire life of the game". And thus his work is done for another entry.


2. Whoever designed the towing system should be next in line. On the rare occasions when your vehicle isn't flipping out and sperging into the landscape, you still have to perfectly position the gun, because (as mentioned in a previous post) some moron at dice decided that AT guns were vaguely useful in BF1 and this was obviously a problem. So now they have about a 90 degree firing angle and a far worse shield than we had in BF1. So while they may be useful when you spend 2-3 minutes positioning them perfectly to fire on the oncoming enemies, they require far more effort than they're worth. This is also assuming that the vehicle needed to move them spawns in as well.

3. We still have BF1's awful system for "transport" vehicles (DICE code for "the weapons of this vehicle will be inexplicably trash because we couldn't be bothered to program them right)". Ie, the spawn screen won't let you spawn into them, and yet it displays icons that suggest they are available at the spawn location, so you spawn in and then it fails to magically spawn and you are forced to slowly run to the next flag. I recently went back and played some Bad Company 2 and found to my surprise that it uses the same system. And yet strangely it actually worked back then. I could spawn at my base and every time a Cobra would appear at my location. Sure it would explode at the first sign of a light breeze (because DICE balance) but at least it was there. BF4 had a perfectly workable system where vehicles were available to spawn into at the base. Why did they remove this system? As implied in this post in general, someone at DICE is insane and needs to go. I don't feel that I am being unfair. I have waited for over a decade for them to get this right.


You may feel I am being unfairly critical, yet I could go on at far greater length (as someone with globally perhaps the most combined experience with transport vehicles and stationary weapons), about DICE's complete inability to incorporate these weapons and vehicles into their game. Even simple questions remain unanswered, "if I am giving up my mobility in order to fire said weapon, why is it weaker than my primary infantry weapon?" Dice has consistently had no answer to this question. And it isn't like DICE is unfamiliar with patching poor balance. If the tanker bitch, DICE makes changes. If the pilots bitch DICE makes changes (to the point of leaving BF4 totally unplayable due to attack planes dominating most maps and BF1 frustrating due to attack planes being almost impossible to shoot down.) Yet when I bitch (and I feel that it is just me here bitching on behalf of all stationaries and light vehicles) every BF iteration makes the same damn mistakes every time and DICE makes no changes.

I liken BF stationary MGs to HMG crews in Company of Heroes. You give up some mobility and responsiveness in order to gain increased firepower. That is supposed to be the tradeoff. Sure by itself the weapon can be flanked. But that is the point. It should NEED to be flanked. It shouldn't be some trash-tier weapon that can be easily defeated from the front by ridiculous 0-spread primaries because the gunner is busy dealing with a shield that completely blocks his view and an "aim assist" that actively prevents his weapon from accurately firing on enemies.


TLDR: I am a random player and even I could create better light vehicles and stationary weapons than DICE's developers. I obviously have more experience using them than the people who actually create them. I am tired of watching an interesting element of the game go unused and ignored because of DICE's incompetence. While most of the playerbase argues about an extra 0.1 spread on the high RPM primary that inevitably dominates their game every time, I'm here simply asking for an entire subset of weapons and vehicles to get even the slightest bit of attention over the entire lifespan of the game.


:cursing:

Posts: 268

Date of registration
: Mar 31st 2015

Platform: Xbox One

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

2

Saturday, November 17th 2018, 4:43pm

I really never thought about this too hard. I just accepted that MGs were useless in BF1. I now realize I should have a bit more upset, since they are an important part of the war now more than ever.

Thinking back to BF1, the AA and field gun emplacements seemed appropriately useful and powerful (though the field gun maybe needed a small RPM bonus). It feels like that PAK40 received said RPM bonus, but lost a little splash damage.

Now in BFV, I realize I have never even TRIED a stationary MG through the Beta or now after launch. I just assumed they sucked (which it seems like they do).

I support your outrage.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,368)

Posts: 2,791

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

3

Saturday, November 17th 2018, 6:02pm

I have to strongy disagree here, I thought the placement and the damage output of the stationary MGs (and all stationary weapons) was really good. At least the damage in BFV is also pretty good. You might want to try out Rotterdam. When you get take B at the start, there is a stationary MG that will lock down the D flag two exit points in your sightline up to the beginning of the bridge just by C. You also can attack the building the snipers are always using. We always have a race in out squad who gets there first so we can wreck there. I've seen streaks from 4-10 on that MG. The damage output is really good.
There is also the Pak on Hamada aiming from E down to D, which you can also fortifiy. It can hold down the entire D flag facing E as well as the bridge. The PAK is a bit clumsy to use, and the splash damage is not very good at that range, but the sheer volume of fire is impressive paired with the rather safe environment. Similar but with less range, is the Pak on D on Twisted Steel.

The MGs were rather awful in the beta. I agree. With the maps being so open the need just rarely arises to mount a stationary, people can come from everywhere. Very situational. Also a lot of them you have to build, which is just not very feasible, and with no clear lanes and the flag flipping, you will often die on them by being shot in the back, but the raw stats seem to be fine as well as the placement. It is mostly a map thing.

The towing is a gimmick, but with great potential. Just like dragging though, it is a mechanic that is just open to a lot of glitches.

Now the transport vehicle system is obviously utter trash. Everything you say is right. People spawning in base or on flags with no transport in sight is awful on maps like these. It is probably part of the grand scheme of mechanics DICE introduced for BF1, along with free vehicle choice and all that non-working nonsense. We might see some fixes in the future, but the foundation will very likely stay.

Posts: 268

Date of registration
: Jun 5th 2015

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Hoth

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

4

Saturday, November 17th 2018, 6:18pm

It's funny how I knew this post was going to include something about MGs just from seeing who posted. It's outrageous that one of the mods atleast haven't recognized your efforts with a "emplacement enthusiast" flair or the likes yet, and I've reported the post thusly.


I remember exactly once where a stationary MG has affected my gameplay: rush on siege of shanghai. The suppression output of the .50s made thinning out their defense really hard, and you couldnt take out the turret operators easily. They could indeed have a bit more interesting and frequent effect on gameplay, as you mention, DICE need to apply basic design principles.

While never the best way to incite change, I feel your anger shining through is justified, you have written so many calm and collected posts in the past :D

signature 2.2

Things I support
ammo regen pls

Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

_____
When I play with it [Autoloading 8] I feel like I am batman taking out 1 after 1 baddie while they feel helpless and don't know who is talking out their mates.
Remove 3D spotting. It’s a mechanic that rewards bad eyesight.
Wanna help your team by sneaking through enemy territory to provide spawns? THIS IS NOT TEAMWORK FGT I HOPE YOU RUN OUT OF MOTION BALLS TOO EARLY TO BE SUCCESSFUL
Wanna be Javelin squad but only have two guys? BETTER NOT GET YOUR SOFLAM KILLED FGT THIS IS NOT TEAMWORK WITHOUT A SUPPORT DUDE DROPPING AMMO ON YOU EVERY 2 MINUTES
Please post your best M1916 clips Magazines *fixed*.


DICE pls

Squadmate Healthbars in the HUD
Minor console QoL improvements
Ping Tool idea
"Wants to talk" tag for squad menu
Adding Suppression Confirmation
Spotting suggestions

Posts I should finish sometime:
Squad priority vehicle system (and anti stealing suggestion)
Scoring system flaws (and concept)
Battlefield definition
New helicopter idea
Suppression rework
Flow, immersion and fun in battlefield
Specializations: ideas and system rework
Gadget reworks and ideas
Why limited infinite ammo would be awesome
Other bitesize ideas



Posts: 549

Date of registration
: Dec 24th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

5

Sunday, November 18th 2018, 2:15am

The stationary HMGs are usable in Battlefield 1, and they used to be great (minus the visual recoil that DICE has a severe fetish for) before TTK 2.0 and the introduction of the Browning M1917. Personally, I think Battlefield 1 has the best stationary HMGs in the franchise since, well, possibly the Refractor engine games. That's even if they aren't ideal. The HMGs in Battlefield 1 should have had a 250-round belt with no overheat whatsoever. It was WW1, and those things were able to chug on for days on end.

Transport vehicles definitely need to be improved within the franchise also. As much as I love Battlefield 1, the transport vehicles handle like utter ass. Vehicles in Battlefield Vietnam, a game released a dozen years prior, handle better and are far less wonky. That's just sad. DICE has some of the absolute worst vehicle physics possible for an AAA developer. Seriously, this can't be put on the back burner for much longer. If a vital part of the game feels so dated and archaic, it makes the whole experience feel inconsistent, disjointed, and an incomplete mess. Which is probably why Battlefield V is light on the amount of vehicles. DICE is probably embarrassed by their own vehicle gameplay, which often feels like it's from twenty years ago.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,368)

Posts: 2,791

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

6

Sunday, November 18th 2018, 7:28pm

Speaking of which, I think one of the few things Hardline did right was the feeling of the vehicles, much better than the games prior and after.

Hau_ruck

Tow me daddy!

(1,081)

  • "Hau_ruck" started this thread

Posts: 877

Date of registration
: Dec 3rd 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

7

Monday, November 19th 2018, 3:30am

Speaking of which, I think one of the few things Hardline did right was the feeling of the vehicles, much better than the games prior and after.


I know right? It's funny how many little things Hardline did right and yet they never bothered to balance the primary weapons and the game died. Such a shame.

Posts: 20

Date of registration
: Jan 28th 2018

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

8

Monday, November 19th 2018, 9:12am

In bf1 lmgs did great work against the blimp and the aa was ok against the middle level pilots. Other then that I never thought any of the emplacements were in a good place or very useful. Watching people try and use them and then their head popping off taught me real quick to never be one of them. What's the point of them and why even have them in game? Everyone quickly learns where they are and once you do start shooting your death will soon come because your stationary. I think you might be on to something here but I'd say remove them all together and give the infantry the chance to 1v1 vehicles. Don't make it easy for the infantry but two rocketing tanks from behind should still be a thing. They could even make the tanks faster like in bf4 to help even things out.

Hau_ruck

Tow me daddy!

(1,081)

  • "Hau_ruck" started this thread

Posts: 877

Date of registration
: Dec 3rd 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

9

Monday, November 19th 2018, 1:07pm

There are plenty of things DICE could do to make the MGs more appealing.

1. Make them able to turn 360 degrees. Narrow firing arcs are a joke and make the weapons too situational. This goes for the AT guns too. If the AA can do it, then there's no reason these can't.

2. Up the fire rate. Just make the German one an MG42 with reduced overheat, no reload and less recoil for example. These plodding MGs we get are no good for hitting far away targets that are often changing direction and moving erratically.

3. Ideally make it so you can pick them up so you can redeploy them. Make the player unable to fire while carrying it on his shoulder. I remember an old Medal of Honour game on PC that did this quite well.

4. Make players who die in open vehicle positions going into bleed out state next to the vehicle rather than just instantly dying. The old "they're technically vehicles" excuse is wearing a bit thin. Just make it so dying triggers an automatic exit from the vehicle/ weapon. This way players have a chance of being revived.


Simple.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,268)

Posts: 7,275

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

10

Monday, November 19th 2018, 10:01pm

This goes for the AT guns too. If the AA can do it, then there's no reason these can't.


You do realize that the AA guns specifically have 360 degree firing arcs because their actual engineering allows them to do so?

The AT guns have physical limitations on how far they can traverse.
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™.