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.


Holy War? No Thanks.


Posts: 2,740

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message


Sunday, November 11th 2018, 3:23pm

By the way I just saw this reddit thread based on your graphs. I do not know who posted it but the conclusions drawn by the author offer very sound advice and can be used very nicely in addition to your charts.

Battlefield V Launch Frames-to-Kill (Time-to-Kill) Charts and Analysis : BattlefieldV

Posts: 17

Date of registration
: Jan 19th 2018

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message


Sunday, November 11th 2018, 6:13pm

Like I said that change gives the other weapon more latitude in CQB to have a cleanly defined advantage to leverage rather than a relatively small statistical one when the medic is basically stuck with SMGs in regards to automatic weapons. . It wasn't full on beating SMGs in CQB but it was competing with them competently enough while having a much larger effective envelope making it overall a much better choice for a skilled player. The issue wasnt, the StG44 was unbeatable and this monolith inspiring terror, its just that its stability was too much at the high end of its range stepping on the toes of the semi automatics(depending on what DICE intends their peak range to be). In close range it was just good and was up to the StG user and the SMG use to maximize on their engagement profiles should they meet. The allrounder in this instance has more to work with however. Would have been better to ever so slightly buff the SMGs than nerf the StG in close range by 1 bullet.

Indeed. The StG 44 was too powerful before in the sense that the gap between it and SMGs was simply too small to be relevant. If it's going to have so much more effective range than them, then it also needs to be appropriately worse up close.

As for balance within Assault, ease of use is a big part of what Assault Rifles offer over Semi-Auto Rifles (Self-Loading Rifle in BFV specifically refers to Recon's semi-auto rifles). The flip side of balancing something to be easier to use is it has to be "worse", in a purely statistical way in exchange; SARs are more demanding of their user, but have a higher skill ceiling as a result.

This is a fantastic explanation.

The StG44 fully invested in CQB upgrades would still be inferior to an SMG similarly invested.

The small, subtle difference isn't something that people should dismiss but seeing as how the community seems to only understand night and day differences, I am not surprised.

The semiautos are not even close to being "hard to use." Anyone who played BF3/4 would understand this.

As I wrote in the Early Access version of this thread, the StG44 has lost any relevance at all ranges. There is more room for semiautos to shine than before but any reason to use the StG44 over them in close range is pretty much gone, especially now that we have the rest of the arsenal to play with. Nerfing the StG44 so hard based only on its performance relative to a small subset of the whole arsenal was clearly jumping the gun.

4 BTK in close range brings the weapon back in line with the rest of the arsenal and does not encroach on SMGs any more than the rest of the weapons do.

It isn't about being statistically worse, its about being realistically worse when the usual events of gameplay are taken into account. No one is arguing that statistically the SMGs are better at close range, but the difference wasn't large enough to overcome the general complex and chaotic nature of combat to leverage it consistently against and near equally skilled player. Unless you were say trying to balance the game based on 5v5 domination when engagements are much more predictable and singular thus the differences stand out a bit more. Or maybe if squad were completely tight nit and the SMG player of the squad took point only on building clearing moments or covered corners closely against flanks while the rest of the squad was in combat against targets further away. As it stands players are still largely singular so the most flexibly effective weapon will be the most used by players focused on being effective/winning. The squads that are tight nit usually walk all over the enemy team in pubs and in BF4 are usually forced to separate by the admins autobalancer if they have one. Im not the best player by any means, but even im constantly switched back and forth between teams in a conquest game when im trying to work towards a comeback in a squad that works together enough to specialize their roles to maximum effect and rely on their squadmates to cover their weaknesses.

Subtle differences make a difference when you have maximized on the other aspects and taken them into account. In that respect the StG was much better than the SMGs due to being far more flexible while not being glaringly weak comparatively in closed quarters. Its like the CZ-3A1 in bf4 being extremely effective at close range, but how many "real" circumstances would you prefer the CZ over an AEK in a conquest game of average engagement distances if you only were given a choice between the two? This is speaking of just the weapons themselves statistically and not the kit balance of bf4.

The semi automatics were not "hard to use" in a vacuum, but a semi automatic is generally harder to use effectively than an automatic by a decent margin both mechanically and in the hit-or-miss damage output. The video BleedingUranium posted is a good example of that thought process. I have played BF3(console w/ no AA)/BF4(return to M/K fps after a decade) with semi automatics/precision automatics and am #83 with the QBU-88 and #20 with the QBZ-95-1. Both weapons I use because they offer slightly better characteristics for precision fire than their competitors but do force you to adapt to their odd stats, thus not many players used them. The only reason I havent used the AN-94 more is because its recoil is broken(or fixed depending on your coding perspective) on servers higher than 30/40hz thus isnt a viable precision weapon at its intended range(or at least how I use it.)

Coming from that, the ZH and G43 were a blast to use and pretty easy as aside from their lack of BF3 level 1shs kill potential up close they were consistent at range, but that doesn't change the general balance just because I personally am already acclimated to(and prefer) single fire precision weapons over saturation/rpm focused automatics. Im am just not good enough to go bolt-action and consistently headshot everything first try yet. Most single fire weapon players I have personally encountered across BF3/BF4/and the BFV Beta were terrible shots. Tying to leverage the ROF of the weapons to get a slower more accurate AR rather than a faster firing SR is the common mentality and why so many people complained about DMRs in BF3 even though logically it made no sense balance-wise. This alone informs me of the disconnect between effective single fire use and effective automatic use for the average player and why DICE has deemed single fire weapons "skill" weapons and decreased their effectiveness so as to not allow player with the time/ability to maximize single fire damage output and efficiency to stomp all over automatic players without the average automatic player being able to pick up and use the weapon effectively in response.

Not to say the weapons aren't powerful in the right hands but its still an issue of DICE not being candid about what effective range the SLRs are supposed to have and dominate in for BFV if its 60-75m then StG was too much. At 80-100m you are in the early area of sniper dominance. DICE has not been kind to precision semi automatic players since BF3 so this seemed like another slight. I do agree they overnerfed the StG and I assumed they would because they generally always go too far. The developers seem to be responding more and more to the perceived effectiveness and public outcry towards weapons than realistic balancing of effectiveness in practice each game after they allowed the M16A3 to turn into a meme. Just a small nerf to hipfire accuracy while moving and a 10-15m(difficulty increase not raw damage decrease) equivalent nerf to ranged effectiveness would have been more than enough.

Overall raw balancing I feel is always going to be an issue since DICE has shifted its player focus to the more casual(most numerous and profitable) audience who will not listen to numbers/figures along with usual engagement models in regards to balance and to keep them happy DICE will kowtow. If DICE started selling the older BF games digitally and allowing 3rd parties to run servers and modify balance on their own(as was done before they were shut down), I think many players would be happy to give up on the newer entries. At least if they went stylized instead of photo-realistic graphically they would spend less money in development and would be able to focus much more on gameplay.

In addition I am very appreciative to the work you have done on these weapon calculations. The more information the community has on the games mechanics and balancing the better, even if we disagree on facets of its interpretation.
~~~ Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth. ~~~

This post has been edited 6 times, last edit by "SotenTsukuyomi" (Nov 11th 2018, 7:02pm)


PvF 2017 Champion


  • "NoctyrneSAGA" started this thread

Posts: 7,233

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC


Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message


Sunday, November 11th 2018, 8:45pm

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 "yugas42" (Nov 11th 2018, 11:27pm)