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.

  • "Mori4rte" started this thread

Posts: 171

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

1

Sunday, June 25th 2017, 1:43pm

Battlegrounds. The roots of success.

What are your thoughts on the latest Battle Royale title?

Will start with mine: I've played 200 hours of it, but due to work considerations had to stop couple weeks ago. That gave me some time to reflect and I'd like to think out loud why I think this title became so damn popular and why I personally enjoyed every second of it, when I had chance to play. Bear in mind that I am battlefield veteran at heart and still think bf4 is pinnacle of online FPS shooters. Twitch shooters. Some can argue, but that's besides the point, just personal preference, in the end. Finally, I think there are lessons EA can learn and incorporate into their new titles.

1. The gunplay is interestingly balanced from day 1. There are sniper rifles, which are rare and powerful. Even more so, when you consider the stealthy nature of the game. Well, stealthy for some. There are different schools of thought. There are assault rifles, balanced to be good up until 100-200 meters, but not that good up close, depending on aim and whether you use single or auto fire. Same with sub-machine guns, good until 50 meters, but some more range can be squeezed out with single fire. Finally, there are pistols, which are mostly used during the initial phase of the game, until you find something better. While there isn't too much variety in the gun department as of yet, there is definitely depth present in the way weapons can be handled, customized and combined. Carving a special set of abilities for yourself by picking the right toolkit is something that a game like battlefield can use. BF4, for example never wanted you to go single fire on an automatic weapon. It wasn't worth it. In a town fight, for instance, PUBG wants you to constantly weigh in whether you want to go full auto or single fire (with a single mash of a button, ofc, nothing difficult). I think this real-life concept is important and adds another layer to the skill gap. Having two primary weapons is the thing I didn't have to get used to. Liked it from the get go, kept my head busy all the way with "should I pick sniper and shotgun or.. assault rifle and SMG". Each set has unique strengths and situational deadliness versus versatility should be constantly compared, depending on the path ahead, which is unclear, most of the time.

2. The feels. It feels like playing Operation Flashpoint for the first time if you know what I mean. I've won a total of 8 games and every time the final circle was closing on me, my heart was pumping blood like I'm in a real fist fight. I don't know what it is about this game, but the adrenaline spikes are handcrafted (I guess) with utmost brilliance. Is it the build-up? The sound? The gravity of the situation? I am not sure. I think it's the combination of these and something else, which eludes me. As a result, every kill is memorable, due to how human memory operates (stuff you do while in super-emotional state stays in your RAM for a very long time). I understand that battlefield is a different game, but I think there is lesson to be learned here about rewards a proper build-up can bring.

3. The crowd. Well, they are a fine bunch of bandits, I'll tell you that. Coming from battlefield I started with comms down, but quickly realized that was a mistake, as I was missing on a ton of fun and effectiveness in battle. Battlefield is designed in a way that mostly neglects comms in public games and that's a damn shame if you ask me. Some random people I met in PUBG were downright hilarious and even though I got squashed once in a while by a careless team mate, who was probably too drunk to distinguish between me and the enemy, the fruits of constant cooperation should certainly be appreciated. It's a different level of play when the team acts as a wolf-pack, thinks together and manages an impossible win at the end because of a thousand little things that proper VOIP usage can bring. Caring for team mates is another little thing that the game places emphasis on. You help a guy out with a scope, ammo and bandages and he might save your ass later on in a fearsome gunfight, which came out of nowhere. Can't really do that properly without comms. Teaches one to care about your team. I had two occasions which left a bad taste in my mouth. There is this thing about total freedom, - you never give it to bad eggs. A bad egg will kill his teammate just because he wants his AK47. Happened to me twice during 200 hours. Luckily, not too many people on this planet are total scumbags.

4. The random. Hear a lot of people say the game is too random, and I agree. It is. I even think it's part of the game's appeal. Every new encounter will probably happen in a place you've never been to before, certainly not enough time to develop meta for constant usage of the same little trick. Always different weapons, with different attachments and certainly luck can go both ways anytime, unless you're so good you can keep the odds under control. This way, I think, proper warrior skill is forged, where some people will come out on top most of the time, because of the way they constantly analyze terrain they are surrounded with and look for the path of least resistance. A total noob with Saiga will, of course, kill a seasoned pro with UMP in a CQC fight, but there's something to be deduced from coming into the house without the Saiga as opposed to camping in the house with it. The moral of this story - you should have passed looting this particular house, you greedy bastard!

All in all, I must admit I've tried something new, which roots in good tradition of both BF and ARMA franchises. PUBG is a compromise middle ground, a more deliberately paced than BF, yet not as deliberate as ARMA. I also think BF is stagnating in it's current form, as seen from the player counts, because it neglected to come up with the way to force ALREADY available technology properly, the example of VOIP above, and to push the boundaries with new tech and ideas. Finally, BF dogmatically revolves around similar concepts: conquest, rush. Having such a great graphical engine and such fluidity that stems from it, I feel that EA can do more in the future and they should learn from the best, while doing so.

So, that's my take on it. What's yours?

Posts: 425

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

2

Sunday, June 25th 2017, 1:56pm

Quoted

What are your thoughts on the latest Battle Royale title?

I did not play the game. Do not own it. Only seen lots of youtube (jackfrags) video footage of it.

''Is it worth a buy'' footage in particular.

https://youtu.be/bhFQBZVtw6k?t=32

As the WorthaBuy-guy said: ''wtf, you dont mix third person with first person in a game like this''.

The notion that it does not have first person only mode is what is still withholding me from buying it. Alot of aspects that makes BR-games so thrilling is the hunt, and frankly... cheating the fundamental stealth mechanics of 'hunting' and 'hiding' by using third person is a big red cross for me. I've also seen footage of players inside buildings, trying to hunt each other, and one sees the other (that is in the hallway) perfectly while standing in a room just by using third person!

I cannot believe that the developers did not make this game first pov only mode in the first place!

''Hardcore'' mode that is coming for this game will know only first person mode, but I'm afraid it will get altered damage values and other stuff.
RIP Sraw

  • "Mori4rte" started this thread

Posts: 171

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

3

Sunday, June 25th 2017, 3:12pm

Well, there are many "things" about the game at this point. I think it's only fair if I list them as my initial post can be interpreted as an undisputed praise, which it isn't.

Learning curve is unbelievable. Especially now, with 4 mil players. I advise only colonel-class (and above) battlefielders with some serious skin lotion against paranoia and frustrations to try this one. A truly average player will win 1 out of 100-200 rounds. 99 times out of a 100 you WILL die a horrible death. Not that some good time can't be had in the process, still.. it's much less forgiving than BF.

FPS spikes can be brutal. They try to polish it constantly and I saw gradual increase from 60 to 120 in three months. (2x 1080ti @ 2k 165hz) Yet, 'tis not enough as dips still occur semi-frequently, pushing down to 40 fps, which make some engagements totally luck-based. A minor issue for me, but can severely annoy someone, who played bf4 at 200 fps for years. (like I did, heh) 8 km2 is 8 km2, not an easy task to polish it, I'd venture a guess.

You can't have a 100% fluid shooter with 100 people playing in one instance, unless it has a player base of counter-strike.

Bluehole admits there are cheaters, yet it can never be said for certain whether you've been killed by one. It's much easier to spot a cheater in BF - the nature of PUBG prohibits spotting those, so no idea how Bluehole is going to tackle this and whether it is at all possible and what are the numbers. All we get from the developer is, again, they admit there are cheaters, they say the fight against them is ongoing. Go figure..

notes @ Iwojima:

Well, first-person affinity is not surprising, coming from a battlefield player. ;)

I was in opposition for a few days, played self-imposed first-person, but then, gradually, got attached to third-person game-play, there is some extra depth to it too. Along with drop in difficulty, I suppose. I will state definitively that high-level play is influenced by third-person drawbacks in a very insignificant way. I'm also very interested in trying out first-person only, eventually, for total immersion.

It's never a bad idea to wait on some polish (and discounts!) - wait it out, see if you still want to try it in a few months. At the rate developer is rolling out updates and given their quality, it should be pretty solid buy in a few months from now.

Posts: 425

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

4

Sunday, June 25th 2017, 4:09pm

Quoted

I'm also very interested in trying out first-person only, eventually, for total immersion.

I saw on youtube there are these new animations, jumping out of windows, stuff like that, introducing new ways to enter buildings, so, immersion will definitely improve by things like these. It's candy. And first person would nevertheless be the ultimate jawbreaker. Think of the renewed importance of using your ears.

Quoted

It's never a bad idea to wait on some polish (and discounts!) - wait it out, see if you still want to try it in a few months. At the rate developer is rolling out updates and given their quality, it should be pretty solid buy in a few months from now.

Looking at the sale figures things it's highly likely the game canl only go uphill in terms of gameplay and performance. Meanwhile, I'm more curious to the current development stage of DayZ (also a typical former hyped early acces game) that is actually nearing gold status!
RIP Sraw

Miffyli

Symthic Developer

(5,876)

Posts: 3,615

Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013

Platform: PC

Location: __main__, Finland

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

5

Sunday, June 25th 2017, 6:34pm

[Subjective]
I have played the game for a bit now and come from DayZ, and for me it really scratches that "DayZ itch" but better than DayZ itself.

I can see where many of the design decisions come from, many of which seem to stem from Arma. Now, I have never tried King of the Kill or Arma "PUBG mod", but so far it feels like playing smoother version of Arma (control wise) with some unnecessary overhead removed.

Third-person view was indeed very odd to get used to when I started the game, and I too wanted it to be first-person only. However after DayZ the third-person mode feels natural and convenient, and over time I got used to it in PUBG as well. First-person is very nauseating for me to use, but it serves a purpose, especially in close-quarters situations where you don't want third-person camera screwing up your view.
Links to users' thread list who have made analytical/statistical/mathematical/cool posts on Symthic:
  • 3VerstsNorth - Analysis of game mechanics in BF4 (tickrates, effects of tickrate, etc)
  • leptis - Analysis of shotguns, recoil, recoil control and air drag.
  • Veritable - Scoring of BF4/BF1 firearms in terms of usability, firing and other mechanics.
  • Miffyli - Random statistical analysis of BF4 battlereports/players and kill-distances. (list is cluttered with other threads).
Sorry if your name wasn't on the list, I honestly can't recall all names : ( . Nudge me if you want to be included

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,560

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

6

Monday, June 26th 2017, 1:11pm

The success is simple. It is a game solely catered around one fun gamemode. No feature bloat, just plain gameplay. In a time where shooters try to overtake each other with more and more features and overhauls that will cause general unfun this is a rather refreshing sight to behold. All the restrictions and troublesome stuff from the original Arma games was removed focusing on the experience.

This is exactly what Battlefield 1 should have done, streamlining their game into the fun aspects that the game is all about instead of creating a game that is too wide and unpolished in every aspect.