Design and balance needs to be done per platform, mode and playstyle

disposalist
7204 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
I'm realising this more and more with every thread I read.

DICE is doing things that some love and others hate and people are having huge arguments over it and I think most of the time it's because DICE are trying to make one game suit everyone and everything and are failing.

How can they possibly balance to suit a platform with controllers and aim assist *and* one with mouse and keyboard?
How can they possibly balance to suit small map infantry only modes *and* huge map vehicle modes?

Not to mention trying to please different playstyles. Casual, competitive, hardcore, twitch, tactical, etc all in one game?

I think with BF1 they started off concentrating, perhaps more than previously in the franchise, on conquest mode, vehicle maps and casual players. Personally, I loved it more than ever like that, but obviously and understandably there was complaint from those preferring it different.

I think DICE are trying to fold in more and more players with every update, especially lately, but are succeeding only in spreading displeasure to all players.

In MMORPGs what you tend to get is either a game that targets particular player types and happily accepts their niche or a game with different servers that have different rulesets that are balanced differently.

I really think DICE should consider balancing gunplay/vehicles/etc separately for their different platforms, modes and playstyles in different servers, if not for BF1 then for BF2018.

Because of the design direction I'm seeing lately and the dev style of single version for multi-platform, multi-game-mode, multi-playstyle audience, I probably won't be pre-ordering BF2018. Even after absolutely loving BF1 enough to make a YouTube channel, I may not even buy BF2018 until its "revolution" version (or however they do it) appears.

I understand the desire to not split communities unnecessarily, especially on PC where the numbers are smaller, but making a game people enjoy is more important. Communities can't be split more than by players leaving or not buying it in the first place.

Comments

  • BobsAndVegane
    1252 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I agree with this. I think the random spread is a result of different balancing on different platforms. Consoles have their aim assist, so something has to be done to prevent it from becoming an aimbot. However, on PC, we have the same spread deviation regardless that most of us don't have any type of aim assist, and those that do are hackers. The result is that automatic weapons are the obvious choice to use for any of the classes, since their spread isn't effected as much.

    I also think the map design contributes significantly to the weapon imbalance, but that is unrelated to the topic of the thread. Suffice it to say that a greater variance in map size combined with designing specific portions of each map rather than entire maps around a certain kit or playstyle would do wonders for balance.

    Although speaking of certain playstyles, maybe they could add default modifiers for servers to cater to certain playstyles. A casual modifier could involve "crutches" for players that don't play that often and don't take the game so seriously. For example, a player would be automatically killed if they kill someone who died too many times in a row or got too many kills in a row. That would be to prevent more skilled players from going in and ruining everyone else's time.

    The more skilled players, on the other hand, could have their own modifiers. Twitch players could have more "Call of Duty-esque" modifiers. Faster movement, higher damage output, faster respawns, etc. Tactical players could have lower player counts (for Conquest, 48 players), no 3D spotting, and longer vehicle respawn times.

    To implement these playstyles, DICE could repurpose their many servers that go unused and add a tag in the name indicating which playstyle it caters to (ex, [CAS], [TWCH], [TAC], etc).
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    2527 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I agree with this. I think the random spread is a result of different balancing on different platforms. Consoles have their aim assist, so something has to be done to prevent it from becoming an aimbot. However, on PC, we have the same spread deviation regardless that most of us don't have any type of aim assist, and those that do are hackers. The result is that automatic weapons are the obvious choice to use for any of the classes, since their spread isn't effected as much.

    I also think the map design contributes significantly to the weapon imbalance, but that is unrelated to the topic of the thread. Suffice it to say that a greater variance in map size combined with designing specific portions of each map rather than entire maps around a certain kit or playstyle would do wonders for balance.

    Although speaking of certain playstyles, maybe they could add default modifiers for servers to cater to certain playstyles. A casual modifier could involve "crutches" for players that don't play that often and don't take the game so seriously. For example, a player would be automatically killed if they kill someone who died too many times in a row or got too many kills in a row. That would be to prevent more skilled players from going in and ruining everyone else's time.

    The more skilled players, on the other hand, could have their own modifiers. Twitch players could have more "Call of Duty-esque" modifiers. Faster movement, higher damage output, faster respawns, etc. Tactical players could have lower player counts (for Conquest, 48 players), no 3D spotting, and longer vehicle respawn times.

    To implement these playstyles, DICE could repurpose their many servers that go unused and add a tag in the name indicating which playstyle it caters to (ex, [CAS], [TWCH], [TAC], etc).

    Instead of having different servers, they can introduce a mode like Incursions for the 'skilled' playerbase, and leave the rest of the vanilla game modes for the normal playerbase. You could have completely different movement mechanics, game modes and gunplay mechanics for the Incursions part of the game, and have normal BF gameplay for everyone else - in this sense, BF2018 will be able to keep most of the playerbase that it has attained with this game, but can keep the BF3/4 competitive crowd occupied in their own environment. It's a win-win for everyone.
  • disposalist
    7204 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I agree with this. I think the random spread is a result of different balancing on different platforms. Consoles have their aim assist, so something has to be done to prevent it from becoming an aimbot. However, on PC, we have the same spread deviation regardless that most of us don't have any type of aim assist, and those that do are hackers. The result is that automatic weapons are the obvious choice to use for any of the classes, since their spread isn't effected as much.

    I also think the map design contributes significantly to the weapon imbalance, but that is unrelated to the topic of the thread. Suffice it to say that a greater variance in map size combined with designing specific portions of each map rather than entire maps around a certain kit or playstyle would do wonders for balance.

    Although speaking of certain playstyles, maybe they could add default modifiers for servers to cater to certain playstyles. A casual modifier could involve "crutches" for players that don't play that often and don't take the game so seriously. For example, a player would be automatically killed if they kill someone who died too many times in a row or got too many kills in a row. That would be to prevent more skilled players from going in and ruining everyone else's time.

    The more skilled players, on the other hand, could have their own modifiers. Twitch players could have more "Call of Duty-esque" modifiers. Faster movement, higher damage output, faster respawns, etc. Tactical players could have lower player counts (for Conquest, 48 players), no 3D spotting, and longer vehicle respawn times.

    To implement these playstyles, DICE could repurpose their many servers that go unused and add a tag in the name indicating which playstyle it caters to (ex, [CAS], [TWCH], [TAC], etc).
    Instead of having different servers, they can introduce a mode like Incursions for the 'skilled' playerbase, and leave the rest of the vanilla game modes for the normal playerbase. You could have completely different movement mechanics, game modes and gunplay mechanics for the Incursions part of the game, and have normal BF gameplay for everyone else - in this sense, BF2018 will be able to keep most of the playerbase that it has attained with this game, but can keep the BF3/4 competitive crowd occupied in their own environment. It's a win-win for everyone.
    I love the theory, yeah. If only Incursions had come out before the last BF1 update.
  • Foot_Elite_Guard
    313 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Normal, Incursions, Classic and Hardcore servers.
  • Trokey66
    6076 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited March 12
    All this is wonderful in theory but at what cost?

    The more variations, the resource required to develop, maintain and update them increases and this means an increased cost.

    Granted, DICE may absorb some of the cost but at some point that has to be passed on to the customer through higher price and or less/poorer quality content.

    Again, nice idea but at what cost?
  • BobsAndVegane
    1252 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I agree with this. I think the random spread is a result of different balancing on different platforms. Consoles have their aim assist, so something has to be done to prevent it from becoming an aimbot. However, on PC, we have the same spread deviation regardless that most of us don't have any type of aim assist, and those that do are hackers. The result is that automatic weapons are the obvious choice to use for any of the classes, since their spread isn't effected as much.

    I also think the map design contributes significantly to the weapon imbalance, but that is unrelated to the topic of the thread. Suffice it to say that a greater variance in map size combined with designing specific portions of each map rather than entire maps around a certain kit or playstyle would do wonders for balance.

    Although speaking of certain playstyles, maybe they could add default modifiers for servers to cater to certain playstyles. A casual modifier could involve "crutches" for players that don't play that often and don't take the game so seriously. For example, a player would be automatically killed if they kill someone who died too many times in a row or got too many kills in a row. That would be to prevent more skilled players from going in and ruining everyone else's time.

    The more skilled players, on the other hand, could have their own modifiers. Twitch players could have more "Call of Duty-esque" modifiers. Faster movement, higher damage output, faster respawns, etc. Tactical players could have lower player counts (for Conquest, 48 players), no 3D spotting, and longer vehicle respawn times.

    To implement these playstyles, DICE could repurpose their many servers that go unused and add a tag in the name indicating which playstyle it caters to (ex, [CAS], [TWCH], [TAC], etc).

    Instead of having different servers, they can introduce a mode like Incursions for the 'skilled' playerbase, and leave the rest of the vanilla game modes for the normal playerbase. You could have completely different movement mechanics, game modes and gunplay mechanics for the Incursions part of the game, and have normal BF gameplay for everyone else - in this sense, BF2018 will be able to keep most of the playerbase that it has attained with this game, but can keep the BF3/4 competitive crowd occupied in their own environment. It's a win-win for everyone.

    The most important thing is that the garbage players have somewhere they can practice with bots or play together in order to get better.

    However, forcing all the skilled players to play a different gamemode just to be able to ensure they can play a good game isn't a good idea. I like Conquest, believe it or not, I just wish the average Battlefield player could get better. I, personally, am more "skilled" than most of the playerbase (bear in mind that I wouldn't actually consider myself skilled just because I'm able to do better than someone who can only get in one or two games a day), but from what I've seen of Incursions, it's nothing I'm interested in playing.

    I'm sure there are others who at very least would like to see servers set aside for beginners to learn the game's mechanics before turning what could have been a good game into a 1000-200 steamroll.
  • trip1ex
    3427 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited March 12
    1. per platform yes. different inputs systems change what what works better and what doesn't. But i'm sure they try and account for this by changing the size of hitboxes and having autoaim etc. Still seems obvious that things play out differently on consoles vs pc judging by comments on these forums and looking at what platform they are on.

    2. they should only make Conquest, which is by far the most popular mode, so balancing per mode takes care of itself.

    3. don't bother with per playstyle.


    Note: 2 & 3 would be addressed by providing a robust RSP. This would let players change options for whatever playstyle. This same thing could be used to cater to different modes as well. Like players could turn off flag bleed and just have TDM. They could adjust player count and even shrink map boundaries if they want.

    The result would be DICE making a much more polished flagship mode. And then let the community create side modes.



  • captinsmooth
    1969 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    It’s funny I made the same exact thread almost two years ago and was laughed at by the majority of members here. Who’s laughing now suckers lol
  • CS-2107
    1347 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    At least they need to handle PC and Console different with the balancing.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    2527 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I agree with this. I think the random spread is a result of different balancing on different platforms. Consoles have their aim assist, so something has to be done to prevent it from becoming an aimbot. However, on PC, we have the same spread deviation regardless that most of us don't have any type of aim assist, and those that do are hackers. The result is that automatic weapons are the obvious choice to use for any of the classes, since their spread isn't effected as much.

    I also think the map design contributes significantly to the weapon imbalance, but that is unrelated to the topic of the thread. Suffice it to say that a greater variance in map size combined with designing specific portions of each map rather than entire maps around a certain kit or playstyle would do wonders for balance.

    Although speaking of certain playstyles, maybe they could add default modifiers for servers to cater to certain playstyles. A casual modifier could involve "crutches" for players that don't play that often and don't take the game so seriously. For example, a player would be automatically killed if they kill someone who died too many times in a row or got too many kills in a row. That would be to prevent more skilled players from going in and ruining everyone else's time.

    The more skilled players, on the other hand, could have their own modifiers. Twitch players could have more "Call of Duty-esque" modifiers. Faster movement, higher damage output, faster respawns, etc. Tactical players could have lower player counts (for Conquest, 48 players), no 3D spotting, and longer vehicle respawn times.

    To implement these playstyles, DICE could repurpose their many servers that go unused and add a tag in the name indicating which playstyle it caters to (ex, [CAS], [TWCH], [TAC], etc).

    Instead of having different servers, they can introduce a mode like Incursions for the 'skilled' playerbase, and leave the rest of the vanilla game modes for the normal playerbase. You could have completely different movement mechanics, game modes and gunplay mechanics for the Incursions part of the game, and have normal BF gameplay for everyone else - in this sense, BF2018 will be able to keep most of the playerbase that it has attained with this game, but can keep the BF3/4 competitive crowd occupied in their own environment. It's a win-win for everyone.

    The most important thing is that the garbage players have somewhere they can practice with bots or play together in order to get better.

    However, forcing all the skilled players to play a different gamemode just to be able to ensure they can play a good game isn't a good idea. I like Conquest, believe it or not, I just wish the average Battlefield player could get better. I, personally, am more "skilled" than most of the playerbase (bear in mind that I wouldn't actually consider myself skilled just because I'm able to do better than someone who can only get in one or two games a day), but from what I've seen of Incursions, it's nothing I'm interested in playing.

    I'm sure there are others who at very least would like to see servers set aside for beginners to learn the game's mechanics before turning what could have been a good game into a 1000-200 steamroll.

    I did mention that Incursions could have different game modes. They could even include Conquest or Rush as game modes for Incursions. Beginners servers are also a good idea, though having a proper ranking system can allow beginners to play among themselves, and then as they get better, the play against better players.

    You also have to understand that some people reach a 'peak' in terms of game performance. For example, I have played CSGO for 120 hours, and I still haven't gotten out of Silver yet. It would take me hundreds of hours just to get back to Gold Nova I, never mind the highest ranks. During those 120 hours, my progression through Silver was painfully slow, which made me wonder if I could even get out of Silver, no matter how many times I did those practice maps and played with my smurf friends.

    There are also people who do play this game casually, believe it or not, so its not just down to skills - some people want to mess around a bit. Yes, they should at least play the objective, but this isn't a competitive game where hard-and-tried tactics are established. It's not like CSGO where there is an unwritten rule, which apparently cannot be broken, which states that one cannot buy weapons if they lose the pistol round.
  • BobsAndVegane
    1252 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I agree with this. I think the random spread is a result of different balancing on different platforms. Consoles have their aim assist, so something has to be done to prevent it from becoming an aimbot. However, on PC, we have the same spread deviation regardless that most of us don't have any type of aim assist, and those that do are hackers. The result is that automatic weapons are the obvious choice to use for any of the classes, since their spread isn't effected as much.

    I also think the map design contributes significantly to the weapon imbalance, but that is unrelated to the topic of the thread. Suffice it to say that a greater variance in map size combined with designing specific portions of each map rather than entire maps around a certain kit or playstyle would do wonders for balance.

    Although speaking of certain playstyles, maybe they could add default modifiers for servers to cater to certain playstyles. A casual modifier could involve "crutches" for players that don't play that often and don't take the game so seriously. For example, a player would be automatically killed if they kill someone who died too many times in a row or got too many kills in a row. That would be to prevent more skilled players from going in and ruining everyone else's time.

    The more skilled players, on the other hand, could have their own modifiers. Twitch players could have more "Call of Duty-esque" modifiers. Faster movement, higher damage output, faster respawns, etc. Tactical players could have lower player counts (for Conquest, 48 players), no 3D spotting, and longer vehicle respawn times.

    To implement these playstyles, DICE could repurpose their many servers that go unused and add a tag in the name indicating which playstyle it caters to (ex, [CAS], [TWCH], [TAC], etc).

    Instead of having different servers, they can introduce a mode like Incursions for the 'skilled' playerbase, and leave the rest of the vanilla game modes for the normal playerbase. You could have completely different movement mechanics, game modes and gunplay mechanics for the Incursions part of the game, and have normal BF gameplay for everyone else - in this sense, BF2018 will be able to keep most of the playerbase that it has attained with this game, but can keep the BF3/4 competitive crowd occupied in their own environment. It's a win-win for everyone.

    The most important thing is that the garbage players have somewhere they can practice with bots or play together in order to get better.

    However, forcing all the skilled players to play a different gamemode just to be able to ensure they can play a good game isn't a good idea. I like Conquest, believe it or not, I just wish the average Battlefield player could get better. I, personally, am more "skilled" than most of the playerbase (bear in mind that I wouldn't actually consider myself skilled just because I'm able to do better than someone who can only get in one or two games a day), but from what I've seen of Incursions, it's nothing I'm interested in playing.

    I'm sure there are others who at very least would like to see servers set aside for beginners to learn the game's mechanics before turning what could have been a good game into a 1000-200 steamroll.

    I did mention that Incursions could have different game modes. They could even include Conquest or Rush as game modes for Incursions. Beginners servers are also a good idea, though having a proper ranking system can allow beginners to play among themselves, and then as they get better, the play against better players.

    You also have to understand that some people reach a 'peak' in terms of game performance. For example, I have played CSGO for 120 hours, and I still haven't gotten out of Silver yet. It would take me hundreds of hours just to get back to Gold Nova I, never mind the highest ranks. During those 120 hours, my progression through Silver was painfully slow, which made me wonder if I could even get out of Silver, no matter how many times I did those practice maps and played with my smurf friends.

    There are also people who do play this game casually, believe it or not, so its not just down to skills - some people want to mess around a bit. Yes, they should at least play the objective, but this isn't a competitive game where hard-and-tried tactics are established. It's not like CSGO where there is an unwritten rule, which apparently cannot be broken, which states that one cannot buy weapons if they lose the pistol round.

    I have a feeling that any Incursions variants of Conquest or Rush would involve some other rules that I don't want to play under, and I'm sure the progression system there would be separate from the main game - meaning that I would have to waste even more time on "finishing" everything.

    Yes, I know there are people like that. And they should have their specific care-free playstyle catered to in their own servers, not ruining everyone else's experience because they insist on going 5-15 sitting in some far-flung corner of the map.
  • olavafar
    1478 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I disagree somewhat.

    The word balance here is confusing to me. I assume we mean weapon balance. In that case I can agree it might need balancing per platform. I cannot say for sure because I do not play on console. I have not seen many players that are for TTK 2.0 though. I thought the weapon balance was more or less OK before (we know the few exceptions). It is also somewhat OK now too but it did affect play style quite a lot, especially for LMGs which became very powerful but only if played in a sort of boring way (bi-podded, medium to long range). I have also seen some actually moving back to BF4 after TTK 2.0 which is a bit ironic. I guess if you want a more "BF4 like experience" playing BF4 is just better than playing BF1...

    I do not think it should need to be differentiated on a per mode or play style basis. To me that is a bit like changing soccer rules based on play style ("you teams suck at attacking, you play with five balls so you can score more."). I just do not see how DICE would even be able to handle that, as it seems a lot more complicated than what they fail a bit to do now.

    If there is one thing I lack in BF1, it is the rented server model of BF4 with high possibility of customization using scripts etc. I think this was something perhaps more directed to the PC community but from all the players in DADS that never really got into BF1 I think about 1/3 of the BF4 players moved over, the rest play other games on our own servers. I believe this aspect was quite important. This was also a way to somewhat cater to some of the needs listed in the original post.

    So, now after have written this I realize that maybe I agree a bit in the end here but I doubt DICE or EA can do it. They need to let the community free again.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    2527 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Maybe they should have left the RSP from BF4 in ... competitive players could just form their own servers, and thus play within their own community.

    That doesn't solve the problem of different playerbases liking different gameplay mechanics, to the point that they are diametrically opposed. They would have to balance the game differently for these vastly different types of players, and Incursions would be a good way to do that. They could also avoid changing the rules of normal CQ or Rush in Incursions, allowing people to either play a more 'hardcore' style of BF but with vanilla modes, or with specially tailored modes for competitive players.

    You've seen the massive divide between competitive players and casual players - there is no possible way to make one game for both of them. Change the slide, and the competitive players complain. Change the TTK, and the casual players complain. In the end, both of them are peeved off.
  • obisearch
    682 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I honestly believe platform balances would have been the best way to go. I understand with the recoil buff on medics aggro/ med scouts on pc are having a torrid time with ttk 2.0, the very fact that recoil is more manageable on pc than console has please such a large role in how metas developed on each platform. Before patch hellreigels topped consoles and automaticos topped pc.
    Results being the one size fits all ttk patch has made made the game far more skewered for player experience.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!