deleted

Comments

  • Rev0verDrive
    6761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    trip1ex wrote:
    Yeah except ttk wasn't low in those old games either. It was pretty high. Much higher than BFV or what BF1 currently is.

    TTK was pretty damn low 1942/vietnam. Also the majority of guns actually used hitscan. Only a few used projectile physics.

    Q43pl4i.jpg


    http://www.realtimerendering.com/erich/bf1942/weapons.html

    edit ... Giggity
  • trip1ex
    5232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    trip1ex wrote:
    Yeah except ttk wasn't low in those old games either. It was pretty high. Much higher than BFV or what BF1 currently is.

    TTK was pretty damn low 1942/vietnam. Also the majority of guns actually used hitscan. Only a few used projectile physics.


    It was pretty high. I wouldn't trust any of that info. YOu gotta play to get a feel for whether ttk is high or low. A few numbers in a spreadsheet never paint the whole picture and even more so as far using that info to make comparisons across games.

  • Rev0verDrive
    6761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote:
    Yeah except ttk wasn't low in those old games either. It was pretty high. Much higher than BFV or what BF1 currently is.

    TTK was pretty damn low 1942/vietnam. Also the majority of guns actually used hitscan. Only a few used projectile physics.


    It was pretty high. I wouldn't trust any of that info. YOu gotta play to get a feel for whether ttk is high or low. People that put a few numbers into a spreadsheet never paint the whole picture.

    Lol .. "I wouldn't trust that info". Did you see who wrote/published it?

    Eric Haines ... Software Engineer (Cornell University) that works for AutoDesk (3D Studio Max, AutoCad, Maya) and NVidia.

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-haines-71743a/

    For NVidia he's working on Ray tracing and rasterization, and deep learning,

  • Assyriansniper1
    47 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I agree and I am surprised so many people are not behind these changes! its more tactical!
  • trip1ex
    5232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote:
    Yeah except ttk wasn't low in those old games either. It was pretty high. Much higher than BFV or what BF1 currently is.

    TTK was pretty damn low 1942/vietnam. Also the majority of guns actually used hitscan. Only a few used projectile physics.


    It was pretty high. I wouldn't trust any of that info. YOu gotta play to get a feel for whether ttk is high or low. People that put a few numbers into a spreadsheet never paint the whole picture.

    Lol .. "I wouldn't trust that info". Did you see who wrote/published it?

    lol. You gotta read my whole post. "a few numbers don't paint the whole picture." So even if those few numbers are accurate they don't tell the complete story because there are 20 other variables to account for that affect how ttk feels in a game especially across games 15+ years apart. I didn't bother to look at them even because of that. I do have the games installed on my hard drive.

    As DICE said and many realize, it's really ttd that players feel not theoretical ttk.

    Also besides all the in-game differences/variables, there are lots of differences between the technology of today and 15+ years ago. Mice can track much better today than 15+ years ago. Internet was 56k dial-up back then. You had to lead your targets much more back in the day to account for ping differences.






  • Rev0verDrive
    6761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote:
    Yeah except ttk wasn't low in those old games either. It was pretty high. Much higher than BFV or what BF1 currently is.

    TTK was pretty damn low 1942/vietnam. Also the majority of guns actually used hitscan. Only a few used projectile physics.


    It was pretty high. I wouldn't trust any of that info. YOu gotta play to get a feel for whether ttk is high or low. People that put a few numbers into a spreadsheet never paint the whole picture.

    Lol .. "I wouldn't trust that info". Did you see who wrote/published it?

    lol. You gotta read my whole post. "a few numbers don't paint the whole picture." So even if those few numbers are accurate they don't tell the complete story because there are 20 other variables to account for that affect how ttk feels in a game especially across games 15+ years apart. I didn't bother to look at them even because of that. I go buy actually playing the games. I do have the games installed on my hard drive.

    As DICE said and many realize, it's really ttd that players feel not theoretical ttk.

    Also besides all the in-game differences/variables, there are lots of differences between the technology of today and 15+ years ago. Mice can track much better today than 15+ years ago. Internet was 56k dial-up back then. You had to lead your targets much more back in the day to account for ping differences.

    1942 BTK ... 2-3, BFV?? Haven't seen hard numbers as of yet.

    1942 and vietnam used hitscan (raycast line traces) on most weapons. This made TTK even faster because there wasn't bullet travel time to account for. BF2 introduced projectile physics on all weapons.

    So if you look at 2-3 hits using hitscan versus 2-3 hits using projectiles (BTT) there's a MASSIVE difference. Projectiles, even when using the same damage model and RoF will take longer to kill.

    Facts being Facts ... 1942 and Vietnam had a very low BTK.

    TTD in general is a byproduct of latency and/or packet loss which results in all the damage from multiple hits being packed into a single packet. This is most common when the shooter has a garbage connection.

  • trip1ex
    5232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote:
    Yeah except ttk wasn't low in those old games either. It was pretty high. Much higher than BFV or what BF1 currently is.

    TTK was pretty damn low 1942/vietnam. Also the majority of guns actually used hitscan. Only a few used projectile physics.


    It was pretty high. I wouldn't trust any of that info. YOu gotta play to get a feel for whether ttk is high or low. People that put a few numbers into a spreadsheet never paint the whole picture.

    Lol .. "I wouldn't trust that info". Did you see who wrote/published it?

    lol. You gotta read my whole post. "a few numbers don't paint the whole picture." So even if those few numbers are accurate they don't tell the complete story because there are 20 other variables to account for that affect how ttk feels in a game especially across games 15+ years apart. I didn't bother to look at them even because of that. I go buy actually playing the games. I do have the games installed on my hard drive.

    As DICE said and many realize, it's really ttd that players feel not theoretical ttk.

    Also besides all the in-game differences/variables, there are lots of differences between the technology of today and 15+ years ago. Mice can track much better today than 15+ years ago. Internet was 56k dial-up back then. You had to lead your targets much more back in the day to account for ping differences.

    1942 BTK ... 2-3, BFV?? Haven't seen hard numbers as of yet.

    1942 and vietnam used hitscan (raycast line traces) on most weapons. This made TTK even faster because there wasn't bullet travel time to account for. BF2 introduced projectile physics on all weapons.

    So if you look at 2-3 hits using hitscan versus 2-3 hits using projectiles (BTT) there's a MASSIVE difference. Projectiles, even when using the same damage model and RoF will take longer to kill.

    Facts being Facts ... 1942 and Vietnam had a very low BTK.

    TTD in general is a byproduct of latency and/or packet loss which results in all the damage from multiple hits being packed into a single packet. This is most common when the shooter has a garbage connection.

    ttd depends on much more than that. recoil, muzzle flash, ability to see enemies, how far you have to lead targets, quality of the tracking of the input device, etc etc. There's lot of variables. Servers didn't update info that often back then either.


    btw, I've been using that guy's annotated map BF42 page for a long time. And I'm sure looked at this page you're showing me many times before lol.

    IT's a case of you know enough to be dangerous. I would play the games to get a feel for how ttk (ttd) feels.
  • Godhates1234
    412 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sounds to me like you should be playing Call of Duty

    Yes BR Blackout is more fun, exciting and intense to play than this boring BFV.
  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    gpkgpk wrote: »
    BFV is way better than BF1.

    But any company who says if you dont like it dont buy it doesnt get my money.

    To be fair that statement is true however poor management skills that guy had and they did fire him. What they would need now is an interview where they don't grovel but in a roundabout way comes across as apologizing for having such an uneducated person address their customers.
    The customers were uneducated and the snowflakes got their feelings hurt by being called out; took cojones to do what he did. Can't say I blame the dev, especially given what's happening in the world and Sweden. Other mediums have called out knuckle-dragging behavior over the last 50 years and it helped push things forward.
    BF1 felt like I was playing a war game, BFV felt like I was playing hide and seek.

    This made me lol, right u are.

    BFV is far worse than BF1 TTK2, which was far worse than BF1 pre-TTK2.

    He had no balls hiding behind his daughter to make a point, in no way is that story true it was just a cowards argument. Think of the children! Weak, I'm glad he's gone.
  • TiMEvBoMB
    139 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sounds to me like you should be playing Call of Duty

    Yes BR Blackout is more fun, exciting and intense to play than this boring BFV.

    Sadly, I agree. Battlefield has always been my go to but Dice has done nothing to get me excited for this game. The Hardcore infantry focused approach is gonna kill this franchise with so many other games that will be great coming out around the same time. Eliminating large scale vehicle play was what set Battlefield apart from other games and that appears to be gone for BFV.
  • trip1ex
    5232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote:
    Yeah except ttk wasn't low in those old games either. It was pretty high. Much higher than BFV or what BF1 currently is.

    TTK was pretty damn low 1942/vietnam. Also the majority of guns actually used hitscan. Only a few used projectile physics.


    It was pretty high. I wouldn't trust any of that info. YOu gotta play to get a feel for whether ttk is high or low. People that put a few numbers into a spreadsheet never paint the whole picture.

    Lol .. "I wouldn't trust that info". Did you see who wrote/published it?

    lol. You gotta read my whole post. "a few numbers don't paint the whole picture." So even if those few numbers are accurate they don't tell the complete story because there are 20 other variables to account for that affect how ttk feels in a game especially across games 15+ years apart. I didn't bother to look at them even because of that. I go buy actually playing the games. I do have the games installed on my hard drive.

    As DICE said and many realize, it's really ttd that players feel not theoretical ttk.

    Also besides all the in-game differences/variables, there are lots of differences between the technology of today and 15+ years ago. Mice can track much better today than 15+ years ago. Internet was 56k dial-up back then. You had to lead your targets much more back in the day to account for ping differences.


    Facts being Facts ... 1942 had a very low BTK.

    I will give you that. I played it just now and the engineer rifle killed in 2 shots to the body. Not a scientific study. But so many factors involved besides the ones I mentioned as far as what ttk feels like. Size of hit boxes is another one. Bullet velocity. The charts you linked were not designed for comparison purposes across games. Just within the game. That's why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    BFV felt a lot different than BF42. BFV is like I can't see anything and there's 30 spots where an enemy might be hiding at any given moment. And there's 64 pairs of enemy eyebalsl on a much smaller map with better draw distance and much more cluttered environment. That's the feeling I got in that game. That contributes to how ttk feels.

    In BF42, you can see most anything and there are few hiding spots. Different feeling. You could be killed quick sometimes. But you generally knew where the enemy was coming from and could see them. There were few flags so there wasn't constant Zerging. BF42 was a pretty unforgiving game in many ways. But no one was hiding in a bush in that game.


  • moodii_77
    239 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    skates15 wrote: »
    Excitement of playing doesn't compare to BF1 at all. I just cancelled my pre order and see if they can make this fun again. About Everyone is complaining about this bf5 on beta

    I agree, the excitement does not match BF1 at all. I play a game if it's exciting and everything else is secondary. I find this about as exciting as Battlefront II.

    My sentiments exactly! BF1 had much more chaos and action going on in the maps that made it really FUN to play. Play a game of Operations on Achi Baba in BF1 and you'll get my point. This BFV beta has none of that. It just feels way too tedious and uneventful
    If your definition of fun is playing operations on Achi Baba, then no wonders this community has gone full reta*d.

    The beta wasn’t revolutionary, but the core gunplay was methodical and tactical. Lots of infuriating decisions by DICE, but I’m looking forward for the release. I’m still not entirely sold though.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote:
    Yeah except ttk wasn't low in those old games either. It was pretty high. Much higher than BFV or what BF1 currently is.

    TTK was pretty damn low 1942/vietnam. Also the majority of guns actually used hitscan. Only a few used projectile physics.


    It was pretty high. I wouldn't trust any of that info. YOu gotta play to get a feel for whether ttk is high or low. People that put a few numbers into a spreadsheet never paint the whole picture.

    Lol .. "I wouldn't trust that info". Did you see who wrote/published it?

    lol. You gotta read my whole post. "a few numbers don't paint the whole picture." So even if those few numbers are accurate they don't tell the complete story because there are 20 other variables to account for that affect how ttk feels in a game especially across games 15+ years apart. I didn't bother to look at them even because of that. I go buy actually playing the games. I do have the games installed on my hard drive.

    As DICE said and many realize, it's really ttd that players feel not theoretical ttk.

    Also besides all the in-game differences/variables, there are lots of differences between the technology of today and 15+ years ago. Mice can track much better today than 15+ years ago. Internet was 56k dial-up back then. You had to lead your targets much more back in the day to account for ping differences.


    Facts being Facts ... 1942 had a very low BTK.

    I will give you that. I played it just now and the engineer rifle killed in 2 shots to the body. Not a scientific study. But so many factors involved besides the ones I mentioned as far as what ttk feels like. Size of hit boxes is another one. Bullet velocity. The charts you linked were not designed for comparison purposes across games. Just within the game. That's why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    BFV felt a lot different than BF42. BFV is like I can't see anything and there's 30 spots where an enemy might be hiding at any given moment. And there's 64 pairs of enemy eyebalsl on a much smaller map with better draw distance and much more cluttered environment. That's the feeling I got in that game. That contributes to how ttk feels.

    In BF42, you can see most anything and there are few hiding spots. Different feeling. You could be killed quick sometimes. But you generally knew where the enemy was coming from and could see them. There were few flags so there wasn't constant Zerging. BF42 was a pretty unforgiving game in many ways. But no one was hiding in a bush in that game.


    Hitboxes are an easy one. Frostbite Engine .. like the Unreal Engine uses capsule shaped collisions (multiple) that wrap the components of a player model. At most they will extend on a few cm off the models physical/skeletal mesh. Hands and feet may use box collision because the shape wraps better.

    Velocity ..... Hitscan weapons do not have Velocity. They are Raycast (line traces)...so instantaneous collisions regardless the distance. The vast majority of weapons in BF1942 and Vietnam used Hitscan. Rockets, Grenades, Sniper Rifles, Tank Rounds etc used projectile physics. Not much else did.

    Vietnam (2003) had bush wookies. Grass, trees, bushes etc. So no being able to see a player do to environment was indeed a thing...at least in BF Vietnam.

  • Rev0verDrive
    6761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Here's a pic of the capsule inside UE 4.19 player model physics asset (Physics mesh).

    GTN0Rpf.jpg
  • foff667
    575 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I'll be honest looking back at the BF1 beta I wasn't really impressed but I met alot of new friends playing it and it grew on me. I was a huge BF4 fan with thousands of hours logged on that game, I missed all the growing pains that game had when it first came out(I think I started playing it in 2014 or so). Right now I do not like the gameplay in BF5 and will definitely not be preordering....maybe once they figure out what they actually want to do with the game I'll buy it, but I've heard you need to buy the more expensive edition just to get the battle royal which seems kind of crappy to me considering its going to be post launch. Honestly there are so many things I"d prefer change in this game that will likely never happen its hard to see me buying anytime soon. I logged probably 4-6 hours of the beta and while I did fairly well my experience was very bad and at this stage would either stick with bf1 or try my hand at COD...their blackout squad mode looks fun.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BFV has a chance of being my favourite Battlefield to date.

    The only two things that can get in the way of that, is the attrition, and the progression system... both of which disappointed me in the beta. The attrition favoured squad play far too much, whereas the progression... merely existed. I like a little bit of attrition, such as in alpha 2... but being dialed as high as in the beta just didn't work out for me.
  • trip1ex
    5232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote:
    Yeah except ttk wasn't low in those old games either. It was pretty high. Much higher than BFV or what BF1 currently is.

    TTK was pretty damn low 1942/vietnam. Also the majority of guns actually used hitscan. Only a few used projectile physics.


    It was pretty high. I wouldn't trust any of that info. YOu gotta play to get a feel for whether ttk is high or low. People that put a few numbers into a spreadsheet never paint the whole picture.

    Lol .. "I wouldn't trust that info". Did you see who wrote/published it?

    lol. You gotta read my whole post. "a few numbers don't paint the whole picture." So even if those few numbers are accurate they don't tell the complete story because there are 20 other variables to account for that affect how ttk feels in a game especially across games 15+ years apart. I didn't bother to look at them even because of that. I go buy actually playing the games. I do have the games installed on my hard drive.

    As DICE said and many realize, it's really ttd that players feel not theoretical ttk.

    Also besides all the in-game differences/variables, there are lots of differences between the technology of today and 15+ years ago. Mice can track much better today than 15+ years ago. Internet was 56k dial-up back then. You had to lead your targets much more back in the day to account for ping differences.


    Facts being Facts ... 1942 had a very low BTK.

    I will give you that. I played it just now and the engineer rifle killed in 2 shots to the body. Not a scientific study. But so many factors involved besides the ones I mentioned as far as what ttk feels like. Size of hit boxes is another one. Bullet velocity. The charts you linked were not designed for comparison purposes across games. Just within the game. That's why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    BFV felt a lot different than BF42. BFV is like I can't see anything and there's 30 spots where an enemy might be hiding at any given moment. And there's 64 pairs of enemy eyebalsl on a much smaller map with better draw distance and much more cluttered environment. That's the feeling I got in that game. That contributes to how ttk feels.

    In BF42, you can see most anything and there are few hiding spots. Different feeling. You could be killed quick sometimes. But you generally knew where the enemy was coming from and could see them. There were few flags so there wasn't constant Zerging. BF42 was a pretty unforgiving game in many ways. But no one was hiding in a bush in that game.


    Hitboxes are an easy one. Frostbite Engine .. like the Unreal Engine uses capsule shaped collisions (multiple) that wrap the components of a player model. At most they will extend on a few cm off the models physical/skeletal mesh. Hands and feet may use box collision because the shape wraps better.

    Velocity ..... Hitscan weapons do not have Velocity. They are Raycast (line traces)...so instantaneous collisions regardless the distance. The vast majority of weapons in BF1942 and Vietnam used Hitscan. Rockets, Grenades, Sniper Rifles, Tank Rounds etc used projectile physics. Not much else did.

    lol you didn't tell me anything about the size of the hitboxes in BFV vs BF42. Anyway I can tell you know enough to be dangerous and I will leave it at that.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The only things that I've noticed impacting my ability to notice if the TTK had changed (outside of bullet damage), was drop-off range, the netcode, and the last BF game that I had played.

    Hardline was immediately noticeable for me, due to the different bullet drop-off range. I practically came from BF3, and it was a night and day difference. With Battlefield V, my memory was pretty fuzzy, so I can't actually compare it to anything. Feels like Battlefield 3, but I just wouldn't trust my memory at this point. Felt good, outside of the netcode in the alpha. During the beta, I still felt like there was a disadvantage to having a low ping, but the TTK felt a lot more consistent with what I was dishing out.
  • CaptainHardware
    303 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    foff667 wrote: »
    ....maybe once they figure out what they actually want to do with the game I'll buy it, but I've heard you need to buy the more expensive edition just to get the battle royal which seems kind of crappy to me considering its going to be post launch.

    That's a misprint DICE and EA have corrected, all versions of the game will get battle royale and always were going to get it. If that's what you care about all one can say further is they've promised a roadmap before release, and I'd keep an eye out for if that appears or not.
  • smoothsac
    131 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Lol BFV is garbage

    Why are you even on the forums?
Sign In or Register to comment.