Discussion Terms: Over Powered (OP) vs Highly Effective (HE)

Emporer2
294 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
I have noticed that there are quite a few threads referring to something being Over-powered (OP). Aircraft are op, anti-aircraft guns are op, a shotgun is op, tanks are op; the list goes on and on. OP has become the ADHD of Battlefield, as in, that is the go-to diagnosis of players who get upset over getting killed by something. Many of the arguments that I have read supporting the concept of something being op seem more to do with the way that particular vehicle or weapon are used as opposed to a problem with the actual mechanics of the game. With that in mind, I’m putting forth an alternate term to be used, “highly effective” rather than “over powered”.

Perhaps it is just me, but I see a distinct difference between something being over powered and being highly effective. To me, for something to be over powered, it has to involve the actual mechanics of the game that the player has no control over. These are things like damage output and weapon range, armor, area of effect (splash damage), duration (smoke and gas, cool down timers); mechanics of the game that can only be affected by the developers. All other aspects of the game, which can be affected by the player, would fall into the highly effective category. Below are some examples of the arguments that I have read on these forums and how they would fall into the respective category.


The popular discussion right now seems to be that planes are over powered. There seems to be a group dislike for pilots and aircraft, similar to the dislike towards scouts. I’ve seen arguments range from how powerful the ordinance is on an aircraft, to their speed and armor. I’ve also read about players getting upset because a pilot can go an entire match without getting shot down and that they are useless to the team because they can’t PTFO. I will admit that many of the arguments that I have read against pilots are valid (this coming from a dedicated pilot) but all of the arguments call for the planes to be nerfed because they are over powered. This is where the arguments are invalid. Most of the arguments are about how the plane is used during combat. Pilots rack up kills because they know where to drop their ordinance; they know how to avoid AA flak and how to shoot down other planes. These are all aspects affected by the player NOT the game’s programming. If an AA gun can’t shoot down a plane, it’s because the gunner isn’t hitting the plane. I’ve shot down plenty of planes with AA guns and I’ve been shot down by them. A fighter plane can rack up kills with the trench darts because of how many enemies are grouped together. This is especially true during Operations. Many of the kills that I acquire are multi-kills because I look for enemies who are grouped. This doesn’t mean that the plane is over powered; it just means that I’m using the plane effectively.

I’ve seen similar arguments against tanks. Players get upset over tanks lasting the whole match and racking up kills. The tank operator avoids driving head long into a cluster of enemies who could take it out with grenades; he/she takes out targets from a distance before moving in; the operator will back out of a fight in order to repair. All of these are tactics that I have seen while playing and are indicative of a player who knows how to use the vehicle effectively.

Some arguments are clearly valid when it comes to something being over powered. For example, the range on some of the weapons; the duration and area of effect for gas grenades and explosives are all things outside of a player’s control and thus can fall into the category of over powered (or under powered). Arguments calling for the nerfing or buffing for such mechanics are valid. However, calling for a nerf to aircraft or other vehicles because you get killed by them constantly is not. That has to do more with how a player utilizes that vehicle to their advantage, which is inherent to this type of game.

What do you all think? Does the term “highly effective” offer a valid alternative phrase for discussion over the often used (or rather, often misused) term “over powered”. Or is this just something that appeals to me and no one else really cares?

Comments

  • HardAimedKid
    11386 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    No.. When someone says op that means it kills me nerf it. It's impossible to think level headed or accept that something actually works. It's easier to cry for nerfs than to adjust to the game.
  • TickTak77
    4695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    This place always gets over-powered and highly effective wrong.

    My favorite is "slightly" overpowered lol, as if OP operates on some sort of scale.

    It doesnt.

    Overpowered is black or white. It is or it isnt. There is no grey
  • cammoses003
    649 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    what drives me nuts is the people who will say snipers/shotguns are op, but their only argument is aim assist.. nothing to do with the weapons themselves.. half these people don't even touch those weapons and are just triggered by getting killed by them - they'd try putting it on and get absolutely dusted

    i do see where you're coming from, the term overpowered is so misused
  • aseveredfoot
    2467 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I can agree... The term OP is stigmatized: in my opinion it applied to support mortars at launch before the first patch; it was so effective and their primaries so weak that most rounds, especially on Argonne were just mortar spam fests. Several times I didn't even have to worry about trying to storm a house, I could just level it and kill everyone inside with the mortar...pretty OP in my book.

    The Helriegel, contrarily, is Highly Effective. If anything I would prefer some other class weapons being buffed to offer the same infantry mobility and efficacy, though I'm not sure how, as the Helriegel's strength are its ROF and magazine.
  • Gforce81
    3666 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I've tried to implement some of the same type of language, OverUSED as opposed to overpowered.

    I think where this gets somewhat murky is where the mechanics of the game, and how players utilize them, blend together. Looking at either exclusively isn't a very good representation of what happens in the game.

    For example, since OP mentioned planes:
    The Devs have made the decision to "tune" (AKA Nerf) the stationary AA guns twice now. To them, their inherent power was greater than it should have been, allowing easy clearing of the skies.

    Thusly, they have been taken down a notch, twice.

    Players, myself included, have tried to adapt to this change, change how we fight aircraft:
    1.) Wait and ensure they are in range
    2.) Moderate your ROF; don't overheat
    3.) Make sure to lead your targets correctly so they don't escape

    My question is; when does "highly effective" BECOME "overpowered"? Where is the threshold? Its near impossible to pin down, because its all based on perspective. I'm sure many Pilots feel that the changes to AA have been fine, brings the AA guns back into "line" where they should be.

    But perhaps other players, maybe who harbor a deep dislike for any aircraft, feel that now, the changes the Devs made to bring things back into "line" went the other way. Maybe now, the AA guns feel "Highly INeffective" to these players. They feel like the option they had to counter the Air, which was effective, is no longer doing the job as intended.

    When attempts are made to "balance" the game based on how "effective" things are based on how players use them, we run into problems. Its all too subjective.
  • boutneus
    2484 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    HE = high explosives. Nice essay btw
  • Emporer2
    294 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Gforce81 wrote: »
    My question is; when does "highly effective" BECOME "overpowered"? Where is the threshold? Its near impossible to pin down, because its all based on perspective.

    A good question that I do not have an answer for. It's one of those things that you just have to look closely at what someone is complaining about. Was it a tactic that they felt was unfair? Were they killed from a distance that seemed too far for that particular gun? Sometimes, it is hard to distinguish exactly where that line is.

  • Evil_Barabbas
    533 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Emporer2 wrote: »
    I have noticed that there are quite a few threads referring to something being Over-powered (OP). Aircraft are op, anti-aircraft guns are op, a shotgun is op, tanks are op; the list goes on and on. OP has become the ADHD of Battlefield, as in, that is the go-to diagnosis of players who get upset over getting killed by something. Many of the arguments that I have read supporting the concept of something being op seem more to do with the way that particular vehicle or weapon are used as opposed to a problem with the actual mechanics of the game. With that in mind, I’m putting forth an alternate term to be used, “highly effective” rather than “over powered”.

    Perhaps it is just me, but I see a distinct difference between something being over powered and being highly effective. To me, for something to be over powered, it has to involve the actual mechanics of the game that the player has no control over. These are things like damage output and weapon range, armor, area of effect (splash damage), duration (smoke and gas, cool down timers); mechanics of the game that can only be affected by the developers. All other aspects of the game, which can be affected by the player, would fall into the highly effective category. Below are some examples of the arguments that I have read on these forums and how they would fall into the respective category.


    The popular discussion right now seems to be that planes are over powered. There seems to be a group dislike for pilots and aircraft, similar to the dislike towards scouts. I’ve seen arguments range from how powerful the ordinance is on an aircraft, to their speed and armor. I’ve also read about players getting upset because a pilot can go an entire match without getting shot down and that they are useless to the team because they can’t PTFO. I will admit that many of the arguments that I have read against pilots are valid (this coming from a dedicated pilot) but all of the arguments call for the planes to be nerfed because they are over powered. This is where the arguments are invalid. Most of the arguments are about how the plane is used during combat. Pilots rack up kills because they know where to drop their ordinance; they know how to avoid AA flak and how to shoot down other planes. These are all aspects affected by the player NOT the game’s programming. If an AA gun can’t shoot down a plane, it’s because the gunner isn’t hitting the plane. I’ve shot down plenty of planes with AA guns and I’ve been shot down by them. A fighter plane can rack up kills with the trench darts because of how many enemies are grouped together. This is especially true during Operations. Many of the kills that I acquire are multi-kills because I look for enemies who are grouped. This doesn’t mean that the plane is over powered; it just means that I’m using the plane effectively.

    I’ve seen similar arguments against tanks. Players get upset over tanks lasting the whole match and racking up kills. The tank operator avoids driving head long into a cluster of enemies who could take it out with grenades; he/she takes out targets from a distance before moving in; the operator will back out of a fight in order to repair. All of these are tactics that I have seen while playing and are indicative of a player who knows how to use the vehicle effectively.

    Some arguments are clearly valid when it comes to something being over powered. For example, the range on some of the weapons; the duration and area of effect for gas grenades and explosives are all things outside of a player’s control and thus can fall into the category of over powered (or under powered). Arguments calling for the nerfing or buffing for such mechanics are valid. However, calling for a nerf to aircraft or other vehicles because you get killed by them constantly is not. That has to do more with how a player utilizes that vehicle to their advantage, which is inherent to this type of game.

    What do you all think? Does the term “highly effective” offer a valid alternative phrase for discussion over the often used (or rather, often misused) term “over powered”. Or is this just something that appeals to me and no one else really cares?

    This essay is highly effective and is very close to crossing the threshold. Watch out you might be nerfed!
  • aseveredfoot
    2467 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Emporer2 wrote: »
    I have noticed that there are quite a few threads referring to something being Over-powered (OP). Aircraft are op, anti-aircraft guns are op, a shotgun is op, tanks are op; the list goes on and on. OP has become the ADHD of Battlefield, as in, that is the go-to diagnosis of players who get upset over getting killed by something. Many of the arguments that I have read supporting the concept of something being op seem more to do with the way that particular vehicle or weapon are used as opposed to a problem with the actual mechanics of the game. With that in mind, I’m putting forth an alternate term to be used, “highly effective” rather than “over powered”.

    Perhaps it is just me, but I see a distinct difference between something being over powered and being highly effective. To me, for something to be over powered, it has to involve the actual mechanics of the game that the player has no control over. These are things like damage output and weapon range, armor, area of effect (splash damage), duration (smoke and gas, cool down timers); mechanics of the game that can only be affected by the developers. All other aspects of the game, which can be affected by the player, would fall into the highly effective category. Below are some examples of the arguments that I have read on these forums and how they would fall into the respective category.


    The popular discussion right now seems to be that planes are over powered. There seems to be a group dislike for pilots and aircraft, similar to the dislike towards scouts. I’ve seen arguments range from how powerful the ordinance is on an aircraft, to their speed and armor. I’ve also read about players getting upset because a pilot can go an entire match without getting shot down and that they are useless to the team because they can’t PTFO. I will admit that many of the arguments that I have read against pilots are valid (this coming from a dedicated pilot) but all of the arguments call for the planes to be nerfed because they are over powered. This is where the arguments are invalid. Most of the arguments are about how the plane is used during combat. Pilots rack up kills because they know where to drop their ordinance; they know how to avoid AA flak and how to shoot down other planes. These are all aspects affected by the player NOT the game’s programming. If an AA gun can’t shoot down a plane, it’s because the gunner isn’t hitting the plane. I’ve shot down plenty of planes with AA guns and I’ve been shot down by them. A fighter plane can rack up kills with the trench darts because of how many enemies are grouped together. This is especially true during Operations. Many of the kills that I acquire are multi-kills because I look for enemies who are grouped. This doesn’t mean that the plane is over powered; it just means that I’m using the plane effectively.

    I’ve seen similar arguments against tanks. Players get upset over tanks lasting the whole match and racking up kills. The tank operator avoids driving head long into a cluster of enemies who could take it out with grenades; he/she takes out targets from a distance before moving in; the operator will back out of a fight in order to repair. All of these are tactics that I have seen while playing and are indicative of a player who knows how to use the vehicle effectively.

    Some arguments are clearly valid when it comes to something being over powered. For example, the range on some of the weapons; the duration and area of effect for gas grenades and explosives are all things outside of a player’s control and thus can fall into the category of over powered (or under powered). Arguments calling for the nerfing or buffing for such mechanics are valid. However, calling for a nerf to aircraft or other vehicles because you get killed by them constantly is not. That has to do more with how a player utilizes that vehicle to their advantage, which is inherent to this type of game.

    What do you all think? Does the term “highly effective” offer a valid alternative phrase for discussion over the often used (or rather, often misused) term “over powered”. Or is this just something that appeals to me and no one else really cares?

    This essay is highly effective and is very close to crossing the threshold. Watch out you might be nerfed!

    *increases thread horizontal recoil from .018 to .024*
Sign In or Register to comment.