Because YOU demanded it! A new poll on SMGs. -1 reply

Please wait...

Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#131 15 years ago

In fairness, you probably shouldn't be capping flags with a rifle, or at least, if you were, it'd be because there weren't many SMG kits around to use. The actual close-in combat of capping a flag is perfect for SMGs. That's not the problem, though, at least performance-wise.

The problem is two fold:

1.) Even at medium range, many SMGs are quite accurate and can be used in an almost identical manner to rifles, with the added bonus of being good for close combat. Thus, SMGs are being used NOT as SMGs, but rather as assault rifles -- a totally different concept. I've got NO problem if you use the StG44 this way -- that's what it was designed for. But a Thompson? An MP40? Even the all-powerful PPSh? Nope, sorry. They shouldn't be used that way.

2.) When bunny hopping, strafing, running, etc., you are still quite able to kill the enemy by just spraying lead. While the crosshairs do widen, they also shrink quickly when you stop, and even so, simply by virtue of the amount of lead you put out, you're bound to score a hit.

A separate issue is that when rifles hit, they don't always kill in a single hit. Unless you've got a map with a lot of open ground, therefore, your rifle is seriously disadvantaged. Even if it's a big map, if there's plenty of cover, experienced or not, your rifle is at a serious disadvantage. Why would anyone choose a rifle in that situation when an SMG can get the job done almost as well at range and MUCH better in close?

Finally, Hydra, like I said, the most experienced players on YOUR server may only use rifles for whatever reason. I guess you got lucky in that sense. That's not the issue, though. The issue is that you CAN use (and people DO use) the SMGs in a way that they aren't intended to be used by design.




[SYN] hydraSlav

SYNERGY Member

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

2,372 Posts

0 Threads

#132 15 years ago
LordbutterHydra, what are you taking about? Sure on that server you showed i saw ?8? people playing. So either ?Half? the team is dead, or your only playing about a 10 on 10.

It's a 32 player server (if you would have bothered checking the link provided), and it was also full at that time (as usual, #2 server doesn't usually idle half empty) Furthermore, if you would have paid attention to what i was saying, the base was under heavy attack from enemy infantry, so yes, lots of people were dead. However, the other screenshots from the "opposition" didn't show much more people either, so what's your point? But if you want to go into it: note how most riflemen stayed alive, while non-riflemen (presumably, according to you) are dead. An SMG is the weapon for clearing the flags. What exactly is your problem with people choosing SMG to clear out the flag area? That's what they are designed for. On the flip side, an experience riflemen hiding around the flag but out of the capture radius is very effective at stopping the enemy advances, no matter what class they are, and as the screenshot proves, it's the riflemen that surived and saved the flags. Use a little common sense :rolleyes: Solo, I got nothing to say to you, i am getting tired of repetitive arguments back and forth. I actually still remember arguing with you about the usefulness of sniper rifles back in the days of MP_Demo on bf1942files.com forums :uhoh: All i will tell you is: how many FH servers do you know that have 50+ players? (I personally know only one) How about you play on a more "regular" server, and see if the problem persists there. As i said, it depends on the population you play with; make rifles super-uber, and SMGs super-lame, then put all vanilla SMG players on that server without telling them anything, and they will still use SMGs, cause they are just that stupid... and guess what, they will get kills with them. You see a problem, i don't see one. And the poll proves that half of the people here (for the purposes of simplicity, i will give your side a few extra votes :D ) think there is no problem, and half think there is a problem. Meanings, it's only a matter of opinion whether there problem is actually there. Case dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence :deal:




Ensign Riles VIP Member

No! I'm Spamacus!

426,537 XP

17th June 2003

0 Uploads

39,480 Posts

1 Threads

#133 15 years ago
Beast of War I read about bullet drop but in the ranges i shot persons in the bullet couldn't have dropped much yet, afterall you are firing a high velocity bullet and not thowing a brick at someone.

They added bullet drop to this mod? :eek: Wow, I must have really slacked in reading the changelogs as they were released with each update. :Puzzled:




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#134 15 years ago

Yeah, they did. But out in the next patch though.

So many people whine about how you can hit shit anymore...

READ THE FUCKING CHANGELOG!




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#135 15 years ago
'[SYN hydraSlav']It's a 32 player server (if you would have bothered checking the link provided), and it was also full at that time (as usual, #2 server doesn't usually idle half empty) Furthermore, if you would have paid attention to what i was saying, the base was under heavy attack from enemy infantry, so yes, lots of people were dead. However, the other screenshots from the "opposition" didn't show much more people either, so what's your point? But if you want to go into it: note how most riflemen stayed alive, while non-riflemen (presumably, according to you) are dead. An SMG is the weapon for clearing the flags. What exactly is your problem with people choosing SMG to clear out the flag area? That's what they are designed for. On the flip side, an experience riflemen hiding around the flag but out of the capture radius is very effective at stopping the enemy advances, no matter what class they are, and as the screenshot proves, it's the riflemen that surived and saved the flags. Use a little common sense :rolleyes: Solo, I got nothing to say to you, i am getting tired of repetitive arguments back and forth. I actually still remember arguing with you about the usefulness of sniper rifles back in the days of MP_Demo on bf1942files.com forums :uhoh: All i will tell you is: how many FH servers do you know that have 50+ players? (I personally know only one) How about you play on a more "regular" server, and see if the problem persists there. As i said, it depends on the population you play with; make rifles super-uber, and SMGs super-lame, then put all vanilla SMG players on that server without telling them anything, and they will still use SMGs, cause they are just that stupid... and guess what, they will get kills with them. You see a problem, i don't see one. And the poll proves that half of the people here (for the purposes of simplicity, i will give your side a few extra votes :D ) think there is no problem, and half think there is a problem. Meanings, it's only a matter of opinion whether there problem is actually there. Case dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence :deal:

Well, actually, if you knew about the rules of civil procedure (which I wouldn't expect you to A.) not being from the U.S. and B.) not being trained as a lawyer), the case wouldn't be dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence. This could survive a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment quite easily. Then it'd all depend on the burden of proof (which in this case would probably be on "my" side) and what level of proof you had to meet. But, aside from that, it'd also depend on how the judge instructed the jury. If the judge said "If you determine that the answer could go either way, you must find in favor of the plaintiff [my side]", then I'd say we "win" the argument. :)

Anyway, argue or not, I don't really care. I don't remember the BF1942 forum discussions on the sniper rifle, but it wouldn't surprise me if we got into a debate. I do that with folks sometimes. :)

Your point is "Well, if only half the people even RECOGNIZE there being a problem, then clearly there isn't one so we should just ignore it altogether and tell everyone else to go pound sand." My point is "If a significant portion of the players feel that there is a problem, you can't ignore them and just say 'too bad, there's nothing wrong so STFU.'" In this case, we've got a pretty signficant portion of players voting that they don't like how SMGs operate. We've got an equally significant portion of players saying there's no problem. I'd say you go with "my" side in designing changes because chances are, once the changes are made, the "other" side won't really complain anyway.

I mean, let's say the SMGs were set so that they became far more innacurate when running, jumping, diving, etc.? Or that they lost more power over range and people couldn't kill at distances of 100m or more with them? I doubt people would be up in arms over it because they'd still be perfectly useful for what they're designed for -- clearing and capturing flags and close range combat. However, they wouldn't be being used as assault rifles, the way they are currently, and that'd be a good thing I'd say.




[SYN] hydraSlav

SYNERGY Member

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

2,372 Posts

0 Threads

#136 15 years ago

My last argument, Solo:

My point is that only half the people here believe/think there is a problem. There is not enough evidence that the problem is actually there. It's just that half the people think they see a problem. There is no physical evidence that the problem exists.

Now this would be different to a scenario where the majority (80-90%) would see the problem, but then again half would believe that nothing should be done, and half would believe that it needs to fixed.

As a lawyer, i am sure you can see the subtle difference between the two scenarios.

Just like in that sniper rifle debate that i am refering to (heh, i wonder if they keep 2 yo threads in archive ;) ): You believed you saw a problem with sniper rifles because you couldn't hit moving targets online due to, according you to, bad netcode. Now, the opposition (which i was on), disagreed with you, since we learned to adjust to this ("bad") net code and we could actually hit moving targets with moderate ping and efficiency. So, in the end result (although the thread never reached a logical conclusion, just like this one won't), it was not the problem with "bad netcode", but rather a problem with someone not being able to adjust to that netcode. So the problem did not exist, just someone thought that the problem existed.

Solo4114This could survive a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment quite easily. Then it'd all depend on the burden of proof (which in this case would probably be on "my" side) and what level of proof you had to meet... Bla Bla

And that is why i am withdrawing from this discussion. As a lawyer, you will defend a case which may be inherently in the wrong. As a lawyer, you will not come to the "right" conclusion, but rather will swing the audience to believe that your interpretation is more "right". And as a lawyer, (which i am not) you will beat me with experience, yet it will not prove that your case is right, only the fact that you convinced more people then i did.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#137 15 years ago

Actually, back in the old days, there were real problems with BF1942's netcode. They fixed them in subsequent patches, but that's all beside the point.

Look closer at the poll. Read the options. Read the second one. CLOSELY.

You'll note the last sentence which reads, "Or even if they are a problem, I still don't want the game changed to address the issue."

So, your counter argument lacks some punch here. Half the people may not even see a problem. On the other hand, some of that half may see a problem but may not care. Or perhaps they don't see a problem with the SMGs per se, but rather with the rifles. If you take a look at the previous poll, we DID have 75% of the people saying there was a problem or that they missed the rifle combat of 0.5 and that the mod was becoming too spray 'n' pray friendly. So maybe what we have here is that 75% thought that things were problematic, but a portion of those people didn't want it changed or didn't think it could be changed without sacrificing realism or whatever. The point about the numbers, though, is that there is a significant portion of people who, previously, felt that there was too much emphasis on SMGs, and now a still significant portion of people feel that the SMGs are problematic in some way and want it changed. You can dismiss that out of hand all you like, and so can the devs. Who knows. Maybe they will. In the end, though, I think you'll see the mod change over time if nothing happens with respect to this issue.

Regardless, your notion that we must have "physical evidence", as you put it, would be rather difficult. How can you physically prove what goes on online? There's nothing physical to show. I suppose we could post pics of kills made with the SMGs from long distances, but that would be after the kill itself. I don't personally know how to record demos in BF1942 and I'm not even sure it's possible, but that'd be about as good as you'd get for "physical evidence."

You claim there's no problem. I and many others claim there is a problem. People said the same things in debates surrounding the 0.61 flight characteristics. There was no problem, people who couldn't fly were just n00bs, people who didn't like it were former plane whores who missed being able to kill effectively, etc., etc., etc. That didn't change the fact that the flight code WAS problematic and wasn't good for the game.

Right now, you figure everything's fine and dandy. I disagree. Others do too. But you can't just say "Ha! 50% say there's no problem, so your claims are baseless!" And yes, I do recognize the difference between people seeing a problem and with people wanting it changed. That's why I included the line in the second choice of the poll about how there may be a problem but I don't want it changed.

Here's an illustration of why the SMGs are problematic that happend just tonight between myself and Evil Cookie. We were playing The Storm. Cookie was using a rifle, I was using a PPSh. I'd spawned at the recently captured Axis airfield. If you know the map, there's a house a ways north of the airfield. After running out of the hut where you need to capture the flag, I was right next to some oil drums. Cookie was just up at the barbed wire near the west end of the house. I knelt, fired off three rounds, and killed him with my PPSh. He didn't even get off a round, and Cookie is GOOD with a rifle, believe me.

Now, to me, that distance looked to be at least 150m if not more. Perhaps the game world doesn't provide us with an accurate sense for space in a graphical sense, but it sure looked like he was outside of where the effective range of an SMG OUGHT to be, given the size of the map and the size of most maps in the mod. If a map is about 1200m square, and your effective range with an SMG is 100-150m, we've got a problem, just like we did with the flight code in 0.61. We scale the flight physics for the mod. We scale tank damage for the mod. Why do we not also scale small arms fire for the mod? If we set tank characteristics at real-world levels, the tanks could kill each other from one main base to another, assuming an unrestricted line of sight. You might even be able to do this with rifles currently, if you had a stationary target and visible target. If we're scaling everything else in the mod, why not this as well? It doesn't make sense to me.

But regardless, you don't see there being a problem. I'm never going to be able to convince you if you simply refuse to accept that there is or could be a problem, which seems to be the case. So, we have a fundamental disagreement at the root of the issue. I'm advocating change, you say there's nothing to change. I can argue 'til I'm blue in the face and offer anecdotal examples, but until you see the problem first-hand for yourself, you won't accept that it exists. My point with the poll, however, has been to illustrate that even if YOU don't accept that it exists, there's plenty of people out there who do.




[SYN] hydraSlav

SYNERGY Member

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

2,372 Posts

0 Threads

#138 15 years ago
Solo4114You claim there's no problem. I and many others claim there is a problem. People said the same things in debates surrounding the 0.61 flight characteristics. There was no problem, people who couldn't fly were just n00bs, people who didn't like it were former plane whores who missed being able to kill effectively, etc., etc., etc. That didn't change the fact that the flight code WAS problematic and wasn't good for the game.

Define "problematic". Is problematic something that you find difficult to do? They made the planes extremely difficult to fly, yet there were still people who managed to fly. I myself was still flying (just cut down the throttle to about half when turning, and dive into the turn... i adapted, other's didn't). So what's the problem? They made planes difficult to fly, and don't tell me RL planes are easy to fly... But people complained cause now most couldn't fly... But where is the problem? Maybe the devs intended to make the planes that difficult, so it would be available only to the few "elite". How do you know there was a problem with the fly code? Just because you and lots of others couldn't fly anymore without running out of bounds? Get what i am saying? It's a matter of opinion. When a Sherman blows up a KT in 1 shot to frontal armor, that's a "problem". When you don't like that someone with an SMG kills you while you couldn't kill him with a rifle, that's an "opinion that there is a problem", cause others in your shoes might have done better and killed the SMG guy first.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#139 15 years ago

With the flight code, the planes were problematic for a number of reasons. On many maps, the visibility was so low that you'd spend much of the map just making wide circles trying to find someone. Even on maps where there was decent visibility, you could end up flying off the map repeatedly. It wasn't that it was impossible to fly the planes. Far from it. I found flying in 0.61 to be perfectly easy. The biggest problem was that it wasn't scaled to the game engine. It was set up more like how a plane responds in IL2:FB. Now, THAT game has plenty of realism in terms of flight performance of planes, and it's fun. But that's also because you can fit about 40 BF1942 maps on one IL2:FB map, so you've got plenty of room. You also (when visibility conditions are good) can see an enemy a few miles away, unlike in BF1942.

Planes weren't much fun in 0.61 not because they became too hard but because they became kind of pointless to use. Occasionally, you could use a bomber or fighter bomber, but with the fighters, you really didn't have much to do unless it was a wide open map with good visibility. Saipan was, if memory serves, a good map on 0.61 despite the flight code -- but that's because it had good visibility and wide open spaces. Valirisk was a LOUSY map in 0.61 because with the German bombers and the Mig-3's maneuverability, it was far too easy to fly off the edge of the map. Not that you couldn't get back ON to the map, but just that you spent your whole time flying in these huge circles trying to find a target and by the time you did, you'd have to take the whole length of the map to turn to face it.

"Problematic" in the flight code case, and partially in the SMG case, is where you've got aspects of the game that aren't scaled to its limitations, which results in the game being less fun. It's not a question of is it harder now, or rather, as you'd like to put it "Is it harder for ME now", it's a question of is the game operating well within its own confines. At least in terms of the scaling issue.