Making Battlefield a Skill-Based Game – Battlefield 4

Making Battlefield a Skill-Based Game – Battlefield 4


Since I’m still working on adapting to my
new sensitivity—3200dpi at 3% in-game from 5000dpi at 7%, and my aim is still off everywhere,
I’ve instead asked Hockey to provide some for me. If you enjoy this boat footage, I’d
recommend looking at his channel, which will be linked in the description This video is based off a document created
by Rela called, “Guidelines to fix BF4 infantry flaws and lack of legitimacy for a future
title”. I’m not going to simply rattle off, word, for word, what was said here, though
I may occasionally quote from the document—since it’ll inevitably be pretty awkward to mention
what is quoted and what is not, I’ll just state here that if you hear me say something
that sounds like what Rela wrote, it’s probably what Rela wrote. I’m not trying to plagiarize
your writing, I’m just not in the mood to declaim quotation marks all the time. Also,
if you’re watching this, notice me, Senpai. You can do the reading on your own, if you
wish—I suggest that you do. I will expand many of his points that I feel weren’t explained
completely, and will also add my knowledge of the mathematical workings of the game to
add new points which weren’t stated at all. There are also a few things which I feel are
false or otherwise based on incorrect assumptions—I will address these, in their turn, as well.
Once again, subtitles will be made available in English and Brazilian Portuguese, though
the latter language will be appear around twenty-four hours after the video is initially
uploaded. So there’s my commentary on the commentary.
To continue with things, I’ll give you guys a proper introduction to what we’re going
to talk about in this video. For the health of the franchise as a whole,
a respected competitive community is desperately needed. Truly top-level players—those that
are the best among an already highly skilled group, are a living testament to the player
base as a whole of what practice and dedication can provide for them—their existence shows
players that it is possible to master aspects of the game at an incredible level. Most importantly,
it gives the player the ability to trust in the game—that if they put enough effort
into the game, they will be suitably rewarded. In order to get to this point, several things
need to happen to the Battlefield franchise. Firstly, the casual player base needs to be
able to understand what is happening in top-level games. Secondly, the game design needs to
be such that it facilitates player growth, and allows the better player to succeed in
a measurable way—that is to say, it needs to be evident that the player with the most
skill succeeds to the greatest extent. Of course, the first thing we need to do is
define what “skill” is, before we throw the term around any further. I would split
“skill” into two entirely separate features. When it comes to Battlefield 4, or any shooter,
for that matter, there is the physical aspect of skill, which I see as the ability to make
small, precise movements accurately and with speed. The second part of skill is strictly
intellectual, and is the understanding of how to apply one’s physical skill appropriately.
A good player is one that is both physically and rationally skilled: a player with good
aim, but no understanding of where to apply that aim will be just as much a hindrance
to his team as a player that understands exactly what is needed of him, but is unable to manage
the logistics of actually doing it. Now that we’ve defined that, I am able to
say the first part of this video is a collection of points that will make Battlefield, and
future titles, a more skill-based game. My primary focus will be infantry, as I feel
that vehicles are pretty much perfect as-is, though there are a few gripes I and others
have that will be mentioned. There are a few ideas I see thrown around
to make infantry a bit more skill-based, including the reduction in base spread and increased
recoil. They are either counterproductive, or will otherwise negatively impact weapon
balance. Reducing base spread is not an option. When
we consider bullet spread as a means to balance a game, we must not think of having anything
to do with “luck”. A higher base spread, or high spread as a result of spread increase
does not mean that the “luckier” opponent would win. Spread, and spread increase, simply
puts a hard cap on the effective ranges of all weapons, giving each and every weapon
in each class a distinct purpose. Sure, it’s possible to mag dump an AEK at 30 meters and
succeed, but it’s no more likely than taking a random hip shot with a bolt action and hitting
a helicopter pilot in the head. In fact, the AEK magdump kill event is probably a bit less
likely. If we reduce base spread further, we end up
with a Battlefield 3 like situation, where the more accurate “marksman” rifles end
up outclassed by assault rifles, which could shoot with superior accuracy, and at a higher
level of damage output. This is not good for the health of the game—it is important that
each weapon see a distinct role. Reducing base spread is also entirely counterproductive.
Our goal here is to reduce the effectiveness of full-auto spray, not make it more effective.
Reduced base spread values simply allow the user to effectively full-auto for an even
longer period of time than before. The second ineffective solution is to increase
vertical recoil. Because vertical recoil is controlled entirely on muscle memory, increasing
it does absolutely nothing to increase difficulty. If you want to simulate increased recoil,
decrease your game’s field of view. Someone with 90 degrees of horizontal FoV will perceive
more recoil than someone with 70 degrees FoV. Does this mean that it is more difficult to
control recoil with lower fields of view? No. Alternatively, to simulate higher recoil,
decrease your mouse sensitivity while ADS—you’ll be pulling more distance downward per shot,
which is an identical situation to simply adding recoil. Once you become used to a recoil
pattern, regardless of how intense it is, it becomes second nature
to eliminate. Increased horizontal recoil is even more counterproductive
than the other options that I’ve mentioned. As I’ve stated many times, Horizontal recoil
is completely random and uncontrollable. Regardless of how good you are at compensating for general
drift, horizontal recoil will always throw your shot to one side or another. Horizontal
recoil numbers found on Symthic are not absolute values—if they were, it might be possible
to control it, to some extent. Rather, they are negative (left), and positive (right)
bounds on a number line—the actual recoil value can fall anywhere between. In summary,
horizontal recoil has nothing to do with difficulty, rather it is a hard cap on accuracy, much
like base spread is. With that said, there are a few ways we can
increase the skillfulness of infantry fights. Given that our goal here is to encourage initial
bursts of accuracy, and proper target tracking, there are three things we can do. Nnlinear spread increase: If we take a look
at the ACE 23, we can see that it has .1 degrees of spread increase per shot. This doesn’t
make much sense—why is the spread increase after the third shot the same as the spread
increase after the tenth? In order to significantly reward players who are able to be very accurate
with their first few shots, the first three bullets should have slightly lower spread
increase. After that, the spread increase value will increase exponentially as more
bullets are fired. Ultimately, this would remove the rather uninteresting spray meta
we have now, and make short, very accurate bursts extremely viable, even in close quarters.
This point behind this change is to severely penalize those that can’t hit their first
few shots. After three bullets are fired, spread increase will increase drastically,
and spread decrease times will increase as a result. Those that are able to make the
initial snap to a target accurately will be rewarded. This change is complemented by an increased
max spread value. Spray is so effective in Battlefield 4 as it stands now because the
max spread values are so low—when aiming, assault rifles can’t accumulate more than
around 1.5 degrees of spread—this is more than sufficient to be used in close quarters.
Thus, in order to make spray a non-viable option, increasing the max spread values to
something around hipfire minimum spread, which ends up being around 3 degrees.This value
is high enough that it makes full-auto 10 round bursts completely ineffective except
within sneezing distance. Finally, the hip to ADS transitions while
firing need to go. In close-mid range, it’s possible to start firing from the hip, and
THEN begin the ADS animation. This gives the user a quick boost in initial damage output
with essentially no penalties. This actually wasn’t always the mechanic.
At Battlefield release, if you started firing from the hip, and then transitioned to ADS,
you’d be locked to your hipfire accuracy, until you let off the trigger for as much
time as was needed for spread decrease to come into play. Unfortunately, people who
were unable to learn to control their fire whined very loudly, and the system we have
in place now was introduced, where a transition from hip to ADS while firing will result in
getting ADS max spread, of 1.5 degrees, which is, as I said, more than sufficient for close-mid
engagements. This are fairly small changes, but in combination,
i believe that it would significantly improve Battlefield’s infantry play. The current system of player movement is,
I feel, quite worthwhile. While it certainly has its quirks—snake jumping in the air
can yield a target that is impossible to hit, and there’s still some weird stuff going
on with jump-shot cornering, but the combinations of jump-peeking and sliding makes infantry
play interesting. Top-level infantry duels are always interesting to watch, because of
the high player movement speed. The way the head bobs back and forth does make headshots
difficult, but they’re not impossible for someone who can snap to a target very quickly.
The reasonably low max spread on all weapons combined with the high player movement speed
results in a game where the focus is speed rather than accuracy—it’s more important
to get rounds downrange quickly than it is to aim those shots carefully. With the changes
I suggested, we could have a combination of speed and accuracy, which would yield a high
skill-ceiling which the average player base can appreciate. To improve the game as a whole, a certain
class of gadgets simply has to go. I’m not talking about lock-ons—Stingers, and even
Javelins play an integral role in allowing inexperienced players to affect how top-level
armor and air plays. None of these are risk free: Stingers are extremely easy to spot,
with a massive blue flash around the launcher when the missle is fired, and a glowing ball
coming straight from the target. An improperly played stinger can be more of a hinderance
to its user than a boon, as an experienced air crew will simply eliminate the threat
before it becomes problematic. The same is true of Javelins: the tank crew can easily
get a few headshots at its effective range, and the lock must be held for the entire flight
time, exposing the user completely. Like it or not, Lock-ons are here to stay, and I am
glad that they are. My complaint is in regards to the couple zero-risk gadgets that exist—the
Mortar and UCAV. It’s not because they’re annoying to me—they’re not particularly
difficult to play around—but rather, it is for the reason that the user is not exposed
while the gadget is in use. With any other aspect of the game, the player is required
to put himself in some sort of danger to receive a reward. Helicopters content with AA weapons;
Tanks, with AT weapons, and infantry are exposed to everything in the game, but nothing at
all poses a threat to the UCAV user. Regardless of how effective or ineffective the weapon
is, risk-free tools yield uninteresting and frustrating gameplay for all involved. Coming back to lock-ons, while we need to
keep them, it’s important that there exist a skill-based alternative to each. This is
where I disagreed with the changes to the SRAW which isolated it to an AT rather than
AA role: I was of the opinion that its effectiveness against armor should be reduced drastically,
while it retained the ability to one-hit kill, or at least one-hit disable air vehicles.
The problem with the SRAW originally wasn’t its effectiveness against air-DICE wasn’t
“nerfing the skill weapons”with the change as some of you seemed to think, they just
recognized the fact that it was over centralizing—there simply wasn’t any real reason to use other
launchers, because the SRAW could do it all—air, armor, and infantry—with equal ease. In
the next Battlefield title, I hope to see that we have an alternative to all ease-of-use
Engineer gadgets. If we have a Javelin, we need an anti-armor wire guided launcher. If
we have Stingers and Iglas, we need a wire guided launcher intended solely for eliminating
air units. A strong competitive culture improves the
health of the franchise as a whole. CS GO, for example, is noted as an esport, moreso
than it is as a multiplayer shooter. As I mentioned earlier, a competitive environment
that the average player can understand serves to bolster their faith in the game: rather
than becoming frustrated with their performance and blaming the game itself, they can look
to these top players, and attempt to apply what they see there to their own play. It’s
also arguable that the game as a well-publicized esport, such as is the case in CS GO, brings
in players who are interested in a game which rewards their efforts. This is exactly the
reason that I recently bought CS GO: I saw it as a game that would help me grow as a
player. In order for this to happen in the first place,
the average player needs to understand what is going on at the top level. I’ll say this:
Battlefield 5v5 is probably the most unwatchable game in existence, even for me, and I have
at least a measure of understanding of what goes on at those levels from my limited experience
in the competitive environment. It’s because I simply can’t relate to the Assault circular
movement simulator that is Domination. If I find it hard to watch,and if I find it hard
to watch, players with less experience are going to enjoy it even less. I suggest that
it is for this reason that the competitive players are derided in the casual community—it’s
hard to understand why someone would celebrated when it appears that they’re doing nothing
special. 10s are a slightly different matter, but 10v10 matches were never the official
format, for some reason. 10s and 8s are infinitely more understandable, as they both feature
aspects of the game that can be found on a daily basis. Regardless, the competitive environment needs
to be much more approachable than it is now. As it stands, it’s almost impossible for
someone who simply wants to play an organized match to find one; the 5v5 Defuse and Obliteration
servers that exist usually consist of three clanmembers on one team, and then a 4-person
team of level 16s on the other, because there’s no ladder to separate the tiers of players,
and there’s no incentive to stay a round through. On the other hand, in order to find
a properly organized 10s or 8s match, one has to find one of the various third-parties
that host these things, and it’s going to be pretty much impossible to find a team worth
playing with unless you’re extremely good, or know the right people. What would really
help is if there was a battlelog-accessible ladder for organized matches, where players
of similar skill can play with one another. Every game that ever claimed to be an esport
has this, and this single feature, which is relatively simple to implement allows the
competitive side of the game to be something that all can experience. Battlefield Pubs
get pretty uninteresting, and it’s sometimes difficult to find a game which ends up being
challenging. An easily-accessible Competitive mode in Battlefield would be something that
increased its life and its accessibility significantly. I was going to summarize this, but I’m rather
tired of writing at this point. I guess you could just go back to the beginning and listen
to that again. Hope you enjoyed, and remember to look at Hockey’s channel, and Rela’s
document. Both are linked below.

57 thoughts on “Making Battlefield a Skill-Based Game – Battlefield 4

  1. You didn't need to explain that the gameplay wasn't yours. We all know now that you are garbage in boats 🙂

    Funny how he got 69-0 that round. Almost suspicious haha.

    The one downside I've found to games like CS:GO, is that it feels rather intimidating for people to get into that. Of course battlefield would have to be more like Rocket League in that regard. Where you would be able to play the game pretty easilly, but it would take a buttload of skill and practice to master (unlike CS:GO, which has a rather high entrance level of skill to play smoothly).

  2. I just want to see some gadget balance. Why does the riotshield and MPAS exist is they are so useless. There is little – no gadget variety in BF4

  3. Dude this will kill the game . I play casual dom and tdm and belive me i only hear in my headset the nubs mag dumping the aek . U think those guys will ever take the time to learn that

  4. I always thought there was too much rock/paper/scissors trade off for all the different aspects of bf4 for it to be considered competitive. CSGO is arguable incredibly simple compared, and as such much easier to display skill (if that makes sense). Only when the player count gets absolutely huge does it seem like bf4 becomes balanced, but good luck getting a 64v64 competitive running. Thoughts?

  5. Can you please make a topic how unbalanced that piece of shit suport class is ? The best tdm class is like having infinite ammo claymores doom lone wolfing unless u sacrifice ur frag pick a crappy lane or ping on map(unless u use supressors). The ms/aps can stop a tank shell and help him and an engineer to camp . C4 was nerfed but still. I do not even start on ucav and mortar

  6. sorry cant have a competitive game when you have random horizontal recoil and random spreed patterns..which just leaves the game to RNG base which is cancer to a competitive game. unless a bullet goes where you are pointing a cross hair there is no point in the game. increase the recoil so it takes skill to manage like a real gun and get ride of the rest. then we can talk competitive gaming.

  7. 5:24
    I think you made a mistake (I may be wrong)
    a person with 70 fov experiences more recoil than a person with 90 fov

  8. I've never seen Battlefield as a competitive / esports kind of game, because every form of competitive gameplay seen so far has removed everything that makes Battlefield Battlefield. See ESL 5v5 rules for example. If competitive gameplay removes everything that makes the game the game, then what is the use and why should people that are a fan of Battlefield care about it?

  9. On console I hope they remove the snap aim assist… it's so annoying when kids just ADS and immediately lock on to your head n bam! ur dead.

  10. Here is what I disagree with. 'A respective competitive community is desperately needed'.
    Its not, what battlefield needs is to 'know what it is'. It has tried to be a competitive shooter, that has a 5v5 scene but that has nothing to do with battlefield. Dice have actually made decisions on game play and balance to try to encourage this which has been detrimental to conquest large 64 player matches which is what battlefield should be all about.
    It has tried to balance infantry with vehicles, which has smeared the classes making almost everything be able to take on anything, reducing teamwork.

    If you want battlefield to turn into a serious competitive game then you'll need serious 32 player teams, and this is not going to happen.

    Battlefield is supposed to be a fun casual game. As a player since 1942, I want my game back. I want a team based game, with proper classes with situations were I cant win. I don't want players to focus on stats, or ridiculous gadgets, just who is winning the game.
    I don't want Team Domination Obliteration. I want conquest.

    If you want to turn battlefield into a serious competitive shooter then you are going to ruin the game.
    There are plenty of super balanced FPS out there, that already have a competitive scene.

  11. I'm gonna have to disagree with you on vertical recoil, if you look at a game like counter strike, even in the pro level some players have better aim than others, vertical spray IMO definitely makes it skill based

  12. Regarding the Mortar and UCAV, I see them as long-range anti-camping gadgets. There's also a counter in the form of the MAV. If these gadgets are removed, I think there should be some other tool for dealing with campers. The XM25 Airburst doesn't work in all situations.

  13. When i come to the UCAV and mortar, things like them are absolutely necessary in the game. Something to allow the removal or and/or disruption of a fortified position on a building is very important. Without it, the game can become very frustrating.

    Now there is also the matter of claymores, they are garbage. They are a 0 skill instant kill weapons that puts the user in practically no danger. They also don't play by their own rules and often detonate without me touching the wires.

  14. 7:00 even though spread increase is linear, accurracy grows inverse quadratically with spread. Twice the spread, 4 times lower acurracy. With spread x, bullets are dispersed across a circle with radius (roughly) linear to x (and exactly linear to tangent x, but for small x we can consider this as linear). A circle with radius linear to x, will have an area proportional to x^2. Thus the accurracy of your shots as a function of the amount of shots fired in the current burst (n) then looks like:

    accurracy(n) = c1/(c2 + c3*n)^2 c1 is the constant converting area to an accurracy rating, c2 is the base spread and c3 is the spread increase per shot.

    So accurracy already falls (somewhat) quadratically with the number of shots fired. It is the base spread that reduces the relative effect of spread increase. if c2 is large, it takes a lot of shots before c3*n becomes significantly larger than c2. This might be a reason why people are suggesting a reduction to base spread. Increasing c2 across the board would make bursting more important as well. Im not sure if an EVEN faster fall of accurracy is needed. It is already quadratic. Exponential growth, ie accurracy(n) = c1/(c2 + c3^n)^2 would have ridiculous effects on accurracy.

  15. When people compare CSGO and Battlefield, I can't take them seriously. Different games and requires different type of skill. One is an old-school shooter with the most basic system that is available, while another is evolving with every iteration and requires you to actually think if you want to engage your enemy. Because most of the time, it's about controlling the game and area, not getting kills. In CSGO, kill all the guys, you won, done.

  16. i agree with Rocket Launchers, but also don't.
    i approve of the Launchers you want to exist.

    however, i feel an 'okay at everything' option is also well deserved. a third Wire Guided option that performs adequately against both Land and Air, but is definitely inferior to the dedicated Land and Air options you have available.

    since it's Wire Guided, it would likely perform about on par(give or take some wiggle room) with the dumbfire/lockon Launchers in each category, but definitely be outclassed in roles with the Wire Guided options.

    again, basically a Skill Based 'okay at everything'. which obviously the SRAW wasn't – it had the Skill Based, but generally outperformed other options rather than being just acceptable in comparison to.

    Edit:
    i also think most of the 'advanced movement' quirks and things people use – are stupid. i approve of making movement interesting and relevant to Skilled Gameplay – but the game needs to support it. if there's Animation telegraphing issues with those things, then they hurt more than they help.

  17. This seems like its making the game for the pro veteran players like us, but i'd much rather have noobies come to the game

  18. super agree everything you said except for 3:32–5:00. Even in 5v5 competitive (supposedly the most skilled infantry players in the game), players don't always hit their first few bullets in duels, and certainly don't have their cross-hairs trained on the enemy 100% of the time. In many of these duel scenarios, the player that wins is often the one who was fortunate enough to have their bullets stray from their crosshair and hit the enemy, while their crosshair was off the enemy. This problem is obviously exacerbated with range (and arguably only occurs frequently during mid-long range duels). When I'm on the winning end of these types of duels, I certainly don't feel like I out-skilled the opponent or feel like I was rewarded for making a skillful shot (which as you mentioned is an important part of being an 'esport'). I know I just got lucky. Unfortunately the meta of 5v5 is spray the AEK. At mid-range, as long as you get on target quickly and mag-dump within a decent margin around the enemy you have a good chance of getting the kill (To your point, the spread maximum IS too low). This results in muddy gun-play that does not feel rewarding or skillful. Guns NEED to be more accurate to allow for a higher skill ceiling and to give players that rewarding sensation when they do make an entirely accurate shot down-range. This is why everyone that I've talked to about it believes that bf3 infantry was much more enjoyable (see accurate bf3 gunplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imHyk2ZFwv0). Now you mention that this would ruin the balance of the game (noting DMRs losing favor to assault rifles even at range). Luckily, spread is not the only way we can balance weapons. One way to encourage DMR usage at range would be to increase the range at which DMRs can score a headshot kill, while at the same time HEAVILY increasing their vertical recoil with each shot (see COD:MW snipers, seriously). Honestly this would make a thousand times more sense than the ironic spam we get from battlefield's current Designated "Marksman" Rifles.

    By the way, I wrote a doc on the same line as your video and rela's doc, i just shared it with rela and a few others a couple of weeks ago. If you'd like, I can get it to you as well if you're curious. The idea of non-linear spread is actually something I wrote about in my doc since imo the current spread mechanics are not rewarding enough to those who are accurate, and too forgiving to those who are not.

  19. I disagree with basically all these "changes" people want this franchise to be more competitive but adding lets say these changes would further the game away from competitive play. Most of the biggest competitive scene has little to no recoil. Form COD, halo, CS, among others. So adding these changes would not only slow down the game play like ADS to hip fire and back which would take away the flow of close quarters but also hurt the game play. Now,the bullet deviation with full auto is kinda of dumb in my eyes same as when the suppression was. This removes skill and makes it more luck based. So yes you would have to burst fire which most good players do even if there was no bullet deviation. Guns like lets say the LMG which are used at full auto even in real life, would become even worse in the game(granted i don't use these weapons) but that's besides the fact.

    These changes, also would hurt newer players trying to get into the game the learning curve would be to large for newer players. This is important for any franchise is to bring in newer players to help it grow, and these changes would hinder this completely.

    But i completely agree with a damn ladder i still haven't understood why there isn't one

  20. duck i have arampant issue that i find mildly irritating. about two months ago, i was a stellar infantry player. i succeeded in most infantry engagements and had superior motion and body tracking to even top tier infy players. all of a sudden, after spending about 2 weeks away from the game, my aim has been horrid, my tracking and general accuracy drowning themselves, i constantly lose simple engagements due to my accuracy just being, well, off.. to suffice i have been spending my time vehicle whoring.staring whistfully at the locker servers i so dearly love. my ADS sens and in game sens is the same, by the way, anyways, my point is, HELP! what can i do to increase my motion tracking and accuracy superior to other players, whilst not playing like a twitching jumpy brazilian on crack? (keep in mind that i am a console peasant) any tips will be greatly appreciated, thank you very much. 😀

  21. people seem to forget that most of the bf4 players are in console. And controlling recoil is really different on there. Guns like famas and cz are hard to master on console. Increasing vertical recoil on all guns would make battlefield on console much more skillbased. I don't agree with the changes dice made year ago with the spread increase because guns like Sar-21 and g36c were always superior on medium-long range against high rpm guns like famas and aek on console. But those people who had like 2000+ kills with aek could be efficient at medium range, but still the low rpm gun with heavy barrel would be better option.

  22. Translation: "Please, make it more difficult for n00bs to kill meh! And while at it, think about more ways to make the franchise less attractive to new BF players."

  23. For the mortar I recent like the idea of replacing the PDA with a PLD device where the mortar shell targets the crosshairs. This way you place the mortar in the back field but still require a direct line of sight to use. I think that is what DICE was trying to make a mortar that can be used as a fire support at the front rather then sit back and spam from outer sight.

  24. I use 800 dpi on mouse and 5% ingame cause it gives me ability to to 90 degree turn in a 1 swipe on my mouspad 🙂 With 2 swipes its a 180. Sens in ADS is either 52 or 52% I can't really be sure since the slider counter is screwed up

  25. hi mate…you got a new sub… 🙂

    can you tell me please what FOV, DPI and in game Sensitivity do you play with? just curious… 🙂

  26. ucavs and mortars are the equivalent to the ac130 in mw2. take them out completely. please.

    and I LOL'd when even you said bf 5v5's are awful to watch lol.

    I think map design needs to seriously change, and a piece of what made bf3 and 4 so fun with maps designed for 32 or 64, has to die for the comp side to prosper.

    a shift towards bf3 32 man rush maps needs to come back. Conquest on these huge maps just isnt feasable for comp imo. We need a 32 man max, then work our way down. to find a middle ground.

    Maybe instead of the 64 man large, 32 man small we have now, 32 man max, and 16 man small for map design, with 8v8 comp teams.

  27. to be honest i can only see competitive battlefield working if they start emulating real games by having more players. 5v5 and 10v10 sound boring as fk and i dont even think i've ever had an enjoyable bf4 game on servers with less then 30 ppl.
    granted having huge teams for an esports team will probably break the bank, but who says they have to be paid. im sure a bunch of clans/platoons would love to compete just for the bragging rights.

  28. hey marble I tried your new sensitivity setup. But I find it ridiculously oversensitive. 3200 dpi at 3% in game moves my aim 360 degrees in about 5 cm.. Completely unplayable.. I'm not sure how that works and why. Could it have something to do with raw mouse input? I have it turned on.

  29. Agree with most of what you said. Yet next to the zero risk gadgets I feel there are way to many kills for free weapons in the game. I understand the usefulness of the XM25 yet give 10 rounds and no reload at ammo bag. what about the shotgun frag round combo no need to see the enemy no need to aim just hammer the trigger. Endless reload (yes it is slow but still) of the LVG and M320 rounds! My suggestion would be to have bullets for your primary and handgun reload all the rest not. so no grenade reload, no XM 25 reload, no claymore no C4 reload.

  30. Didnt you the exactly opposite point in one of your vidoes that we SHOULD increase base spread as a means of balancing weapons. Make up your mind!

  31. Can anyone help me with this question ? I have wondered what lowering my sensitivity for my tank play does to my chopper. The one setting controls both I believe. Do you have a high sensitivity or low on your attack, and scout chopper ? I have my tank set at 10% and forget to change it when I switch to a chopper. I am on console if that makes a difference.

  32. @MarbleDuck check that https://twitter.com/freeortman/status/767134709348458496 devs asking about competitive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *