Perma-Ban Paik.
Like seriously. She just ruins the experience and adds to the cluster.
InB4 naming & shaming is not allowed on the forums.
[CM - Edited for profanity]
Forum Discussion
@Prof3ss0r_M1k3 We're not talking about designing different traits; we're talking about nerfing vs buffing those traits...and they most definitely should NOT be set the same in PvP as it should be set in PvE for very obvious reasons.
PvE has always required different weapon and vehicle balancing than what works well in PvP...if you don't have the experience to understand that rule then there's no point in going on about it.
PvE has always required different weapon and vehicle balancing than what works well in PvP...if you don't have the experience to understand that rule then there's no point in going on about it.
@BigShottt wrote:
@Prof3ss0r_M1k3We're not talking about designing different traits; we're talking about nerfing vs buffing those traits...and they most definitely should NOT be set the same in PvP as it should be set in PvE for very obvious reasons.
PvE has always required different weapon and vehicle balancing than what works well in PvP...if you don't have the experience to understand that rule then there's no point in going on about it.
i unlock all of my attachments in solo because it's faster. i understand how PvE works. it sounds like you are making the case that you want PvE toys that aren't in PvP. if that happens then there should be zero exp gain in PvE and no progression on weapon/vehicle unlocks
there should be *one* set of rules for everyone PvE and PvP if progression in PvE carrys over into PvP and wall hacks have no place in PvP
- @Prof3ss0r_M1k3
More simply put, 1 human brain going solo against a team of 32 AI plays much differently than 32 human brains going up against an opposing team of 32 more human brains. The weapons in the latter scenario would typically need to be nerfed to provide adequate game play since the human brains are currently more effective fighters than our current AI tech.
You can easily test this without being a developer, by simply recognizing just how different the gameplay is when comparing how a map flows while playing it PvP as opposed to playing it PvE. The flows will typically be very different with each requiring a very different style of play.
More broadly speaking, the "PvE balancing act" is a different animal than the "PvP balancing act" and what works for one will typically not work for the other.
So as far as I'm concerned, they need to split the weapon and vehicle balancing between these 2 very different styles of gameplay. PvP needs nerfs and PvE needs buffs, it's always been this way.
I may not be an expert, but after thousands of hours developing combat gaming missions since 2001 for the Arma/Flashpoint series (which is heavily based upon AI technologies) I've learned a couple things about the differences between the way that AI fight and the way that human's fight... and I'll leave it at that.
@BigShottt wrote:
@Prof3ss0r_M1k3
More simply put, 1 human brain going solo against a team of 32 AI plays much differently than 32 human brains going up against an opposing team of 32 more human brains. The weapons in the latter scenario would typically need to be nerfed to provide adequate game play since the human brains are currently more effective fighters than our current AI tech.
You can easily test this without being a developer, by simply recognizing just how different the gameplay is when comparing how a map flows while playing it PvP as opposed to playing it PvE. The flows will typically be very different with each requiring a very different style of play.
More broadly speaking, the "PvE balancing act" is a different animal than the "PvP balancing act" and what works for one will typically not work for the other.
So as far as I'm concerned, they need to split the weapon and vehicle balancing between these 2 very different styles of gameplay. PvP needs nerfs and PvE needs buffs, it's always been this way.
I may not be an expert, but after thousands of hours developing combat gaming missions since 2001 for the Arma/Flashpoint series (which is heavily based upon AI technologies) I've learned a couple things about the differences between the way that AI fight and the way that human's fight... and I'll leave it at that.I get it, you like being OP in single player, but nothing you have written gives a compelling argument to keep wall hacks in PvE or PvP. just because the AI acts differently that does not give a case for being able to see through walls. also, if PvE operates on a separate set of rules that advantages the player against the AI from PvP, then NO progression should be available that can be used in PvP.
i also don't think that DICE should allocate resources to try to balance PvE and PvP separately. we are already getting the bare minimum content and they are severely lacking on bug fixes such as the aim down sights bug so that is a complete missallocation of resources in my opinion.
- @BigShottt Can you please just play something else ? Battlefield is mainly played for PvP, almost every shooter is.
An absolute minimum amount of players play pve and just becouse they lose against bots the PvP oriented aspect should suffer ?
They are bots… they aren’t difficult to kill nor behave in any way logical.they will always run the same path, always instantly stop to shoot you with burstfire and so on.
There is nothing engaging about this, nothing.
You theoretically could sit an entire round in the same corner and the bots will never come to that corner. - @Bolvard i did that to get my first 600 spots with paik lol (breakthrough manifest, hid in corner of building near C1. only one bot saw me and that was cause it came after a bot on my team)
@Bolvard wrote:
@BigShotttCan you please just play something else ? Battlefield is mainly played for PvP, almost every shooter is.
An absolute minimum amount of players play pve and just becouse they lose against bots the PvP oriented aspect should suffer ?
Well, if that's not a completely self-serving and entitled reaction then I don't know what would be, lol.
Yes sure, you right...why should PvE players deserve to enjoy the game they paid for since PvP players are obviously more important, hee hee!
Oh brother, try to have an intelligent discussion and propose what needs to be done for BOTH sides to be happy and all you get is self-centered crybabies refusing to accept the reality of the situation.
Not worth my time or effort, until some of you learn to grow up, have a nice day.- @BigShottt Well that was quite a reaction, talking about whining …lol
@BigShottt wrote:
@Bolvard wrote:
@BigShotttCan you please just play something else ? Battlefield is mainly played for PvP, almost every shooter is.
An absolute minimum amount of players play pve and just becouse they lose against bots the PvP oriented aspect should suffer ?
Well, if that's not a completely self-serving and entitled reaction then I don't know what would be, lol.
Yes sure, you right...why should PvE players deserve to enjoy the game they paid for since PvP players are obviously more important, hee hee!
Oh brother, try to have an intelligent discussion and propose what needs to be done for BOTH sides to be happy and all you get is self-centered crybabies refusing to accept the reality of the situation.
Not worth my time or effort, until some of you learn to grow up, have a nice day.PvE players bought a game with the understanding they would be playing the same game that PvP players play with the exception it would be against bots
you are advocating for PvE to get a different game than PvP gets
- @Prof3ss0r_M1k3 not at all, it's considered industry standard, and has been since at least the early to mid 90's as far as I understand.
To say that it requires developing 2 different games is a gross exaggeration. A game like this could have been designed to easily allow for separating out the balance adjustments for the 2 modes included. It's not rocket science and it doesn't require making an entirely different game. It's done all the time.
Unfortunately, it seems that they decided to cut corners, instead.
As far as your Paik issue is concerned. I have no personal preference for what they do with it since I don't use it, and the game in it's current state of PvE nearly negates it's use anyway.
But I can still understand why some want it nerfed in PvP. PvP and OP weapons/abilities are always problematic no doubt. - @BigShottt differences between solo play and multiplayer normally wouldn't matter. but in this game they do matter because what you do in solo unlocks things in multiplayer. if solo is going to be a different set of rules and balance, then what is done in solo play should not in any way cross over to multiplayer. if you want unlocks and stuff to count in solo play, then the game mechanics need to be identical
@Prof3ss0r_M1k3Ah, now THAT is a very valid and important point that I can certainly understand.
Since PvP and PvE gameplay will always differ to such a large degree, IMO (and I've stated this elsewhere in this forum right after release), they should have simply done what the Call of Duty people did, and that was to separate the earned XP so that whatever you earn in solo/coop is locked to that mode and cannot be used in the competitive arenas.
In fact, from we've all seen happen here after release, I think that the ability to do this has already been coded, at least somewhat, into the game...and this is exactly how they were able to so easily adjust/limit/shut off earned xp and missions in solo/coop only, while leaving it unaffected in competitive.So, the ability for them to do what I've been touting for like 10 months already, IS there and has already been coded for the most part, It's just that they are cutting corners and refuse to do it.
