Global Conflict

So, this past scrim we experimented with 80% and 90% HP settings, on the EU and NA server respectively. We'd like to know your thoughts.

For me personally, I enjoyed 80% more. It seemed like a nice medium between the insanity that is hardcore and 100% play. While playing 90% I really didn't notice it whatsoever. That said I support whatever everyone else wants, and thus don't really care all that much.

That said, the HUD bug with reporting HP (showing 126 or 112 or whatever) makes using the settings off-putting to me, and I'm not sure that lowering HP is actually worth it with TTK being lower overall in BF4 than in BF3.

Poll is up, please choose your favorite (or "I don't care" option).

I'd like to see how a 120HP feels like.
I'd love to have response time.

if we do this can we make it mandatory that both armies AAR's contain the server settings used on each map and round while we experiment. Because i don't remember what health we had on what maps, would make it easier to give feedback.

80% or 100% is not so different i think. i put 80% so i can snipe without dying every time i get in a 1v1 >.<
with 80% bolt actions might be a problem because of the easy one hit kills with bodyshots, but snipers are borderline useless in BF4 anyway because of all the screen shake from explosives and vehicles so i dont think a boost to them will be gamebreaking.

agree with necro about 120%, we should test that.

Ishimel wrote:if we do this can we make it mandatory that both armies AAR's contain the server settings used on each map and round while we experiment. Because i don't remember what health we had on what maps, would make it easier to give feedback.

viewtopic.php?f=451&t=24134

I didn't really notice much of a difference - I die a ton regardless

Would prefer 100% here.

I'm assuming it also affects survivability from vehicle weapons.

80% feels like GC and as described by matsif in the OP.
It also adds balance to different guns/classes.

I liked 80% a lot for bf3 GC, I felt like it really added something.
However with bf4 it just feels like I die wayy to fast on 80%, that and it makes DMR's better, which means I have to hear that annoying sound even more

So I vote 100%

80%-100% don't feel that different to me, but 60% is a but low.

80% and 90% have been giving us the weird bug where we still spawn in with "100" but can only be healed up to a maximum of our 80/90. That's where the 124%etc HP was coming from. It's interesting that it does that and slightly effects the way someone plays, but it also makes it hard to determine what will kill an enemy.

As it is, TTK in BF4 is a lot lower than BF3. I don't see why we need to lower health this time around. Given that the revive functionaility is nowhere near as useful as it was in BF3, I don't think health is a factor that needs diddled around with.

Coming into it i was a big advocate for 80% play, given thats what we had in bf3

having seen it in bf4 though, yeah, 100% is just fine by me

fully auto 34-22 and above damage models are accessible by every class now which is different

80% felt closer to counter strike than bf, whoever was better at knowing what corners existed and when to check them just flat out wins

100%, 100%.

Dice keeps heightening the damage models while the opposite is what needs to happen.

80% in BF4 feels like 60% in BF3.

This punishes the team that needs to push a flag way too hard.

I voted 90% to comfort the 'more hardcore players'. I'd rather have 100% than 80% though.