You can't have paid for BR these days. You're actively feeding your competitors. Its even worse if you don't have it at launch at the peak of the game's hype cycle.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Battlefield V |OT| Band of Brothers and Sisters
- Thread starter iRAWRasaurus
- Start date
- Status
You can't have paid for BR these days. You're actively feeding your competitors. Its even worse if you don't have it at launch at the peak of the game's hype cycle.
Firestorm was put in an even worse position by not only being gatekept behind an upfront fee, but said upfront fee being attached to the fifth mainline entry in a series that has no developed following or identity associated with Battle Royale. Though I'm sure many tried it, the obvious reality is a vast majority of people who purchased Battlefield V were investing in a Battlefield game first and foremost, not a Battle Royale game, where such a mode is always going to play second/third/forth fiddle to at minimum Conquest. The incentive for outlier players to pick up Battlefield V exclusively for Firestorm isn't there either, because as you noted you cannot have a BR these days with an upfront fee.
There's basically no reason for anybody to buy into Firestorm, or invest time into it. It should have, from day dot, been released as a F2P title.
Not that it matters in Australia, where there are literally no servers, they've all been shut down since launch, and DICE/EA refuse to comment on whether or not they'll reopen any. Unless you want to play with 200+ ping on Asian servers it's literally broken.
Naw, if firestorm was free it would still fail
Last edited:
I wouldn't go that far... My experience became much smoother when I got a new CPU. Especially the interface became snappier and deaths less twitchy. Try lowering a few settings but keep an eye on GPU usage, if you are CPU limited there's not much point in lowering some settings.
I think maybe mesh quality could reduce the number of draw calls. Snowy maps giving you problems might be the particles flying about (though I suspect view distance is the worst offender). Try going between DX12 and DX11. Unfortunetly from what I saw when doing a quick search the documentation from users to reduce CPU load hasn't improved much since launch.
Try to feel out a smaller mode like squad conquest and see how the performance effects your perception. If 64 players feels much worse then it's an easy decision! :)
Not sure if a console would give you rock solid performance in every scenario either.
It's the most uneven, unfocused, inconsistent mess of a mainline Battlefield by a good country mile. Which is a shame, because I keep coming back to it for the good stuff it has buried under the hood. I cannot think of a single mainline Battlefield that has caused me to alt-F4 so frequently though, almost always because of some bullshit. It can be an incredible experience, or an immensely frustrating, infuriating one.
I don't think it'll be remembered fondly.
played one round of Fortress to unlock the first challenge of this week. Was defender on devastation.
this was the most borring thing I've certainly ever played in a FPS. The game wasn't even full (20vs15 at most as attackers were leaving quite fast) and it was just us defenders sitting behind fortifications hammering the poor guys coming in front of us for instant death. Died and revived 3 or 4 times and ended with a 10/0 K/D. I'm really sorry for the guys attacking, they just had 0 chance to breakthrough (worse thing is that apparently it's even less possible on Hamada...). I will never play this mode again. It's grind without the crazy gunfights (which I enjoy when played for 1h here and there but not 24/7), just one team killing sitting ducks and it's 0 fun at all for both sides.
if they spent more than 2min and 1 map designer to rework both maps for this mode, and of course it took them much more than this, this was time spend for nothing and that should have been used to make something, or even anything, else. It's crazy to think that some people were assigned to this awfull mode (i can't even believe it went through internal testing as it's obviously one sided match 100% of the time) while they could have give an help on "real" maps.
this was the most borring thing I've certainly ever played in a FPS. The game wasn't even full (20vs15 at most as attackers were leaving quite fast) and it was just us defenders sitting behind fortifications hammering the poor guys coming in front of us for instant death. Died and revived 3 or 4 times and ended with a 10/0 K/D. I'm really sorry for the guys attacking, they just had 0 chance to breakthrough (worse thing is that apparently it's even less possible on Hamada...). I will never play this mode again. It's grind without the crazy gunfights (which I enjoy when played for 1h here and there but not 24/7), just one team killing sitting ducks and it's 0 fun at all for both sides.
if they spent more than 2min and 1 map designer to rework both maps for this mode, and of course it took them much more than this, this was time spend for nothing and that should have been used to make something, or even anything, else. It's crazy to think that some people were assigned to this awfull mode (i can't even believe it went through internal testing as it's obviously one sided match 100% of the time) while they could have give an help on "real" maps.
Yup, story of that shity ( imho obviously ) game mode. Did somethig like 5-6 round of it yesterday since my friend enjoyed us getting 20-40 k/d ratio either spamming explosives or camping with the MMG. Don't think we ever saw a full attacking team.... even for that 1 round we actually won as the attack ( defenders were probably really realllllllly bad players ).
I don't know, for game modes where odds are so stacked against one team, they should probably balance it by making uneven teams; like say make it 14 vs 18. Or give a ( far ? ) bigger respawn time to the defenders... things like that.
Most people won't play at a total disavantage just because it might feel good to win against the odds, bfV is far too casual for that expectation.
+1, I'm pretty sure that people enjoing this mode are leaving the game as soon as they see that they are attacking and just spam the servers waiting to be defenders so they can enjoy a nice K/D. Unfortunately for them, I'm pretty sure that very soon there won't be any attacker left and the mode will die before the end of the week.
Your idea about longer respawn speed, asymetric player count might give it a chance if they can do it in the coming 48h (there was also the idea to make the flags disappearing once captured which gives a better chance for the attackers to win a match); But knowing Dice this won't happen.
Your idea about longer respawn speed, asymetric player count might give it a chance if they can do it in the coming 48h (there was also the idea to make the flags disappearing once captured which gives a better chance for the attackers to win a match); But knowing Dice this won't happen.
Agreed. Squad Conquest or even a normal TDM are amazing on Hamada.
I'm a sucker for deserts in games so maybe i'm biased regarding Hamada.
For real, Hamada is one of my favorite maps. I think I like them all, but Twisted Steel and Arras are my less favorite. You are either on the central flag meat grinder or on a merry-go-round. Devastation is kind of like that but more infantry focused
So Fortress... yeah, I mean they make a new mode and even there we have few maps lol
Anyway, it's like a better grind mode, but not by much. It gets old fast
I really like Twisted Steel, but i agree with you on Arras. Conquest on Arras is really poor in my opinion. It is simply too small and so flat, just not epic enough. As a bomber i have to fly across the map at least once until i can finally drop a few bombs on the Battlefield. I really like it in other modes but Conquest on Arras is the only thing i genuinely dislike in BFV.
I would pay for a WW2 version of Silk Road, so I'm a sucker as well for desert maps :)
Yeah, Breakthrough, Rush or Frontlines on Arras are cool. I like that in Conquest you are pretty much never in a "base-rape" situtuation like in BF1 thanks to the design of the maps, but the merry-go-round on Arras isn't that good.
I'm like you both but with snow maps lol
By the way, any of you has performance issues on Fortress? Devastation doesn't run very well
Hamada is terrible because the A B D area and the E F G area are separated by a vast chasm and wide open bridge that no sane infantry should want to cross.
Back capping rarely happens because it's a giant chore to get to those places.
Back capping rarely happens because it's a giant chore to get to those places.
Squad Conquest on Hamada doesn't make GO/Conquest Hamada any good. Squad conquest took place on like 1/3 of the map: no super-ranges for snipers, no valleys, no planes. All the cancerous components of Hamada were neutralized in A B C Squad-Conquest layout.
The valleys are no good for the narrow turret ranges of the vehicles, no cover from the planes anywhere. The size of the map means that everybody will fight for the middle ignoring the castle, vehicles take forever to get to the center because they spawn in South Africa or something.
Perhaps a layout with the castle in the middle, multiple bridges connecting the cliffs leading to the castle. I don't know, FUCK THIS MAP.
The valleys are no good for the narrow turret ranges of the vehicles, no cover from the planes anywhere. The size of the map means that everybody will fight for the middle ignoring the castle, vehicles take forever to get to the center because they spawn in South Africa or something.
Perhaps a layout with the castle in the middle, multiple bridges connecting the cliffs leading to the castle. I don't know, FUCK THIS MAP.
Why using the bridge ? I often go straight from C to G using a car or halftrack through the direct left side road, then F->E if my team is stuck on B/D. Many people seem to forget about this route and focus on D.
I'm on X and didn't have any problem in the one and only match i played (and will ever play). You're on PC ? i saw many reports on reddit about framerate problems since the last patch (not only for Fortress mode).
People don't realise that it's not Conquest Assault any more and quit when it appears, so it can be even more unbalanced than the rest of the game. The actual map is quite good, although I'm not sure about some of the distances.
I think in general the vehicle spawning is a problem now and we need to go back to them spawning on captured flags. The vehicles getting stolen or mined thing was less of a problem than people wanting to be in a tank at the edge of the map all round at all costs that we have now.
I think in general the vehicle spawning is a problem now and we need to go back to them spawning on captured flags. The vehicles getting stolen or mined thing was less of a problem than people wanting to be in a tank at the edge of the map all round at all costs that we have now.
OP
OP
You can grab ammo and meds from players in the next update.
Medic and support players will not get points
Medic and support players will not get points
+1, hamada in conquest assault was awfull and it seems that Hamada Fortress is doing the exact same mistake (first flag to take on top af a hill too hard for attackers to breakthrough). Hamada as a normal conquest map is really good.
Using vehicles is catnip for the assaults and tanks on that map. It also is a giant flashing neon sign about what you're trying to do.
I find C is usually to lively a point to depart from.
They even added more vehicles. It's pretty much Caspian Border. Spawn, grab a vehicle, go to the other flags
Yeah, forgot to add that, I'm on PC. Devastation was one of the maps that run the best. Now I have dips into the 40s
The road from C to G is like a highway (with a car or any fast transport, not a Tiger of course...) with 99% chances that you won't find someone and nobody is really looking at it. G is the easiest flag to cap while everybody is fighting for D, taking G (and being able to push for E/F) can make nice come backs if your team is losing.
Arras is a weak map. I've been saying it since nearly launch. Fantastic conceptualisation ruined by awfully small size and intimate capture point density. If they took literally the exact same idea and just stretched out the spacing it'd be tenfold better.
Panzerstorm is still king.
Glad they're adding medic/support acting as interactive supply depots. Makes a lot of sense and will prevent the pain of screaming the need for ammo at oblivious support.
Panzerstorm is still king.
Glad they're adding medic/support acting as interactive supply depots. Makes a lot of sense and will prevent the pain of screaming the need for ammo at oblivious support.
Caspian Border had fucking trees for cover. And lots of buildings. And a giant fucking wall.
This shit is Golmud Railway. Or Giant's Shadow.
Edit:
Was just discussing this with a friend last night. The layout destroy any good flow for the map. E clogs up the map, partly because its the center, and partly because the church nearby is a good defensive position that encourages camping.
A and D are these remote caps. B is good and flows naturally to A & E. C & F are garbage caps where you're in an open field begging to get shot.
Take the road on the edge on the road that goes around A, B, D and under the bridge. It's almost impossible to get hit by a tank there since they can't aim under
You have cover thanks to the cliffs. Panzerstorm is way more open and more "Caspian Border-ish" anyway. Really, learning to navigate Hamada makes so much better
Agreed on Arras though
That's the chasm I'm talking about. You're sniper fodder running there.
I won't disagree that Panzerstorm is far more open (seriously, who even goes to A?) but I found the E > D > C chain is quite full of cover (Trees, ditches) and as long as you're not in a one-sided match, it makes the map play in an enjoyable manner.
But why run when you can ride a truck? Tanks won't touch you there unless you run right into one, but Tanks don't go under the bridge
Yeah, Panzerstorm has that trench between E to B, that is super fun as an infantry.
Hamada has a different layout where A is Brits' flag, C is Jerry's, and E-F-G are the ones that will mostrly decide the match
Mines and bad drivers. My survival instinct stays away from vehicles most of the time. Would be interesting if they added motorcycles, though.
Well that's problem with the conversion to regular conquest. The Enemy spawn should be near G so they can hold E-F-G, but instead its only really C. It's a giant pain in the ass for both teams to haul ass over to the more interesting bu less accessible E-F-G trio.
It certainly undermines the resupply crates greatly. You know what would be better? The old school AoE crates they eliminated to force people to use pouches because they suck and are tedious.
Regular Breakthrough is great. You probably played Breakthrough Fortress, the special variant this week, and it is not very good.
Agree in grenade cooking.
Don't know really if in reality grenade cooking is even a thing? Does anyone here have knowledge how grenades work in reality?
Okay, I'll take your advice and try the regular mode. I very rarely wander very far from conquest.
Yes, it's a thing in real life. Generally nades have a 5 second timer. You pull the pin, allow the lever to expand, and the timer starts. The longer you hold it, the more time runs off that timer before detonation, just don't hold it the full 5 seconds.
Personally, I prefer Breakthrough (was called Operations in BF1) over Conquest. The battleline is more defined, so you don't get surprised from behind as often as in Conquest. It also just feels a little more accurate to how real life battles work to me.
Ive only just started playing, is breakthrough suppose to be impossible to win ? Its just a constant stalemate. Came first both time but its just a killwavr
Regular Breakthrough or the special weekly variant called Breakthrough Fortress? Because I think Fortress is definitely more difficult for attackers. Regular Breakthrough depends somewhat on the map, and in large part on the team. Some maps are more difficult for attackers, but I've won on all of them with good teams. When my teams are bad, it can be a struggle to even capture the first sector sometimes.
Fortress is an interesting idea, but the execution has been bad.
If the attacking team starts by only pressing the flanking routes along the right side of the maps, it becomes a lot easier.
Most defenders stack the A point, so it doesn't work for attackers to just throw themselves at it. They have to take B and/or C, and then pinch A. If they lose one of the back points in doing that, they've at least pushed the front line forward and can more easily retake the other points.
Most defenders stack the A point, so it doesn't work for attackers to just throw themselves at it. They have to take B and/or C, and then pinch A. If they lose one of the back points in doing that, they've at least pushed the front line forward and can more easily retake the other points.
Yeah the breakthrough fortress. Its fun but the most ive ever got it 2 objectives
I think it would be alot better if once you get an objective, its yours. Theres too many players, chaos, and objectives with too few points to be able to take and hold all three simultaneously
- Status