Battlefield V |OT| Band of Brothers and Sisters

Oct 27, 2017
1,805
The Beta for 5 was legitimately the most fun I ever had with a Battlefield game and I thought that only relatively small improvements would be needed to elevate that game to best entry in the franchise. Didn't actually buy the final game in the end for reasons, but I sure as heck did not expect the game to turn out like this after that Beta. Bummer.


It was the most fun you had in BFV, and you didn't buy it? What reasons, the game was half-off in December. I thought that the game was broken in beta, and it was, but I said **** it, they have two months to fix it and then we will start getting French, Italian, Soviet armies. (I don't regret buying the game, because even the launch content for $30 was ok value)

Do people have any luck jumping out of the plane (not the airborne cargo plane)? Whenever I jump out, it is a crapshoot between:
• Jumping without velocity
• Jumping with the 100% velocity of the plane, literally flying across the map
• Masturbating in the cockpit
• Smashing into the ground like a sack of potatoes

If someone else is still flying the plane, by the time my model drops out of the darkness, the plane can easily be at half the altitude with no chance of deploying the parachute in time.
 

mullah88

Member
Oct 28, 2017
52
Man dice needs to have a 3rd person mode for the next battlefield game akin to what they did with battlefront 2 in particular. ADS goes to scope mode and not over the shoulder (only when a weapon is not equipped with a scope). Ability to prone and lean, grenade arcs. Just watching jackfrags video on battlefront 2 got me all sad that we don't have any decent 3rd person fast pace military shooter, the smooth movements of the character in bf2 is really good. Srry not the thread for it but I don't think I've made enough post to start a thread on the topic.

Lol then they can actually have player customization that makes sense, paying almost 10 bucks for a character you barely see is kinda bad
 

Zoidn

Member
Dec 23, 2018
226


It was the most fun you had in BFV, and you didn't buy it? What reasons, the game was half-off in December. I thought that the game was broken in beta, and it was, but I said **** it, they have two months to fix it and then we will start getting French, Italian, Soviet armies. (I don't regret buying the game, because even the launch content for $30 was ok value)
I was totally ready to drop money on the expensive Edition of the game actually but the game's release was shortly after I went to Dublin for 5 months and I only had access to a crappy MacBook and a crappy office PC during that time so BFV was kinda out of the picture for the time being. And then post-launch BFV happened.
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,628
I forgot to say that the last patch also added me to the list of player who suffer from very bad stuttering.

At some point I'd love to hear, even if it's in confidenciality to a journalist, what the hell is happening with the game, because from the different things we got to read from employee :
- it's not because of the number of people working on the game
- it's not because of frostbite

So we keep hearing how everything is fine, while the results clearly show us that it isn't... it's really infuriating.
 
OP
OP
iRAWRasaurus

iRAWRasaurus

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,959
Game is still playable..mostly. If anything wait till it’s cheaper and the bugs are fix.


Till the new bug occurs!
 

ThisOne

Member
Oct 27, 2017
669
It's funny because the game felt like it was in a good place right around e3. Bugs were minimal, bunch of new maps announced, etc. Then the patch right after that jacked things up.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,793
San Diego
Sure, the game is playable, but it's not enjoyable for me in its current state. Performance is a real problem from some players on PC. I don't know how many 1v1 fights I have lost because right when the engagement starts my frames just fucking tank and it throws off my aim.

The game is just so choppy. Constant fps changes that happen randomly. If there is a lot of shit going on, I can understand the frames fluctuating. However, nothing will be happening and I'll get random fps spikes.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,178
The game is plenty playable and enjoyable to me, it's just rough in so many areas and consistently under-supported either via performance/bug crunching patches and content that the longevity of the title is one steeped in frustration rather than a sense of progress and improvement. A lot of this would be more forgivable if it was par for course for Battlefield, or if they weren't game breaking bugs, or if it was still early days, but none of this is true and I think bleeding player retention (if that is the case) is to be expected when the game simply isn't doing enough to support the playerbase.

I mean, this is a game with a damage model I adore, looks/sounds gorgeous, generally feels nice to play, and is full of stuff like the removal of spotting that I feel are absolutely massive steps forward for the franchise. I even like that they went for the whole "unrepresented battles of WW2" rather than the staples, and inherently have no beef with Britain vs Germany coming at launch.

But this is the same game that had numerous medic/revive bugs plaguing the moment-to-moment experience at launch and beyond, fixed then reintroduced in patches. That still has some of the worst, clumsy, inconsistent bipod mechanisms in a game I've played and this isn't as bad as it was for months after launch. Engine performance still spotty in the most unusual ways, odd stuttering seemingly triggered by an otherwise broken assignment tracking system. Continuous issues with hitreg, audio, visuals, and other distractions that are at best an annoyance and at worst immersion and game system breaking. And now, like I've repeated, an ongoing bug where players are invisible.

And this doesn't explore the admittedly subjective, but nevertheless frustrating post launch support window. On paper the Tides of War concept as a free content delivery service sounded great. In practice the post launch content feels thin, stretched, and measurably nowhere near as consistent or impactful as the last three mainline game's support. Throw in stuff like DICE backpedaling on aspects of their original vision, including a patch that massively reworked the damage model and imbalanced the game further, and then backpedaled again to revert the obviously initially poor change and you've got a product that seems unusually unfocused, incoherent, and unsupported.

Like...I play Battlefield V almost every second day without fail. I still really like this game! I love the series and there's enough Battlefield in here for me to enjoy. Moreover, there's enough new stuff to the series and changes to the overarching vision that warrant praise. There's a great game buried in here. Or potential for a great game. It just never, ever comes to fruition in the way it should, and so much of the game's technical and presentation issues, and other design idiosyncrasies and issues, painfully hold it back.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,342
The Netherlands
It also doesn’t help that EA/DICE really don’t have any competition when it comes to grand scale FPS shooters.
Imagine if there was a somewhat decent, working-as-intended grand scale shooter from another developer....
 

Heromanz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,389
This broken ass game isn't playable, is unplayable unacceptable. If we got to lower our standards to play this game what's the point you know.
 

gl0w

Member
Mar 23, 2018
150
Feels like a skeleton crew is working on the game now, apart from cosmetics.
That's what pisses me off the most. They keep launching cosmetics and shit for get money from the players instead of focus on the cluster fuck the game is. this is unacceptable. And that why they will never get any $ from me.
 

dm101

Member
Nov 13, 2018
675
It also doesn’t help that EA/DICE really don’t have any competition when it comes to grand scale FPS shooters.
Imagine if there was a somewhat decent, working-as-intended grand scale shooter from another developer....
True. It would be nice to have an alternative. Cod just doesn't do it for me as the maps are too small.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,370
The game is plenty playable and enjoyable to me, it's just rough in so many areas and consistently under-supported either via performance/bug crunching patches and content that the longevity of the title is one steeped in frustration rather than a sense of progress and improvement. A lot of this would be more forgivable if it was par for course for Battlefield, or if they weren't game breaking bugs, or if it was still early days, but none of this is true and I think bleeding player retention (if that is the case) is to be expected when the game simply isn't doing enough to support the playerbase.

I mean, this is a game with a damage model I adore, looks/sounds gorgeous, generally feels nice to play, and is full of stuff like the removal of spotting that I feel are absolutely massive steps forward for the franchise. I even like that they went for the whole "unrepresented battles of WW2" rather than the staples, and inherently have no beef with Britain vs Germany coming at launch.

But this is the same game that had numerous medic/revive bugs plaguing the moment-to-moment experience at launch and beyond, fixed then reintroduced in patches. That still has some of the worst, clumsy, inconsistent bipod mechanisms in a game I've played and this isn't as bad as it was for months after launch. Engine performance still spotty in the most unusual ways, odd stuttering seemingly triggered by an otherwise broken assignment tracking system. Continuous issues with hitreg, audio, visuals, and other distractions that are at best an annoyance and at worst immersion and game system breaking. And now, like I've repeated, an ongoing bug where players are invisible.

And this doesn't explore the admittedly subjective, but nevertheless frustrating post launch support window. On paper the Tides of War concept as a free content delivery service sounded great. In practice the post launch content feels thin, stretched, and measurably nowhere near as consistent or impactful as the last three mainline game's support. Throw in stuff like DICE backpedaling on aspects of their original vision, including a patch that massively reworked the damage model and imbalanced the game further, and then backpedaled again to revert the obviously initially poor change and you've got a product that seems unusually unfocused, incoherent, and unsupported.

Like...I play Battlefield V almost every second day without fail. I still really like this game! I love the series and there's enough Battlefield in here for me to enjoy. Moreover, there's enough new stuff to the series and changes to the overarching vision that warrant praise. There's a great game buried in here. Or potential for a great game. It just never, ever comes to fruition in the way it should, and so much of the game's technical and presentation issues, and other design idiosyncrasies and issues, painfully hold it back.

100% agree. I'm having a pretty good time as someone who's had the game since launch but hasn't put a lot of hours in until recently. I really like how it feels to play it but there's always some bug or some weirdness trying to butt in on the good time. Like you said, there's quite a lot in here that I feel are great additions or changes for the series so I hope the baby doesn't go out with the bathwater when it comes time for the next game.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,178
It also doesn’t help that EA/DICE really don’t have any competition when it comes to grand scale FPS shooters.
Imagine if there was a somewhat decent, working-as-intended grand scale shooter from another developer....
Absolutely. Competition can be healthy, DICE has none. I think a lot of that though is due to Battlefield having such a stranglehold on the formula branding, and backed by a reputed, experienced developer alongside a publisher willing to throw hundreds of millions at production. That's a big hill to climb.

This broken ass game isn't playable, is unplayable unacceptable. If we got to lower our standards to play this game what's the point you know.
I don't think I'm lowering my standards though? The period where Australian servers in Battlefield 1 continuously ping spiked and crashed for like 2+ months straight is what I consider unplayable. Same goes for Battlefield 4 launching with half the maps literally unplayable. Unplayable to me is some game system, function, or technical oddity literally preventing the game from being played or seriously disrupting the flow of play. Battlefield V has a lot of issues, invisible players being the absolute worst. That is definitely unacceptable. But it's not unplayable.

PUBG Australian servers taking 30+ minutes to join, again for months, is also what I consider unplayable. I've played unplayable games. I've had games I love become unplayable. Everyone has their own standards, but this sure as shit isn't unplayable*.

*Except Firestorm. That is unplayable in Australia.

100% agree. I'm having a pretty good time as someone who's had the game since launch but hasn't put a lot of hours in until recently. I really like how it feels to play it but there's always some bug or some weirdness trying to butt in on the good time. Like you said, there's quite a lot in here that I feel are great additions or changes for the series so I hope the baby doesn't go out with the bathwater when it comes time for the next game.
That's my biggest concern. Like...the cynic in me says Battlefield V will never be fully fixed and up to scratch even when the ship has sailed and it's no longer supported. I'm pretty certain this will forever be remembered as a busted, mess of a project that never fully came together for reasons we may never truly know. Lessons to be learned moving forward, particularly on technical work and production pipeline. I just hope some of those lessons don't include dumb shit like "we should put spotting back".
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
5,213
It's sad to hear about the current state of the game. I got bored with daily play back when Firestorm launched and comments like I'm seeing here don't do anything to encourage me to return.

It's also sad that not only is there no excuse for such bugs etc., this is the first time they've not had Premium, so the dev team is saving a ton of time not creating 16+ new maps in 12-18 months. And yet they still have these quality control issues.

I suspected a while ago DICE may be in long-term trouble due to Epic and also their ex-GM both hiring nearby, both probably offering more exciting work and perhaps more money too.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,370
It's sad to hear about the current state of the game. I got bored with daily play back when Firestorm launched and comments like I'm seeing here don't do anything to encourage me to return.

It's also sad that not only is there no excuse for such bugs etc., this is the first time they've not had Premium, so the dev team is saving a ton of time not creating 16+ new maps in 12-18 months. And yet they still have these quality control issues.

I suspected a while ago DICE may be in long-term trouble due to Epic and also their ex-GM both hiring nearby, both probably offering more exciting work and perhaps more money too.
I think the overall issue is the time between releases is pretty small.

Battlefield 3 - 2011
Battlefield 4 - 2013
Battlefield 1 - 2016
Battlefield V - 2018

Three years has generally been a sweet spot from what I've seen. In the past they released Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, and then 2142 year after year but that's just not possible anymore. Two years is too short in my opinion.
 

SillyMikey

Member
Mar 29, 2019
227
I think the overall issue is the time between releases is pretty small.

Battlefield 3 - 2011
Battlefield 4 - 2013
Battlefield 1 - 2016
Battlefield V - 2018

Three years has generally been a sweet spot from what I've seen. In the past they released Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, and then 2142 year after year but that's just not possible anymore. Two years is too short in my opinion.
Add to that 2 battlefront games in between and its clearly too big a load for Dice to handle. The state of BFV confirms it.

But i will say, BF4 was also a broken mess for months so, this seems to be more of a Dice thing than a time thing.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
5,213
I think the overall issue is the time between releases is pretty small.

Battlefield 3 - 2011
Battlefield 4 - 2013
Battlefield 1 - 2016
Battlefield V - 2018

Three years has generally been a sweet spot from what I've seen. In the past they released Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, and then 2142 year after year but that's just not possible anymore. Two years is too short in my opinion.
Valid point. You may as well add in SWBF too since there are obvious similarities. EA wanted a game like this on an annual schedule from the start of this gen, and DICE can't keep up. OTOH, I'm sure DICE staffed up to help with this, and EA threw other studios in to handle DLC and Hardline.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,370
Add to that 2 battlefront games in between and its clearly too big a load for Dice to handle. The state of BFV confirms it.

But i will say, BF4 was also a broken mess for months so, this seems to be more of a Dice thing than a time thing.
Yeah and that's part of the pattern for me. Two years between 3 and 4 is not enough. Three years between 4 and 1 was pretty good. I think people had pretty positive experiences at least compared to 4 and V. Sure 1 had bugs and issues but I feel there's a general positive sentiment in that area compared to other recent games. Though I do think Battlefield V is a better playing game ignoring the issues.

Valid point. You may as well add in SWBF too since there are obvious similarities. EA wanted a game like this on an annual schedule from the start of this gen, and DICE can't keep up. OTOH, I'm sure DICE staffed up to help with this, and EA threw other studios in to handle DLC and Hardline.
Yeah I left out Battlefront I and II because I'm kind of assuming other teams work on those but still, I think it's too much for a single studio to release a project of this size and scope every year. Compare that to Call of Duty who release games annually but are supported by tons of studios. I'm trying not to make too many conclusions because I don't know the internal structure.

Like I said before, after years of gaming I've noticed three years being a pretty good spot for larger AAA games.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
5,213
Yeah I left out Battlefront I and II because I'm kind of assuming other teams work on those but still, I think it's too much for a single studio to release a project of this size and scope every year. Compare that to Call of Duty who release games annually but are supported by tons of studios. I'm trying not to make too many conclusions because I don't know the internal structure.

Like I said before, after years of gaming I've noticed three years being a pretty good spot for larger AAA games.
Agreed about 3 years. The way it works with 2 teams in a studio is if the next shipping game is falling behind schedule, which games invariably do, the easiest thing to do is grab staff from the game shipping in a future year. They're right there in the building, they know the tools and engine. You could hire contractors but that's costly and time consuming, and means some training and ramp-up time, while the staff sitting over there are seen as "free" since the studio is paying them anyway. That creates a debt in the later shipping game, which is hard to pay off, and you can see it as a gamer at launch. Also the higher level people at the studio may be split between two games instead of focusing on one.
 

JBucc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
177
It also doesn’t help that EA/DICE really don’t have any competition when it comes to grand scale FPS shooters.
Imagine if there was a somewhat decent, working-as-intended grand scale shooter from another developer....
I would love to see New World Interactive make a BF size game. Insurgency Sandstorm nails the gunplay, sound design, and tactical style of play, it just doesn't have the scale or destruction. That WW3 game has some neat ideas but it's even more of a buggy mess than BFV.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
256
BF4 was a disaster at launch, but it was a shiny and spectacular one. That constant crash on Dawnbreaker was the real issue and you could just skip it. BFV feels like a never ending list of new problems, some of which have been fixed before. The netcode being worse is hardly an accident as well.

I'd jump at a slower TTK and the return of spotting as well. They fixed the massive blob of players running around capping flags in BF1 by making most of them not move and not go near flags here.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,792
I'd jump at a slower TTK and the return of spotting as well. They fixed the massive blob of players running around capping flags in BF1 by making most of them not move and not go near flags here.
People still zerg. It's infuriating.

Fjell and Mercury need to be reworked so it's not so easy to pin a team in their spawn.

I'm a Battlefield vet, so I'll put up with 400+ ticket losses that are curb stomps, but they are way, way too frequent in BFV. Someone that has other, better options to play and isn't so attached to the franchise isn't going to put up with them.

The 'average' player responded to the removal of spotting and the cluttered maps by simply hiding in bushes and refusing to push objectives. The library on Devastation is probably the perfect microcosm of everything wrong with BFV, as an example.

Auto balance seems to barely be there, and there's no option to switch teams. Inexcusable.
 

Mr Eric

Member
Oct 28, 2017
350
with all the gloom here, on YT and on reddit I was really scared yesterday when firing up my xbox to play...

i was expecting crashes everywhere after reading all the recent problems on this platform. Amazingly I did'nt have any for the 6 or 7 matches I played, including Fjell and Rotterdam which should have been the main problems. Is it because I'm on a X or simply a lucky guy ?

i even had pretty enjoyable conquest matches...except the stutturing when you kill someone using a HMG in a tank, or the invisble players or some strange TTD (but just a few TBH) everything was (as) fine (as it could be right now). It seems that the palyer population changed a lot recently and that only veterans are still here, like it usualy happens after 12 or 18 months on any BF title, except that we are only 7 months after BFV launch...almost no MMG prone players, a lot of people PTFO, majority of the games were won or lost with less than 50 tickets left, no stupid campers hidding miles away from the flags.

Just one thing : I played a bit of recon just for the ToW assigments. this is a class I don't play usually, but I'm pretty sure that before the latest patch you could have a maximum of 3 flares, but now it's only 2. Am i wrong and it was always 2 ? Same thing for support and Piat, thought it was 2 max, but now it's 3 ?
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
256
with all the gloom here, on YT and on reddit I was really scared yesterday when firing up my xbox to play...

i was expecting crashes everywhere after reading all the recent problems on this platform. Amazingly I did'nt have any for the 6 or 7 matches I played, including Fjell and Rotterdam which should have been the main problems. Is it because I'm on a X or simply a lucky guy ?

i even had pretty enjoyable conquest matches...except the stutturing when you kill someone using a HMG in a tank, or the invisble players or some strange TTD (but just a few TBH) everything was (as) fine (as it could be right now). It seems that the palyer population changed a lot recently and that only veterans are still here, like it usualy happens after 12 or 18 months on any BF title, except that we are only 7 months after BFV launch...almost no MMG prone players, a lot of people PTFO, majority of the games were won or lost with less than 50 tickets left, no stupid campers hidding miles away from the flags.

Just one thing : I played a bit of recon just for the ToW assigments. this is a class I don't play usually, but I'm pretty sure that before the latest patch you could have a maximum of 3 flares, but now it's only 2. Am i wrong and it was always 2 ? Same thing for support and Piat, thought it was 2 max, but now it's 3 ?
It was if I started on Rotterdam that it was crashing, if it appears in the rotation there's no problem. It's avoidable if you know about it and use the server browser.

I think flares has always been start with one and carry two. Less sure about the PIAT.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,793
San Diego
Startup BF V.

Join a server.

The enemy team has all the flags.

Enemy team has 10 players all part of the same clan.

Quit server.

Join a different server.

Constantly get the icon for bad frames. I have everything on the lowest possible settings.

Alt+F4 because I can’t take the shit performance.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,792
Startup BF V.

Join a server.

The enemy team has all the flags.

Enemy team has 10 players all part of the same clan.

Quit server.

Join a different server.

Constantly get the icon for bad frames. I have everything on the lowest possible settings.

Alt+F4 because I can’t take the shit performance.
Someone recommended Intelligent Standby List Cleaner to me and that has fixed a lot of my performance issues. The game will still CTD every now and then, especially in the menus, but that's on DICE's end.

What chaps my ass about the experience with this game - apart from what you mentioned - is that basic shit like assignments are a.) broken and b.) a total chore. I hit level 20 with the support class and it took a full day for the backend servers to recognize that and award me the MG42. The assignments don't tell you you've completed them half the time, in game or end of round. Hell, sometimes you can even get your end of round report to show up! Just a fundamentally awful experience with the UI and the game itself. The definition of unforced errors.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,805
Startup BF V.

Join a server.

The enemy team has all the flags.

Enemy team has 10 players all part of the same clan.

Quit server.

Join a different server.

Constantly get the icon for bad frames. I have everything on the lowest possible settings.

Alt+F4 because I can’t take the shit performance.
Why are we still here?
Just to suffer?

If it wasn't for the weekly progression treadmill, I wouldn't play the game... Runescape has forged the wrong efficiency whore habbits in me: progressing imaginary XP bars... As soon as I get the new weapon: done for that week...
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,793
San Diego
I “fixed” my performance issues. So, the last couple of days my performance has been horrible, bordering on unplayable. I installed the list clear recommended by Avitus, however, it didn’t show any noticeable sign of improvement. However, I saw that it said I only had 16 GB of RAM available. I was like that can’t be right I know I have more. Then it dawned on me, I know what happened. A few days ago I cleaned my PC. I took everything apart, cleaned it, and reseated components. So, I must have not reseated something properly. So, I go and reseat my RAM. Now, I have 32 GB of RAM again and BF V is back to “normal”. I say "normal" because while the performance still isn’t great, it’s at least playable again.

That being said, why do I need 32 GB of RAM to have a playable experience when the recommended is 12? That just shows me there is something seriously wrong with this game.
 

OléGunner

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,905
So I jumped back into BF V again last night; first time since the dreaded new patch.
My experience was mildly buggy (PS4) and I had two notable frame freezes (assignment related?)

Biggest bug was my smoke launcher grenades when playing as medic would half the time not go off, like wtf?
Hit detection and TTD where you feel one shotted is still a problem too.

Otherwise I had decent fun playing again, but yeah it never feels like a polished MP experience.
Even in the menus the ''O'' icon is plastered over the word ''dismiss'' instead of next to it lol

Hopefully DICE can get their shit together quickly before I move on cuz I enjoy this game the most for multiplayer right now.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,793
San Diego
The new rifle is ok. It's like a Gewehr 43, but more accurate. Nothing too exciting.

All the new semi auto rifles have been slightly different version of previous ones.

Gewehr 43=Karabin 1938M
M1A1 Carbine=Ag/42
Turner SMLE=MAS 44

It's honestly boring.
 
Last edited:

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,628
Xbox Hotfix - 4.02

Our next update after tomorrow's Hotfix (4.2) is currently scheduled to release in late July, and will be available on all platforms.
Should I both take it as :
- we will still have both invisible player, performance issue, wrong damage number, etc.. for the next 2 weeks
- al sundan conquest is no longer delayed to mid july, now to end of july

If so, I have some kind of morbid fascination to how much of a shitshow that keeps on giving it is, all surrounded by some of the worst communication you could ever expect.
 

dm101

Member
Nov 13, 2018
675
Should I both take it as :
- we will still have both invisible player, performance issue, wrong damage number, etc.. for the next 2 weeks
- al sundan conquest is no longer delayed to mid july, now to end of july

If so, I have some kind of morbid fascination to how much of a shitshow that keeps on giving it is, all surrounded by some of the worst communication you could ever expect.
Yes, it's like watching a train crash in slow motion. Horrific yet fascinating.