Battlefield V |OT| Band of Brothers and Sisters

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,641
Yes, it's like watching a train crash in slow motion. Horrific yet fascinating.
On the bright side I give the opportunity for some fun bets.

Will Al Sundan be release before/at the same time/after Marita. Will Marita get delayed ? Will there be more fix than bugs in the next patch ? Will performance actually get even worst in that patch ?

Those are now all legitimate question where it feel like a 50/50% chance that any result could happen, it's almost exciting.
 

DodgeAnon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
310
I haven’t touched BFV since around when Firestorm came out and I’ve gone back to Battlefront 2 instead. It’s funny how it has a better sense of an actual battle/war taking place than BFV does.

Despite all the bugs and lack of content, I think the missing chaos factor is what I despise most from BFV. Every map feels bland and lifeless, guns and explosions don’t have the same visceral impact from previous BF titles and there’s generally zero atmosphere. BF1 was the absolute pinnacle in this regard imo.

I read on reddit once that BFV feels like a bunch of mercenaries running around than actual factions taking part in battles of a much larger war and it’s totally true.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,819
San Diego
That’s an issue with the game, it has an identity issue. Sure, it has weapons and vehicles from WW2, but it just doesn’t feel like it. I don’t blame the cosmetics or being able to create your own soldier. The huge issue is just the maps. You need iconic maps. The maps feel like you could throw them in any FPS and nobody would notice a difference.
 

DodgeAnon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
310
That’s an issue with the game, it has an identity issue. Sure, it has weapons and vehicles from WW2, but it just doesn’t feel like it. I don’t blame the cosmetics or being able to create your own soldier. The huge issue is just the maps. You need iconic maps. The maps feel like you could throw them in any FPS and nobody would notice a difference.
Yeah, totally. The cosmetics don’t exactly bother me (although they don’t particularly help, either I guess) but you’re right that the maps don’t have that same appeal from previous titles.

Panzerstorm comes somewhat close with its large scale layout and tons of vehicles, but that’s about it. The rest of them cater to close quarters gameplay.

Hopefully with the Pacific Theatre coming out it may bring back some of that identity, but we’ll see.
 

RNG

Member
Oct 25, 2017
473
Calm down guys, DICE is an indie dev studio running under the EA Originals banner.

Jokes aside, christ that reddit vid was bad, like, really REALLY bad. That's something you would see in an ALPHA, not 8 months after release lmao. They might as well bring back the giraffe neck bug to add into the mix.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,282
Complete speculation: I wonder if they're pulling even more resources off BFV to make sure that rumored BF:BC3 for next year doesn't arrive in a similar state. Because they're definitely backsliding on BFV and its inexplicable. They can't afford back-to-back disasters.
 

VaporSnake

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,627
I read on reddit once that BFV feels like a bunch of mercenaries running around than actual factions taking part in battles of a much larger war and it’s totally true.
That's every battlefield though? I liked the atmosphere of bf1 as well but never did it feel like "factions taking part in battles of a larger war" it felt like 64 chickens running around with their heads cut off sprinting around at preposterous speeds. The day I see battlefield players regularly staying to defend critical capture points rather than mindlessly sprinting towards the next objective I'll cede that it may finally feel like an proper back and forth battle, but until then we're stuck with Battlefield being Battlefield.

Also if you want a game that makes it actually feel like you are one soldier on a battlefield and not a superhuman Gi joe death machine, check out Squad, if you've never heard of it it started as a BF2 mod that ended up becoming it's own game, extremely similar to battlefield from a glance but what it brings to the table elevates it far beyond imo.

Really wish Dice would take note of some of its design choices, Snipers for instance are limited in squad, so they can remain overpowered like they should be, but you never have to worry about half your team being composed of snipers that refuse to play the objective.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,346
The Netherlands
Complete speculation: I wonder if they're pulling even more resources off BFV to make sure that rumored BF:BC3 for next year doesn't arrive in a similar state. Because they're definitely backsliding on BFV and its inexplicable. They can't afford back-to-back disasters.
EA needs to pull their head out of their ass and give Battlefield a breather for a couple of years.
If there’s one franchise that needs it, it’s this one.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,389
I had a lot of things to say but I think you guys get it. Their release schedule isn't sustainable. Every other series that comes out frequently has several other studios assisting. Ubisoft probably has like five hundred for Assassin's Creed. Call of Duty has the primary dev with three years plus numerous assisting studios like Beenox and Raven. Battlefield has, to my limited knowledge, DICE, DICE LA, and Criterion on a tighter schedule than the primary dev on Call of Duty.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,240
Just realized, doesn't the pacific theatre mean there will be no japanese or american tanks since it where all naval landing battles mostly?
 

DodgeAnon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
310
That's every battlefield though? I liked the atmosphere of bf1 as well but never did it feel like "factions taking part in battles of a larger war" it felt like 64 chickens running around with their heads cut off sprinting around at preposterous speeds. The day I see battlefield players regularly staying to defend critical capture points rather than mindlessly sprinting towards the next objective I'll cede that it may finally feel like an proper back and forth battle, but until then we're stuck with Battlefield being Battlefield.

Also if you want a game that makes it actually feel like you are one soldier on a battlefield and not a superhuman Gi joe death machine, check out Squad, if you've never heard of it it started as a BF2 mod that ended up becoming it's own game, extremely similar to battlefield from a glance but what it brings to the table elevates it far beyond imo.

Really wish Dice would take note of some of its design choices, Snipers for instance are limited in squad, so they can remain overpowered like they should be, but you never have to worry about half your team being composed of snipers that refuse to play the objective.
Well yeah I wasn't being quite as literal, but at least in BF1 each faction had their correct uniforms etc, which made for a more unified battle each round. Not forgetting things like terrain deformation which only added to the atmosphere. In BFV you have a mismatch of factions and uniforms.

And yeah, Squad is fantastic. There's been a lot of talk from streamers and content creators lately about how BF hasn't really expended on the formula and by now we should be having even larger scale battles ala Squad, and even Planetside.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,819
San Diego
Just realized, doesn't the pacific theatre mean there will be no japanese or american tanks since it where all naval landing battles mostly?
There were plenty of tanks used in the Pacific.


(Type 97 vs Sherman)

Type 95 Ha-Go was the most common. It did well in the Second Sino-Japanese war, but it was hopelessly out matched by the Sherman. Its small size made it more suitable for island combat.



Type 97 Chi-Ha was a medium tank. It fared well against light tanks like the M3 Stuart, but it still couldn't compete with a Sherman.





Type 3 Chi-Nu was a medium tank, but it was rare. Only about 150 were built. It could take on a Sherman because it had a 75mm. However, they never saw combat and were deployed solely on the home islands for defense.




What I assume DICE will do:

Light tank: Type 95 Ha-Go and M3 Stuart
Medium tank: Type 97 Chi-Ha and M4 Sherman
Heavy tank: Type 3 Chi-Nu and M26 Pershing (This one is up in the air, none of these tanks actually saw combat in the Pacific, but that never stopped DICE before).

or they could do

Light tank: Type 95 Ha-Go and M3 Stuart
Medium tank: Type 97 Chi-Ha and M24 Chaffee (technically a light tank, but for the purpose of the game classify it has medium)
Heavy tank: Type 3 Chi-Nu and M4 Sherman

Personally, I think the second option is more believable. The M26 Pershing was ridiculously strong compared to anything the Japanese had.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,817
There were plenty of tanks used in the Pacific.
We have the intel:

 

dm101

Member
Nov 13, 2018
676
Wow, just found some great matches for BF1! You all are right, it runs soooowell compared to BFV. I still am confused of how that's possible.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,819
San Diego
We have the intel:

Them using the Staghound again for the US makes sense for the light tank because it's already in the game. It's kind of a disappointment though. Also, I don't think the Staghound was ever used in the Pacific, but I could be wrong on that.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,817
Them using the Staghound again for the US makes sense for the light tank because it's already in the game. It's kind of a disappointment though. Also, I don't think the Staghound was ever used in the Pacific, but I could be wrong on that.
Should it matter? We are way too far from the "historical accuracy" for such details to matter. At this point, this is just WW2 skin on top of the military shooter. Recycling Sherman (like Panzer 4 or Valentine) for multiple configurations, reusing armored car - yes it makes sense... but I am still disappointed how we only have Panzer IV variants and Tiger variants for Germans... USA might get shafted even more with Sherman-only configurations.

I wish DICE never attempts "Best graphics" again, because it is bad both performance and content wise.

I don't think you will ever see Pershing, but hey, come play Coh2 and can play all the cool toys of WW2 in the best RTS game. At no point it will feel like a generic RTS with WW2 skin.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,819
San Diego
Should it matter? We are way too far from the "historical accuracy" for such details to matter. At this point, this is just WW2 skin on top of the military shooter. Recycling Sherman (like Panzer 4 or Valentine) for multiple configurations, reusing armored car - yes it makes sense... but I am still disappointed how we only have Panzer IV variants and Tiger variants for Germans... USA might get shafted even more with Sherman-only configurations.

I wish DICE never attempts "Best graphics" again, because it is bad both performance and content wise.

I don't think you will ever see Pershing, but hey, come play Coh2 and can play all the cool toys of WW2 in the best RTS game. At no point it will feel like a generic RTS with WW2 skin.
It should matter, but for BF V in its current state, it's a low priority. It's easier just to reuse something like a Staghound instead of creating a new vehicle; that way they can put their resources elsewhere. I mean they already had issues when players asked for the Ju-52 instead of Germans using a C-47. So if that is anything to go by, I'd say their resources are already limited.
 

Olengie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,020
Hate it when you get placed in a map with a handful of players and then it never seems to fill up. Like there is a soft cap or something

2nd time in a row. Smh
 
Last edited:

Vormund

Member
Oct 27, 2017
363
Why are we still here?
Just to suffer?
I played a bit when the Outpost mode was added, which I liked. But really, I'm not putting up with this shit. I hate this game... and I've been playing since BF1942.

But my group of friends have moved on to play Forza Horizon 4 of all games. :D (we initially played Div2 but kind of ran out of stuff to do funnily enough.)
 

pksu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
377
Finland
Something seems off in terms of performance (as it seems other people here noticed too). Maybe they changed something about streaming or whatever but the game keeps having constant slowdowns now.

Also fun to see how Origin still wants to download patches one-by-one and separately install them instead of what smarter systems like Steam does.
 
OP
OP
iRAWRasaurus

iRAWRasaurus

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,965
I am fine with alot of Sherman variants since there was alot of them. But US light tank, should be prob be M3 Stuart. And for heavy tank, the M26 Pershing whenever US has European maps. But at this rate and if the next BC3 does come out next fall, I am not expecting to see another addition faction like the Russians. Perhaps some maps here and there next year and then BFV support is dead when BC3 is out.

The game should have been delay. Theres alot of things DICE could have done with WW2 but sigh*. That dream is most likely dead. Maybe in another 5-10 years..
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,824
DICE needs more staff if they are going to do the live service thing. There's tons of potential to relaunch V as BF1945 with the pacific and eastern fronts. Push BC3/BF6 or whatever it will be called until it's absolutely polished up to a shine.

I suspect the demand of doing Battlefield, Battlefront, and future games in both series all at once is just too much for the time and resources they've been allotted.

Siege launched in a really bad way, but Ubisoft stuck with it. Now it's one of the biggest shooters out there. A WW2 Battlefield can do the same thing if they just commit to it.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,188
Sometimes I just don't understand how the hitreg, bullet spread, and ballistics work in this game. I was literally up against an opponent, as in right up against them, spamming fire with the new assault DMR from the hip. Highly inaccurate obviously, but the crosshair bloom still covered their body, because like I said I was right up against them. Physically touching them.

Every shot of the ten round magazine except one missed. I don't know where the bullets were going. And I have no feedback to understand what happened. I like the gun otherwise.

On another note, I was watching some old Battlefield 1 footage. I miss that game. I especially miss how on point the art direction, shading, colour grading, and tonal shifts based on weather conditions were. Battlefield V has some engine enhancements that Battlefield 1 had, but I really think the latter was a far more visually coherent and immersive game. Maybe to a detriment for players who didn't like the colour grading, but even the lighting looks a lot nicer. Battlefield V is weirdly...flat looking? Hard to explain, like the lighting isn't bringing out colours or any particularly coherent tone. Even when there's weather conditions they accompanying colour grading shift is significantly toned down, losing a lot of the visual impact from Battlefield 1. I remember that if it started raining on something like Grappa or Scar you'd get this super desaturated, dreary tone to the game, and then as the rain cleared and the sun came out all the colours would vibrantly pop. Lush greens, strong browns on bricks and stones, just like it does after actual rain on a sunny day. You really felt the tonal shift based on weather conditions.

Battlefield V is so dull and sterile in comparison. It's still a nice looking game, but man do I really feel Battlefield 1 is much stronger visually, even with Battlefield V's technical improvements. It's obviously not an engine issue, but a deliberate change. I wonder if it was made in part to appeal to people who hated the aggressive tonal shifts mid match in Battlefield 1, in addition to trying to steer away from a cliche "war aesthetic" much in the same way that they added female soldiers, assorted unconventional outfits and gear, and selected less familiar conflicts.

I also think the sound design was a lot stronger and punchier for most part in Battlefield 1. A lot of guns in Battlefield V sound weak, like...squishy to their gunfire? The Kar in particular is a big disappointment. Has little oomf.
 
Last edited:

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,819
San Diego
I am fine with alot of Sherman variants since there was alot of them. But US light tank, should be prob be M3 Stuart. And for heavy tank, the M26 Pershing whenever US has European maps. But at this rate and if the next BC3 does come out next fall, I am not expecting to see another addition faction like the Russians. Perhaps some maps here and there next year and then BFV support is dead when BC3 is out.

The game should have been delay. Theres alot of things DICE could have done with WW2 but sigh*. That dream is most likely dead. Maybe in another 5-10 years..
This is the issue I have with the game. EA isn't really known to support their games long term. They'll support it for a bit until the iteration in the series is released. It already seems like a majority of the support has already been pulled to work on BC3 or whatever is coming next year. If we were talking about companies like Blizzard or Ubisoft that actually support their games long term, I won't worry too much because I know they would fix it and it would have a nice long life. EA on the other hand is just like, well this game sucks, lets just milk as much microtransactions from it and move on to the next title.

I'm done with BF V for a bit. I'm downloading BF 2 (80gb yikes). I imagine it's a much better experience than BF V atm.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,817
This is the issue I have with the game. EA isn't really known to support their games long term. They'll support it for a bit until the iteration in the series is released. It already seems like a majority of the support has already been pulled to work on BC3 or whatever is coming next year. If we were talking about companies like Blizzard or Ubisoft that actually support their games long term, I won't worry too much because I know they would fix it and it would have a nice long life. EA on the other hand is just like, well this game sucks, lets just milk as much microtransactions from it and move on to the next title.

I'm done with BF V for a bit. I'm downloading BF 2 (80gb yikes). I imagine it's a much better experience than BF V atm.
On paper, even with the 6 month content gap, BFV support is kind of good: new maps, modes, weapons and cosmetics. Overwatch gets one map/hero every 4 months, BFV is supposed to smoke it with the current content schedule.

In reality, the game is in the worse shape than most Betas, so none of the new modes or cosmetics matter. 8 months later and we have issues that don't even happen in a fking COD beta: "Above and Beyond the Call"
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,819
San Diego
On paper, even with the 6 month content gap, BFV support is kind of good: new maps, modes, weapons and cosmetics. Overwatch gets one map/hero every 4 months, BFV is supposed to smoke it with the current content schedule.

In reality, the game is in the worse shape than most Betas, so none of the new modes or cosmetics matter. 8 months later and we have issues that don't even happen in a fking COD beta: "Above and Beyond the Call"
OW does it right. They built a competitive league from the ground up, it's one of the most viewed on Twitch. The updates are slow, but they ooze quality. They balance the game regularly, it runs well, they deal with cheaters, they have events (even though they are recycled), and etc. Everything is well thought out and planned. Sure, it takes them a while, but when they do put out something it's good. If it's not, it's generally fixed quickly.

In BF V, they release a patch and it just fucks more shit up. Then they take forever to fix it. For instance, we still have invisible soldier. In any other game this would have been hotfix in a matter of days. It just seems like there is no plan or cohesion, like they are just making shit up as they go and hoping it works. We still don't know much about the Pacific content and it's a few months away. The new progression system is supposed to be next month and we haven't heard anything about it since they announced it. I would be fine with them slowing down the updates and adding a CTE if it helped with the quality of the updates.
 
Last edited:

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
256
For all the talk about two different teams working on Battlefield and Battlefront, it does feel like they've stretched themselves far too thin. That article about Anthem did suggest that it's the games that make money that get priority, so I wonder how many people at DICE are actually focused on FIFA rather than BF or even helping any other EA studio using Frostbite.

The problem going forward as a live service is that it's hard to see where the money comes from. They've pushed cosmetics hard in a game where I get the idea most of the population don't really care about them. Not being able to mix and match outfits makes the Elites pretty poor as well.

It feels like we might be getting close to the TOW chapters being harder to complete without paying for a boost, but that's only fairly dull cosmetics so far. They probably need people to pay to unlock weapons, but don't have nearly enough goodwill to get away with it.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,819
San Diego
I hopped between BF V and BF 2 tonight and there is a world of difference between the two. BF 2 runs well, the servers are decent, and I'm not getting frustrating deaths. Maybe I'm just in the honeymoon phase, but it was considerably more enjoyable than BF V. I will say there are somethings I don't like such as the lack of destruction and it seems to come down to hero wars. Overall, it feels like something you play occasionally and not something to put a lot of hours into.

That being said, I don't feel it's fair to compare the two games. BF 2 released a year earlier and you can tell it's for a broader audience with it being Star Wars and all. They had more time to polish it compared to BF V. BF V also seems to be the more ambitious project. As much as BF V frustrates me, I can't help but give DICE more chances than they deserve. That game is solid, fun, and I want to play more. However, it's all these little things that culminate into bigger problems and it makes for a frustrating experience. BF V reminds me of a really nice car that is covered in mud. Once you clean it up, it is fantastic.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,389
EA's whole problem is that they don't stick with their games. If you want people to have faith in your game, you also have to have faith in it through the highs and lows. People will respond to that with their money. It's what worked for Siege, it's not some unknowable magic.

We can't just end this game without Stalingrad or Normandy or Wake Island. It just can't be allowed to happen.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,824
Am I crazy or is there almost no autobalance? It seems like squads generally stay on the same team unless a massive amount of people quit at the end of the round. This makes zero sense in conquest because you're not actually taking turns or anything of the sort. It's not uncommon to join a server and lose 4 out of 4 or more because the core of the 'good team' just keeps romping.

That's before you get to obvious spin botters and clans stacking multiple squads on the same team on PC.

A 400+ ticket loss is an absolutely miserable experience and has cost this game more players than the lack of content IMO
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,641
Am I crazy or is there almost no autobalance? It seems like squads generally stay on the same team unless a massive amount of people quit at the end of the round. This makes zero sense in conquest because you're not actually taking turns or anything of the sort. It's not uncommon to join a server and lose 4 out of 4 or more because the core of the 'good team' just keeps romping.

That's before you get to obvious spin botters and clans stacking multiple squads on the same team on PC.

A 400+ ticket loss is an absolutely miserable experience and has cost this game more players than the lack of content IMO
This is sadly why many of us simply decide to leave for another server as soon as we see a 150-200 ticket difference between team.

On another note, the air & AA balance of the game is so shit that I find hard to even use the word balance to describe it in any way, shape or form.
 

Serpens007

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,085
Am I crazy or is there almost no autobalance? It seems like squads generally stay on the same team unless a massive amount of people quit at the end of the round. This makes zero sense in conquest because you're not actually taking turns or anything of the sort. It's not uncommon to join a server and lose 4 out of 4 or more because the core of the 'good team' just keeps romping.

That's before you get to obvious spin botters and clans stacking multiple squads on the same team on PC.

A 400+ ticket loss is an absolutely miserable experience and has cost this game more players than the lack of content IMO
You are not, it's one of the biggest problems this game has. It's worse in region with less players where you only have a handful of servers to join in.

For example, last night, LatAm on PC, we have like 14 servers running. Cool, but most of them are full. So you get into those with room, but why do they have room? Because one team is several players of the same clan, working together o it's a clusterfuck for everyone else. But you have the option of: a) being obliterated, b) play with lag. Choose your poison.

I haven't been able to win 3 matches because of this.

Hey, at least Rush is coming back this week
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,824
For example, last night, LatAm on PC, we have like 14 servers running. Cool, but most of them are full. So you get into those with room, but why do they have room? Because one team is several players of the same clan, working together o it's a clusterfuck for everyone else. But you have the option of: a) being obliterated, b) play with lag. Choose your poison.
777 and Gen do this a lot on west coast servers. If you call them out on it they'll just say "get gud" and other such nonsense, even if you are tops on the other team. I don't know what they get out of 5 minute 500+ ticket wins. It has to get boring. But you gotta protect your stats or some such nonsense. They refuse to play against each other. Some of them have an 85%+ WR because they exclusively play in full 4 man squads, often in conjunction with other full stacks.

Good community servers would solve this problem by using third-party auto balance or by simply banning clans that do this. When you have a transient server base with no admins it's not surprising when people a.) act like total shitheads, to the detriment of the game and b.) cheating is rampant. The larger the player count, the more important it is to have tools to balance and regulate them.

Like how hard would it be to switch the best squad to the losing team, and then seed the rest of the squads in an alternating pattern? If a game was 50 tickets or less difference then the balance doesn't even necessarily need to kick in. Even in turn based modes like Operations players want a fun, close round more than they want a complete disassembling of the other team.

A lot of the time the misery snowballs to the point where the opposing team consists half of players that are still loading in. I looked one time and it was essentially 10 v 32, the players after our 10th best had almost no score and had loaded in after a player had quit. I don't know if DICE has ever responded to any of this but it's disgraceful and a far cry from previous Battlefield titles.
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,641
We're not getting Al Sundan Conquest this month, are we?
Based on this :
Our next update after tomorrow's Hotfix (4.2) is currently scheduled to release in late July, and will be available on all platforms.
The best we can hope is that in 2 weeks when we finaly get a proper patch which hopefully will ix the invisible bug ( 4 weeks with that bug at that point, Dice outdid themselves ), we will also get the now further delayed Al Sundan ( mid July lol ). Keeping in mind that Marita is also supposed to be released in July.

Bets are open on how many things from the E3 roadmap will see delay and bug fuck up, who know they might be unable to release neither Marita and Al Sundan in July.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
4,819
San Diego
Gen is ok, but 777 is annoying. One game was like 20v20 and the other team had 10 777 members on it. Some people would called them out and all they would do is mock them. They constantly have multiple squads on the same team. It has nothing to do with being or getting good. Everyone does immensely better when you are part of a competent squad. Once is a while you'll see them not playing with their clan and they do horribly, who would have guessed.

I have no issues with people wanting to play with their friends or clan. My issue is when they all stack the same team. Furthermore, it gives them an extremely unfair communication advantage. They are all going to be in the same discord, so they can easily communication with members on other squads. BF V is already limited in the ways you can communicate and interact with players not on your squad.
 
Last edited:

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,824
Gave feedback on the July survey that Fjell and Mercury desperately need to be reworked or have extra spawns added so it's not so easy to get pinned and trounced. I see it 9 out of 10 times on Fjell. It also doesn't make sense for there to be as many planes on that map as there are, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Hamada is the best map in the game because it has offset spawns, so it's very hard to pin a team. It has two separate arenas (across the bridge from one another) that act as little 3 flag areas. It's hard to control all of them all the time. Such a great map. Not perfect, but easily the best conquest map IMO. Rotterdam and Narvik are also excellent, although C on Rotterdam has a little too much bullshit going on for the average random player to handle in terms of hiding spots/angles.

Arras is a good example of bad spawn design. The allies can walk right up to their natural cap in almost full cover, but the Axis have to go up and over a hill to get to B, with little cover between them and the flag. Leads to half the team usually sniping from the ridgeline if the allies take B. Players are dumb, you have to account for that behavior in the map design. If you moved the spawn more towards A I think that would create more interesting running battles, or move the allied spawn to the F field.

I miss when maps were designed almost entirely with a specific mode in mind like BC2 and BF3. BF4 onward they really got away from that philosophy and the map balance suffered as a result.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
256
Gave feedback on the July survey that Fjell and Mercury desperately need to be reworked or have extra spawns added so it's not so easy to get pinned and trounced. I see it 9 out of 10 times on Fjell. It also doesn't make sense for there to be as many planes on that map as there are, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Hamada is the best map in the game because it has offset spawns, so it's very hard to pin a team. It has two separate arenas (across the bridge from one another) that act as little 3 flag areas. It's hard to control all of them all the time. Such a great map. Not perfect, but easily the best conquest map IMO. Rotterdam and Narvik are also excellent, although C on Rotterdam has a little too much bullshit going on for the average random player to handle in terms of hiding spots/angles.

Arras is a good example of bad spawn design. The allies can walk right up to their natural cap in almost full cover, but the Axis have to go up and over a hill to get to B, with little cover between them and the flag. Leads to half the team usually sniping from the ridgeline if the allies take B. Players are dumb, you have to account for that behavior in the map design. If you moved the spawn more towards A I think that would create more interesting running battles, or move the allied spawn to the F field.

I miss when maps were designed almost entirely with a specific mode in mind like BC2 and BF3. BF4 onward they really got away from that philosophy and the map balance suffered as a result.
It doesn't even need the allies to take B on Arras for players to set up their sniper spot or sit in a tank, I've seen players stop there at the start of the game. I'm assuming these elevated areas between spawns and flags are a consequence of the other modes, but they need to be much more careful to avoid it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,817
Al Sudan - promised in June, doubt it will be delivered in July. The skeletal crew cannot work on fixing their own mistakes and new content at the same time. Cannot wait for another DICE poll asking players if they want invisible soldiers fixed or Al Sudan.

As more and more players leave this game, the matches are even less balanced to the point where no recent games of mine are anywhere close. It is just draining the enemies for 300 respawns, or punching an objective after objective in Breakthrough.

This concept of balanced teams is something DICE needs to research and analyze.
 
OP
OP
iRAWRasaurus

iRAWRasaurus

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,965
Yeah theres def a lack of players. I get put in matches with no one in the game.

edit: gonna try to find a breakthrough match one more time before i turn the game off.

edit 2: lol i just got put back in the same server I left..
 

Ostron

Member
Mar 23, 2019
77
On another note, I was watching some old Battlefield 1 footage. I miss that game. I especially miss how on point the art direction, shading, colour grading, and tonal shifts based on weather conditions were. Battlefield V has some engine enhancements that Battlefield 1 had, but I really think the latter was a far more visually coherent and immersive game. Maybe to a detriment for players who didn't like the colour grading, but even the lighting looks a lot nicer. Battlefield V is weirdly...flat looking? Hard to explain, like the lighting isn't bringing out colours or any particularly coherent tone. Even when there's weather conditions they accompanying colour grading shift is significantly toned down, losing a lot of the visual impact from Battlefield 1. I remember that if it started raining on something like Grappa or Scar you'd get this super desaturated, dreary tone to the game, and then as the rain cleared and the sun came out all the colours would vibrantly pop. Lush greens, strong browns on bricks and stones, just like it does after actual rain on a sunny day. You really felt the tonal shift based on weather conditions.

Battlefield V is so dull and sterile in comparison. It's still a nice looking game, but man do I really feel Battlefield 1 is much stronger visually, even with Battlefield V's technical improvements. It's obviously not an engine issue, but a deliberate change.
I agree with BFV looking flat, not necessarily worse than BF1. You're playing on PC, right? I find that HDR improves the overall image a lot, but unfortunately Shadowplay is limited to SDR and that is a dealbreaker.
Am I crazy or is there almost no autobalance? It seems like squads generally stay on the same team unless a massive amount of people quit at the end of the round. This makes zero sense in conquest because you're not actually taking turns or anything of the sort. It's not uncommon to join a server and lose 4 out of 4 or more because the core of the 'good team' just keeps romping.
777 and Gen do this a lot on west coast servers. If you call them out on it they'll just say "get gud" and other such nonsense, even if you are tops on the other team. I don't know what they get out of 5 minute 500+ ticket wins. It has to get boring. But you gotta protect your stats or some such nonsense. They refuse to play against each other. Some of them have an 85%+ WR because they exclusively play in full 4 man squads, often in conjunction with other full stacks.

Good community servers would solve this problem by using third-party auto balance or by simply banning clans that do this. When you have a transient server base with no admins it's not surprising when people a.) act like total shitheads, to the detriment of the game and b.) cheating is rampant. The larger the player count, the more important it is to have tools to balance and regulate them.

Like how hard would it be to switch the best squad to the losing team, and then seed the rest of the squads in an alternating pattern? If a game was 50 tickets or less difference then the balance doesn't even necessarily need to kick in. Even in turn based modes like Operations players want a fun, close round more than they want a complete disassembling of the other team.

A lot of the time the misery snowballs to the point where the opposing team consists half of players that are still loading in. I looked one time and it was essentially 10 v 32, the players after our 10th best had almost no score and had loaded in after a player had quit. I don't know if DICE has ever responded to any of this but it's disgraceful and a far cry from previous Battlefield titles.
Matchmaking is just awful and doesn't seem to take K/D or skill level (as well as how much you move!) into consideration at all when putting players together, or they're deliberately mixing players of different skill in a bad way. Usually games have 1 or 2 competent squads per side and you have a decent game. Even a great loss can be fun when you have a good squad on your own. However below those two squads on the scoreboard are about 16 players with neutral or negative K/D (in BFV where there are more total kills than deaths because of revives) . A player with 40/12 should never be put in the same game as a 4/12, no amount of auto-balance will cover that gap. A bad player can do a lot of damage if they take up a tank or get someone killed when being revived only to die again. K/D is of course only a valuable metric up to a point where everyone is really good in a game and teamplay starts to determine if you have opportunities to get kills, but BFV is nowhere near that level of matchmaking. Those really bad players should be protected from good players by only being put against each other. Guaranteeing a few competent players in each squad would go a long way to make matches more enjoyable, even losses. When I stay in a losing game with a good squad I will usually see how the balance gradually kicks in as stomped players leave my team and randomly get replaced with better players. Though by then enough time has passed for the good players on the opposite team to naturally leave and it's a stomp in the other direction. That said I am pleased with the amount of games that come down to double digits for both teams, but balance still feels completely random.

I don't think I've ever come across a stack of more than, at most, two squads in europe. But I suppose the game is bigger here, especially on PC as it tends to be.
Gave feedback on the July survey that Fjell and Mercury desperately need to be reworked or have extra spawns added so it's not so easy to get pinned and trounced. I see it 9 out of 10 times on Fjell. It also doesn't make sense for there to be as many planes on that map as there are, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Hamada is the best map in the game because it has offset spawns, so it's very hard to pin a team. It has two separate arenas (across the bridge from one another) that act as little 3 flag areas. It's hard to control all of them all the time. Such a great map. Not perfect, but easily the best conquest map IMO. Rotterdam and Narvik are also excellent, although C on Rotterdam has a little too much bullshit going on for the average random player to handle in terms of hiding spots/angles.

Arras is a good example of bad spawn design. The allies can walk right up to their natural cap in almost full cover, but the Axis have to go up and over a hill to get to B, with little cover between them and the flag. Leads to half the team usually sniping from the ridgeline if the allies take B. Players are dumb, you have to account for that behavior in the map design. If you moved the spawn more towards A I think that would create more interesting running battles, or move the allied spawn to the F field.

I miss when maps were designed almost entirely with a specific mode in mind like BC2 and BF3. BF4 onward they really got away from that philosophy and the map balance suffered as a result.
Never seen anyone call Narvik excellent before! :) While I don't agree with that pick, I agree about Hamada and I think it's come around to being one of my favorite maps. Hamada lacks brush for the most part so you don't get many confusing deaths through trees and grass, and it compensates for this with good elevation and really varied points to keep it fresh. Sniping feels balanced. Compared to Aerodrome and Narvik, Hamada demonstrates how you can have elevation on a flat map without it becoming frustrating. On Narvik it feels like you have to choose between narrow straight hallways with plenty of LoS on you (bridge and valley) or the cramped cluttered mess of the demolished town.

I very rarely come across spawn shutdowns when playing, though I think that comes down to a lack of map knowledge for most players. It would be nice if we could have some data regarding win/loss ratios for axis and allies.
 

gl0w

Member
Mar 23, 2018
150
I feed sad for not having any motivation to start up the game for days. I used to play hundreds of hours of battlefield games in the past, and now i'm just switching my time to other games.
I don't feel sad for dice, they deserve it. That's what happen when you make bad decisions since the beginning. We already pass the redline, they will not be able to fix the game, and even if they fix a lot, it will be to late, meanwhile there is other games being release that easily can replace bfv.

PS: i agree a lot with who said that BF1 was a better game overwall, it was. the sense of war was much, much better.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,817
PS: i agree a lot with who said that BF1 was a better game overwall, it was. the sense of war was much, much better.
I even like Behemoths and Elite Kits... Multi-crew tanks were super fun, horses were fun. Infantry weapons worked against planes to repel them. Two supports focusing on a plane could kill it in the Monte Grappa. Sure the UI was a bit shit, but at least we had loadouts...

And it isn't that BF1 was a perfect game, it just had the normal levels of polish and new maps to play with. Visuals for 2016 were definitely the best, so BFV having little to no improvement in 2018-2019 is kind of AAA average.
 

dm101

Member
Nov 13, 2018
676
I feed sad for not having any motivation to start up the game for days. I used to play hundreds of hours of battlefield games in the past, and now i'm just switching my time to other games.
I don't feel sad for dice, they deserve it. That's what happen when you make bad decisions since the beginning. We already pass the redline, they will not be able to fix the game, and even if they fix a lot, it will be to late, meanwhile there is other games being release that easily can replace bfv.

PS: i agree a lot with who said that BF1 was a better game overwall, it was. the sense of war was much, much better.
Yeah I'm really enjoying my time with BF1 again.