Wonder from Down Under
- Oct 27, 2017
Other than when you start the game; they are pretty much only worth using on Panzerstorm, where even killing tank with jeep C4/TNT is efficient, at least when there isn't a bug making TNT do like 11 damage.The transport vehicles seem like deathtraps to me on most of the maps unfortunately. Roads are mined, off road has a big risk of getting stuck or going so slowly that you're fodder for tanks or assaults. The game badly needs jeeps or bikes that are a bit more lively off road, just without the freakish BF1 physics.
I bet whole "Pacific" thing wont deliver good in any way. DICE just keeps on fumbling the ball constantly with V.It seems like CoD is trying to take BF’s lunch this year. 20v20, vehicles, larger maps, and going back modern. It honestly looks like a CoD BF hybrid. It’s a good marketing plan; it’s the perfect year to do it with BF V being such a disappointment. The Pacific content definitely needs to deliver or I see BF V falling by the wayside until the next game in the series.
.... yes.23. In the past month, have you encountered any disruptive behavior while playing Battlefield V?
"Disruptive behavior” is any player behavior (intentional or unintentional) that harms the gameplay experience for you or other online players.
Examples can include, but are not limited to:
- Cheating or exploiting
- Being rude or acting out on other players
- Hate speech, discrimination, or harassment
- Not playing toward the objective or goal
why wouldnt it be disruptive?.... yes.
Interesting that not PTFOing is considered 'disruptive'.
I went hard for better in round and between round balance.
This survery is much more detailed and focused than the last one. it definitely seems like they are fishing for datapoints so that they can prioritize development. There are some really specific team balance questions in there, along with questions about new content.Do we ever get their feedback/reaction to those community survey ?
Finaly played Marita, could have been a okayish enough infantry map ( nice setting ) if it wasn't for the close to unavoidable choke point in the middle of the map. As is, I'd say it's worst than Fjell... I'd probably only rank Aerodrome as worst, and I'm not even sure of that.
People really like Mercury apparently. I think it's too prone to spawn camps.Hey folks,
We have a new Community Survey available for you here - https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/BFVAUG
This month we're inviting your feedback around your experience with Battlefields Maps, Game Modes, Changes that you'd like to see made to the game, and some insight from you on your experience with Toxicity in the community when playing, or engaging with Battlefield V.
Through the last month myself and Jeff have focused more on working with the team to help raise the issues that you've passed through to us vs. digging into your survey responses and sharing back with you on what we've heard. Usually we'd be doing that as we issue a new survey, and last month that didn't happen so let's fix that - here's what you told us through June and July:
Our biggest thanks otherwise for your continued engagement here on the boards and elsewhere across the Battlefield Community. We appreciate everyone who takes the time to share your thoughts with us, and we're as equally committed to restoring a healthier quality of experience, as we are to delivering new content.
- EA Plays announces improved your expectations for Battlefield V and demonstrated plenty of excitement from you all. The launch of 4.0 removed that good will, and we're making it a top priority to restore that trust. Please keep being honest with us about how you feel about BFV in it's present state.
- In June, your priority was new maps. In July, your priority switched to asking for improvements on the game and fixing bugs. We've made positive steps to addressing that with our hotfixes, with 4.2, and we intend to make more with 4.4.
- We're also reviewing the ways in which we help to keep you updated about our known issues to make the information both more readable and accessible. Presently you can track this information here on Reddit, but we'd like to change that and we're keen to hear more from you on the ways in which you feel we can best do that.
- This month we're also asking very specific questions that directly invite deeper feedback in the areas of New Content, Enhancements to the Experience, Additions to existing content, and Improvements to the game. Help us sharpen our focus by answering these questions.
- In June we asked you to rate the pacing of Gameplay - Too Slow vs Too Fast. It averaged out as right in the middle but with a standard deviation of 17.27 (from a scale of 100). We're ultimately happy that as an average we're in a good place, but we'd like to hear more from the people who voted at the extremes.- Which aspects feel too quick?- Which aspects feel too slow?
- Compared to when we last asked you about how you rate the current maps in game, we've seen little to no change. Arras is still the King, Mercury is close 2nd with Fjell and Hamada picking up the rear. Rotterdam, Devastation and Twisted Steel otherwise hold a tight grouping at the top half of the table, with Panzerstorm, Al Sundan, Narvik and Aerodrome holding the next closet group.Our focus right now is on delivering new maps, including getting the full experience of Al Sudan into your hands. Knowing how you feel about the existing maps certainly helps us when it comes to determining both the style of new content, and possible revisions we could make.
- In July we asked you about your favourite limited time Game Modes. Rush lead that charge ahead of Frontlines, with Fortress trailing in last. We're bringing back Fortress this month and we're making changes in order to address that. We'll talk more about this in a few weeks.
- We're pleased that the changes to Frontlines were well received last month. We're asking the same question in this months Survey to measure the impact of changes to both Frontlines and Rush, and we'll have a Focused Feedback thread for Rush when I've caught up with Kenturrac
- Finally you've told us that you're pleased with how much you hear from myself, Jeff, and some of our more specialised folks like DRUNKKZ3, Kenturac and Adriaan - but that you also want to hear more from the folks at the top.This month we'll start that process and connect you more regularly with Ryan McArthur, Lead Producer, so that we can address some of the bigger topics of conversation across the Community and help to set better expectations with you all around what we're prioritising in BFV
This months Survey - https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/BFVAUG
Thanks for keeping us honest.
Freeman // @PartWelsh
gotcha, i thought you were in disagreement. that being said, i dont think its something that can be fixed and not at all what dice should be focusing their very limited resources on
Yeah, I was more than a little surprised by the fact it asked about mid round ( and in between round ) team balancing.This survery is much more detailed and focused than the last one. it definitely seems like they are fishing for datapoints so that they can prioritize development. There are some really specific team balance questions in there, along with questions about new content.
I really agree with you. Battlefield Is about that mix.I don't agree that Panzerstorm is a bad infantry class map for Conquest which is why I continually cite it as one of the best in Battlefield V. I feel it works well for infantry precisely because DICE's change to the damage model plays far, far better with larger, paced encounters and attack/defence instead of minimal downtime between capture points. Almost all the infantry tactics and roles work just fine, because infantry is frequently spaced out enough that you're reliant on individual proximity medics/support for resupply, especially taking down armour. Arras is the exact opposite and why it's dogshit; it takes all of 10 seconds to move from one capture point to the other, the flow is broken, there's no spacing or encounter compartmentalising, and thus no highlighting of any class role or vehicle play. It's disposable chaos.
That's not to say I think bigger = better for Battlefield. I remember Battlefield 3 or 4 added what was then "the biggest conquest map in Battlefield history" with all vehicles and whatnot and it was dogshit. Size is not what I ask for. What I want is all facets of the core Battlefield design (infantry, armour, and air) operating together on a map where capturing and defending posts is the prime objective, capture points are spaced in such a way that they avoid claustrophobia and disposability, and the match feels like an organic sandbox of various battles going on at once.
Tighter conquest maps in Battlefield 1 worked fine because of the arcade, squishy nature of the damage and accuracy models. Spacing is still absolutely important but encounters are less frustrating due to the reliability on escaping damage and the fast respawns. Battlefield 1 is a quick game, snappy and explosive, and good pacing between capture points feels like a thunderous battle(s) moving around the map. Battlefield V's changes reward more paced play with exciting, deadly encounters that, once over, are rewarding for the victor as they have the advantage of time to capture a point. This is made redundant when infantry flow is so heavy that it's just a clusterfuck of explosions and gunfire all the time, with a damage model where players drop easily. DICE counteracted the poor capture point distribution in the alpha by putting a lot more pressure on attrition, making the moment-to-moment encounters more tense as ammo was actually something to consider. This nicely shifts infantry away from waves of chaos, as attention and patience are rewarded. DICE pandering to complaints and reducing attrition lead to what we got; Battlefield 1's disposable chaos wrapped in a game with more accurate guns that do more damage. It doesn't work.
As a side, I don't care that Battlefield explores other modes or that infantry is the heart of combat. I actually agree with that; if the infantry play doesn't work, nothing will. But Battlefield's identity is absolutely 100% to me the sandbox-like nature of maps that combine infantry, armour, and air in such a way that there's a quasi-strategy game element to the match flow and a sense of role playing to your classes' strength and weaknesses. Battlefield has and always will be, for me, at its absolute best when it accentuates these features and is designed from the ground up around the dance of Conquest. The moment DICE starts to backtrack and reduce the significance of this design template, usually by limiting the complexities of sandbox play, class roles, etc, is the moment Battlefield's identity dissipates and it starts to look and play like other shooters on the market.
I don't blame people for having different preferences though, because DICE has experimented with the franchise a lot of the years. Bad Company 2 is absolutely the tentpole splintering of the fanbase because it was a really, really good game that also reworked the Battlefield focus to heavily emphasis on infantry play and Rush. This has an appeal, and a market. And I get that, especially since Bad Company 2 was almost 10 years ago and fans of that game want a proper sequel. I just don't want mainline Battlefield to become Bad Company 3. It might be a great design template but no amount of arguing over how superior it is going to convince me, because it's fundamentally not the same. I've been playing Battlefield since 1942, and so the core identity of the mainline series is what I personally crave. The less Battlefield is like this, the more it spreads itself thin and detracts from the sandbox infantry/vehicle design, the less interested I am. And until there's a competitor willing to invest time and money in making essentially a Battlefield replacement that ticks all the boxes, I'm bloody stuck whining here about DICE's output :P.
EDIT: I'm so fucking sorry for this incoherent novel of a post hahaha.
Honestly improving the way the game communicates, encourages, and rewards playing the objective would be like....fucking godly for the franchise.
It has to be newness. I'm constantly seeing players not get as far as the first flags before they set up their sniping spot, people can't think that's good.Yeah, I was more than a little surprised by the fact it asked about mid round ( and in between round ) team balancing.
It boggle my mind that Mercury is so well liked. The elevation and lack of cover kills it for me, it's salvagable thought, which is one of the reason why I want current maps reworks just as much ad new maps.
Score is already overwhelmingly in favor of squad play. I can drag a 5 and 20 player into the top 5 if they just stick with my squad. Might be time to revisit hiding K/D until the end of the round.
I think it all comes down to not having resources and time to fully realize game before release. Them not having MTX to feed development ecosystem for months tells a lot about development of the BFV. It was shoved out of the door months too early and as result it's mess of half realized design ideas. Now they seem to be running skeleton support team so everything gets long time to be implemented and fixed.
No, simply no. The problems with UI/UX are the design decisions by the people who don't play the game. They tossed loadouts, made an absurd assignment system, nested 5 levels of menus inside My-Company, had squads locked by default, don't allow any customization from squad-respawn menu and more. The vehicle respawn system still confuses people because the vehicles take processing power, so they are hidden, but icon are on the map, yet when you respawn half of the time vehicles aren't there...I think it all comes down to not having resources and time to fully realize game before release. Them not having MTX to feed development ecosystem for months tells a lot about development of the BFV. It was shoved out of the door months too early and as result it's mess of half realized design ideas. Now they seem to be running skeleton support team so everything gets long time to be implemented and fixed.
This game has a lot more issue than just poor UI design and usability. This game has a lots of fundamental design decisions that are half baked and/or contradict with each other.No, simply no. The problems with UI/UX are the design decisions by the people who don't play the game. They tossed loadouts, made an absurd assignment system, nested 5 levels of menus inside My-Company, had squads locked by default, don't allow any customization from squad-respawn menu and more. The vehicle respawn system still confuses people because the vehicles take processing power, so they are hidden, but icon are on the map, yet when you respawn half of the time vehicles aren't there...
We lost so much speed and functionality between 4 -> 1 -> V.
The people designing UI/UX are not expert users, so they cannot acknowledge the problems. They don't understand how big of the problem picking assignments before the map is, completing those do 20 kills with a banana in one life tasks, how the players benefit from loadouts and why having more button/options on the same-screen is a benefit.
Hold out at least until Pacific drop. It should be all over big content and fix drop for the game.
Yes, I agree, but I was specifically naming UI/UX choices as intended design (as opposed to rushed/underdeveloped/experimental). BFV is a wild-wild west when it comes to gameplay ideas.
Once upon a time, Fairfight was actually decent and caught most obvious hackers. The spinbotting rage hacking type. Given that PC is the smallest platform and the percentage of cheaters is smaller still, DICE just hasn't prioritized it the same way as they have in the past. The one thing that chaps my ass beyond belief is that many hacks can spoof the server into thinking hard cover (walls that cannot be penetrated by normal players) don't exist, so hackers can shoot you through roads and cement walls. There's no excuse for leaving a gaping hole in your netcode like that.
dice were on vacation all of july. but it would be interesting to hear the honest opinion of dice BFV team on whether they feel EA is giving them adequate resources
I mean, realistically, what have they committed to? 3 unannounced maps plus some American gear/weapons. DICE can sit on weapons a long ass time, same as cosmetics. They can be worked on when resources are available.
I assume they are on the next Bad Company game and another Battlefront. They have to be spread pretty thin. Battlefront waits for nobody since it's a licensed game, other titles can at least slide to the end of the fiscal year.
I assume they know that and that datapoint is there to dunk on the people pushing it as a priority. The survey is basically set up as justification for team balance and map work. Two things I think we can all agree are priorities.
This is the guts of what I was getting at earlier. Discussion around the time it was announced aspects of the first alpha build imprinted an idea of a slower, more tactical Battlefield experience which retained the roots of the series but spaced out encounters accordingly and put greater emphasis on positioning, resource management, and coordinated attack/defence. What we ended up getting is stripped of a lot of the nuanced game systems that help encourage this style of play in favour of something still fast, chaotic, and readily disposable.
If the Germans hold C, they will randomly spawn just outside of E and F on the other side of the mountain from C. The reason given by the map designer on reddit was that this is so rounds don't get stale.