Battlefield V |OT| Band of Brothers and Sisters

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,788
Imho most of the problem with Panzerstorm comes from most players only playing it in the most.. boring and inefficient way possible.
Not that some additional cover, and the like couldn't be good, or the game inability to properly tell you if you will find a transport vehicule on a flag isn't a problem, no map is perfect and this one is no exception.
Going on the side to backcap is easy as hell, and take about 30 to 45 secondes in a transport vehicle depending on spawn/flag you aim for, it's also better rewarded than in other map imho, since people are very slow at seeing/reacting to what happen to their own flag outside of C/D/E./B, and a flag like A even reward you with an additional tank. You are also at that point in a perfect position to flank the tanks likely camping around E & D.
Seriously a squad capturing A as the allies, and if possible, keeping a spawn beacon in the surounding area to easily go back to that point, can almost single handedly win the game for it's team.
Sadly most players would rather snipe from the church than doing some pur objective play.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
286
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.
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,788
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.
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.
They really have numerous problem :
- to easy to loose control/get stuck
- you never really know if you will find one at the flag/spawn
- German/allies are unbalanced, german have better/faster transport option
- more importantly I think, there is almost no room to breath and allow vehicles to flank outside of infantry range, just look at how close to the flags the out of bound is on Arras between A & D or even C & F. Compare that to Capsian Border and how much room there was around the flag cluster in the middle.
Twisted steel has more room on the side... but you are funneled into the bridges on one side with a high risk of dying from AT mine, infantry or tanks.
Hamada is slightly better on one side ( but punished by the german tendency to have a tank parked at their spawn, with upper ground advantage ) and access to E/F/G by vehicule also favor german, who don't need to use D flag and the bridge death trap to get access to the fortress.
 

Ostron

Member
Mar 23, 2019
95
Are you talking jeeps or half-tracks? Because half-tracks are definitely useful on every map due to them being a spawn point and having a protected MG in seat 3.

The other... 3 kinds? Are just to be driven and dumped. There are only 3, right? Brits have the quicker "bike" and more protected armored car, krauts just the jeep? Or is the bike also for germans?

Also doesn't spawn points have a little car icon on them when there are transports availible?

I don't think I've ever had an issue finding a transport when I want one, but then again I don't have as much trouble in BFV as others do in general.
 
Last edited:

SG-17

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,534
Light transports are only good for jihad jeeps.

I enjoy the maps the most that provide a covered central area for infantry combat while having an open outer area where vehicles roam.
 

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,809
FIN
This new map, Marita, is fucking terrible.

How DICE made this and thought this plays well? Both in CQ and Breakthrough it plays like shit thanks to funnel design that greatly favors one side.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
286
It's another one where if you're team are more interested in their k/d than winning it can go wrong quickly.

I struggle to judge these maps properly, if there's the slightest opportunity to hang back and try to get easy kills, this population will take it and this does reward having a lie down with an MMG. I imagine the test environment at DICE is all aggressive with smoke covering squad mates and recons up front popping flares and dropping sneaky spawn beacons.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
5,077
San Diego
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.
 

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,809
FIN
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.
I bet whole "Pacific" thing wont deliver good in any way. DICE just keeps on fumbling the ball constantly with V.

Edit: They fucking brought back magic "One bullet kills you from 100% HP" bug. Balance been uncared about for months now, map design keeps fumbling etc.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,081
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

- Toxicity
.... yes.

Interesting that not PTFOing is considered 'disruptive'.


I went hard for better in round and between round balance.
 
Last edited:

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,788
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.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,081
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.
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.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,081
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:
  • 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
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.
This months Survey - https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/BFVAUG
Thanks for keeping us honest.
Freeman // @PartWelsh
People really like Mercury apparently. I think it's too prone to spawn camps.
 

icecold1983

Member
Nov 3, 2017
2,676
It is.

DICE's position to date has generally been "let people have fun their way" which is how you get six people sniping from the carrier deck on Noshahr.

Maybe they are slowly becoming aware of the impact stupid shit can often have on the game meta.
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
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,788
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.
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.
 

Serpens007

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,230
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.
I really agree with you. Battlefield Is about that mix.

Arras tries to have it, but it's too merry-go-roundy and has way too few tanks. But... It seems that people love it? What the fuck.

Hamada Is Great, people seems that hate it, but it's a Great map that allows actual strategies yo flourish.

Feels that with the results of the survey, the game Will be less and less for me.

I don't care that much about the pacific either. There are tons of games with americans military stuff, eastern front was much interesting. Oh well, i guess the game needs to sell More first.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,363
It is.

DICE's position to date has generally been "let people have fun their way" which is how you get six people sniping from the carrier deck on Noshahr.

Maybe they are slowly becoming aware of the impact stupid shit can often have on the game meta.
Honestly improving the way the game communicates, encourages, and rewards playing the objective would be like....fucking godly for the franchise.
 

Olengie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,114
Man, another week of cosmetics added in ToW. :T This week, next week, and then the week after. smh.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
286
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.
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.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,081
Honestly improving the way the game communicates, encourages, and rewards playing the objective would be like....fucking godly for the franchise.
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.

People are more hesitant than ever to move up. You'd think a lack of 3D spotting and weapons that are a little more gentle would encourage people to move into caps but it's the opposite. People just sit in cover and don't care about objectives. It's very common for my squad to be the only one moving from cap to cap, while the team has lost every other flag except for the one we were just at. I'll hit the M key and there's maybe 2 dozen people just sprinkled around cover but not actually on any caps.

It gets really bizarre when you see 20+ blueberries all around a cap but you still don't have it, even though there's no way the enemy has that many defending it. This happens a lot on the E cap on Mercury for the Allies. Any cap that offers significant cover outside the cap suffers from this. Same for B on Arras for the Germans.

I think some combination of 5 man squads, hidden KD, and increased scoring/awards for caps is a possible solution. I'd also consider making all squad leaders spawnable team wide as a wildcard. Lessen the impact of being in a bad squad that isn't playing together. Fuck it, what's the downside of making every player capable of being buddy revived?
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,921
Pressing f to all of this feedback that goes directly to dice trash folder. They have no plans to remove toxic assignments or voice coms. Dice staff are tired of reading thought the common sense feedback. If you sit as a gunner in a plane you are wasting your time. Game is not balanced with coop vehicles or gadgets in mind. I would even go as far as to suggest that the solo snipers, mgs, pilots and drivers is the intended design.

Hello alternative dimension where Cod is seen as salvation from bf. I would normally laugh at the idea of this but here we are, looking forward to more cod info and impressions.

Above and beyond the call
 

SG-17

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,534
I read somewhere that DICE leadership is totally inept, doesn't listen to their devs, and basically rules by decree. If they want something they get it, regardless of whether the devs think it's a good idea or not.
 

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,809
FIN
I don't get a lot things about this game. BF V is literally what not to do with your franchise.
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.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,921
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...

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.
 

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,809
FIN
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.
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.

Why MMG's are forced to use bipods for accurate ADS when LMG's serve 100% in same role and can be put into ADS any time? Same function with better accuracy, faster reloads and higher mobility. Some people use MMG's are poor mans shotguns by spraying from hip, but mostly they are gone because LMG fills same role and does it all better.

Why game has weight tiers for ground vehicles (wheeled / light tank / medium tank / heavy tank) with different calibers of main cannons as all matters is RPM you can fire? 88 mm cannon on Tiger 1 is as effective as 20 mm auto-cannon on four wheeled armored car, but 20 mm has DPS edge as it was higher RPM so Tiger 1 will die to it on direct 1 on 1. It makes no sense and throws out whole rock / paper / scissors design.

Airplanes are again detached from everything else, they just farm KDR by dropping mini-nukes on repeat. AA is extremely ineffective ( tank or MG42 or gun placement) so again, where is balancing?

Why infantry weapon balance clearly isn't cared about? AR's like STG's are so well rounded that they excel at all reasonable ranges. You can spray to DMR ranges as there is no recoil and bullet spread is too small. Their cure for Medic being not played was to give them low power carbines, lol? Medic is still very non-existing class as they just don't have well rounded range like all other classes. Hell they gave Recon those pistol carbines that excel from short to far range with ease where medics short carbines struggle at all ranges. From where these balance decisions come from?

Why there is just one syringe animation? There is no way to do safe under fire revives anymore. Have prone revive take longer, but at least give us option.

BFV was supposed to be slower and more tactical BF than previous ones. They even haD attrition. Then they removed for everything else, but ground vehicles.

Devs boasted about removing 3D, how now you need spot enemies with naked eye. Then proceeded to add multiple ways for doing persistent and constant 3D spotting for the team.

Etc.

There is so much things that just aren't consistent design or well thought out. Feels like there is two or three different project leaders and teams slapping shit in causing this chimera of function and design without cohesion.

Edit: Tides of War was supposed to be this epic journey through whole WW2 with constant content drops, very distinct rewards etc. I think they then ran into realization that they don't have resources for it and drastically scaled it back to be "Play mode X this week".
 
Last edited:

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,788
Judging by this page I'm guessing that now is not a good time to jump into this game.
Depend.
Technically there is finaly less game breaking bug in this patch than there was during the previous one. There is fun to be had for sure.

But holding out until Pacific release is obviously the best answer, since by that time the game should have both more more content, private server, a better progression system, and *hopefully* less bug and better balance.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,921
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.
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.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
286
The UI has to be some sort of internal build that they've slapped a coat of paint on and thrown out the door in a hurry. That big list of assignments to choose from can't be something anyone would design.
 

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,809
FIN
Just me or is there suddenly shit ton of low soldier rank players that do pinpoint accurate shots and bursts through smoke, foliage etc. never missing a shot?
 

Supercrap

Member
Oct 28, 2017
905
Oakland Bay Area
so is anyone using KB+M adaptors or controllers on console?

Been playing firestorm a bit and the same platoons keep winning, when u spectate its kinda obvious theyre not on controller. My friends and I have been considering getting something like the Hori Tactical Assault Commander Pro M2
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,081
Its always been like this. There is no external incentive not to cheat in this game
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.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
5,077
San Diego
Yeah, I had my fill of Marita, I'm done with it. The visibility is just too poor. It's ridiculous, I don't know what they were thinking. Let's pick the worst time of day and make everything the same color palette. The game already has visibility issues then you go and make a map that exacerbates it. Great decision.
 
Last edited:

ThisOne

Member
Oct 27, 2017
690
Am I the only one that gets the impression that there are only like 10-20 people working on this game still? Not sure why... Maybe it's the fact that critical bugs (invisible soldiers, etc.) take weeks (or longer) to fix.
 

icecold1983

Member
Nov 3, 2017
2,676
Am I the only one that gets the impression that there are only like 10-20 people working on this game still? Not sure why... Maybe it's the fact that critical bugs (invisible soldiers, etc.) take weeks (or longer) to fix.
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
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,081
Am I the only one that gets the impression that there are only like 10-20 people working on this game still? Not sure why... Maybe it's the fact that critical bugs (invisible soldiers, etc.) take weeks (or longer) to fix.
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.

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 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.

They should seriously consider buckling down, fixing this shit, and relaunching as BF 1945 for the new consoles. Hell, make it F2P with a shop full to the brim with cosmetics.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,064
Map quantity and quality as well as game health were my main concerns in the survey, was not pleased to see an option for more Elite skins as something the game "needs."
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,081
Map quantity and quality as well as game health were my main concerns in the survey, was not pleased to see an option for more Elite skins as something the game "needs."
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.

They can go to EA and say "less than 10% of players give a shit about elite skins, we need time and resources to do maps" for example.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,363
Already bored of Marita. Losing E and/or F as British just transforms the game into a downhill bloodbath. Partially because nobody seems to understand the concept of back capping.

BFV was supposed to be slower and more tactical BF than previous ones. They even haD attrition. Then they removed for everything else, but ground vehicles.
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.

Like I said before, the small maps and short distances between capture points, absolute negated impact of resource attrition, combined with extremely accurate, high damage weapons makes for a bland meatgrinder with no flow or pacing across maps. It's got some of the worst sense of successful capture progress and legitimate comebacks in the entire series. Despite all it's arcade nonsense and score changes, at least Battlefield 1 still captured this.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,081
Already bored of Marita. Losing E and/or F as British just transforms the game into a downhill bloodbath. Partially because nobody seems to understand the concept of back capping.
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.

They don't get stale, as you said. They just turn in to a faceroll.

I just trapped the Germans today too, can't imagine they had much fun. That's the danger of BC2 style 'crescent' maps where they aren't super wide and there are pretty well-defined lanes. It makes the combat in the pockets fun but the major drawback is the potential for a spawn camp.

Fjell has had this problem since launch and they haven't addressed it. There aren't enough distinct paths out of spawn so it's the most spawn camped map of BFV.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
5,077
San Diego
Former DICE Global Brand Manager



Hopefully they do step it up. If the next BF turns out like BF V, the series is probably going to be hurting bad.