Battlefield V |OT| Band of Brothers and Sisters

OP
OP
iRAWRasaurus

iRAWRasaurus

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,067
Same here, hopefully it's good. Only thing Battlefield has got going are better graphics and destruction at this point.
Vehicles also. MW has limited vehicles and only two driveable vehicles from what I saw, the Bradley and ATV. Also the bradley and other vehicles are locked behind killstreaks. I felt driving around in the bradley was rough due to the cluster roads and prob get killed in it pretty fast.

But thats just what I am assuming from the videos I saw. Playing could be different.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
289
I’ve had that happen to me before but I couldn’t move around like that

Also Marita is fun y’all are crazy
I appreciate the work they've put into it, there's so many lines of sight and so many of them can be affected by the fortifications. I think it might be a really good map once people get used to it, but at the moment a lot of players just want to hide in a bush and hope someone runs in front of them.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,091
I appreciate the work they've put into it, there's so many lines of sight and so many of them can be affected by the fortifications. I think it might be a really good map once people get used to it, but at the moment a lot of players just want to hide in a bush and hope someone runs in front of them.
They should delete 75% of the foliage. Replace it with craters if you must. Also get rid of all the wooden fences around yards.

Because of all the elevation changes, there are a dozen ridges that are natural defensive positions that players can easily headglitch over. That's more than enough.
 

Serpens007

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,237
Marita isn't that bad, but it can go horrible when the matches aren't balanced. Which this game doesn't have so... you never know if you are really going to have fun.
 

Supercrap

Member
Oct 28, 2017
906
Oakland Bay Area
They should delete 75% of the foliage. Replace it with craters if you must. Also get rid of all the wooden fences around yards.

Because of all the elevation changes, there are a dozen ridges that are natural defensive positions that players can easily headglitch over. That's more than enough.
If they had old school spotting and parachute drops then it would open up some of the game more
 

Serpens007

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,237
By the way. Breaktrough on Marita has a major flaw in the attackers. In the first sector, there is no ressuply stations. The map shows that there are, but they are out of the play zone and they aten'r even where the map shows. It's not indispensable to conquer that first sector, but it sure doesn't help when the team is mowed by snipers/MMGs and you have effectively no way of counter by spamming flares in an efficient way, or mortar your way there with the PIAT. Not even with crates from players (which, also, they rarely do)

You don't want that kind of support. It sucks.
Maybe EA's making us starve for support so they can give Activision's like and people will accept it lol
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
289
By the way. Breaktrough on Marita has a major flaw in the attackers. In the first sector, there is no ressuply stations. The map shows that there are, but they are out of the play zone and they aten'r even where the map shows. It's not indispensable to conquer that first sector, but it sure doesn't help when the team is mowed by snipers/MMGs and you have effectively no way of counter by spamming flares in an efficient way, or mortar your way there with the PIAT. Not even with crates from players (which, also, they rarely do)



Maybe EA's making us starve for support so they can give Activision's like and people will accept it lol
It's at the stage where they really should remove the ammo pouch and force support players to use the crate. The current set up just illustrates how little idea a lot of the players have now about the most basic mechanics in the game.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,091
Never ceases to amaze me how many people don't understand or don't give a shit about the scoring system.

My squad basically won Marita singlehandedly by constantly backcapping E-F and we won by 20 tickets. Our squad had at least 25,000 more score than the next squad on our team because the 2nd and 3rd best were on the other team. That's massive. My squad was 1-4 on the top of the scoreboard for our team as a result.

Because I spent most of the round spamming flares and keeping beacons hidden, I had a pretty pedestrian amount of kills. Yet people constantly talk shit about KD to a person that has 3-4x their total score. "you only had X amount of kills, you did nothing."

Has Call of Duty or whatever just conditioned these people beyond all hope? I don't get it. Medics getting MVP with almost no kills was pretty common in BF3/4, you'd think people would remember.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,370
Never ceases to amaze me how many people don't understand or don't give a shit about the scoring system.
Honestly, it no longer surprises me. The Battlefield community has been psychologically fed game systems and reward loops that do not encourage playing the objective or playing to score. I can't blame the community for being dumb as shit and not "getting the game", but I do blame DICE for doing a poor job of implementing a feedback system that baits and encourages players to actually play Battlefield and not big-map-shoot-bang. I'm sure it's insanely difficult, I don't doubt at all, but at this point it needs to be THE big next step for the franchise. The game systems don't need to change, but how they're communicated to players and encouraged does.

But I mean, problems are everywhere. I just played a great match on Panzerstorm, we wont by 3 tickets. But for the entire match two air fighters dominated the entire thing on the opposing team. We killed one, once. And by we I mean me. Because not a single player was seen spawning AA or using the AA turrets. I get it, they're hard, but because of the underlining game balance and lack of encouragement to engage difficult opponents in powerful machinery, and instead ignore them and preserve KDR, not a single player invested effort in attacking them.
 

Serpens007

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,237
Honestly, it no longer surprises me. The Battlefield community has been psychologically fed game systems and reward loops that do not encourage playing the objective or playing to score. I can't blame the community for being dumb as shit and not "getting the game", but I do blame DICE for doing a poor job of implementing a feedback system that baits and encourages players to actually play Battlefield and not big-map-shoot-bang. I'm sure it's insanely difficult, I don't doubt at all, but at this point it needs to be THE big next step for the franchise. The game systems don't need to change, but how they're communicated to players and encouraged does.

But I mean, problems are everywhere. I just played a great match on Panzerstorm, we wont by 3 tickets. But for the entire match two air fighters dominated the entire thing on the opposing team. We killed one, once. And by we I mean me. Because not a single player was seen spawning AA or using the AA turrets. I get it, they're hard, but because of the underlining game balance and lack of encouragement to engage difficult opponents in powerful machinery, and instead ignore them and preserve KDR, not a single player invested effort in attacking them.
Pretty much. Had some matches in Marita yesterday, they didn't try to capture objectives or defend. Nor they were using flares and such. One thing, the other team was really skillful, so on top of they being good, our team just rather stay in the back preserving KDR than try to cap the point.

Then I had another match of Conquest on Aerodrome, of all places, that was pretty tight. It all came down to who was able to capture and hold A (as the germans) or F (as the allies). Once my squad held A for some minutes, the team capped C, so we could then loss A and keep C for long enough to give us an advantage in tickets so we won a still tight match.

Funnily enough, in Maritas since I tried the objective I went like 5-15 or something, but on Aerodome I went like 25-15 since it was a more balanced match with teammates actually doing something

Worst thing is that everytime I see a server with enough room to just jump in, I just know that it¡s an unbalanced match, so I can either get there and get wrecked or wait who knows how long until I can get into a good match
 

Skade

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,106
Honestly, it no longer surprises me. The Battlefield community has been psychologically fed game systems and reward loops that do not encourage playing the objective or playing to score. I can't blame the community for being dumb as shit and not "getting the game", but I do blame DICE for doing a poor job of implementing a feedback system that baits and encourages players to actually play Battlefield and not big-map-shoot-bang. I'm sure it's insanely difficult, I don't doubt at all, but at this point it needs to be THE big next step for the franchise. The game systems don't need to change, but how they're communicated to players and encouraged does.

But I mean, problems are everywhere. I just played a great match on Panzerstorm, we wont by 3 tickets. But for the entire match two air fighters dominated the entire thing on the opposing team. We killed one, once. And by we I mean me. Because not a single player was seen spawning AA or using the AA turrets. I get it, they're hard, but because of the underlining game balance and lack of encouragement to engage difficult opponents in powerful machinery, and instead ignore them and preserve KDR, not a single player invested effort in attacking them.
I think it's mostly a question of what players want of the game. I'd say most players want massives battles and on Conquest, if you want massive battles, you stay in the blob that is always fighting towards the same couple of flags. Doing back caps sure is more usefull for winning the map than staying in the blob, but when you want massives battles, doing small skirmish battles at 4v4 isn't really what you signed up to. Especially when it's more likely to be capping points alone since nobody ain't defending shit.

I'd say a lot of players are playing Conquest while it's actually not the mode they should be playing for the gameplay they want to have. The gameplay they want only happen in the maps like Metro. They just play Conquest because "it's THE mode of BF" and follow the herd.
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,794
But I mean, problems are everywhere. I just played a great match on Panzerstorm, we wont by 3 tickets. But for the entire match two air fighters dominated the entire thing on the opposing team. We killed one, once. And by we I mean me. Because not a single player was seen spawning AA or using the AA turrets. I get it, they're hard, but because of the underlining game balance and lack of encouragement to engage difficult opponents in powerful machinery, and instead ignore them and preserve KDR, not a single player invested effort in attacking them.
AA ( event more so turret ) is really a perfect example of something which currently does not work.
If enemy pilot is even remotely good, he will kill you. There is nothing to argue about it, you overheat before you can kill a plane, while the plane will oneshot you.
If enemy isn't bad, you won't kill him... but he won't kill you either, he will just avoid the airspace you cover, during that time you don't increase your score in anyway, while being an easy target for infantry.
You can pretty much only hope to get rewarded if the enemy pilot is bad and/or you have the help of 1-2 other AA ( or plane ) attacking the same target.

It's not strong enough for people to just jump in AA and get result, and it's not rewarding enough so you can't expect to see multiple people use it at the same time and get results.

On a somewhat similar subject, MMG anti aircraft specialization : I just tested it on a plane spawing on Hamada airfield. 50 bullets all hiting their target = 28-29 damage ( I wouldn't expect more than 10 of them to hit a flying airplane on almost any scenario.. at best ) . I'm not even sure it would be worth even trying a 4 man squad with that setup even if the damage buff was increased by a factor of 3
 

Supercrap

Member
Oct 28, 2017
906
Oakland Bay Area
Played Marita on front lines last night, I get what people are talking about on visibility on the back end of the map (F side) in the hills. Some dudes were mmg camping way up and it's ridiculously hard to see. I think the big thing is that the game gives such great accuracy rewards on prone that it takes awhile to spot and decent players will be able to hold a spot for awhile
 

mullah88

Member
Oct 28, 2017
56
Scoring means nothing as of yet because all that score does nothing! Till the level cap is raised it'll always be about kills, which playing the objectives will net you the most kills anyways than just laying down In some bush camping. A squad of 4 medics moving as a pack will always wreck any squad combination....especially on infantry maps
 
Last edited:

Serpens007

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,237
Oh, by the way, remember when the game had a system that allowed the losing team to faster recover? Late game, capturing a flag was faster too. I thinkg that, with the lack of a better balance system, I rather have that than nothing.

In Marita it would be a huge difference. Sometimes only a couple of soldiers are able to get pass the chocke points and back cap. But it can be stopped pretty easy.
 

Forerunner

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
5,096
San Diego
Oh, by the way, remember when the game had a system that allowed the losing team to faster recover? Late game, capturing a flag was faster too. I thinkg that, with the lack of a better balance system, I rather have that than nothing.

In Marita it would be a huge difference. Sometimes only a couple of soldiers are able to get pass the chocke points and back cap. But it can be stopped pretty easy.
It's still in the game, but it's not aggressive as before. Personally, I liked it when it was more noticeable. It was nice to see games come down to the wire. However, players complained about matches being manipulated. I'd rather have an illusion of balance than no balance at all with all the lopsided matches.
 

Serpens007

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,237
It's still in the game, but it's not aggressive as before. Personally, I liked it when it was more noticeable. It was nice to see games come down to the wire. However, players complained about matches being manipulated. I'd rather have an illusion of balance than no balance at all with all the lopsided matches.
Community complaints have created as much good as bad choices.

The aggresiveness should have been toned down once proper balance was implemented
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,931
Community complaints have created as much good as bad choices.

The aggresiveness should have been toned down once proper balance was implemented
The system was too aggressive on launch, got adjusted a few weeks later and nothing happened ever since. It is the cheapest solution (which works much worse on Breakthrough, Rush and TDM) to the problem of garbage matchmaking.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
289
There's enough people ignoring the objectives already without putting in a method for them to win by playing for the final 10 minutes.
 

Olengie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,125
Seems like everytime I play Defense on Marita we lose the first point fairly quick while everytime I'm on offense, my team can never capture the first point on Breakthrough. smh.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
289
Better than no playing at all. Better than no balance at all. It was much more fun than being cornered the whole match by MMGs if it's easier to back cap a point
I don't think many people would have stuck with Conquest if it their was no point playing the objective for most of the match. It's also not like the stomps in this involve teams being spawn trapped anyway, not once Hamada was changed anyway.

It's crazy that they actually developed a catch up mechanic instead of an end of round balancer.
 

Serpens007

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,237
I don't think many people would have stuck with Conquest if it their was no point playing the objective for most of the match. It's also not like the stomps in this involve teams being spawn trapped anyway, not once Hamada was changed anyway.

It's crazy that they actually developed a catch up mechanic instead of an end of round balancer.
It did needed to be down a notch, but not like it is now. I remember having matches with 100 to 200 tickets left even with the mechanic, so it wasn't pointless to capture in conquest.

But spawn trapping? It happens all the time. Fjell and Marita being the current biggest offenders. Even on maps like Rotterdam. The thing is that being able to catch a point faster when stuff like this happen would help having a chance of scaping.

But, in any case, it isn't as bad as BF1. And what we need the most is mid round team balance and better mid round balance. Who knows when we're going to get it though.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,091
There's enough people ignoring the objectives already without putting in a method for them to win by playing for the final 10 minutes.
I was part of the saddest fucking loss on Twisted Steel last night. Up 150+ tickets, then my team just stopped caring about caps and the other team came back in the final five. I am convinced 80%+ of the players do not care about or understand the scoring system, especially as it relates to conquest and tickets. It's very common on 7 flag maps for your team to just camp 3 and then wonder why they are losing.

Flags change hands so much I think it's time to explore needing more than 1 person on the burn.

There is nothing more infuriating than being in a full 64 player match on a wide-open map and your team has ONE flag. Like how bad do you have to be for that to happen?

But spawn trapping? It happens all the time. Fjell and Marita being the current biggest offenders. Even on maps like Rotterdam. The thing is that being able to catch a point faster when stuff like this happen would help having a chance of scaping.
It's a mobility problem, especially if you are stuck in a bad squad. That's why I'm in favor of making all squad leaders spawnable. Full vehicles too, even if they aren't in your squad.
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,794
I rarely see spawn trapping but that's because I usually would have left the server before that point. 200 ticket difference is pretty much an auto left, could be as soon as 100 if it happen really early into the game and the other team lost like 10 ticket ( this sadly happen ).

I have no time for something that's unlikely to get better, more likely to get worst.
 

SecondNature

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,635
Jumped back into this, and something just clicked. I'm having the most fun since launch/beta.

I find it hard to enjoy games like BF4 and BF1 because BFV adds so many critical improvements (namely the spotting and gunplay). However, I really feel like attrition did hurt this game pretty badly. The BF community is just garbage at teamwork.

I think Mercury is a lot of fun, and the dialed down attrition feels great. AoE crates and pulling resources from teammate has alleviated a lot of frustration around attrition for me.

At this point, I want to be able to carry 2 max health packs just because I dont care anymore about the attrition system and dont want to be so restrained anymore. I hope they keep the ammo and health boxes and limited health regen for future titles. Personally, I think it'd be better if everyone slowly regened up to 75-80 HP and then could be topped off by health packs.


I think it's crazy how DICE manages this game: Rush is on rotation when it shouldn't be, I cant play Frontlines on any map but Maritas, and they're spread so thin on useless stuff like a 5v5 mode.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the next 2 maps after Al Sundan are maps for a specific mode right? They're not actually Conquest maps?

I'm ready for Al Sundan, which should be good enough until the Pacific Expansion. Hopefully that isn't delayed and they can dole out multiple BF worthy maps throughout that season.
 
Last edited:

Overflow

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,688
Wollongong
I really hope there's a case study behind the whole Battlefield V ordeal at some point. Seems EA let off the gas where Ubisoft put the brick on the Siege pedal.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,091
I really hope there's a case study behind the whole Battlefield V ordeal at some point. Seems EA let off the gas where Ubisoft put the brick on the Siege pedal.
EA manages on a very, very short time horizon. They don't care if they obliterate an IP with a release. As long as it's not FUT or MUT, it's expendable.

I managed to finish this season's battle pass thing and now I have nothing to do for a month.

God help them if the two new maps are for 5v5 only, Battlefield is an awful game below 32 players. Al Soondan is now a meme.
 

icecold1983

Member
Nov 3, 2017
2,682
EA manages on a very, very short time horizon. They don't care if they obliterate an IP with a release. As long as it's not FUT or MUT, it's expendable.

I managed to finish this season's battle pass thing and now I have nothing to do for a month.

God help them if the two new maps are for 5v5 only, Battlefield is an awful game below 32 players. Al Soondan is now a meme.
EA execs honestly remind me of Steve Carell’s character in the office. They consistently make such poor decisions
 

Scottt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
958
I've been checking out the different theme songs throughout the games lately. I never played the first Bad Company, but this one is dope.