• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ChippyTurtle

Banned
Oct 13, 2018
4,773
.....did they stop keeping the Axis and Allied weapon loadouts separate?

There have always been players camping or ignoring the objective in Battlefield, but a chunk of the population here just want to hide. I can't work out why they're playing. Makes the BF1 zerg look like high level play.

This is why I only play Breakthrough. The focused nature of fighting makes it less annoying for people to attack and defend since well....how else are supposed to defend except camping?
 

Overflow

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,156
Wollongong
Just want to say I'm shocked by this thread.

I've followed it since game launch, and played until I hit level cap then let it fall by the wayside a bit. For a game that is almost reviled by the few that still play it and routinely mocked for it's lack of support, this thread has twice the level of engagement as the Rainbow Six Siege OT despite it being older, having grown a much bigger audience than BFV, and still has a lot of good will going around.

Is it just because people aren't willing to give up on the Battlefield franchise they've played for a decade or more?
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,916

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,629
BF V isn't a bad game. If it was this OT would be a graveyard. The core BF gameplay and experience are there, however, there are just so many little issues that end up ruining the experience. BF V is a prime example of one step forward and two steps back. It has new, interesting, and good mechanics that add to the franchise, but it also has a ton of other decisions that leave you scratching your head. This game has definitely been a rollercoaster, but they are improving it, just at a snail's pace.

BF V definitely needed another year. In my view, year one was a full priced early access title. The Pacific DLC really is make or break for the game. If it's well received and brings back players or even new players I could see some longevity for the title. If it turns out to be a mess and doesn't meet expectations, well the game will probably just be put on life support until the next BF title (should be Q4 2020).
 

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,129
Chile
Yeah, we are super critical of the game, because it has lots of cuestionable decisions, lots of problems, etc.. but when it's good, it's damn damn good.
 

Olengie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,377
When you're on Defense on Breakthrough and you lose the Sector because you have more than half the team taking over outside the Capture Points. Smh
 

DarkManX

Member
Dec 20, 2017
752
I rewatched some of jackfrags BF1 videos and hot damn, there is a lot of action going on in a lot of the maps. Then I look at my experience with Bfv and it isnt as epic and cool. If it werent for the long download time I would subject myself to, I would play it again
Still got mine instaled because Operations. Its a joy to play every time. The immersion, sounds, the war feeling.. a round on op.kaiserschlacht its always a blast!
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,629
Complaint of the day.

I'm tired of my tanks, specifically light tanks getting stuck on stupid shit. Like I'm getting stuck on curbs, tree stumps, small stones, and etc. Things you should obviously be able to run over, but they are just an immovable object in this game.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 135

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,682
Complaint of the day.

I'm tired of my tanks, specifically light tanks getting stuck on stupid shit. Like I'm getting stuck on curbs, tree stumps, a small stones, and etc. Things you should obviously be able to run over, but they are just an immovable object in this game.
Vehicle warfare hasn't been super enjoyable since BFBC2. BF3 and BF4 were pretty good, but after that it has sucked.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,629
I think ground base vehicle combat is in a decent place, but air combat is terrible. It's probably the worst in the series. The main reason is you can't do anything. Combat revolves around flying in circles and hoping they get bored or just slamming on the brakes and hoping they go pass you. There are so many aircraft in this game that will 100-0 you in a blink of an eye. Once an average pilot gets on your tail you are done for.

Air combat is just a chore. If I'm not dealing with some sweaty no lifers that just sits in planes all game then there are a ton of low level players that just camp AA all game. Like they just sit there all game, it's fucking annoying to fly in this game.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,916
Planes don't even really do anything but annoy. Their only real use is eliminating tanks. Same problem with back line snipers and tanks. You aren't controlling the map and medics are just revving the people you kill.

I'm almost tempted to say that the game should only award a kill if a player doesn't get revived, and that the elimination of this false feedback loop would promote healthier gameplay. R6 Siege has a downed state, BFV should work the same way. The players with the most kills would actually be the players denying territory. I'd also remove deaths on the scorebaord entirely if this was implemented. k/d whoring is a CoD thing, not what Battlefield used to be about.
 

Olengie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,377
Complaint of the day.

I'm tired of my tanks, specifically light tanks getting stuck on stupid shit. Like I'm getting stuck on curbs, tree stumps, a small stones, and etc. Things you should obviously be able to run over, but they are just an immovable object in this game.
Who would win.
A light tank vs a tree stump/skinny tree?

Obviously the tree stump
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
378
Just want to say I'm shocked by this thread.

I've followed it since game launch, and played until I hit level cap then let it fall by the wayside a bit. For a game that is almost reviled by the few that still play it and routinely mocked for it's lack of support, this thread has twice the level of engagement as the Rainbow Six Siege OT despite it being older, having grown a much bigger audience than BFV, and still has a lot of good will going around.

Is it just because people aren't willing to give up on the Battlefield franchise they've played for a decade or more?
Lots of players have always been a bit obsessed about the series, remember when EA nuked the old official forums because they were so negative. The way that the live service has unraveled has been discussion worthy as well, people weren't optimistic beforehand, but it's been an eye opener.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,029
Maps aren't built sensibly for vehicle use or balance relative to objectives, except maybe Panzerstorm by default of its enormity.
Maps emphasise asset density and excessive clutter impacting navigation, and there's no consistency as to what ground vehicles can/cannot break through.
Dogfighting is a boring ring-around-the-rosie.
Damage values of anti-air and aircraft armour have never found a sweet spot, either too powerful or painfully underpowered.
Bombing runs are easy kills that have questionable value on any of the maps except Fjell.
Open vehicle selection instead of set vehicles for maps completely breaks the overall balance.
Exiting aircraft accounts is animation driven and accounts for velocity, breaking strategic parachuting for everyone on board.
Semi-realistic damage model for ground vehicles easily breaking parts like treads and turret turning discourages moving in to capture objectives.

Vehicle play in Battlefield V is mostly dry and unremarkable because it's just another facet of the game's overall incoherent vision.
 

ChippyTurtle

Banned
Oct 13, 2018
4,773
R6 has a portal for bug reports, how do we report issues to DICE? In breakthrough on Aerodrome, there is a MG in the dry riverbed that overlaps a piece of buildable cover meaning no cover for MG or a inaccessible MG.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,629
I elenarie for bugs. I'm sure that's not the proper way, but the issue gets resolved when I do.

giphy.gif
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,629
I like this burst fire rifle. It kicks like a mule but it also packs a hefty punch.

Yeah, it's a great gun. It's pretty much unusable at long range unless you turn it to semi, however, close and medium it's great. It does take some time to get used to the burst, but it's a weapon that rewards you for learning it. It'll probably be one of the few guns I'll gold. It's a nice skilled based weapon. Bad players will probably call it junk and drop it. However, anyone that is good will see the potential it has.
 

Olengie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,377
Yeah, it's a great gun. It's pretty much unusable at long range unless you turn it to semi, however, close and medium it's great. It does take some time to get used to the burst, but it's a weapon that rewards you for learning it. It'll probably be one of the few guns I'll gold. It's a nice skilled based weapon. Bad players will probably call it junk and drop it. However, anyone that is good will see the potential it has.

Lol bad gun. I already have almost the same amount of kills with the Breda than my most used gun in Assault.
 

Scottt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,212
The visibility troubles at launch put me into the habit of using a 3x scope on everything except medic guns, for which I'd use that 1x circular dot sight. But now I've been moving down to the 2x aperture, and the lower ADS time feels like a real advantage. And plain iron sights seem to combine with the recent medic gun improvements as well. If you're able to plunk a couple shots before the other player can even ADS and acquire you, medic has a much better chance at winning. I'm going to give iron sights on sniper rifles a try too.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,629
I put the 3x on almost everything, but there are a few exceptions:

I use the 1.5x on SMGs. Close range you're going to be hip firing anyways, so it helps a bit when you reach out a little further.

M1907 gets the 1x. There is no point in putting anything higher on it. It already has extremely high recoil and it's not meant for long range.

P08 and the self loading rifles get the 2x because I don't want scope glint.

FG42 gets the 1.25x AA sight. You could put 3x on it since it has the bipod, but you might as well use something else if you're going to do that. For instance, the LS/26 with the 3x, it has similar stats, but it's controllable at longer ranges.

It's funny because most of the images you see of the FG42 have a scope, yet it's pretty bad in this game with it.
SMG-FG42-ZF4.jpg
 
Oct 29, 2017
2,600
It's still my favorite Battlefield game. Data mining says that Wake Island will be in the Pacific DLC.


Anyway finally got around to playing Marita on Conquest and christ it's the worst map I've played in years. Total trash.

FAVORITE?!

I tried playing this game for the first time earlier this year and it's a shallow piece of shit with absolutely awful gunplay. There is absolutely nothing in the game that other battlfeilds havent done 10x better
 

Deleted member 135

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,682
FAVORITE?!

I tried playing this game for the first time earlier this year and it's a shallow piece of shit with absolutely awful gunplay. There is absolutely nothing in the game that other battlfeilds havent done 10x better
It's better than all of the other modern Battlefields for the simple fact that there are no unlocks and the game just works.

For a 2009 game the gunplay is stellar.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,629
BF 1943 was simple fun. It was only like $15 or $20. It had three classes, three maps, and only four vehicle types. Its simplicity was its charm. It was just a fun XBLA game that you just played a few rounds to get a BF fix and that was it.

Now, BF Play4Free, that was a trud. They just took BF 2 and somehow made it worse. I'd say it's the worst game in the series. I'd rather play the Modern Combat on consoles before it.
 

ChippyTurtle

Banned
Oct 13, 2018
4,773
Look at the date on the comment lmao

That's even worse tbh. I hope DICE and EA actually say something useful about the inner workings of how things are going. For example, Ubisoft Montreal on R6 has discussed multiple times about inner workings of the engine, their processes internally, discussed how networking issues and other stuff appeared. I understand the need to prevent the dirt slingers but they will always been there, but your fans that are patient and waiting can't just sit wondering what's going on until you drop something or drop the game entirely.

Anti-Cheat, Auto-Balance, Frostbyte, plenty of topics.

For example, in the lifespan of Siege, I remember talks on the following: Battleeye, Reworking Sights, Map changes, internal team restructuring, use of statistics in balance, teamkills and toxicity, operation health was literally the Siege team saying "we can't do this content schedule any longer, we can't hide it, here's our plan, it must be done but the game will be better for it". Did they get a lot of flak? Of course but looking back on it, I think all parties agree that had to be done, and doing it in a transparent manner rather than going quiet is better for other stakeholders like esports, content creators, who constantly need to keep a eye on the fate of the game.
 

ChippyTurtle

Banned
Oct 13, 2018
4,773
BFV had some attempts at encouraging esports, imagine how those stakeholders feel about the game rn, if I were a BFV esports person I would have jumped ship way before they cancelled the maps.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,916
That's even worse tbh. I hope DICE and EA actually say something useful about the inner workings of how things are going. For example, Ubisoft Montreal on R6 has discussed multiple times about inner workings of the engine, their processes internally, discussed how networking issues and other stuff appeared. I understand the need to prevent the dirt slingers but they will always been there, but your fans that are patient and waiting can't just sit wondering what's going on until you drop something or drop the game entirely.

In all of my years of following DICE, I can honestly say they are one of the most shut-in developers out there. The odds of them just coming clean and being upfront about what is going on in graphic detail are near zero. The people they pay to interact with the company aren't even based at the studio. Braddock, for example, is a continent away and basically has to ask on discord/slack/whatever what is going on, rather than being truly informed. BFV is an example of how compartmentalized DICE can be when it's time to point fingers after a bad release. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what, but it's really, really bad. DICE LA is renowned for saving BF4 because they basically went out into the community with their defenses down and asked what's wrong. It seems like a problem with the Stockholm studio in particular. People end up filling in the blanks and just attributing it to arrogance when I think it's just shyness. They need to learn to be extroverted in a hurry.

Siege and Overwatch are out here leading the way with transparency and even CoD is being pretty open about future features and their overall vision for the game. With BFV, we got some terrible trailers and the worst reveal event that I can remember. It's a confluence of EA being EA + a bewildered and stretched thin DICE.

Like at some point you'd think it'd kick in that "hey, we can do this live service thing too. We did BF1943 and our company was founded on BF1942, why not invest in our WW2 game long term?"

Even if an eastern front trailer comes out tomorrow, it won't matter. They aren't putting in the time with the community to address even the most basic issues. The community that remains is so loyal and thirsty that a minor patch that simply uncapped levels sent them into complete jubilation.

I feel bad for the PR people that have to stand in front of an angry buzzsaw of a community and give non-answers or duck legit questions outright. Every day this ticks over and continues does damage to the franchise. Casuals that came in with BF4 and BF1 have already departed, they're not going to magically come back if you give them one of the worst live service games in recent memory.

As an example: Al Soondone is either the most fucked, ill-conceived map ever made in Frostbite or there just aren't a lot of people working on the game at this point and they fix it when they fix it. It definitely feels like the latter. Most people would be cool with an honest "we're doing what we can with what we have" come to jesus moment but I don't think it's in the cards.

/rant
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,916
It's funny because most of the images you see of the FG42 have a scope, yet it's pretty bad in this game with it.



It is remarkably controllable in full auto despite firing a full power rifle cartridge. It's meant to be used on semi most of the time, but in gameplay terms it should be more controllable. Most everything suffers from the "well, it's not the Lewis gun" syndrome because it's like every gun is balanced around a game where the Lewis doesn't exist. The LS-26, for example, is a neat little gun but it's basically useless with a 20 round mag compared to even a base Lewis. If they gave it the historical 75 round mag, we might be in business.

The LMG category is by far the most poorly balanced within the class and there's not a lot of interesting choices gameplay wise, as opposed to other classes which get much better specialized guns in various directions.
 

ChippyTurtle

Banned
Oct 13, 2018
4,773
In all of my years of following DICE, I can honestly say they are one of the most shut-in developers out there. The odds of them just coming clean and being upfront about what is going on in graphic detail are near zero. The people they pay to interact with the company aren't even based at the studio. Braddock, for example, is a continent away and basically has to ask on discord/slack/whatever what is going on, rather than being truly informed. BFV is an example of how compartmentalized DICE can be when it's time to point fingers after a bad release. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what, but it's really, really bad. DICE LA is renowned for saving BF4 because they basically went out into the community with their defenses down and asked what's wrong. It seems like a problem with the Stockholm studio in particular. People end up filling in the blanks and just attributing it to arrogance when I think it's just shyness. They need to learn to be extroverted in a hurry.

Siege and Overwatch are out here leading the way with transparency and even CoD is being pretty open about future features and their overall vision for the game. With BFV, we got some terrible trailers and the worst reveal event that I can remember. It's a confluence of EA being EA + a bewildered and stretched thin DICE.

Like at some point you'd think it'd kick in that "hey, we can do this live service thing too. We did BF1943 and our company was founded on BF1942, why not invest in our WW2 game long term?"

Even if an eastern front trailer comes out tomorrow, it won't matter. They aren't putting in the time with the community to address even the most basic issues. The community that remains is so loyal and thirsty that a minor patch that simply uncapped levels sent them into complete jubilation.

I feel bad for the PR people that have to stand in front of an angry buzzsaw of a community and give non-answers or duck legit questions outright. Every day this ticks over and continues does damage to the franchise. Casuals that came in with BF4 and BF1 have already departed, they're not going to magically come back if you give them one of the worst live service games in recent memory.

As an example: Al Soondone is either the most fucked, ill-conceived map ever made in Frostbite or there just aren't a lot of people working on the game at this point and they fix it when they fix it. It definitely feels like the latter. Most people would be cool with an honest "we're doing what we can with what we have" come to jesus moment but I don't think it's in the cards.

/rant

Well, Ubisoft have R6 community developers based remotely, and don't get me wrong, we had lots of downtime between blog posts, and frustration ran high during those times too. If we are lucky, we are simply advancing along the same timeline R6 had, problem is, I think Rainbow Six Siege was one of the first GaaS products to release, and its only with foresight and what we know now that we have examples that we urge BFV and DICE to do the same. Basically, this stuff BFV is seeing isn't new, I would say Siege has been here before, but why not shoot down negativity by stating "Look at Siege"?

I can't, Siege and Ubisoft proved itself with time and effort, and DICE hasn't. EA is in the same spot Ubi was in too with Siege. We sat for the first few years wondering about the axe and R6 2. I guess thats why at the end of the day, we can do nothing and watch and wait.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,629
I love the S-Mine launcher on tanks. You just let infantry run up like they are going to place some dynamite or mines for an easy kill then you just press one button and they are dead.

giphy.gif
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,029
This is so annoying. You try to bail out over a certain point and you're flung into out of bounds and die. I never spawn on friendly aircraft because of it.

It's another tentpole of evidence supporting the theory that the directive shaping large portions of Battlefield V's design emphasised sim-like realistic qualities in numerous facets of the gameplay, but in practice don't actually enhance or play well with the maps, combat loop, or overarching balance at all. And as a consequence it feels frustrating and regressive.
 

Secondspace

Member
Dec 12, 2017
378
It's another tentpole of evidence supporting the theory that the directive shaping large portions of Battlefield V's design emphasised sim-like realistic qualities in numerous facets of the gameplay, but in practice don't actually enhance or play well with the maps, combat loop, or overarching balance at all. And as a consequence it feels frustrating and regressive.
I wonder if the visuals had been similar to BF1 if they'd have got a more positive response from all the animations. Getting closer to being a sim isn't for me at all, but I think they could have sold it to a lot of players. As it is it's stuck in a weird no mans land where it's hard to say what direction they need to take the game after they fix the bugs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.