-
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.
Battlefield V |OT| Band of Brothers and Sisters
- Thread starter iRAWRasaurus
- Start date
- Status
Yup, I had some games yesterday just like that. What the hell is going on?
Should I both take it as :
- we will still have both invisible player, performance issue, wrong damage number, etc.. for the next 2 weeks
- al sundan conquest is no longer delayed to mid july, now to end of july
If so, I have some kind of morbid fascination to how much of a shitshow that keeps on giving it is, all surrounded by some of the worst communication you could ever expect.
Late July and it'll probably be filled with bugs. I have little to no confidence in DICE atm.
Yes, it's like watching a train crash in slow motion. Horrific yet fascinating.
On the bright side I give the opportunity for some fun bets.
Will Al Sundan be release before/at the same time/after Marita. Will Marita get delayed ? Will there be more fix than bugs in the next patch ? Will performance actually get even worst in that patch ?
Those are now all legitimate question where it feel like a 50/50% chance that any result could happen, it's almost exciting.
I haven't touched BFV since around when Firestorm came out and I've gone back to Battlefront 2 instead. It's funny how it has a better sense of an actual battle/war taking place than BFV does.
Despite all the bugs and lack of content, I think the missing chaos factor is what I despise most from BFV. Every map feels bland and lifeless, guns and explosions don't have the same visceral impact from previous BF titles and there's generally zero atmosphere. BF1 was the absolute pinnacle in this regard imo.
I read on reddit once that BFV feels like a bunch of mercenaries running around than actual factions taking part in battles of a much larger war and it's totally true.
Despite all the bugs and lack of content, I think the missing chaos factor is what I despise most from BFV. Every map feels bland and lifeless, guns and explosions don't have the same visceral impact from previous BF titles and there's generally zero atmosphere. BF1 was the absolute pinnacle in this regard imo.
I read on reddit once that BFV feels like a bunch of mercenaries running around than actual factions taking part in battles of a much larger war and it's totally true.
That's an issue with the game, it has an identity issue. Sure, it has weapons and vehicles from WW2, but it just doesn't feel like it. I don't blame the cosmetics or being able to create your own soldier. The huge issue is just the maps. You need iconic maps. The maps feel like you could throw them in any FPS and nobody would notice a difference.
Yeah, totally. The cosmetics don't exactly bother me (although they don't particularly help, either I guess) but you're right that the maps don't have that same appeal from previous titles.
Panzerstorm comes somewhat close with its large scale layout and tons of vehicles, but that's about it. The rest of them cater to close quarters gameplay.
Hopefully with the Pacific Theatre coming out it may bring back some of that identity, but we'll see.
Calm down guys, DICE is an indie dev studio running under the EA Originals banner.
Jokes aside, christ that reddit vid was bad, like, really REALLY bad. That's something you would see in an ALPHA, not 8 months after release lmao. They might as well bring back the giraffe neck bug to add into the mix.
Jokes aside, christ that reddit vid was bad, like, really REALLY bad. That's something you would see in an ALPHA, not 8 months after release lmao. They might as well bring back the giraffe neck bug to add into the mix.
Complete speculation: I wonder if they're pulling even more resources off BFV to make sure that rumored BF:BC3 for next year doesn't arrive in a similar state. Because they're definitely backsliding on BFV and its inexplicable. They can't afford back-to-back disasters.
That's every battlefield though? I liked the atmosphere of bf1 as well but never did it feel like "factions taking part in battles of a larger war" it felt like 64 chickens running around with their heads cut off sprinting around at preposterous speeds. The day I see battlefield players regularly staying to defend critical capture points rather than mindlessly sprinting towards the next objective I'll cede that it may finally feel like an proper back and forth battle, but until then we're stuck with Battlefield being Battlefield.
Also if you want a game that makes it actually feel like you are one soldier on a battlefield and not a superhuman Gi joe death machine, check out Squad, if you've never heard of it it started as a BF2 mod that ended up becoming it's own game, extremely similar to battlefield from a glance but what it brings to the table elevates it far beyond imo.
Really wish Dice would take note of some of its design choices, Snipers for instance are limited in squad, so they can remain overpowered like they should be, but you never have to worry about half your team being composed of snipers that refuse to play the objective.
EA needs to pull their head out of their ass and give Battlefield a breather for a couple of years.
If there's one franchise that needs it, it's this one.
The dev cycle clearly needs to be 3 years, not 2. It's not DICE's problem if EA can't come up with a new IP to fill in the gap.
I had a lot of things to say but I think you guys get it. Their release schedule isn't sustainable. Every other series that comes out frequently has several other studios assisting. Ubisoft probably has like five hundred for Assassin's Creed. Call of Duty has the primary dev with three years plus numerous assisting studios like Beenox and Raven. Battlefield has, to my limited knowledge, DICE, DICE LA, and Criterion on a tighter schedule than the primary dev on Call of Duty.
Just realized, doesn't the pacific theatre mean there will be no japanese or american tanks since it where all naval landing battles mostly?
Well yeah I wasn't being quite as literal, but at least in BF1 each faction had their correct uniforms etc, which made for a more unified battle each round. Not forgetting things like terrain deformation which only added to the atmosphere. In BFV you have a mismatch of factions and uniforms.
And yeah, Squad is fantastic. There's been a lot of talk from streamers and content creators lately about how BF hasn't really expended on the formula and by now we should be having even larger scale battles ala Squad, and even Planetside.
Which is absurd given the difference in scale and complexity.
There were tanks in some battles, the Philippines for example. Japanese tanks weren't too good compared to everyone else though.
There were plenty of tanks used in the Pacific.
(Type 97 vs Sherman)
Type 95 Ha-Go was the most common. It did well in the Second Sino-Japanese war, but it was hopelessly out matched by the Sherman. Its small size made it more suitable for island combat.
Type 97 Chi-Ha was a medium tank. It fared well against light tanks like the M3 Stuart, but it still couldn't compete with a Sherman.
Type 3 Chi-Nu was a medium tank, but it was rare. Only about 150 were built. It could take on a Sherman because it had a 75mm. However, they never saw combat and were deployed solely on the home islands for defense.
What I assume DICE will do:
Light tank: Type 95 Ha-Go and M3 Stuart
Medium tank: Type 97 Chi-Ha and M4 Sherman
Heavy tank: Type 3 Chi-Nu and M26 Pershing (This one is up in the air, none of these tanks actually saw combat in the Pacific, but that never stopped DICE before).
or they could do
Light tank: Type 95 Ha-Go and M3 Stuart
Medium tank: Type 97 Chi-Ha and M24 Chaffee (technically a light tank, but for the purpose of the game classify it has medium)
Heavy tank: Type 3 Chi-Nu and M4 Sherman
Personally, I think the second option is more believable. The M26 Pershing was ridiculously strong compared to anything the Japanese had.
Last edited:
Them using the Staghound again for the US makes sense for the light tank because it's already in the game. It's kind of a disappointment though. Also, I don't think the Staghound was ever used in the Pacific, but I could be wrong on that.
Should it matter? We are way too far from the "historical accuracy" for such details to matter. At this point, this is just WW2 skin on top of the military shooter. Recycling Sherman (like Panzer 4 or Valentine) for multiple configurations, reusing armored car - yes it makes sense... but I am still disappointed how we only have Panzer IV variants and Tiger variants for Germans... USA might get shafted even more with Sherman-only configurations.
I wish DICE never attempts "Best graphics" again, because it is bad both performance and content wise.
I don't think you will ever see Pershing, but hey, come play Coh2 and can play all the cool toys of WW2 in the best RTS game. At no point it will feel like a generic RTS with WW2 skin.
Oh hey, I havent seen that bug since BF4. The 122 damage is like infuriating enough to make you want to switch the game off.
It should matter, but for BF V in its current state, it's a low priority. It's easier just to reuse something like a Staghound instead of creating a new vehicle; that way they can put their resources elsewhere. I mean they already had issues when players asked for the Ju-52 instead of Germans using a C-47. So if that is anything to go by, I'd say their resources are already limited.
I played a bit when the Outpost mode was added, which I liked. But really, I'm not putting up with this shit. I hate this game... and I've been playing since BF1942.
But my group of friends have moved on to play Forza Horizon 4 of all games. :D (we initially played Div2 but kind of ran out of stuff to do funnily enough.)
Something seems off in terms of performance (as it seems other people here noticed too). Maybe they changed something about streaming or whatever but the game keeps having constant slowdowns now.
Also fun to see how Origin still wants to download patches one-by-one and separately install them instead of what smarter systems like Steam does.
Also fun to see how Origin still wants to download patches one-by-one and separately install them instead of what smarter systems like Steam does.
OP
OP
I am fine with alot of Sherman variants since there was alot of them. But US light tank, should be prob be M3 Stuart. And for heavy tank, the M26 Pershing whenever US has European maps. But at this rate and if the next BC3 does come out next fall, I am not expecting to see another addition faction like the Russians. Perhaps some maps here and there next year and then BFV support is dead when BC3 is out.
The game should have been delay. Theres alot of things DICE could have done with WW2 but sigh*. That dream is most likely dead. Maybe in another 5-10 years..
The game should have been delay. Theres alot of things DICE could have done with WW2 but sigh*. That dream is most likely dead. Maybe in another 5-10 years..
DICE needs more staff if they are going to do the live service thing. There's tons of potential to relaunch V as BF1945 with the pacific and eastern fronts. Push BC3/BF6 or whatever it will be called until it's absolutely polished up to a shine.
I suspect the demand of doing Battlefield, Battlefront, and future games in both series all at once is just too much for the time and resources they've been allotted.
Siege launched in a really bad way, but Ubisoft stuck with it. Now it's one of the biggest shooters out there. A WW2 Battlefield can do the same thing if they just commit to it.
I suspect the demand of doing Battlefield, Battlefront, and future games in both series all at once is just too much for the time and resources they've been allotted.
Siege launched in a really bad way, but Ubisoft stuck with it. Now it's one of the biggest shooters out there. A WW2 Battlefield can do the same thing if they just commit to it.
Sometimes I just don't understand how the hitreg, bullet spread, and ballistics work in this game. I was literally up against an opponent, as in right up against them, spamming fire with the new assault DMR from the hip. Highly inaccurate obviously, but the crosshair bloom still covered their body, because like I said I was right up against them. Physically touching them.
Every shot of the ten round magazine except one missed. I don't know where the bullets were going. And I have no feedback to understand what happened. I like the gun otherwise.
On another note, I was watching some old Battlefield 1 footage. I miss that game. I especially miss how on point the art direction, shading, colour grading, and tonal shifts based on weather conditions were. Battlefield V has some engine enhancements that Battlefield 1 had, but I really think the latter was a far more visually coherent and immersive game. Maybe to a detriment for players who didn't like the colour grading, but even the lighting looks a lot nicer. Battlefield V is weirdly...flat looking? Hard to explain, like the lighting isn't bringing out colours or any particularly coherent tone. Even when there's weather conditions they accompanying colour grading shift is significantly toned down, losing a lot of the visual impact from Battlefield 1. I remember that if it started raining on something like Grappa or Scar you'd get this super desaturated, dreary tone to the game, and then as the rain cleared and the sun came out all the colours would vibrantly pop. Lush greens, strong browns on bricks and stones, just like it does after actual rain on a sunny day. You really felt the tonal shift based on weather conditions.
Battlefield V is so dull and sterile in comparison. It's still a nice looking game, but man do I really feel Battlefield 1 is much stronger visually, even with Battlefield V's technical improvements. It's obviously not an engine issue, but a deliberate change. I wonder if it was made in part to appeal to people who hated the aggressive tonal shifts mid match in Battlefield 1, in addition to trying to steer away from a cliche "war aesthetic" much in the same way that they added female soldiers, assorted unconventional outfits and gear, and selected less familiar conflicts.
I also think the sound design was a lot stronger and punchier for most part in Battlefield 1. A lot of guns in Battlefield V sound weak, like...squishy to their gunfire? The Kar in particular is a big disappointment. Has little oomf.
Every shot of the ten round magazine except one missed. I don't know where the bullets were going. And I have no feedback to understand what happened. I like the gun otherwise.
On another note, I was watching some old Battlefield 1 footage. I miss that game. I especially miss how on point the art direction, shading, colour grading, and tonal shifts based on weather conditions were. Battlefield V has some engine enhancements that Battlefield 1 had, but I really think the latter was a far more visually coherent and immersive game. Maybe to a detriment for players who didn't like the colour grading, but even the lighting looks a lot nicer. Battlefield V is weirdly...flat looking? Hard to explain, like the lighting isn't bringing out colours or any particularly coherent tone. Even when there's weather conditions they accompanying colour grading shift is significantly toned down, losing a lot of the visual impact from Battlefield 1. I remember that if it started raining on something like Grappa or Scar you'd get this super desaturated, dreary tone to the game, and then as the rain cleared and the sun came out all the colours would vibrantly pop. Lush greens, strong browns on bricks and stones, just like it does after actual rain on a sunny day. You really felt the tonal shift based on weather conditions.
Battlefield V is so dull and sterile in comparison. It's still a nice looking game, but man do I really feel Battlefield 1 is much stronger visually, even with Battlefield V's technical improvements. It's obviously not an engine issue, but a deliberate change. I wonder if it was made in part to appeal to people who hated the aggressive tonal shifts mid match in Battlefield 1, in addition to trying to steer away from a cliche "war aesthetic" much in the same way that they added female soldiers, assorted unconventional outfits and gear, and selected less familiar conflicts.
I also think the sound design was a lot stronger and punchier for most part in Battlefield 1. A lot of guns in Battlefield V sound weak, like...squishy to their gunfire? The Kar in particular is a big disappointment. Has little oomf.
Last edited:
This is the issue I have with the game. EA isn't really known to support their games long term. They'll support it for a bit until the iteration in the series is released. It already seems like a majority of the support has already been pulled to work on BC3 or whatever is coming next year. If we were talking about companies like Blizzard or Ubisoft that actually support their games long term, I won't worry too much because I know they would fix it and it would have a nice long life. EA on the other hand is just like, well this game sucks, lets just milk as much microtransactions from it and move on to the next title.
I'm done with BF V for a bit. I'm downloading BF 2 (80gb yikes). I imagine it's a much better experience than BF V atm.
On paper, even with the 6 month content gap, BFV support is kind of good: new maps, modes, weapons and cosmetics. Overwatch gets one map/hero every 4 months, BFV is supposed to smoke it with the current content schedule.
In reality, the game is in the worse shape than most Betas, so none of the new modes or cosmetics matter. 8 months later and we have issues that don't even happen in a fking COD beta: "Above and Beyond the Call"
OW does it right. They built a competitive league from the ground up, it's one of the most viewed on Twitch. The updates are slow, but they ooze quality. They balance the game regularly, it runs well, they deal with cheaters, they have events (even though they are recycled), and etc. Everything is well thought out and planned. Sure, it takes them a while, but when they do put out something it's good. If it's not, it's generally fixed quickly.
In BF V, they release a patch and it just fucks more shit up. Then they take forever to fix it. For instance, we still have invisible soldier. In any other game this would have been hotfix in a matter of days. It just seems like there is no plan or cohesion, like they are just making shit up as they go and hoping it works. We still don't know much about the Pacific content and it's a few months away. The new progression system is supposed to be next month and we haven't heard anything about it since they announced it. I would be fine with them slowing down the updates and adding a CTE if it helped with the quality of the updates.
Last edited:
For all the talk about two different teams working on Battlefield and Battlefront, it does feel like they've stretched themselves far too thin. That article about Anthem did suggest that it's the games that make money that get priority, so I wonder how many people at DICE are actually focused on FIFA rather than BF or even helping any other EA studio using Frostbite.
The problem going forward as a live service is that it's hard to see where the money comes from. They've pushed cosmetics hard in a game where I get the idea most of the population don't really care about them. Not being able to mix and match outfits makes the Elites pretty poor as well.
It feels like we might be getting close to the TOW chapters being harder to complete without paying for a boost, but that's only fairly dull cosmetics so far. They probably need people to pay to unlock weapons, but don't have nearly enough goodwill to get away with it.
The problem going forward as a live service is that it's hard to see where the money comes from. They've pushed cosmetics hard in a game where I get the idea most of the population don't really care about them. Not being able to mix and match outfits makes the Elites pretty poor as well.
It feels like we might be getting close to the TOW chapters being harder to complete without paying for a boost, but that's only fairly dull cosmetics so far. They probably need people to pay to unlock weapons, but don't have nearly enough goodwill to get away with it.
I hopped between BF V and BF 2 tonight and there is a world of difference between the two. BF 2 runs well, the servers are decent, and I'm not getting frustrating deaths. Maybe I'm just in the honeymoon phase, but it was considerably more enjoyable than BF V. I will say there are somethings I don't like such as the lack of destruction and it seems to come down to hero wars. Overall, it feels like something you play occasionally and not something to put a lot of hours into.
That being said, I don't feel it's fair to compare the two games. BF 2 released a year earlier and you can tell it's for a broader audience with it being Star Wars and all. They had more time to polish it compared to BF V. BF V also seems to be the more ambitious project. As much as BF V frustrates me, I can't help but give DICE more chances than they deserve. That game is solid, fun, and I want to play more. However, it's all these little things that culminate into bigger problems and it makes for a frustrating experience. BF V reminds me of a really nice car that is covered in mud. Once you clean it up, it is fantastic.
That being said, I don't feel it's fair to compare the two games. BF 2 released a year earlier and you can tell it's for a broader audience with it being Star Wars and all. They had more time to polish it compared to BF V. BF V also seems to be the more ambitious project. As much as BF V frustrates me, I can't help but give DICE more chances than they deserve. That game is solid, fun, and I want to play more. However, it's all these little things that culminate into bigger problems and it makes for a frustrating experience. BF V reminds me of a really nice car that is covered in mud. Once you clean it up, it is fantastic.
EA's whole problem is that they don't stick with their games. If you want people to have faith in your game, you also have to have faith in it through the highs and lows. People will respond to that with their money. It's what worked for Siege, it's not some unknowable magic.
We can't just end this game without Stalingrad or Normandy or Wake Island. It just can't be allowed to happen.
We can't just end this game without Stalingrad or Normandy or Wake Island. It just can't be allowed to happen.
Am I crazy or is there almost no autobalance? It seems like squads generally stay on the same team unless a massive amount of people quit at the end of the round. This makes zero sense in conquest because you're not actually taking turns or anything of the sort. It's not uncommon to join a server and lose 4 out of 4 or more because the core of the 'good team' just keeps romping.
That's before you get to obvious spin botters and clans stacking multiple squads on the same team on PC.
A 400+ ticket loss is an absolutely miserable experience and has cost this game more players than the lack of content IMO
That's before you get to obvious spin botters and clans stacking multiple squads on the same team on PC.
A 400+ ticket loss is an absolutely miserable experience and has cost this game more players than the lack of content IMO
This is sadly why many of us simply decide to leave for another server as soon as we see a 150-200 ticket difference between team.
On another note, the air & AA balance of the game is so shit that I find hard to even use the word balance to describe it in any way, shape or form.
You are not, it's one of the biggest problems this game has. It's worse in region with less players where you only have a handful of servers to join in.
For example, last night, LatAm on PC, we have like 14 servers running. Cool, but most of them are full. So you get into those with room, but why do they have room? Because one team is several players of the same clan, working together o it's a clusterfuck for everyone else. But you have the option of: a) being obliterated, b) play with lag. Choose your poison.
I haven't been able to win 3 matches because of this.
Hey, at least Rush is coming back this week
777 and Gen do this a lot on west coast servers. If you call them out on it they'll just say "get gud" and other such nonsense, even if you are tops on the other team. I don't know what they get out of 5 minute 500+ ticket wins. It has to get boring. But you gotta protect your stats or some such nonsense. They refuse to play against each other. Some of them have an 85%+ WR because they exclusively play in full 4 man squads, often in conjunction with other full stacks.
Good community servers would solve this problem by using third-party auto balance or by simply banning clans that do this. When you have a transient server base with no admins it's not surprising when people a.) act like total shitheads, to the detriment of the game and b.) cheating is rampant. The larger the player count, the more important it is to have tools to balance and regulate them.
Like how hard would it be to switch the best squad to the losing team, and then seed the rest of the squads in an alternating pattern? If a game was 50 tickets or less difference then the balance doesn't even necessarily need to kick in. Even in turn based modes like Operations players want a fun, close round more than they want a complete disassembling of the other team.
A lot of the time the misery snowballs to the point where the opposing team consists half of players that are still loading in. I looked one time and it was essentially 10 v 32, the players after our 10th best had almost no score and had loaded in after a player had quit. I don't know if DICE has ever responded to any of this but it's disgraceful and a far cry from previous Battlefield titles.
- Status