Battlefield V |OT| Band of Brothers and Sisters

[elyetis]

We're not getting Al Sundan Conquest this month, are we?

Click to shrink...

Based on this :

Our next update after tomorrow's Hotfix (4.2) is currently scheduled to release in late July, and will be available on all platforms.

Click to shrink...

The best we can hope is that in 2 weeks when we finaly get a proper patch which hopefully will ix the invisible bug ( 4 weeks with that bug at that point, Dice outdid themselves ), we will also get the now further delayed Al Sundan ( mid July lol ). Keeping in mind that Marita is also supposed to be released in July.

Bets are open on how many things from the E3 roadmap will see delay and bug fuck up, who know they might be unable to release neither Marita and Al Sundan in July.

 

[Forerunner]

Gen is ok, but 777 is annoying. One game was like 20v20 and the other team had 10 777 members on it. Some people would called them out and all they would do is mock them. They constantly have multiple squads on the same team. It has nothing to do with being or getting good. Everyone does immensely better when you are part of a competent squad. Once is a while you'll see them not playing with their clan and they do horribly, who would have guessed.

I have no issues with people wanting to play with their friends or clan. My issue is when they all stack the same team. Furthermore, it gives them an extremely unfair communication advantage. They are all going to be in the same discord, so they can easily communication with members on other squads. BF V is already limited in the ways you can communicate and interact with players not on your squad.

 

[Avitus]

Gave feedback on the July survey that Fjell and Mercury desperately need to be reworked or have extra spawns added so it's not so easy to get pinned and trounced. I see it 9 out of 10 times on Fjell. It also doesn't make sense for there to be as many planes on that map as there are, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Hamada is the best map in the game because it has offset spawns, so it's very hard to pin a team. It has two separate arenas (across the bridge from one another) that act as little 3 flag areas. It's hard to control all of them all the time. Such a great map. Not perfect, but easily the best conquest map IMO. Rotterdam and Narvik are also excellent, although C on Rotterdam has a little too much bullshit going on for the average random player to handle in terms of hiding spots/angles.

Arras is a good example of bad spawn design. The allies can walk right up to their natural cap in almost full cover, but the Axis have to go up and over a hill to get to B, with little cover between them and the flag. Leads to half the team usually sniping from the ridgeline if the allies take B. Players are dumb, you have to account for that behavior in the map design. If you moved the spawn more towards A I think that would create more interesting running battles, or move the allied spawn to the F field.

I miss when maps were designed almost entirely with a specific mode in mind like BC2 and BF3. BF4 onward they really got away from that philosophy and the map balance suffered as a result.

 

[Sordid Plebeian]

I just want them to fix the lighting bugs for the 4K XBX patch in BF1...

 

[Secondspace]

Gave feedback on the July survey that Fjell and Mercury desperately need to be reworked or have extra spawns added so it's not so easy to get pinned and trounced. I see it 9 out of 10 times on Fjell. It also doesn't make sense for there to be as many planes on that map as there are, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Hamada is the best map in the game because it has offset spawns, so it's very hard to pin a team. It has two separate arenas (across the bridge from one another) that act as little 3 flag areas. It's hard to control all of them all the time. Such a great map. Not perfect, but easily the best conquest map IMO. Rotterdam and Narvik are also excellent, although C on Rotterdam has a little too much bullshit going on for the average random player to handle in terms of hiding spots/angles.

Arras is a good example of bad spawn design. The allies can walk right up to their natural cap in almost full cover, but the Axis have to go up and over a hill to get to B, with little cover between them and the flag. Leads to half the team usually sniping from the ridgeline if the allies take B. Players are dumb, you have to account for that behavior in the map design. If you moved the spawn more towards A I think that would create more interesting running battles, or move the allied spawn to the F field.

I miss when maps were designed almost entirely with a specific mode in mind like BC2 and BF3. BF4 onward they really got away from that philosophy and the map balance suffered as a result.

Click to shrink...

It doesn't even need the allies to take B on Arras for players to set up their sniper spot or sit in a tank, I've seen players stop there at the start of the game. I'm assuming these elevated areas between spawns and flags are a consequence of the other modes, but they need to be much more careful to avoid it.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

Al Sudan - promised in June, doubt it will be delivered in July. The skeletal crew cannot work on fixing their own mistakes and new content at the same time. Cannot wait for another DICE poll asking players if they want invisible soldiers fixed or Al Sudan.

As more and more players leave this game, the matches are even less balanced to the point where no recent games of mine are anywhere close. It is just draining the enemies for 300 respawns, or punching an objective after objective in Breakthrough.

This concept of balanced teams is something DICE needs to research and analyze.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Yeah theres def a lack of players. I get put in matches with no one in the game.

edit: gonna try to find a breakthrough match one more time before i turn the game off.

edit 2: lol i just got put back in the same server I left..

 

[Ostron]

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.

Click to shrink...

I agree with BFV looking flat, not necessarily worse than BF1. You're playing on PC, right? I find that HDR improves the overall image a lot, but unfortunately Shadowplay is limited to SDR and that is a dealbreaker.

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.

Click to shrink...

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.

Click to shrink...

Matchmaking is just awful and doesn't seem to take K/D or skill level (as well as how much you move!) into consideration at all when putting players together, or they're deliberately mixing players of different skill in a bad way. Usually games have 1 or 2 competent squads per side and you have a decent game. Even a great loss can be fun when you have a good squad on your own. However below those two squads on the scoreboard are about 16 players with neutral or negative K/D (in BFV where there are more total kills than deaths because of revives) . A player with 40/12 should never be put in the same game as a 4/12, no amount of auto-balance will cover that gap. A bad player can do a lot of damage if they take up a tank or get someone killed when being revived only to die again. K/D is of course only a valuable metric up to a point where everyone is really good in a game and teamplay starts to determine if you have opportunities to get kills, but BFV is nowhere near that level of matchmaking. Those really bad players should be protected from good players by only being put against each other. Guaranteeing a few competent players in each squad would go a long way to make matches more enjoyable, even losses. When I stay in a losing game with a good squad I will usually see how the balance gradually kicks in as stomped players leave my team and randomly get replaced with better players. Though by then enough time has passed for the good players on the opposite team to naturally leave and it's a stomp in the other direction. That said I am pleased with the amount of games that come down to double digits for both teams, but balance still feels completely random.

I don't think I've ever come across a stack of more than, at most, two squads in europe. But I suppose the game is bigger here, especially on PC as it tends to be.

Gave feedback on the July survey that Fjell and Mercury desperately need to be reworked or have extra spawns added so it's not so easy to get pinned and trounced. I see it 9 out of 10 times on Fjell. It also doesn't make sense for there to be as many planes on that map as there are, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Hamada is the best map in the game because it has offset spawns, so it's very hard to pin a team. It has two separate arenas (across the bridge from one another) that act as little 3 flag areas. It's hard to control all of them all the time. Such a great map. Not perfect, but easily the best conquest map IMO. Rotterdam and Narvik are also excellent, although C on Rotterdam has a little too much bullshit going on for the average random player to handle in terms of hiding spots/angles.

Arras is a good example of bad spawn design. The allies can walk right up to their natural cap in almost full cover, but the Axis have to go up and over a hill to get to B, with little cover between them and the flag. Leads to half the team usually sniping from the ridgeline if the allies take B. Players are dumb, you have to account for that behavior in the map design. If you moved the spawn more towards A I think that would create more interesting running battles, or move the allied spawn to the F field.

I miss when maps were designed almost entirely with a specific mode in mind like BC2 and BF3. BF4 onward they really got away from that philosophy and the map balance suffered as a result.

Click to shrink...

Never seen anyone call Narvik excellent before! :) While I don't agree with that pick, I agree about Hamada and I think it's come around to being one of my favorite maps. Hamada lacks brush for the most part so you don't get many confusing deaths through trees and grass, and it compensates for this with good elevation and really varied points to keep it fresh. Sniping feels balanced. Compared to Aerodrome and Narvik, Hamada demonstrates how you can have elevation on a flat map without it becoming frustrating. On Narvik it feels like you have to choose between narrow straight hallways with plenty of LoS on you (bridge and valley) or the cramped cluttered mess of the demolished town.

I very rarely come across spawn shutdowns when playing, though I think that comes down to a lack of map knowledge for most players. It would be nice if we could have some data regarding win/loss ratios for axis and allies.

 

[gl0w]

I feed sad for not having any motivation to start up the game for days. I used to play hundreds of hours of battlefield games in the past, and now i'm just switching my time to other games.
I don't feel sad for dice, they deserve it. That's what happen when you make bad decisions since the beginning. We already pass the redline, they will not be able to fix the game, and even if they fix a lot, it will be to late, meanwhile there is other games being release that easily can replace bfv.

PS: i agree a lot with who said that BF1 was a better game overwall, it was. the sense of war was much, much better.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

PS: i agree a lot with who said that BF1 was a better game overwall, it was. the sense of war was much, much better.

Click to shrink...

I even like Behemoths and Elite Kits... Multi-crew tanks were super fun, horses were fun. Infantry weapons worked against planes to repel them. Two supports focusing on a plane could kill it in the Monte Grappa. Sure the UI was a bit shit, but at least we had loadouts...

And it isn't that BF1 was a perfect game, it just had the normal levels of polish and new maps to play with. Visuals for 2016 were definitely the best, so BFV having little to no improvement in 2018-2019 is kind of AAA average.

 

[dm101]

I feed sad for not having any motivation to start up the game for days. I used to play hundreds of hours of battlefield games in the past, and now i'm just switching my time to other games.
I don't feel sad for dice, they deserve it. That's what happen when you make bad decisions since the beginning. We already pass the redline, they will not be able to fix the game, and even if they fix a lot, it will be to late, meanwhile there is other games being release that easily can replace bfv.

PS: i agree a lot with who said that BF1 was a better game overwall, it was. the sense of war was much, much better.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I'm really enjoying my time with BF1 again.

 

[dm101]

I even like Behemoths and Elite Kits... Multi-crew tanks were super fun, horses were fun. Infantry weapons worked against planes to repel them. Two supports focusing on a plane could kill it in the Monte Grappa. Sure the UI was a bit shit, but at least we had loadouts...

And it isn't that BF1 was a perfect game, it just had the normal levels of polish and new maps to play with. Visuals for 2016 were definitely the best, so BFV having little to no improvement in 2018-2019 is kind of AAA average.

Click to shrink...

I find the visuals on BF1 are still excellent today. And it runs so well too.

I missed my hellriegel.

 

[Forerunner]

This week we get an awesome Sten skin!

Then the week after that we get the head gear that is already on the Axis tanker/pilot!

So far we have gotten:

One decent weapon (S2-200)
Dirt on face
G43 clone
Sten skin (only people that use this are new players that don't have anything else)
Default head gear from Axis tanker/pilot.

 

[Forerunner]

How is this worth 750 Bcoin? Really epic!

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Isn't it the Italian M33 helmet? Which is used as the default tanker/pilot helmet as well. Or its just me thinking that helmet looks like the M33.

 

[dm101]

This week we get an awesome Sten skin!

Then the week after that we get the head gear that is already on the Axis tanker/pilot!

So far we have gotten:

One decent weapon (S2-200)
Dirt on face
G43 clone
Sten skin (only people that use this are new players that don't have anything else)
Default head gear from Axis tanker/pilot.

Click to shrink...

Lol good stuff.

 

[Forerunner]

Isn't it the Italian M33 helmet? Which is used as the default tanker/pilot helmet as well. Or its just me thinking that helmet looks like the M33.

Click to shrink...

It's the same helmet.

To make it even more comical, they are selling a flight helmet in the store this week. The pilot class gets an Italian helmet, but you can run around on the ground with a flight helmet for 750 Bcoins!

 

[elyetis]

Just joined a server ( matchmaking ) :

Why the .. hell .. was I put in the team with the highest number of players. I can only hope it's because during the 30 secondes loading time 20 player left the other team ( which would only happen because of a stomp in previous round, circling back to : matchmaking )
Why can't I ( and other ) switch team in this freaking game ? with the obvious limitation of only being able to do it if it's to move to the lowest player count team.

 

[Avitus]

I don't understand taking out team switch.

In previous titles, it would only allow you to readily switch if the other team had fewer players. Given that there's no auto balance, why is there also no goddamn team switch?

They need community servers ASAP. I suspect they are just doing to dump the 3 pacific maps and move on to the next title.

 

[Nemesis121]

Just joined a server ( matchmaking ) :

Why the .. hell .. was I put in the team with the highest number of players. I can only hope it's because during the 30 secondes loading time 20 player left the other team ( which would only happen because of a stomp in previous round, circling back to : matchmaking )
Why can't I ( and other ) switch team in this freaking game ? with the obvious limitation of only being able to do it if it's to move to the lowest player count team.

Click to shrink...

Seen this a few times, the system is broken, game is a fucking beta...one time i notice the teams were shit, it was 27 vs 8 when i quit it was 31 vs 11, the team with more players got 4 of the 7 players that joined hahahahahahahaha

 

[icecold1983]

ya for me, this game isnt even playable at this point. hit reg is the worst ive ever experienced in an fps, servers rubberband constantly. you have to click like 40 times just to get anything to register

 

[dm101]

Well BF1 was great fun tonight with decent team balancing.

 

[Serpens007]

Yeah, it's getting harder and harder to enjoy this game. They really fucked it up, when it was supposed to be the turning point

 

[EvilChameleon]

If one were wanting to play Battlefield 1 again, would one want to install all the DLC maps if one owned them all?

 

[PintSizedSlasher]

You know what really grinds my gears?
That every time I boot up the game I get welcomed by this screen:

Maybe sort out your shit first DICE and then try to persuade people to buy your stupid booster packs...

 

[Olengie]

It definitely sucks. At least Battlefront II doesn't shove it in our face afaik

 

[Avitus]

You know what really grinds my gears?
That every time I boot up the game I get welcomed by this screen:

Maybe sort out your shit first DICE and then try to persuade people to buy your stupid booster packs...

Click to shrink...

I could understand this for Origin Access users or whatever, but it's a bad look for a game that has invisible soldiers running around in it for weeks. R6 Siege has never been this up front about season passes AFAIK but people drop money on those because they want to support the game, and the devs have earned that support.

BFV feels like the typical EA cycle of release unfinished > test the waters > abandon with minimal support if no significant upside.

 

[Forerunner]

You know what really grinds my gears?
That every time I boot up the game I get welcomed by this screen:

Maybe sort out your shit first DICE and then try to persuade people to buy your stupid booster packs...

Click to shrink...

Yup, it feels scummy. Fix your product and then maybe people will by your microtransactions that you shove in our face.

 

[Heromanz]

bf5 is the worst battlefield game

 

[gl0w]

Well BF1 was great fun tonight with decent team balancing.

Click to shrink...

Good to know, there is still full servers running ? I'm on PC.
I'm playing Battlefront 2 from time to time, too.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

If one were wanting to play Battlefield 1 again, would one want to install all the DLC maps if one owned them all?

Click to shrink...

You have no choice, the maps are part of the patch. Your only option is to not matchmake in all maps, but select base-maps only. I think there is an option for all, base, russian, french etc.

DICE reddit response to the state of BFV is that it is "in a rough patch": the game has always been in a rough patch.

I want to say fuck EA, but this game isn't ruined by EA. The monetization and the death of Firestorm is on EA, but:
• Content
• Performance
• Direction
• Bugs
• UI

All of these things are on DICE artists, designers and engineers. I don't expect EA to mandate no hair, 6 months content drought, horrible UI, no anticheat, terrible matchmaking, predator and invisible soldiers... They call weekly progression storylines? There is no story, just a bunch of recycled screenshots.

We got one ****** map and it broke the game to the state it is right now. The second map is delayed because it made the game unplayable.

 

[dm101]

Good to know, there is still full servers running ? I'm on PC.
I'm playing Battlefront 2 from time to time, too.

Click to shrink...

Yeah all of my games have been full.

 

[PeskyToaster]

There's a lot of work to be done on this game. Judging by the intro war story they had a lot of dreams. I do hope we get to see it through.

You have no choice, the maps are part of the patch. Your only option is to not matchmake in all maps, but select base-maps only. I think there is an option for all, base, russian, french etc.

DICE reddit response to the state of BFV is that it is "in a rough patch": the game has always been in a rough patch.

I want to say fuck EA, but this game isn't ruined by EA. The monetization and the death of Firestorm is on EA, but:
• Content
• Performance
• Direction
• Bugs
• UI

All of these things are on DICE artists, designers and engineers. I don't expect EA to mandate no hair, 6 months content drought, horrible UI, no anticheat, terrible matchmaking, predator and invisible soldiers... They call weekly progression storylines? There is no story, just a bunch of recycled screenshots.

We got one ****** map and it broke the game to the state it is right now. The second map is delayed because it made the game unplayable.

Click to shrink...

To me, those things are symptoms of management decisions. It's on whoever decided to release the base game in its state. Because it released prematurely, they are now fixing issues AND working on post-game content but something has to give between the two. EA probably thought they had to get a game out but they really should be more careful as they desperately need a win at this point. I don't think it's a coincidence that multiple EA studios have had similar issues despite different people working on them.

 

[elyetis]

Cannot wait for another DICE poll asking players if they want invisible soldiers fixed or Al Sudan.

Click to shrink...

I thought it was crazy to even think along those line ... what does releasing a new map has to do with fixing a bug they introduced with a previous patch... but :

J4ckiebrown
Al Sundan still in purgatory?

Click to shrink...

Braddock512
They're still working on fixing the artifacting issue - I haven't seen an update today on the status. Will check on that. The priority was to resolve the invisibility issue, which we should have in the next update (next week).

Click to shrink...

 

[Evolution of Metal]

I thought it was crazy to even think along those line ... what does releasing a new map has to do with fixing a bug they introduced with a previous patch... but :

Click to shrink...

Either it was map-based changes for the Mercury patch, or it was customization based changes for the microtransactions.

Nothing else changed, but the stuttering, predators and invisible soldiers made their way into the game.

 

[Forerunner]

I think a lot has changed with this game since development. They talked very differently about it before it was released. For instance, in the files there are a ton of Italian cosmetics, yet the Italians don't look like they are ever going to be added. I find it strange that they are jumping straight to the Pacific theatre. They talked about how they wanted to take players on a journey through WW2 chronologically and we are jumping straight to the end of the war in 1945 with Iwo Jima.

After all the controversy this game suffered and poor reception, I think DICE had a very different vision for this game and it won't ever be realized. I don't know if they bit off more than they could chew or they just lack development time and resources. However, something definitely isn't right at the studio.

Honestly, the only theory that makes sense to me atm is the BC 3 and BF V being switched mid development. That's the only reason why I could see it turning out like this. Here's the theory if you haven't seen it:

 

[Evolution of Metal]

I think a lot has changed with this game since development. They talked very differently about it before it was released. For instance, in the files there are a ton of Italian cosmetics, yet the Italians don't look like they are ever going to be added. I find it strange that they are jumping straight to the Pacific theatre. They talked about how they wanted to take players on a journey through WW2 chronologically and we are jumping straight to the end of the war in 1945 with Iwo Jima.

After all the controversy this game suffered and poor reception, I think DICE had a very different vision for this game and it won't ever be realized. I don't know if they bit off more than they could chew or they just lack development time and resources. However, something definitely isn't right at the studio.

Honestly, the only theory that makes sense to me atm is the BC 3 and BF V being switched mid development. That's the only reason why I could see it turning out like this. Here's the theory if you haven't seen it:

Click to shrink...

I don't think that it got switched mid-development. It might have been switched in pre-production, but I doubt there was anything playable for BC3. The single player portion of BFV is ok, even though it is useless.

• You have 4 games (BF1 and SW:BF 2015 with good support) in 4 years.
• You had tons of developers leaving after BFII

I think BFV just got gangbanged by EA pushing it early and DICE losing staff. If DICE had a capacity to rapidly build the content (full game in half the development time), we wouldn't be stuck with this horrible content release schedule: one map, one tank variation, one plane variation in 8 months. We are waaaaaaaaay past the French Maps, approaching Russian compared to BF1 schedule. 6 + 6 vs 1 + 2?

Bonus good shitpost:

 

[icecold1983]

You have no choice, the maps are part of the patch. Your only option is to not matchmake in all maps, but select base-maps only. I think there is an option for all, base, russian, french etc.

DICE reddit response to the state of BFV is that it is "in a rough patch": the game has always been in a rough patch.

I want to say fuck EA, but this game isn't ruined by EA. The monetization and the death of Firestorm is on EA, but:
• Content
• Performance
• Direction
• Bugs
• UI

All of these things are on DICE artists, designers and engineers. I don't expect EA to mandate no hair, 6 months content drought, horrible UI, no anticheat, terrible matchmaking, predator and invisible soldiers... They call weekly progression storylines? There is no story, just a bunch of recycled screenshots.

We got one ****** map and it broke the game to the state it is right now. The second map is delayed because it made the game unplayable.

Click to shrink...

I think its all on EA

 

[dm101]

It's fine. More than enough people playing to find full servers.

https://battlefieldtracker.com/bf1/insights/population

Click to shrink...

I have bf1 on the x and pro, and I'd rather play on the x, but the population is three times larger on the pro.

 

[ThisOne]

Is Firestorm basically dead in NA on Xbox and PC? It's still playable on PS4 but you have to wonder for how much longer. Depending on the time of day you play, you run into the same people all the time and it can be frustrating because most people that still play it are really good.

 

[Turkoop]

I just hope DICE wont rush the next battlefield game in next holiday. A new battlefront would make much more sense. EA should give DICE more space for creative ideas in the next battlefield.

 

[Avitus]

Is Firestorm basically dead in NA on Xbox and PC? It's still playable on PS4 but you have to wonder for how much longer. Depending on the time of day you play, you run into the same people all the time and it can be frustrating because most people that still play it are really good.

Click to shrink...

Should be F2P standalone to get people hooked into BR and BF at the same time. Have it cross eras eventually.

 

[JBucc]

It's hard for me to back to BF1. I've played it a little the past couple weeks and it does most things better than BFV, but the gunplay feels like a much bigger step back than I imagined. If BF1 had BFVs gunplay and a couple of other tweaks it would be the best recent BF game hands down. The general atmosphere and vibe of the game is incredible, and the maps are hit and miss but there's enough good ones to outweigh the bad. But coming from BFV the guns feel like those automatic bb guns you shoot at the county fair.

 

[Secondspace]

Should be F2P standalone to get people hooked into BR and BF at the same time. Have it cross eras eventually.

Click to shrink...

Being on EA Access doesn't seem to have changed things much. It's a bad mix of there not being a hook (it's WW2, but that doesn't have anything to do with the mode!) and the general air of negativity about the full game. There's just too much competition in that space for a mode not many people seem to be enthused about.

 

[Avitus]

Honestly, the only theory that makes sense to me atm is the BC 3 and BF V being switched mid development. That's the only reason why I could see it turning out like this. Here's the theory if you haven't seen it:

Click to shrink...

I want this to be true so we get one amazing game and one bad one, rather than two very mediocre games. Bad Company also comes with the expectation that the campaign isn't a throwaway effort. Would make more sense for the delay rather than MS or Sony wanting marketing rights.

They should totally salvage BFV by giving it to DICE LA or some other team that is available, and have them relaunch as BF 1945 with the Pacific content and maybe some Eastern front maps. Just have it be the WW2 live service game. There's so much potential.

 

[Nemesis121]

It's hard for me to back to BF1. I've played it a little the past couple weeks and it does most things better than BFV, but the gunplay feels like a much bigger step back than I imagined.

Click to shrink...

Main reason i bought BFV, BF1 in almost every way is better than BFV but the gunplay is the worst in the series, if i am going back to another BF game it's not BF1 gonna be BF3 or 4...

 

[Heromanz]

Should be F2P standalone to get people hooked into BR and BF at the same time. Have it cross eras eventually.

Click to shrink...

Firestorm ain't that good of a mode to survive that

 

[RNG]

Maaaan if Firestorm had only come out during the height of PUBG and before Fortnite was even a thing I think it would have done very well. They should have just made it f2p and make it an extension of BF1 and delay BFV for another year instead.

 

[Ostron]

Old news, but I'm super curious as to how private servers will play out. Just enabling friendly fire would be massive and an improvement. I hope DICE has the decency to give us a forgive-system along with it. I wonder if DICE would do anything with customs that might become popular modes.

I'd dump the pointless progression-illusion system in a heartbeat and stick to custom games.

Planned "core functionality" for the first phase of the rollout isn't carved in stone just yet but currently includes:

• Create private game from main menu
• Set custom name for the server
• Set description for the server
• Password protect the server
• Control what maps are used within the map rotation
• Control what game modes are available
• Control the number of players needed to break pre-round
• Kick players from the current game
• Control what classes are available
• Control what weapons are allowed
• Control if vehicles are allowed
• Control if the kill cam will be displayed
• Turn friendly fire on or off
• Turn regenerative health on or off
• Change soldier tags as visible or not
• Enable or disable third-person camera view
• Enable squad leader spawn only
• Enable or disable aim assist auto rotation
• Enable or disable aim assist cooldown
• Control bullet damage scaling
• Control game mode ticket scaling
• Control soldier and vehicle respawn timers
• Turn the mini map on or off
• Enable or disable the compass

"Organization options" will include:

• Apply a pre-set config to a private game: Vanilla, Infantry only, DICE-authored etc.
• Save your server settings as a custom preset so you can reapply at will
• Have your name highlighted in chat if you're the owner of the server
• Administrate and manage server settings in the main menu or via our Private Games web portal
• Have the description of your Private Game presented on the loading screen
• Manually switch specific players between teams
• Report private games in the advanced search screen

Click to shrink...

 

[Turkoop]

Old news, but I'm super curious as to how private servers will play out. Just enabling friendly fire would be massive and an improvement. I hope DICE has the decency to give us a forgive-system along with it. I wonder if DICE would do anything with customs that might become popular modes.

I'd dump the pointless progression-illusion system in a heartbeat and stick to custom games.

Click to shrink...

I am excited for it