-
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
Last night's rounds to grind Tides of War just highlighted how over this game I am, or at least overly familiar with the existing content. I've been playing a lot of Hunt: Showdown lately and it's crazy how well that game works for being 0.6, full release end of August, versus Battlefield V so many months post launch. Completely different games of course, I get it, but Hunt just has me so hooked in ways I don't think Battlefield V ever has.
Also, they really need to can the time and effort put into custom outfits and whatnot for the next Battlefield. I know there's an audience for them, but I really think Battlefield is the kind of game that doesn't need it at all, and if removed wouldn't lose any significant population of players. I'm convinced implementing body/leg/head swaps and faces introduced a number of cumbersome technical hurdles that DICE is still trying to fix (hello, invisible players), and introduces another pipeline of content development that isn't necessary.
More importantly though, and I said this earlier, it erodes the visual profile for classes. It's always been harder to spot a class type in Battlefield than other games with more exaggerated silhouettes (like Team Fortress 2), but it's borderline impossible to do it in Battlefield V due to the homogenised class visualisations from outfit swapping. Everyone could be anyone.
I'm all for having two genders (male/female) and skin tone options, but that's how I'd leave it. Have specific outfit look for Assault/Medic/Engineer/Scout or whatever that cannot change, and give players the option to pick a gender and ethnicity, the former slightly changing the physical profile accordingly and the latter the skin tone. Freedom of option while also ensuring classes are visually defined for on-the-fly identification, and there's no need for a production pipeline dedicated to implementing more and more player outfits, alongside inevitable technical hurdles when some don't work as intended.
Camo options for the set outfits is the only tier above that I'd accept.
Also, they really need to can the time and effort put into custom outfits and whatnot for the next Battlefield. I know there's an audience for them, but I really think Battlefield is the kind of game that doesn't need it at all, and if removed wouldn't lose any significant population of players. I'm convinced implementing body/leg/head swaps and faces introduced a number of cumbersome technical hurdles that DICE is still trying to fix (hello, invisible players), and introduces another pipeline of content development that isn't necessary.
More importantly though, and I said this earlier, it erodes the visual profile for classes. It's always been harder to spot a class type in Battlefield than other games with more exaggerated silhouettes (like Team Fortress 2), but it's borderline impossible to do it in Battlefield V due to the homogenised class visualisations from outfit swapping. Everyone could be anyone.
I'm all for having two genders (male/female) and skin tone options, but that's how I'd leave it. Have specific outfit look for Assault/Medic/Engineer/Scout or whatever that cannot change, and give players the option to pick a gender and ethnicity, the former slightly changing the physical profile accordingly and the latter the skin tone. Freedom of option while also ensuring classes are visually defined for on-the-fly identification, and there's no need for a production pipeline dedicated to implementing more and more player outfits, alongside inevitable technical hurdles when some don't work as intended.
Camo options for the set outfits is the only tier above that I'd accept.
There's only about 6 populated conquest servers during primetime on the west coast. 3x that'd be about 1,200 NA players or people connecting to NA servers. It has less than 1k viewers on Twitch pretty much all the time.
For comparion's sake, Siege has 12k right now and averages about 75k players. If you use the same math for BF5, there's less than 5k playing atm, which is worse than even a lot of fringe F2P games.
If it sold well, people certainly didn't stick around.
Conquest usually does okay in Australia, depending on the time of day. For example, it's 4:07pm on a Saturday here, there are currently 6 full Conquest servers active, 5 of which have players queued, and a 7th server filling up. Given our population size I'd say that's not too bad, considering the lukewarm player retention compared to predecessors.
I can understand why matchmaking default dumps you in half filled servers, though. It makes no sense to queue you into servers that are full when others players are in a smaller game. AFAIK, EA's server infrastructure is adaptive, in that it loads/unloads servers based on player demand. Active games are directly proportional to attempted connections. So even if there's 20 full servers running, if 20 more players try to join the servers will adapt and open up a new game for them, rather than spread them in the queues for others.
I can understand why matchmaking default dumps you in half filled servers, though. It makes no sense to queue you into servers that are full when others players are in a smaller game. AFAIK, EA's server infrastructure is adaptive, in that it loads/unloads servers based on player demand. Active games are directly proportional to attempted connections. So even if there's 20 full servers running, if 20 more players try to join the servers will adapt and open up a new game for them, rather than spread them in the queues for others.
I uninstalled BFV a few months back, I'm 35% reinstalling and I check this thread and Reddit and oof. I'm not sure if I want to keep downloading it anymore. My biggest worry is the hacking and cheating...Reddit is pretty angry about it...but it's reddit, how do you all feel, has DICE seemingly taken steps to handle it or is it still a shitshow?
The cheating is certainly an issue. Worst ive experienced in any mainline battlefield game
I see a blatant rage hacker a couple times a week.
Sketchy people every day. You can tell when someone consistently dumps on you from ranges where it's not really possible and their ping is also shit. Like it's very noticeable when someone breaks the normal TTK.
Sometimes the game is the complete opposite and I feel like a shark in a kiddie pool, just dumpstering the enemy team. The skill variance is way wilder than any previous game. Totally a result of cluttered maps and no 3D spotting.
That's untrue. At least two different people on your team spawned AA tanks. I know because I bombed them. Plus a couple of people at least spawned BF-109's and one almost got me but someone on my team was AA at the time and got him.
You sure those AA tanks weren't me? Because I spawned in one twice ;). I was chasing you and the other player across the map. Didn't touch the BF-109's though, didn't notice them.
Nevertheless, I only saw one team member mounting an AA turret once, and he was shooting at a tank lol.
Possibly, though I thought one occured whilst you were on the AA gun around C.
Oh that's possible, as I wouldn't have noticed. I grabbed the AA tank twice and tried to chase you guys around the map, but your airplay was just too good. I got lucky a couple of times where the dive bombs only hit me with relative splash damage and I survived, but there was no way for me to survive another sweep. It wasn't you, but I think the other pilot, that I finally knocked out of the air from the AA at C after dying in it once or twice.
I was in the Stuka a couple of times too, trying to knock off one of your team's tanks, but either you or the other guy chewed me out of the sky on both occasions.
Yeah the AA tank appears to be hanging around the hills shooting up D and E most of the time. I was the Spit that bombed you twice. I didn't get the Kill for the Stuka though I think I did the most damage.
Though to bring back around the AA guns do have a problem with fighters, I played a match earlier on Arras, where I was using an AA gun and had a BF 109 chasing a Blenheim. The Blenheim went vertical and the Bf 109 followed and ended up almost stationary. I didn't miss but even running the AA gun hot twice he manged to limp away.
Like team reshuffling. no. Team balancing, somewhay but its a hit or miss
First few minutes encapsulates what's wrong with Marita, including killing multiple enemies while an enemy is basically holding your hand in the same bush.
Once upon a time, a map was carefully planned out and every piece of cover was massaged so that it worked relative to other pieces of cover to create interesting options. Now it feels like they're making pretty destinations for screenshots and then plunking down flags.
I can imagine LevelCap likes Marita given he doesn't have to worry about playing Battlefield.
What a terrible map. Its full of people laying down, hiding on a rock or bush. Just garbage.
Marita is ass.
Also, saw a weird ass beacon...thing? Like a box with two green lights, and a horizontal shovel attached to a pivot on the top, flashing and beeping. What the hell is that?
Also, saw a weird ass beacon...thing? Like a box with two green lights, and a horizontal shovel attached to a pivot on the top, flashing and beeping. What the hell is that?
That's the thing that might or might not show you where to find the finger gun easter egg. It's present on several if not all maps.
Edit :
Damn you !
nope. but of all the platforms, xbox x is probably the best it gets
On one hand cool easter egg, on the other hand why do they waste time and resources to this when the game is in the state it is now?
Well, hiding easter eggs is something they've always done and it's a way to "trick" people who want to see said easter eggs to play a long time before being able to see them.
And then, i'd say that those who make this are not the ones who are doing the bugfixing. It's the type of stuff that is primarily done by designers (and animators/sound guys) while the engine is the problem of the engineers.
And most issues in the game are tied to the shitty engine.
Like, would a machine breaks in a factory, you would not expect the cleaning person to fix the machine. So they'd keep cleaning. It's as simple as that.
But the devs already tried to explain and justify how it's a big deal to add a fucking plane for the german side, I can't imagine implementing a new weapon, even if there is no actual new model, is any less of an effort.
I'd guess resources were allocated to the Easter eggs long before it became obvious what a mess the game was going to be. It always gets a bit of publicity from the gaming press at the stage where they might have moved on from the game. Not my cup of tea at all, but there seemed to be a fair number of people into it in the last few games.
For me Easter eggs is not too dissimilar to 5v5 maps or Firestorm.
It's not that I don't want them to exist, it just boggle my mind that time is wasted on it given how content starved the core battlefield experience is. But well at least Easter eggs are probably relatively little work in comparison to the other 2 so I don't really mind tbh.
It's not that I don't want them to exist, it just boggle my mind that time is wasted on it given how content starved the core battlefield experience is. But well at least Easter eggs are probably relatively little work in comparison to the other 2 so I don't really mind tbh.
On the plane, i guess it was mostly because of making a new big 3D model. The finger gun is just a fancy animation.
And adding new guns is one of the only things that go relatively smoothly when they implement something (the other being elites). The issues that comes with guns are usually with skins, attachements and progression. Of wich the easter egg has nothing. And i guess easter eggs are more like something devs tend to work on after work for "fun".
Fix the bugs and get Al Sundan up and running.
Easter eggs shouldn't even be placed in the game when they are other high priority matters; like team balancing which is driving me insane.
This is an all hands on deck situation, idk why devs would be doing fun little side projects considering game state lol
Easter eggs shouldn't even be placed in the game when they are other high priority matters; like team balancing which is driving me insane.
This is an all hands on deck situation, idk why devs would be doing fun little side projects considering game state lol
I think that Marita could be at least OK once team balance is in. It plays better when the fog kicks in
Honestly, the 'fix' for the map is to reduce visual clutter. You could do that as easily as advancing the calendar a bit to where the foliage has died off for the winter. Alternatively, snow on the ground and roofs would provide much need contrast to the brown-and-grey everything. If you look down a street, it's really hard to pick out somebody against the backdrop of so many similar colors.
I feel like they went with the Marita color palette based on Arras being so well received, ignoring that the fields in Arras are a motherfucker to fight in/out of, and are generally the worst feature of that map.
I honestly don't know how the fuck those surveys ended up with Arras being the fan favorite map.
It would help what you say. Or a summer time daylight instead of dusk
I feel like Arras had the potential to be the Caspian border of bfV, sadly it is not ( not enough structures around flags, not enough playable space around the map to allow vehicles to play their roles, etc. ).
Still think it's infinitely better than Mercury and Marita thought.
Still think it's infinitely better than Mercury and Marita thought.
Eastereggs are implemented in the developers free time and does not impact the development of the game.
Not enough for infantry to do for it to be a true conquest map. It's just a vehicle playground.
Hamada is the true king of BFV maps and you all know it in your hearts. If you don't, rush the airfield at the start of the round and try to hold E-F-G. It's tons of fun.
Where and what your vehicles are doing matters just as much as infantry, and neither can win without each other. There are open areas for planes to shit on things but also covered areas to hide. There are meaningful elevation changes and chokepoints, but neither are so drastic that they decide matches or cannot be worked around. All of the flags are in reasonable distance of each other on foot, but don't feel claustrophobic. Each cap has something different and interesting going on, from spawn beacon shenanigans at the airfield to trench fights at B to plinking at each other from cover in E. The roads are vital enough that ambushes and mines can work, but the terrain varies enough that they're not mandatory. There's also plenty of ground transport for the ground pounders, with paths to the caps that avoid automatic death to tanks. No flag is really a gimmie or beyond one team, and the E-F-G group is almost equidistant from the spawns, so it's up for grabs.
Also, the dust storm is amazing.
I don't know how anyone can hate that map. It has so much to offer just about every playstyle. You can even snipe from rock formations and not totally fuck over your team because there are some sightlines between caps. I think people hate it because of Breakthrough/Frontlines and those miserable objectives.
Oh we agree, I love Hamada and Panzerstorm. Hamada is on the bottom of preferences in surveys, so probably this game is not going in our direction :(
DICE is putting in time on a 5v5 mode and smaller maps when even CoD is exploring bigger numbers. Battlefield should have been the first to 100+. Even Firestorm has a ton of untapped potential. No BR game has destruction and they could have doubled the squad sizes to make things super interesting.
There's just not enough resources to go around and what they have they aren't optimizing IMO. I imagine there's some infighting about having another F2P BR game out there under EA but Firestorm could go in a totally unique direction and not steal from Apex. It makes no sense to make Firestorm and then abandon it when you could have a map for each Battlefield, each with its own unique time period and equipment. The F2P aspect would be a gateway to Battlefield mechanics, gunplay, visuals, sound etc...
I badly want them to turn BFV into another CTE environment where they make pretty drastic changes and then relaunch as BF1945 for the new consoles. But unless this 4.4 patch is baller, the game is all but dead to EA and DICE.
I really really like Panzerstorm, but it's really not the same kind of map imho.
Caspian Border was an primarily infantry map which allowed vehicle to still have a good time mostly thanks to to large open field surrounding the map which allowed both tank, and transport vehicle to play their part.
Panzerstorm is primarily a vehicle map which allow infantry to have a good time mostly thanks to the middle flags proximity ( and better amount of cover compared to the rest of the map, but that's still not enough cover imho ).
There is really no map in bfV using the same kind of design philosophy we saw in bf3 in maps like Caspian border and Operation Firestorm ( and maybe Kharg Island ), a main cluster a flag at the center with really good amount of cover, surrounded by more open fields allowing vehicle to mostly avoid the death trap in the middle ( mine, c4, rpg.. ). With 1 or 2 flag a little more separated to the main cluster.
I think Hamada biggest problem is that the flags that most people would tend to favor ( E,F,G ) are :
- the furthest from the teams bases
- favor the german team ( no easy access to E from B is a mistake imho, D is too much of a hotspot )
Take the road under the bridge from B. I've never died on it to a tank or infantry. The allied side of E is also an incredible place to hide a beacon because basically zero natural traffic goes through there.
I know that going from B to E is far from impossible, not even hard. But I'm speaking pub play, general opinion and how most would perceive Hamada. If D is german, the likelyhood of someone spawning on B is going to walk the lower ground to go to E is sadly low, they will most likely just attack D. Heck even if D is british, they are more likely to use the bridge and get sniped from every direction and shot with 2 PaK 40, than going below the bridge, most people are just that dumb.
In comparison, both C and the german base allow you to go to the fortress side of the map with vehicles, even loosing C still mean little to the german team, the access to both F & G is still secured. You are less likely to fall to the prey of a sniper or an fixed anti tank. All in all you can be very bad, and still very easily access the fortress, more infantry focused part of the map.
The thing I *always* do at the begining of a round on Hamada when I'm german, is taking a transport vehicle to F, then either wait for F to be capped or just drop my teammate there, and rush to put 3 mines at the end of the bridge. More often than not I get there before any british vehicle went on the bridge, sometime they are not even capping D yet....
I'm not sure it has an impact on win %, but I really feel like things like that play a big role on the general opinion people can have on a map.
Yeah that's pretty much what I always do when I choose to play recon ( ZH-29 <3 ) on Hamada.
maybe in two years they can patch in team balancing
Don't get your hopes up.
BF5 is the best Battlefield and the worst Battlefield at the same time.
Give me BF4 content, BF3 atmosphere, and BF5 gunplay/movement and that's whats gonna blow up.
If you ever find yourself needing players in your squad and you're SL, just say "2 spots in my PTFO squad (squad name)" in chat.
People are so thirsty for a decent squad in this game that they will seek you out. Aggressively kick anyone that doesn't contribute, you don't need that noise. You can still MVP with even garbo squadmates if you are playing together and getting a lot of squad score. The difference in terms of enjoyment is night and day as well, even with people that can't shoot straight.
If they ever gave me the development reigns, I'd immediately make squads 6 players and have all squad leaders be spawn points for every player, and every player could be buddy revived (but squadmates would still go quicker). It would lessen the chance of being stuck in a bad squad and you could hot drop in on another squad if they were really pacing the objectives hard. Less spawn camping for sure.
Six players would also make it hurt less to have one or two in vehicles, and would allow for more actual combined arms.
Fewer squads (it would be capped, to avoid single players as SL, or disabled in that case) would have the side effect of A.) lessening the chance you're in a squad with a bad SL, and B.) increasing the amount of arty/v1/smoke seen slightly, as squad score would accumulate faster.
The 'in combat' delay needs to be looked at though, because I frequently spawn bomb/get spawn bombed by people. Another second would do wonders.
People are so thirsty for a decent squad in this game that they will seek you out. Aggressively kick anyone that doesn't contribute, you don't need that noise. You can still MVP with even garbo squadmates if you are playing together and getting a lot of squad score. The difference in terms of enjoyment is night and day as well, even with people that can't shoot straight.
If they ever gave me the development reigns, I'd immediately make squads 6 players and have all squad leaders be spawn points for every player, and every player could be buddy revived (but squadmates would still go quicker). It would lessen the chance of being stuck in a bad squad and you could hot drop in on another squad if they were really pacing the objectives hard. Less spawn camping for sure.
Six players would also make it hurt less to have one or two in vehicles, and would allow for more actual combined arms.
Fewer squads (it would be capped, to avoid single players as SL, or disabled in that case) would have the side effect of A.) lessening the chance you're in a squad with a bad SL, and B.) increasing the amount of arty/v1/smoke seen slightly, as squad score would accumulate faster.
The 'in combat' delay needs to be looked at though, because I frequently spawn bomb/get spawn bombed by people. Another second would do wonders.
Last edited:
You basically sum it up for me. There's a ton of stuff I love in this game but there are a ton of issues. One thing I've really missed is just the feeling of getting vehicles from the ground. Yeah there are some issues with the enemy team camping but that really doesn't matter as much to me as the feeling of all these tanks, jets, and helicopters taking off. It just feels goddamn awesome and pure Battlefield. If I can't take off from an aircraft carrier, what's the point?
- Status