Was operations successful enough to have it in the upcoming game?

«1
jasoncaric
180 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
edited March 9
If it wasn’t for operations I would have stopped playing this game not long after launch. I used to love conquest in the past 3 bf games but in this game it just seems so boring and uninteresting. I’m sure they will have operations for the next game. The mode has kept me playing this game since launch and still going strong. Hopefully they have an operation for every map this time.

Comments

  • Sixclicks
    2849 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    If they bring back 40-man Operations or balance the maps properly for shoving 64 players into such a small area, then sure. I'd be happy to have Operations in the next BF game too if that were the case.

    I can't imagine them not including Operations regardless though.
  • xCRIMSONxGUARDx
    197 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Yes.
    jasoncaric wrote: »
    If it wasn’t for operations I would have stopped playing this game not long after launch. I used to love conquest in the past 3 bf games but in this game it just seems so boring and uninteresting. I’m sure they will have operations for the next game. The mode has kept me playing this game since launch and still going strong. Hopefully they have an operation for every map this time.
    Yes.

  • BumBum_BomBom
    14 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I like operations (the idea behind it , at least) but they need to polish it a lot, especially balancing, maps, behemots, cap points...they need to really balance those things!
    There are instances where the enemy is getting slaughtered because the defenders have too much camp leeway and viceversa, and ppl start leaving and other joining and others leaving and is a never ending circle!
    And btw, make it so if you quit an operation match, you aren't allowed to join another operation for X amount of minutes.
    And also, no sqaud with Origin friends in operations, that thing really breaks the maps and gameplay and leave to frustration and steamroling
    As i said, the idea behind is most awesome, but it needs polishing a lot. As it is now, i only joined them to unlock my skins and have a game here and there
  • AlotOfThunder
    1522 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    its def coming back
  • xCRIMSONxGUARDx
    197 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I like operations (the idea behind it , at least) but they need to polish it a lot, especially balancing, maps, behemots, cap points...they need to really balance those things!
    There are instances where the enemy is getting slaughtered because the defenders have too much camp leeway and viceversa, and ppl start leaving and other joining and others leaving and is a never ending circle!
    And btw, make it so if you quit an operation match, you aren't allowed to join another operation for X amount of minutes.
    And also, no sqaud with Origin friends in operations, that thing really breaks the maps and gameplay and leave to frustration and steamroling
    As i said, the idea behind is most awesome, but it needs polishing a lot. As it is now, i only joined them to unlock my skins and have a game here and there

    its hard to do what you ask, but good points none the less.
  • SirSpectacle
    375 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Operations are a natural fit to represent the famous battles of WW2, so I'm 90% sure they'll be back!
  • Monranian
    153 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    If they bring back 40-man Operations or balance the maps properly for shoving 64 players into such a small area, then sure. I'd be happy to have Operations in the next BF game too if that were the case.

    I can't imagine them not including Operations regardless though.

    Totally agree.
    Many flanking routes that are designed for 40 ppl games are pretty much useless in 64 ppl ones. And the normal attacking routes for 40 usually become nadespam chokepoints in 64.
    Even maps as wide as Achi Baba / Galicia can suffer from such problems.
  • ShiveringLights
    195 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The reason why i hate Op's is that the map is build like a garden hose, which leads inevitably to big clusterfuck/camperfest like Metro and Locker without any chance of flanking the other team. An improvement would be to make 80 or more player Ops and divide the team itself in divisions with their own objectives to capture in the OPEN and same map (but in another part ofc) which lead them eventually to the last objective (it's the same for the whole team). The attackers are then able to attack the defenders on multiple fronts. Make for the sake of balance a team of 50 slots for the defenders and only 40 slots for attackers or the other way around if necessary. You can imagine the map is build like a star and the points of it are the spawns of the divisions and the center is the last and main objective for the whole team. It will be a nightmare for the balancing system ofc but it would be a fresh idea in the franchise
  • TheGM86
    485 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Design maps around Operations. Jettison Walkquest to the trash heap. Leave Rush in the grave.
  • trip1ex
    2679 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited March 9
    unfortunately it's probably coming back even though, according to BFtracker, 80% of the scoring takes places in Conquest which may or may not mean 80% of the time spent playing the game is spent playing Conquest. But the server browser, at least on pc, also indicates Conquest is played much more than Ops and other modes.

    I think Conquest suffered because they made the maps for Ops first and then took the flags from Ops and used them for Conquest. A lot of Zerging in Conquest cause of this.

    Operations is fun once awhile to me, but it gets really repetitive really quick. Repeating the same sector really grinds on me. And then after awhile every sector of every map feels the same. You're attacking 2 flags head on spaced the same distance apart. There's not much nuance to it.

    I just hope they make Conquest from the ground up this time. It's their flagship mode. Then if they want to waste their time making another crappy mode...whatever. :)

    I really think there is enough Operations gameplay in Conquest anyway. There's a lot of head-on attacking another large mass over a flag. It's just not the only thing in Conquest like it is in Ops.

  • TamKingski
    1444 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I would say yes.
    while some dont like it,i believe the majority do and that it has been a very successful game mode for dice,so much so that im confident that ops will be an ongoing game mode in future dice titles much like Conquest is.
  • CS-2107
    1102 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    If it will be better balanced next time, than yes. Right now winning as a defender in the most cases just doesn't feel rewarding, as you always knew they had no chance to begin with.

    I like the idea of having little intros for these matches and historical facts and speculations in between and after a match. That is a nice touch.
  • snavelaer
    737 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Operation is a keeper! same for frontlines.
  • BobsAndVegane
    1252 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The problem with Operations is the same one Conquest has. Many of the maps are too small for the amount of people on them and they're designed poorly. If they would focus on designing better maps that didn't funnel everyone into the same general area, not design maps to be empty basins or fields where everyone can see everyone else at any given time, then the issues would be solved.
  • SneakyGunman
    242 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    jasoncaric wrote: »
    If it wasn’t for operations I would have stopped playing this game not long after launch. I used to love conquest in the past 3 bf games but in this game it just seems so boring and uninteresting. I’m sure they will have operations for the next game. The mode has kept me playing this game since launch and still going strong. Hopefully they have an operation for every map this time.

    Pure Yes
  • LinkZeppeloyd
    237 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The problem with Operations is the same one Conquest has. Many of the maps are too small for the amount of people on them and they're designed poorly. If they would focus on designing better maps that didn't funnel everyone into the same general area, not design maps to be empty basins or fields where everyone can see everyone else at any given time, then the issues would be solved.

    But the entire purpose of Ops is to do exactly what you say it shouldn’t, funnel everyone into a meat grinder. Thanks to all those people who meat grinded in 24/7 metro servers, DICE has been trying to make every map and mode into a corridor grinder. It really sucks for Battlefield fans, since it is the exact opposite of Conquest.
  • BobsAndVegane
    1252 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The problem with Operations is the same one Conquest has. Many of the maps are too small for the amount of people on them and they're designed poorly. If they would focus on designing better maps that didn't funnel everyone into the same general area, not design maps to be empty basins or fields where everyone can see everyone else at any given time, then the issues would be solved.

    But the entire purpose of Ops is to do exactly what you say it shouldn’t, funnel everyone into a meat grinder. Thanks to all those people who meat grinded in 24/7 metro servers, DICE has been trying to make every map and mode into a corridor grinder. It really sucks for Battlefield fans, since it is the exact opposite of Conquest.

    Be that as it may, Operations COULD be better if the maps were larger and designed to disperse everyone. Conquest too, for that matter, I don't remember any of the maps from BF2 or 2142 being bad. The worst was Songhua, but even that wasn't a bad map.
  • LinkZeppeloyd
    237 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The problem with Operations is the same one Conquest has. Many of the maps are too small for the amount of people on them and they're designed poorly. If they would focus on designing better maps that didn't funnel everyone into the same general area, not design maps to be empty basins or fields where everyone can see everyone else at any given time, then the issues would be solved.

    But the entire purpose of Ops is to do exactly what you say it shouldn’t, funnel everyone into a meat grinder. Thanks to all those people who meat grinded in 24/7 metro servers, DICE has been trying to make every map and mode into a corridor grinder. It really sucks for Battlefield fans, since it is the exact opposite of Conquest.

    Be that as it may, Operations COULD be better if the maps were larger and designed to disperse everyone. Conquest too, for that matter, I don't remember any of the maps from BF2 or 2142 being bad. The worst was Songhua, but even that wasn't a bad map.

    I agree that Conquest should be more like BF2/2142 (7-10 flags, no linear bs) but my point is that Ops is designed to funnel people. It wouldn’t jmbe Ops if you removed the corridoe grinder. That is the PURPOSE of the mode.
  • Alphazetamu
    585 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Overall, the main issue I have with ops is that unless its a wipeout, the game can last too long, upwards of an hour - it's epic and awesome fun, don't get me wrong, but I can't always play that long every day. I wish ops was a single map affair.
  • ThiefjeNL
    51 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited March 10
    The problem with Operations is the same one Conquest has. Many of the maps are too small for the amount of people on them and they're designed poorly. If they would focus on designing better maps that didn't funnel everyone into the same general area, not design maps to be empty basins or fields where everyone can see everyone else at any given time, then the issues would be solved.

    But the entire purpose of Ops is to do exactly what you say it shouldn’t, funnel everyone into a meat grinder. Thanks to all those people who meat grinded in 24/7 metro servers, DICE has been trying to make every map and mode into a corridor grinder. It really sucks for Battlefield fans, since it is the exact opposite of Conquest.

    Be that as it may, Operations COULD be better if the maps were larger and designed to disperse everyone. Conquest too, for that matter, I don't remember any of the maps from BF2 or 2142 being bad. The worst was Songhua, but even that wasn't a bad map.

    I remember BF2142's Camp Gibraltar and Fall of Berlin to be quite the meat grinders actually. :P And it was largely due to their design. Though I must admit, I didn't play those maps as often since they didn't have Titan mode. :P
    But still, the attacking team did have more options open to them such as an early vehicle rush, sneaking squad leaders behind the line (much more doable with Recon optical camo) or the Commander's orbital strike to surpress the defenders and create an opening.

    But honestly, any map in BF2 or BF2142 which did some funneling, from what I remember, had Conquest Assault or Assault Lines as mode so the whole map (or the vast majority of it) is open to you. You could actually move around the frontline and hit the rear rather than being stuck in a given sector, which is the main issue with Operations.

    On topic: Yeah I reckon Operations will come back in some shape or form, given how it was BF1's flagship gamemode. Though I'm curious to see how they'll tackle things like Behemoths depending on the setting of the next BF.
Sign In or Register to comment.