Operations is now just a massive waste of time

«13
Gmkillers
1210 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
It used to be fun progressing to the next map and really really close matches. But now all I ever see is the attacking team taking 3 battalions and not even getting past the first sector nevermind the first map. I cannot remember the last time I played Amiens or Argonne forest on operations.

Comments

  • -Antares65z
    805 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    What do you think the problems are that is ruining the mode?
  • Gmkillers
    1210 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    1 team having 4-5 more people than the other one, people not wanting to PTFO as they will just be killed by something out of their control tanks or planes etc. It’s almost frowned upon now to PTFO as it’s just a death sentence.
  • jasoncaric
    176 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Operations is no fun on either side if there are no sectors being taken. I can usually tell how a fresh game is going to go within the first 10 minutes or so. I just quit out if there is nothing being gained or at the very least being contested.
  • BrianLocal1
    355 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Isn't that how it's always been?
  • olavafar
    1214 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited April 16
    I think one problem is that many operations have a very hard (for the attackers) first sector so getting a good start is a key factor. It also looks like people are keen to switch to defending side. I think this is because it has a higher probability of a high score towards those battle packs of the operation campaigns (if you win fast you get a high multiplier, if you lose, it was a long game so you still score a lot).

    Having said that, I played operations a fair deal this weekend and as attacker my team won and lost both as attackers and defenders. I think I won a few more as attacker actually.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    2607 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited April 16
    Hasn't it always been a giant waste of time?
  • Hawxxeye
    1058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I still find it more fun than the conquest merry go around or the weird scoring system of the conquest assault
  • KriZ_Rul3Z
    114 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I have no clue why dice made the operations so unbalanced. Surely they must have stats showing the defenders win 90% of the time?

    I always go to the defending team nowadays because attacking a sector on my own for 3 waves is extremely frustrating.
  • Hawxxeye
    1058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    KriZ_Rul3Z wrote: »
    I have no clue why dice made the operations so unbalanced. Surely they must have stats showing the defenders win 90% of the time?

    I always go to the defending team nowadays because attacking a sector on my own for 3 waves is extremely frustrating.
    In my experience it seems like most players try to play as defenders even if they are attackers, forgetting that the defenders have infinite reinforcements so they will come back faster than you can kill them unless they are really bad
  • WetFishDB
    745 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I only play that mode infrequently, however after TTK2 on other modes players seem to have become naturally more defensive in their play style (I’m guessing because mistakes are punished much quicker).

    If that’s also the case in Operations I can see it being a nightmare for attackers. Not because it’s imbalanced per se, but because their team aren’t being as aggressive as they need to be.
  • dcs500
    837 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Gmkillers wrote: »
    It used to be fun progressing to the next map and really really close matches. But now all I ever see is the attacking team taking 3 battalions and not even getting past the first sector nevermind the first map. I cannot remember the last time I played Amiens or Argonne forest on operations.

    I'm having the exact opposite problem, defensive teams just getting rolled, in minutes. Did seem balanced for a while, but seems to have gone back to the old days of defenders fighting and endless convoy of vehicles.
    What do you think the problems are that is ruining the mode?

    The players.

  • CS-2107
    1033 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    What do you think the problems are that is ruining the mode?

    @-Antares65z
    - Players, thinking they are in the defending team, even tho they are attackers, so they decide to defend the attackers mainspawn.
    - Generally it is easier to defend than to attack
    - Some maps are unbalanced (Monte Grappa, Verdun Heights for example)
    - Heavy bomber is like a "Joker Card" for defenders
    - Many many mortars
    - too many scouts on attacking team, they are helpful to an extend, but when half of your team plays scout, than you chances of pushing through, even if all of them are PTFO scouts, are bad
  • ninjapenquinuk
    509 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The current sniper community mission isn't helping because even more of the attacking team than usual are sitting back with a sniper rifle. Played a round on Oils of Empires where the attacking team made the worse attempt at taking sector one i have come across in BF1. Not only did they fail to take sector one, they only capped a flag about half a dozen times over 3 attacks.
  • oscar28052009
    51 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Febelas wrote: »
    There are a myriad of problems, but one huge (and easily solved) one is tanks.

    Operations is a mode that practically requires cooperative tank use for a team to succeed. If you dont have a multi-seat tank pushing towards a point, it can be exceedingly difficult to get infantry close to the objective. You need an armored spawn point that can wade through the sniper-heavy no man's land before the point.

    Meanwhile, virtually every operation I've played this week has at least one tank slot wasted on an artillery truck or a flanker tank. Even worse, these tanks are usually hanging back attempting to farm easy kills and wind up contributing very little to their teams progress. Infantry are being slaughtered just trying to reach the points and the artillery/flanker campers are doing nothing to help solve that.

    Easy solution I talked about: remove single-seater tanks from operations. This is probably the most team-intensive mode, and these lone wolf vehicles have no place.

    I know what you mean about tanks and sitting back. It is no different than when you have dozens of snipers sitting back miles away. However the artillery truck I tried a few months ago as I was constantly being killed while defending objective and I thought I shall try one. If you use it on right map and focus on clearing area it is really helpful. You can clear out whole area quickly by sending in gas, all artillery than top it off with smoke so troops can go in! If the team are playing objective Artillery truck can help. It is only when team is poor and not taking objectives the artillery truck sits back for ages and gets loads of kills. To give you an example I was in one and clearing out areas and they were taken quickly and game ended and we won I had 25-0 K/D and mid to low table. However on same map with a poor team not taking advantage of the area I cleared and not taking any objective on 3 attempts meant I just kept on clearing out and ended on losing team but came 1st with MVP and a whopping 137-0 K/D.

    Artillery trucks look good with a poor team. If you take objectives quickly then there is less time to rack up kills and they do job. If you are in a good team than push up with tank but a poor team that tank will be wipe out instantly as there is no back up!
  • disposalist
    6130 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Ops was always a disaster if there's a lack of PTFO and cooperation/coordination, especially for attackers. Must be a lack of PTFO recently.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    2210 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Ops was always a disaster if there's a lack of PTFO and cooperation/coordination, especially for attackers. Must be a lack of PTFO recently.

    Every single linear game mode introduced by DICE, whether it was Operations, Rush or Frontlines, has proven to be borderline unplayable unless every one plays the objective.

    In Conquest, you can get away with a squad or two not really doing anything, but in linear modes, even one person not doing much can be a great hindrance to your team's efforts.
  • oscar28052009
    51 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    So we are mostly in agreement. We play to win and that means objectives! Balance has to be right and while all classes are useful in own right and players using them as a whole I am fed up being in poor team with far too many sitting back trying not to die and not helping team. Worst cases are snipers and even more frustrating tanks sitting back hiding and not budging while they can transport players to area quickly. I also play to win and get really annoyed with game when in poor team. Saying that why is it you always start game in a poor team?
  • -Antares65z
    805 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    KriZ_Rul3Z wrote: »
    I have no clue why dice made the operations so unbalanced. Surely they must have stats showing the defenders win 90% of the time?

    Operations is a new game mode for Dice and I think their main intent with it was to gauge how the community would react to it. I don't think they planned to invest a lot of time/money into it's development, due to not knowing if it would be a success or not. Now that the community has responded very favorably to it, I imagine that the next game will have a far more refined Operations mode.

Sign In or Register to comment.