Bringing back Behemoths and Elite classes

Comments

  • azelenkin0306
    538 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 2018
    MHbluey wrote: »
    just no, simply a crutch that punishes successful play, another reason I've played much less BF1 than earlier games

    Exactly this. All these crutches artificially interrupted quality team play and suppressed individual talent. Never again.

    Not sure about the mode you're talking about, but in Operations these crutches help losing team to push. Remove them from Operations and 9 out of 10 rounds for Attacking team will end in the 1st sector. I don't understand, what talent is required to shoot poor 10-15 players, who try to push, while others are too busy camping.

    In a perfect world where all teams are somewhat equal, Attacking team is pushing, Defending team is desperately trying to hold them, Medics are healing/reviving, Support players are supporting and Scouts are scouting, there is no need for these gimmicks and good teamplay + individual talents are key factors to win the round. But in reality it's not like that. As a pure Operations player, I can tell you that removing Elites and Behemoths from it will negatively affect this mode and stomps will be even harder.

    This is a game, not a real-life competition. People have different skills, different reaction times, different schedules and other factors, like family or multiple jobs. Also not all players play in Platoons and etc.

    The best solution is to have public servers where everyone can play and have some fun, and custom servers, where you can make all necessary adjustments (remove Elites, Sweetspot, 3d spotting and etc.) for competitive play.

    Thanks
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    663 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Genuinely don't get what all the fuss is about.

    The Behemoths provided a fun focal point for the entire side to target.
    And encountering elites on the Battlefield just adds to the challenge, requiring you to eliminate them with different strategies. I loved playing as elites, and if it lets a bad player enjoy a couple of kills before I slam a bayonet through their armoured skull, that's fine by me.

    In both cases it's rare for either to actually turn a game, just turns a stomp into a more interesting stomp. Too many people stressing about their K/D. It's a game, variation is good.
  • Hortey
    201 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Sounds like your argument is a big giant contradiction.

    It definitely does not change the battle most of the time nor I'd argue some the base argument you presented.

    Incentive,reward,prize,gift etc you can interchange these words. It still means the same thing. They all get something for sucking

    The thing is though.... so what?

    Why is everyone so bothered by the losing team getting something that doesn't change the outcome of the match? Are you that much of a hardliner competitor that you'd rather 32 people get spawncamped for 20 minutes every time a team loses until they quit playing the game because it isn't fun? Everyone that doesn't like behemoths needs to lighten up significantly and realize that the losing team is made up of people who are playing a videogame in their spare time.

    For the first time in a main battlefield game.

    THE FIRST TIME

    There isn't a widespread issue of spawn camping and servers emptying out because of the spawn camping. And many of you are so petty that you'd do away with this mechanic simply on principal that little Timmy shouldn't get something he didn't earn. Nobody LIKED being the team that got the behemoth, nobody intentionally lost to get the behemoth and come back to victory, so it's not an incentive for a team to be bad.... it was an incentive for a bad team to stick it out and PLAY.
  • RRedux
    657 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If they really leave out the godawful behemoths and elite classes, the question quickly becomes, what NEW kind of crutch mechanic will be used in bf5 for... "balancing"?
  • x_Undaunted_x
    3760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    RRedux wrote: »
    If they really leave out the godawful behemoths and elite classes, the question quickly becomes, what NEW kind of crutch mechanic will be used in bf5 for... "balancing"?

    The V1 rocket or the Tiger tank (I think that's what it was called???)
  • Ameeba37
    1753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hortey wrote: »
    Sounds like your argument is a big giant contradiction.

    It definitely does not change the battle most of the time nor I'd argue some the base argument you presented.

    Incentive,reward,prize,gift etc you can interchange these words. It still means the same thing. They all get something for sucking

    The thing is though.... so what?

    Why is everyone so bothered by the losing team getting something that doesn't change the outcome of the match? Are you that much of a hardliner competitor that you'd rather 32 people get spawncamped for 20 minutes every time a team loses until they quit playing the game because it isn't fun? Everyone that doesn't like behemoths needs to lighten up significantly and realize that the losing team is made up of people who are playing a videogame in their spare time.

    For the first time in a main battlefield game.

    THE FIRST TIME

    There isn't a widespread issue of spawn camping and servers emptying out because of the spawn camping. And many of you are so petty that you'd do away with this mechanic simply on principal that little Timmy shouldn't get something he didn't earn. Nobody LIKED being the team that got the behemoth, nobody intentionally lost to get the behemoth and come back to victory, so it's not an incentive for a team to be bad.... it was an incentive for a bad team to stick it out and PLAY.

    For a team to get spawntrapped it has to be absolute trash and a behemoth is not going to help them. Also the dreadnought really isn't even helpful in breaking a spawnrape, it is just a nuisance to the winning team since you never know when you're going to be outplayed by some skrub in an easy mode multikill machine.

    In BF4 for example spawnrapes are fairly rare and in case it happens the round doesn't last long because of the fast ticket bleed caused by the all-cap. In BF1 behemoths just make the losing team suffer longer if anything.

    Hortey wrote: »
    Sounds like your argument is a big giant contradiction.

    It definitely does not change the battle most of the time nor I'd argue some the base argument you presented.

    Incentive,reward,prize,gift etc you can interchange these words. It still means the same thing. They all get something for sucking

    Everyone that doesn't like behemoths needs to lighten up significantly and realize that the losing team is made up of people who are playing a videogame in their spare time.

    For the first time in a main battlefield game.

    THE FIRST TIME

    Tragic.
    Hortey wrote: »
    Sounds like your argument is a big giant contradiction.

    It definitely does not change the battle most of the time nor I'd argue some the base argument you presented.

    Incentive,reward,prize,gift etc you can interchange these words. It still means the same thing. They all get something for sucking

    And many of you are so petty that you'd do away with this mechanic simply on principal that little Timmy shouldn't get something he didn't earn. -- so it's not an incentive for a team to be bad.... it was an incentive for a bad team to stick it out and PLAY.

    First off little Timmy shouldn't even be playing the game.

    And for the latter part: "oh, so you're losing? Here's a thing to pad your stats a bit and feel better about yourselves".
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Ameeba37 wrote: »
    For a team to get spawntrapped it has to be absolute trash and a behemoth is not going to help them. Also the dreadnought really isn't even helpful in breaking a spawnrape, it is just a nuisance to the winning team since you never know when you're going to be outplayed by some skrub in an easy mode multikill machine.

    In BF4 for example spawnrapes are fairly rare and in case it happens the round doesn't last long because of the fast ticket bleed caused by the all-cap. In BF1 behemoths just make the losing team suffer longer if anything.

    My years of playing BF4 showed me that spawn-camping was fairly common. Most of my BF4 games had one team winning by hundreds upon hundreds of tickets. Certain maps, like Metro and Lockers, had a guaranteed spawn camp every time I played it. My recent BF4 session was pretty much matches where my team lost every flag, and the only reason some of them dragged on for a bit is that our team would capture our 'gimme' flag from time to time.

    You'd also have to understand that, in some servers, many people on one team 'platoon stack' ... these people are constantly coordinating with each other, which gives them a massive advantage over random pub players. I'm not saying that this is actually a bad thing, but it does happen, and in my experience of playing BF4 on the PS4 for years, it happens more often than not, especially in third party servers.

    Now, back on topic. I'll agree that behemoths and elite classes don't work too well in Conquest, but they're pretty much necessary for Operations. If a team couldn't get to the end of the map, they're going to need some sort of help to actually push through to the next sector. The behemoth in this game mode could actually help a team to do this. Also, good players could use elite kits to give themselves an additional advantage, which would allow them to carry the team a bit better. Bad players can also get some extra armour and better weapons, which would allow them to combat superior enemies. If these features weren't there, then the entire premise of Operations would pretty much fall apart. If a team get held in one sector, and they don't get any advantage afterwards, you may as well end the match immediately. Unless you are on a platoon-stacked team that is working as a proper, well-coordinated unit, you and the rest of your teammates are just going to lose the round again ... and then lose it again, one last time.
  • SirBobdk
    3703 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @Ferdinand_J_Foch
    Now, back on topic. I'll agree that behemoths and elite classes don't work too well in Conquest, but they're pretty much necessary for Operations. If a team couldn't get to the end of the map, they're going to need some sort of help to actually push through to the next sector
    That's the reality of BF1, but the primary reason is bad map design and a TDM mentality by today's players. It makes no difference if's CQ or operation.
    The majority of the players don't want to PTFO, but only getting kills, and that's really sad.
    I don't mind the Behemonths, but I dislike the reason for them.
  • MLDBubbles2143
    636 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    No thank you. If one team is losing then its because they are clearly not good enough and need to change they way they play. What gaming culture are we creating if we add bohemoths? Basically we are saying its ok to play as the losing team. Naa come on guys surely Battlefield is better than that?
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @Ferdinand_J_Foch
    Now, back on topic. I'll agree that behemoths and elite classes don't work too well in Conquest, but they're pretty much necessary for Operations. If a team couldn't get to the end of the map, they're going to need some sort of help to actually push through to the next sector
    That's the reality of BF1, but the primary reason is bad map design and a TDM mentality by today's players. It makes no difference if's CQ or operation.
    The majority of the players don't want to PTFO, but only getting kills, and that's really sad.
    I don't mind the Behemonths, but I dislike the reason for them.

    I can see your point, but even if you had a map that was seen by literally everyone as perfect in terms of it's layout, and you had players that played the objective constantly, you're still going to get a lot of matches where a team doesn't get past the first few sectors. Sometimes, you can have people constantly throwing themselves on the flags, tanks fighting alongside infantry, aircraft doing their best to bomb the enemy, medics and supports trying their hardest, and yet, because the enemy team was just ... better than us ... they win quite decisively. If someone you're up against is superior to you in every way, it doesn't matter how hard you try, because they will always win .. always, unless you of course, you bend or break a few rules.

    I'll give you an example from a different game, Rainbow Six Siege. I played one match against a Jager player, who was probably one of the most 'seemingly invincible' players I have ever gone against. Our team tried everything ... we used shields, we used flashbangs ... we tried it all ... and every single time, this Jager would headshot all of us instantly. We wouldn't even see him properly before we died to him ... he got something like 14 kills in the match. All of our teamwork made no difference. I checked his rank after the game ... of course, he was a Diamond ranked player, so he was someone who was objectively better than our entire team, which was filled with unranked players and one Silver ranked player.

    In a similar scenario, I once joined a match with two Frenchmen on my team. Now, this game is called Rainbow Six SIEGE, but these guys ... they didn't give a damn about being tactical. They ran outside as soon as the match started, and they killed the entire enemy team within seconds. Every. Single. Time. Once again, I checked their ranks, and these were Diamond ranked players. The enemies did their best to be cautious, watching every angle ... I could tell as much when observing them with our cameras. It didn't matter ... these guys would rush out with bloody Rook and Doc of all players, and slaughter everyone. In our last round, one of the enemies survived the initial slaughter, and he got so spooked whilst running away from them that he ran straight into my MP7's bullets.

    I've seen similar things happen in CSGO, especially when smurfs get involved. Sometimes, the map design or the player's intention of PTFO doesn't matter if they enemy is objectively superior. Sometimes, when a player understands that there is probably nothing that they could do, they resort to useless tactics that get them free kills, such as sniping at the back of the map, using the Artillery Truck, or just sitting far away from the objective in general. The only way to solve this particular issue would be to have a very advanced matchmaking algorithm, to ensure that players are always matched against equally skilled opponents ... I have yet to encounter such an algorithm.

    That's not to say you won't find players who ignore objectives, but that doesn't really have anything to do with game design, and it's something that's widespread. If people can use an accurate racing/flight sim, that happens to be used by real life professional drivers or professional/military pilots, and still make incredibly stupid mistakes like crashing on the first corner of a bloody oval, then anything is possible.
  • SirBobdk
    3703 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    @Ferdinand_J_Foch
    Sometimes, you can have people constantly throwing themselves on the flags, tanks fighting alongside infantry, aircraft doing their best to bomb the enemy, medics and supports trying their hardest, and yet, because the enemy team was just ... better than us ... they win quite decisively. If someone you're up against is superior to you in every way, it doesn't matter how hard you try, because they will always win
    That's true but only in Battlefield1. This was not a problem in BC2 or Red Orchestra. Most fights went to the last sector without behemonths.
    The concept about having 32x32 players around 1-2 flags don't work imo. DICE are making bad linear or small maps for CQ and haven't found the right solution for operation yet.
    There are to many players gathered around a very small area on most of the maps. We saw the same pattern in the Alpha.
  • RRedux
    657 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Do people really enjoy winning conquest when their team is given the behemoth? (or the extra elite kits on some maps)

    Winning cause the game took pity on you and your team.

    "Poor baby, do you need some special help, just for you?"

    It doesn't happen too often, but if the team I am on wins like that, it really doesn't feel like victory, knowing that the other team would have won if the game didn't boost us.

  • Foot_Elite_Tomei
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    This start to sound like a skill-based matchmaking issue than anything else. That's only known cure for this disease. Handicapping others for kill farming isn't.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2018
    RRedux wrote: »
    Do people really enjoy winning conquest when their team is given the behemoth? (or the extra elite kits on some maps)

    Winning cause the game took pity on you and your team.

    "Poor baby, do you need some special help, just for you?"

    It doesn't happen too often, but if the team I am on wins like that, it really doesn't feel like victory, knowing that the other team would have won if the game didn't boost us.

    People don't care. They'll still post "EZ" in the chat at the end of the round even when the behemoth wins the game for them.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @Ferdinand_J_Foch
    Sometimes, you can have people constantly throwing themselves on the flags, tanks fighting alongside infantry, aircraft doing their best to bomb the enemy, medics and supports trying their hardest, and yet, because the enemy team was just ... better than us ... they win quite decisively. If someone you're up against is superior to you in every way, it doesn't matter how hard you try, because they will always win
    That's true but only in Battlefield1. This was not a problem in BC2 or Red Orchestra. Most fights went to the last sector without behemonths.
    The concept about having 32x32 players around 1-2 flags don't work imo. DICE are making bad linear or small maps for CQ and haven't found the right solution for operation yet.
    There are to many players gathered around a very small area on most of the maps. We saw the same pattern in the Alpha.

    Are you sure about that? I've had a lot of matches on BC1/BC2 where our team couldn't get past the first MCOMs, even though our team was constantly attacking them. I've also seen similar events in Rising Storm 2, which is made by the same people who made RO2 ... matches where our team either steamrolls the opposition, or we can't get even the first objective, no matter what we do.
  • SirBobdk
    3703 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @Ferdinand_J_Foch wrote
    Are you sure about that? I've had a lot of matches on BC1/BC2 where our team couldn't get past the first MCOMs, even though our team was constantly attacking them. I've also seen similar events in Rising Storm 2
    Off cause there were matches where we couldn't get past the first M-com i BC2, but most of the times we did. Rising Storm was even better. But my point was more that's it is nothing like BF1 where most of the maps ends up around one flag and don't go any further. Both in CQ and Operation. Imo it's more due to the map design than balance.
    Most of the maps have the "locker/Metro effect" with 32x32 facing each other.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @Ferdinand_J_Foch wrote
    Are you sure about that? I've had a lot of matches on BC1/BC2 where our team couldn't get past the first MCOMs, even though our team was constantly attacking them. I've also seen similar events in Rising Storm 2
    Off cause there were matches where we couldn't get past the first M-com i BC2, but most of the times we did. Rising Storm was even better. But my point was more that's it is nothing like BF1 where most of the maps ends up around one flag and don't go any further. Both in CQ and Operation. Imo it's more due to the map design than balance.
    Most of the maps have the "locker/Metro effect" with 32x32 facing each other.

    Again, this is down to personal experience. Most of my BC1/BC2 matches ended up like a lot of Operations matches in BF1: a total domination. The same thing can be said about Rising Storm 2. I'll agree that map design plays a part in it, but honestly, BC1/BC2's map design for Rush felt like there were too many choke points.

    Your experiences and my experiences are completely different, so I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this.
  • rainkloud
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    For the record I am against Elites and behemoths in their BF1 iterations as they are thematically at odds with the more realistic tone (relatively speaking) of BFV. In BF1 they kinda fit as this was clearly a game that was very loosely adhering to the WW1 theme which is acceptable given that a more strict adherence would have been very much at odds with traditional BF gameplay. That's not to say that I liked them (I didn't) but they sort of fit in what was something of a fantasy WW1 setting.

    As a gameplay mechanic though I think there is definitely some merit there when it comes to providing advantages to a team that is on the losing end of lopsided engagement. There are numerous benefits to this mechanic:
    • Increases the chances of the losing team to gain ground and reduce the score disparity thus increasing tension and anxiety on both sides.
    • Reduces boredom on the winning side associated with large score gaps. Increasing the challenge level helps keep good players engaged and helps maintain their skill level as there is often little growth to be obtained from competing against opponents of significantly lesser skill.
    • Helps account for gaps that the balancer can't account for. The balancer can only do so much with current tech. It can't account for someone who is AFK for short periods. It can't account for someone who has equipment problems/inequalities. It can't account for an otherwise good player who is emotionally and/or physically compromised. It can't account for the potentially massive benefits of a squad who has played and practiced together. It can't account for cheaters undetected by AC. It cannot account for class imbalance. It cannot account for player ignorance of weapon/vehicle balance (players aware of patch changes for example).
    • Boosts the morale of the losing team. Often a large score gap saps morale and leads to players becoming disengaged in pursuing the objective or goofing around. This has a snowball effect and further exacerbates the problem. Providing a bonus to those players can sometimes be enough to compel them to refocus their efforts on PTFO.
    • Being on the losing end of a lopsided game can instill a feeling of helplessness and inadequacy and those feelings can lead people to quit a match or quit playing altogether.
    • Has strong thematic adherence. If we zoom out 30k feet and look at the situation it is natural that as a commander you would be inclined to send aid to troops that were failing in a dramatic fashion.

    There are also disadvantages:
    • The complexion of the teams may change radically of over the course of game. What started as an ill equipped team could morph into a powerhouse as players come and go. This can result in the unintended effect of giving advantages to a team that is not in need of it.
    • A large score gap game is not necessarily an unenjoyable one for the winning side. There's pleasure and satisfaction to be had for the winning team for having gotten so far out in front that they can take a bit of pressure off themselves and play at a more relaxed pace and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Or perhaps they further increase the pressure to see just how dominant they can be. This can lead to players quitting on the losing side which further increases the level of dominance which can be very satisfying for those (myself not excluded) who derive pleasure from exerting dominance over others in this context. Depriving players of this satisfaction is especially detrimental to players with low EQ as deficiencies in other aspects of their lives lead them to place an erroneously high value on stats as a means of self validation.
    • A large score gap game also can change the tone of the game in a positive fashion. That is to say that when the outcome is no longer in question this can allow for an opportunity for players to experiment with strategies and tactics they would not normally do so otherwise. The same can be said for classes and vehicles. Whereas you may not be inclined to fly a fighter plane or use a gun you don't normally use a large score disparity game allows you the opportunity to experiment and practice with those options you would not otherwise employ for fear of costing your team the lead. And of course a lopsided game can allow for opportunities for comic relief and the high quality craziness that the BF series has been known to produce.
    • Being on the losing end of a lopsided game can instill a feeling of helplessness and inadequacy and those feelings can be powerful motivators for self improvement leading to better performance and satisfaction.

      Given the advantages and disadvantages and taking into account the theme of the game I would propose the following:

      Provide a team that is losing by a large amount with a modest boost to their capabilities for a fixed duration. This can take the form of an added vehicle spawn (extra tank or plane) and/or reduced spawn times (say 25% less) for infantry and vehicles. The reduced spawn time also has the interesting benefit of potentially speeding up defeat (mercifully) for a badly losing team by increasing the rate which they are fed into the kill machine the opposing team has setup. These boosts do not conflict with the game theme by introducing super soldiers or over the top and out of place super vehicles.

      However, in order to retain the benefits of the lopsided games these boosts would only be given sometimes. Let's say if the game is lopsided that the reinforcements would only be given in 50% of games. There would be a nice high quality and motivating voice over from the radio operator that HQ is deploying additional resources to help you recover followed by an exact explanation on screen of what those bonuses were. The currently winning team would receive delayed notification of enemy reinforcements about a minute later.

      This way, lopsided games with no changes to the game dynamics would still exist. I think this solution gives much needed variety to the game and balances the needs and desires of the wide ranging player base most effectively.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    No. I like not having them in a bleed system. They won't be necessary for a comeback if you assume players will actually ptfo enough to stall the bleeding of their ticket count.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    rainkloud wrote: »

    Given the advantages and disadvantages and taking into account the theme of the game I would propose the following:

    Provide a team that is losing by a large amount with a modest boost to their capabilities for a fixed duration. This can take the form of an added vehicle spawn (extra tank or plane) and/or reduced spawn times (say 25% less) for infantry and vehicles. The reduced spawn time also has the interesting benefit of potentially speeding up defeat (mercifully) for a badly losing team by increasing the rate which they are fed into the kill machine the opposing team has setup. These boosts do not conflict with the game theme by introducing super soldiers or over the top and out of place super vehicles.

    However, in order to retain the benefits of the lopsided games these boosts would only be given sometimes. Let's say if the game is lopsided that the reinforcements would only be given in 50% of games. There would be a nice high quality and motivating voice over from the radio operator that HQ is deploying additional resources to help you recover followed by an exact explanation on screen of what those bonuses were. The currently winning team would receive delayed notification of enemy reinforcements about a minute later.

    This way, lopsided games with no changes to the game dynamics would still exist. I think this solution gives much needed variety to the game and balances the needs and desires of the wide ranging player base most effectively.
    I would request something like: everytime a team gets behind by 250, they spawn extra transport vehicles in their spawn.
    I'm not sure if that's severe enough to change the tide, but there will always be chances to come back in a bleed system.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!