We have pushed a fix to address the issue with Rank 20 rewards. If you are missing your rewards for Class Rank 20, please play a match to completion and the Rewards should drop into your Armory.

Thanks for sticking with us.

Grand Operations? Not so grand?

«1
cylon0
68 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
edited July 26
The idea of Grand Operations is excellent by which teams doing better gain an advantage into the next round (day) of play starting with better resources and other advantages...
But what about the team that doesn't do well. I'm thinking attrition by lack of players wanting to stick around to play the additional rounds when they've been beaten down through round 1 and don't want to stick around for additional abuse through round 2.

How can this be balanced enough to make the losing side want to play the next round?
Post edited by cylon0 on

Comments

  • 0ld_yell0w
    376 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Personally I think their new gamemodes will fail like they did in earlier BF's because that is not what the playerbase wants. Its ok they add those tho, but Im sticking to the well known modes. Making the rounds linked will also stop many from joining for a quick game.
  • cylon0
    68 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah... Being locked in for multiple rounds... If they want people to stay in the Grand Operations and the people are on the day 1 losing side, the penalty should be severe for quitting, although this will lead to no one playing because they don't want to risk the penalty for quitting while losing; unless they can come up with a reward great enough for players on the losing team to stick it out even while losing.

    Or they should give the losing side an effective "behemoth" like in BF1 to start the day 2 round. Day 3 would be the tie breaker in most cases if they do this right.

    Could you imagine slogging through 3-5 rounds on the losing side during a grand operation? That would just not be fun.

    I didn't even like playing operations much in BFV alpha as most of the time I was put on the attacking side and the map clearly favored the defenders.

    For quick rounds, TDM is and will always be king.

    Conquest and TDM seem to always be the busiest with Domination as a 3rd option. I think War Pigeons in BF1 is a blast but it's only for those of us who like to PTFO.
  • CeresSoulfire
    8 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I agree on the new modes - hardly impressed, at all. Sure their nice to have, but how about shoring up the basics first - like full Coop support? EA has shown consistent disdain for coop over their past titles, it should hardly come as a surprise to anyone that they are likely going to forget it this time.

    First lets look at Battlefront, which (to be fair) had coop, just not any of the modes that mattered. Survival and basic skirmish were the name of the game, but players were left out in the cold on things such as walker assault or fighter mode.

    Battlefield 1 ignored cooperative play entirely. So there is not really much to comment on other than the completely missed opportunity.

    Battlefront 2, again, ignored cooperative play entirely, instead focusing on their "amazing new" arcade mode, and even that showed clear signs of intentional neglect at launch with its overall lack of content. Sure they finally acquiesced and added in more gameplay modes (like Starfighter Assault), but the fact that modders were able to add the mode in before they could even be bothered with even "acknowledging" their lack of support for arcade mode only furthers the point.

    So they can throw out all the promo trailers and "exciting press releases" on their multiplayer modes all they want, but I say get the basics in order FIRST before you worry about adding in anything "new and exciting"...
  • cylon0
    68 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I like your thinking on the co-op support. I made more than a few gaming friends through participation in the BF3 co-op mode.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1012 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Well you have a choice. Don't like a mode, don't play it and stop moaning. Operations and Frontlines, both introduced in BF1 were successfull, others not so. I have yet to play Grand Ops, so unsure how it will play out, but at the end of the day if i don't like it i will stick to CQ and no harm done
  • Sir-Praise-a-lot
    455 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Every game(mode) needs proper team balancing and some modes need it more than others. Balancing is such a crucial aspect which on it's own makes a vast difference in experience/enjoyment. DICE needs to up their player assessment dramatically in every aspect (more tailored to individual preferences, maps and modes) by the looks of it in BF1. How the balancing is implemented based on that information is secondary (though still crucial too).
  • cweberling
    368 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    cylon0 wrote: »
    The idea of Grand Operations is excellent by which teams doing better gain an advantage into the next round (day) of play starting with better resources and other advantages...
    But what about the team that doesn't do well. I'm thinking attrition by lack of players wanting to stick around to play the additional rounds when they've been beaten down through round 1 and don't want to stick around for additional abuse through round 2.

    How can this be balanced enough to make the losing side want to play the next round?

    Ya.....its true most people can't handle getting thrashed and will quit.

    I'm really liking Shock operations in BF1. And operations was pretty fun too. But I like having the match have more of a narrative. Makes it feel more immersive. Ultimately Rush is where it's at though game mode wise. Best game mode by far in my book.
  • SirSpectacle
    518 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Your team sucks, so on day 2 we'll give you extra penalties so you can suck even more... Sounds like great fun.
  • TropicPoison
    1496 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Your team sucks, so on day 2 we'll give you extra penalties so you can suck even more... Sounds like great fun.

    I feel like grand operations are actually going to suck, DICE are way too ambitious at times. It might be DOA if it's in the beta and everyone gets to see how it is.
  • B3ANTOWN__B3A5T
    4364 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Your team sucks, so on day 2 we'll give you extra penalties so you can suck even more... Sounds like great fun.

    I feel like grand operations are actually going to suck, DICE are way too ambitious at times. It might be DOA if it's in the beta and everyone gets to see how it is.

    Its all about CQ and BR anyway
  • 0ld_yell0w
    376 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    It never was about being on the winning team to me, but like in BF4 I can jump into a game spend 20 minutes or sometimes less because to me (having a load of kids) time is not for playing several hours straight and I would hate to leave a game halfway through.
  • DingoKillr
    2892 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The advantage may not be that game tilting like an extra 50 spawns or access to a vehicles faster.
  • Popa2caps
    520 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I don't care for Operations at all, i even said this for BF1. I don't play Battlefields to learn about the History of war. Hardcore BF all day, nothing more for these for me. Who here wants some person telling you about the war while you load? I want tips and stuff for weapons not History Channel Dice.
  • Sixclicks
    4420 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What ends up happening is players leave, and then you end up joining on the 2nd or 3rd day with a team that's no good. So you either stick with it or leave yourself and someone else enters into the same problem.
  • smokintom214
    1132 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    cylon0 wrote: »
    The idea of Grand Operations is excellent by which teams doing better gain an advantage into the next round (day) of play starting with better resources and other advantages...
    But what about the team that doesn't do well. I'm thinking attrition by lack of players wanting to stick around to play the additional rounds when they've been beaten down through round 1 and don't want to stick around for additional abuse through round 2.

    How can this be balanced enough to make the losing side want to play the next round?

    We've only saw 2 days of grand operations. There are 5 I think in total. Last day Is basically a Royale last man/team standing wins. As dinner said tho it'll be very hard to reach that mode in the end.
  • LieutenantVixen
    216 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I refuse to play it simply because the last round of Grand Ops is a deathmatch, which in my opinion should NOT be the way to decide the winner of a gamemode that isn't.....well, deathmatch. Spend all your time fighting for objectives only for the final round to just be TDM with no respawns? Nope. Not doing it.
  • staRS-SirBob
    2394 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited July 27
    Well you have a choice. Don't like a mode, don't play it and stop moaning. Operations and Frontlines, both introduced in BF1 were successfull, others not so. I have yet to play Grand Ops, so unsure how it will play out, but at the end of the day if i don't like it i will stick to CQ and no harm done
    But that's the problem. BF1 maps are designed for operation/frontline, just like BC2 was designed for rush and BF5 will be designed for grand operation.
    In all cases the CQ part was/is really bad due to bad map design for CQ. I have the feeling that we once again get a lot of linear or small maps for CQ.
    Narvik was a terrible map for CQ.
  • TheFrankSinatra
    59 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Well it needs behemoths or a commander mode or both, to balance it out for a bad team. Ops is my favorite mode, and I have won countless countless games on the losing team, with a behemoth or just trying to help the bad team get better. But...many times if they are..really bad..is still a loss. But def. possible to win when losing..with behemoths and stuff to help.

    Take that away, and yea there is not as much hope and bad teams will be way less likely to be able to come back, thus...ruining the entire point of sticking on the bad team.

    How can a WW2 game not have commander mode ?????? I can't just like, sit and look at a map ????????? it needs to at least have behemoths to balance things. Right now looks to be the worst BF game in years. Constantly taking things away that dumbs down the gameplay, no commander, no strategy, just singular squad strategy which helps players that are already good..does nothing for common players playing on a 64 server. Its like everything they have done as been tailored to good players that already play in squads. Thats not how you get a good 64 game going with random people. Most are not going to like this changes and it favors already good players which will ruin the game for everyone else. (just like bf3 which had no commander mode, no squad voip, no way for bad teams to communicate or get better.)
  • B3ANTOWN__B3A5T
    4364 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited July 27
    Well you have a choice. Don't like a mode, don't play it and stop moaning. Operations and Frontlines, both introduced in BF1 were successfull, others not so. I have yet to play Grand Ops, so unsure how it will play out, but at the end of the day if i don't like it i will stick to CQ and no harm done
    But that's the problem. BF1 maps are designed for operation/frontline, just like BC2 was designed for rush and BF5 will be designed for grand operation.
    In all cases the CQ part was/is really bad due to bad map design for CQ. I have the feeling that we once again get a lot of linear or small maps for CQ.
    Narvik was a terrible map for CQ.

    Agreed. The more circular maps with spread out flags play much better on CQ than the linear ones where flags are crammed together.

    Just look at the heatmaps Dice released. I understand theres always going to be hot flags that see most of the action but the way Narvik looked it seemed to be a COD domination map with a couple token flags around it that no one bothered with. I hope Narvik isnt how most of the other maps are laid out
  • staRS-SirBob
    2394 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited July 27
    @B3ANTOWN__B3A5T wrote
    I understand theres always going to be hot flags that see most of the action
    Agree, but a good CQ map always allows you to attack 2 other flags, and formed as a circle as you mention. We have seen too few of those maps.
    And those we have seen in BF1have been flat and uninspiring, as if they were made fast to satisfy CQ players.
    DICE used to be good at making CQ maps that did not collect 64 players around 2 flags, but they changed their focus due to operation.
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!