Attrition video -- Levelcap

Comments

  • Trokey66
    8602 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    You absolutely, positively, CANNOT prove that. Please. STOP.

    You don't like what I have to say feel free to stop reading.







    I did. Several times in this thread including the example in the post *you just quoted*. No one in the thread disagrees on the fact that attrition will affect some players more so than it will affect others. Most of us are arguing the fairness of it or lack thereof, some think it's not unfair and say adopt a challenge and adapt mentality and some say it helps one player group by artificially hardcapping the effectiveness of another player group and so can be viewed as unfair.
    Trokey66 wrote: »

    OR.....

    Player B misses most of his shots when shooting and runs out of ammo.....?

    Player B doesn't live long enough to run out of ammo. According to Dice the average player life is 45 seconds. If you go back to Dice's quote in the blogpost, this is EXACTLY what they (the designers of this mechanic) say.

    You mean the one about NEW players and not 'bad' players?
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »

    I think it's a factor. Definitely a good reason for some players that I've talked to.

    For me it's a factor as well, but the tediousness of it all was my biggest gripe about it.

    I think that has alot to do with what one is used to. You are used to not having to bother with the stuff, thus making having to start doing it tedious. After a little while it becomes a natural thing to do.

    It takes a little while to get used to new systems. So let's not judge it down and under before giving it a proper chance. That being said, i actually like the system. So to me it doesn't matter. And i constantly run out of ammo in BF1. So I don't really feel like I'm noticing that much of a difference to be honest.

    I invested 20+ hours into the BFV tests. Maybe 30+, but I'm not confident to say that... I'd have to check.

    I think thats more than enough for a fair chance, but it's just not a fun mechanic for me. Or to be more specific... Alpha 1 and Beta made the mechanic a chore.
  • Mystriall
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »

    I think it's a factor. Definitely a good reason for some players that I've talked to.

    For me it's a factor as well, but the tediousness of it all was my biggest gripe about it.

    I think that has alot to do with what one is used to. You are used to not having to bother with the stuff, thus making having to start doing it tedious. After a little while it becomes a natural thing to do.

    It takes a little while to get used to new systems. So let's not judge it down and under before giving it a proper chance. That being said, i actually like the system. So to me it doesn't matter. And i constantly run out of ammo in BF1. So I don't really feel like I'm noticing that much of a difference to be honest.

    I invested 20+ hours into the BFV tests. Maybe 30+, but I'm not confident to say that... I'd have to check.

    I think thats more than enough for a fair chance, but it's just not a fun mechanic for me. Or to be more specific... Alpha 1 and Beta made the mechanic a chore.

    I can understand it, but i still don't think it should be removed. Maybe they need to look at how to implement it in a "middle way" where it might not be as presistent. But i don't want to see it removed, but that's my opinion.
  • DeadlyDanDaMan
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    Maybe they need to look at how to implement it in a "middle way" where it might not be as presistent.

    DICE is already working on doing exactly that. That's why they increased the number of ammo everyone starts with, the max amount of ammo everyone can carry, and everyone starts with a spare medic pouch. It seems that a lot of people have forgotten that they've done these things already...which is why people should wait until they play the final product before screaming to the rafters about how attrition is bane of existence.
  • Trokey66
    8602 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    Maybe they need to look at how to implement it in a "middle way" where it might not be as presistent.

    DICE is already working on doing exactly that. That's why they increased the number of ammo everyone starts with, the max amount of ammo everyone can carry, and everyone starts with a spare medic pouch. It seems that a lot of people have forgotten that they've done these things already...which is why people should wait until they play the final product before screaming to the rafters about how attrition is bane of existence.

    But crying is immediate......
  • BaronVonGoon
    6972 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    You absolutely, positively, CANNOT prove that. Please. STOP.

    You don't like what I have to say feel free to stop reading.







    I did. Several times in this thread including the example in the post *you just quoted*. No one in the thread disagrees on the fact that attrition will affect some players more so than it will affect others.

    No, you didn't PROVE anything. You are using conjecture and speculation. You have NO hard facts or data to back you up. Will attrition affect players? Yes, of course it will. It will affect EVERYONE. Will it affect some players more than others? You don't know and you can't prove that it will, no matter how much conjecture and speculation you use. This entire argument is a complete farce.

    Dorsnt matter. That's insane its along the lines of 'You can't prove I have a brain because you haven't seen it'. Umm its based on logic, experience, history, educated guesses etc...

    Ofcourse it's based on speculation. I don't have any hard data. But bring me a preschooler and I guarantee you they'll come to the conclusion that a player who lives longer is more likely to run out of ammo and; therefore,more likely to be affected by a mechanic that further limits ammo. It's logic, no hard data needed.

    Whether you consider that proof or not, doesn't matter. It's irrelevant I'm not here to prove anything. Logic dictates that limiting ammo negatively affects those who live longer, period -- The point of discussion is (or should be) is this good or bad.

    We're at the stage of discussing the effects of global warming on the planet, you're at the stage of questioning the very existence of global warming.
  • HardAimedKid
    11386 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    I dont see how it makes things easier for one group than the other. Player B is under 1 K/D...I don't think they will agree that they have anything easy.


    Player B is more unlikely to run out of ammo before being killed, and as a result the scarcity affects them less.

    I'm not convinced that it necessarily makes things more difficult for Player A... but it does create limitations to viable engagements. If we're talking purely about being a slayer, then your slaying potential is hindered by the limited ammo. Whether that's good or bad is really up to the player, and what kind of experience they want.

    The big issue for me is that I simply just found it tedious to deal with. I love the ammo depots as they encourage players to stick around objectives, but the frequency of their interaction became a chore. It also severely limited suppression and bullet penetration for any role outside of support... I found that to be fairly dull as well.

    I get it that it can be tedious. But like you said, I don't see how it punishes or hinders player A.

    In terms of a slayer I dont think it hurts them either since they will still get ammo from the people they kill. And if they run out of ammo they can do what they did in every other BF game. Grab a dead soliders gun.

    As a slayer, I think it will hinder you regardless of what you do. There will be scenarios where its unoptimal to run over to get more ammo, whether that's from a crate or from the enemies you killed. 3 mags just not being enough to really cash in, so to speak.

    Any time spent grabbing ammo is taking away from your KPM.

    In Battlefield 3, all you had to think about was the map flow, and common hot spots. By the time you ran out of ammo, you already had an insane killstreak. Once you picked up a gun, I think there was a good chance that your slaying potential was now lower, though. I see infinite ammo as being the "maximum" potential for a slayer.

    Are the people who are complaining about the attrition system, doing so because it makes it more difficult for them to get their K/D and KPM stats?

    I think it's a factor. Definitely a good reason for some players that I've talked to.

    For me it's a factor as well, but the tediousness of it all was my biggest gripe about it.

    This word right here is why I don't like it. In a completely honest moment I prefer a little more mindlessness in my arcade shooters. That's all lol.
  • BaronVonGoon
    6972 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Mystriall wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    I dont see how it makes things easier for one group than the other. Player B is under 1 K/D...I don't think they will agree that they have anything easy.


    Player B is more unlikely to run out of ammo before being killed, and as a result the scarcity affects them less.

    I'm not convinced that it necessarily makes things more difficult for Player A... but it does create limitations to viable engagements. If we're talking purely about being a slayer, then your slaying potential is hindered by the limited ammo. Whether that's good or bad is really up to the player, and what kind of experience they want.

    The big issue for me is that I simply just found it tedious to deal with. I love the ammo depots as they encourage players to stick around objectives, but the frequency of their interaction became a chore. It also severely limited suppression and bullet penetration for any role outside of support... I found that to be fairly dull as well.

    I get it that it can be tedious. But like you said, I don't see how it punishes or hinders player A.

    In terms of a slayer I dont think it hurts them either since they will still get ammo from the people they kill. And if they run out of ammo they can do what they did in every other BF game. Grab a dead soliders gun.

    As a slayer, I think it will hinder you regardless of what you do. There will be scenarios where its unoptimal to run over to get more ammo, whether that's from a crate or from the enemies you killed. 3 mags just not being enough to really cash in, so to speak.

    Any time spent grabbing ammo is taking away from your KPM.

    In Battlefield 3, all you had to think about was the map flow, and common hot spots. By the time you ran out of ammo, you already had an insane killstreak. Once you picked up a gun, I think there was a good chance that your slaying potential was now lower, though. I see infinite ammo as being the "maximum" potential for a slayer.

    Are the people who are complaining about the attrition system, doing so because it makes it more difficult for them to get their K/D and KPM stats?

    I think it's a factor. Definitely a good reason for some players that I've talked to.

    For me it's a factor as well, but the tediousness of it all was my biggest gripe about it.

    This word right here is why I don't like it. In a completely honest moment I prefer a little more mindlessness in my arcade shooters. That's all lol.

    THIS
  • x_Undaunted_x
    3765 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    This word right here is why I don't like it. In a completely honest moment I prefer a little more mindlessness in my arcade shooters. That's all lol.

    Same here. I'm not going to get into the whole skilled vs unskilled debate. The fact I have to always be aware of ammo and rely on some clueless blueberry when none of my friends are playing (which is often) removes the fun factor to me.
  • phoenix1368
    102 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I never play bf1, but I play bf4 so much. I almost never use assault in bf4, cuz cant do tanks and always low on ammo.
    When I play bf5 open beta, ammo was a such a huge problem. I always run low and remark my word I never ever receive a ammo pack.
    I know that dice is adding a ammo and med prompt to the game.
    I feel that the reason why people dont distribute med and ammo pack is because they dont know I need it.
    I can counting on the prompt.
  • phr91
    124 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Could everybody please stop whining about Attrition?
    I like it. If you only play with randoms, thats your problem. Everyone asked for a more Tactical, Team/Squad-Based Style.
    If you play with randoms, and there is no Supporter in your Squad, just choose Support, stick with your Squad and Resupply.
    When every Player would think more as a Squad that has to work, instead of a wanting to be "the one and only", going for the best K/D, the whole Team would be better -> your team probably wins -> more team based game. Having a Medic, Assault, Support + Scout is obviously the best combination (depending of the map, maybe 2 Med's instead of the Scout? dunno). Thats why Squad Size is 4. The game is forcing you, to be more flexible with choosing the class that is missing in the squad. I can understand, when playing with randoms you just dont care about them, you want to rule and so on. but thats not where bf5 wants to go - and i really appreciate that.
  • orangebionic
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Either way this system rewards those who defend or capture flags or are in a team playing squard. I like that.

    Couldnt be said better.

    This is the issue some have with attrition. they cant have dozens of kills and be focused only on that, while ignoring objectives. Teamwork is the king.
  • MogwaiWarrior
    811 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member


    This is the way I feel about Attrition.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    edited October 2018

    Yes, it does. What's so hard to understand about this? It's logic.

    It is a logical conclusion if it happens. I just don't base my opinion on what consumer players do based on the experience of the developer players. I don't know how good they are, and I saw plenty of good players in the beta who scored 50+ kills every round in a brand new game. These "skilled" players didn't seem hampered. Also, if bad players are predetermined to die every 45 seconds, doesn't logic dictate that they will lose for that? You should be thanking the FPS gods for a scenario such as what DICE says.
    Seriously? What's so hard about trying to picture the scenario. Good player lives longer, likely to run out of ammo more so than player who dies fast. Is this not logic? And if so, does it not also mean that they're more likely to be affected by attrition.
    He does live longer, on average. So, he is technically more likely to run out of ammo more, on average. But attrition isn't just ammo. A bad player won't manage low health better than that skilled player.

    But the fact that it does impact a skilled player's performance doesn't suggest that the feature is a negative. It's still just a preference from solo and team-dependence. Your ideology of "skill" is not an objectively better one than a teamwork one.
    As I said, you are obviously entitled to it. And everyone else is entitled to like the challenge of attrition, like me. Skill isn't the only factor in our ideology. I, for one, like how managing resources makes it feel like a team-arena shooter.
    I meam come on. Is this the more likely scenario or is the one where player A lives longer than player B? Why are you dealing with scenarios other than average scenarios, the more likely ones. We're not in uncharted territory here, strong players live longer than weaker or newer players, we have history to prove this and Dice dropped telemetry a year or so ago indicating the average life is 45 seconds, meaning we don't all live for 45 seconds.
    I don't think either seem much more likely. I am confident that both happen enough to make them an invalid basis for a decision discriminating against one group of player over another.
    And when you say "but attrition goes against skilled players!", you are stating your opinion. You have only made arguments in the ammo department of attrition, but haven't addressed the health portion of it.

    I mean, come on. State your opinion on that.
    That's awful. I really hope this meta doesn't develop.
    You are expressing preference. Why are you doing it here but not in other parts? Shifting from promoting one ultimatum for another is a bad way to support either of them.
    If this were a movie this would soon be labeled science fiction or fantasy because you're delving into the improbable too much. It'll change how we play but it's NOT going to change the definition of a good player. Please, relaaa, nickel, AKA ART are still going g to be good players, the definition is not going to change to the point where Player B is now going to be considered the better player than the aforementioned. The aforementioned are going to be pissed off because they're running out of ammo so much and having to go scavenge all the time. What do you know AKA ART posted about this exactly just yesterday.
    I'll watch his video later. The improbable? What would be improbable is: you admitting that it will change how we play,
    but not simultaneously dictate who is superior at that changed gameplay.

    You are basically saying this: "This game rewards different skills from a past game, but I will still use the definition from the past game do determine who is the superior one in the new one." That is hilarious. Should I use my definition of a good CoD player as my definition of a good BFV player, if that's my most recent experience?

    Baron, why should I accept your definition of a good player? I have no pre-determined definition of one. You are promoting preference as virtue. I don't share your gaming ethics, dude.
    Uh huh! Now you're talking. 'Similar' is the keyword. Both are good players and both affected by attrition more than a not-so-good player who dies too fast to run out of ammo.
    Ok. But then I could say if all bad players are dying before they run out of ammo, then good players already have an established lead over them and will win every time if we assume these things. If bad-average players are at least half the room, your scenario of them already dying every 45 secs is very obviously a very desirable scenario for everyone else.

    You are focusing on one side of the equation, baron. Please tell me how bad players dying every 45 seconds doesn't benefit the skilled players? Yeah. You already know where this is going..... ;) . It's sad you are letting DICE do the thinking for you.
    Doesn't add anything to the conversation...
    Fair enough. I was just trying to help you get out of your dungeon.

    Focusing only on the ammo aspect of attrition in a vacuum is an unreliable argument against attrition big-picture.

  • And, to address everyone else in the anti-attrition camp, please address these points that I made to Baron:

    1. Ammo isn't the only factor in attrition; health is, too. I haven't seen anyone address this aspect of attrition. That is a rather convenient way to make an argument about it.

    2. Players who die every 45 seconds might not run out of ammo as much, but they will lose at the game more. Therefore, DICE's scenario is a blessing to you, if you're "good". Oh, look, I used logic! I must be enlightened.....
  • JamieCurnock
    634 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Just an idea but maybe wait for the full release of the game? if its as bad as people say it is, then complain.

    Complaining before you've played with the new changes and before the game is out is completely nonseniscal. You're all arguing about hypothetical situations.
  • ragnarok013
    3439 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Mystriall wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    I dont see how it makes things easier for one group than the other. Player B is under 1 K/D...I don't think they will agree that they have anything easy.


    Player B is more unlikely to run out of ammo before being killed, and as a result the scarcity affects them less.

    I'm not convinced that it necessarily makes things more difficult for Player A... but it does create limitations to viable engagements. If we're talking purely about being a slayer, then your slaying potential is hindered by the limited ammo. Whether that's good or bad is really up to the player, and what kind of experience they want.

    The big issue for me is that I simply just found it tedious to deal with. I love the ammo depots as they encourage players to stick around objectives, but the frequency of their interaction became a chore. It also severely limited suppression and bullet penetration for any role outside of support... I found that to be fairly dull as well.

    I get it that it can be tedious. But like you said, I don't see how it punishes or hinders player A.

    In terms of a slayer I dont think it hurts them either since they will still get ammo from the people they kill. And if they run out of ammo they can do what they did in every other BF game. Grab a dead soliders gun.

    As a slayer, I think it will hinder you regardless of what you do. There will be scenarios where its unoptimal to run over to get more ammo, whether that's from a crate or from the enemies you killed. 3 mags just not being enough to really cash in, so to speak.

    Any time spent grabbing ammo is taking away from your KPM.

    In Battlefield 3, all you had to think about was the map flow, and common hot spots. By the time you ran out of ammo, you already had an insane killstreak. Once you picked up a gun, I think there was a good chance that your slaying potential was now lower, though. I see infinite ammo as being the "maximum" potential for a slayer.

    Are the people who are complaining about the attrition system, doing so because it makes it more difficult for them to get their K/D and KPM stats?

    I think it's a factor. Definitely a good reason for some players that I've talked to.

    For me it's a factor as well, but the tediousness of it all was my biggest gripe about it.

    This word right here is why I don't like it. In a completely honest moment I prefer a little more mindlessness in my arcade shooters. That's all lol.

    I agree which is why I think that the automatic AOE heal and resupply from crates needs to return because not only is it tedious to hit "E" to resupply or heal from a crate, but most people don't event think about it and just stand there for a moment then run by with nothing.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    I dont see how it makes things easier for one group than the other. Player B is under 1 K/D...I don't think they will agree that they have anything easy.


    Player B is more unlikely to run out of ammo before being killed, and as a result the scarcity affects them less.

    I'm not convinced that it necessarily makes things more difficult for Player A... but it does create limitations to viable engagements. If we're talking purely about being a slayer, then your slaying potential is hindered by the limited ammo. Whether that's good or bad is really up to the player, and what kind of experience they want.

    The big issue for me is that I simply just found it tedious to deal with. I love the ammo depots as they encourage players to stick around objectives, but the frequency of their interaction became a chore. It also severely limited suppression and bullet penetration for any role outside of support... I found that to be fairly dull as well.

    I get it that it can be tedious. But like you said, I don't see how it punishes or hinders player A.

    In terms of a slayer I dont think it hurts them either since they will still get ammo from the people they kill. And if they run out of ammo they can do what they did in every other BF game. Grab a dead soliders gun.

    As a slayer, I think it will hinder you regardless of what you do. There will be scenarios where its unoptimal to run over to get more ammo, whether that's from a crate or from the enemies you killed. 3 mags just not being enough to really cash in, so to speak.

    Any time spent grabbing ammo is taking away from your KPM.

    In Battlefield 3, all you had to think about was the map flow, and common hot spots. By the time you ran out of ammo, you already had an insane killstreak. Once you picked up a gun, I think there was a good chance that your slaying potential was now lower, though. I see infinite ammo as being the "maximum" potential for a slayer.

    Are the people who are complaining about the attrition system, doing so because it makes it more difficult for them to get their K/D and KPM stats?

    I think it's a factor. Definitely a good reason for some players that I've talked to.

    For me it's a factor as well, but the tediousness of it all was my biggest gripe about it.

    This word right here is why I don't like it. In a completely honest moment I prefer a little more mindlessness in my arcade shooters. That's all lol.

    I agree which is why I think that the automatic AOE heal and resupply from crates needs to return because not only is it tedious to hit "E" to resupply or heal from a crate, but most people don't event think about it and just stand there for a moment then run by with nothing.

    Yeah but the way it's set now helps prevent people just laying next to one and getting automatically healed or resupplied. Now there is an action with a cooldown.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Mystriall wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    I dont see how it makes things easier for one group than the other. Player B is under 1 K/D...I don't think they will agree that they have anything easy.


    Player B is more unlikely to run out of ammo before being killed, and as a result the scarcity affects them less.

    I'm not convinced that it necessarily makes things more difficult for Player A... but it does create limitations to viable engagements. If we're talking purely about being a slayer, then your slaying potential is hindered by the limited ammo. Whether that's good or bad is really up to the player, and what kind of experience they want.

    The big issue for me is that I simply just found it tedious to deal with. I love the ammo depots as they encourage players to stick around objectives, but the frequency of their interaction became a chore. It also severely limited suppression and bullet penetration for any role outside of support... I found that to be fairly dull as well.

    I get it that it can be tedious. But like you said, I don't see how it punishes or hinders player A.

    In terms of a slayer I dont think it hurts them either since they will still get ammo from the people they kill. And if they run out of ammo they can do what they did in every other BF game. Grab a dead soliders gun.

    As a slayer, I think it will hinder you regardless of what you do. There will be scenarios where its unoptimal to run over to get more ammo, whether that's from a crate or from the enemies you killed. 3 mags just not being enough to really cash in, so to speak.

    Any time spent grabbing ammo is taking away from your KPM.

    In Battlefield 3, all you had to think about was the map flow, and common hot spots. By the time you ran out of ammo, you already had an insane killstreak. Once you picked up a gun, I think there was a good chance that your slaying potential was now lower, though. I see infinite ammo as being the "maximum" potential for a slayer.

    Are the people who are complaining about the attrition system, doing so because it makes it more difficult for them to get their K/D and KPM stats?

    I think it's a factor. Definitely a good reason for some players that I've talked to.

    For me it's a factor as well, but the tediousness of it all was my biggest gripe about it.

    This word right here is why I don't like it. In a completely honest moment I prefer a little more mindlessness in my arcade shooters. That's all lol.

    I agree which is why I think that the automatic AOE heal and resupply from crates needs to return because not only is it tedious to hit "E" to resupply or heal from a crate, but most people don't event think about it and just stand there for a moment then run by with nothing.

    Yeah but the way it's set now helps prevent people just laying next to one and getting automatically healed or resupplied. Now there is an action with a cooldown.

    That's what I was thinking. You could just lay prone with a bipod'ed MMG and fire away while auto resupplying if it had proximity resupply.

    I really don't mind the way ammo and health crates are now. I just think they need a small icon on the crate when you're nearby to make them easier to find.
  • BaronVonGoon
    6972 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018

    But the fact that it does impact a skilled player's performance doesn't suggest that the feature is a negative. It's still just a preference from solo and team-dependence. Your ideology of "skill" is not an objectively better one than a teamwork one.
    As I said, you are obviously entitled to it. And everyone else is entitled to like the challenge of attrition, like me. Skill isn't the only factor in our ideology. I, for one, like how managing resources makes it feel like a team-arena shooter.
    @Hay-its-dudeman
    I prefer the simplicity of going on a flank getting the drop on 8 enemies and not having to worry about running out of ammo. Ammo scarcity in certain situations limits what a player can do. And it's a shame.
    I dont think either seem much more likely. I am confident that both happen enough to make them an invalid basis for a decision discriminating against one group of player over another.
    And when you say "but attrition goes against skilled players!", you are stating your opinion. You have only made arguments in the ammo department of attrition, but haven't addressed the health portion of it.

    I mean, come on. State your opinion on that.

    I have no problem with it at all. I don't think it's as much of an issue. You run out of resources (ammo) as time goes by (the longer get you live), you don't run out of health the longer you live. I love that every class gets one health pack. No issues with the health system.
    . Why are you doing it here but not in other parts? Shifting from promoting one ultimatum for another is a bad way to support either of them.

    It's not my preference. It's the general preferences of the community, disliking a slow, campy pace. Camping crates is an uninteresting meta. I think alot of people would agree.
    I'll watch his video later. The improbable? What would be improbable is: you admitting that it will change how we play,
    but not simultaneously dictate who is superior at that changed gameplay.

    You are basically saying this: "This game rewards different skills from a past game, but I will still use the definition from the past game do determine who is the superior one in the new one." That is hilarious.

    Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The primary skills in the game of Battlefield remain the same. Gun skills, awareness and movement. I think being aware of and managing ammo is a chore and I don't think it has anything to do with skill, it's not even a secondary skill. So while this game is different is some ways it doesn't in my opinion have anything new that warrants changing the way we define skilled player.

    Baron, why should I accept your definition of a good player? I have no pre-determined definition of one. You are promoting preference as virtue. I don't share your gaming ethics, dude.

    Dudeman, you're hard headed lol.

    You should have a pre-determined definition of skill in Battlefield. We're not discussing what happened to cause the big bang. We're discussing something very specific what makes Player A consistently able to kill alot more than Player B and in less time. Shouldn't be hard to define in a game like this.


    You are focusing on one side of the equation, baron. Please tell me how bad players dying every 45 seconds doesn't benefit the skilled players? Yeah. You already know where this is going..... ;) . It's sad you are letting DICE do the thinking for you.

    No one does the thinking for me I'm very hard headed. It may help the skilled players, but is this relevant to ammo attrition in any way? I'm not seeing the connection.
    Fair enough. I was just trying to help you get out of your dungeon.

    Leave my dungeon alone. :)

Sign In or Register to comment.