Attrition video -- Levelcap

Comments

  • DingoKillr
    3431 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I was expecting the biggest problem with different regions to be considered to be the ping instead of the time difference.

    I've played on EU servers a lot in the past. There's more of them up than US servers in BF1. Especially German servers. At least during the times I was usually on. It's not as fluid as playing in my own region, but it's certainly still within the realm of playable.

    In BF1 a ping of 90-110 is perfectly playable, even if not as responsive with respect to hit markers, kill confirmations etc. As long there is no significant jitter, it's neither an advantage nor disadvantage. However, in BFV Alpha/Beta it was a different story, I was constantly getting one-framed to a degree I just had to quit. I hope the netcode pass they are doing will result in considerable improvement in this regard, otherwise it's gonna be a pain to cross the ocean.
    They did say they found the problem in the netcode.
    The question is why could they not find such an obvious problem in internal testing?
    Well when everyone plays the same latency it could easily be overlooked but when players started to have higher latency it became notice able. I played beta in the same region with 3 different pings and it was clear to me.

    It might not have been a bug but a incorrect setting that was left in that was originally used to improve internal and low latency response.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    m1k3ol wrote: »
    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.

    Hmm, no it doesn't?

    If you're living longer, and getting down on ammo, that means you're shooting, if you're shooting and living then you're killing enemies, if you're killing enemies then you are also getting the ammo drops they leave on their corpses...which resupplies your ammo pool...

    So, basically, the example you have been using on the thread only applies to camping solo (except for support, of course), killing and not moving, and that seems ok to be punished, to be honest...

    (sounds a lot like camping a top floor on C flag in Rotterdam)

    If you're on the move, killing enemies and getting their pickups (you can also get the pouches they throw and didn't use, besides the ammo they leave when killed), then you are not running out of ammo, unless you purposely avoid it...

    I totally agree. I have found that as long as I am playing objectives, being on the move, and picking up left over ammo, I rarely ran out. If I stayed in one place, didn't go for objectives, shot willy nilly, I ran out of ammo after just a few kills.

    You need to be a little more tactical now, and choose your kills. Most importantly you need to work as a team and go after objectives, if you do it is not that much of an issue really.

    DICE is making changes for people to play the objective. Honestly the main objective in a game mode like Conquest is to cap flags and hold them....not to go on major kills streaks. Don't get me wrong, killing helps bleed tickets and accelerate the win, but if your primary goal is to go on crazy kill streaks and get 50 kills....you are playing the wrong game mode IMO....and that is why some will feel like they are punished for being "too good".
  • m1k3ol
    810 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Moderator
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    m1k3ol wrote: »
    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.

    Hmm, no it doesn't?

    If you're living longer, and getting down on ammo, that means you're shooting, if you're shooting and living then you're killing enemies, if you're killing enemies then you are also getting the ammo drops they leave on their corpses...which resupplies your ammo pool...

    So, basically, the example you have been using on the thread only applies to camping solo (except for support, of course), killing and not moving, and that seems ok to be punished, to be honest...

    (sounds a lot like camping a top floor on C flag in Rotterdam)

    If you're on the move, killing enemies and getting their pickups (you can also get the pouches they throw and didn't use, besides the ammo they leave when killed), then you are not running out of ammo, unless you purposely avoid it...

    I totally agree. I have found that as long as I am playing objectives, being on the move, and picking up left over ammo, I rarely ran out. If I stayed in one place, didn't go for objectives, shot willy nilly, I ran out of ammo after just a few kills.

    You need to be a little more tactical now, and choose your kills. Most importantly you need to work as a team and go after objectives, if you do it is not that much of an issue really.

    DICE is making changes for people to play the objective. Honestly the main objective in a game mode like Conquest is to cap flags and hold them....not to go on major kills streaks. Don't get me wrong, killing helps bleed tickets and accelerate the win, but if your primary goal is to go on crazy kill streaks and get 50 kills....you are playing the wrong game mode IMO....and that is why some will feel like they are punished for being "too good".

    Yup

    I actually witnessed it during Beta, it seemed like some players wanted to do what happens in BF1 and past titles (like snipers and support camping the top in Ballroom Blitz or the upper floors in Amiens) just to be eliminated after some time holding the top floors at C in Rotterdam (lack of ammo)

    That strategy worked with a squad, though, camping C or D with a squad in Rotterdam worked wonders (B felt too open), but lone corner holders were taken care of sooner or later (depending on their skill)

    BFV is certainly changing the way we play a BF title, and a lot was given with the heatmaps shown, you can camp (looking at you, Recon Arctic Fjord heatmaps), but you better do it with someone else or at a corner in an objective, otherwise expect to be taken out by others...
  • Turban_Legend80
    4397 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    m1k3ol wrote: »
    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.

    Hmm, no it doesn't?

    If you're living longer, and getting down on ammo, that means you're shooting, if you're shooting and living then you're killing enemies, if you're killing enemies then you are also getting the ammo drops they leave on their corpses...which resupplies your ammo pool...

    So, basically, the example you have been using on the thread only applies to camping solo (except for support, of course), killing and not moving, and that seems ok to be punished, to be honest...

    (sounds a lot like camping a top floor on C flag in Rotterdam)

    If you're on the move, killing enemies and getting their pickups (you can also get the pouches they throw and didn't use, besides the ammo they leave when killed), then you are not running out of ammo, unless you purposely avoid it...

    I totally agree. I have found that as long as I am playing objectives, being on the move, and picking up left over ammo, I rarely ran out. If I stayed in one place, didn't go for objectives, shot willy nilly, I ran out of ammo after just a few kills.

    You need to be a little more tactical now, and choose your kills. Most importantly you need to work as a team and go after objectives, if you do it is not that much of an issue really.

    DICE is making changes for people to play the objective. Honestly the main objective in a game mode like Conquest is to cap flags and hold them....not to go on major kills streaks. Don't get me wrong, killing helps bleed tickets and accelerate the win, but if your primary goal is to go on crazy kill streaks and get 50 kills....you are playing the wrong game mode IMO....and that is why some will feel like they are punished for being "too good".

    I don’t like that argument. Some people can regularly get high kills whilst playing the objective. Can’t you aim to PTFO and also get kills. No matter which game mode you play, killing is an objective. It’s just a bit more important in TDM than other game modes, but only a bit.

  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    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.

    Well seeing as how support carries the lmg's and mmg's it is literally their job to suppress the enemy. The bullet penetration works for EVERY class, not only support. And why are you guys still whining about the ammo when they have already made changes to the starting amount and how much you can pick up off of corpses? There will also be ways to resupply that we have not even seen yet, like the towable supply stations. Go find somthing that is actually broken (if you can) and cry over that.

    You can't reasonably use bullet penetration without burning ammo. A game like R6:Siege gives you a ton of ammo, far more than you actually need to kill 5 opposing players... but you use that ammo to poke corners, suppress enemies, and spray walls.

    Even with Alpha 2 attrition, I just don't believe there's enough ammo to fully utilize suppression and bullet penetration on assault or medic. I would need a support player with me to feel comfortable with burning ammo like that.

    If you don't like a topic, then just don't click on it. There are a lot of topics that I'm indifferent on, and I simply don't participate in them.
  • JamieCurnock
    531 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I've been away so missed various dice videos.

    With the changes and the increase in ammo how many less bullets will you spawn with than say bf1 or bf4? I know different guns hold different amounts etc but I'd be interested to know as a rough estimate how much less you start with in bf5.

    I only ever play support so I'm a bit useless when it comes to knowledge of other classes clip sizes etc.

    Does anyone know?
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    m1k3ol wrote: »
    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.

    Hmm, no it doesn't?

    If you're living longer, and getting down on ammo, that means you're shooting, if you're shooting and living then you're killing enemies, if you're killing enemies then you are also getting the ammo drops they leave on their corpses...which resupplies your ammo pool...

    So, basically, the example you have been using on the thread only applies to camping solo (except for support, of course), killing and not moving, and that seems ok to be punished, to be honest...

    (sounds a lot like camping a top floor on C flag in Rotterdam)

    If you're on the move, killing enemies and getting their pickups (you can also get the pouches they throw and didn't use, besides the ammo they leave when killed), then you are not running out of ammo, unless you purposely avoid it...

    I totally agree. I have found that as long as I am playing objectives, being on the move, and picking up left over ammo, I rarely ran out. If I stayed in one place, didn't go for objectives, shot willy nilly, I ran out of ammo after just a few kills.

    You need to be a little more tactical now, and choose your kills. Most importantly you need to work as a team and go after objectives, if you do it is not that much of an issue really.

    DICE is making changes for people to play the objective. Honestly the main objective in a game mode like Conquest is to cap flags and hold them....not to go on major kills streaks. Don't get me wrong, killing helps bleed tickets and accelerate the win, but if your primary goal is to go on crazy kill streaks and get 50 kills....you are playing the wrong game mode IMO....and that is why some will feel like they are punished for being "too good".

    I don’t like that argument. Some people can regularly get high kills whilst playing the objective. Can’t you aim to PTFO and also get kills. No matter which game mode you play, killing is an objective. It’s just a bit more important in TDM than other game modes, but only a bit.

    You can, the point is the primary objective in conquest is capturing flags not killing. If you are PTFOing and capturing (or defending) flags, then you will be in a close vicinity of a ammo crate or a support player to drop ammo or a medic to heal. So on those instances you shouldn't be running out of ammo.

    I didn't say one cant go in massive kill streaks I just said that shouldnt be your #1 goal. It should be capturing and defending flags, and if you follow that the kills will come naturally.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    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.

    Well seeing as how support carries the lmg's and mmg's it is literally their job to suppress the enemy. The bullet penetration works for EVERY class, not only support. And why are you guys still whining about the ammo when they have already made changes to the starting amount and how much you can pick up off of corpses? There will also be ways to resupply that we have not even seen yet, like the towable supply stations. Go find somthing that is actually broken (if you can) and cry over that.

    You can't reasonably use bullet penetration without burning ammo. A game like R6:Siege gives you a ton of ammo, far more than you actually need to kill 5 opposing players... but you use that ammo to poke corners, suppress enemies, and spray walls.

    Even with Alpha 2 attrition, I just don't believe there's enough ammo to fully utilize suppression and bullet penetration on assault or medic. I would need a support player with me to feel comfortable with burning ammo like that.

    If you don't like a topic, then just don't click on it. There are a lot of topics that I'm indifferent on, and I simply don't participate in them.

    1.Don't knock it till you try it.
    2.ammo is not as scarce as you seem to think it will be.
    3. support is built for suppression, not assault, medic , or recon.
    4. This is a discussion, not a one sided whine fest.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    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.

    Well seeing as how support carries the lmg's and mmg's it is literally their job to suppress the enemy. The bullet penetration works for EVERY class, not only support. And why are you guys still whining about the ammo when they have already made changes to the starting amount and how much you can pick up off of corpses? There will also be ways to resupply that we have not even seen yet, like the towable supply stations. Go find somthing that is actually broken (if you can) and cry over that.

    You can't reasonably use bullet penetration without burning ammo. A game like R6:Siege gives you a ton of ammo, far more than you actually need to kill 5 opposing players... but you use that ammo to poke corners, suppress enemies, and spray walls.

    Even with Alpha 2 attrition, I just don't believe there's enough ammo to fully utilize suppression and bullet penetration on assault or medic. I would need a support player with me to feel comfortable with burning ammo like that.

    If you don't like a topic, then just don't click on it. There are a lot of topics that I'm indifferent on, and I simply don't participate in them.

    1.Don't knock it till you try it.
    2.ammo is not as scarce as you seem to think it will be.
    3. support is built for suppression, not assault, medic , or recon.
    4. This is a discussion, not a one sided whine fest.

    1. I played the alpha's extensively.
    2. In regards to alpha 2, I disagree. If they add an additional mag on top of alpha 2, bringing it up to 5 mags - then maybe? It would really depend on the ammo depot placements, the quantity of ammo depot placements, and the quantity of ammo from corpse drops. I doubt they'll be generous, based on the direction of the beta.
    3. I believe these strategies should be viable for more than 1/4th of the available kits.
    4. If you believe someone is whining, either take it slow and try to convince them, or ignore them. Imo, complaining about whining is equally as unproductive. Doesn't push the thread anywhere meaningful.
  • DeadlyDanDaMan
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    2. In regards to alpha 2, I disagree. If they add an additional mag on top of alpha 2, bringing it up to 5 mags - then maybe? It would really depend on the ammo depot placements, the quantity of ammo depot placements, and the quantity of ammo from corpse drops. I doubt they'll be generous, based on the direction of the beta.

    DICE has already stated that they have increased the amount of ammo you start with and the max amount of ammo you can carry since the Beta.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    2. In regards to alpha 2, I disagree. If they add an additional mag on top of alpha 2, bringing it up to 5 mags - then maybe? It would really depend on the ammo depot placements, the quantity of ammo depot placements, and the quantity of ammo from corpse drops. I doubt they'll be generous, based on the direction of the beta.

    DICE has already stated that they have increased the amount of ammo you start with and the max amount of ammo you can carry since the Beta.

    The beta decreased the starting ammo and max ammo from alpha 2. Them increasing it says nothing at all, unless they specify the amount that they increased those by.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    12354 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @Mystriall
    Lets not stat-shame as this violates the rules.

    Cheers.
  • DeadlyDanDaMan
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    2. In regards to alpha 2, I disagree. If they add an additional mag on top of alpha 2, bringing it up to 5 mags - then maybe? It would really depend on the ammo depot placements, the quantity of ammo depot placements, and the quantity of ammo from corpse drops. I doubt they'll be generous, based on the direction of the beta.

    DICE has already stated that they have increased the amount of ammo you start with and the max amount of ammo you can carry since the Beta.

    The beta decreased the starting ammo and max ammo from alpha 2. Them increasing it says nothing at all, unless they specify the amount that they increased those by.

    No, they didn't. The STG had 93 total bullets allowed in Alpha 2 and in the Beta. Go watch videos on Youtube and you will see that I am correct.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    2. In regards to alpha 2, I disagree. If they add an additional mag on top of alpha 2, bringing it up to 5 mags - then maybe? It would really depend on the ammo depot placements, the quantity of ammo depot placements, and the quantity of ammo from corpse drops. I doubt they'll be generous, based on the direction of the beta.

    DICE has already stated that they have increased the amount of ammo you start with and the max amount of ammo you can carry since the Beta.

    The beta decreased the starting ammo and max ammo from alpha 2. Them increasing it says nothing at all, unless they specify the amount that they increased those by.

    No, they didn't. The STG had 93 total bullets allowed in Alpha 2 and in the Beta. Go watch videos on Youtube and you will see that I am correct.

    I don't need to watch youtube videos - I played them, and you are incorrect. The STG in Alpha 2 spawned in with 3 mags, with a max capacity of 4 mags. The beta lowered that back down to Alpha 1 - spawning in with 2 mags, with a max capacity of 3 mags.

    Youtube videos will show this difference.
  • Assyriansniper1
    47 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I completely agree with the attrition system. No more run and gun cod players who play carelessly just to get kills with no regards to deaths. They were a bitter annoyance. I am happy to see them all finally leaving this franchise.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I completely agree with the attrition system. No more run and gun cod players who play carelessly just to get kills with no regards to deaths. They were a bitter annoyance. I am happy to see them all finally leaving this franchise.

    If you have no regard for death, then the ammo likely won't be a problem for you. We're discussing specifically ammo attrition. I think it's already been established in the thread that health attrition isn't really a problem.

    I don't think "slayers" should be limited so heavily by such low ammo counts.

    2. In regards to alpha 2, I disagree. If they add an additional mag on top of alpha 2, bringing it up to 5 mags - then maybe? It would really depend on the ammo depot placements, the quantity of ammo depot placements, and the quantity of ammo from corpse drops. I doubt they'll be generous, based on the direction of the beta.

    DICE has already stated that they have increased the amount of ammo you start with and the max amount of ammo you can carry since the Beta.

    The beta decreased the starting ammo and max ammo from alpha 2. Them increasing it says nothing at all, unless they specify the amount that they increased those by.

    No, they didn't. The STG had 93 total bullets allowed in Alpha 2 and in the Beta. Go watch videos on Youtube and you will see that I am correct.

    I don't need to watch youtube videos - I played them, and you are incorrect. The STG in Alpha 2 spawned in with 3 mags, with a max capacity of 4 mags. The beta lowered that back down to Alpha 1 - spawning in with 2 mags, with a max capacity of 3 mags.

    Youtube videos will show this difference.

    Alpha 2 ammo was definitely better than Alpha 1 and Beta ammo. I think that's what DICE is saying we're going back to. I also think ammo attrition will also be less of a problem specifically if you play assault since assault has a specialization that increases the amount of ammo you loot from downed players. Medic will still be ammo screwed though. Same with scout SLRs unless you're perfectly accurate. I felt weapons like the Suomi on medic wasn't really worth using in the 2nd alpha due to how fast they run dry because of their very high fire rate. I think the amount of ammo you can carry also needs to vary by specific weapon.
  • PvtJohnTowle
    871 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
  • Hawxxeye
    5024 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    I am really curious to see the how attrition will affect the way players act in the long term.

    If I can hazard a guess based on my experience since BF3, there will still be the same presence/lack of presence of medics and supports as in the previous games.
    The difference will be that those who actually decide to consistently ressuply their team will be seen as rockstars of the team.

    IMHO it would incentivize people a lot more to ressuply if they got even more points out of doing it.
  • PvtJohnTowle
    871 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Ultimate troll from DICE - make a first person SHOOTER and not give you bullets.

    never forget the ea ethos -


    Don't let the fact that he is the ex-ceo and this was uploaded in 2011, never let the facts get in the way of a good beat up.. EA have learnt their lesson with the release of SWBF2 dontchathink?

Sign In or Register to comment.