Attrition video -- Levelcap

Comments

  • 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.

    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.

    The game has changed alot since the alpha, you simply have to read the dev's updates here in the forums, on twitter, and in the AMAA reddit post to find that out.

    If the attrition system gets nerfed anymore they might as well remove it entirely. If that happens then the team play will also take a big hit. And i do not have to be a dice employee to tell you that will not happen. The attrition system is to intertwined throughout the core mechanics of the game.

    As for your dream of being a assualt class suppression/penetration hero, good luck with that.

    There, was that slow enough for you?
  • MarxistDictator
    4976 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    How is throwing ammo the only form of teamwork there is? It hurts the ability to move and make plays to hit the enemy's flank which in turn slows the game down. The gameplay is further bogged down by the need to track down resouces so frequently. And it is only because even maxed out you still got barely anything for your primary weapon.
  • JamieCurnock
    634 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    How is throwing ammo the only form of teamwork there is? It hurts the ability to move and make plays to hit the enemy's flank which in turn slows the game down. The gameplay is further bogged down by the need to track down resouces so frequently. And it is only because even maxed out you still got barely anything for your primary weapon.

    Do you know how much less ammo you have when spawning in comparison to say bf1 or bf4? Is it 1 less mag or like 4? Genuine question as I don't know the answer.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    How is throwing ammo the only form of teamwork there is? It hurts the ability to move and make plays to hit the enemy's flank which in turn slows the game down. The gameplay is further bogged down by the need to track down resouces so frequently. And it is only because even maxed out you still got barely anything for your primary weapon.

    Do you know how much less ammo you have when spawning in comparison to say bf1 or bf4? Is it 1 less mag or like 4? Genuine question as I don't know the answer.


    Noone knows the answer to this because noone has played the game since the changes were made.
  • JamieCurnock
    634 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    How is throwing ammo the only form of teamwork there is? It hurts the ability to move and make plays to hit the enemy's flank which in turn slows the game down. The gameplay is further bogged down by the need to track down resouces so frequently. And it is only because even maxed out you still got barely anything for your primary weapon.

    Do you know how much less ammo you have when spawning in comparison to say bf1 or bf4? Is it 1 less mag or like 4? Genuine question as I don't know the answer.

    They don't know the aswer either because no has played the game since the changes were made.

    Haha, yeah probably true. It wasn't a 'gotcha' question tho. I do genuinely want to know. The reason I'm curious is if it's 1 mag then I don't really see it having much of an impact, if it's say 4 mags then I can see the issue. If no one actually knows then what is the ammo attrition disagreement about!?
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    How is throwing ammo the only form of teamwork there is? It hurts the ability to move and make plays to hit the enemy's flank which in turn slows the game down. The gameplay is further bogged down by the need to track down resouces so frequently. And it is only because even maxed out you still got barely anything for your primary weapon.

    Do you know how much less ammo you have when spawning in comparison to say bf1 or bf4? Is it 1 less mag or like 4? Genuine question as I don't know the answer.

    They don't know the aswer either because no has played the game since the changes were made.

    Haha, yeah probably true. It wasn't a 'gotcha' question tho. I do genuinely want to know. The reason I'm curious is if it's 1 mag then I don't really see it having much of an impact, if it's say 4 mags then I can see the issue. If no one actually knows then what is the ammo attrition disagreement about!?

    Exactly.
  • JamieCurnock
    634 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Maybe I should rephrase the question....

    In the beta how much less ammo did you spawn with than say bf1 or bf4?
  • Sixclicks wrote: »
    I don't think "slayers" should be limited so heavily by such low ammo counts.
    But they aren't limited. They are getting 40-60 kills in full conquest rounds in the BETA (ie they're very productive at a very early stage in the game, and will likely improve upon it the more they play).

    You yourself said before you were the top in every room and had a 3 KD in the beta. At what point were you limited by this? The fewest amount of kills I saw the TOP player have was like 35 as a medic. 35 kills in 25ish minutes. That's hardly bad and was surpassed by a lot in every other server I played in. lol.

    Also, everyone is limited, if they reach that point with no team help. I know you will bring up how bad players die about every 45 seconds, and are not likely to be as affected by it as a good player.

    a) if you are ACTUALLY facing players who are dying every 45 seconds, you are going to wipe the floor. These dudes need anything to help them. lol.

    b)But, none the less, it is very possible they use up two mags in 45 seconds. The reason they die so quick is because they are probably mindlessly spawning on a squad mate who is "near the action" and they have to spray mindlessly just to survive.

    You are complaining about terrible players, who you are already destroying, getting a slight benefit in ONE aspect of the game. Pretty much everything else in this game will punish inexperienced players hard--like health attrition and the TTK.

    "OH WOE IS ME! I ONLY WENT 50-15 AND HAD 20,000 POINTS! IT'S NOT FAIR THAT THAT IM NOT AS EFFECTIVE AT THIS BRAND NEW GAME AS I WAS AT A GAME I HAD MORE EXPERIENCE WITH! I COULD HAVE GONE 62-10 AND HAD 23,500 POINTS IF EVERYTHING HAD BEEN PERFECT!"

    Bro, they're trash. Don't worry. You will get 70-80 kills a game within a few months, and they will finally figure out how to get 35 kills and die less than 30 times. Just give it time. Trust me. The difference between you and them in BFV will be just as big as BF1, or whatever your last game is.

  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Maybe I should rephrase the question....

    In the beta how much less ammo did you spawn with than say bf1 or bf4?

    I do not think there were any weapons in the beta that were also in BF1 or BF4, so comparing ammo count that way is impossible. I'd guess half or less during the beta, probably closer to 1/3rd. The krag jorgenson (sorry if i butchered the name) is in one of the newer videos so you could compare that if they had it in BF1.
  • "Inexperienced players die about every 45 seconds and won't be as affected by attrition"

    Player 1's response:" What! There is something that bad players AREN'T affected by but I am? Bloody murder!"

    Player 2's response: "What? Players are dying every 45 seconds? God damn I got it easy."
  • JamieCurnock
    634 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Maybe I should rephrase the question....

    In the beta how much less ammo did you spawn with than say bf1 or bf4?

    I do not think there were any weapons in the beta that were also in BF1 or BF4, so comparing ammo count that way is impossible. I'd guess half or less during the beta, probably closer to 1/3rd.

    Cool, yeah knew it couldn't be exact, just a ballpark figure is good. Thanks for replying.
  • 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.

    The game has changed alot since the alpha, you simply have to read the dev's updates here in the forums, on twitter, and in the AMAA reddit post to find that out.
    I have read their updates. They've been vague in terms of what will be changed with ammo attrition.
    If the attrition system gets nerfed anymore they might as well remove it entirely. If that happens then the team play will also take a big hit. And i do not have to be a dice employee to tell you that will not happen. The attrition system is to intertwined throughout the core mechanics of the game.
    In your opinion. Personally, I didn't see any noticeable increase in teamplay in the alpha or the beta, and so I doubt it has a major impact on player behaviour.
    As for your dream of being a assualt class suppression/penetration hero, good luck with that.
    Without ammo attrition, that could very well become a reality.
    There, was that slow enough for you?
    Do you seriously believe that expressing concern or distaste over a feature is "whining"? It's par for the course in a forum. You can't realistically expect players to enjoy every single aspect of a game.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, 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.

    The game has changed alot since the alpha, you simply have to read the dev's updates here in the forums, on twitter, and in the AMAA reddit post to find that out.
    I have read their updates. They've been vague in terms of what will be changed with ammo attrition.
    If the attrition system gets nerfed anymore they might as well remove it entirely. If that happens then the team play will also take a big hit. And i do not have to be a dice employee to tell you that will not happen. The attrition system is to intertwined throughout the core mechanics of the game.
    In your opinion. Personally, I didn't see any noticeable increase in teamplay in the alpha or the beta, and so I doubt it has a major impact on player behaviour.
    As for your dream of being a assualt class suppression/penetration hero, good luck with that.
    Without ammo attrition, that could very well become a reality.
    There, was that slow enough for you?
    Do you seriously believe that expressing concern or distaste over a feature is "whining"? It's par for the course in a forum. You can't realistically expect players to enjoy every single aspect of a game.

    In one ear and out the other eh, lol. Maybe you would be happier playing another game?
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, 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.

    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.

    The game has changed alot since the alpha, you simply have to read the dev's updates here in the forums, on twitter, and in the AMAA reddit post to find that out.
    I have read their updates. They've been vague in terms of what will be changed with ammo attrition.
    If the attrition system gets nerfed anymore they might as well remove it entirely. If that happens then the team play will also take a big hit. And i do not have to be a dice employee to tell you that will not happen. The attrition system is to intertwined throughout the core mechanics of the game.
    In your opinion. Personally, I didn't see any noticeable increase in teamplay in the alpha or the beta, and so I doubt it has a major impact on player behaviour.
    As for your dream of being a assualt class suppression/penetration hero, good luck with that.
    Without ammo attrition, that could very well become a reality.
    There, was that slow enough for you?
    Do you seriously believe that expressing concern or distaste over a feature is "whining"? It's par for the course in a forum. You can't realistically expect players to enjoy every single aspect of a game.

    In one ear and out the other eh, lol.

    Says someone when they have no arguments to make.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, 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.

    Exactly.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, 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.

    The game has changed alot since the alpha, you simply have to read the dev's updates here in the forums, on twitter, and in the AMAA reddit post to find that out.
    I have read their updates. They've been vague in terms of what will be changed with ammo attrition.
    If the attrition system gets nerfed anymore they might as well remove it entirely. If that happens then the team play will also take a big hit. And i do not have to be a dice employee to tell you that will not happen. The attrition system is to intertwined throughout the core mechanics of the game.
    In your opinion. Personally, I didn't see any noticeable increase in teamplay in the alpha or the beta, and so I doubt it has a major impact on player behaviour.
    As for your dream of being a assualt class suppression/penetration hero, good luck with that.
    Without ammo attrition, that could very well become a reality.
    There, was that slow enough for you?
    Do you seriously believe that expressing concern or distaste over a feature is "whining"? It's par for the course in a forum. You can't realistically expect players to enjoy every single aspect of a game.

    Why you would be expecting teamplay during testing is beyond me. The attrition system is also a new concept for many players, players that would rather cry for it's removal instead of thinking about how it actually improves the game as a whole. So yes, much of what im reading in this thread is whining. Most players will easily adapt to this new system.

    As to your statement about it having little effect on player behavior, you could not be more wrong.

    And giving the assault class more ammo will not make a difference when it comes to suppression/penetration, if you read the updates you would know that. The support class is second only to vehicles in that regard.
  • TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    Here's the thing. I'm not limited if im still dropping 70 - 15 ,80-10, 100-10,120 -30
    games on operations and conquest. If anything the no spotting is helping me way more. These people seriously need to step there game up if this ammo count is( which by all means I dont mind one more mag) really bothering them. My kpm might be a tad slower though but I'm being killed less randomly compared to bf1 so im going on longer streaks. ADAPT FFS.

    Feels like these people constantly want to be babied with features. OH I want 3d spotting back cause muh kills. Oh I want 80 mags at my disposal cause muh kills. I dont give to poops about kills as long as my points on the scoreboard is double / triple of everyone else's. Thats how you win a game.

    Yeah. People dislike the different pace. You play one way one game; the next title throws a curveball at you and your current assumptions about what logistically best are also thrown off. I agree with 3d spotting. That's an enormous blessing to me. I don't have that much problem hiding my routes next to cover/ defensible objects.

    People who want the 3d spotting don't know as much about route-taking as they need to, and people who dislike ammo attrition want all fastballs every time they go up to bat, and don't want teamwork involved if it means the RNG of having a worse team should ever affect them.

    What platform are you on, tyrone? I'm on PS4: sudhish86. I'm playing bad company 2 atm.
  • TyroneLoyd_TV
    1462 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    Here's the thing. I'm not limited if im still dropping 70 - 15 ,80-10, 100-10,120 -30
    games on operations and conquest. If anything the no spotting is helping me way more. These people seriously need to step there game up if this ammo count is( which by all means I dont mind one more mag) really bothering them. My kpm might be a tad slower though but I'm being killed less randomly compared to bf1 so im going on longer streaks. ADAPT FFS.

    Feels like these people constantly want to be babied with features. OH I want 3d spotting back cause muh kills. Oh I want 80 mags at my disposal cause muh kills. I dont give to poops about kills as long as my points on the scoreboard is double / triple of everyone else's. Thats how you win a game.

    Yeah. People dislike the different pace. You play one way one game; the next title throws a curveball at you and your current assumptions about what logistically best are also thrown off. I agree with 3d spotting. That's an enormous blessing to me. I don't have that much problem hiding my routes next to cover/ defensible objects.

    People who want the 3d spotting don't know as much about route-taking as they need to, and people who dislike ammo attrition want all fastballs every time they go up to bat, and don't want teamwork involved if it means the RNG of having a worse team should ever affect them.

    What platform are you on, tyrone? I'm on PS4: sudhish86. I'm playing bad company 2 atm.

    Pc mate. Was in Germany for the past two years but finally moved back to the states so haven't really been on much. Controllers just arent my thing :/ and I would never use a xim on console rather not cheat the system.
  • 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.

    The game has changed alot since the alpha, you simply have to read the dev's updates here in the forums, on twitter, and in the AMAA reddit post to find that out.
    I have read their updates. They've been vague in terms of what will be changed with ammo attrition.
    If the attrition system gets nerfed anymore they might as well remove it entirely. If that happens then the team play will also take a big hit. And i do not have to be a dice employee to tell you that will not happen. The attrition system is to intertwined throughout the core mechanics of the game.
    In your opinion. Personally, I didn't see any noticeable increase in teamplay in the alpha or the beta, and so I doubt it has a major impact on player behaviour.
    As for your dream of being a assualt class suppression/penetration hero, good luck with that.
    Without ammo attrition, that could very well become a reality.
    There, was that slow enough for you?
    Do you seriously believe that expressing concern or distaste over a feature is "whining"? It's par for the course in a forum. You can't realistically expect players to enjoy every single aspect of a game.

    Why you would be expecting teamplay during testing is beyond me.
    So because it was an alpha/beta, players decided to ignore teamplay, instead of playing like they have in prior installments?

    The attrition system is also a new concept for many players, players that would rather cry for it's removal instead of thinking about how it actually improves the game as a whole. So yes, much of what im reading in this thread is whining. Most players will easily adapt to this new system.
    Or maybe it actually diminishes the experience for those players. Most players will easily adapt if attrition was removed - I can make that argument too.

    Just because it's a mechanic that improves your experience, doesn't mean it will improve the experience of other players.
    As to your statement about it having little effect on player behavior, you could not be more wrong.
    Great, then I assume you have proof. Show your data that suggests that player behaviour has been changed due to the addition of ammo attrition.
    And giving the assault class more ammo will not make a difference when it comes to suppression/penetration, if you read the updates you would know that.
    I disagree. If I only have 2 mags, then there's little incentive to burn one of them to suppress / penetrate a wall. Imagine playing Rainbow Six: Siege with a 1/3rd of the ammo - that would impact the dynamics, and I would say that less ammo would be burnt on penetrable walls.
Sign In or Register to comment.