Attrition video -- Levelcap

Comments

  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Attrition is trash.

    So you would rather have a game where explosives can be spammed constantly, tanks will have infinite amount of ammo/repairs, aircraft will be constantly dropping bombs or firing rockets from above, and enemy soldiers magically regenerate all of their health back after taking damage? Gtfoh.

    You can still limit explosives without limiting the amount of ammunition you get for your primary weapons.

    How?

    By having a long timer for refilling explosives, by making it so only supply stations resupply explosives, or a combo of both.

    That is exactly what the attrition system does. Lol.
  • nanananamimimimi
    107 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @nanananamimimimi
    Maybe not flaming others will help.

    I have removed your comment this time, Next time will be an infraction.
    
    

    How do we suppose to help people who build their opinions on Y*utuber spam videos? Isnt it kind of ignorant and offensive to watch a video and then go to a forum, claiming things that arent real and then ignorantly insist on it.
    My post was not really directed at @DeadlyDanDaMan but rather DeadlyDanDaMan represents a big fraction of people of any player base from any random FPS game. This guys rarely or dont play the game at all and all they do is to watch videos, then they get mad and go spew nonsense on the forum.
  • SirTerrible
    1713 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Attrition is trash.

    So you would rather have a game where explosives can be spammed constantly, tanks will have infinite amount of ammo/repairs, aircraft will be constantly dropping bombs or firing rockets from above, and enemy soldiers magically regenerate all of their health back after taking damage? Gtfoh.

    You can still limit explosives without limiting the amount of ammunition you get for your primary weapons.

    How?

    By having a long timer for refilling explosives, by making it so only supply stations resupply explosives, or a combo of both.

    That is exactly what the attrition system does. Lol.

    Ok? You can hate attrition and how it affects primary ammo but still want less explosive spam. There's no reason why we can't have more ammo for our guns without increasing explosive spam.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    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.




    This^^^. And while deadlydantheman's round count might have been off, this^^^ comment is true.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, 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.

    This^^^
  • DeadlyDanDaMan
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited October 2018
    Mystriall wrote: »
    If they keep increasing ammo, they might as well just drop the attrition system. At some point it will be redundant.

    100% correct. And I have no doubt that DICE is doing the best they can to find a happy middle ground that will please the vast majority of the player base, and no, it likely won't be 100% perfect on their first try. They'll need feedback even after launch to get it just right. But I hate to say it, if you're one of those people that just want attrition to be gone completely, it just isn't going to happen. It costs a lot of money and time to program in something like the attrition system that is in BF5, and EA isn't going to let them remove it entirely and completely waste all that time and money. DICE has no choice now but to find a way to make it work for everyone.
  • MachoFantast1c0
    2059 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It costs a lot of money and time to program in something like the attrition system that is in BF5, and EA isn't going to let them remove it entirely and completely waste all that time and money.

    Businesses don't operate under constraints of the sunk cost fallacy. If an investment is holding them back with regard to future earnings potential, they will simply write it off and assume a new approach. In other words, they will not let their earnings be attritioned by past consumption of resources (sorry for the bad pun, but I just had to do it).

  • Hawxxeye
    6605 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It costs a lot of money and time to program in something like the attrition system that is in BF5, and EA isn't going to let them remove it entirely and completely waste all that time and money.

    Businesses don't operate under constraints of the sunk cost fallacy. If an investment is holding them back with regard to future earnings potential, they will simply write it off and assume a new approach. In other words, they will not let their earnings be attritioned by past consumption of resources (sorry for the bad pun, but I just had to do it).
    Game devs do not operate like a business then. You can it in WoW too and how they just cannot accept their azerite armor is a a failed design and instead of a simple rework they are doing endless adjustments when they get raged at.
  • MachoFantast1c0
    2059 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    It costs a lot of money and time to program in something like the attrition system that is in BF5, and EA isn't going to let them remove it entirely and completely waste all that time and money.

    Businesses don't operate under constraints of the sunk cost fallacy. If an investment is holding them back with regard to future earnings potential, they will simply write it off and assume a new approach. In other words, they will not let their earnings be attritioned by past consumption of resources (sorry for the bad pun, but I just had to do it).
    Game devs do not operate like a business then. You can it in WoW too and how they just cannot accept their azerite armor is a a failed design and instead of a simple rework they are doing endless adjustments when they get raged at.

    Dan was referencing EA. DICE as the creator will certainly consider drivers other than financial when making decisions about game mechanics. My point was purely theoretical.
  • ragnarok013
    3543 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    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.


    There's been two alphas and a beta, we've tried it.

    Hmmm...could have sworn they made the changes after the alpha and beta. Or am i wrong? Hmmmmm.

    Yes they've reported they are making changes, but that doesn't invalidate people's dislike of the system based on actual game play.
  • ragnarok013
    3543 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Attrition is trash.

    So you would rather have a game where explosives can be spammed constantly, tanks will have infinite amount of ammo/repairs, aircraft will be constantly dropping bombs or firing rockets from above, and enemy soldiers magically regenerate all of their health back after taking damage? Gtfoh.

    Um yes because you've just accurately described the core game mode of Battlefield for the last decade. If you want all of this removed they have this game mode with a tight knit community called hard core.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Mystriall wrote: »
    They increased the amount of ammo from the Alpha to the Beta and added the med-pouch for every player. And now they have yet again increased the amount of ammo from the Beta to release.

    They didn't increase the amount of ammo from alpha to beta.

    Alpha 1: 2 mags spawn, 3 mags max
    Alpha 2: 3 mags spawn, 4 mags max
    Beta: 2 mags spawn, 3 mags max
  • DingoKillr
    3868 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Attrition is trash.

    So you would rather have a game where explosives can be spammed constantly, tanks will have infinite amount of ammo/repairs, aircraft will be constantly dropping bombs or firing rockets from above, and enemy soldiers magically regenerate all of their health back after taking damage? Gtfoh.

    Um yes because you've just accurately described the core game mode of Battlefield for the last decade. If you want all of this removed they have this game mode with a tight knit community called hard core.
    If you want something that you have been playing for a decade then go play those games, because there are many that want something different and are willing to adapt to the new function.

  • Ok? You can hate attrition and how it affects primary ammo but still want less explosive spam. There's no reason why we can't have more ammo for our guns without increasing explosive spam.

    Except that everyone would just play assault for the kills, and the game would be like BF1 pre-ttk patch where all the top infantry players were assaults.

    Attrition is to force teamwork. How is this not obvious?
  • SirTerrible
    1713 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018

    Ok? You can hate attrition and how it affects primary ammo but still want less explosive spam. There's no reason why we can't have more ammo for our guns without increasing explosive spam.

    Except that everyone would just play assault for the kills, and the game would be like BF1 pre-ttk patch where all the top infantry players were assaults.

    Attrition is to force teamwork. How is this not obvious?

    Because it doesn't increase teamwork? Increasing your reliance on teammates isn't the same thing as actually improving teamwork in a meaningful way. They may be trying to force teamwork but if the beta is any indication it'll do the opposite.
    .
    The most used classes were already Assault and Sniper in the beta so I don't know why you're afraid of people using Assault if they remove ammo attrition lol.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    Ok? You can hate attrition and how it affects primary ammo but still want less explosive spam. There's no reason why we can't have more ammo for our guns without increasing explosive spam.

    Except that everyone would just play assault for the kills, and the game would be like BF1 pre-ttk patch where all the top infantry players were assaults.

    Attrition is to force teamwork. How is this not obvious?

    Because it doesn't increase teamwork? Increasing your reliance on teammates isn't the same thing as actually improving teamwork in a meaningful way. They may be trying to force teamwork but if the beta is any indication it'll do the opposite.
    .
    The most used classes were already Assault and Sniper in the beta so I don't know why you're afraid of people using Assault if they remove ammo attrition lol.

    Most used were Assault then Medic then Recon. Support was last. Recon respawned the 2nd most. Meaning they were dying more and getting revived less relative to their usage.

    Regardless, I'd still play medic and support even if there was no ammo attrition. I did in BF1 about just as much as I played assault.
  • SirTerrible
    1713 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »

    Ok? You can hate attrition and how it affects primary ammo but still want less explosive spam. There's no reason why we can't have more ammo for our guns without increasing explosive spam.

    Except that everyone would just play assault for the kills, and the game would be like BF1 pre-ttk patch where all the top infantry players were assaults.

    Attrition is to force teamwork. How is this not obvious?

    Because it doesn't increase teamwork? Increasing your reliance on teammates isn't the same thing as actually improving teamwork in a meaningful way. They may be trying to force teamwork but if the beta is any indication it'll do the opposite.
    .
    The most used classes were already Assault and Sniper in the beta so I don't know why you're afraid of people using Assault if they remove ammo attrition lol.

    Most used were Assault then Medic then Recon. Support was last. Recon respawned the 2nd most. Meaning they were dying more and getting revived less relative to their usage.

    Regardless, I'd still play medic and support even if there was no ammo attrition. I did in BF1 about just as much as I played assault.

    I'm just going by the only chart they've released. Usage in order from most used to least used was Assault, Sniper, Medic, then Support. Those stats definitely pass the eye test from playing the beta too for what it's worth.
  • MarxistDictator
    5007 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    So the whole everyone would just play assault tilt is totally unfounded. But then again these are people who reduce the definition of teamwork down to throwing boxes at one another. If we were to lower the pouch paddycake how would there be teamwork, considering it is not actually working together or playing the objective if boxes aren't being thrown.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Sixclicks wrote: »

    Ok? You can hate attrition and how it affects primary ammo but still want less explosive spam. There's no reason why we can't have more ammo for our guns without increasing explosive spam.

    Except that everyone would just play assault for the kills, and the game would be like BF1 pre-ttk patch where all the top infantry players were assaults.

    Attrition is to force teamwork. How is this not obvious?

    Because it doesn't increase teamwork? Increasing your reliance on teammates isn't the same thing as actually improving teamwork in a meaningful way. They may be trying to force teamwork but if the beta is any indication it'll do the opposite.
    .
    The most used classes were already Assault and Sniper in the beta so I don't know why you're afraid of people using Assault if they remove ammo attrition lol.

    Most used were Assault then Medic then Recon. Support was last. Recon respawned the 2nd most. Meaning they were dying more and getting revived less relative to their usage.

    Regardless, I'd still play medic and support even if there was no ammo attrition. I did in BF1 about just as much as I played assault.

    I'm just going by the only chart they've released. Usage in order from most used to least used was Assault, Sniper, Medic, then Support. Those stats definitely pass the eye test from playing the beta too for what it's worth.

    I saw more medics than recons personally. I'm going off a statement by David Sirland where he specifically said Recon was the 3rd class in usage as a response to someone who was claiming there were too many recons. The infographic you're referring to says "Most Popular Class Deployed" which would refer to spawning/respawning rather than usage time.

    I bet medic and recon usage were actually probably very close to equal as they always were in BF1 as well with medic just barely taking the lead throughout much of the history of the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.