Attrition video -- Levelcap

Comments


  • 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.

    I never said "increase teamwork". Attrition actually does improve teamwork when it happens, since attrition punishes non-teamwork super hard, and when you get ammo/health, you have a HUGE advantage over your opponents.

    No teamwork is contributed to people playing sniper in an objective game, not attrition. TTK is more a reason for that than attrition. as soon as they died without being able to respond, they over compensated by choosing sniper and ignoring the team, just so they could stay alive longer and feel more empowered.

    I'm scared of assault being too easy for other classes to be worth using.
  • MarxistDictator
    5171 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Assault fulfills the role of a general combatant whether you teamwork box enthusiasts appreciate it or not. And the only gun people cared about recieved a nerf (which no doubt was also applied to the STG-5 as well since its lacking control vs the STG44 was its balance and they share a projectile).

    Its really funny how all the guys whining that any edit to attrition would ruin the system are still gassing on about assault like his one great gun is going to be anywhere near how good it was in the beta.
  • IISalvinII
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    I often wonder how many Battlefield players have actually played the entirety of the Battlefield series. BF1942, BF2 and BF2142 were not perfect games by any means, however, what they did end up perfecting was teamwork. Among several systems that promoted team play, limited ammo was one such system. It forced players to work as a squad/team, and solo players had a clear understanding that they would be at a disadvantage.

    Modern BF games are saturated with Rambo archetypes, i.e., "I want to capture points, kill the enemy, have plenty of ammo, have plenty of heals and win the game." "The SL is asking us to group and attack an objective... Screw the SL! I know better." I have yet to see any random squads in any modern BF truly function as a squad, and this is an absolute shame. I'll concede that teamwork wasn't uniformly robust in older BF's, but those systems didn't go out of their way to reward Rambo's either.

    I like Levelcap myself but I think he is wholly wrong here. Limited ammo and health regeneration is a good thing. Personally, I don't think health regeneration belongs in a BF in the first place. In any event, the attrition system will force people to form squads and actually function as a unit. Point in fact, this directly promotes PTFO. Truthfully, if they implement a proper commo-rose, Commander system, and married that with SL only spawn, BFV would easily become the most team-centric modern BF game.

    Edited to remove swearing. - EA_Cian
    Post edited by EA_Cian on
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I'm scared of assault being too easy for other classes to be worth using.

    Personally, if Assault is too powerful then that's the root issue. It shouldn't be used as an excuse to throw anything into the mix.

    Scarcity can be used as one of many balancing factors... but that's only if / when it's established to benefit the experience enough to warrant its inclusion, which... just like hardcore, it can be the best or worst thing in the world depending on the player.
  • 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.

    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.

    Then go play any of the past BF games if that is what you want. Easy solution to your problem with attrition lol.
  • 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.


    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.

    As i said before, don't knock it until you have tried it.
  • Mystriall
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    When you think about it, the attrition system isn't really that big of a deal, It's not that revolutionary of a change to what has always been part of battlefield. Ammo is even more available now than before as you have the supply stations. If you have issues you should stop wasting ammo..
  • Hawxxeye
    7432 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    When you think about it, the attrition system isn't really that big of a deal, It's not that revolutionary of a change to what has always been part of battlefield. Ammo is even more available now than before as you have the supply stations. If you have issues you should stop wasting ammo..

    I am concerned about the flare availability, 2 shots capacity is very little for something that unlike BF1 cannot be resupplied by supports
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Mystriall wrote: »
    When you think about it, the attrition system isn't really that big of a deal, It's not that revolutionary of a change to what has always been part of battlefield. Ammo is even more available now than before as you have the supply stations. If you have issues you should stop wasting ammo..

    I am concerned about the flare availability, 2 shots capacity is very little for something that unlike BF1 cannot be resupplied by supports

    I was able to resupply them from support crates in the beta. Can't really remember if pouches did though. But I know for a fact that I was able to constantly deploy flares above the day 1 objectives while on the attacking side of the operations mode during the beta because of a support crate on the ground where we were fighting.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Mystriall wrote: »
    When you think about it, the attrition system isn't really that big of a deal, It's not that revolutionary of a change to what has always been part of battlefield. Ammo is even more available now than before as you have the supply stations. If you have issues you should stop wasting ammo..

    I am concerned about the flare availability, 2 shots capacity is very little for something that unlike BF1 cannot be resupplied by supports

    Seeing as how everyone is saying that half of each team is always gonna be scouts: there should be no shortage of flares on the map. 😂
  • Hawxxeye
    7432 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Mystriall wrote: »
    When you think about it, the attrition system isn't really that big of a deal, It's not that revolutionary of a change to what has always been part of battlefield. Ammo is even more available now than before as you have the supply stations. If you have issues you should stop wasting ammo..

    I am concerned about the flare availability, 2 shots capacity is very little for something that unlike BF1 cannot be resupplied by supports

    Seeing as how everyone is saying that half of each team is always gonna be scouts: there should be no shortage of flares on the map. 😂
    I seriously doubt that considering that they are mutually exclusive with the spawn beacons (they were in the beta at least) and most recons will prefer to have their portable "Dark Souls bonfires" over spotting for their team, especially with the reduced range the flares have.
  • azelenkin0306
    565 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    IISalvinII wrote: »
    I often wonder how many Battlefield players have actually played the entirety of the Battlefield series. BF1942, BF2 and BF2142 were not perfect games by any means, however, what they did end up perfecting was teamwork. Among several systems that promoted team play, limited ammo was one such system. It forced players to work as a squad/team, and solo players had a clear understanding that they would be at a disadvantage.

    Modern BF games are saturated with Rambo archetypes, i.e., "I want to capture points, kill the enemy, have plenty of ammo, have plenty of heals and win the game." "The SL is asking us to group and attack an objective... **** the SL! I know better." I have yet to see any random squads in any modern BF truly function as a squad, and this is an absolute shame. I'll concede that teamwork wasn't uniformly robust in older BF's, but those systems didn't go out of their way to reward Rambo's either.

    I like Levelcap myself but I think he is wholly wrong here. Limited ammo and health regeneration is a good thing. Personally, I don't think health regeneration belongs in a BF in the first place. In any event, the attrition system will force people to form squads and actually function as a unit. Point in fact, this directly promotes PTFO. Truthfully, if they implement a proper commo-rose, Commander system, and married that with SL only spawn, BFV would easily become the most team-centric modern BF game.

    You're right, but here is one little problem. Not sure about BF3 and BF4, but in BF1 the whole game was built around running and gunning meta. What's the purpose of capturing the objectives? Does it give you some tactical or strategical advantage? It's just a flag in the middle of nowhere, that gives you nothing - only points. You capture one and rush to another just to get kills and points. Most of the players don't care about if they win or lose.

    In BFV they kept the meta of running and gunning, but took away bullets from players. No wonder people are upset. Attrition could really work well if maps were designed with some tactics and strategy in mind.

    For example, both teams start with 2 tanks, 2 planes and limited ammo. There are few objectives on the map that give your team real advantage - ammo depot, additional airfield where you can have additional 2 planes, fuel&repair depot where tanks can resupply and repair themselves, fortified high ground with stationary guns that can be used to destroy tanks and enemy's fortifications, vantage points where snipers can provide covering fire and protect some alleys and etc. That's where the real teamwork and commander mode matter, that's where the Attrition will shine and be a good addition

    But currently we have the same run'n'gun tiny maps filled with 64 players but with limited ammo. Having gunfights every 10-20 seconds and limited ammo kinda contradict each other :)
  • DeadlyDanDaMan
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited October 2018
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Mystriall wrote: »
    When you think about it, the attrition system isn't really that big of a deal, It's not that revolutionary of a change to what has always been part of battlefield. Ammo is even more available now than before as you have the supply stations. If you have issues you should stop wasting ammo..

    I am concerned about the flare availability, 2 shots capacity is very little for something that unlike BF1 cannot be resupplied by supports

    If flares were readily available and spammable, then there would be no point in removing manual spotting from the game. It's all about balance. Flares are supposed to be a strategic tool. They aren't supposed to be like the UAV's from CoD where EVERYONE has one and they are constantly up the entire match. All that would do is result in people doing nothing but starting at their minimaps the entire game, which is EXACTLY what DICE is trying to get people to stop doing.
  • IISalvinII wrote: »
    I often wonder how many Battlefield players have actually played the entirety of the Battlefield series. BF1942, BF2 and BF2142 were not perfect games by any means, however, what they did end up perfecting was teamwork. Among several systems that promoted team play, limited ammo was one such system. It forced players to work as a squad/team, and solo players had a clear understanding that they would be at a disadvantage.

    Modern BF games are saturated with Rambo archetypes, i.e., "I want to capture points, kill the enemy, have plenty of ammo, have plenty of heals and win the game." "The SL is asking us to group and attack an objective... **** the SL! I know better." I have yet to see any random squads in any modern BF truly function as a squad, and this is an absolute shame. I'll concede that teamwork wasn't uniformly robust in older BF's, but those systems didn't go out of their way to reward Rambo's either.

    I like Levelcap myself but I think he is wholly wrong here. Limited ammo and health regeneration is a good thing. Personally, I don't think health regeneration belongs in a BF in the first place. In any event, the attrition system will force people to form squads and actually function as a unit. Point in fact, this directly promotes PTFO. Truthfully, if they implement a proper commo-rose, Commander system, and married that with SL only spawn, BFV would easily become the most team-centric modern BF game.

    You're right, but here is one little problem. Not sure about BF3 and BF4, but in BF1 the whole game was built around running and gunning meta. What's the purpose of capturing the objectives? Does it give you some tactical or strategical advantage? It's just a flag in the middle of nowhere, that gives you nothing - only points. You capture one and rush to another just to get kills and points. Most of the players don't care about if they win or lose.

    In BFV they kept the meta of running and gunning, but took away bullets from players. No wonder people are upset. Attrition could really work well if maps were designed with some tactics and strategy in mind.

    For example, both teams start with 2 tanks, 2 planes and limited ammo. There are few objectives on the map that give your team real advantage - ammo depot, additional airfield where you can have additional 2 planes, fuel&repair depot where tanks can resupply and repair themselves, fortified high ground with stationary guns that can be used to destroy tanks and enemy's fortifications, vantage points where snipers can provide covering fire and protect some alleys and etc. That's where the real teamwork and commander mode matter, that's where the Attrition will shine and be a good addition

    But currently we have the same run'n'gun tiny maps filled with 64 players but with limited ammo. Having gunfights every 10-20 seconds and limited ammo kinda contradict each other :)

    The tactics are teamwork. If you engage in a gun battle without health/ammo backup, you will lose if the other team does.

    Ammo attrition wasn't a problem for me. You just have to run away more frequently instead of shooting more. You run to your nearest grouped teammates or to a supply crate. That is how you extend kill streaks: you rely on external help.

    Just because you can't engage AS OFTEN with enemies as before doesn't mean your options are limited. You just have to play your hand differently, like flanking or avoiding engagements until you have an advantageous position.

    You don't have to engage in these every 10-20 second gun fights. You can subvert this process on most lives by only shooting when you know you have an advantage. You have a one-track mind on this. And, even though it is a FPS, it's also a team game. Every single game mode is a team mode. If they take some emphasis away from individual skill and place it on teamwork, you have to adapt. You can say it INHERENTLY limits you, but that's just because you are insisting on one way of playing the game. Other people are not having this problem (like me). It's you, bro.

  • ragnarok013
    3774 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.

    Then go play any of the past BF games if that is what you want. Easy solution to your problem with attrition lol.

    This could also be said to you, go play BF2 or 1942 where the old limited systems were in play, I know that I still play BF2 on a semi regular basis and I still play BC2-BF4 on a regular basis since BF1 wasn't my cup of tea. Or better yet DICE could keep core the way it's been for a decade an you can go play hardcore.
  • azelenkin0306
    565 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    IISalvinII wrote: »
    I often wonder how many Battlefield players have actually played the entirety of the Battlefield series. BF1942, BF2 and BF2142 were not perfect games by any means, however, what they did end up perfecting was teamwork. Among several systems that promoted team play, limited ammo was one such system. It forced players to work as a squad/team, and solo players had a clear understanding that they would be at a disadvantage.

    Modern BF games are saturated with Rambo archetypes, i.e., "I want to capture points, kill the enemy, have plenty of ammo, have plenty of heals and win the game." "The SL is asking us to group and attack an objective... **** the SL! I know better." I have yet to see any random squads in any modern BF truly function as a squad, and this is an absolute shame. I'll concede that teamwork wasn't uniformly robust in older BF's, but those systems didn't go out of their way to reward Rambo's either.

    I like Levelcap myself but I think he is wholly wrong here. Limited ammo and health regeneration is a good thing. Personally, I don't think health regeneration belongs in a BF in the first place. In any event, the attrition system will force people to form squads and actually function as a unit. Point in fact, this directly promotes PTFO. Truthfully, if they implement a proper commo-rose, Commander system, and married that with SL only spawn, BFV would easily become the most team-centric modern BF game.

    You're right, but here is one little problem. Not sure about BF3 and BF4, but in BF1 the whole game was built around running and gunning meta. What's the purpose of capturing the objectives? Does it give you some tactical or strategical advantage? It's just a flag in the middle of nowhere, that gives you nothing - only points. You capture one and rush to another just to get kills and points. Most of the players don't care about if they win or lose.

    In BFV they kept the meta of running and gunning, but took away bullets from players. No wonder people are upset. Attrition could really work well if maps were designed with some tactics and strategy in mind.

    For example, both teams start with 2 tanks, 2 planes and limited ammo. There are few objectives on the map that give your team real advantage - ammo depot, additional airfield where you can have additional 2 planes, fuel&repair depot where tanks can resupply and repair themselves, fortified high ground with stationary guns that can be used to destroy tanks and enemy's fortifications, vantage points where snipers can provide covering fire and protect some alleys and etc. That's where the real teamwork and commander mode matter, that's where the Attrition will shine and be a good addition

    But currently we have the same run'n'gun tiny maps filled with 64 players but with limited ammo. Having gunfights every 10-20 seconds and limited ammo kinda contradict each other :)

    The tactics are teamwork. If you engage in a gun battle without health/ammo backup, you will lose if the other team does.

    Ammo attrition wasn't a problem for me. You just have to run away more frequently instead of shooting more. You run to your nearest grouped teammates or to a supply crate. That is how you extend kill streaks: you rely on external help.

    Just because you can't engage AS OFTEN with enemies as before doesn't mean your options are limited. You just have to play your hand differently, like flanking or avoiding engagements until you have an advantageous position.

    You don't have to engage in these every 10-20 second gun fights. You can subvert this process on most lives by only shooting when you know you have an advantage. You have a one-track mind on this. And, even though it is a FPS, it's also a team game. Every single game mode is a team mode. If they take some emphasis away from individual skill and place it on teamwork, you have to adapt. You can say it INHERENTLY limits you, but that's just because you are insisting on one way of playing the game. Other people are not having this problem (like me). It's you, bro.

    Where did i say that I have a problem? I am always playing class as it should be played. I don't care whether I am playing with my platoon or with randoms. My stats if you want: https://battlefieldtracker.com/bf1/profile/psn/alexeyby0306

    I am telling that that tactics and strategy should start not from limiting the ammo, but from the map design and changing the meta. Introducing crutches won't all of a sudden make a great team game.

  • Hawxxeye
    7432 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Mystriall wrote: »
    When you think about it, the attrition system isn't really that big of a deal, It's not that revolutionary of a change to what has always been part of battlefield. Ammo is even more available now than before as you have the supply stations. If you have issues you should stop wasting ammo..

    I am concerned about the flare availability, 2 shots capacity is very little for something that unlike BF1 cannot be resupplied by supports

    If flares were readily available and spammable, then there would be no point in removing manual spotting from the game. It's all about balance. Flares are supposed to be a strategic tool. They aren't supposed to be like the UAV's from CoD where EVERYONE has one and they are constantly up the entire match. All that would do is result in people doing nothing but starting at their minimaps the entire game, which is EXACTLY what DICE is trying to get people to stop doing.
    Then they fail at it cause it is possible to keep the BFV flares at 100% uptime when defending a base by camping next to an ammo station
  • 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.

    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.

    Then go play any of the past BF games if that is what you want. Easy solution to your problem with attrition lol.

    This could also be said to you, go play BF2 or 1942 where the old limited systems were in play, I know that I still play BF2 on a semi regular basis and I still play BC2-BF4 on a regular basis since BF1 wasn't my cup of tea. Or better yet DICE could keep core the way it's been for a decade an you can go play hardcore.

    This BF is more like the older games, so i don't need to go back to a older title for once. If you enjoy BF2 why the heck do you have a issue with the old systems they are bring back? At least we can agree that BF1 was a broken mess lol.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Mystriall wrote: »
    When you think about it, the attrition system isn't really that big of a deal, It's not that revolutionary of a change to what has always been part of battlefield. Ammo is even more available now than before as you have the supply stations. If you have issues you should stop wasting ammo..

    I am concerned about the flare availability, 2 shots capacity is very little for something that unlike BF1 cannot be resupplied by supports

    If flares were readily available and spammable, then there would be no point in removing manual spotting from the game. It's all about balance. Flares are supposed to be a strategic tool. They aren't supposed to be like the UAV's from CoD where EVERYONE has one and they are constantly up the entire match. All that would do is result in people doing nothing but starting at their minimaps the entire game, which is EXACTLY what DICE is trying to get people to stop doing.
    Then they fail at it cause it is possible to keep the BFV flares at 100% uptime when defending a base by camping next to an ammo station

    There are cooldown timers at those stations. All they have to do to prevent the supply station camping is adjust the cooldown timer.
  • DeadlyDanDaMan
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited October 2018
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Mystriall wrote: »
    When you think about it, the attrition system isn't really that big of a deal, It's not that revolutionary of a change to what has always been part of battlefield. Ammo is even more available now than before as you have the supply stations. If you have issues you should stop wasting ammo..

    I am concerned about the flare availability, 2 shots capacity is very little for something that unlike BF1 cannot be resupplied by supports

    If flares were readily available and spammable, then there would be no point in removing manual spotting from the game. It's all about balance. Flares are supposed to be a strategic tool. They aren't supposed to be like the UAV's from CoD where EVERYONE has one and they are constantly up the entire match. All that would do is result in people doing nothing but starting at their minimaps the entire game, which is EXACTLY what DICE is trying to get people to stop doing.
    Then they fail at it cause it is possible to keep the BFV flares at 100% uptime when defending a base by camping next to an ammo station

    Then that's something DICE will have to look into if it becomes a problem. Personally, I don't think flares should be reusable once you expend your initial 2 shots.
Sign In or Register to comment.