Weekly Debrief

Attrition video -- Levelcap

145791023

Comments

  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Nothing really artificial. Ammo is always a concern in war....and attrition brings back that true reality. Plus if we look back at BF1 coming in with full ammo (and grenades) made choke points feel like operation locker/metro.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.

    I agree attrition is kind of stupid, but it's definitely still possible to get 50+ kills in a game. In my first round using the Sten I went 49 - 13. It's definitely harder now though. At the top end of the spectrum, Stodeh had a game with 115 kills and 5 deaths while using the STG44.

    I just think ammo attrition is unnecessary and detracts more from the game than it adds, especially for above average players.
  • JamieCurnock
    616 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    Lol it's not even that bad rofl. If anything it slowed me down a hair. I still dropped 80- 100 bombs through the alpha and beta

    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    I see your point but yeah that is an extreme analogy. The difference is everyone is in the same boat, nobody is better off than the other when spawning so it is a challenge and not a handicap.

    I've never heard them call it a punishment.

    This is their quote in their blogpost about attrition:

    In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system*

    Basically implying that attrition is punishment to the skilled player.

    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5


    Yeah that's a pretty bad choice of words. It does imply that established players will be punished.

    I don't see it as a punishment though purely because we all start with less ammo so no one is disadvantaged over anyone else. The challenge is not letting that affect your existing tactics when ptfo.
  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    Lol it's not even that bad rofl. If anything it slowed me down a hair. I still dropped 80- 100 bombs through the alpha and beta

    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    I see your point but yeah that is an extreme analogy. The difference is everyone is in the same boat, nobody is better off than the other when spawning so it is a challenge and not a handicap.

    I've never heard them call it a punishment.

    This is their quote in their blogpost about attrition:

    In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system*

    Basically implying that attrition is punishment to the skilled player.

    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5


    Yeah that's a pretty bad choice of words. It does imply that established players will be punished.

    I don't see it as a punishment though purely because we all start with less ammo so no one is disadvantaged over anyone else. The challenge is not letting that affect your existing tactics when ptfo.

    Not sure "established" players is the right word.. and I can only speak for myself, but I think there's a lot of guys that cut their teeth on deathmatch.. particularly 1 vs 1 deathmatch. Those twitch games where you had to play hyper fast and you didn't care about anybody else because there was nobody else. That's how it was for me going back about 20 years (yes I'm that old), and I've basically done the same exact play style in BF games. I forced my play style on BF games regardless of what Dice "designed". W key and die.. sometimes with a streak and sometimes not. I'm never going to care about anybody else on the team, because I never have in a shooter. I've played team games in other genres, but not in shooters.

    I think there's a lot of guys like me that play BF, and it doesn't mean that someone is particularly good at doing it that way, but it's what they like. The cost of BF5 is meaningless, so I'll probably buy it and see how it goes when ignoring everyone else on the team. I have a feeling I won't play it long since I'll be highly annoyed by attrition. You know you're a way better play than somebody you come up against, they've got 100 health and you've got 10? Ya.. I'm not going to break my keyboard over that, but I'm going to send expletives Dice's direction and quit the game.

    I just cannot be slowed down by other players in a squad. That is maddening.
  • SirBobdk
    4128 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Seems like most people play BF for just one reason and that is to get the maximum number of kills.
    Other players are just annoying and so are teamplay and squard play.
    Dice is trying to make a system where a good squard with different classes that stick together is more efffective than lone wolfs.
    Since teamplay has been absence for so many years, shouldn't we welcone a system trying to get it back on track.
    It may not be perfect, but imo it's trying to do somthing good for teamplay and make it more interesting. Not for punishing skilled players.
  • DingoKillr
    3675 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    Lol it's not even that bad rofl. If anything it slowed me down a hair. I still dropped 80- 100 bombs through the alpha and beta

    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    I see your point but yeah that is an extreme analogy. The difference is everyone is in the same boat, nobody is better off than the other when spawning so it is a challenge and not a handicap.

    I've never heard them call it a punishment.

    This is their quote in their blogpost about attrition:

    In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system*

    Basically implying that attrition is punishment to the skilled player.

    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5


    Yeah that's a pretty bad choice of words. It does imply that established players will be punished.

    I don't see it as a punishment though purely because we all start with less ammo so no one is disadvantaged over anyone else. The challenge is not letting that affect your existing tactics when ptfo.

    It is not punishing new players. Does not in anyway imply good, bad or vets are punished. He just acting like a baby like many are reading what they like and twisting it. They are so scared of anything that makes the game more challenging to them they complained the same about BF1. If he is so fearful of no ammo then he should run Support instead of Assault.
  • Turban_Legend80
    4666 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    Lol it's not even that bad rofl. If anything it slowed me down a hair. I still dropped 80- 100 bombs through the alpha and beta

    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    I see your point but yeah that is an extreme analogy. The difference is everyone is in the same boat, nobody is better off than the other when spawning so it is a challenge and not a handicap.

    I've never heard them call it a punishment.

    This is their quote in their blogpost about attrition:

    In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system*

    Basically implying that attrition is punishment to the skilled player.

    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5


    Yeah that's a pretty bad choice of words. It does imply that established players will be punished.

    I don't see it as a punishment though purely because we all start with less ammo so no one is disadvantaged over anyone else. The challenge is not letting that affect your existing tactics when ptfo.

    It is not punishing new players. Does not in anyway imply good, bad or vets are punished. He just acting like a baby like many are reading what they like and twisting it. They are so scared of anything that makes the game more challenging to them they complained the same about BF1. If he is so fearful of no ammo then he should run Support instead of Assault.

    Yeah, I won’t buy BFV because i’m scared of it. Just like I don’t but avacados because i’m scared of them. Just like I don’t pay for WWE main events because i’m scared of them.
    Nothing to do with me not liking something at all.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3410 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I've just been thinking about the 'if you're bad at the game, you won't even notice attrition' line of thinking from DICE. In a sense, bad players could very easily feel attrition. For example, bad players tend to use most of their magazine/clip on one enemy. This means that they might run out of ammo after killing just two or three enemies.

    The limited health regen could also work against bad players. A good player with 10% health still has a chance to win a fight, because they've got the accuracy to be able to deal with an enemy before they get a hit off, but a bad player with low accuracy would do worse in the same scenario.

    Of course, all of these things could easily work against a good player even more, in certain situations, such as an accurate player behind enemy lines, who can't reach the ammo dropped by the enemies they kill. A player of any skill can also neutralise certain aspects of attrition by playing selfishly as a Support or Medic.
  • H3nry_K1llinger6
    80 postsMember Member
    edited October 2018
    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser punishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.


    Did you really just compare everyone starting with lower ammo, to some people spawning with knives only while others spawn with guns?

    Wow.

    That's not even remotely along the same line of thinking. I don't even know how you could consider attrition a punishment just because it can prevent you from going on huge killstreaks. It's not like you start with less ammo and once you're dry, there's no more ammo until you die.

    How is a punishment at all when all players start with the same additional ammo? Everyone is on a level playing field as far as attrition is concerned. Whether you live long enough to run out of ammo or not is moot, imo. It's not like because you're higher skilled and live longer that all of a sudden more unskilled players are going to have an easier time. They are dying before they can spend 2 mags, after all, I wouldn't say they're having the time of thier lives.

    They may not notice attrition, but that in no way means they're not held to the same restrictions everyone else is.
    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.

    For real? You were annoyed because you couldn't drop 70 kills? That's the reason attrition is the boogieman of game mechanics?

    I breached 50 kills in the beta playing as a Medic at least two times, and I wouldn't say I'm some amazing player.

    I mean this is a new one for me. I've never heard someone say a game mechanic should be removed because it doesn't allow them to drop as many kills as they want to.

    Ever consider it may be a personal issue?
  • DingoKillr
    3675 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.

    I agree attrition is kind of stupid, but it's definitely still possible to get 50+ kills in a game. In my first round using the Sten I went 49 - 13. It's definitely harder now though. At the top end of the spectrum, Stodeh had a game with 115 kills and 5 deaths while using the STG44.

    I just think ammo attrition is unnecessary and detracts more from the game than it adds, especially for above average players.

    What is different to BF1 in terms of Infantry Ammo?
    In some cases 1 less mag when you spawn.
    The MP18 trench had a 32 bullet mag and 3 mags spare.
  • H3nry_K1llinger6
    80 postsMember Member
    edited October 2018
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.

    I agree attrition is kind of stupid, but it's definitely still possible to get 50+ kills in a game. In my first round using the Sten I went 49 - 13. It's definitely harder now though. At the top end of the spectrum, Stodeh had a game with 115 kills and 5 deaths while using the STG44.

    I just think ammo attrition is unnecessary and detracts more from the game than it adds, especially for above average players.

    What is different to BF1 in terms of Infantry Ammo?
    In some cases 1 less mag when you spawn.
    The MP18 trench had a 32 bullet mag and 3 mags spare.

    And that will essentially be max ammo in BF5. You just start with one less mag.

    I feel the "issue" is really personal qualms being overblown. I mean I can't really take the reason as to why attrition is bad as "because I'm resupplying my ammo instead of killing 70 people" as something anyone should consider seriously.
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.

    I agree attrition is kind of stupid, but it's definitely still possible to get 50+ kills in a game. In my first round using the Sten I went 49 - 13. It's definitely harder now though. At the top end of the spectrum, Stodeh had a game with 115 kills and 5 deaths while using the STG44.

    I just think ammo attrition is unnecessary and detracts more from the game than it adds, especially for above average players.

    What is different to BF1 in terms of Infantry Ammo?
    In some cases 1 less mag when you spawn.
    The MP18 trench had a 32 bullet mag and 3 mags spare.

    In the beta, you had 1 mag loaded in the gun and 1 spare mag. It's better now that they're adding another mag on spawn, but I still don't see how it's any sort of improvement to the game.

    I also think ammo drops on bodies needs to give priority to whoever killed the target or contributed to the kill. So many times I used up a bunch of ammo on a few enemies, rushed towards their bodies to refill my ammo, and another teammate walked over them and took it before I could get there.
  • SirBobdk
    4128 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @Sixclicks wrote
    In the beta, you had 1 mag loaded in the gun and 1 spare mag. It's better now that they're adding another mag on spawn, but I still don't see how it's any sort of improvement to the game.
    I think it's because now there's a downside from spawning on squard mates who are fighting. You get 1 mag less compared to spawning on a captured flag and running to the supply depot. I would have made it spawn with 2 mags and then the possibility to resupply with another 2 mags. Deploying on squard mates is a advantage but the downside is less ammo. Imo this is an interesting new thing to the game.
  • DingoKillr
    3675 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.

    I agree attrition is kind of stupid, but it's definitely still possible to get 50+ kills in a game. In my first round using the Sten I went 49 - 13. It's definitely harder now though. At the top end of the spectrum, Stodeh had a game with 115 kills and 5 deaths while using the STG44.

    I just think ammo attrition is unnecessary and detracts more from the game than it adds, especially for above average players.

    What is different to BF1 in terms of Infantry Ammo?
    In some cases 1 less mag when you spawn.
    The MP18 trench had a 32 bullet mag and 3 mags spare.

    In the beta, you had 1 mag loaded in the gun and 1 spare mag. It's better now that they're adding another mag on spawn, but I still don't see how it's any sort of improvement to the game.

    I also think ammo drops on bodies needs to give priority to whoever killed the target or contributed to the kill. So many times I used up a bunch of ammo on a few enemies, rushed towards their bodies to refill my ammo, and another teammate walked over them and took it before I could get there.

    But that was for certain guns just like BF1 some had more then others. It comes down to the amount of bullets.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    The issue isn't as much attrition itself but that DICE are trying to switch up 3 things at once, granted they did speed up the TTK a notch already when they turned BF1 into a crash test dummy but fast TTK, limited spotting and attrition, all in themselves not bad features may be 1 feature too far, as far as player retention goes.

    If they left attrition but kept TTK at BF1, it would be worse due to requiring more ammo per kill.

    If they left TTK but kept normal supply status, it would just be another lone wolf kill farming game. That has been the last 5 battlefields, at least!

    Why are people so against a game that requires team-dependance? Are you afraid your teammates won't actually do it, leaving you screwed?
  • JamieCurnock
    616 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Micas99 wrote: »
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    Lol it's not even that bad rofl. If anything it slowed me down a hair. I still dropped 80- 100 bombs through the alpha and beta

    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    I see your point but yeah that is an extreme analogy. The difference is everyone is in the same boat, nobody is better off than the other when spawning so it is a challenge and not a handicap.

    I've never heard them call it a punishment.

    This is their quote in their blogpost about attrition:

    In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system*

    Basically implying that attrition is punishment to the skilled player.

    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5


    Yeah that's a pretty bad choice of words. It does imply that established players will be punished.

    I don't see it as a punishment though purely because we all start with less ammo so no one is disadvantaged over anyone else. The challenge is not letting that affect your existing tactics when ptfo.

    Not sure "established" players is the right word.. and I can only speak for myself, but I think there's a lot of guys that cut their teeth on deathmatch.. particularly 1 vs 1 deathmatch. Those twitch games where you had to play hyper fast and you didn't care about anybody else because there was nobody else. That's how it was for me going back about 20 years (yes I'm that old), and I've basically done the same exact play style in BF games. I forced my play style on BF games regardless of what Dice "designed". W key and die.. sometimes with a streak and sometimes not. I'm never going to care about anybody else on the team, because I never have in a shooter. I've played team games in other genres, but not in shooters.

    I think there's a lot of guys like me that play BF, and it doesn't mean that someone is particularly good at doing it that way, but it's what they like. The cost of BF5 is meaningless, so I'll probably buy it and see how it goes when ignoring everyone else on the team. I have a feeling I won't play it long since I'll be highly annoyed by attrition. You know you're a way better play than somebody you come up against, they've got 100 health and you've got 10? Ya.. I'm not going to break my keyboard over that, but I'm going to send expletives Dice's direction and quit the game.

    I just cannot be slowed down by other players in a squad. That is maddening.

    Ok, instead of established I'll say 'players who are not new to battlefield'. I also started on doom etc in the early days. I also pretty much play alone on bf so don't have a squad or mates on a mic and to a degree I play lone wolf. My point was that attrition (for me) provided an extra level of challenge that enjoyed. It didn't feel like a punishment but an extra challenge instead. Yes it was harder at times but this just made me think more tacticly.

    For example, do I run across that open ground or do I skirt the edges looking for people who are covering that area?

    Do I have a bandage that I could use if I take a hit? If i do can I grab another bandage at the next flag to replace it? Etc

    Same type of consideration with ammo. I found it enjoyable having to think like this instead of the run run run mentality of bf1. Run to the flag! If you take a hit, just hide for a second'. I feel the old way is a bit shallow
  • BaronVonGoon
    6866 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    The issue isn't as much attrition itself but that DICE are trying to switch up 3 things at once, granted they did speed up the TTK a notch already when they turned BF1 into a crash test dummy but fast TTK, limited spotting and attrition, all in themselves not bad features may be 1 feature too far, as far as player retention goes.

    If they left attrition but kept TTK at BF1, it would be worse due to requiring more ammo per kill.

    If they left TTK but kept normal supply status, it would just be another lone wolf kill farming game. That has been the last 5 battlefields, at least!

    ...and what is wrong with that? Are you implying that the lone wolves who go on kill streaks are bad for the game, therefore, we need Dice to install artificial mechanics that directly hinder their effectiveness?

    We dislike spread because it's random and out of our control yet we're ok with mechanics that limit the effectiveness of players? Why? Yes, I know it's a casual game but punishing strong players because they're punishing weak players is just abhorrent. I got good by getting my **** whooped for 350 hours in BF4. It made me into a strong player today. Giving unskilled players a crutch to help them will not make them better.

    I don't care what anyone says attrition is not affecting unskilled players anywhere close to how it's affecting skilled players, they can't stay alive enough. Again, see Dice's quote, they themselves say attrition isn't punishment to noobs which implies that it IS punishment to skilled players.
  • JamieCurnock
    616 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    Lol it's not even that bad rofl. If anything it slowed me down a hair. I still dropped 80- 100 bombs through the alpha and beta

    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    That whole video stinks of " I can't go on massive killstreaks anymore, WAAAAAAH!

    Why is that any mechanic that makes the game a bit 'harder' or require a bit more thought, it always 'punishes good players'?

    Truely good players are 'good' no matter what, if a player can't adapt to new mechanics and still do well then perhaps they are not as 'good' as they think they are.

    It’s not about what makes a player good. We already know good players and bad players exist. Bad players won’t be effected anywhere near as much as good players because they’ll die before they need to restock.
    I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that.

    Let’s say all these people saying “it only effects good players” don’t buy BFV. There will still be good players and bad players, and the bad players won’t be effected as much.

    So what?

    So what if a player dies before he needs to restock, unlucky for him.

    If you don't die, you will need to restock. Just like every Battlefield before this except this time you have to do it sooner and perhaps more often.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if it only affects good players, so what? The bad players are already dead, take their ammo.

    Calm down mate, I was just explaining how it would effect the better players more than the ones that die all the time. You asked how it punishes good players in your previous post. I answered your question. And now you say “so what”. Why ask that question then?

    Perfectly calm bud.

    I just don't see the issue. Every mechanic affects everyone.

    !

    No. This is false. When a mechanic requires you to stay alive long enough to affect you and you're incapable of staying long enough for its effect to be felt, then no, it does not affect everyone.

    Have you by any chance actually READ Dice's blog post about attrition which we are discussing? Because it says:

    "In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"

    Care to rephrase your post?

    The system IS indeed designed to punish skilled players. You don't need 200 IQ to see it, THEY'RE saying it themselves and they designed it this way.


    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5

    Which makes it good imo. It's a sliding bell curve. As you get better you will continue to learn and change tactics. Keeps the game going.

    They're introducing artificial mechanics to reduce the gap between skilled and unskilled. They're literally hard capping skill just like spread hard caps the effectiveness of guns at range. How is that good? How is that fair?

    Come buy our game and play but don't get too get or else we'll have to kick you a notch down. This is good?

    Or it could be seen as providing higher than everage players a new challenge. Yes going on massive kill streaks is fun, I found getting those high killstreaks whilst taking into consideration the need to resupply ammo and bandages provided an even bigger sense of satisfaction/achievement.

    But would you accept skilled players spawning with melee only while unskilled players get guns? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but it's along the same line of thinking. We're being asked to accept a lesser panishment and since it's not as strict as melee only we're supposed to think of it as a challenge. DICE themselves call it a punishment rather than a challenge. Because it is. Don't like it.

    I see your point but yeah that is an extreme analogy. The difference is everyone is in the same boat, nobody is better off than the other when spawning so it is a challenge and not a handicap.

    I've never heard them call it a punishment.

    This is their quote in their blogpost about attrition:

    In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system*

    Basically implying that attrition is punishment to the skilled player.

    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5


    Yeah that's a pretty bad choice of words. It does imply that established players will be punished.

    I don't see it as a punishment though purely because we all start with less ammo so no one is disadvantaged over anyone else. The challenge is not letting that affect your existing tactics when ptfo.

    It is not punishing new players. Does not in anyway imply good, bad or vets are punished. He just acting like a baby like many are reading what they like and twisting it. They are so scared of anything that makes the game more challenging to them they complained the same about BF1. If he is so fearful of no ammo then he should run Support instead of Assault.

    I agree it isn't punishing and I love the challenge attrition brings. let's be fair tho, that sentence could be interpretated like that. If they say new players won't be punished by the system it implies experienced players will. My point was Its not a great choice of words as it could be misinterperated.
  • JamieCurnock
    616 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I know I know. Its not that bad but it's something. I was annoyed I couldn't drop 70+ kills like I would in BF1. I never even came close to 50 in BFV while in BF1, 50 is the minimum for me.

    I think this is one of the main problems. Dice screwed up with bf1 by being too easy, it made massive kill streaks too common and now people aren't happy unless they feel like a 1 man army and as if they have won the game single handed with their massive kill streak.
  • JamieCurnock
    616 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The issue isn't as much attrition itself but that DICE are trying to switch up 3 things at once, granted they did speed up the TTK a notch already when they turned BF1 into a crash test dummy but fast TTK, limited spotting and attrition, all in themselves not bad features may be 1 feature too far, as far as player retention goes.

    If they left attrition but kept TTK at BF1, it would be worse due to requiring more ammo per kill.

    If they left TTK but kept normal supply status, it would just be another lone wolf kill farming game. That has been the last 5 battlefields, at least!

    ...and what is wrong with that? Are you implying that the lone wolves who go on kill streaks are bad for the game, therefore, we need Dice to install artificial mechanics that directly hinder their effectiveness?

    We dislike spread because it's random and out of our control yet we're ok with mechanics that limit the effectiveness of players? Why? Yes, I know it's a casual game but punishing strong players because they're punishing weak players is just abhorrent. I got good by getting my **** whooped for 350 hours in BF4. It made me into a strong player today. Giving unskilled players a crutch to help them will not make them better.

    I don't care what anyone says attrition is not affecting unskilled players anywhere close to how it's affecting skilled players, they can't stay alive enough. Again, see Dice's quote, they themselves say attrition isn't punishment to noobs which implies that it IS punishment to skilled players.

    Ok stop with the whole dice is saying it's a punishment. They are not intentionally saying that at all, I do agree that if you WANT to interpret it that way you could but that just reflects how you want to see it in a negative way, not how they are intentionally framing it.

    I believe this will actually make skilled players even stronger if they don't throw their toys out the pram and quit straight away. Having to think about ammo and health means a more considered approach, that leads to more thought out attacks and positioning, being able to establish the risk vs reward of situations quickly whilst under pressure.

    Alternatively we go back to bf1 where we forget all those things and just run forward like headless chickens, if you take a hit, just hide, it'll all be ok in a minute once my health goes up.

    i see it as it as it's nice to have a fresh challenge and I reckon I can master it without it negatively affecting my game.
Sign In or Register to comment.