Attrition video -- Levelcap

1568101123

Comments

  • BaronVonGoon
    7050 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    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.

    Very true. It's hard to accept doing minimum 50-80 kills in BF1 and doing 30-50 kills in BFV. But it's a ridiculous reason to not buy the game because of it. I loved the beta and I'm definitely buying the game, though I still don't like attrition. It affects me and you and everyone in the thread more than newer players and the unskilled.
    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 intentionall.

    My intention isn't to focus on the word punishment. You can call it whatever you want, it remains a mechanic introduced by the devs to affect skilled players more so than it does unskilled players

    Think about it. Dice isn't stupid. They know their game is casual and appeals to casuals. Adding mechanics that appeal to said casuals/new players will sell more copies. They know that attrition affects skilled players more than it does unskilled players. The only reason I keep bringing up the quote is people are saying it's not Dice is intention, there's no other way of interpreting it.
  • orangebionic
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Good players will be still good,bad remain bad.

    Accuracy and ability to maintain ammo goes with being good at fps games.

    However... nobody will be same effective playing long wolf as before. And its great, its not aimed at good gamers in purpose to gimp them or whatever.

    Its done with purpose of getting players to cooperate. In equal way it wont make good players useless,but true there is a doubt that might not force loners to teamwork.

    Why is so much drama about ammo tho? Med pouches limited to just one is bigger concern,nobody throw medpacks in beta because of that.
  • ragnarok013
    3774 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Just a reminder for everyone to remain civil and on topic since some of the comments are coming dangerously close to personal attacks.
    
    
  • JamieCurnock
    735 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.

    Very true. It's hard to accept doing minimum 50-80 kills in BF1 and doing 30-50 kills in BFV. But it's a ridiculous reason to not buy the game because of it. I loved the beta and I'm definitely buying the game, though I still don't like attrition. It affects me and you and everyone in the thread more than newer players and the unskilled.
    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 intentionall.

    My intention isn't to focus on the word punishment. You can call it whatever you want, it remains a mechanic introduced by the devs to affect skilled players more so than it does unskilled players

    Think about it. Dice isn't stupid. They know their game is casual and appeals to casuals. Adding mechanics that appeal to said casuals/new players will sell more copies. They know that attrition affects skilled players more than it does unskilled players. The only reason I keep bringing up the quote is people are saying it's not Dice is intention, there's no other way of interpreting it.

    Yeah I agree, it is as much a way of balancing the game between highly skilled and maybe newbie players as it is a way of providing a challenge to experienced players. If you think about it though, new players who are constantly wrecked are less likely to want to keep playing, why would you if you get hammered on every match? If these players leave then you are left with the bf hardcore fans which limits the populated servers, game modes and overall player count. In bf1 experienced people had scores like 40 - 5 for example, new players might be on the receiving end of that and end up with score like 5- 20. That is demoralising and won't make people want to stick with the game. This balance provides the extra challenge for good players and balances the gap a little for new players, a bit like elite classes or behemoths in bf1, new players can get some kills and not feel like it was a complete waste of time whilst skilled players can still get big kill streaks. I had plenty of rounds of 40-5 or similar so it's def possible.
  • bran1986
    5913 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member

    Are you afraid your teammates won't actually do it, leaving you screwed?

    Um ... yes? Blueberries aren't exactly very dependent in Battlefield games ... hell, they're not dependable in any online game, ever. I'm probably going to have to call @MachoFantast1c0 (I'll give you plenty of ammo, I promise) every time I want to play a BFV match, because God knows the other medics on my team won't even lift a finger to help me out when I need them. I still remember my time with the beta ... I would run out into gunfire, sometimes even charging another bloody tank, just to do a squad revive that takes several seconds and get my revived teammate to safety by using a smoke grenade or distracting enemies, only to have the medics not bother to revive me when I'm in cover and no enemies are around.

    I mean, it was pretty weird when I was constantly reviving my squad mates ... as a Support player ... XD

    We'll all have to get used to this system, because DICE are not looking to change this anytime soon. They're desperate for the 'Battlefield veterans', who have not even played a BF game for over a decade in some cases, and who are completely outnumbered by other gaming demographics. At the same time, DICE is trying to cater to those other demographics. I truly wonder how this will end ... either this will be DICE's masterstroke, or this game will die faster than Hardline.

    Me and @MachoFantast1c0 could always use another squad mate.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    edited October 2018

    Are you afraid your teammates won't actually do it, leaving you screwed?

    Um ... yes? Blueberries aren't exactly very dependent in Battlefield games ... hell, they're not dependable in any online game, ever. I'm probably going to have to call @MachoFantast1c0 (I'll give you plenty of ammo, I promise) every time I want to play a BFV match, because God knows the other medics on my team won't even lift a finger to help me out when I need them. I still remember my time with the beta ... I would run out into gunfire, sometimes even charging another bloody tank, just to do a squad revive that takes several seconds and get my revived teammate to safety by using a smoke grenade or distracting enemies, only to have the medics not bother to revive me when I'm in cover and no enemies are around.

    I mean, it was pretty weird when I was constantly reviving my squad mates ... as a Support player ... XD

    We'll all have to get used to this system, because DICE are not looking to change this anytime soon. They're desperate for the 'Battlefield veterans', who have not even played a BF game for over a decade in some cases, and who are completely outnumbered by other gaming demographics. At the same time, DICE is trying to cater to those other demographics. I truly wonder how this will end ... either this will be DICE's masterstroke, or this game will die faster than Hardline.

    I agree with your analysis about demographics.

    But, in regards to blueberry dependence, isn't this like comparing football to baseball? I think BF3-BF1 were like baseball, where it is nothing but a bunch of individuals whose individual output determines the game. BFV is like soccer/football, where it's about executing a team gameplan. If any one part is lacking, the whole thing can fall apart.

    I like in-game team-dependence over a game where I could be the best if I just work on my game more.

    I know the more modern gamer is more populous than the BF veterans, and that they seem to be more solo-driven than the vets, but I don't think the standard BF gameplay is better than teamwork heavy gameplay.

    Don't most people strive to be a part of something "bigger than themselves"? I could be wrong, but I don't think Battlefields since BC2 have been very teamwork-heavy. It was more about individuals sharing points with each other.

    I'm not saying that won't be in BFV, but the new GOperations and BR modes will obviously require a higher base level of co-operation, correct?

    Idk. Maybe the best medium is a basketball-like BF game, which requires some people to be skilled and everyone to be versatile.

    But I think this is baseball players complaining that baseball has been changed to football/soccer. I don't think one is better. One just requires a different motivation for gaming. I happen to have that motive. I have some old school BF friends who I want to play with and win with about as much as I crave individual success.


    This is forcing people to make friends with randoms. The best band/ensemble wins. I think that's brilliant.

    I don't think sticking with the same formula that has been in the past 4 games will keep the franchise in good shape long-term.

    If it's just the same vehicle/ infantry-mixed gameplay that we expect, that will eventually get stale compared to how crazy other games are changing (like CoD). There will always be new players who find the mixed gameplay interesting, but I think the longer you go without changing something, the quicker older players lose interest.
    ,

  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Why are people so against a game that requires team-dependance? Are you afraid your teammates won't actually do it, leaving you screwed?

    It's a valid question - my answer is that I don't care about my teammates. They should be doing their job.. capping, killing, those sorts of things, but ultimately I just don't care about them. I play way faster than 95% of the player base.. I'm not saying I'm a top 5% player, but I play balls-out fast, and squad mates won't keep up, or they're doing their own thing. It''s super rare to see a squad play together in a BF game unless it's a pre-made. So.. why am I against a "game that requires team-dependance"? Because I don't like that kind of game.

    I understand what Dice is trying to do. They're bringing the bad up, and bringing the great down. Less skill gap. Really good players will still be good, but it''ll be a whole lot more annoying to do it. Putting pez dispensers in a game.. just.. the worst thing imaginable in a BF game.
  • JamieCurnock
    735 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, 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 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.

    Very true. It's hard to accept doing minimum 50-80 kills in BF1 and doing 30-50 kills in BFV. But it's a ridiculous reason to not buy the game because of it. I loved the beta and I'm definitely buying the game, though I still don't like attrition. It affects me and you and everyone in the thread more than newer players and the unskilled.
    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 intentionall.

    My intention isn't to focus on the word punishment. You can call it whatever you want, it remains a mechanic introduced by the devs to affect skilled players more so than it does unskilled players

    Think about it. Dice isn't stupid. They know their game is casual and appeals to casuals. Adding mechanics that appeal to said casuals/new players will sell more copies. They know that attrition affects skilled players more than it does unskilled players. The only reason I keep bringing up the quote is people are saying it's not Dice is intention, there's no other way of interpreting it.

    Yeah I agree, it is as much a way of balancing the game between highly skilled and maybe newbie players as it is a way of providing a challenge to experienced players. If you think about it though, new players who are constantly wrecked are less likely to want to keep playing, why would you if you get hammered on every match? If these players leave then you are left with the bf hardcore fans which limits the populated servers, game modes and overall player count. In bf1 experienced people had scores like 40 - 5 for example, new players might be on the receiving end of that and end up with score like 5- 20. That is demoralising and won't make people want to stick with the game. This balance provides the extra challenge for good players and balances the gap a little for new players, a bit like elite classes or behemoths in bf1, new players can get some kills and not feel like it was a complete waste of time whilst skilled players can still get big kill streaks. I had plenty of rounds of 40-5 or similar so it's def possible.

    Then they simply need to "git gud."

    Nobody is amazing when they first start gaming or playing FPS. They need to put in a lot of time and gain experience to get good. I'm sure a lot of us were terrible in our first FPS games. It didn't discourage me from playing more. Quite the opposite in fact.

    I have a friend who recently started FPS gaming a few years ago. She started with a KDR of 0.3. Nowadays she's above a 1.0. Getting rekt didn't discourage her from playing. It encouraged her to improve her game.

    I don't mind health attrition. That effects everyone equally. Ammo attrition is just dumb imo. It's not too bad to deal with on maps like Rotterdam and Narvik where supply stations are usually within reach, but I expect that could be a lot different on much larger maps like the one DICE was touting as being 1500 meters across. Which means there will likely be a lot more open ground between supply stations. Which in turn could lead to a lot of stalemates between objectives because players will want to stick by their supply box rather than running out of ammo in the fight between the objectives. This is also especially true for tanks which I frequently saw camping by a supply station in the alphas and beta where they would just set up and "tank snipe".

    Attrition really wouldn't be that big of a deal if class distribution was decent and players actually played the role of their classes, but that's a pipedream. In the beta we had class distributions of 36% assault, 22% medic, 28% recon, and 14% support. And as always in BF, I often found myself standing in front of supports/medics spamming that "I need ammo/health" to no avail.

    Will I still buy the game? Sure. And of course I'll end up dealing with attrition regardless of my opinion on it. That doesn't mean I have to like it. I didn't like the TTK2 update in BF1. I still dealt with it regardless.

    Oh the old git gud argument, that argument is such a cop out to any sort of meaningful discussion. Yes of course people aren't great when they start and yes for some people that spurs them on to get better, others simply don't have hundreds of hours to pour into the game, some people have kids and other commitments which means they may not be able to take the time to 'git gud'.

    Both ammo and health attrition are the same for everyone so no one is disadvantaged over anyone else.i would imagine that large maps will have deliberately placed ammo &health dumps so the issue you raise doesn't happen too often. I guess if you use the same mentality you have put forward I could just say 'git gud' with resupplying so you don't find yourself with no ammo or health.
  • GrizzGolf
    1372 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I need more Ammo for my SMGs
  • Sixclicks
    5075 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    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 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.

    Very true. It's hard to accept doing minimum 50-80 kills in BF1 and doing 30-50 kills in BFV. But it's a ridiculous reason to not buy the game because of it. I loved the beta and I'm definitely buying the game, though I still don't like attrition. It affects me and you and everyone in the thread more than newer players and the unskilled.
    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 intentionall.

    My intention isn't to focus on the word punishment. You can call it whatever you want, it remains a mechanic introduced by the devs to affect skilled players more so than it does unskilled players

    Think about it. Dice isn't stupid. They know their game is casual and appeals to casuals. Adding mechanics that appeal to said casuals/new players will sell more copies. They know that attrition affects skilled players more than it does unskilled players. The only reason I keep bringing up the quote is people are saying it's not Dice is intention, there's no other way of interpreting it.

    Yeah I agree, it is as much a way of balancing the game between highly skilled and maybe newbie players as it is a way of providing a challenge to experienced players. If you think about it though, new players who are constantly wrecked are less likely to want to keep playing, why would you if you get hammered on every match? If these players leave then you are left with the bf hardcore fans which limits the populated servers, game modes and overall player count. In bf1 experienced people had scores like 40 - 5 for example, new players might be on the receiving end of that and end up with score like 5- 20. That is demoralising and won't make people want to stick with the game. This balance provides the extra challenge for good players and balances the gap a little for new players, a bit like elite classes or behemoths in bf1, new players can get some kills and not feel like it was a complete waste of time whilst skilled players can still get big kill streaks. I had plenty of rounds of 40-5 or similar so it's def possible.

    Then they simply need to "git gud."

    Nobody is amazing when they first start gaming or playing FPS. They need to put in a lot of time and gain experience to get good. I'm sure a lot of us were terrible in our first FPS games. It didn't discourage me from playing more. Quite the opposite in fact.

    I have a friend who recently started FPS gaming a few years ago. She started with a KDR of 0.3. Nowadays she's above a 1.0. Getting rekt didn't discourage her from playing. It encouraged her to improve her game.

    I don't mind health attrition. That effects everyone equally. Ammo attrition is just dumb imo. It's not too bad to deal with on maps like Rotterdam and Narvik where supply stations are usually within reach, but I expect that could be a lot different on much larger maps like the one DICE was touting as being 1500 meters across. Which means there will likely be a lot more open ground between supply stations. Which in turn could lead to a lot of stalemates between objectives because players will want to stick by their supply box rather than running out of ammo in the fight between the objectives. This is also especially true for tanks which I frequently saw camping by a supply station in the alphas and beta where they would just set up and "tank snipe".

    Attrition really wouldn't be that big of a deal if class distribution was decent and players actually played the role of their classes, but that's a pipedream. In the beta we had class distributions of 36% assault, 22% medic, 28% recon, and 14% support. And as always in BF, I often found myself standing in front of supports/medics spamming that "I need ammo/health" to no avail.

    Will I still buy the game? Sure. And of course I'll end up dealing with attrition regardless of my opinion on it. That doesn't mean I have to like it. I didn't like the TTK2 update in BF1. I still dealt with it regardless.

    Oh the old git gud argument, that argument is such a cop out to any sort of meaningful discussion. Yes of course people aren't great when they start and yes for some people that spurs them on to get better, others simply don't have hundreds of hours to pour into the game, some people have kids and other commitments which means they may not be able to take the time to 'git gud'.

    Both ammo and health attrition are the same for everyone so no one is disadvantaged over anyone else.i would imagine that large maps will have deliberately placed ammo &health dumps so the issue you raise doesn't happen too often. I guess if you use the same mentality you have put forward I could just say 'git gud' with resupplying so you don't find yourself with no ammo or health.

    Ammo management isn't a matter of skill. It's reliant on how lucky you are with teammates resupplying, hopefully not running into too many enemies between supply points, getting to enemy bodies to resupply before your teammates take the ammo, or simply camping by supply stations. There's nothing to "git gud" with regarding ammo count besides accuracy. You could say low skill players will waste more ammo because they miss more, but that just further supports the argument that they die more often and thus are less likely to reach their ammo cap because inaccurate players tend to lose firefights. Low ammo counts are more likely to affect skilled players because they're more likely to actually use up all of their ammo before death.

    The low ammo count of the beta really only led to a lot of moments where I'd head towards an objective, run into a few enemies along the way, be low on ammo as a result, and decide to retreat back to the previous objective to resupply instead of continuing forward and risking not having enough ammo on the enemy objective. That will lead to stalemates on larger maps if they don't place abundant resupply points throughout the map. Which is concerning considering DICE has said before that they think players are using supply stations too much. The reason for that is obvious - you can never rely on random teammates to resupply/heal.

    My argument definitely wasn't a cop out. It's one of the main points of playing any game where you're competing with others. It's ridiculous to expect that you should be able to compete as well as other players with significantly more experience. If you're consistently getting destroyed by other players, you either need to accept it and just have fun doing what you can or try to improve. Else, you're in the wrong genre of games.
  • JamieCurnock
    735 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks 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 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.

    Very true. It's hard to accept doing minimum 50-80 kills in BF1 and doing 30-50 kills in BFV. But it's a ridiculous reason to not buy the game because of it. I loved the beta and I'm definitely buying the game, though I still don't like attrition. It affects me and you and everyone in the thread more than newer players and the unskilled.
    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 intentionall.

    My intention isn't to focus on the word punishment. You can call it whatever you want, it remains a mechanic introduced by the devs to affect skilled players more so than it does unskilled players

    Think about it. Dice isn't stupid. They know their game is casual and appeals to casuals. Adding mechanics that appeal to said casuals/new players will sell more copies. They know that attrition affects skilled players more than it does unskilled players. The only reason I keep bringing up the quote is people are saying it's not Dice is intention, there's no other way of interpreting it.

    Yeah I agree, it is as much a way of balancing the game between highly skilled and maybe newbie players as it is a way of providing a challenge to experienced players. If you think about it though, new players who are constantly wrecked are less likely to want to keep playing, why would you if you get hammered on every match? If these players leave then you are left with the bf hardcore fans which limits the populated servers, game modes and overall player count. In bf1 experienced people had scores like 40 - 5 for example, new players might be on the receiving end of that and end up with score like 5- 20. That is demoralising and won't make people want to stick with the game. This balance provides the extra challenge for good players and balances the gap a little for new players, a bit like elite classes or behemoths in bf1, new players can get some kills and not feel like it was a complete waste of time whilst skilled players can still get big kill streaks. I had plenty of rounds of 40-5 or similar so it's def possible.

    Then they simply need to "git gud."

    Nobody is amazing when they first start gaming or playing FPS. They need to put in a lot of time and gain experience to get good. I'm sure a lot of us were terrible in our first FPS games. It didn't discourage me from playing more. Quite the opposite in fact.

    I have a friend who recently started FPS gaming a few years ago. She started with a KDR of 0.3. Nowadays she's above a 1.0. Getting rekt didn't discourage her from playing. It encouraged her to improve her game.

    I don't mind health attrition. That effects everyone equally. Ammo attrition is just dumb imo. It's not too bad to deal with on maps like Rotterdam and Narvik where supply stations are usually within reach, but I expect that could be a lot different on much larger maps like the one DICE was touting as being 1500 meters across. Which means there will likely be a lot more open ground between supply stations. Which in turn could lead to a lot of stalemates between objectives because players will want to stick by their supply box rather than running out of ammo in the fight between the objectives. This is also especially true for tanks which I frequently saw camping by a supply station in the alphas and beta where they would just set up and "tank snipe".

    Attrition really wouldn't be that big of a deal if class distribution was decent and players actually played the role of their classes, but that's a pipedream. In the beta we had class distributions of 36% assault, 22% medic, 28% recon, and 14% support. And as always in BF, I often found myself standing in front of supports/medics spamming that "I need ammo/health" to no avail.

    Will I still buy the game? Sure. And of course I'll end up dealing with attrition regardless of my opinion on it. That doesn't mean I have to like it. I didn't like the TTK2 update in BF1. I still dealt with it regardless.

    Oh the old git gud argument, that argument is such a cop out to any sort of meaningful discussion. Yes of course people aren't great when they start and yes for some people that spurs them on to get better, others simply don't have hundreds of hours to pour into the game, some people have kids and other commitments which means they may not be able to take the time to 'git gud'.

    Both ammo and health attrition are the same for everyone so no one is disadvantaged over anyone else.i would imagine that large maps will have deliberately placed ammo &health dumps so the issue you raise doesn't happen too often. I guess if you use the same mentality you have put forward I could just say 'git gud' with resupplying so you don't find yourself with no ammo or health.

    Ammo management isn't a matter of skill. It's reliant on how lucky you are with teammates resupplying, hopefully not running into too many enemies between supply points, getting to enemy bodies to resupply before your teammates take the ammo, or simply camping by supply stations. There's nothing to "git gud" with regarding ammo count besides accuracy. You could say low skill players will waste more ammo because they miss more, but that just further supports the argument that they die more often and thus are less likely to reach their ammo cap because inaccurate players tend to lose firefights. Low ammo counts are more likely to affect skilled players because they're more likely to actually use up all of their ammo before death.

    The low ammo count of the beta really only led to a lot of moments where I'd head towards an objective, run into a few enemies along the way, be low on ammo as a result, and decide to retreat back to the previous objective to resupply instead of continuing forward and risking not having enough ammo on the enemy objective. That will lead to stalemates on larger maps if they don't place abundant resupply points throughout the map. Which is concerning considering DICE has said before that they think players are using supply stations too much. The reason for that is obvious - you can never rely on random teammates to resupply/heal.

    My argument definitely wasn't a cop out. It's one of the main points of playing any game where you're competing with others. It's ridiculous to expect that you should be able to compete as well as other players with significantly more experience. If you're consistently getting destroyed by other players, you either need to accept it and just have fun doing what you can or try to improve. Else, you're in the wrong genre of games.

    Well, to be fair that is a very well reasoned argument and one I can't really refute. I actually agree on most of your points. Me saying that git gud is a cop out is because generally it is, generally it's not followed up by a well thought out response and the 'git gud' is the sum total of their point of view.

    I would say that you can manage ammo to a degree, if your getting low move toward an objective to resupply. I will concede though that there will be instances where this isn't possible and therefore you are reliant on your team mates to resupply.

    The mechanic is going to rely on teammates more that is for certain and generally in bf games that hasnt been a strong point. I do think though that there has never been a particularly strong need for such tight teamwork so I think people need time to adjust and realise how important it is in bf5. The masses have only played 1 week of the beta which isn't enough time for some people to find a class they like, then a gun, get to know the maps, where choke points are etc let alone really think about supporting others.

    There needs to also be more of an indication which players need health/ammo and an indicator for support/medic players to let them know someone is requesting a resupply.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »

    My argument definitely wasn't a cop out. It's one of the main points of playing any game where you're competing with others. It's ridiculous to expect that you should be able to compete as well as other players with significantly more experience. If you're consistently getting destroyed by other players, you either need to accept it and just have fun doing what you can or try to improve. Else, you're in the wrong genre of games.

    I don't think a shortened skillceiling is the intention of attrition. It's team-dependence.

    In theory you could be right about the balance effect, but the inexperienced players got pounded into the ground with the TTK/TTD during the beta. So, I think it's just a theory you are putting out there.

    Shortened TTK will balance this skillceiling drop off immediately. There are no players who are inexperienced who are competing with the experienced players. The inexperienced players may get a few more kills a game off of attrition, but their relatively worse decision-making skills will balance this out at other times, such as not knowing how to deal with it themselves, if they get to that point.

    I am anti-casual/shortened skillceiling, but this game's set of features didn't remotely seem to suggest that lower skilled players were successful during the beta. My perception of successful players were that they were those in a good squad and those who knew how to flank.

    Everything else wasn't rewarded enough to stand out.
  • nanananamimimimi
    107 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Thread isn't about attrition or BF, its about muuuh L*vecaaaaaaaaaaap clickbait gibberish (see title).
    Written by L*velcap fanboy.
    .
    It really is not surprising to see how sneaky L*velcap acts and pretends he never pushed for something like an attrition system. He himself went on his knees and begged for a slow paste tactical gameplay like his at first highly praised PUBG. He literally said he wants BF developers to look at PUBG how great PUBG is and that they may should bring in PUBG concept into BF.
    .
    What L*velcap is not capable of is to understand (as always) that you cant bring PUBG into BF. It simply doesnt make any sense outside of the battle-royale mode. Goal of a PUBG is to survive by staying in the closing down circle and the longer you survive - the higher your rank in the game will be. Thats what the game is build on: You have only one live, limited health and limited ammo. This is why PUBG is so slow, you think twice before you change location in PUBG or before you shoot at a randomly passing by player to save ammo or risk the one life. On the opposite BF in its most popular mode conquest, is about capturing and defending objectives while having multiple lives.
    Staying alive by camping VS capturing and defending
    Battle royal VS Conquest
    .
    The most important L*velcap forgets to mention is the fact that BF maps are so tiny small, even the biggest map they are up to release is probably too small. The attrition system only suits big maps with the combination of little time to kill and that would make BF5 more realistic like a simulation rather than an arcade fun shooter.
    And the only question that comes to my mind is WHO IS GOING TO PLAY THAT? 3 months after release will be like "oh cant find a server at my region" and then people will be redirected and forced to play on EU servers with massive ping and lags. And all because princess L*velcap wanted PUBG in Battlefield.
    .
    I also think the only reason why he doesnt like the attrition system is because it deosnt benefit his massive kills streaks and will look bad on stream. Thats all L*velcap is about and this is why Dice has to reminded daily to ignore individual Y*utubers. They got themselves into a mess with BF5 because they listened to guys like L*velcap in first place.

  • JamieCurnock
    735 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Thread isn't about attrition or BF, its about muuuh L*vecaaaaaaaaaaap clickbait gibberish (see title).
    Written by L*velcap fanboy.
    .
    It really is not surprising to see how sneaky L*velcap acts and pretends he never pushed for something like an attrition system. He himself went on his knees and begged for a slow paste tactical gameplay like his at first highly praised PUBG. He literally said he wants BF developers to look at PUBG how great PUBG is and that they may should bring in PUBG concept into BF.
    .
    What L*velcap is not capable of is to understand (as always) that you cant bring PUBG into BF. It simply doesnt make any sense outside of the battle-royale mode. Goal of a PUBG is to survive by staying in the closing down circle and the longer you survive - the higher your rank in the game will be. Thats what the game is build on: You have only one live, limited health and limited ammo. This is why PUBG is so slow, you think twice before you change location in PUBG or before you shoot at a randomly passing by player to save ammo or risk the one life. On the opposite BF in its most popular mode conquest, is about capturing and defending objectives while having multiple lives.
    Staying alive by camping VS capturing and defending
    Battle royal VS Conquest
    .
    The most important L*velcap forgets to mention is the fact that BF maps are so tiny small, even the biggest map they are up to release is probably too small. The attrition system only suits big maps with the combination of little time to kill and that would make BF5 more realistic like a simulation rather than an arcade fun shooter.
    And the only question that comes to my mind is WHO IS GOING TO PLAY THAT? 3 months after release will be like "oh cant find a server at my region" and then people will be redirected and forced to play on EU servers with massive ping and lags. And all because princess L*velcap wanted PUBG in Battlefield.
    .
    I also think the only reason why he doesnt like the attrition system is because it deosnt benefit his massive kills streaks and will look bad on stream. Thats all L*velcap is about and this is why Dice has to reminded daily to ignore individual Y*utubers. They got themselves into a mess with BF5 because they listened to guys like L*velcap in first place.

    I think if the servers become deserted blaming level cap is a bit of a reach.
  • nanananamimimimi
    107 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Thread isn't about attrition or BF, its about muuuh L*vecaaaaaaaaaaap clickbait gibberish (see title).
    Written by L*velcap fanboy.
    .
    It really is not surprising to see how sneaky L*velcap acts and pretends he never pushed for something like an attrition system. He himself went on his knees and begged for a slow paste tactical gameplay like his at first highly praised PUBG. He literally said he wants BF developers to look at PUBG how great PUBG is and that they may should bring in PUBG concept into BF.
    .
    What L*velcap is not capable of is to understand (as always) that you cant bring PUBG into BF. It simply doesnt make any sense outside of the battle-royale mode. Goal of a PUBG is to survive by staying in the closing down circle and the longer you survive - the higher your rank in the game will be. Thats what the game is build on: You have only one live, limited health and limited ammo. This is why PUBG is so slow, you think twice before you change location in PUBG or before you shoot at a randomly passing by player to save ammo or risk the one life. On the opposite BF in its most popular mode conquest, is about capturing and defending objectives while having multiple lives.
    Staying alive by camping VS capturing and defending
    Battle royal VS Conquest
    .
    The most important L*velcap forgets to mention is the fact that BF maps are so tiny small, even the biggest map they are up to release is probably too small. The attrition system only suits big maps with the combination of little time to kill and that would make BF5 more realistic like a simulation rather than an arcade fun shooter.
    And the only question that comes to my mind is WHO IS GOING TO PLAY THAT? 3 months after release will be like "oh cant find a server at my region" and then people will be redirected and forced to play on EU servers with massive ping and lags. And all because princess L*velcap wanted PUBG in Battlefield.
    .
    I also think the only reason why he doesnt like the attrition system is because it deosnt benefit his massive kills streaks and will look bad on stream. Thats all L*velcap is about and this is why Dice has to reminded daily to ignore individual Y*utubers. They got themselves into a mess with BF5 because they listened to guys like L*velcap in first place.

    I think if the servers become deserted blaming level cap is a bit of a reach.

    Nobody is blaming L*velcap. Blaming L*velcap is like blaming the victim. The victim of the gamechanger program lmao
  • MurfCr
    1031 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    new ammo system is just plane junk...
    (joke time) however its not Dice Sweden its Dice LA to blame. we can only get so much ammo now at one time due to strict laws in CA...we also need to get a background check and wait 10 days to get the ammo......
  • DieHarder55
    79 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Looking forward to the attrition system.

    Hope it does penalize the COD type players. They would be the main ones complaining about attrition. No idea who Levelcap is but I'm guessing he wants this game be a large version of COD.

    Tired of seeing so many players just wilding run around quick shooting everything in sight and moving on, healing as they run around in circles killing players. Perfer Battlefield to feel a little more like a battlefield.
  • BaronVonGoon
    7050 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Thread isn't about attrition or BF, its about muuuh L*vecaaaaaaaaaaap clickbait gibberish (see title).
    Written by L*velcap fanboy.
    .
    It really is not surprising to see how sneaky L*velcap acts and pretends he never pushed for something like an attrition system. He himself went on his knees and begged for a slow paste tactical gameplay like his at first highly praised PUBG. He literally said he wants BF developers to look at PUBG how great PUBG is and that they may should bring in PUBG concept into BF.
    .
    What L*velcap is not capable of is to understand (as always) that you cant bring PUBG into BF. It simply doesnt make any sense outside of the battle-royale mode. Goal of a PUBG is to survive by staying in the closing down circle and the longer you survive - the higher your rank in the game will be. Thats what the game is build on: You have only one live, limited health and limited ammo. This is why PUBG is so slow, you think twice before you change location in PUBG or before you shoot at a randomly passing by player to save ammo or risk the one life. On the opposite BF in its most popular mode conquest, is about capturing and defending objectives while having multiple lives.
    Staying alive by camping VS capturing and defending
    Battle royal VS Conquest
    .
    The most important L*velcap forgets to mention is the fact that BF maps are so tiny small, even the biggest map they are up to release is probably too small. The attrition system only suits big maps with the combination of little time to kill and that would make BF5 more realistic like a simulation rather than an arcade fun shooter.
    And the only question that comes to my mind is WHO IS GOING TO PLAY THAT? 3 months after release will be like "oh cant find a server at my region" and then people will be redirected and forced to play on EU servers with massive ping and lags. And all because princess L*velcap wanted PUBG in Battlefield.
    .
    I also think the only reason why he doesnt like the attrition system is because it deosnt benefit his massive kills streaks and will look bad on stream. Thats all L*velcap is about and this is why Dice has to reminded daily to ignore individual Y*utubers. They got themselves into a mess with BF5 because they listened to guys like L*velcap in first place.

    Lol the quote above isn't mine.

    And he didn't even mention battle royalle lol talk about rants
Sign In or Register to comment.