Can we finally admit attrition was a terrible addition to battlefield?

Comments

  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 19
    Pelliy wrote: »
    @parkingbrake

    I still have to disagree. There's nothing really challenging about this. It's just more than a nuisance than it is a challenge. It doesn't bring teams together. It makes them passive especially in gamemodes not name conquest. Very rarely do people ever move anymore. BF1 had more teamplay and squad play than this game and that game had issues in its own right but it still did a better job of getting the concept of squad play down. BF5 does exactly the opposite.

    If you think players are more passive then a quicker TTK will be more a factor than health attrition. With a quicker TTK, whether you are at 50% or 100% health you can be melted in an instant. Attrition is only really a problem for people who play totally lone wolf. If you are around team mates and around flags you will get plenty of health and ammo during the majority of rounds. Unless you are some amazing player who dies only a few times a round - of which there are some, then you really shouldn't run out of (primary) ammo 80- 90% of the time, unless you are a sniper on your own.

    Disagree because bf4 had just as quick if not quicker ttk . Players are less passive in bf4 than they are here.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Attrition was certainly a bad addition to the game. I've had way too many kill streaks cut short because of a lack of ammo.

    At least I don't have to worry about it if I play support though. Which is exactly why my KDR is highest on support.

    I don't mind health attrition. I think bandages need to have a delay before they start regenerating your health though.
  • Broliszibaila
    282 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ammo attrition is stupid. While, health attrition is good stuff.
  • moosehunter1969
    1108 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    So basically half like it and half hate it. Sounds like DICE got it just right. Me, I-like it never had a problem with it.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 19
    the current iteration of "attrition" is so watered down from what we had in the alphas it is next to nonexistent 95% of the time.
    back then we had 0 health regeneration only 2 magazines tops no stations to resupply on whatsoever then it was a challenge then it took thought to overcome but now im sorry might as well be turned off then we can all play assault and support and be done with it.
    if DICE actually stood with their original vision I'd say yes but as they listened to feed-back they figured ppl dont want it and what we have now is the hollow husk of what they envisioned for BFV filled with more bad design choices and last minute changes to a half-baked product

    We never had 0 health regen. Even in the alphas there was partial automatic health regen. I recorded a few instances of it during the first alpha and found you could regenerate up to 48 health over 7 seconds out of combat. They heavily nerfed that since then.

    There were no bandages though.

    There was more supply stations than there are now back then too.
  • VincentNZ
    2666 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    the current iteration of "attrition" is so watered down from what we had in the alphas it is next to nonexistent 95% of the time.
    back then we had 0 health regeneration only 2 magazines tops no stations to resupply on whatsoever then it was a challenge then it took thought to overcome but now im sorry might as well be turned off then we can all play assault and support and be done with it.
    if DICE actually stood with their original vision I'd say yes but as they listened to feed-back they figured ppl dont want it and what we have now is the hollow husk of what they envisioned for BFV filled with more bad design choices and last minute changes to a half-baked product

    We never had 0 health regen. Even in the alphas there was partial automatic health regen. I recorded a few instances of it during the first alpha and found you could regenerate up to 48 health over 7 seconds out of combat. They heavily nerfed that since then.

    There were no bandages though.

    There was more supply stations than there are now back then too.

    I just want full regen back, because the current system just causes too many issues. Health attrition is the reason SMG and BAs are very hard to balance, and create immense inconsistency where players can heal in a firefight or shortly after and create instances where you have to deal more than 100 damage to kill an opponent. It is really annoying.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1795 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    the current iteration of "attrition" is so watered down from what we had in the alphas it is next to nonexistent 95% of the time.
    back then we had 0 health regeneration only 2 magazines tops no stations to resupply on whatsoever then it was a challenge then it took thought to overcome but now im sorry might as well be turned off then we can all play assault and support and be done with it.
    if DICE actually stood with their original vision I'd say yes but as they listened to feed-back they figured ppl dont want it and what we have now is the hollow husk of what they envisioned for BFV filled with more bad design choices and last minute changes to a half-baked product

    We never had 0 health regen. Even in the alphas there was partial automatic health regen. I recorded a few instances of it during the first alpha and found you could regenerate up to 48 health over 7 seconds out of combat. They heavily nerfed that since then.

    There were no bandages though.

    There was more supply stations than there are now back then too.

    I just want full regen back, because the current system just causes too many issues. Health attrition is the reason SMG and BAs are very hard to balance, and create immense inconsistency where players can heal in a firefight or shortly after and create instances where you have to deal more than 100 damage to kill an opponent. It is really annoying.

    Healing in a firefight is just plain dumb and have no idea why this made it into the game.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1795 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Pelliy wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    @parkingbrake

    I still have to disagree. There's nothing really challenging about this. It's just more than a nuisance than it is a challenge. It doesn't bring teams together. It makes them passive especially in gamemodes not name conquest. Very rarely do people ever move anymore. BF1 had more teamplay and squad play than this game and that game had issues in its own right but it still did a better job of getting the concept of squad play down. BF5 does exactly the opposite.

    If you think players are more passive then a quicker TTK will be more a factor than health attrition. With a quicker TTK, whether you are at 50% or 100% health you can be melted in an instant. Attrition is only really a problem for people who play totally lone wolf. If you are around team mates and around flags you will get plenty of health and ammo during the majority of rounds. Unless you are some amazing player who dies only a few times a round - of which there are some, then you really shouldn't run out of (primary) ammo 80- 90% of the time, unless you are a sniper on your own.

    Disagree because bf4 had just as quick if not quicker ttk . Players are less passive in bf4 than they are here.

    I'm sure those are rose tinted specs you have on there. Maybe people were, in your opinion, less passive is because in BF4 nearly everyone was equipped with a fully auto weapon that allowed you to run and gun everywhere. In BFV lots of weapons now require you to be stationary to be most effective. This is nothing to do with health attrition.
  • VincentNZ
    2666 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    the current iteration of "attrition" is so watered down from what we had in the alphas it is next to nonexistent 95% of the time.
    back then we had 0 health regeneration only 2 magazines tops no stations to resupply on whatsoever then it was a challenge then it took thought to overcome but now im sorry might as well be turned off then we can all play assault and support and be done with it.
    if DICE actually stood with their original vision I'd say yes but as they listened to feed-back they figured ppl dont want it and what we have now is the hollow husk of what they envisioned for BFV filled with more bad design choices and last minute changes to a half-baked product

    We never had 0 health regen. Even in the alphas there was partial automatic health regen. I recorded a few instances of it during the first alpha and found you could regenerate up to 48 health over 7 seconds out of combat. They heavily nerfed that since then.

    There were no bandages though.

    There was more supply stations than there are now back then too.

    I just want full regen back, because the current system just causes too many issues. Health attrition is the reason SMG and BAs are very hard to balance, and create immense inconsistency where players can heal in a firefight or shortly after and create instances where you have to deal more than 100 damage to kill an opponent. It is really annoying.

    Healing in a firefight is just plain dumb and have no idea why this made it into the game.

    Well the reason is the bandage system. When you actively have to press a button to heal it stopping because you are under fire by a stray bullet would be most inconvenient, especially since it is such a scarce commodity.
    Before when every regen was full and passive you could have healing interrupted when damage is taken or when being suppressed.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1795 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    the current iteration of "attrition" is so watered down from what we had in the alphas it is next to nonexistent 95% of the time.
    back then we had 0 health regeneration only 2 magazines tops no stations to resupply on whatsoever then it was a challenge then it took thought to overcome but now im sorry might as well be turned off then we can all play assault and support and be done with it.
    if DICE actually stood with their original vision I'd say yes but as they listened to feed-back they figured ppl dont want it and what we have now is the hollow husk of what they envisioned for BFV filled with more bad design choices and last minute changes to a half-baked product

    We never had 0 health regen. Even in the alphas there was partial automatic health regen. I recorded a few instances of it during the first alpha and found you could regenerate up to 48 health over 7 seconds out of combat. They heavily nerfed that since then.

    There were no bandages though.

    There was more supply stations than there are now back then too.

    I just want full regen back, because the current system just causes too many issues. Health attrition is the reason SMG and BAs are very hard to balance, and create immense inconsistency where players can heal in a firefight or shortly after and create instances where you have to deal more than 100 damage to kill an opponent. It is really annoying.

    Healing in a firefight is just plain dumb and have no idea why this made it into the game.

    Well the reason is the bandage system. When you actively have to press a button to heal it stopping because you are under fire by a stray bullet would be most inconvenient, especially since it is such a scarce commodity.
    Before when every regen was full and passive you could have healing interrupted when damage is taken or when being suppressed.

    That's no reason. They could just have made a bandage re heal the same as auto regen. The button press for a bandage would start the regen process which could be interrupted etc as before
  • AssassinoX1
    266 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I love it and it's one of my favorite things about the game. It really changes the overall gameplay and it feels like a different game.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Pelliy wrote: »
    XxmOss72xX wrote: »
    I disagree. It's a challenge to be sure, but I think it adds another level to the game. Don't get me wrong, I see and understand your perspective completely, I just think attrition makes battlefield more like a battlefield which is why I like the game.

    I disagree. It makes battlefield, fear field. No one really moves. It's also really frustrating when you get BS deaths door to low ticks of hp left.

    It's not making people work as a team. Instead it's doing the opposite. People hiding not doing anything.

    Funny, there’s another thread complaining about the Zerg so I guess people are moving? Also in my own experience I see plenty of movement, you just have to be more careful.

    That's one of the amusing things about this place, you can see posters passionately arguing opposite positions, e.g. snipers are OP/sniper rifles are absolutely useless! The question I keep asking is which guy is right, which one are we supposed to believe?

    In my experience most players are still running around like they always did, this "camping" some folks complain about is largely in their heads.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1795 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Pelliy wrote: »
    XxmOss72xX wrote: »
    I disagree. It's a challenge to be sure, but I think it adds another level to the game. Don't get me wrong, I see and understand your perspective completely, I just think attrition makes battlefield more like a battlefield which is why I like the game.
    I disagree. It makes battlefield, fear field. No one really moves. It's also really frustrating when you get BS deaths door to low ticks of hp left.

    It's not making people work as a team. Instead it's doing the opposite. People hiding not doing anything.
    Funny, there’s another thread complaining about the Zerg so I guess people are moving? Also in my own experience I see plenty of movement, you just have to be more careful.
    That's one of the amusing things about this place, you can see posters passionately arguing opposite positions, e.g. snipers are OP/sniper rifles are absolutely useless! The question I keep asking is which guy is right, which one are we supposed to believe?

    In my experience most players are still running around like they always did, this "camping" some folks complain about is largely in their heads.
    Both can be true. The problem with attrition and the low TTK and the cluttered graphics etc etc is they all have the tendency to make you *either* camp *or* run around with herd.

    The issue is that you are only 'safe' if you are hiding or sticking to your friends like glue. There's no in-between where you might actually apply more varied thought and tactics because the first two options are so very relatively successful.

    The reason people complain about both camping and the zerg is they are both very annoying and very profitable in BF5.

    They happen in BF1, but BF5 has pushed and polarized people even more that way.

    I think with a lot of issues BFV has is to do with DICE not really knowing what to do game mechanics wise and changing too many without thinking through or testing all of the consequences. They could and perhaps should have just tweaked bf1 mechanics, but they have changed too many things and not all work well together
  • SirTerrible
    1686 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    this is worse than Hardline by a factor of Superman 64.

    source.gif
    .
    not untrue tho
  • VincentNZ
    2666 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    the current iteration of "attrition" is so watered down from what we had in the alphas it is next to nonexistent 95% of the time.
    back then we had 0 health regeneration only 2 magazines tops no stations to resupply on whatsoever then it was a challenge then it took thought to overcome but now im sorry might as well be turned off then we can all play assault and support and be done with it.
    if DICE actually stood with their original vision I'd say yes but as they listened to feed-back they figured ppl dont want it and what we have now is the hollow husk of what they envisioned for BFV filled with more bad design choices and last minute changes to a half-baked product

    We never had 0 health regen. Even in the alphas there was partial automatic health regen. I recorded a few instances of it during the first alpha and found you could regenerate up to 48 health over 7 seconds out of combat. They heavily nerfed that since then.

    There were no bandages though.

    There was more supply stations than there are now back then too.

    I just want full regen back, because the current system just causes too many issues. Health attrition is the reason SMG and BAs are very hard to balance, and create immense inconsistency where players can heal in a firefight or shortly after and create instances where you have to deal more than 100 damage to kill an opponent. It is really annoying.

    Healing in a firefight is just plain dumb and have no idea why this made it into the game.

    Well the reason is the bandage system. When you actively have to press a button to heal it stopping because you are under fire by a stray bullet would be most inconvenient, especially since it is such a scarce commodity.
    Before when every regen was full and passive you could have healing interrupted when damage is taken or when being suppressed.

    That's no reason. They could just have made a bandage re heal the same as auto regen. The button press for a bandage would start the regen process which could be interrupted etc as before

    That wouldn't change the fact that you could heal yourself between two sniper hits enough to make the sniper require three shots to kill you. Or one additional bullet with many other weapons.
    The problem is that the healing process works all the time and can only be stopped by damage, and that this can not be changed unless they remove attrition, since you only get one bandage and can not otherwise fully heal up.
    I mean I agree with you. It is pretty stupid. But health attrition made it so.
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Pelliy wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    @parkingbrake

    I still have to disagree. There's nothing really challenging about this. It's just more than a nuisance than it is a challenge. It doesn't bring teams together. It makes them passive especially in gamemodes not name conquest. Very rarely do people ever move anymore. BF1 had more teamplay and squad play than this game and that game had issues in its own right but it still did a better job of getting the concept of squad play down. BF5 does exactly the opposite.

    If you think players are more passive then a quicker TTK will be more a factor than health attrition. With a quicker TTK, whether you are at 50% or 100% health you can be melted in an instant. Attrition is only really a problem for people who play totally lone wolf. If you are around team mates and around flags you will get plenty of health and ammo during the majority of rounds. Unless you are some amazing player who dies only a few times a round - of which there are some, then you really shouldn't run out of (primary) ammo 80- 90% of the time, unless you are a sniper on your own.

    Disagree because bf4 had just as quick if not quicker ttk . Players are less passive in bf4 than they are here.

    I'm sure those are rose tinted specs you have on there. Maybe people were, in your opinion, less passive is because in BF4 nearly everyone was equipped with a fully auto weapon that allowed you to run and gun everywhere. In BFV lots of weapons now require you to be stationary to be most effective. This is nothing to do with health attrition.

    By "most" you mean bipods, but Okay man. Carry on.
  • bran1986
    5646 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    What was attrition originally supposed to do again? Increase teamwork? That has unquestionably failed, few people could argue against this with a straight face. Instead it's just made class balance difficult, created issues with healing mid-combat, made it less fun to play solo, and made camping or zerging the default strat for a lot of players. GG

    It was to facilitate teamwork and I get what they were trying to do but they then tried to balance weapons and classes around the system they created. All it has done is create horrible weapon and class balance.
Sign In or Register to comment.