The stomps in this game are getting more ridiculous by the day

Comments

  • GRAW2ROBZ
    2149 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Does this game have a working ticket bleed or what? I played a conquest yesterday and we had like 5 out of 6 flags most of the game yet end of the match other team had 2 flags out of 6 let we still lose. So best not to cap flags and not die and camp and take cheap pot shots all day? Didn't DICE have a ticket bleed problem back in BF1 as well? They had to change it a few times. Cause this isn't like the old days of Bad Company 2 where if you had all flags you won fast. Seems something is off if you own most of the flags and still lose.
  • Redstripe101
    2586 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    On xbox, you can get as many on your team so long as there is a slot. very easy to pub stack and its a microsoft function exploit so until its addressed be DICE, ill assume people are using it since its on YT
  • VincentNZ
    3532 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    GRAW2ROBZ wrote: »
    Does this game have a working ticket bleed or what? I played a conquest yesterday and we had like 5 out of 6 flags most of the game yet end of the match other team had 2 flags out of 6 let we still lose. So best not to cap flags and not die and camp and take cheap pot shots all day? Didn't DICE have a ticket bleed problem back in BF1 as well? They had to change it a few times. Cause this isn't like the old days of Bad Company 2 where if you had all flags you won fast. Seems something is off if you own most of the flags and still lose.

    BF1 did not have a ticket bleed, points were counted upwards at a rate dependent on the flags your team holds. At a certain point you could not lose or win anymore, basically. The system of BFV is closer to the one we had in BF4, wit the exception of having no neutral state, I believe. The losing team does get a bonus to capture times though. Holding many flags makes tickets drain faster than holding one more than the enemy, so in theory, and this could be the case in your example, your enemy might ave captured 5/6 föags at one point for a certain amount of time and drained enough to catch-up. In the end, especially with close rounds deaths and respawns really matter, especially when a V1 can insta-remove up to 14 tickets.
  • Redstripe101
    2586 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    GRAW2ROBZ wrote: »
    Does this game have a working ticket bleed or what? I played a conquest yesterday and we had like 5 out of 6 flags most of the game yet end of the match other team had 2 flags out of 6 let we still lose. So best not to cap flags and not die and camp and take cheap pot shots all day? Didn't DICE have a ticket bleed problem back in BF1 as well? They had to change it a few times. Cause this isn't like the old days of Bad Company 2 where if you had all flags you won fast. Seems something is off if you own most of the flags and still lose.

    BF1 did not have a ticket bleed, points were counted upwards at a rate dependent on the flags your team holds. At a certain point you could not lose or win anymore, basically. The system of BFV is closer to the one we had in BF4, wit the exception of having no neutral state, I believe. The losing team does get a bonus to capture times though. Holding many flags makes tickets drain faster than holding one more than the enemy, so in theory, and this could be the case in your example, your enemy might ave captured 5/6 föags at one point for a certain amount of time and drained enough to catch-up. In the end, especially with close rounds deaths and respawns really matter, especially when a V1 can insta-remove up to 14 tickets.

    are respawn times changed for disadvantaged teams?
  • mrtwotimes
    806 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I do love a challenge though
  • mrtwotimes
    806 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    SirBobdk wrote: »
    mrtwotimes wrote: »
    I do love a challenge though

    Get married with kids 😁

    Done. Hence "I do love a challenge"
  • GrumbleSG9
    249 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Kayback wrote: »

    So you want to hide the fact the teams are stacked?

    Team stacking is really easy to do in BFV. And on public servers it is ****. If I come to a clan server I won't **** too loudly about playing against a clan, if I'm put into a random server against 3/4 of the enemy team on one clan? Nope.

    Hiding that it is a clan means I'll just be quitting apparently random stomps.

    Quitting is your prerogative friend.

    My point is that they carry a perception and as such there are a subsection of players that will prematurely quit out of a server because they perceive that it will be a stomp as one side is 'clearly' stacked. Not to mention the possibility exists that there are players on the mic together that have no tags. Clan tags allude to stacking when it's just as possible that the other side is just as stacked. Tags carry weight to them in many players' minds so people make assumptions based on them (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly). Removing them is a possible solution to reducing the number of players that quit without even attempting to play the round.

    Personally, I couldn't care less if they show or not because I don't judge a round based on them. Battlefield is designed for friends to play together regardless of whether they don clan tags or not.
  • trip1ex
    4979 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 20
    PUnish quitters. End team stacking. Better matchmaking.

    Stop leaving it up internet theory. Whoops I don't think i can post the pic.
  • disposalist
    8684 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited March 20
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    GRAW2ROBZ wrote: »
    Does this game have a working ticket bleed or what? I played a conquest yesterday and we had like 5 out of 6 flags most of the game yet end of the match other team had 2 flags out of 6 let we still lose. So best not to cap flags and not die and camp and take cheap pot shots all day? Didn't DICE have a ticket bleed problem back in BF1 as well? They had to change it a few times. Cause this isn't like the old days of Bad Company 2 where if you had all flags you won fast. Seems something is off if you own most of the flags and still lose.
    BF1 did not have a ticket bleed, points were counted upwards at a rate dependent on the flags your team holds. At a certain point you could not lose or win anymore, basically. The system of BFV is closer to the one we had in BF4, wit the exception of having no neutral state, I believe. The losing team does get a bonus to capture times though. Holding many flags makes tickets drain faster than holding one more than the enemy, so in theory, and this could be the case in your example, your enemy might ave captured 5/6 föags at one point for a certain amount of time and drained enough to catch-up. In the end, especially with close rounds deaths and respawns really matter, especially when a V1 can insta-remove up to 14 tickets.
    Even in BF4 there was still a point that you could not win because even with no flags, the other team would keep killing soldiers, which also of course costs tickets. The only difference in BF1 is they screwed up with the amount of tickets flag holding gives relative to kills (though in beta of course, kills had NO score and the system *would* have greatly encouraged lag gaining and defending, but wow how people cried about kills not being fundamental to winning).

    In my experience there were just as many, if not more, one-sided stomps in BF4. The ticket bleed system *allowed* for comebacks, but the very same mechanic *causes* huge imbalances in the first place due to one side getting just 1 more flag and then digging in, receiving a natural defensive advantage *and* being the only ones scoring flag-based tickets.

    Having one flag changing hands completely reverse ticket bleed scoring *sounds* like something that might make games more dynamic, but it doesn't follow at all.

    The BF1 system was fairer, but people's perception of games quickly becoming unwinnable (which was false until much further in than people thought), caused it to be 'unpopular' and to cause quitting and switching. I mean a lot of players give up or switch after less than a minute and just being a few points behind.

    BF5 of course tried to make it seem like the ticket bleed system was perfect by having a grossly over-effective fake win system where if you are behind you can take flags much quicker.

    At least the BF1 behemoths were obvious in attempting to help a badly losing side (and were something fun to do even if that side still lost).
  • trip1ex
    4979 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    GRAW2ROBZ wrote: »
    Does this game have a working ticket bleed or what? I played a conquest yesterday and we had like 5 out of 6 flags most of the game yet end of the match other team had 2 flags out of 6 let we still lose. So best not to cap flags and not die and camp and take cheap pot shots all day? Didn't DICE have a ticket bleed problem back in BF1 as well? They had to change it a few times. Cause this isn't like the old days of Bad Company 2 where if you had all flags you won fast. Seems something is off if you own most of the flags and still lose.
    BF1 did not have a ticket bleed, points were counted upwards at a rate dependent on the flags your team holds. At a certain point you could not lose or win anymore, basically. The system of BFV is closer to the one we had in BF4, wit the exception of having no neutral state, I believe. The losing team does get a bonus to capture times though. Holding many flags makes tickets drain faster than holding one more than the enemy, so in theory, and this could be the case in your example, your enemy might ave captured 5/6 föags at one point for a certain amount of time and drained enough to catch-up. In the end, especially with close rounds deaths and respawns really matter, especially when a V1 can insta-remove up to 14 tickets.
    Even in BF4 there was still a point that you could not win because even with no flags, the other team would keep killing soldiers, which also of course costs tickets. The only difference in BF1 is they screwed up with the amount of tickets flag holding gives relative to kills (though in beta of course, kills had NO score and the system *would* have greatly encouraged lag gaining and defending, but wow how people cried about kills not being fundamental to winning).

    In my experience there were just as many, if not more, one-sided stomps in BF4. The ticket bleed system *allowed* for comebacks, but the very same mechanic *causes* huge imbalances in the first place due to one side getting just 1 more flag and then digging in, receiving a natural defensive advantage *and* being the only ones scoring flag-based tickets.

    Having one flag changing hands completely reverse ticket bleed scoring *sounds* like something that might make games more dynamic, but it doesn't follow at all.

    The BF1 system was fairer, but people's perception of games quickly becoming unwinnable (which was false until much further in than people thought), caused it to be 'unpopular' and to cause quitting and switching. I mean a lot of players give up or switch after less than a minute and just being a few points behind.

    BF5 of course tried to make it seem like the ticket bleed system was perfect by having a grossly over-effective fake win system where if you are behind you can take flags much quicker.

    At least the BF1 behemoths were obvious in attempting to help a badly losing side (and were something fun to do even if that side still lost).

    What's sad is they reverted from how Conquest was in the BF1 beta. IN the beta, Conquest scoring was only based on tickets!!!

    They reverted because of the knee jerk reaction of the "community."

    And we ended up some in-between system that made the game boring.

    The beta Conquest scoring actually encouraged more teamplay because you couldn't hold majority flags on your own and that was the only way to win the game. It added strategy and a reason for the fighting. Not so much after they changed it some hybrid system where kills were accounting for over half the bleed.

    They never gave it a chance to shine unfortunately.


  • trip1ex
    4979 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @disposalist

    What's sad is DICE reverted from their original Conquest scoring system in the BF1 beta. In the beta, Conquest scoring was only based on owning flags!!!

    They reverted because of the knee jerk reaction of the "community."

    And we ended up with some rushed and hurried in-between system that made the game boring.

    The BF1 beta Conquest scoring actually encouraged more teamplay because you couldn't hold majority flags on your own and that was the only way to win the game. It added strategy and a reason for the fighting. Not so much after they changed it to some hybrid system where kills were accounting for over half the bleed.

    They never gave the beta system a chance to shine unfortunately.
  • Kayback
    367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Cropulus wrote: »
    I agree, you do have an advantage when playing with a squad. However, I think the clan issue is highly overrated. This is not a competitve game, I am just in a squad with friends and we have good scores at times, but we are very mediocre. If this game was a competitive game, I would understand this argument more. Personally, I can get good results by myself or in my squad, it does not really matter that much.

    One squad, while powerful, isn't too much of an issue. It's when 4/5th of the enemy team are stacked that it becomes an issue.

    Now I've only seen this a handful of times in the 230hrs I've played but when it happens it is blatant, there is nothing mixing it up. I wouldn't mind if literally half the server was the same clan, if they were split between sides and not being douches like handing tanks to enemies, not spawning in or occupying the aircraft.
  • Hawxxeye
    6381 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    SirBobdk wrote: »
    mrtwotimes wrote: »
    I do love a challenge though

    Get married with kids 😁
    Not kidding, being a good parent is the biggest challenge in life
  • AzafTazarden
    140 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    https://imgur.com/TSURJ1I

    Look at the clan tags. MnV, oNIX, SNN, RG and BtK all on the same team. All of them always steamroll matches whenever they stack, every time 100% guarantee. And yet they all get "balanced" into the same team, somehow? It stayed that way for 3 matches, until I quit after being swapped to the losing team. So there is some kind of team scramble, apparently, but it doesn't do anything against clan stacking.
    It's a long process to get into. But I will try to explain it the best way I can.

    I make a squad. Invite friends. (4)

    Join grand operations.

    More friends join party and want to join game mode, but want to be on our side.

    So one person from my squad, (the original) creates a new squad. Then players that join, join in on him. Must be friends to work.

    I hate doing this, because I kick some random out. I always kick out a person high on the leader board, because any team will welcome that player. If I kick out someone low on the leaderboard I'm afraid that person will continue to get kicked out.

    But yeah, that's how you join a team you want to be in. You can't go by sever number, because that will be a random chance you won't get in on your friends side. Must join in on squad.

    Hope this helps.

    Ok, I understand how they do it, and I'm fine with the fact that they are mostly friends who enjoy playing together. But being on the receiving end of that is the most frustrating experience you can get on any Battlefield title to date, apart from broken mechanics and game breaking bugs/glitches. Is it ok that 32 people have a horrible experience with the game because of that? Is it fair that all the teamwork, cooperation and coordination gets stacked on one side only and to have the other side be curbstomped over and over again repeatedly throughout numerous matches?

    I have learned to avoid these kind of matches, unless I get lucky enough to join the stacked team. You may think whatever you like of me, but why should I be forced to have a terrible paid experience just because some people think I should embrace impossible challenges? Screw that. I enjoy close matches, but I absolutely hate being steamrolled.
  • SirBobdk
    4276 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @AzafTazarden wrote
    but why should I be forced to have a terrible paid experience just because some people think I should embrace impossible challenges
    I'm with you on this one. I want to play fun and balanced games regardless of win/loose. If I can see that it's gonna get ugly unbalanced I'm out of that game.
  • VincentNZ
    3532 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    GRAW2ROBZ wrote: »
    Does this game have a working ticket bleed or what? I played a conquest yesterday and we had like 5 out of 6 flags most of the game yet end of the match other team had 2 flags out of 6 let we still lose. So best not to cap flags and not die and camp and take cheap pot shots all day? Didn't DICE have a ticket bleed problem back in BF1 as well? They had to change it a few times. Cause this isn't like the old days of Bad Company 2 where if you had all flags you won fast. Seems something is off if you own most of the flags and still lose.
    BF1 did not have a ticket bleed, points were counted upwards at a rate dependent on the flags your team holds. At a certain point you could not lose or win anymore, basically. The system of BFV is closer to the one we had in BF4, wit the exception of having no neutral state, I believe. The losing team does get a bonus to capture times though. Holding many flags makes tickets drain faster than holding one more than the enemy, so in theory, and this could be the case in your example, your enemy might ave captured 5/6 föags at one point for a certain amount of time and drained enough to catch-up. In the end, especially with close rounds deaths and respawns really matter, especially when a V1 can insta-remove up to 14 tickets.
    Even in BF4 there was still a point that you could not win because even with no flags, the other team would keep killing soldiers, which also of course costs tickets. The only difference in BF1 is they screwed up with the amount of tickets flag holding gives relative to kills (though in beta of course, kills had NO score and the system *would* have greatly encouraged lag gaining and defending, but wow how people cried about kills not being fundamental to winning).

    In my experience there were just as many, if not more, one-sided stomps in BF4. The ticket bleed system *allowed* for comebacks, but the very same mechanic *causes* huge imbalances in the first place due to one side getting just 1 more flag and then digging in, receiving a natural defensive advantage *and* being the only ones scoring flag-based tickets.

    Having one flag changing hands completely reverse ticket bleed scoring *sounds* like something that might make games more dynamic, but it doesn't follow at all.

    The BF1 system was fairer, but people's perception of games quickly becoming unwinnable (which was false until much further in than people thought), caused it to be 'unpopular' and to cause quitting and switching. I mean a lot of players give up or switch after less than a minute and just being a few points behind.

    BF5 of course tried to make it seem like the ticket bleed system was perfect by having a grossly over-effective fake win system where if you are behind you can take flags much quicker.

    At least the BF1 behemoths were obvious in attempting to help a badly losing side (and were something fun to do even if that side still lost).

    I disagree here. I like deaths having an effect on the bleed, since it offers a duality how a goal can be reached, as about 25-40% of ticket loss, depending on map, playercount and mode, come frome deaths (in BF4 that is), the overall effect is still not big, though, since only the difference in deaths between teams counts towards real bleed, which is usually not a lot in the grand scheme.
    The ticket bleed that is stopable, with only one flag or totally reversable to the point of comebacks also offers tactical opportunities that are rewarding, like relieving the frontline by holding back-flags for an extensive amount of time, or even keeping flags neutral. This was irrelevant in BF1, because any flag taken in the back will just result in the frontline being pushed further, since only bodies on objective count. Capture time also has a lot to do with it.
    BF1 system was simply mindless, it was pure sector control, causing a very stable frontline and little dynamics. The outcome would however always be an accurate depiction of the team's flag possession, which is why people left, as at a certain point fighting back was just futile. However a round that went 1000-850 was still a decisive victory and never close and Behemoths did nothing, but enhance the landslide. You put 6 people, which is 10% of your team into a vehicle, they might make more kills, but can never outkill the bleed, and they are missing on the flags, which is the only thing that matters in taking flags as we know.
    The problem of the BF4 system (and BF5) is the visual representation. A game that finished 400-0 always looked like a landslide, but the depiction was never accurate. Could have been a round where one team always had a one flag advantage, similar to BF1, or a round where flag possession and holding times varied greatly. And it was totally possible that it was a complete comeback.
    The bleed system is the superior conquest ticket mechanic. It is tactical, fair and highly dynamic. However it just is not as satisfying as in BF4 and I think this has to do with playercount and map design, which is pretty poor in terms of pacing, lanes, flag count and resulting tactical variety. Catch-up mechanic has a lot to do with it. At a certain stage defending, which is always a two-edged sword, will become a detriment, when one team captures flags much faster than the other.
  • disposalist
    8684 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    GRAW2ROBZ wrote: »
    Does this game have a working ticket bleed or what? I played a conquest yesterday and we had like 5 out of 6 flags most of the game yet end of the match other team had 2 flags out of 6 let we still lose. So best not to cap flags and not die and camp and take cheap pot shots all day? Didn't DICE have a ticket bleed problem back in BF1 as well? They had to change it a few times. Cause this isn't like the old days of Bad Company 2 where if you had all flags you won fast. Seems something is off if you own most of the flags and still lose.
    BF1 did not have a ticket bleed, points were counted upwards at a rate dependent on the flags your team holds. At a certain point you could not lose or win anymore, basically. The system of BFV is closer to the one we had in BF4, wit the exception of having no neutral state, I believe. The losing team does get a bonus to capture times though. Holding many flags makes tickets drain faster than holding one more than the enemy, so in theory, and this could be the case in your example, your enemy might ave captured 5/6 föags at one point for a certain amount of time and drained enough to catch-up. In the end, especially with close rounds deaths and respawns really matter, especially when a V1 can insta-remove up to 14 tickets.
    Even in BF4 there was still a point that you could not win because even with no flags, the other team would keep killing soldiers, which also of course costs tickets. The only difference in BF1 is they screwed up with the amount of tickets flag holding gives relative to kills (though in beta of course, kills had NO score and the system *would* have greatly encouraged lag gaining and defending, but wow how people cried about kills not being fundamental to winning).

    In my experience there were just as many, if not more, one-sided stomps in BF4. The ticket bleed system *allowed* for comebacks, but the very same mechanic *causes* huge imbalances in the first place due to one side getting just 1 more flag and then digging in, receiving a natural defensive advantage *and* being the only ones scoring flag-based tickets.

    Having one flag changing hands completely reverse ticket bleed scoring *sounds* like something that might make games more dynamic, but it doesn't follow at all.

    The BF1 system was fairer, but people's perception of games quickly becoming unwinnable (which was false until much further in than people thought), caused it to be 'unpopular' and to cause quitting and switching. I mean a lot of players give up or switch after less than a minute and just being a few points behind.

    BF5 of course tried to make it seem like the ticket bleed system was perfect by having a grossly over-effective fake win system where if you are behind you can take flags much quicker.

    At least the BF1 behemoths were obvious in attempting to help a badly losing side (and were something fun to do even if that side still lost).
    I disagree here. I like deaths having an effect on the bleed, since it offers a duality how a goal can be reached, as about 25-40% of ticket loss, depending on map, playercount and mode, come frome deaths (in BF4 that is)
    To be clear, I like deaths to count, but in BF1 they completely screwed it up as it was originally designed to only count possession, then changed to include kills, but kills counted, relatively, for way too much.
    the overall effect is still not big, though, since only the difference in deaths between teams counts towards real bleed, which is usually not a lot in the grand scheme.
    Huh? The difference? Each kill counted. You didn't get a ticket back if you killed someone. The point being that flag possession never stops ticket scoring and there was always a point where, no matter what you did, the game was not winnable, unless the winning team suddenly stopped killing.

    In the original BF1 system, there truly *would* have been a possibility to have a comeback right up until the last point. There never was in BF4.
    The ticket bleed that is stopable, with only one flag or totally reversable to the point of comebacks also offers tactical opportunities that are rewarding
    As I say. Not possible, unless the winning team stops killing
    like relieving the frontline by holding back-flags for an extensive amount of time, or even keeping flags neutral. This was irrelevant in BF1, because any flag taken in the back will just result in the frontline being pushed further, since only bodies on objective count
    Possibly somewhat less relevant in BF1 but only because taking taking one flag didn't have the possibility to flip the flag-related scoring completely
    BF1 system was simply mindless, it was pure sector control, causing a very stable frontline and little dynamics
    Subjective as to whether this is bad or not (and whether this is true or not). Sector control is what Conquest is all about, no? Maintaining a good front line and pushing it is what good tactics in warfair is all about, no? A whole frontlines game mode was developed because this was a very popular configuration.

    I would say, though, that conquest was rarely like that and things like back-capping in BF1 was very valuable as it pulled the enemy back from 'the front line' and allowed your team to push. Not to mention that, of course, in BF1, *every* flag counts no matter the number you own. That back-capped dlag might be the only one you have and it counts toward your score.
    The outcome would however always be an accurate depiction of the team's flag possession, which is why people left, as at a certain point fighting back was just futile
    And the outcome reflecting the team's flag possession is bad? As discussed the point at which fighting back became pointless was little different to BF4, but the perception sure was different. DICE should have kept the kill-related scoring less impactful and made the scoring system more transparent, but the whole 'players giving up' thing was down to the players, not the scoring system.
    However a round that went 1000-850 was still a decisive victory
    Yes it was (and is) whereas in BF4 the score meant almost nothing. Is that better? It 'fools' players into thinking they have a chance? In my experience in BF4 there were just as many horrible landslides (if not more). Sure you perhaps couldn't tell from the scoring, but you could always tell after playing for a couple of minutes.

    Is it better to fool players into trying for a couple of minutes only to be frustrated and disappointed or for players to have a clear indication of how much effort they need to put in to achieve a victory?

    In my not-so-humble opinion one of the biggest problems in BF1 still (in fact perhaps more in the last few months) is players giving up. With the BF1 system, it is clearer from the scores and flag possession when a team needs to make more effort, but instead of that, players quit or switch. Even when a team has just one less flag and 50 less points, players quit. Even more frustrating I see teams command a game from 0 to 700 or so, then coast because they think they have won, the other team finally makes an effort and wins!
    and Behemoths did nothing, but enhance the landslide. You put 6 people, which is 10% of your team into a vehicle, they might make more kills, but can never outkill the bleed, and they are missing on the flags, which is the only thing that matters in taking flags as we know.
    Use well, behemoths are fantastic for taking flags (supertank, airship and, on the right map, the train) or assisting your team (dreadnought). It's no surprise that a 'bad' team that is losing badly doesn't make good use of a behemoth, though. I don't think we would want a bad team to win because of the behemoth. IMHO I think they are there to help redress an imbalance that might have occurred for no good reason (like quitters or switchers). In *that* situation they can and do lead to comebacks.
    The problem of the BF4 system (and BF5) is the visual representation. A game that finished 400-0 always looked like a landslide, but the depiction was never accurate. Could have been a round where one team always had a one flag advantage, similar to BF1, or a round where flag possession and holding times varied greatly. And it was totally possible that it was a complete comeback.
    As discussed I'm not convinced this is a good thing. Keeping a player playing because the scoring system gives no indication of what is happening in the game is good? Maybe. *shrug*
    The bleed system is the superior conquest ticket mechanic. It is tactical, fair and highly dynamic. However it just is not as satisfying as in BF4 and I think this has to do with playercount and map design, which is pretty poor in terms of pacing, lanes, flag count and resulting tactical variety. Catch-up mechanic has a lot to do with it. At a certain stage defending, which is always a two-edged sword, will become a detriment, when one team captures flags much faster than the other.
    I think you are maybe mis-remembering BF4. *shrug* or maybe I am. More and more as time passed I realised games were totally one-sided and comebacks were extremely rare. I'm of the opinion they were less rare than in BF1 and that the only problem in BF1 was perception (well, and that DICE flipped from no kill score to too much kill score).

    Players in BF1 give up too easy. They see a score and possession and give up when it's actually even, or they give up when it's not, but if they tried harder it would be even.

    This whole issue is, of course, badly exacerbated by skill balance and even team balance often being done so badly, but when a game really *is* badly balanced and no amount of effort will help, is it best that this is clearer and players maybe quit? Or is it best they are tricked into staying and having a frustrating game?

    The whole player perception and retention thing is very complex.

    TL;DR: The ticket bleed system, mathematically, is very similar to the BF1 system. I did the maths back in BF1 beta and discussed it with devs even. The only difference is the sudden swing of scoring possible with just one flag changing hands. This lead to just as many take-one-more-flag-and-dig-in scenarios as anything 'dynamic' and lead to just as many (if not more) landslides. People *think* the ticket bleed system was better because it obscured the reality of the tactical situation, but it was still there.
  • BlindChance
    518 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 21
    I used to stay in games like this. A team full of recons and generally passive, inept players. People spread out over dozens of squads instead of joining existing ones. People not picking classes their squad / team needs. People not playing as a squad and wondering why they don't get revived, die so much. Now I just quit, it improves my game experience tenfold.
  • Kayback
    367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I used to stay in games like this. A team full of recons and generally passive, inept players. People spread out over dozens of squads instead of joining existing ones. People not picking classes their squad / team needs. People not playing as a squad and wondering why they don't get revived, die so much. Now I just quit, it improves my game experience tenfold.

    Or those "squads" of 2 people that are locked.

    Like, five of them.

    Really guys?
Sign In or Register to comment.