March 21st Flight Mechanics Survey Results

rainkloud
548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
RESULTS CAN BE VIEWED HERE

Thanks to all who took the time to fill it out!
  • Over 3/4 of people had an unfavorable impression of the changes
  • Over 1/4 didn't even understand what was changing and what the goal was
  • Well over half of respondents said that most of the gameplay did not match what they were led to believe from the notes
  • Well over half mostly or completely disagree with the new framework with only 7% being mostly or completely satisfied
  • Nearly 3/4 of players want to see the changes reverted

My take

I held my tongue during the survey but now that it is over I can say that these disastrous results could and should have been avoided. The "community" bears blame for not recognizing the value of the previous system. They complained it was "boring" and "one dimensional" since getting behind an opponent conferred such a large advantage. Never mind that huge advantages born of striking from the rear holds true in infantry and ground vehicle combat and that aircraft are the only ones equipped with a dedicated rear camera to help them avoid this precarious position. Suffice to say I do not share their complaints and while it may not be the most robust flight system on the market, BFV was never going to rival dedicated flight games in this regard.

So the vocal minority who hemmed and hawed deserve their fair share of the blame for not valuing the functional system they had been blessed with. However, ultimate blame must go to the developers for acquiescing to these absurd demands for change. With something as complex as flight mechanics it is imperative that they be given proper testing in an environment suited for such activities. Instead we have this system foisted upon us with seemingly no or little in the way of trials. Here we are four months from release and now we've had a massive change (for the worse if feedback is to be believed) dropped on us with virtually no warning and with seemingly no dialogue with the community. Rather than closing in on that desirable and elusive level of refinement we all crave we've had the reset button hit and now progress has suffered a significant setback in a game that's already seen far more of its fair share of those.

I'm of the opinion that this time would have been much better spent making spot tweaks to planes instead of dramatic overhaul. Adding things like speedometers and altimeters (even digital ones would be fine) to help give players some feedback make things like the high altitude upgrade useful. Tweaking the trees for better balance. Adding all the vehicles and upgrades to Practice Range so we can get some detailed experimenting done. Making it so when someone seat switches to a gunner position the plane doesn't lose engine power. There's just so many ways I think this time could have been better spent rather than "fixing" what was not broken.

Comments

  • NLBartmaN
    3040 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I have an easier solution; use what you already have and worked hard on and that was "perfect": BF1 plane balance, function and movement.

    Why keep on reinventing the wheel with everything that was "fixed" and balanced in CTE in previous games.
  • SirBobdk
    3924 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    I have an easier solution; use what you already have and worked hard on and that was "perfect": BF1 plane balance, function and movement.

    Why keep on reinventing the wheel with everything that was "fixed" and balanced in CTE in previous games.
    Agree. Makes no sense.
    It seems like DICE are creating an arcade infantry game with sim tanks/planes.
    Boring as …………. :wink:
  • WinterWarhurst
    1319 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I think we need a more realistic flight model, where energy fighting is actually viable, and we have a wide array of aerial manouvers at our disposal to attack, defend, and counter enemies, etc. but the physics engine and Frostbite in general seems inadequately equipped for this, as such they make changes with these intents, but all energy is bled in single turns, and planes can indefinitely prop hang with the throttle fully closed.

    Beyond this, I agree with you fully that if someone is on your tail then naturally they should have a huge advantage. The counter argument is that it leads to air spawn camping, and decreased skill ceiling insofar as sneak attacks don’t require skill, only initiative. Air spawns are also typically too close to each other, etc. But I have little sympathy for those who believe they should have a ‘get out of jail’ card when someone is on their tail, especially those pretending they’re not asking for this, when effectively they are.
  • IDirtY_SeCreT
    529 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    I have an easier solution; use what you already have and worked hard on and that was "perfect": BF1 plane balance, function and movement.

    Why keep on reinventing the wheel with everything that was "fixed" and balanced in CTE in previous games.

    BF1s system really shouldn't be the benchmark here. I'd rather have BF4s sytem but that's just my opinion ;)
    Beyond this, I agree with you fully that if someone is on your tail then naturally they should have a huge advantage. The counter argument is that it leads to air spawn camping, and decreased skill ceiling insofar as sneak attacks don’t require skill, only initiative. Air spawns are also typically too close to each other, etc. But I have little sympathy for those who believe they should have a ‘get out of jail’ card when someone is on their tail, especially those pretending they’re not asking for this, when effectively they are.

    Though you should have more ways to shake planes behind you. Planes in general need a much larger skill gap.
  • okiie_918
    128 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Well bombers shouldn't be able to out turn a fighter... And this thread needs to be bumped!!
  • onylra_II
    76 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    You ever heard of self-selection bias? Your survey is worthless, in any meaningful sense.
  • IDirtY_SeCreT
    529 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    onylra_II wrote: »
    You ever heard of self-selection bias? Your survey is worthless, in any meaningful sense.

    So why don't you stay away from this thread then?
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    onylra_II wrote: »
    You ever heard of self-selection bias? Your survey is worthless, in any meaningful sense.

    So why don't you stay away from this thread then?

    I think he is just pointing out the "Silent majority" effect, as well as not a lot of people knew about it.
  • One_Called_Kane
    191 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think we need a more realistic flight model, where energy fighting is actually viable, and we have a wide array of aerial manouvers at our disposal to attack, defend, and counter enemies, etc. but the physics engine and Frostbite in general seems inadequately equipped for this, as such they make changes with these intents, but all energy is bled in single turns, and planes can indefinitely prop hang with the throttle fully closed.

    Agreed. The patch notes read more like a description of how they'd like you to fly rather than an accurate analysis of how the flying actually is. While from their fluff it seems they want to allow you the capability to get a somewhat realistic sense of flight insofar as speed and energy management what we're left with in-game leaves something to be desired. I'm hoping based on their stated intentions for flight mechanics in the latest patch notes that the latest changes are only the first tentative steps towards a fully fleshed-out flight model instead of another instance of Devs telling everyone how we should be playing.
    Beyond this, I agree with you fully that if someone is on your tail then naturally they should have a huge advantage. The counter argument is that it leads to air spawn camping, and decreased skill ceiling insofar as sneak attacks don’t require skill, only initiative. Air spawns are also typically too close to each other, etc. But I have little sympathy for those who believe they should have a ‘get out of jail’ card when someone is on their tail, especially those pretending they’re not asking for this, when effectively they are.

    I don't believe it will lower the skill ceiling, visibility and situational awareness are just as if not more important than pure maneuvering skill. If you can consistently put yourself into a situation where you have the initiative in air combat, it isn't because you are bad. With that being said, good physics-based flight mechanics will allow a skilled pilot to force an overshoot in the event that they are ambushed by a lesser-skilled pilot.
  • StealthAria
    212 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I never heard about the survey, and I'm sure a fair chunk of others hadn't as well. I actually don't mind the changes, the ones I do care about I actually like.
    The only thing I don't like about the changes is that you can get stuck if you manage to stall during a climb without hitting your altitude limit, but that itself is also a byproduct of changes I like and is easy enough to avoid.
Sign In or Register to comment.