Next patch will bring the implementation of...radioactive players.

Comments

  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    so-called ‘hardcore’ players cried so hard to remove Doritos from all game modes.

    Of course visibility becomes an issue, then.

    And now, the issue will be solved by highlighting every single soldier automatically. there’s even no need to press q button.

    Now that’s the true hardcore experience with good enough visibility that some wanted, and devs listened to them.
    Doritos are a crutch for players who won't slow down and use their eyes, I was glad to see them gone.  How it's possible to think that full-time auto-spotting is something hardcore players wanted is beyond me, that logic seems hopelessly broken.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Vis is fine as is imho.. thats what cammo is supposed to do. So we all get radioactive glow so we can be spotted in the shadows... wonderful. Faster fix that requires less work and is equally as absurd as the proposed "fix".. everyone gets one of these.. 



    If only that were a joke, but in BF4 they actually put a blinking red light on AT mines when the night map launched so "vehicle enthusiasts" would wail less about not being able to see mines.  It didn't seem to make much of a difference, they'd still drive over mines with a blinking red light on them.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bran1986 said:
    trip1ex said:
    I was going to say I don't see a difference, but that's because I couldn't see the guy on the left under the old lighting lol.

    Lol, I watched these pictures max zoomed on my phone and never realized there were two guys on the before picture. Like @Hawxxeye mentioned later, he is basically just a 2D smudge on the wall.

    I showed my brother earlier and he says "not much of a difference" and he looked at the second picture again and he goes "wait there is a second guy in the first picture" :lol:
    I had a similar reaction. I honestly couldn't see the second enemy in the first picture ... bloody hell, he'd be undetected by nearly everyone who runs past him.

    Like I've said before, the visibility in this game is so bad, that you can literally just lie down in the open and enemies will usually run past you.
    One of the reasons I like the 3x sight is I can use it like a spotting scope to check an area before I move through it.  I see, and kill, lots of prone campers that way.  Those guys get me when I run in recklessly, and that's on me, not them.

    This change is just a crutch for the run n' gun players, the guys whose entire definition of "skill" is based on twitch-shooting.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Toxic_CA wrote: »
    GP-Caliber wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    What... are you afraid of being seen? I approve of this update. It's a step in the right direction against cancerous campers who hide in obscure corners.
    Luckily, I don’t camp. Let’s noobify the game because people don’t know how to handle shadows.

    Dice might as well increase the ttk and bring back 3d spotting while it’s at it.

    noobify? the bad visibility helps passive noobs and punishes aggressive players.

    No the problem is that everyone who plays this game needs glasses

    glasses? look at the first picture. no way you were able to see the player on the left while running in game.
    Here's a radical thought, maybe running isn't always the thing to do.  Maybe sometimes players should slow down and use their eyes rather than constantly holding down the sprint key and then complaining about the consequences.
  • AssassinoX1
    269 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It seems like the lighting is coming from the opening, meaning it's the natural light and the angle that the sun hits them. They seemed to use this as an example but I'm assuming it's going to be different (and more natural hopefully?) based on positioning and cover. Until we see more pictures lets hope it's not a direct glow.
  • GP-Caliber
    651 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    GP-Caliber said:


    Toxic_CA wrote: »


    GP-Caliber wrote: »


    TEKNOCODE wrote: »


    ChiefSniper wrote: »
    What... are you afraid of being seen? I approve of this update. It's a step in the right direction against cancerous campers who hide in obscure corners.

    Luckily, I don’t camp. Let’s noobify the game because people don’t know how to handle shadows.



    Dice might as well increase the ttk and bring back 3d spotting while it’s at it.



    noobify? the bad visibility helps passive noobs and punishes aggressive players.



    No the problem is that everyone who plays this game needs glasses



    glasses? look at the first picture. no way you were able to see the player on the left while running in game.
    Here's a radical thought, maybe running isn't always the thing to do.  Maybe sometimes players should slow down and use their eyes rather than constantly holding down the sprint key and then complaining about the consequences.

    the player is not hiding he is standing next to a wall. you should be able to see him properly if you look right at his face.
  • FragbaitDax
    221 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @warslag - I think those are excellent points.

    I'll go even further and state that so many of our issues are inter-related that solving only one either breaks something else, or doesn't really address the issue.

    Why do players camp in the first place? Either it's because it's cheap easy kills, or they can't compete with the run-n-gun zerg crews and seek an alternative way to play. So the underlying causes of this issue could include the rapid TTK, visibility, Super-Mario bouncy zig-zagging super soldiers, complete lack of balance mechanics matching top level players against top level players and average players against average players, MMG user having to deploy a bipod and be immobile to shoot, ongoing Netcode issues, and a host of lesser gameplay and balance issues.

    So addressing visibility, I think, is a good thing, but it also requires a cohesive plan to deal with all those other issues. My main grievance with Dice/EA with the entire BFV debacle is the complete lack of a cohesive plan. I'd be much more accepting of what I see as wasted development resources (I'm healing myself and urinated at the same time screen tint - that nobody asked for) if I knew there was a long term roadmap for addressing all the major issues.
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    857 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    warslag said:
    This thread shows how a simple thing like visibility splits opinion among players. You can share the same opinions on a lot of things in Battlefield but then something silly splits opinion again.

    I really think Battlefield needs simplifying into one Conquest mode with a fairly simple style of gameplay and without features such as dragging and weird revives etc.

    And where there are contentious aspects of gameplay there has to be compromise.

    The devs should admit that Battlefield is not what a lot of people expect it to be even if those players do still play it. They shouldn't necessarily see that loyalty as a particular endorsement of BFV.

    I think this change is a good compromise and it's an indication that perhaps the devs are beginning to 'get it' in terms of the gameplay design that a lot of players demand.
    I think the problem is that the Dev's have been listening to the fan base here and on Reddit a little too much. I'm not going near Reddit again but you can check past posts here and a lot of what was demanded during BF1's lifecycle has made it's way into V.

    Unfortunately the vast majority of the player base don't post on forums etc, they just play and don't seem to like V. 

    So now the Dev's are in the position of trying to get the mainstream player base back who prefer a more BF1 type of experience (This is just an assumption based on the unparalleled success of BF1), vs the smaller but more dedicated community that want BFV to be more like it was during the beta, call them 'Core'.
    Then on top of that throw in the Hardcore section who are even smaller but just as noisy and demand their own preferred modes also.

    Seriously just look at the contradictory posts on this forum alone and tell me how anyone is mean't to interpret what the 'community' wants. We can't agree on anything.

    The only way I think to satisfy a player base this large and keep them all is to provide separate game mechanics on separate servers like we almost had in January.
    Arcade fun for the mainstream players.
    Core for the more experienced.
    And a RSP program for the HardCore crew and everyone who prefers a more personalised Battlefield.

    Whether this would financially make sense from EA's perspective, I don't know. But for any long lived successful game series which has collected so wide and diverse a player base I think this could be the future.
  • ProAssassin2003
    3552 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Battlefield 76.
  • warslag
    1594 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Just to clarify. When I say "compromise" I mean it's got to be EXACTLY the way I want it.
  • xXHamatoYoshiXx
    198 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Fliple said:
    This is what happens everytime the community asks for a change, they always take it way too far in the wrong direction. Let's face it people, this game is a failure and will always be. I will further elaborate by stating that I never had a problem with seeing players while playing infantry, and I play on a 1080p 43 inch tv. The only issue I've ever had with visibility are on maps like Hamada where the mirage effects were just way too much when flying in a plane. The problem I see with players is that they are constantly rushing the objective or rushing you even through fog or a blizzard when you clearly have the upper hand and just took out their teammate with explosives or a shotgun or something along those lines. People want to pretend that this is Halo, and thus DICE has reacted accordingly, when this game was initially a milsim.
    Wouldn't too far in the wrong direction be making enemies even harder to see? This is definitely the right direction, I'd have to see it in game to know if it was too far or not.
    At what point did I imply or state that making enemies harder to see would be a good thing? Let me reiterate, no matter the change, DICE constantly implement changes too far in the wrong direction, no matter the direction. Infantry vs Infantry visibility is fine. The one point I will agree with you is that yes this is only a picture, and we would have to see what it is like in game to make a final conclusion. 
  • B0ng0_Banger
    1159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    better than players with invisibility cloaks.
    seriously though. you can't compare that screen shot to actual game play, in terms of  how easy it's going to be to see enemies.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    warslag said:
    This thread shows how a simple thing like visibility splits opinion among players. You can share the same opinions on a lot of things in Battlefield but then something silly splits opinion again.

    I really think Battlefield needs simplifying into one Conquest mode with a fairly simple style of gameplay and without features such as dragging and weird revives etc.

    And where there are contentious aspects of gameplay there has to be compromise.

    The devs should admit that Battlefield is not what a lot of people expect it to be even if those players do still play it. They shouldn't necessarily see that loyalty as a particular endorsement of BFV.

    I think this change is a good compromise and it's an indication that perhaps the devs are beginning to 'get it' in terms of the gameplay design that a lot of players demand.
    I think the problem is that the Dev's have been listening to the fan base here and on Reddit a little too much. I'm not going near Reddit again but you can check past posts here and a lot of what was demanded during BF1's lifecycle has made it's way into V.

    Unfortunately the vast majority of the player base don't post on forums etc, they just play and don't seem to like V. 

    So now the Dev's are in the position of trying to get the mainstream player base back who prefer a more BF1 type of experience (This is just an assumption based on the unparalleled success of BF1), vs the smaller but more dedicated community that want BFV to be more like it was during the beta, call them 'Core'.
    Then on top of that throw in the Hardcore section who are even smaller but just as noisy and demand their own preferred modes also.

    Seriously just look at the contradictory posts on this forum alone and tell me how anyone is mean't to interpret what the 'community' wants. We can't agree on anything.

    The only way I think to satisfy a player base this large and keep them all is to provide separate game mechanics on separate servers like we almost had in January.
    Arcade fun for the mainstream players.
    Core for the more experienced.
    And a RSP program for the HardCore crew and everyone who prefers a more personalised Battlefield.

    Whether this would financially make sense from EA's perspective, I don't know. But for any long lived successful game series which has collected so wide and diverse a player base I think this could be the future.
    Rented servers used to cover all this nicely.  If you set up a server with a format most players hared, or had unfair rules, or earned a reputation for team-stacking or whatever, then before long your server was empty save for the few guys left in your clan.  Meanwhile, the clan with the server everyone liked, with the interesting map rotation and the good admins etc., that server was full every day, and some regulars would donate a few bucks or even join the home clan.  People could vote with their feet, and with their money for that matter.  At one point in BF4 I counted 2,500 active servers, and they didn't cost EA a dime (EA even made a little money off them).

    But EA came up with a better system--one server provider, no rentals, and if they feel like it they'll close down server locations even if they're populated on a regular basis (just ask players in the UK).

    There are four things I think can kill BF (at least for me)--no rented servers, Live Service and its trickle of new content, weak-anti-cheat, poor network performance.  EA doesn't seem to care, and so long as we're dumb enough to keep buying their games, why should they?
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    857 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    warslag said:
    This thread shows how a simple thing like visibility splits opinion among players. You can share the same opinions on a lot of things in Battlefield but then something silly splits opinion again.

    I really think Battlefield needs simplifying into one Conquest mode with a fairly simple style of gameplay and without features such as dragging and weird revives etc.

    And where there are contentious aspects of gameplay there has to be compromise.

    The devs should admit that Battlefield is not what a lot of people expect it to be even if those players do still play it. They shouldn't necessarily see that loyalty as a particular endorsement of BFV.

    I think this change is a good compromise and it's an indication that perhaps the devs are beginning to 'get it' in terms of the gameplay design that a lot of players demand.
    I think the problem is that the Dev's have been listening to the fan base here and on Reddit a little too much. I'm not going near Reddit again but you can check past posts here and a lot of what was demanded during BF1's lifecycle has made it's way into V.

    Unfortunately the vast majority of the player base don't post on forums etc, they just play and don't seem to like V. 

    So now the Dev's are in the position of trying to get the mainstream player base back who prefer a more BF1 type of experience (This is just an assumption based on the unparalleled success of BF1), vs the smaller but more dedicated community that want BFV to be more like it was during the beta, call them 'Core'.
    Then on top of that throw in the Hardcore section who are even smaller but just as noisy and demand their own preferred modes also.

    Seriously just look at the contradictory posts on this forum alone and tell me how anyone is mean't to interpret what the 'community' wants. We can't agree on anything.

    The only way I think to satisfy a player base this large and keep them all is to provide separate game mechanics on separate servers like we almost had in January.
    Arcade fun for the mainstream players.
    Core for the more experienced.
    And a RSP program for the HardCore crew and everyone who prefers a more personalised Battlefield.

    Whether this would financially make sense from EA's perspective, I don't know. But for any long lived successful game series which has collected so wide and diverse a player base I think this could be the future.
    Rented servers used to cover all this nicely.  If you set up a server with a format most players hared, or had unfair rules, or earned a reputation for team-stacking or whatever, then before long your server was empty save for the few guys left in your clan.  Meanwhile, the clan with the server everyone liked, with the interesting map rotation and the good admins etc., that server was full every day, and some regulars would donate a few bucks or even join the home clan.  People could vote with their feet, and with their money for that matter.  At one point in BF4 I counted 2,500 active servers, and they didn't cost EA a dime (EA even made a little money off them).

    But EA came up with a better system--one server provider, no rentals, and if they feel like it they'll close down server locations even if they're populated on a regular basis (just ask players in the UK).

    There are four things I think can kill BF (at least for me)--no rented servers, Live Service and its trickle of new content, weak-anti-cheat, poor network performance.  EA doesn't seem to care, and so long as we're dumb enough to keep buying their games, why should they?
    With RSP would I be able to change things like TTK (fully adapted for each weapon class), Spotting etc? Basically the BF1 experience.
    If not would that level of control be achievable one day?

    In regards to live service, yeah at the moment it's on it's ****. You can't release a game as broken as this was at launch and expect people to say 'yes, take more of my money please.' 
    I do think there's potential with a live service though, but you have to release a solid game that people have an overall positive experience with for them to want to support it.

    On a plus note (or flat out blind optimism) the Dev's have stated (Recent Westie video on Maps) that now they're starting to catch up with how BFV should have been at launch they can focus more fully on maps. There's currently more maps in production than there has ever been in a Battlefield DLC drop. 

    Also I still think that while BFV is currently under achieving, the potential for greatness is still here. I took a month out and upon returning I could feel how much better the game performs from a gameplay perspective.
    Dice aren't there yet, but I think you need to step away to get some fresh perspective and appreciate the small incremental changes their making. 
    At the moment V's in a bit of a coma, but if EA keep investing in it (and they have with BF2, which has been a disaster of a game that they don't even fully own the rights for) then we could have a bit of a sleeping giant here.

    I know plenty of people hate V, but at the moment I've gotta say on the whole I'm really enjoying it. 




Sign In or Register to comment.