This Week in Battlefield V

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

Comments

  • tempo_rarity
    1055 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    My thoughts : 

    24 hours ago : I was actually thinking about better camo and looking into an appearance upgrade .
    20 mins ago : Pushed that silly idea backwards on my to-do-list ,at least til late May .
    How odd to see The One passing us all guns potentially shoot themselves in the foot like this .

    countered by

    A 'glowy' immobile pixel and a 'glowy' moving pixel are two different beasts .
    The added glow won't matter if immobility while stationary is your thing .
    After all , most of the 'I-don't-wanna-look's' still need motion to trigger their triggers  :tongue:
  • M_Rat13
    1030 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    So I was looking at the pictures wondering why there was only one guy in the left one and two in the right one. Yikes, I didn't realize visibility was still that bad.
  • Kimy--Bonnie
    4 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I also like this change, it might not look good but its atleast a much needed bandaid for the main problem
  • the_lone_ran9er
    61 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.
    All very good points I basically see it the same way.  There is one other factor that is possibly at play here though.  We live in an age of Entertainment saturation, how much of the missing player base is simply because there are so many other games to play?  I'm currently playing BFV because I got it for free and it turns out I like it. I haven't been put off by recent changes to the recoil system ( yet ) and I likely won't mind visibility changes if they can somehow pull that off without hurting the one thing they really nailed, visual fidelity, we all know the game is gorgeous.  Gonna go ahead and point out one more time though that the picture presented is BS I tried to capture a similar screen shot last night on Devastation and could not find anything comparable. Just make the change on console only and I think you made the perfect move.
  • warslag
    1452 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    ChiefSniper said:
    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.

    This change is a crutch for the run n' gun crowd who won't slow down and look, it is another step in the dumbing down of Battlefield.  What's next, full-time 3D spotting on every player for the whole round?  There are probably folks here who would think that's a great idea too.

    you know nothing about competitive shooters. not a single fps has visibility issues like Battlefield 5.
    I'll go further than that, I don't care about competitive shooters, and neither do most of the people who buy BF games.  This is a casual-friendly game for recreational players who want to have fun with their friends.  It's a safe bet that most BF players couldn't name an "eSports" team if there was a cash prize for doing so, "competitive" just isn't important to them.  How many attempts have their been to get a comp scene going in BF titles, and how many ever got any traction?  There are various reasons for that, one being that the game which attracts most customers is not what comp players want, e.g. the average player isn't looking for 5 v. 5 with strictly limited weapons.  The average player thinks things like collapsing skyscrapers and giant sharks and armored trains etc. are really cool, they just don't care how things are done in competitive shooters. 
    That is not true. There are a lot of Battlefield players who will be familiar with competitive Battlefield gaming from past BF games including BF2 and BF3, but also the Bad Company games which had a very good competitive scene on ESL. Ladder matches and clan wars were great fun for every level of player in BF2. Again, along with clan servers, this is a part of Battlefield that has disappeared taking a lot of the heart out of the game.
  • Trokey66
    8361 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    warslag wrote: »
    parkingbrake said:

    GP-Caliber said:


    parkingbrake wrote: »
    ChiefSniper said:

    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.



    This change is a crutch for the run n' gun crowd who won't slow down and look, it is another step in the dumbing down of Battlefield.  What's next, full-time 3D spotting on every player for the whole round?  There are probably folks here who would think that's a great idea too.



    you know nothing about competitive shooters. not a single fps has visibility issues like Battlefield 5.
    I'll go further than that, I don't care about competitive shooters, and neither do most of the people who buy BF games.  This is a casual-friendly game for recreational players who want to have fun with their friends.  It's a safe bet that most BF players couldn't name an "eSports" team if there was a cash prize for doing so, "competitive" just isn't important to them.  How many attempts have their been to get a comp scene going in BF titles, and how many ever got any traction?  There are various reasons for that, one being that the game which attracts most customers is not what comp players want, e.g. the average player isn't looking for 5 v. 5 with strictly limited weapons.  The average player thinks things like collapsing skyscrapers and giant sharks and armored trains etc. are really cool, they just don't care how things are done in competitive shooters. 

    That is not true. There are a lot of Battlefield players who will be familiar with competitive Battlefield gaming from past BF games including BF2 and BF3, but also the Bad Company games which had a very good competitive scene on ESL. Ladder matches and clan wars were great fun for every level of player in BF2. Again, along with clan servers, this is a part of Battlefield that has disappeared taking a lot of the heart out of the game.

    Any game can be played 'competitively' but that doesn't mean people who play them are 'competitive'.

    Tiddlywinks is played competitively........
  • 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?
    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. 




    We don't know if they really have more maps currently in development than ever before, even the dev who made that statement said it was his opinion.  We also don't know how far along those maps are, some might be little more than preliminary layouts that would need many months of work to be ready for release.  EA/DICE has also been known to abandon maps in development, e.g. there were three night maps being made for BF4 but only one was actually released.  As for DICE starting to catch up, the latest patch suggests that is not the case.  There are more bugs, the network performance actually seemed to get worse, they've made design choices that make no sense (who asked for a big text box in the middle of the screen during the game?)--as always they fix one thing and break something else.

    I'm still playing, still having fun, but the accumulation of mistakes and poor choices is wearing me down a bit. This isn't a bad game, but it could have been so much better.
  • lunajpsn
    42 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I’m actually surprised there is someone who disagrees with this change.

    This is a change that shows DICE ACTUALLY listening to the community....thumbs up DICE.

    Now let’s just implement it without breaking anything else in the game...
  • RichardSinerface
    78 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Might be a good change. Improving visibility is one of the key components to making this game fun
  • IDazzlerazzle
    430 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Does that mean I will be able to tell the difference between a background wall and a player now ? .... :D
  • DJTN1
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Look at the bright side, now you can see the player that killed you with one bullet to the toe, around a rock and up a hill.

    Yay!!!! 😁
  • TacticulBacon
    301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    TEKNOCODE said:
    Our characters will be radioactive. Thanks community.

    "Remember how I warned if we complained enough about this legitimate issue Dice will fix it? Turns out they did. Thanks for ruining the game, community."
  • Skitelz7
    925 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, 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

    Agreed. I have no problem with the visibility. Players in darker/shadowy areas are supposed to be harder to see.
    This isn't Call of Duty. Lighting up players artificially like that looks stupid and way out of place.
  • Skitelz7
    925 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 5
    YourLocalPlumber said:
    I rather have radioactive players than chameleons who blend in perfectly in every environment. Can't wait for this update to roll out. 

    Right. I've been playing  a lot of bf4 lately, one reason being I can see the enemy . Played for 5 or 6 hours recently and not one time did I say to myself after being killed, "Now where the hell did that guy come from?"
    I hope this change will bring me back some.

    Yeah, cause you never got killed from behind. Always saw your killer. Hahahaha!
    BS!
  • full951
    2465 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Well. It's the third time I've seen the picture and I just noticed there's a second player in the first Pic.

    It does look too heavy handed. And it also looks like you will glow even when there is no light source. Like how scope glare glares with out reflecting light
  • TTZ_Dipsy
    91 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I personally can't wait for this update; it's gonna be a real game changer. Love it or hate it, this was desperately needed, I just hope this turns out better than the last visibility patch
  • TropicPoison
    2414 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Doesn't look terrible. What does look terrible is that the next patch isn't until "late may"

    They have to keep the drip feeding to a certain point, even the updates lol
  • DevilsBathtub
    834 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Good, guy on the left is near invisible. 
  • warslag
    1452 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Trokey66 said:
    warslag wrote: »
    parkingbrake said:

    GP-Caliber said:


    parkingbrake wrote: »
    ChiefSniper said:

    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.



    This change is a crutch for the run n' gun crowd who won't slow down and look, it is another step in the dumbing down of Battlefield.  What's next, full-time 3D spotting on every player for the whole round?  There are probably folks here who would think that's a great idea too.



    you know nothing about competitive shooters. not a single fps has visibility issues like Battlefield 5.
    I'll go further than that, I don't care about competitive shooters, and neither do most of the people who buy BF games.  This is a casual-friendly game for recreational players who want to have fun with their friends.  It's a safe bet that most BF players couldn't name an "eSports" team if there was a cash prize for doing so, "competitive" just isn't important to them.  How many attempts have their been to get a comp scene going in BF titles, and how many ever got any traction?  There are various reasons for that, one being that the game which attracts most customers is not what comp players want, e.g. the average player isn't looking for 5 v. 5 with strictly limited weapons.  The average player thinks things like collapsing skyscrapers and giant sharks and armored trains etc. are really cool, they just don't care how things are done in competitive shooters. 

    That is not true. There are a lot of Battlefield players who will be familiar with competitive Battlefield gaming from past BF games including BF2 and BF3, but also the Bad Company games which had a very good competitive scene on ESL. Ladder matches and clan wars were great fun for every level of player in BF2. Again, along with clan servers, this is a part of Battlefield that has disappeared taking a lot of the heart out of the game.

    Any game can be played 'competitively' but that doesn't mean people who play them are 'competitive'.

    Tiddlywinks is played competitively........
    Games are simply the rule sets of competitions. The players are the competitors. Everyone who plays Battlefield is a competitor regardless of whether they choose to admit to themselves or not.

    Do not confuse games with entertainment. When you play a game you are choosing to be competitive. It is poor sportsmanship when you choose not to compete when you are playing against other people.
Sign In or Register to comment.