This Week in Battlefield V

BFV is a campy, try hard, insta death bore.

Comments

  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    812 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Could the TTD, lag issues be connected to the Amazon servers? 

    I usually get to play around peak hours in the UK (PS4 11 ping at home, 22 ping at my girlfriends) and most of the time the insta deaths are in every server. Recently I started switching to NA (ping 90-95) servers and the difference is phenomenal, the TTK/TTD match far better. 
    Around 11pm the stability goes downhill again and I switched back to Europe and found the TTK/TTD far better matched.

    This seem's incredibly unlikely but can peak hour gaming be putting too much stress on Amazon servers? I've only started doing this since Monday so I need to test it more but so far when it gets too around 6pm in the EU and NA the stability just plummets on console.
  • PtBlankDiplomacy
    94 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ackers75 wrote: »
    Tactical and bfv should not even be in the same sentence!
    You can’t have any tactical element in the game with basic gun play being so poor.
    Then we have the changed ticket system that makes conquest literally one big tdm.

    The garbage is uninstalled and staying that way!

    Why shouldn’t BF V and tactical be in the same sentence? BF was tactical before it got CODified at the beginning/mid of the Frostbite era. How does the current gunplay hinder tactical gameplay in your opinion?

    There is nothing wrong with gunplay in BF V in mine. It isn’t poor if it’s not to your liking. I like it. Now I don’t have to deal with bullets flying at 60-70 degree angle right out of the barrel while going full auto nonsense.

    And since when did the ticket system drastically change? As far as I remember all frostbite Battlefield games and BF2 had the same ticket bleed principle: -1 ticked per death / respawn, ticked bleed when a team has control over >50% of flags.
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    812 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Do you have any statistic or you are pulling numbers outta nowhere ? Because without real numbers from DICE everything is just speculation.There might be more players in EU, less in UK for example. Some modes are less popular than others, its a new game. Do not expect everything to match old formula since bf3 just because its same franchise. They said they are shutting down UK servers to speed up matchmaking. That doesnt mean its 100% because of "not enough population". They have their own reasons on top of it.

    Im not whiteknighting this game, it has its own issues but i dont like to read "game is dying" every day just because "i dont like the game = game must be dying". And the fact that uk doesnt have its own EXCLUSIVE servers just plays in your favor atm. Other game i play (MMO) has SAME issues with certain regions having troubles, people were claiming that game is dead until developer released data and its 5th most played mmo. 


    For most people it isn't about 'hating' on V, it's just a debate about why this game seem's so much more unpopular than previous titles and what could be done to change it. I think the majority want V to succeed.

    Your right in that there is no official statistics from EA/Dice, but it is possible to use deductive reasoning to put forward some fairly well educated estimations.

    Start with the game going on sale was it two weeks after launch?

    Then the whole TTK.2 debacle which all started because people where quitting the game and not coming back in enough numbers that Dice where desperate enough to pull that stunt.
    In terms of keeping players engaged with V, have Dice really done anything which might encourage players to stay? The gameplay hasn't really changed, the TTK/TTD bug is still present and now we have stuttering.

    Some platforms such as X-Box do show their most popular games being played, I believe V is quite low down the list. It's only one platform, but it could be considered an indicator of V's success.

    It's possible that you are correct about the server shutdowns.

    But considering that launch modes such as Domination, which is still well populated on BF1 (had a few games last week) have been removed, as well as all the previously mentioned issues, then it does seem somewhat evident that V isn't exactly a success.

    To be clear though, V isn't going to die out. The Battlefield player base is strong enough to keep Conquest, TDM and possibly Breakthrough going for the next two years.

    If Dice ever work out how to fix the TTK/TTD, then the next step in saving V has to be a quality Private Server programme. With enough complexity that the HardCore crowd can have their mode, the more sandbox shooter crowd can design theirs etc. 

    Although the question then is with the Hardcore crowd gone and those who prefer a Battlefield of more recent times e.g spotting, health regeneration, higher TTK etc on their servers, will enough be left playing the original V?
  • OskooI_007
    767 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 13
    Battlefield V is currently the 25th most played game on Xbox.

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/most-played/games/xbox
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Pelliy said:

    CHAMMOND1992 said:
    Wrong. A major part is lack of content, whether its, rank, medals, maps, skins and so on.

    I disagree with this, because this game was pretty much DOA. That has nothing to do with ranks, medals, maps, skins and so forth. The game wasn't even out for a month before people stopped playing it. By december/January, people stopped playing. some didn't even reach level 50. Some dedicated people that you'd see regularly on BF1 that has  lvl  150 didn't even reach level 50 on bf5 before they called it quits
    SOME people quit, not all.  And there has been a steady supply of new players since Firestorm launched, with more as a result of BFV being available via EA promo packages.  And since BFV apparently sold as many copies as BF4, how can you describe it as DOA?  It looks to me like active player counts are down, but the game is still alive.  You have every right to post your reaction to the game and that of people you know, you don't have the right to act as if that's how everyone who bought this game feels.  

    I never knew I was telling people how to feel. All I said was it's silly to ignore evidence that the population in this game is declining on adhoc rationalizations .

    I even said we agree to disagree.

    I don't buy at all the server browser is inaccurate to the point it's hiding a lot of servers. When the game is active z more servers are displayed. When it's not, less are displayed.

    That to me is not a significant explanation especially when it's been consistent within these last few weeks when comparing to prior or even launch window.


    Sales don't matter. Retention matters. You can bring up bf4. Star wars battlefront 2 sold 9million under their projection. Their servers aren't doing so well.

    I guess dead is relative and subjective in this case where the interest is waning, it's declining. So yes it's dying. Things can change but I consider dying to be unable to play gamemodes other than cq.
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    AreaDeniaI said:
    Do you have any statistic or you are pulling numbers outta nowhere ? Because without real numbers from DICE everything is just speculation.There might be more players in EU, less in UK for example. Some modes are less popular than others, its a new game. Do not expect everything to match old formula since bf3 just because its same franchise. They said they are shutting down UK servers to speed up matchmaking. That doesnt mean its 100% because of "not enough population". They have their own reasons on top of it.

    Im not whiteknighting this game, it has its own issues but i dont like to read "game is dying" every day just because "i dont like the game = game must be dying". And the fact that uk doesnt have its own EXCLUSIVE servers just plays in your favor atm. Other game i play (MMO) has SAME issues with certain regions having troubles, people were claiming that game is dead until developer released data and its 5th most played mmo. 




    For most people it isn't about 'hating' on V, it's just a debate about why this game seem's so much more unpopular than previous titles and what could be done to change it. I think the majority want V to succeed.

    Your right in that there is no official statistics from EA/Dice, but it is possible to use deductive reasoning to put forward some fairly well educated estimations.

    Start with the game going on sale was it two weeks after launch?

    Then the whole TTK.2 debacle which all started because people where quitting the game and not coming back in enough numbers that Dice where desperate enough to pull that stunt.
    In terms of keeping players engaged with V, have Dice really done anything which might encourage players to stay? The gameplay hasn't really changed, the TTK/TTD bug is still present and now we have stuttering.

    Some platforms such as X-Box do show their most popular games being played, I believe V is quite low down the list. It's only one platform, but it could be considered an indicator of V's success.

    It's possible that you are correct about the server shutdowns.

    But considering that launch modes such as Domination, which is still well populated on BF1 (had a few games last week) have been removed, as well as all the previously mentioned issues, then it does seem somewhat evident that V isn't exactly a success.

    To be clear though, V isn't going to die out. The Battlefield player base is strong enough to keep Conquest, TDM and possibly Breakthrough going for the next two years.

    If Dice ever work out how to fix the TTK/TTD, then the next step in saving V has to be a quality Private Server programme. With enough complexity that the HardCore crowd can have their mode, the more sandbox shooter crowd can design theirs etc. 

    Although the question then is with the Hardcore crowd gone and those who prefer a Battlefield of more recent times e.g spotting, health regeneration, higher TTK etc on their servers, will enough be left playing the original V?

    I agree with you. Stating isn't hating. I don't hate bfv but I'm just calling it as how I see it. If someone disagrees, they are welcome to

    seeing all the circumstantial evidence and the severs themselves, it's hard not to deduce and come to the conclusion that the game isn't thriving. It's steady but it isn't thriving. If anything it's declining but hopefully a flow of content will help.

    Dom is probably one of the most popular game modes that date back to bf4 and they chose to shut it down.

    Again, I would be surprised of bfv had 100k concurrent users at any given time. If I were to guess, it'll be closer to 65-75k concurrent users at any given time and dwindling.

    There's an uptick due to origin basic and eat access but I'm curious to know if that will retain players.
  • trip1ex
    4763 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 13
    My boredom of BF is  tied to the lack of an exciting win condition and excitement around trying to win the round as a team.


  • BURGERKRIEG
    935 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I see that if you fire up BF1 on console, there’s a splash screen stating that BFV is 50% off.

    It is accompanied by a cool looking picture of WW2 action. No ginger ninjas in sight XD

    That is quite a significant drop in price, maybe that will tempt some that never bought the game first time round?


  • Xepburn
    7 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    My boredom of BF is  tied to the lack of an exciting win condition
    This is an extremely interesting comment.

    On some level, BF has always lacked an "exciting win condition."  Wins and losses result from thousands of barely perceptible "micro-exchanges" between players.  It can be very difficult for players to truly understand why their teams won or lost (although people in chat are sure to dumb it down to things like "too many snipers" or "bad tankers").  And usually by about the halfway point of a match, it's pretty obvious which team is ultimately going to win.  As players, we just tend to accept that this is the way things are.

    I do think BFV tried to address this in some ways.  Specifically, Dice added the "Final Stand" team-BR to Grand Operations.  Unfortunately, it only triggers in a small percentage of matches; even then, it rarely delivers that intense, "final circle" feel of something like PUBG.

    A game that I think does this really well is Overwatch, with its "overtime" mechanic.  In those overtime moments, it's incredibly obvious what each team needs to do in order to win.  Likewise, individual players can have tremendous impact on the game during those moments; players get the opportunity to feel like the hero, to feel like their play made the difference.

    Now, I don't necessarily think a similar mechanic would be a great fit for BF.  In my opinion, the BF experience (unlike Overwatch) isn't about being the "hero."  It is about being the common, unremarkable soldier in a chaotic world.  I think the key is finding some sort of balance.  However, as it stands, mindlessly zerging between the same three points while tickets bleed at seemingly arbitrary rates is problematic.  And this is one of the main reasons why I liked BF1's version of Grand/Shock Operations more than BFV's version.  The win conditions were clear, and the individual player could occasionally have a moment of brilliance that resulted in one team's permanent progress.
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    Off topic: Seeing your name always evokes a giggle. Sometimes I am tempted to change my name to "Mack Donnels" :)
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Xepburn said:
    trip1ex said:
    My boredom of BF is  tied to the lack of an exciting win condition
    This is an extremely interesting comment.

    On some level, BF has always lacked an "exciting win condition."  Wins and losses result from thousands of barely perceptible "micro-exchanges" between players.  It can be very difficult for players to truly understand why their teams won or lost (although people in chat are sure to dumb it down to things like "too many snipers" or "bad tankers").
    I noticed something cool about BF 1 end of round screen... I used to complain that it wasn't helpful (they showed some stat that didn't really correlate to the win, I can't remember what it was) but now they show how many tickets were from flags and how many were from kills (for both teams). Which really helps to reinforce the PTFO aspect (as opposed to sitting in the spawn and farming infantry with a tank/sniper rifle)
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    PS: It would be cool if they also showed number of revives to again, reinforce the unsung medics that risk all to save teammates/tickets.
  • Xepburn
    7 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    PS: It would be cool if they also showed number of revives to again, reinforce the unsung medics that risk all to save teammates/tickets.
    Yeah, or (and I don't know how Dice could actually implement this) some kind of "ticket swing" statistic associated with the medic class.

    Background:  As a medic, I often find myself in 2v1 situations with a fellow teammate.   Sometimes, my teammate will die in the firefight, but I'll be able to secure the kill on the enemy that killed him.  I then get to revive that fallen teammate.  My friends and I refer to this play as the "pick-six."  It is a reference to American football, when a quarterback throws an inception that is immediately returned by the other team for a touchdown.  It is a colossal swing play.  It isn't just that one team scored, it is that they simultaneously denied the other team's scoring chance.

    Back to Battlefield:  What if the game somehow tracked how your revive targets performed post-revive?  In a vacuum, reviving one person saves one ticket.  However, what happens when that revived person immediately goes on a 10-person kill-streak?  Your one revive actually ends up being a 10-ticket swing.  But currently, as the medic... we never really get to see how effective we're actually being.
  • trip1ex
    4763 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 13
    Xepburn said:
    trip1ex said:
    My boredom of BF is  tied to the lack of an exciting win condition
    This is an extremely interesting comment.

    On some level, BF has always lacked an "exciting win condition."  Wins and losses result from thousands of barely perceptible "micro-exchanges" between players.  It can be very difficult for players to truly understand why their teams won or lost (although people in chat are sure to dumb it down to things like "too many snipers" or "bad tankers").  And usually by about the halfway point of a match, it's pretty obvious which team is ultimately going to win.  As players, we just tend to accept that this is the way things are.

    I do think BFV tried to address this in some ways.  Specifically, Dice added the "Final Stand" team-BR to Grand Operations.  Unfortunately, it only triggers in a small percentage of matches; even then, it rarely delivers that intense, "final circle" feel of something like PUBG.

    A game that I think does this really well is Overwatch, with its "overtime" mechanic.  In those overtime moments, it's incredibly obvious what each team needs to do in order to win.  Likewise, individual players can have tremendous impact on the game during those moments; players get the opportunity to feel like the hero, to feel like their play made the difference.

    Now, I don't necessarily think a similar mechanic would be a great fit for BF.  In my opinion, the BF experience (unlike Overwatch) isn't about being the "hero."  It is about being the common, unremarkable soldier in a chaotic world.  I think the key is finding some sort of balance.  However, as it stands, mindlessly zerging between the same three points while tickets bleed at seemingly arbitrary rates is problematic.  And this is one of the main reasons why I liked BF1's version of Grand/Shock Operations more than BFV's version.  The win conditions were clear, and the individual player could occasionally have a moment of brilliance that resulted in one team's permanent progress.
    I agree with the gist of what you're saying but  I feel like there was more excitement around trying to win  in past BF games.  If nothing else because of the lack of distractions like assignments and career stats and youtube.  But also because Conquest back in BF42 was relatively few flags on most maps and when your team was bleeding they were bleeding.  You knew it.  Your team's ticket total flashed red on the HUD.    That effect is gone, you got more flags in Conquest designed in such a way so teams play ring around the rosie  and the idea of having to take a flag from the enemy or getting a bleed or breaking a bleed seems to have been lost.   

    I played Obliteration mode in BF4 and maybe looking back that kept me excited about BF as Conquest in BF4 was getting worse where flags were starting to change hands too frequently ...that or no one advanced on a map like Locker with 64 players.   Obliteration, on the other hand,  had some real objectives to it where if you didn't play them you could lose in a little as 5 minutes.   And yet  if you were in the game then you still had a chance to win.  It was really only at the very end, the very last minute or two and only when your team was behind 2-0 that you had no chance to win.  Otherwise there was always a chance to make a great run on an mcom, blow it up and tie or win the round.  And if you were ahead 2-0, there was the opportunity to knock the other team out.  And if you were behind 2-0 there was still that moral victory of going the distance if you could hold out the last 2 minutes.  

    I feel like old Conquest had more of that, where you could still turn things around late in a match if your team got ahold of the bleed.   I feel like there was some more hanging on in the latter stages to secure a victory.  

    I also feel like they could have improved upon what they had whereas it feels like they not only didn't improve upon it they made it worse.



     



  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Xepburn said:
    PS: It would be cool if they also showed number of revives to again, reinforce the unsung medics that risk all to save teammates/tickets.
    Yeah, or (and I don't know how Dice could actually implement this) some kind of "ticket swing" statistic associated with the medic class.

    Background:  As a medic, I often find myself in 2v1 situations with a fellow teammate.   Sometimes, my teammate will die in the firefight, but I'll be able to secure the kill on the enemy that killed him.  I then get to revive that fallen teammate.  My friends and I refer to this play as the "pick-six."  It is a reference to American football, when a quarterback throws an inception that is immediately returned by the other team for a touchdown.  It is a colossal swing play.  It isn't just that one team scored, it is that they simultaneously denied the other team's scoring chance.

    Back to Battlefield:  What if the game somehow tracked how your revive targets performed post-revive?  In a vacuum, reviving one person saves one ticket.  However, what happens when that revived person immediately goes on a 10-person kill-streak?  Your one revive actually ends up being a 10-ticket swing.  But currently, as the medic... we never really get to see how effective we're actually being.
    RE: End of round screen:

    "What I find strange is that screen right after the round ends which shows the overall score (1000-975 or whatever) and then it shows Flags captured and Squad Spawns...
    Squad Spawns?!? I know it is a useful stat (for something) but it's almost like DICE is inferring that there is a direct correlation to whether you won or lost based on squad spawns. (is there?)
    Seems like such a strange stat to show on that screen. Why not show number of revives for each team or something useful like that?"

    ==========
     RE: End of round screen:
    (Braddock tag removed since I don't want to re-tag him for this thread) "...as the Community Manager for North America, can you comment on revive statistics being added to the end of round screen. In a perfect world it would be shown on the screen that shows kills-deaths-score. Revives would be a fourth column. It would also be cool to see how many times we were revived for a fifth column. Something like:

    K/D -- Score -- Revives/Revived
    25 - 10 12,654 (0 - 15)
    Also, on a related note: At the end of round when it shows the team scores (e.g. 1000-950) it shows flags captured and squad spawns.. But why squad spawns? Why not show total revives since there seems to be more of a correlation between revives and winning versus spawning on your squad for the win. It would also server as a reminder for people to pay more attention to reviving instead of running past dead teammates.
    Thanks for any input on this topic which seems to be controversial for some reason."
    ================

    RE: Revives being a pick six:
    (The above thread went to 53 pages! So if you have two days to waste, you can enjoy the whole thing)
    ==================
    RE: K/D or Score?
    ==================
    I have a reputation of being hated for reminding high K/D players that they owe some of their K/D to their local medic.


  • Xepburn
    7 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Post
    Oh, wow.  That's a ton of reading material, haha!
  • Clang20
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Bumping good thread....
  • Kattegat_Twin
    760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Xepburn said:
    It can be very difficult for players to truly understand why their teams won or lost (although people in chat are sure to dumb it down to things like "too many snipers" or "bad tankers"). 
    The guys that really annoy me, are the ones that scream in the chat about the terrible medics on their team, especially when I recognise the name as someone that I've been reviving constantly. Miss reviving him once and suddenly all medics are useless and selfish. Makes me wonder why I sacrifice myself so much to keep little crapstains like that alive, when they behave like that and even blame the medics for the loss.
Sign In or Register to comment.