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

Comments

  • bran1986
    5913 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2019
    bran1986 wrote: »

    Raising the ttk across the board won't help as you would make weapons like the smgs useless. What needs to happen is the MMGs need a heavy ttk nerf. Right now the ttk of a MG42 is faster than a human can react out to 100 meters effectively making them a ohk weapon. The MG42 needs to do around 12 damage a bullet to bring its ttk into the range of all other weapons in the game. The Boys AT rifle needs to have its ohk range cut in half to 50 meters, this will cause users to be closer to the action and unable to camp in a bush out in the middle of nowhere getting cheap kills. In return the Boys AT rifle will get a buff  when it comes to damage done to vehicles.

    I’m playing on PC and the MG42 isn’t even this popular. Most people I see using MGs opt for either for MG34 or VGO for more bullets/faster reload. I used MG42 not too long ago and I have to say this weapon has quite a sway/recoil in full auto while bipoded already. What do you want? To render it useless?

    The Boys rifle is already not as annoying as last week. Cutting down effective distance on this weapon to SMG distances will kill it. I think reducing the range slightly, to like 90-95m and a nerf of hipfire accuracy will be good enough. It certainly doesn’t need a buff against vehicles it needs a fix for APC bullets upgrade. Tanks are already pretty weak. Just think, it takes more than one direct hit from the main cannon of a Staghound tank to kill infantry. The rifle is doing like 5-10 damage per shot but now imagine 5 or more players shooting a tank simultaneously. It actuality happened to me on Twisted steel. The Boys fans were sitting on the bridge and hammering me. I’m i a tank and i can’t do anything because even if I get the corrections right they will just get up and run into the sunset.

    P.S. Here we go again. “I am playing like i want and those assets are killing me so they’re OP. Nerf this and that because I don’t want to adjust my playstyle.”

    That's exactly the point, the Battlefield player base grew exponentially over the last decade, especially with BF1. The 'Tactical' experience isn't what the current player base are used to or apparently want and so are leaving or not even buying the game. 

    The problem is that me and maybe others waited for a more hardcore BF experience since BF2. It’s been 13 years till we got a game with attrition, no 3d/audio spotting and teamplay emphasis. But the new community want to have quick fun. They can’t wait 2 years and play some other bf game in the meantime.

    I want to bring the MMGs ttk in line with the rest of the weapons in the game. Having a 150 ms ttk out to 50 meters and 200ms out to 100 meters is nuts. This is why in most games when you have insane fire rates, the damage has to come down for balance. Giving MMGs a 25 damage out to 50 meters is idiotic.
    Post edited by bran1986 on
  • Hagall
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Love the franchise, except from a few titles, sadly including this last one. BFV is a big and buggy mess. Still see loads of cheaters after this long. I miss the punkbuster days. BFV has a terrible lack of content. If the engine made it possible to build mods, that could have builded up a massive content like it was with bf1942 and bf2. 
  • BlankDiplomacy
    94 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bran1986 wrote: »

    I want to bring the MMGs ttk in line with the rest of the weapons in the game. Having a 150 ms ttk out to 500 meters and 200ms out to 100 meters is nuts. This is why in most games when you have insane fire rates, the damage has to come down for balance. Giving MMGs a 25 damage out to 50 meters is idiotic.

    Now it’s all looking good and logical on paper. But in game we have hits rejected by server, desync, head glitchers etc. Now add quite a lot of sway while shooting, overheating, no zoom scopes, and vulnerability factor aka being a free kill. It’s not always about the numbers. I could understand your point if you could run and gun with MG42s. I shall say in this case there would be no discussion, it would be obvious the gun is OP. But in it’s current implementation you can’t play aggressively with it, only passively providing support for your squad or defend an objective. And you can be easily killed in just one shot via sniper headshot or straight up knifed. I am betting it’s far less than 150 or 200 ms.
  • THERAMPAGE_ci0h
    262 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2019
    The truth is that the TTK is responsible for the instadeath  ( game on console run at 30-60fps) because the 30hz tickrate's servers can't handle it properly.  You've seen what happened when they try to change the TTK 2 month ago ? ( because they don't want to balance PC and console separately for financial reason ) PC player show up and declare GLOBAL CRISIS ( keep in mind that PC's tickrate server are running 60hz and game run at 144fps ) the experience is very different on both platforms. They just can't content everyone ... And from what we've seen, they will never rethink to a TTK change ... So console playerbase is screwed ... 

    I encourage you to play on a BF1's 200% damage server on console -> you will see that instadeath occur also on this game because of the 30hz tickrate's server...

    The only solution is to make 3 mode to content everyone on every plateform:
    -A real core mode with higher TTK, 3D spots, no attrition like on older BF ...  -> compatible with the 30hz of console's servers
    -A semi extreme mode ( the current one we have ) -> PC player will prefer this one because of the faster gameplay of this plateform and because it's fully compatible with their server's architecture.
    -An extreme mode ( faster TTK, no 3D spots,  attrition, no regen, no third person in vehicule ... )  Because their is also an extreme community on this franchise and they are just waiting for it since launch ... 






    Post edited by THERAMPAGE_ci0h on
  • TFBisquit
    2284 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    We have instadeaths on PC also. It's quite annoying and often I see the ones responsible getting killed alot also. Then the killcam fails frequently, leaving a player guessing what just happened.
    I agree that the many bugs and some lack of content is a reason for players to quit. The game gives a feeling of being cheated, whether it's a real cheater or complete legit one.
    I don't see a complete overhaul as a solution, but the new map is a step in the right direction imo.
    In breakthrough (which I like in this map) you sure have plenty of hill campers, but they are dealt with swiftly.
    Let's hope the patches start improving things also, been negative upto the recent one. If they get the game smooth again, without the stutters and sound bugs, and finally balance the weapons to what they should do, instead of butchering some, it might have a second life.
    Again, the new map is imo a good one, I hope there is more to lookout for.
  • rammy7033
    33 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bleh it's fine. I wish they would remove boins, release maps more frequently. Also wish that dice made every class viable and not favor 1 or 2.
  • lunajpsn
    42 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    With DOM and frontlines gone, myself and other friends have stopped playing (which makes me sad as a long time BF player). The netcode and gameplay just gets worse and worse with each patch. Been playing other games that don’t feel like a Beta...

    Now I just pop in and out of the forums to read the posts and listen to people get more and more frustrated with this game for kicks...

    ...sad that the forums have become more entertaining/fun then the actual game.

    On the plus side, you got one new map at the expense of two game modes. Maybe when they add 5 v 5 they’ll silently remove other game modes or maps....wouldn’t that be fun?
  • StormSaxon
    696 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I wouldn’t mind instadeth if killing people felt the same... but sniping headshots aside, I’ll constantly get multiple hits, headshots on enemies as they run long distances and do 30-99 damage for no kill.
    Then thump thump dead. Same weapon I’m using. Can’t take two steps most of the time.

    Grenades too. I’ve thrown grenades into rooms and done 330 damadge. No kill.
    I hit people with piat. 13 damadge!
    Grenade blows up behind me and I run away. Blows up I’m dead.
    Guy fires piat at me. It’s wall behind me. I’m dead... not 13 damage for me.

    All I want is some consitancy.
  • trip1ex
    5245 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    bran1986 wrote: »

    Raising the ttk across the board won't help as you would make weapons like the smgs useless. What needs to happen is the MMGs need a heavy ttk nerf. Right now the ttk of a MG42 is faster than a human can react out to 100 meters effectively making them a ohk weapon. The MG42 needs to do around 12 damage a bullet to bring its ttk into the range of all other weapons in the game. The Boys AT rifle needs to have its ohk range cut in half to 50 meters, this will cause users to be closer to the action and unable to camp in a bush out in the middle of nowhere getting cheap kills. In return the Boys AT rifle will get a buff  when it comes to damage done to vehicles.

    I’m playing on PC and the MG42 isn’t even this popular. Most people I see using MGs opt for either for MG34 or VGO for more bullets/faster reload. I used MG42 not too long ago and I have to say this weapon has quite a sway/recoil in full auto while bipoded already. What do you want? To render it useless?

    The Boys rifle is already not as annoying as last week. Cutting down effective distance on this weapon to SMG distances will kill it. I think reducing the range slightly, to like 90-95m and a nerf of hipfire accuracy will be good enough. It certainly doesn’t need a buff against vehicles it needs a fix for APC bullets upgrade. Tanks are already pretty weak. Just think, it takes more than one direct hit from the main cannon of a Staghound tank to kill infantry. The rifle is doing like 5-10 damage per shot but now imagine 5 or more players shooting a tank simultaneously. It actuality happened to me on Twisted steel. The Boys fans were sitting on the bridge and hammering me. I’m i a tank and i can’t do anything because even if I get the corrections right they will just get up and run into the sunset.

    P.S. Here we go again. “I am playing like i want and those assets are killing me so they’re OP. Nerf this and that because I don’t want to adjust my playstyle.”

    That's exactly the point, the Battlefield player base grew exponentially over the last decade, especially with BF1. The 'Tactical' experience isn't what the current player base are used to or apparently want and so are leaving or not even buying the game. 

    The problem is that me and maybe others waited for a more hardcore BF experience since BF2. It’s been 13 years till we got a game with attrition, no 3d/audio spotting and teamplay emphasis. But the new community want to have quick fun. They can’t wait 2 years and play some other bf game in the meantime.
    It hasn't been no 13 years.  BF games have had hardcore modes in the past that have scratched your itch.  They were always less popular than vanilla by far.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    That’s how I saw it described on the forums the week and it’s true.

    There is only a minority of players enjoying it. Most people don’t like the core gameplay experience. 

    This is why servers are being shut down 8 months into the game’s life cycle. It’s not because of lack of content or that there is stuttering on PC or that some assignment is bugged. Or this issue or that gripe. 

    Unless this fact is admitted and addressed by overhauling the gameplay the player base will continue to rapidly dwindle.

    Opinions are like, ummm, noses, everybody has one.

    I don't find the gameplay a problem, most of the things that bother me in BFV qualify as outside issues, like the horrible Live Service business model that has provided little new content, the weak anti-cheat, the poor network performance (DICE has now admitted the "stuttering" is happening on consoles too) and of course the lack of rented servers (which they claim are coming back).

    You're free talk yourself into believing that everyone but you is prone with a machine-gun, but I don't see that, most of the opponents I engage are on their feet.  If this game had launched with rented servers and paid DLC resulting in many more new maps there would be a lot more people playing, and it wouldn't be necessary for guys like you to moan about the game being "campy" and blaming that for declining player counts.  You can like or dislike what you please--don't assume you speak for the majority.
    You just don’t want to hear it. All the BF games had bugs. Network issues etc. This one is failing to retain a player base. That can’t be ascribed the business model entirely.
    The lack of new maps is the single biggest complaint in this and other forums, it is the one thing that virtually all BFV players (at least the ones who post) agree on.  To imagine that boredom resulting from playing on the same maps for half a year isn't the biggest factor in declining player counts is delusional.  The lack of rented serves is also a huge issue, as it is tied to map and mode rotations that many players dislike, and to the level of cheating on PC (no admins means a blatant hack user can stay as long as he likes) and to a lack of custom game formats which many players enjoy.  Poor network performance is also a problem which turns off many players, they've been posting here about it since the last two patches, are we supposed to ignore what they say because you insist the real problem is the game is too "campy"?  All these issues have been massively discussed here and elsewhere, so no, you don't get to arbitrarily sweep them away and substitute your own explanation--because I say so won't get you very far when there is ample evidence you are wrong.
  • DavTan
    863 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ferdinand_J_Foch said:

    ProAssassin2003 said:
    This is the most camping friendly Battlefield I have ever played.

    Which is quite the achievement, considering how many rooftop/mountaineering Recons we had in BF3/4.
    Imagine if parachuting onto elevated buildings was a thing in BFV like it was in BF3 or BF4--they'd see camping that would give them seizures.  Remember the TV tower on Caspian Border, or the buildings on Oman that were not accessible from below, or the rooftops on Shanghai, or the big warehouse building on the Russian end of Kharg, or the cranes on Noshahr and so on?  These folks who think BFV has more camping than any previous BF game must not have played any previous BF game if they really believe that.

    Last night I played with a group of guys whose approach is to cap an objective and hold it for the rest of the round rather than running endlessly from one flag to another.  I confess I tend to be someone who runs from objective to objective a lot, it just bugs me when my team is losing because we have one too few objectives.  But I stuck with these guys, and what with spotting and calling out opponents and reviving each other, we held those objectives almost nonstop round after round.  Does that qualify as "camping"?  How is helping your team by holding an objective rather than running off and leaving it to be taken by the other team qualify as bad gameplay?  How does giving your team an advanced location from where it can attack other flags not a smart move?  How is distracting the other team by holding the objective right outside their spawn not productive?

    I think the "campy" complaint boils down to I like to run n' gun and I resent getting killed by someone who has anticipated my arrival so DICE should change the game so they can't do that.  I bet most of these folks are lone-wolf players (because if they were playing with friends they'd be getting revived after their buddies killed the "camper") and most of them have spent time in games where a less thoughtful style of play is the norm.  That they want an entire game mutated to suit their tastes is hilarious in a sad sort of way.

    Bang on target parkingbrake , it seems to me most of these " it's too campy" whiners just want the game to play like unreal, or quake.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3417 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Imagine if parachuting onto elevated buildings was a thing in BFV like it was in BF3 or BF4--they'd see camping that would give them seizures.  Remember the TV tower on Caspian Border, or the buildings on Oman that were not accessible from below, or the rooftops on Shanghai, or the big warehouse building on the Russian end of Kharg, or the cranes on Noshahr and so on?  These folks who think BFV has more camping than any previous BF game must not have played any previous BF game if they really believe that.

    This is why I'm slightly wary about those who want more verticality in maps, like in BF3/4. Every single tall structure in BF3/4 had campers on it ... every single one. People somehow found a way to camp on the bloody mountain on Dragon Pass in BF4! I still shudder to think about the times where I would see a massive group of sniper glints on that mountain. I think I once talked about that time where I got sniped by a Recon sitting on an aircraft carrier on a Paracel Storm match.

    If the structure was more than, say ... 10 feet tall, you can guarantee that someone out there is sitting on it all day.

    As far as I see it, BF3/4/1/V do seem to have quite a few features to make it easy to camp. BF3 allowed one to attach 12X scopes and bipods on many guns. We also cannot forget about that damned respawn beacon, allowing one to parachute onto ridiculous spots. You could also use a helicopter to reach high spots, which unfortunately led to the losses of many choppers at the hands of those who used them as taxis for their camping spot. BF4 went a step further by providing 20X and 40X scopes, range finders built into the scope, the PLD, as well as that pesky beacon. The ability to zero your rifle also made long range sniping much easier.

    BF1 had the sweet spot, which was an attempt to differentiate bolt-action rifles, as well as an attempt to get snipers to play a bit closer to the objective. Unfortunately, some used the sweet spot to get easy kills at distances where the rifle would do it's maximum damage. The recoil and spread reduction feature of LMGs also encouraged some to camp - TTK 2.0's LMG changes made this even worse, by making it harder to run-and-gun with an LMG, but easier to camp with it. There was a bit of a lack of verticality in BF1, for somewhat obvious reasons. Still, that beacon was removed ...

    ... until DICE put it back in BFV. Additionally, attrition has made many people into passive players. This is further exacerbated by MMG mechanics and, to some extent, the new AT rifle. Health attrition makes it harder than usual to play aggressively if you're not a Medic, so Supports and Recons tend to sit back often. Assaults can mitigate the effects of health attrition quite a bit due to their absurdly powerful primary weapons and gadgets.

    Honestly, I sometimes feel like this game is the most passive friendly game of the lot, but after a while, I remember those awful, awful memories of camping Recons in BF3/4 ... it was actually a lot worse on BF4 than on BF3, I think. I always made it my mission to purge the camping heretics deal with unreasonable players by destroying the tower on BF4's Caspian Border remake at the start of every round ... or ... pressing that lovely button on Operation Firestorm.
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    857 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    This is the most camping friendly Battlefield I have ever played.
    Which is quite the achievement, considering how many rooftop/mountaineering Recons we had in BF3/4.
    Imagine if parachuting onto elevated buildings was a thing in BFV like it was in BF3 or BF4--they'd see camping that would give them seizures.  Remember the TV tower on Caspian Border, or the buildings on Oman that were not accessible from below, or the rooftops on Shanghai, or the big warehouse building on the Russian end of Kharg, or the cranes on Noshahr and so on?  These folks who think BFV has more camping than any previous BF game must not have played any previous BF game if they really believe that.

    Last night I played with a group of guys whose approach is to cap an objective and hold it for the rest of the round rather than running endlessly from one flag to another.  I confess I tend to be someone who runs from objective to objective a lot, it just bugs me when my team is losing because we have one too few objectives.  But I stuck with these guys, and what with spotting and calling out opponents and reviving each other, we held those objectives almost nonstop round after round.  Does that qualify as "camping"?  How is helping your team by holding an objective rather than running off and leaving it to be taken by the other team qualify as bad gameplay?  How does giving your team an advanced location from where it can attack other flags not a smart move?  How is distracting the other team by holding the objective right outside their spawn not productive?

    I think the "campy" complaint boils down to I like to run n' gun and I resent getting killed by someone who has anticipated my arrival so DICE should change the game so they can't do that.  I bet most of these folks are lone-wolf players (because if they were playing with friends they'd be getting revived after their buddies killed the "camper") and most of them have spent time in games where a less thoughtful style of play is the norm.  That they want an entire game mutated to suit their tastes is hilarious in a sad sort of way.
    What you've described isn't camping, it's PTO. If this was the general standard of gameplay then BFV would be in a much healthier place.
    A squad holding down a base gives a foundation for the whole team to build from, it's also something I rarely come across.

    Best examples of what I think the OP actually means.

    Just from yesterdays games.

    Squad Conquest: I've started taking out the towers on Hamada, not because of enemies taking up positions there, it's because my own squad just set up camp and stay there the entire match. No tactical advantage, no contributing to PTO as all the flags turn red. Just sat there, not spotting, not really even padding their K/D, usually they finish something like 3-2.

    Mercury Breakthrough: Managed to flank to B on the first sector, cleared it out and now the flags turning blue but I'm on my own. I see that my squad mates are all down and back ups about to arrive. Except every one of them goes back to the spawn beacon they've set up a hill. Running theme throughout the entire game despite switching to different squads.

    Aerodrome: Team lost by almost 500 tickets, it was over in minutes. I looked at the scoreboard and they actually had a better K/D than my team. No attempt to PTO via attacking or holding. A vast majority of the team willing to just camp in spawn and pad K\D. I see this far too often in V.
    It's not shocking to see a stomp in a game without matchmaking. It is to me horrifying to see a team lose so badly, not because they were outclassed, they just couldn't' be bothered.

    These are specific examples but they sum up perhaps too much of my V experience so far.

    Guarding an objective is to be applauded. Recognising that enemy traffic will take them down a specific avenue and holding it with an MMG is to be applauded. Hell defending is so easy in this game I don't know why more squads don't?

    I just rarely ever see this.

    Whether a past Battlefield game had more camping or not is inconsequential to me. I'm playing V and I'd like to see some changes to encourage PTO.


  • BURGERKRIEG
    1065 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    That’s how I saw it described on the forums the week and it’s true.

    There is only a minority of players enjoying it. Most people don’t like the core gameplay experience. 

    This is why servers are being shut down 8 months into the game’s life cycle. It’s not because of lack of content or that there is stuttering on PC or that some assignment is bugged. Or this issue or that gripe. 

    Unless this fact is admitted and addressed by overhauling the gameplay the player base will continue to rapidly dwindle.

    Opinions are like, ummm, noses, everybody has one.

    I don't find the gameplay a problem, most of the things that bother me in BFV qualify as outside issues, like the horrible Live Service business model that has provided little new content, the weak anti-cheat, the poor network performance (DICE has now admitted the "stuttering" is happening on consoles too) and of course the lack of rented servers (which they claim are coming back).

    You're free talk yourself into believing that everyone but you is prone with a machine-gun, but I don't see that, most of the opponents I engage are on their feet.  If this game had launched with rented servers and paid DLC resulting in many more new maps there would be a lot more people playing, and it wouldn't be necessary for guys like you to moan about the game being "campy" and blaming that for declining player counts.  You can like or dislike what you please--don't assume you speak for the majority.
    You just don’t want to hear it. All the BF games had bugs. Network issues etc. This one is failing to retain a player base. That can’t be ascribed the business model entirely.
    The lack of new maps is the single biggest complaint in this and other forums, it is the one thing that virtually all BFV players (at least the ones who post) agree on.  To imagine that boredom resulting from playing on the same maps for half a year isn't the biggest factor in declining player counts is delusional.  The lack of rented serves is also a huge issue, as it is tied to map and mode rotations that many players dislike, and to the level of cheating on PC (no admins means a blatant hack user can stay as long as he likes) and to a lack of custom game formats which many players enjoy.  Poor network performance is also a problem which turns off many players, they've been posting here about it since the last two patches, are we supposed to ignore what they say because you insist the real problem is the game is too "campy"?  All these issues have been massively discussed here and elsewhere, so no, you don't get to arbitrarily sweep them away and substitute your own explanation--because I say so won't get you very far when there is ample evidence you are wrong.
    I’m well aware of all those issues.

    They are contributing factors. Things that will be used as excuses for failure by those currently engaged with BFV that don’t want to admit there is a problem with the game beyond them.

    That’s the point of the thread. 

    Remember when DICE changed the TTK in reaction the the mass amounts of people rage quitting? That was a significant indication regarding the overall response to the game early on.

    Like I said, you just don’t want to hear it. 
  • trip1ex
    5245 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 2019
    It's just campier than past BF games.  More clutter, busier environments, worse lighting, lack of spotting, lack of effective weapons/vehicles to to dissipate entrenched enemies, ...
  • SAYNExx
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Good news, you can change the way the game plays when Private Servers come out.

    I honestly think that's the most underrated improvement we've seen so far. Go ahead and create a server with higher health, (maybe) more recoil, disable mmgs and the BoysAT, do whatever you want to make the game feel less hardcore. Or swing the other way, and add friendly fire, no HUD, etc.

    In a few months we can hopefully retain enough people to bring life back into the game. If it's a success then I sincerely hope Dice learns that private servers are a necessity and not a luxury.
  • Kattegat_Twin
    856 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    Last night I played with a group of guys whose approach is to cap an objective and hold it for the rest of the round rather than running endlessly from one flag to another.
    Man, I wish I encountered this more. 9/10 times that I play, I end up as Squad Leader because whoever is the original leader never gives orders. I am someone who likes to hold a point when we've taken it, but if I give a "defend" order, it is never, and I mean never listened to. I just see those green blips running straight to the closest enemy objective. So my choice is to stay and defend, alone (which I sometimes do, even though I'm screwed if more than a few guys show up, which of course they will), or change the order to attack and follow my squaddies.

    Are people too afraid to be labelled "campers", or what? Why does nobody want to defend, ever?


  • BlankDiplomacy
    94 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »

    It hasn't been no 13 years.  BF games have had hardcore modes in the past that have scratched your itch.  They were always less popular than vanilla by far.

    Hardcore BF experience mate, not CoD experience in Battlefield.

    More to this topic in my other post. Shortened a bit for ya.

    Dice just copied CoD's hardcore mode and failed at it. Here's what I think:
    1. Rendered some of perks and gadgets useless.
    As far as I remember hardcore mode in CoD doesn't. If a killstreak uses the minimap then it's popping out while this killstreak is used. All perks and gadgets function as in normal. In Battlefield on the other hand with UI partly gone many things became obsolete. Faster self repairing of vehicles, squad perks for faster healing or shorter spotting time, motion sensors etc. You could use the big map or audio clues to compensate for some but it's inconvenient and blocks your view not to mention that you have to push a button to show/hide it.
    2. Weapons got out of balance
    Devs have not taken into account that BF and CoD are completely different games from map design and hit registration methods. My irritation mostly came from snipers with high caliber SRs. They where designed NOT to be OHK in normal if a target was in full health. But just because of lower HP they became OHK even if you got hit in a finger or a shoe. This brings us to my map design point. There are bolt SRs in CoD that are OHK but in BOTH modes and I find it ok because this game is a corridor shooter. Most maps are built either with real corridors or streets acting as corridors. So on most maps you can't cover a good half of the map while playing with a sniper rifle, in BF tho... It was very bad due to lack of BFV's bipod to aim mechanic.
    With snipers disscused i want to add that tanks/helicopters also highly benefited from lower HP count and no health regen. It was much easier to kill your opponent with blast damage and even if you couldn't he had no chance to heal without a help from a medic.
    Now about hitreg. In BF4's hardcore not only SR became OP but also shotguns and some other weapons. In CoD it's not as evident because of hitscan registration method. There is no ballistics involved just coordinates. So <5m = 100dmg ; >5m = 0dmg. BF has ballistics so shotguns have gotten a nice range buff.

Sign In or Register to comment.