The quality of play is horrendous

V99999
174 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
My god every Battlefield title is infested with the worst type of players now with this virus going on. It’s nothing but a bunch of potatoes on one side that gets curb stomped round after round. It’s getting harder to find any enjoyment in these one sided slaughters going on. I honestly think Dice needs to re adjust the balance or at least implement it differently. It’s embarrassing what’s going on right now.

Comments

  • WetFishDB
    2239 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 27
    V99999 said:
    My god every Battlefield title is infested with the worst type of players now with this virus going on. It’s nothing but a bunch of potatoes on one side that gets curb stomped round after round. It’s getting harder to find any enjoyment in these one sided slaughters going on. I honestly think Dice needs to re adjust the balance or at least implement it differently. It’s embarrassing what’s going on right now.
    It's inevitable at this stage in the lifecyle.  Typically it's only the dedicated followers, and newbie's who've got the game cheap.  The former is generally much better than the latter.  Get a few too many of the latter on your team, or get some of the less good of the former - then it's probably game over.  Experienced players know the maps, know the tactics, and will execute them more often than not.

    Sometimes a server will be balanced and good games, other times its an absolute base ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - and that's a problem with most games like this frankly.
  • LordNezington
    6 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Yeah, the scrubs are out in force at the moment.

    Makes for good farming when they're on the enemy team, but rage inducement when they're on your team.
  • WetFishDB
    2239 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah, the scrubs are out in force at the moment.

    Makes for good farming when they're on the enemy team, but rage inducement when they're on your team.
    Yeah, when you are killing half the enemy team and a tank/horse with a couple of squad mates on some far off flag... but the entire rest of your team (including a tank) can't defend or capture anything - it can be really quite frustrating.
  • boutneus
    2479 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Scrubs have always been there, just count the number of snipers or mortar trucks on your team
  • -Antares65z
    1728 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    You think it's bad in BF1? Go play a few rounds of BF3. 
  • MarxistDictator
    5072 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    honestly feels the same as ever. I don’t even count on the person next to me actually being awake.
  • disposalist
    8768 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited March 29
    It does seem pretty bad at the moment. It has always been largely blueberries, but it can be very painful lately.

    And, oh my god, the number of matches that "go sniper"... I guess them noobs think "euw, this combat stuff is dangerous - I keep dying - guess I'll use a sniper rifle and get some kills from safety". Game over. Either the team with the least snipers steam-rollers the other, or both have a load of snipers and the game becomes a tedious stalemate grind.

    And the balancer is really showing its limitations. Game after game of the same players on the same team winning again and again and never getting randomised. And, unfortunately, it seems the experienced 150s are using their wiles to switch to the winning team whenever possible. So many games I see like ten 150s on one team and two (me and some other poor schmuck) on the other. And the next game the teams stay the same...
  • Ronin9572
    1056 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    It does seem pretty bad at the moment. It has always been largely blueberries, but it can be very painful lately.

    And, oh my god, the number of matches that "go sniper"... I guess them noobs think "euw, this combat stuff is dangerous - I keep dying - guess I'll use a sniper rifle and get some kills from safety". Game over. Either the team with the least snipers steam-rollers the other, or both have a load of snipers and the game becomes a tedious stalemate grind.

    And the balancer is really showing its limitations. Game after game of the same players on the same team winning again and again and never getting randomised. And, unfortunately, it seems the experienced 150s are using their wiles to switch to the winning team whenever possible. So many games I see like ten 150s on one team and two (me and some other poor schmuck) on the other. And the next game the teams stay the same...

    OMG so true. I was on a OP match last night and there was 9 level 150 on one side and the side that I joined level 132 was the highest than level 105 than me at 101. Most of the ppl on my team were level 40 and lower and the back of the map was filled with snipers. The winning team steamrolled both maps without losing a battalion. So I switched servers after that!
  • -Antares65z
    1728 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 29
    This happens to all these games when they go sunset. The dedicated players who were willing to fork out $60-$80 move on and are replaced with kiddies who cut their teeth on games like COD. All they care about is their K/D and don't care or understand that these games are team based and all about PTFO and supporting your teams effort.  Its even worse in the older BF games.  
  • disposalist
    8768 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited March 30
    This happens to all these games when they go sunset. The dedicated players who were willing to fork out $60-$80 move on and are replaced with kiddies who cut their teeth on games like COD. All they care about is their K/D and don't care or understand that these games are team based and all about PTFO and supporting your teams effort.  Its even worse in the older BF games.  
    Although BF1 is the best in the franchise, they still missed opportunities to push home the whole team/squad/coop/objectives-based game. Things like not earning points when you stop a flag from being taken were a big mistake. What message does it send if you get more points by letting a flag get taken and then re-take it rather than stop it getting taken?

    Originally (alpha/beta) you weren't supposed to get tickets for kills, but they changed that when the competitive try-hards cried in the beta. It was supposed to emphasise the objectives, but they reverted it back to kills-are-king (and without adequately increasing the objectives-related scoring to keep them relatively important).

    Then BF5 was a total CoD-style, battle-royale-platform, frag-fest game. I wonder why? (given they put an ex-CoD pro-competitive gamer in charge...)

    One of the major things separating BF from other shooters was the objectives-based cooperative play. They appear to have decided that being incredibly popular with a loyal player base isn't enough compared to grabbing at the CoD players.
  • WetFishDB
    2239 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It does seem pretty bad at the moment. It has always been largely blueberries, but it can be very painful lately.

    And, oh my god, the number of matches that "go sniper"... I guess them noobs think "euw, this combat stuff is dangerous - I keep dying - guess I'll use a sniper rifle and get some kills from safety". Game over. Either the team with the least snipers steam-rollers the other, or both have a load of snipers and the game becomes a tedious stalemate grind.

    And the balancer is really showing its limitations. Game after game of the same players on the same team winning again and again and never getting randomised. And, unfortunately, it seems the experienced 150s are using their wiles to switch to the winning team whenever possible. So many games I see like ten 150s on one team and two (me and some other poor schmuck) on the other. And the next game the teams stay the same...
    Their decision to keep squads together between rounds, even if they aren't in a party and just randomly allocated, is a HUGE limitation for balancing IMHO.
  • disposalist
    8768 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    WetFishDB said:
    It does seem pretty bad at the moment. It has always been largely blueberries, but it can be very painful lately.

    And, oh my god, the number of matches that "go sniper"... I guess them noobs think "euw, this combat stuff is dangerous - I keep dying - guess I'll use a sniper rifle and get some kills from safety". Game over. Either the team with the least snipers steam-rollers the other, or both have a load of snipers and the game becomes a tedious stalemate grind.

    And the balancer is really showing its limitations. Game after game of the same players on the same team winning again and again and never getting randomised. And, unfortunately, it seems the experienced 150s are using their wiles to switch to the winning team whenever possible. So many games I see like ten 150s on one team and two (me and some other poor schmuck) on the other. And the next game the teams stay the same...
    Their decision to keep squads together between rounds, even if they aren't in a party and just randomly allocated, is a HUGE limitation for balancing IMHO.
    Yep. Ridiculous. Along with allowing switching to larger or winning team.
  • WetFishDB
    2239 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This happens to all these games when they go sunset. The dedicated players who were willing to fork out $60-$80 move on and are replaced with kiddies who cut their teeth on games like COD. All they care about is their K/D and don't care or understand that these games are team based and all about PTFO and supporting your teams effort.  Its even worse in the older BF games.  
    Although BF1 is the best in the franchise, they still missed opportunities to push home the whole team/squad/coop/objectives-based game. Things like not earning points when you stop a flag from being taken were a big mistake. What message does it send if you get more points by letting a flag get taken and then re-take it rather than stop it getting taken?

    Originally (alpha/beta) you weren't supposed to get tickets for kills, but they changed that when the competitive try-hards cried in the beta. It was supposed to emphasise the objectives, but they reverted it back to kills-are-king (and without adequately increasing the objectives-related scoring to keep them relatively important).

    Then BF5 was a total CoD-style, battle-royale-platform, frag-fest game. I wonder why? (given they put an ex-CoD pro-competitive gamer in charge...)

    One of the major things separating BF from other shooters was the objectives-based cooperative play. They appear to have decided that being incredibly popular with a loyal player base isn't enough compared to grabbing at the CoD players.
    Agree about the defending balance on points, it's silly that it's better to lose it and then take it again. 

    But I disagree on the kills not counting front, killing is important and adds another dynamic to a round of Conquest.  It means teams can't just hold a minor majority but get absolutely slaughtered and still expect to win.  And it never feels like kills are king, anecdotally it looks like most rounds have a relatively equal (+/- 20%) score from objectives and score from kills.

    BFV can do one though.  So many poor design choices IMHO.
  • disposalist
    8768 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    WetFishDB said:
    This happens to all these games when they go sunset. The dedicated players who were willing to fork out $60-$80 move on and are replaced with kiddies who cut their teeth on games like COD. All they care about is their K/D and don't care or understand that these games are team based and all about PTFO and supporting your teams effort.  Its even worse in the older BF games.  
    Although BF1 is the best in the franchise, they still missed opportunities to push home the whole team/squad/coop/objectives-based game. Things like not earning points when you stop a flag from being taken were a big mistake. What message does it send if you get more points by letting a flag get taken and then re-take it rather than stop it getting taken?

    Originally (alpha/beta) you weren't supposed to get tickets for kills, but they changed that when the competitive try-hards cried in the beta. It was supposed to emphasise the objectives, but they reverted it back to kills-are-king (and without adequately increasing the objectives-related scoring to keep them relatively important).

    Then BF5 was a total CoD-style, battle-royale-platform, frag-fest game. I wonder why? (given they put an ex-CoD pro-competitive gamer in charge...)

    One of the major things separating BF from other shooters was the objectives-based cooperative play. They appear to have decided that being incredibly popular with a loyal player base isn't enough compared to grabbing at the CoD players.
    Agree about the defending balance on points, it's silly that it's better to lose it and then take it again. 

    But I disagree on the kills not counting front, killing is important and adds another dynamic to a round of Conquest.  It means teams can't just hold a minor majority but get absolutely slaughtered and still expect to win.  And it never feels like kills are king, anecdotally it looks like most rounds have a relatively equal (+/- 20%) score from objectives and score from kills.

    BFV can do one though.  So many poor design choices IMHO.
    Killing would still have been very important, just only in the context of taking objectives. You can't hold a majority if you're getting slaughtered.

    To be honest I'm not against killing counting, but when they caved and gave one point per kill and barely changed the points for flags, it sent the emphasis in the opposite direction.

    I have seen plenty of games where the final score shows flags score less than kills.

    It was just a shame they went from clearly encouraging objectives play to the same old same old.
  • MarxistDictator
    5072 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    BF1 also started the flag merry go round since you could just go cap 2 objectives and get more points than you would for 30 kills. This is why they nerfed the points for taking the point and gave more for helping turn the bar over. Was never an issue in previous games, now people play Conquest like an avoiding contest to see who can win with the least amount of actual fighting. Doesn’t help that the maps sprawl linearly in most cases since they were built for Operations mode.
  • trip1ex
    5106 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 31

    They should have never caved on not making kills take off tickets.  We'd have a better game.  

    IT would be all about the flags.  

    And yeah BF1 introduced ring around the rosie ZErg play.  

    quality of play is like it always was in BF1.  All the best players on the server end up on one side.  Really kills a lot of the fun.  

    They could easily fix it by scrambling teams per player on some servers for those who want as even as possible as matches.    



Sign In or Register to comment.