[Discussion] Retrospective over the lack of portable mortars in BFV

«1
Hawxxeye
7747 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
As we all recall, DICE did not give us proper portable mortars in BFV which were one of the staples for every main game since BF3 at least.
.
They said they wanted less indirect fire.
.
So now with the knowledge of what BFV ended up being, do you think that the portable mortars would had helped the game or hindered it?
.
.
Personally I believe that the loss of some of the indirect fire made it easier for a team to be on the side of the defenders of an objective in the game modes that have that Attacker vs defender format. It is a lot harder to be an attacker than a defender (when the teams are balanced enough) because the defender just has to hide from most of the direct fire and wait for the attacker to expose themselves while they try to reach the objective. It would had been a  lot more interesting if on those infantry only  Breakthrough maps one could strike some otherwise  well entrenched defenders with some mortars which creates a breach in their defensive line.
.
I understand that there are concerns about overuse and camping etc but I still believe it was a loss of the strategic options we could have in a game about warfare.
I think that people can camp just fine already with their rifle if they chose they want  to play that way so it is not that big a loss if we could have mortars on the next BF game
.
TL:DR: I miss mortars and the positives they could bring to the table and I hope DICE will reconsider their exclusion in the next game.
.
.
What are your opinions and concerns on the subject? Would mortars be one of the ingredients to make battlefield more strategic again?

Comments

  • DerDoktorMabuse
    382 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The mortar was my top kill gadget in BF4, 90% of the dead where sniper...
  • Hawxxeye
    7747 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The mortar was my top kill gadget in BF4, 90% of the dead where sniper...
    Who else would stay in the same  area long enough to be hit multiple times or on the head?
  • Terminator000001
    1002 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Any game with the mortar as gadget, should´ve tought everyone a lesson, why this is a bad idea, since the community of BF3. 

    It all sounds good on paper. But it´s always, and I really mean ALWAYS the people who abuse something in a way, the devs didn´t intend or maybe even consider. And if it isn´t a mortar, it´s the obligatory map border sniper, or more like a pack of those who will make the attackers suffer. 

    Nuff said
  • Hawxxeye
    7747 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 9
    What if it was a limited number point call / Pickup (with limited ammo) just like with the PAK truck / Flamethrower ?
    Just like with what some of us proposed for sniper rifles, their fix is to make them strong but very limited so we do not have a third of the team derping around
  • X_Sunslayer_X
    1454 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    would rather have mortars back in the game then the offensive squad-reinforcments, heck i would prefer the airburst mortar over the blatant V1/JB2 spam toward the end of most rounds anyways.
  • Hawxxeye
    7747 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 9
    would rather have mortars back in the game then the offensive squad-reinforcments, heck i would prefer the airburst mortar over the blatant V1/JB2 spam toward the end of most rounds anyways.
    Yeah, the V1/JB, is an unreliable overkill.
    A well used PAK or Sturmtiger can do some really nice things.


    Post edited by Hawxxeye on
  • DingoKillr
    4348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 9
    This is part of the problem with BF community we have those that ask for less explosives and better gunplay in a war setting every time. They got it in BFV, yet no one wants to play.

    Mortar could have been useful against campers, we had the Piat but it needed a great arc to be a better indirect weapon. The problem with squad call-in is its like using a shovel(Artillery) or a sledge hammer(V1) to hit a nail and they are also to late in a round if an attacker to make a difference.

    As a pickup it could be good if it is meant as a long range weapon. As a gadget with a low blast, high damage could have worked well against stationary target.

    Arc height and method of target is an issue. The apex needs to be sufficient to allow for a reasonable range. As for targeting a small map with a solid circle crosshair could work as it would make pin point targeting of infantry hard, but allow for targeting of vehicles or areas.
  • Hawxxeye
    7747 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 9
    I remember moving from BF3 to BF4 they changed the mortar so it was really hard to aim it at someone on greater altitude. Yeah the apex needs to be really high
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    6292 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mortars were really annoying in BF1. I remember how it was possible to turn the round into complete mortar spam on some maps. No wonder people complained about that. And lack of portable mortars in BFV is an answer to that.
    In BF3/4 mortars were less annoying. UCAV was more dangerous and effective compared to regular mortar. 
  • Hawxxeye
    7747 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 9
    Mortars were really annoying in BF1. I remember how it was possible to turn the round into complete mortar spam on some maps. No wonder people complained about that. And lack of portable mortars in BFV is an answer to that.
    In BF3/4 mortars were less annoying. UCAV was more dangerous and effective compared to regular mortar. 
    I wonder if the problem with the mortars in BF1 was with the map layout. I think the BF3 mortars were always much better than the ones on the sequels, at least in terms of landing where you wanted them to land.
    Perhaps it was overkill that in BF1 it was showing exactly there the shot was going and giving a drone's view of the area you were shooting at.
    That is not an indirect fire problem but a problem of too much intel given about the enemy, You hardly need anyone to spot for you for the mortar due to that in BF1
    Post edited by Hawxxeye on
  • NuttysKunKs
    563 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I think a pick up mortar would’ve fit BFVs play style.

    I’m sure they’ll include one in BF6 but that drone view has to go imo
  • chinook240
    126 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Given that BF5 is an attempt at a realistic WW2 FPS, notwithstanding the clown faces, etc, the mortar was an important weapon in both wars and should really be included. Ok, camping snipers won’t like it, but that’s war!😬
  • Noodlesocks
    3628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 10
    Speaking of indirect fire specifically, there were so many options that Dice Sweden could have explored with indirect fire that would have made it less of the point and click adventures of previous games but they didn't even try.
     
    In such regards, the game definitely feels like a lot is missing; both from a WW2 standpoint and a Battlefield standpoint. There is a much larger emphasis on direct engagements and combat in Battlefield 5 that it's lost that sandbox feeling that made previous games so much fun to play. I really do hope for BF6 that the devs stop trying to chase the competitive e-sports scene and focus on Battlefield's strengths as a series and as a concept.

  • CSO7777
    1844 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Speaking of indirect fire specifically, there were so many options that Dice Sweden could have explored with indirect fire that would have made it less of the point and click adventures of previous games but they didn't even try.
     
    In such regards, the game definitely feels like a lot is missing; both from a WW2 standpoint and a Battlefield standpoint. There is a much larger emphasis on direct engagements and combat in Battlefield 5 that it's lost that sandbox feeling that made previous games so much fun to play. I really do hope for BF6 that the devs stop trying to chase the competitive e-sports scene and focus on Battlefield's strengths as a series and as a concept.

    Personally I don't think the sandbox effect has anything to do with having mortars in the game. Mortars are in general hated by a lot of players and are just a gadget that gives a lot of frustration instead of bring fun to the game.

    Gadgets that can be abused for camping, while dealing "random" deaths are not really good for the game and are only making the game less fun to play.

    V2/arty-strikes in BFV does the same as mortars, they are way to common and just brings the game-play to a halt. Often they are also a big part of the stomps, the winning team can just keep spamming any objective a loosing team is trying to take.
  • ragnarok013
    3877 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    The mortar was my top kill gadget in BF4, 90% of the dead where sniper...

    DerDoktorMabuse Counter sniper is how I use the mortar 90% of the time and BF5 in my opinion was worse off for its absence.

  • TK3600
    7 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I absolutely do not miss being shot by people behind inaccessible part of  spawn with no way to fight back.
  • Hawxxeye
    7747 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 11
    TK3600 said:
    I absolutely do not miss being shot by people behind inaccessible part of  spawn with no way to fight back.
    That never stopped in BFV as people on the Breakthrough Aerodrome map can attest to.
    Good luck taking our the British tanks shooting from out of bounds without your own tanks or like 1 regular tank slot at a time on the last 2 sectors.

    They had cleverly blocked mortars from deploying in the uncaps at some point in  a previous game and fixed the inaccessible parts.
  • chinook240
    126 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CSO7777 said:

    V2/arty-strikes in BFV does the same as mortars, they are way to common and just brings the game-play to a halt. Often they are also a big part of the stomps, the winning team can just keep spamming any objective a loosing team is trying to take.
    Don’t see how you can compare a tactical weapon like the mortar,  handled by an individual, with the strategic V2 or even the arty Strike, which can only be initiated by a squad Ldr once or twice a round. 

    Mortars will never be introduced now, as the game is dead, so we’re only arguing hypotheticals. Campers don’t like em, the camped do!
  • Hawxxeye
    7747 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CSO7777 said:

    V2/arty-strikes in BFV does the same as mortars, they are way to common and just brings the game-play to a halt. Often they are also a big part of the stomps, the winning team can just keep spamming any objective a loosing team is trying to take.
    Don’t see how you can compare a tactical weapon like the mortar,  handled by an individual, with the strategic V2 or even the arty Strike, which can only be initiated by a squad Ldr once or twice a round. 

    Mortars will never be introduced now, as the game is dead, so we’re only arguing hypotheticals. Campers don’t like em, the camped do!
    That is why it is called a retrospective discussion. We try to get a point across about what mistakes should not repeat from BFV to BF6
  • Trokey66
    9102 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    That never stopped in BFV as people on the Breakthrough Aerodrome map can attest to.Good luck taking our the British tanks shooting from out of bounds without your own tanks or like 1 regular tank slot at a time on the last 2 sectors.
    They had cleverly blocked mortars from deploying in the uncaps at some point in  a previous game and fixed the inaccessible parts.

    This was in BF3 because of whinging!

    It also created far greater problems than it cured considering the regularity that spawn traps occurred in that game. It meant that the trapped team couldn't deploy Mortars to pop smoke to cover a break out (ammo types were selectable in that game and not a separate 'gadget') but the trappers could pound them with impunity!

    Bad decision!

    It should also be noted that BF3 Mortar range was a tad excessive.

    BF4 Mortars could be operated 'remotely' which again, was a bad decision but other than that were OK.

    BF1 Mortars, even with 'drone view' were not that bad as their range was relatively short compared to previous iterations because OHKs from full health were very rare. The 'drone view' only helped if the target remained stationary.

    Oh, and unless you can see the enemy or are at least aware of their presence, pretty much every death can be considered 'random', so that is a pointless argument!

    As some above stated, BFV has suffered to much from the input of tryhards and the persuit of competitive e-sports resulting in a no fun, hardcore lite game that (relatively) few enjoy.
Sign In or Register to comment.