Is weapons 2.0 and old conquest system still happening?

Comments

  • Dogwoggle11
    1576 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited November 14
    Keep reading what you want, bud.
    I never said that the game would be worse with a buff for the least used weapons - I literally said that if you buff ALL weapons you end up in the same situation as we are now. There's a difference.

    And being Assault still has the same advantages, and being Support, and being Scout, and Cavalry... Yes, we all know that each class has pros and cons. It's not about the gadgets.
    Yes, it is a buff to accuracy, but there's an important thing here: if I'm in the effective range of SMGs and LMGs and I run up to a Hellriegel/BAR/Whatever using an SLR, it doesn't matter how accurate I am - his TTK will allow him to kill me before I land the shots I need.
    It's already bad for some weapons due to the difference between RoF; adding more damage to the weapons with higher RPM is a clear imbalance. The only SLRs worth using right now on CTE are RSC and Autoloading - the TTK changes leaves the weapons DESIGNED to perform on CQB (1907, Cei, Fedorov) obsolete.

    Medics, as it stands on CTE, are relegated to a second place - watching how Assaults and Supports destroy each other, and when the fight is over, hope to find someone to heal or who hasn't respawned yet to revive him. It shouldn't be like that.

    And, please, don't tell me to use Auto Revolver or something like that - my whole point revolves around every weapon to be vaible, not just a few.
  • theONEFORCE
    1368 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    If that were true, then MP18 would be the new meta for Assault, and the Hellriegel would be left behind. Ultimately, it's the same scenario but with a change in which weapon is used the most.

    What we want is to have different viable choices. Right now, we don't have that - but a buff for all automatic weapons won't change that, it will be all the same.
    Because just having guns that are good everywhere isn't enough if they also don't outclass the close range specialist guns too. Muh medic. What's a class shooter again


    In that thread I posted two people whined about the medic with no justification as to why, should go to show the people who actually did play it and enjoyed the medic know he's not becoming obsolete any time soon.

    Though this was obvious from his gadgets alone

    Medic is just as good in the CTE as in the base game and better because of the range buffs. I wish people wouldn't cry about things they don't understand.

    So other players don't understand, but you do. That being the case, please, enlighten us.

    Because I don't play in the bubble where I walk up to an Assault and automatically lose because his TTK is lower on paper. I know that there are plenty of factors at play, for example, he will not hit every shot in a row with 100% accuracy. The medic weapons in the base game currently destroy people as is, especially when you add in on demand self healing, and don't need the buff that the support weapons and some of the lower tier assault weapons need. The M1907 Trench and the Autoloading 8 Extended are both great CQC weapons that will now have even better range with the buffs they are getting. I've played in the CTE quite a bit with the new TTK and I still preferred medic weapons and played well with them. The people in a panic over the medic class being nerfed out of existence are chasing purple elephants.

  • HuwJarz
    1894 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Well, I don't live in the bubble where "the medic weapons in the base game currently destroy people as is". In fact, I think all the weapons are well balanced, with the exception of MP18 and one or two from Support.
    That's why I feel that a TTK overhaul isn't needed - just tweak the weapons that are least used so they are more appealing.

    Yes, other factors are important: situation awareness, positioning, good aim. I always play with those in mind. But, with a disadvantage of every automatic weapon having a lower TTK but not SLRs, what happens when an Assault/Support guy appears out of the blue? You die, unless he has a terrible aim. Because you had a gun with a higher TTK.
    And this happens A LOT. You are running to get to a flag that is being contested, and an enemy is running towards you; you both stop sprinting and shoot each other - as it is now, you both have more or less the same chances, it depends on who has the better aim, mostly.
    But with a lower TTK? Whoever shoots first, gets the kill. And that's if you are a Support or Assault yourself, because if you are a Medic or a Scout even if you shoot first, with most SLRs you will lose anyway.

    And let's not fool ourselves - no matter how careful you are, how well positioned you think you are, you can't control everything and everyone. Someone will catch you by surprise and viceversa, and it would be far better in terms of gameplay that both of you are able to react to that. A low TTK doesn't allow you to do that - see first, kill first.

    (I think it's the fifth time I try to post this; forum plz).

    Excellent post Dogwoggle.
  • bran1986
    2843 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited November 15

    Keep reading what you want, bud.
    I never said that the game would be worse with a buff for the least used weapons - I literally said that if you buff ALL weapons you end up in the same situation as we are now. There's a difference.

    And being Assault still has the same advantages, and being Support, and being Scout, and Cavalry... Yes, we all know that each class has pros and cons. It's not about the gadgets.
    Yes, it is a buff to accuracy, but there's an important thing here: if I'm in the effective range of SMGs and LMGs and I run up to a Hellriegel/BAR/Whatever using an SLR, it doesn't matter how accurate I am - his TTK will allow him to kill me before I land the shots I need.
    It's already bad for some weapons due to the difference between RoF; adding more damage to the weapons with higher RPM is a clear imbalance. The only SLRs worth using right now on CTE are RSC and Autoloading - the TTK changes leaves the weapons DESIGNED to perform on CQB (1907, Cei, Fedorov) obsolete.

    Medics, as it stands on CTE, are relegated to a second place - watching how Assaults and Supports destroy each other, and when the fight is over, hope to find someone to heal or who hasn't respawned yet to revive him. It shouldn't be like that.

    And, please, don't tell me to use Auto Revolver or something like that - my whole point revolves around every weapon to be vaible, not just a few.

    Exactly. The cqb weapons for medic are now on the same level as long range lmgs like the benet mercie, so why in the world would you want to run in close quarters as a medic? A lot of the cqb guns for medic are locked into that range, with the only real exception being the Cei Rigotti, and even then that is limited to 10 rounds.

    A gun like the new browning is just as good as a medic cqb weapons now(450 rpm, 4 btk) and has way more versatility and it is insanely easy to use. The only guns that are any good for medics with the ttk shift are the autoloading 8 and RSC17, but the skill required to use those effectively are much higher than any gun in the assault or support class so no one will use them anyway.

    I'm not completely against a ttk change, but I thought we would have had way more tweaks and fixes after the first update, but outside of the bipod changes in September, there really hasn't been anything. DICE even said some of the lmgs were too strong and there were going to be tweaks, but nothing has materialized yet.
  • ProLegion_exor
    2327 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    As a Medic player i´m lucky to already using the .35 and RSC. I feel sorry for those who can´t adapt if/when the changes lands.
  • SirSpectacle
    261 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    As a Medic player i´m lucky to already using the .35 and RSC. I feel sorry for those who can´t adapt if/when the changes lands.
    Players shouldn't have to adapt to such a poorly designed change. If we can do it or not is irrelevant.
  • crabman169
    10215 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    As a Medic player i´m lucky to already using the .35 and RSC. I feel sorry for those who can´t adapt if/when the changes lands.

    Especially considering that the RSC is a DLC weapon (even though everyone should have premium by now but cheap stakes will be cheap)
  • ProLegion_exor
    2327 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    As a Medic player i´m lucky to already using the .35 and RSC. I feel sorry for those who can´t adapt if/when the changes lands.

    Especially considering that the RSC is a DLC weapon (even though everyone should have premium by now but cheap stakes will be cheap)

    Yes it´t not a solution, just the truth in the CTE atm. To have two competitive options within the class and one behind a DLC is not good at all.
  • Dogwoggle11
    1576 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    As a Medic player i´m lucky to already using the .35 and RSC. I feel sorry for those who can´t adapt if/when the changes lands.

    Especially considering that the RSC is a DLC weapon (even though everyone should have premium by now but cheap stakes will be cheap)

    Yes it´t not a solution, just the truth in the CTE atm. To have two competitive options within the class and one behind a DLC is not good at all.

    Indeed. You know I use the .35 and I'm not that bad with it - but sometimes I like to use other SLRs, and it would be great if all of them were viable to do my "job" as a Medic.
  • aseveredfoot
    1957 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I honestly love all the discussion over weapons 2.0. It's some of the most in depth and considered arguments I've seen on the forums, and I would love to think that devs might actually look at these threads.

    I will say, having played CTE, my hope is that they DON'T switch to conquest classic. I thought that I would want the old scoring system back, until I played a 55 min round at Giant's Shadow that was evenly matched. It was kind of grating after a while. And if they do switch back, I hope at least that ticket bleed isn't basically slowed to a complete halt when matches are even... which I realize could be an issue on even numbered flag maps.

    The idea is of course to allow for comebacks and turnarounds, but if I only have 2 hours to play in a night and one map takes 45min, I kind of miss out on playing a good selection of maps.



    As for weapons, I'm cautiously in support of the changes. At times I will say it did start to feel a bit like BF4, with tons of face-to-face engagements which is nice, but I think it allowed for people to maybe play a bit TOO out in the open. Support class (my main) did start to feel a bit Rambo-ish and I was just using a Lewis Gun and went like 47-13. The smart route choices and 'working your cover' had seemed to fall a bit by the wayside, and those are things I like about BF1.

    As for the medic question, I did not feel outgunned when I was playing the class. To be fair, I was mostly playing on open maps, Giant's Shadow, Fao, Scar, but I felt the accuracy was high enough to compete with scout class, and to kill assault and support players before they got close enough to do real damage. And the lower spread per shot increase is honestly a fire rate buff. You can fire the SLRs more intuitively if that makes sense.

    As an aside, I feel the high spread per shot of SLRs in the current build was designed to defeat script kids and people with modded controllers on console, so if they were running a full-auto Mondragon, they wouldn't hit anything past the 2nd shot. But those are hopefully rarer instances and won't encourage people if the CTE build drops.
  • MarxistDictator
    3115 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited November 16
    Well that's where my opinion differs. It doesn't feel like instant death to new automatic guns since the new damage model is still not even close to BF4 TTK. The autos that need to drench people to kill just don't have to anymore. The time to kill doesn't make any fight an auto lose as a medic since he can let out more rounds without worry of spread either.

    I agree the 1907 is unniched but it's niche was narrow to begin with. Gets two hit kill assists in CQB vs the much better fire rate and possible accuracy with the extended .25. This doesn't really change it any meta. Cei is also kind of bland but the addition of the Farq is what's really bad for it balance wise since that gun has the damage model of a .35 and with a 20 round mag reload instead.

    Rest of the medic guns come into new territory, and it's good to see medic packing some combat niche as the dominant medium range force in new balance. Before he was just kind of all around master no where but now it's GG when you see another class at a range of 20m or beyond. And his CQB options are still very serviceable so I don't really care if it feels very limited. Better TTK options are there if that's the only factor to you.

    The autos are far from blinking fast, it's just less about hitting people repeatedly for low damage and being forced to play incredibly passively as a result with the support kit (unless using the 3 guns that enable you to win gunfights).

    I also don't see why we couldn't conceivably give medic more buffs if it's that important, I think new TTK is worth preserving just for bringing a sense of individual accomplishment back to the game. And the movement flows much more when people have confidence, barely any sitting back.
  • ragnarok013
    85 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    SFSeventh wrote: »
    It's safe to assume that it will drop with the TT DLC.
    If not well ... maybe next year xD

    I hope so too, only I also want the option to also make tickets count down in the server admin options like it's been for the past 15 years in conquest. It's crazy to completely change Battlefield's signature game after over a decade.
  • disposalist
    5144 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I hope this doesn't come in. A slower pace of combat allowing more thought and tactics is fantastic compared to other FPSs and even the way previous BFs were going. Lower TTK and faster pace? No thanks.

    Old conquest system just gives massive relative scoring swings for 1 flag changing hands. Not an improvement. They need to increase the flag scoring relative to kills, not step back to BF4 swing scoring.
  • HuwJarz
    1894 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I hope this doesn't come in. A slower pace of combat allowing more thought and tactics is fantastic compared to other FPSs and even the way previous BFs were going. Lower TTK and faster pace? No thanks.

    Old conquest system just gives massive relative scoring swings for 1 flag changing hands. Not an improvement. They need to increase the flag scoring relative to kills, not step back to BF4 swing scoring.

    This is an interesting thought. I think there is some merit in it.......What do you propose?

  • crabman169
    10215 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I hope this doesn't come in. A slower pace of combat allowing more thought and tactics is fantastic compared to other FPSs and even the way previous BFs were going. Lower TTK and faster pace? No thanks.

    Old conquest system just gives massive relative scoring swings for 1 flag changing hands. Not an improvement. They need to increase the flag scoring relative to kills, not step back to BF4 swing scoring.

    This.

    If conquest should be changed it should be changed back to beta
  • disposalist
    5144 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited November 19
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    I hope this doesn't come in. A slower pace of combat allowing more thought and tactics is fantastic compared to other FPSs and even the way previous BFs were going. Lower TTK and faster pace? No thanks.

    Old conquest system just gives massive relative scoring swings for 1 flag changing hands. Not an improvement. They need to increase the flag scoring relative to kills, not step back to BF4 swing scoring.
    This is an interesting thought. I think there is some merit in it.......What do you propose?
    crabman169 wrote: »
    If conquest should be changed it should be changed back to beta
    I did enjoy beta (no kill ticket score) conquest, but it did lead to some weird metas. People would suicide to get ammo or because they wanted to spawn elsewhere (teleport suicide). Stuff like that.

    I was actually in favour of ticket scoring for kills but, for the love of all that is holy, they should NOT have just thrown it back in without ANY adjustment to the rest of the mechanic.

    Basically, they should have multiplied the flag holding ticket scores by about 4 times when they made 1 kill = 1 ticket.

    In beta, PTFO was everything. Now PTFO is next-to-nothing. You can easily out-ticket-score flag holders with kills. There should have been something in-between.
  • MarxistDictator
    3115 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited November 19
    There's still only around 200 kills per team most maps and a lot of those are lost directly by revives anyway. The problem with CQ is the time duration, maps that do not have concentrated action to heavily influence the ticket count drag on way too long. 30 minute rounds every map (factoring loading time and the like) is just nuts should be 20 max imo. 1000 tickets is crazy. I'd honestly like to see 750 ticket CQ tested first yeah imbalanced games would be over before the 10 minute mark but that's how it should be.

    But I've also been saying they should have something similar to Chainlink style scoring where the bleed is based on the amount of flags you hold over the enemy's count not just both teams' flags and the bleed should only be when one team is in control of the majority of objectives.

    And yes, tickets should count down because counting up makes no sense. Reserves people.

    That's real conquest, not this stupid hand holding everybody gets points so it's just a giant TDM most of the time 30 minute guaranteed slop fest we have now that only stays fun for 1 round each play session.
  • HuwJarz
    1894 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    I hope this doesn't come in. A slower pace of combat allowing more thought and tactics is fantastic compared to other FPSs and even the way previous BFs were going. Lower TTK and faster pace? No thanks.

    Old conquest system just gives massive relative scoring swings for 1 flag changing hands. Not an improvement. They need to increase the flag scoring relative to kills, not step back to BF4 swing scoring.
    This is an interesting thought. I think there is some merit in it.......What do you propose?
    crabman169 wrote: »
    If conquest should be changed it should be changed back to beta
    I did enjoy beta (no kill ticket score) conquest, but it did lead to some weird metas. People would suicide to get ammo or because they wanted to spawn elsewhere (teleport suicide). Stuff like that.

    I was actually in favour of ticket scoring for kills but, for the love of all that is holy, they should NOT have just thrown it back in without ANY adjustment to the rest of the mechanic.

    Basically, they should have multiplied the flag holding ticket scores by about 4 times when they made 1 kill = 1 ticket.

    In beta, PTFO was everything. Now PTFO is next-to-nothing. You can easily out-ticket-score flag holders with kills. There should have been something in-between.

    Yeah - I think I am on board with this. For me panacea is greater objective based scoring, whilst recognising individual skill, and that means kills, but as I mentioned elsewhere, t think kills in contested squad identified objectives should count more than running into empty flags.
  • trip1ex
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited November 19
    I did enjoy beta (no kill ticket score) conquest, but it did lead to some weird metas. People would suicide to get ammo or because they wanted to spawn elsewhere (teleport suicide). Stuff like that.

    I was actually in favour of ticket scoring for kills but, for the love of all that is holy, they should NOT have just thrown it back in without ANY adjustment to the rest of the mechanic.

    Basically, they should have multiplied the flag holding ticket scores by about 4 times when they made 1 kill = 1 ticket.

    In beta, PTFO was everything. Now PTFO is next-to-nothing. You can easily out-ticket-score flag holders with kills. There should have been something in-between.

    I don't think that would change that behavior compared to the beta but it would calm the uproar from those that want kills to take off tickets. So it's genius.

    They can easily discourage unwanted suicide/redeployments by increasing the spawn time when that happens.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!