Building in BF5-- Is it worth it?
0 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
So I am wondering a few things about this. 1) When you are being shot while building how quick do you pull out your gun, do you have enough time to try and react and get away.
2) How easy is it as a DEV to make changes to these if there are big issues or glitches.
3) Do you think in future BF games you will have it so we are able to set up a build where we want instead of designed spots that snipers may camp?
2) How easy is it as a DEV to make changes to these if there are big issues or glitches.
3) Do you think in future BF games you will have it so we are able to set up a build where we want instead of designed spots that snipers may camp?
0
- 64 Battlefield V - Announcements
- 17.7K Battlefield V - General Discussion
- 375 Battlefield V - Firestorm Discussion
- 3.1K Battlefield V - PC Community
- 1.3K Battlefield V - PlayStation Community
- 1K Battlefield V - Xbox Community
- 774 Battlefield V - Platoon Recruitment
- 35 Battlefield V - Bugs & Issues
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
2) No more than any other?
3) Doubtful. That would have massive balance (or lack of) implications.
Defending a flag is not camping. It would be excellent if people learn to defend flags they have taken in order to win matches.
The game is being slowed down. They are adding tactical shooter elements to a faster paced game. I think building encampments will be very important near ammo staches for protection while you load up, or around flags you've captured and now have to defend.
I don't think rebuilding buildings is going to happen often. But if you've held off a battalion and are waiting for the next battalion to reach you, building a wall in a building and adding a fortified gun will make a difference.
TBH, I have a feeling that's all it will become - a gimmick. I also think the main people using it will be snipers and building/lane campers.
I don't think I've seen any foxholes, machine gun nests... just walls of sandbags.
The game doesn't seem to force you to use fortification, soooo play conquest like you normally do?
As someone else mentioned, holding flags isn't camping, and by the looks of it, it's going back to the old system where the team holding the majority of the flags win.
How is building cover a gimmick? If its just you and another guy and you know 6-7 enemies are coming are you just gonna sit there and hope for the best? Or build and capture that flag?
Most flags required you to be out in the open and only smoke grenades gave me hope to slow them down. Now I can build a gun nest
and spray an alley? Psshhhh
I'm sure players will start to recognize and pay attention to walls/fortifications that are obviously player installed.
Like venture onto a back flag, all by yourself, and setup a foxhole in a super obvious place centrally located on the flag zone, surround it with sandbags, place dynamite in the center of the foxhole.
Then just relocate, while still staying in the zone. Enemies will start to trickle in, trying out oust the attacker, and I'm sure many will want to inspect this painfully obvious little fort setup in the middle of the zone. They enter the hole to check for enemies, and I'll start popping heads from elsewhere in the zone, det the dynamite if I get 2-3 unlucky foes near my dynamite
I already got my move down. Smoke the open field. Go into the smoke and build me some sandbags. Or dig a hole. Oh wait you can only build in certain spots. lol so much for that. still would work in fixed spots tho.
With no dogs in the game, dynamite is a man's best friend.
Not sure what you're getting at. I'm not knocking the system or even criticizing people who camp. I'm even sure I'll build a few things when I play. I'm just saying I see this system being used more by people who do than the players zerging from flag to flag. I could be wrong but only the future can tell. It's not going to effect how I play the game.
I'm calling it a gimmick because I see it not being used as much or having the end result people are expecting. To make a comparison - BF4 had it's levolution and DICE promoted the hell out of it. "Change the battlefield landscape" (or something along those lines) was a major marketing catchphrase. While there were a couple of cool levolution moments (ie dropping the skyscraper in Shanghai), it ended up being an idea that sounded great on paper and in promotions, but ultimately didn't deliver anything spectacular for gameplay or make any significant difference.
I just don't see myself taking the time to build stuff. And got a feeling we're going to get a new breed of player. WE got hill humper. Bob the Builder is next. You know we're going to get a lot of Bobs that just build stuff no matter if we need it or not. lol.
We'll see.
Since you get points for building expect building spam ... then destroy it ... then build it. Maybe you can level up without ever firing your weapon?
I saw the video of a female Youtuber whose name I can't recall who was talking about how while she couldn't fight and aim really she was helping her team by building and bless her heart she was about as earnest a person as I've seen play BF. She went and built every buildable thing in the house she was in thinking she was contributing only to have the entire house crumble down on her killing her and rendering all her construction useless.
Now I mention this not to rag on her as again she was very genuine in her play and she didn't know the mechanics and they're new anyways so it's all cool. But I mention it to say that just random building is not going to help your team. It's going to be contextual and nuanced and just because you can build something doesn't mean you should. You need to assess whether it will be useful to your team given the situation and circumstances.