Weekly BF

Finally tried Shock Ops

Adman_Tor
1314 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
And it sucks IMO. It only takes 3 or 4 guys deciding they want to sit back and snipe and you have NO chance of winning the game. I wish they had kept these maps as 64 players - I think it could have been done even on the smaller scale of these maps.

Comments

  • Adman_Tor
    1314 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Thanks for your reply - maybe it was just the group of people I was playing with on that server and we were hopelessly outclassed. I'll give it a couple more tries. Cheers.
  • DonSharkito
    796 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Adman_Tor wrote: »
    Thanks for your reply - maybe it was just the group of people I was playing with on that server and we were hopelessly outclassed. I'll give it a couple more tries. Cheers.

    Np.

    At the end of the day you will cross the same type of problems / players than in 64 ops (out of bound sniping or vehicle campers, attackers not pushing and so on).

    But what makes it less frustrating to me is that 1) you have more power individually than in 64 ops and 2) if you get stomped, rounds are much shorter than in 64 ops, where being stuck as attackers on the same sector for 3 battalions (250 or 350 deaths) is a lot more frustrating.

    In the end try to find a squad which doesn't camp or play with a few friends and you will have a better time.

    Don't forget that Lupkow and Zeebrugge are unbalanced and this will change in the future.
  • the_yakuza17
    175 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Two good counters to the "camp at the edge of the map and snipe" scout players: smoke and airburst mortars. You know you have some good players on your team during an Operations match when you see smoke being used effectively to cover your team's attack.
  • MachoFantast1c0
    2034 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Adman_Tor wrote: »
    And it sucks IMO. It only takes 3 or 4 guys deciding they want to sit back and snipe and you have NO chance of winning the game. I wish they had kept these maps as 64 players - I think it could have been done even on the smaller scale of these maps.

    Well my experience was completely different.

    All it takes is a few good players or a good squad to carry the attacking team to the victory, even if you have many campers in your team.

    Unlike in 64 ops, I can feel that a single good player can make a major difference quite often. For example I have capped and defended some objectives a countless number of times alone or almost alone, while the rest of the blueberries (of those who were not camping) were zerging to the other flag, allowing is to capture the sector.

    A couple of things are still unbalanced (behemoth on Lupkow, Zeebrugge map for attackers) but they are going to change that in the next few weeks.

    I agree completely. Just wrote in another thread that in my experience under suitable circumstances one man can carry a game of shock ops when attacking. Somme last sector excluded, as there are three objectives which require more coordination teamwise.

    Defending requires at least half a squad of competent guys to hold on to one flag reliably. But defender victories are boring to all involved, I'd rather lose a close game defending than hold the first sector for two battalions.
  • dICEHOUSE
    570 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Been playing a few Shock off and on lately and it's not bad. Just don't like Zeebruge that much. Do Like the 20 man teams too bad they couldn't run at a 60 hz.

    The multiple snipers can be annoying that forced me at times to either go to a scoped Medic rifle or a large mag support weapon like the IMG while dropping to prone, spotting everyone I see then laying down about 80-90 rounds to hopefully get them to scurry like roaches ( or just ball up or get shot :smile: ) so my other teammates can pick them off. Then displace to a more forward position | then repeat. Ends up the snipers being more a hindrance to the objective at that point.
  • DonSharkito
    796 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Adman_Tor wrote: »
    And it sucks IMO. It only takes 3 or 4 guys deciding they want to sit back and snipe and you have NO chance of winning the game. I wish they had kept these maps as 64 players - I think it could have been done even on the smaller scale of these maps.

    Well my experience was completely different.

    All it takes is a few good players or a good squad to carry the attacking team to the victory, even if you have many campers in your team.

    Unlike in 64 ops, I can feel that a single good player can make a major difference quite often. For example I have capped and defended some objectives a countless number of times alone or almost alone, while the rest of the blueberries (of those who were not camping) were zerging to the other flag, allowing is to capture the sector.

    A couple of things are still unbalanced (behemoth on Lupkow, Zeebrugge map for attackers) but they are going to change that in the next few weeks.

    I agree completely. Just wrote in another thread that in my experience under suitable circumstances one man can carry a game of shock ops when attacking. Somme last sector excluded, as there are three objectives which require more coordination teamwise.

    Defending requires at least half a squad of competent guys to hold on to one flag reliably. But defender victories are boring to all involved, I'd rather lose a close game defending than hold the first sector for two battalions.

    I don't play OPs that often (frontlines or CQ are imo better modes), but when I do it is always in the attacking team and will always switch to the attacking side. I don't see how it is interesting spending 1h or more defending sometimes the same house for 3 battalions... Unless you like to snipe camp or farm with out of bound vehicles... I guess defending is also good for those who care too much or want to pad their K/D...
  • Popoplops
    83 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Totally agree. The Schock Operation maps are not defendable by those low numbers. It only takes a couple of campers to lose.
  • b2tchwood
    1073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I love how people camping are automatically snipers.... trust me, I see more medics, supports and assaults checking out the Frontlines backends from a far than you would like to believe.

    This tactical gameplay of sitting just off the flag, well we just lost that flag dumba**!

    Shock operations isn’t too bad, but these maps seem to require a little more teamwork than other maps. That’s tough to find and that’s what has me worried about BFV.
  • CanonFodder23
    353 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't mind Shock Operations. Sure, some maps are difficult for the attacking side (ie Zeebrugge), but the games are quicker than full-blown Operations, yet you still get the buzz from storming or defending an object, which is sometimes missed in Conquest (the games that play like a merry-go-round). But as with Operations, if you get put on a side with players that like to hang back (and as @b2tchwood says, it's not just snipers that do this) then the gamemode can be much harder to play. I think the 40-player is the right amount. But you do notice it more if players on your team like to camp. This is, I feel, sometimes less noticeable on full-blown Operations.
  • Adman_Tor
    1314 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Adman_Tor wrote: »
    Thanks for your reply - maybe it was just the group of people I was playing with on that server and we were hopelessly outclassed. I'll give it a couple more tries. Cheers.

    Np.

    At the end of the day you will cross the same type of problems / players than in 64 ops (out of bound sniping or vehicle campers, attackers not pushing and so on).

    But what makes it less frustrating to me is that 1) you have more power individually than in 64 ops and 2) if you get stomped, rounds are much shorter than in 64 ops, where being stuck as attackers on the same sector for 3 battalions (250 or 350 deaths) is a lot more frustrating.

    In the end try to find a squad which doesn't camp or play with a few friends and you will have a better time.

    Don't forget that Lupkow and Zeebrugge are unbalanced and this will change in the future.

    More good points for sure. Appreciate the perspective!
  • -Antares65z
    1649 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    A couple of things are still unbalanced (behemoth on Lupkow, Zeebrugge map for attackers) but they are going to change that in the next few weeks.

    They're putting out another update to address more things? I thought they were pretty much done with monthly updates but might fix a few more bugs?

  • DonSharkito
    796 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    A couple of things are still unbalanced (behemoth on Lupkow, Zeebrugge map for attackers) but they are going to change that in the next few weeks.

    They're putting out another update to address more things? I thought they were pretty much done with monthly updates but might fix a few more bugs?

    Monthly updates are done, but that doesn't mean the end of the support, with the proof being that normally there will be a patch in July beginning of August. The release of updates is just intermittent now.
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    822 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I love this mode, I only wish there where more maps. If you get some friends together or are lucky enough to get a decent squad you can massively effect the outcome of these matches to a degree that's just not possible in the 64 player modes.
    The reduced player count also means PTFO feel less spammy, more skill orientated. I think you've just been
    a little unlucky in the teams you've landed in.

    The Lupkow Behemoth only spawns now after a loss in the first sector. Zeebrugge is still tough for the attackers but it's only one map and I quite enjoy the challenge.
  • hjm600rr
    210 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't mind Shock Operations. Sure, some maps are difficult for the attacking side (ie Zeebrugge), but the games are quicker than full-blown Operations, yet you still get the buzz from storming or defending an object, which is sometimes missed in Conquest (the games that play like a merry-go-round). But as with Operations, if you get put on a side with players that like to hang back (and as @b2tchwood says, it's not just snipers that do this) then the gamemode can be much harder to play. I think the 40-player is the right amount. But you do notice it more if players on your team like to camp. This is, I feel, sometimes less noticeable on full-blown Operations.

    some good points canon
  • hjm600rr
    210 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    b2tchwood wrote: »
    I love how people camping are automatically snipers.... trust me, I see more medics, supports and assaults checking out the Frontlines backends from a far than you would like to believe.

    This tactical gameplay of sitting just off the flag, well we just lost that flag dumba**!

    Shock operations isn’t too bad, but these maps seem to require a little more teamwork than other maps. That’s tough to find and that’s what has me worried about BFV.


    the team work is ''better'' i like new mode better plays les **** on the servers

  • hjm600rr
    210 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I love this mode, I only wish there where more maps. If you get some friends together or are lucky enough to get a decent squad you can massively effect the outcome of these matches to a degree that's just not possible in the 64 player modes.
    The reduced player count also means PTFO feel less spammy, more skill orientated. I think you've just been
    a little unlucky in the teams you've landed in.

    The Lupkow Behemoth only spawns now after a loss in the first sector. Zeebrugge is still tough for the attackers but it's only one map and I quite enjoy the challenge.


    the zeebgrugge map can be a hard grind . but i had few good games on it and was it was a top 5 game all the time from the atacking side
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    822 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    hjm600rr wrote: »
    I love this mode, I only wish there where more maps. If you get some friends together or are lucky enough to get a decent squad you can massively effect the outcome of these matches to a degree that's just not possible in the 64 player modes.
    The reduced player count also means PTFO feel less spammy, more skill orientated. I think you've just been
    a little unlucky in the teams you've landed in.

    The Lupkow Behemoth only spawns now after a loss in the first sector. Zeebrugge is still tough for the attackers but it's only one map and I quite enjoy the challenge.


    the zeebgrugge map can be a hard grind . but i had few good games on it and was it was a top 5 game all the time from the atacking side

    Nice work mate, I've still not managed to take Zeebruge on attack yet. The obsession begins!
Sign In or Register to comment.