Attrition video -- Levelcap

Comments

  • BaronVonGoon
    6656 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Why is everyone acting like the playerbase is split into two objective groups, the "high skill" players who will run out of ammo every life, and the "low skill" players who will never run out of ammo before dying?

    That's a super one dimensional way of looking at this. On top of the fact that dying before you run out of ammo doesn't magically mean that you don't have the exact same ammo count as everyone else when you respawn. I'm sure it will happen to high skilled players plenty.

    The aversion to running out of ammo in a game where resupplying ammo has been a core gameplay mechanic since the very first game in the series is pretty crazy to me. I don't understand how people can play BF and be so intent on achieving a self-sustained lone wolf playstyle.

    I've seen so many people online telling newer, less skilled players to "git gud" over the years in regard to so many different gameplay mechanics. It's super ironic that now self proclaimed higher skilled players are calling for an entire gameplay mechanic to be outright removed or changed to the point it may as well not even be included, instead of adapting.

    You can flip it, turn upside down do whatever you want with it, it remains as clear as day. They themselves who developed the game imply that it is not punishment to one group of players, meaning IT IS to another. You know what? Forget what Dice says, logic dictates it too. One group live longer and; therefore, are more likely to be affected by less ammo. Logic + math = as clear as day.

    Now adapting is a whole different argument. Ofcourse skilled players will adapt and be fine.

    It's the annoyance of it. Adding mechanics that affect one group over another and calling it team oriented. Yes, there's some truth to that -- Sure it makes me be more squad oriented (Going to my random squad mate melee-ing him in the face till he drops a pack). But you're still relying on randoms. Teamplay isn't changing that much because of this mechanic. Hardcapping the effectiveness of skilled players IS changing, you're sending them scavenging for ammo rather than continuing to murder the enemy team.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    It just dawned on me that if a player's argument against attrition is that is lowers skill gap because it will lower one's kill streak, he is already assuming he will be good and bad players will be bad.

    If you're constantly going on kill streaks and bad players are dying, aren't you already achieving the desired goal while the others are trying to catch up to you?

    "But I could get more without it." You don't know that. You don't know how much ammo every player you kill has and whether or not they are in a similar boat as you. In fact, with the lack of ammo thus far in the alphas/beta, the average players were less likely to have ammo than in previous BF games where players spammed for passive resupply points. If you are that good at BFV so as to go on monster kill streaks often, you are proving that it is possible to adapt to the attrition feature.

    Also, to give support against the "git gud" argument, it is hilarious that someone who is vocally willing to adapt to a new mechanic is actually recieving the "git gud" treatment. Apparently they are willing to deal with a new feature.
    Very noob-like, huh?



  • BaronVonGoon
    6656 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    @Hay-its-dudeman your post which I'm quoting below seems to have disappeared
    It just dawned on me that if a player's argument against attrition is that is lowers skill gap because it will lower one's kill streak, he is already assuming he will be good and bad players will be bad.

    True.
    If you're constantly going on kill streaks and bad players are dying, aren't you already achieving the desired goal while the others are trying to catch up to you?

    Yes. Except that attrition affects skilled players more negatively than it does unskilled players. It's unnecessary. Let unskilled players improve like we all did rather than nerf strong players for them.
    "But I could get more without it." You don't know that. You don't know how much ammo every player you kill has and whether or not they are in a similar boat as you. In fact, with the lack of ammo thus far in the alphas/beta, the average players were less likely to have ammo than in previous BF games where players spammed for passive resupply points. If you are that good at BFV so as to go on monster kill streaks often, you are proving that it is possible to adapt to the attrition feature.

    Personally, I have. But no where near as high killstreaks as I would in BF1. Attrition being the main culprit.

  • SirTerrible
    1639 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Why is everyone acting like the playerbase is split into two objective groups, the "high skill" players who will run out of ammo every life, and the "low skill" players who will never run out of ammo before dying?

    That's a super one dimensional way of looking at this. On top of the fact that dying before you run out of ammo doesn't magically mean that you don't have the exact same ammo count as everyone else when you respawn. I'm sure it will happen to high skilled players plenty.

    The aversion to running out of ammo in a game where resupplying ammo has been a core gameplay mechanic since the very first game in the series is pretty crazy to me. I don't understand how people can play BF and be so intent on achieving a self-sustained lone wolf playstyle.

    I've seen so many people online telling newer, less skilled players to "git gud" over the years in regard to so many different gameplay mechanics. It's super ironic that now self proclaimed higher skilled players are calling for an entire gameplay mechanic to be outright removed or changed to the point it may as well not even be included, instead of adapting.

    You can flip it, turn upside down do whatever you want with it, it remains as clear as day. They themselves who developed the game imply that it is not punishment to one group of players, meaning IT IS to another. You know what? Forget what Dice says, logic dictates it too. One group live longer and; therefore, are more likely to be affected by less ammo. Logic + math = as clear as day.

    Now adapting is a whole different argument. Ofcourse skilled players will adapt and be fine.

    It's the annoyance of it. Adding mechanics that affect one group over another and calling it team oriented. Yes, there's some truth to that -- Sure it makes me be more squad oriented (Going to my random squad mate melee-ing him in the face till he drops a pack). But you're still relying on randoms. Teamplay isn't changing that much because of this mechanic. Hardcapping the effectiveness of skilled players IS changing, you're sending them scavenging for ammo rather than continuing to murder the enemy team.

    The more encounters you win on average the more often you'll need to top off your health. The more enemies you kill before you die the more you'll run into ammo issues. There's no question that it puts a hard cap on skill. It also makes flanking or any other tactic that is slightly more advanced than just running in a herd from flag to flag or camping an ammo box more difficult to do consistently and effectively. It does not improve teamplay or strategy, though it does make you more reliant on blueberries which should not be confused for improved teamwork.
    .
    It'd be like making it so the better you are the less damage your guns do. Would good players adapt to 5% less damage? Yeah. Why should they like it though.
  • H3nry_K1llinger6
    80 postsMember Member
    edited October 2018
    Why is everyone acting like the playerbase is split into two objective groups, the "high skill" players who will run out of ammo every life, and the "low skill" players who will never run out of ammo before dying?

    That's a super one dimensional way of looking at this. On top of the fact that dying before you run out of ammo doesn't magically mean that you don't have the exact same ammo count as everyone else when you respawn. I'm sure it will happen to high skilled players plenty.

    The aversion to running out of ammo in a game where resupplying ammo has been a core gameplay mechanic since the very first game in the series is pretty crazy to me. I don't understand how people can play BF and be so intent on achieving a self-sustained lone wolf playstyle.

    I've seen so many people online telling newer, less skilled players to "git gud" over the years in regard to so many different gameplay mechanics. It's super ironic that now self proclaimed higher skilled players are calling for an entire gameplay mechanic to be outright removed or changed to the point it may as well not even be included, instead of adapting.

    You can flip it, turn upside down do whatever you want with it, it remains as clear as day. They themselves who developed the game imply that it is not punishment to one group of players, meaning IT IS to another. You know what? Forget what Dice says, logic dictates it too. One group live longer and; therefore, are more likely to be affected by less ammo. Logic + math = as clear as day.

    Now adapting is a whole different argument. Ofcourse skilled players will adapt and be fine.

    It's the annoyance of it. Adding mechanics that affect one group over another and calling it team oriented. Yes, there's some truth to that -- Sure it makes me be more squad oriented (Going to my random squad mate melee-ing him in the face till he drops a pack). But you're still relying on randoms. Teamplay isn't changing that much because of this mechanic. Hardcapping the effectiveness of skilled players IS changing, you're sending them scavenging for ammo rather than continuing to murder the enemy team.

    The point is you're looking at this like it's black and white when it's not. You're splitting an entire playerbase up into two groups, when in reality it's not that straightforward at all. All attrition entails is starting out with less ammunition. It affects everyone in the same exact manner.

    Tell me, how does the so called high skilled player running out of ammo because he lived so long differ from the low skilled player running out of ammo because they sprayed through 3 mags at a total of two enemy players within 1 minute of spawning?

    Just because someone dies repeatedly doesn't somehow negate that they also spawned with as many rounds in reserve as the people who are living longer lives on average. They may run out of ammo less frequently, but what do you want to happen when someone with full ammo dies? They spawn with 25% less ammo until they eventually spawn with none?

    The real thing you guys should be focusing on isn't how frequently greater or less skilled players will run out of ammo, it's how you should adapt your playstyle so you're not running out of ammo frequently. If that adaptation prevents you from dropping 70 kills, who really cares? That's not an issue with the mechanic, that's a personal qualm.

    Your personal annoyance doesn't matter. There are plenty of mechanics that have been included in multiple BF games that are super annoying to people. That's part of the adapting thing we were discussing.

    And if anything, resupply crates make reliance on random teammates less needed than in past games when one is low on health and ammo. Instead of knitting a support, you can walk to a box, press a button, and get a guaranteed result.

    I mean, really, I've already said it two times before, but I can't take an argument seriously against attrition when it hinges on "this mechanic is bad because it doesn't allow me to play exactly how I want". Which is essentially what you're arguing for with your "you're sending them to scavenge for ammo instead of continuing to murder the enemy team" statement.

    It seems to me, at least from a first glance observation, that you prefer a super lone wolf style of play. I don't get why that type of playstyle shouldn't have clear downsides in a game that should be emphasizing teamwork as much as possible. Frankly, your "I can't drop 70 kills" argument just seems super selfish to me, not an indicator of how attrition as a mechanic is actually something that negatively affects the game.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member

    You can flip it, turn upside down do whatever you want with it, it remains as clear as day. They themselves who developed the game imply that it is not punishment to one group of players, meaning IT IS to another. You know what? Forget what Dice says, logic dictates it too. One group live longer and; therefore, are more likely to be affected by less ammo. Logic + math = as clear as day.

    Now adapting is a whole different argument. Ofcourse skilled players will adapt and be fine.

    It's the annoyance of it. Adding mechanics that affect one group over another and calling it team oriented. Yes, there's some truth to that -- Sure it makes me be more squad oriented (Going to my random squad mate melee-ing him in the face till he drops a pack). But you're still relying on randoms. Teamplay isn't changing that much because of this mechanic. Hardcapping the effectiveness of skilled players IS changing, you're sending them scavenging for ammo rather than continuing to murder the enemy team.

    And that makes the game require a different set of skills/ aptitude. Whah :s

    You aren't actually stating why attrition is inferior, if that is your intention. You are just stating how it is different.

    Pro athletes in teamwork sports have to deal with random athletes that their owner signs. Attrition will determine who is the best team "on any given sunday", so to speak. If you are the best player but lose to a better overall team, you not benefitting cannot be used in an argument against it since the other players are.

    I understand you simply not liking it for any biased reason that you're entitled to, but you aren't including that in your argument. You are the one flipping it upside down when you attempt to make a preference matter an attempt at "objective truth" without giving the reason your opposed feature is not inherently inferior.

    If you can somehow demonstrate how teamwork based games are inferior to solo-skills games, then you will be right. But you haven't. It's just different. Just because it has Battlefield in the title doesn't mean it has to be any way over another.

    Also, DICE saying it will not punish bad players doesn't make it so. They aren't the players who will determine that. As you say, good players will adapt.

    I'm assuming you think that because you know that a good player is one who can adapt and a bad one is someone who can't?

    If so, you just negated your whole argument. Bad players won't adapt as well. You already know this.
  • TyroneLoyd
    1285 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Why is everyone acting like the playerbase is split into two objective groups, the "high skill" players who will run out of ammo every life, and the "low skill" players who will never run out of ammo before dying?

    That's a super one dimensional way of looking at this. On top of the fact that dying before you run out of ammo doesn't magically mean that you don't have the exact same ammo count as everyone else when you respawn. I'm sure it will happen to high skilled players plenty.

    The aversion to running out of ammo in a game where resupplying ammo has been a core gameplay mechanic since the very first game in the series is pretty crazy to me. I don't understand how people can play BF and be so intent on achieving a self-sustained lone wolf playstyle.

    I've seen so many people online telling newer, less skilled players to "git gud" over the years in regard to so many different gameplay mechanics. It's super ironic that now self proclaimed higher skilled players are calling for an entire gameplay mechanic to be outright removed or changed to the point it may as well not even be included, instead of adapting.

    You can flip it, turn upside down do whatever you want with it, it remains as clear as day. They themselves who developed the game imply that it is not punishment to one group of players, meaning IT IS to another. You know what? Forget what Dice says, logic dictates it too. One group live longer and; therefore, are more likely to be affected by less ammo. Logic + math = as clear as day.

    Now adapting is a whole different argument. Ofcourse skilled players will adapt and be fine.

    It's the annoyance of it. Adding mechanics that affect one group over another and calling it team oriented. Yes, there's some truth to that -- Sure it makes me be more squad oriented (Going to my random squad mate melee-ing him in the face till he drops a pack). But you're still relying on randoms. Teamplay isn't changing that much because of this mechanic. Hardcapping the effectiveness of skilled players IS changing, you're sending them scavenging for ammo rather than continuing to murder the enemy team.

    The point is you're looking at this like it's black and white when it's not. You're splitting an entire playerbase up into two groups, when in reality it's not that straightforward at all. All attrition entails is starting out with less ammunition. It affects everyone in the same exact manner.

    Tell me, how does the so called high skilled player running out of ammo because he lived so long differ from the low skilled player running out of ammo because they sprayed through 3 mags at a total of two enemy players within 1 minute of spawning?

    Just because someone dies repeatedly doesn't somehow negate that they also spawned with as many rounds in reserve as the people who are living longer lives on average. They may run out of ammo less frequently, but what do you want to happen when someone with full ammo dies? They spawn with 25% less ammo until they eventually spawn with none?

    The real thing you guys should be focusing on isn't how frequently greater or less skilled players will run out of ammo, it's how you should adapt your playstyle so you're not running out of ammo frequently. If that adaptation prevents you from dropping 70 kills, who really cares? That's not an issue with the mechanic, that's a personal qualm.

    Your personal annoyance doesn't matter. There are plenty of mechanics that have been included in multiple BF games that are super annoying to people. That's part of the adapting thing we were discussing.

    And if anything, resupply crates make reliance on random teammates less needed than in past games when one is low on health and ammo. Instead of knitting a support, you can walk to a box, press a button, and get a guaranteed result.

    I mean, really, I've already said it two times before, but I can't take an argument seriously against attrition when it hinges on "this mechanic is bad because it doesn't allow me to play exactly how I want". Which is essentially what you're arguing for with your "you're sending them to scavenge for ammo instead of continuing to murder the enemy team" statement.

    It seems to me, at least from a first glance observation, that you prefer a super lone wolf style of play. I don't get why that type of playstyle shouldn't have clear downsides in a game that should be emphasizing teamwork as much as possible. Frankly, your "I can't drop 70 kills" argument just seems super selfish to me, not an indicator of how attrition as a mechanic is actually something that negatively affects the game.

    Ammo was a non issue for me during the alpha. His whole arguement is based on what "he" wants to do. I'm dropping 80-100 bombs and it doesnt bother me one bit. It's totally not black and white.
  • SirTerrible
    1639 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    The real thing you guys should be focusing on isn't how frequently greater or less skilled players will run out of ammo, it's how you should adapt your playstyle so you're not running out of ammo frequently. If that adaptation prevents you from dropping 70 kills, who really cares? That's not an issue with the mechanic, that's a personal qualm.
    Well the only way to run out of ammo less frequently is to be less effective at killing many players very quickly lol. If you're good you're going to be running out of ammo a lot unless you have a useful Support player tied to your hip. So no, you can't change how you play so you don't run out of ammo frequently since doing that would make you less effective as a player. Instead you adapt by picking up guns and going to ammo stations constantly. That's the best trade off. Not shooting at enemies is a flat out terrible way to adapt.
    It seems to me, at least from a first glance observation, that you prefer a super lone wolf style of play. I don't get why that type of playstyle shouldn't have clear downsides in a game that should be emphasizing teamwork as much as possible. Frankly, your "I can't drop 70 kills" argument just seems super selfish to me, not an indicator of how attrition as a mechanic is actually something that negatively affects the game.

    Playing solo does have a huge downside already though. 1 skilled player flanking vs 2 prepared skilled players defending = you die. Solo play is already hard, now it's tedious as well as hard.
  • The real thing you guys should be focusing on isn't how frequently greater or less skilled players will run out of ammo, it's how you should adapt your playstyle so you're not running out of ammo frequently. If that adaptation prevents you from dropping 70 kills, who really cares? That's not an issue with the mechanic, that's a personal qualm.
    Well the only way to run out of ammo less frequently is to be less effective at killing many players very quickly lol. If you're good you're going to be running out of ammo a lot unless you have a useful Support player tied to your hip. So no, you can't change how you play so you don't run out of ammo frequently since doing that would make you less effective as a player. Instead you adapt by picking up guns and going to ammo stations constantly. That's the best trade off. Not shooting at enemies is a flat out terrible way to adapt.

    Adapting your playstyle, which is to kill as many players as YOU can, so you don't frequently run out of ammo is entirely possible.

    The fact you WANT to drop as many kills as you could in past games doesn't mean it negates your playstyle. You guys can call it "nerfing" or "capping" high skilled players all you want, but the fact is there are several examples of people dropping 80-100+ kills as infantry in the beta where attrition was even worse than it will be at release.

    If you want to be as effective as people playing in a full squad, play with friends. You want to play solo? Maintain your ammo more effectively and make sure you hit a resupply point before you actually run out.

    For the 4th time, I don't see how not being able to personally and consistently drop a specific and totally random number of kills you want to means attrition is bad for the game.
  • @baron, sorry. I don't understand the edit system. sometimes it requires me to have mod approval. other times it doesn't.

    repost:


    It just dawned on me that if a player's argument against attrition is that is lowers skill gap because it will lower one's kill streak, he is already assuming he will be good and bad players will be bad.

    If you're constantly going on kill streaks and bad players are dying, aren't you already achieving the desired goal while the others are trying to catch up to you?

    "But I could get more without it." You don't know that. You don't know how much ammo every player you kill has and whether or not they are in a similar boat as you. In fact, with the lack of ammo thus far in the alphas/beta, the average players were less likely to have ammo than in previous BF games where players spammed for passive resupply points. If you are that good at BFV so as to go on monster kill streaks often, you are proving that it is possible to adapt to the attrition feature.
  • Playing solo does have a huge downside already though. 1 skilled player flanking vs 2 prepared skilled players defending = you die. Solo play is already hard, now it's tedious as well as hard.

    Personal annoyance is meaningless when it comes to discussing how the mechanic is objectively bad for the game. I played solo a ton in the beta and must have run out of ammo a total of maybe 4 times. I just didn't find running to objectives/resupplies before I fully ran out annoying.
  • SirTerrible
    1639 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Adapting your playstyle, which is to kill as many players as YOU can, so you don't frequently run out of ammo is entirely possible.

    The fact you WANT to drop as many kills as you could in past games doesn't mean it negates your playstyle. You guys can call it "nerfing" or "capping" high skilled players all you want, but the fact is there are several examples of people dropping 80-100+ kills as infantry in the beta where attrition was even worse than it will be at release.

    If you want to be as effective as people playing in a full squad, play with friends. You want to play solo? Maintain your ammo more effectively and make sure you hit a resupply point before you actually run out.

    For the 4th time, I don't see how not being able to personally and consistently drop a specific and totally random number of kills you want to means attrition is bad for the game.

    You adapt by going to supply crates 24/7. You don't have to change anything else about how you play if you're already playing well. Attrition adds nothing positive to the game. It's just a layer of busywork added so the average player can feel like they are teamworking hard and being useful when they push a button to give someone health or ammo 1 out of the 5 times that someone requests it.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    edited October 2018
    Personally, I have. But no where near as high killstreaks as I would in BF1. Attrition being the main culprit.

    Even then, doesn't this just make skilled players dependence on teammates a different beast of a game entirely?

    Shouldn't the first conclusion be you should play a certain class or friend up with certain people, instead of "wait. I can't do what I did in BFV. this must be wrong." I'm not a bad player. I averaged 40+ kills and always got top 8 or better in every full round I played. I personally think I benefitted from attrition (and TTK) more than a newer FPS player, for these reasons:

    1. Some players were afraid of running out of ammo, so their sweeping response was to camp harder and not explore the game. These players gave me an objective advantage.

    2. The players who didn't think about supply station camping or visits missed out on exploiting them.

    Also, I don't see the problem with not having the resources to deal with every scenario at all times. I think sixclicks mentioned somewhere in this thread that when he once approached an enemy flag after killing someone, he had to retreat to get ammo, because he didn't have enough to deal with multiple people.

    I don't know why people call this a chore. Everyone has to do chores in BFV! Removing the chore is removing a feature that someone can obviously use to their advantage.

    Why do people complain about having to do this when doing it could very obviously be the advantage if not used by others?

    Also, people complained about medics not reviving in BF1 since day 1. The teammates of those random, bad medics had a ruined experience from being on their team, like the BFV players who had no support teammates.

    If you choose to play with randoms but complain that those randoms ruin your experience, you should honestly just quit playing pvp games that don't have a FFA mode. Everyone is asking for it when we accept that risk.

    I'll put it this way: if you know anything about american football, some of the players who are regarded as "the best" are those who are a part of an effective team scheme. Skills alone may allow you to win one matchup, but there are two variables that can affect the outcome: your execution inside a team scheme, and your teammates'.

    Many safeties, lineman, recievers, etc benefit from being in a more productive environment than others. Yet, they execute their part well and are praised for it.

    Maybe the best BFV player will be the one with the best team behind him, and the one who exploits the chore system better. Can you deal with that?
  • Adapting your playstyle, which is to kill as many players as YOU can, so you don't frequently run out of ammo is entirely possible.

    The fact you WANT to drop as many kills as you could in past games doesn't mean it negates your playstyle. You guys can call it "nerfing" or "capping" high skilled players all you want, but the fact is there are several examples of people dropping 80-100+ kills as infantry in the beta where attrition was even worse than it will be at release.

    If you want to be as effective as people playing in a full squad, play with friends. You want to play solo? Maintain your ammo more effectively and make sure you hit a resupply point before you actually run out.

    For the 4th time, I don't see how not being able to personally and consistently drop a specific and totally random number of kills you want to means attrition is bad for the game.

    You adapt by going to supply crates 24/7. You don't have to change anything else about how you play if you're already playing well. Attrition adds nothing positive to the game. It's just a layer of busywork added so the average player can feel like they are teamworking hard and being useful when they push a button to give someone health or ammo 1 out of the 5 times that someone requests it.

    Well that's an overly simplistic way of putting it, but there are ways to adapt so you're not incessantly just running for ammo. Like actively attacking objectives instead of solely searching for players all over odd places and lanes on the map. To say it adds nothing is naive, at least to me. Imo emphasizing teamwork is a good thing, and further punishing stationary, non contributing, extreme long range playstyles is a worthwhile side effect. And I love more tactical style shooters, so having emphasis on ammo management for the first time in a while in this franchise is definitely a welcome change.

    Frankly, imo, dismissing attrition as bad for the game and adding nothing worthwhile solely because it prevents you from killing as many people as you desire to kill is a weak argument, let alone a super selfish and personal one.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why is everyone acting like the playerbase is split into two objective groups, the "high skill" players who will run out of ammo every life, and the "low skill" players who will never run out of ammo before dying?

    That's a super one dimensional way of looking at this. On top of the fact that dying before you run out of ammo doesn't magically mean that you don't have the exact same ammo count as everyone else when you respawn. I'm sure it will happen to high skilled players plenty.

    The aversion to running out of ammo in a game where resupplying ammo has been a core gameplay mechanic since the very first game in the series is pretty crazy to me. I don't understand how people can play BF and be so intent on achieving a self-sustained lone wolf playstyle.

    I've seen so many people online telling newer, less skilled players to "git gud" over the years in regard to so many different gameplay mechanics. It's super ironic that now self proclaimed higher skilled players are calling for an entire gameplay mechanic to be outright removed or changed to the point it may as well not even be included, instead of adapting.

    You can flip it, turn upside down do whatever you want with it, it remains as clear as day. They themselves who developed the game imply that it is not punishment to one group of players, meaning IT IS to another. You know what? Forget what Dice says, logic dictates it too. One group live longer and; therefore, are more likely to be affected by less ammo. Logic + math = as clear as day.

    Now adapting is a whole different argument. Ofcourse skilled players will adapt and be fine.

    It's the annoyance of it. Adding mechanics that affect one group over another and calling it team oriented. Yes, there's some truth to that -- Sure it makes me be more squad oriented (Going to my random squad mate melee-ing him in the face till he drops a pack). But you're still relying on randoms. Teamplay isn't changing that much because of this mechanic. Hardcapping the effectiveness of skilled players IS changing, you're sending them scavenging for ammo rather than continuing to murder the enemy team.

    Not necessarily. It also can just mean that they said it wont punish new players because that is the first assumption being made. They may be proactively squashing objections.
  • SirTerrible
    1639 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Adapting your playstyle, which is to kill as many players as YOU can, so you don't frequently run out of ammo is entirely possible.

    The fact you WANT to drop as many kills as you could in past games doesn't mean it negates your playstyle. You guys can call it "nerfing" or "capping" high skilled players all you want, but the fact is there are several examples of people dropping 80-100+ kills as infantry in the beta where attrition was even worse than it will be at release.

    If you want to be as effective as people playing in a full squad, play with friends. You want to play solo? Maintain your ammo more effectively and make sure you hit a resupply point before you actually run out.

    For the 4th time, I don't see how not being able to personally and consistently drop a specific and totally random number of kills you want to means attrition is bad for the game.

    You adapt by going to supply crates 24/7. You don't have to change anything else about how you play if you're already playing well. Attrition adds nothing positive to the game. It's just a layer of busywork added so the average player can feel like they are teamworking hard and being useful when they push a button to give someone health or ammo 1 out of the 5 times that someone requests it.

    Well that's an overly simplistic way of putting it, but there are ways to adapt so you're not incessantly just running for ammo. Like actively attacking objectives instead of solely searching for players all over odd places and lanes on the map. To say it adds nothing is naive, at least to me. Imo emphasizing teamwork is a good thing, and further punishing stationary, non contributing, extreme long range playstyles is a worthwhile side effect. And I love more tactical style shooters, so having emphasis on ammo management for the first time in a while in this franchise is definitely a welcome change.

    Frankly, imo, dismissing attrition as bad for the game and adding nothing worthwhile solely because it prevents you from killing as many people as you desire to kill is a weak argument, let alone a super selfish and personal one.

    It limits your tactical options when you only have enough ammo for 5-6 kills before needing to resupply. You can no longer effectively play the point man and pick people off from a distance overlooking an objective as your team storms it. You can no longer flank around an objective and kill all the campers as effectively. Basically any strategy that doesn't involve being tied to the hip of a medic or support player has become either more irritating to pull off or not worth even trying now unless there's also going to be a supply crate nearby.
    -
    So instead of having a ton of different ways to effectively attack or defend objectives we have to make sure we zerg up with our team or stick to routes that include as many supply crates as possible. Reducing the number of effective tactics is boring to me. No new additional worthwhile gameplay tactics have been created from attrition, previous ones have just been made less viable/more annoying.
  • JamieCurnock
    550 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Said it before and I'll say it again, bf1 made it way way too easy to achieve huge kill streaks, way easier than bf4 & bf3 before it. People are now too used to getting enormous kill streaks and so they believe this should be the new standard.

    i think dice did this to entice new players to the franchise to capitalise on the failure of that futuristic cod release. It was a mistake making it that casual as it's now expected that it should be that easy to rack up kills with very little challenge.

    It was never like this in any other bf title, bf5 feels a lot more like bf3&4 than bf1 to me. Will be nice to see those people at the top of score boards with huge kill counts and massive scores and know that it took real skill to get them there, not just a round of dropping bombs from a bomber or from spamming an Arty truck at spawn base etc.
  • H3nry_K1llinger6
    80 postsMember Member
    edited October 2018
    Adapting your playstyle, which is to kill as many players as YOU can, so you don't frequently run out of ammo is entirely possible.

    The fact you WANT to drop as many kills as you could in past games doesn't mean it negates your playstyle. You guys can call it "nerfing" or "capping" high skilled players all you want, but the fact is there are several examples of people dropping 80-100+ kills as infantry in the beta where attrition was even worse than it will be at release.

    If you want to be as effective as people playing in a full squad, play with friends. You want to play solo? Maintain your ammo more effectively and make sure you hit a resupply point before you actually run out.

    For the 4th time, I don't see how not being able to personally and consistently drop a specific and totally random number of kills you want to means attrition is bad for the game.

    You adapt by going to supply crates 24/7. You don't have to change anything else about how you play if you're already playing well. Attrition adds nothing positive to the game. It's just a layer of busywork added so the average player can feel like they are teamworking hard and being useful when they push a button to give someone health or ammo 1 out of the 5 times that someone requests it.

    Well that's an overly simplistic way of putting it, but there are ways to adapt so you're not incessantly just running for ammo. Like actively attacking objectives instead of solely searching for players all over odd places and lanes on the map. To say it adds nothing is naive, at least to me. Imo emphasizing teamwork is a good thing, and further punishing stationary, non contributing, extreme long range playstyles is a worthwhile side effect. And I love more tactical style shooters, so having emphasis on ammo management for the first time in a while in this franchise is definitely a welcome change.

    Frankly, imo, dismissing attrition as bad for the game and adding nothing worthwhile solely because it prevents you from killing as many people as you desire to kill is a weak argument, let alone a super selfish and personal one.

    It limits your tactical options when you only have enough ammo for 5-6 kills before needing to resupply. You can no longer effectively play the point man and pick people off from a distance overlooking an objective as your team storms it. You can no longer flank around an objective and kill all the campers as effectively. Basically any strategy that doesn't involve being tied to the hip of a medic or support player has become either more irritating to pull off or not worth even trying now unless there's also going to be a supply crate nearby.
    -
    So instead of having a ton of different ways to effectively attack or defend objectives we have to make sure we zerg up with our team or stick to routes that include as many supply crates as possible. Reducing the number of effective tactics is boring to me. No new additional worthwhile gameplay tactics have been created from attrition, previous ones have just been made less viable/more annoying.

    I don't see how attrition makes any of that impossible. I definitely flanked people hard, every single match in the beta. Flanking may as well be my playstyle, it's 100% possible in a game with even more starting ammo than the beta.

    You haven't described a playstyle that would be hard limited or restricted by attrition aside from "killing as many enemies as possible", of which the number is completely random. Maybe slightly interrupted by having to maintain ammo in between trying to lead a one man assault on the enemy team. Just like the bushwookies are slightly interrupted by having to maintain ammo in between trying to act like Simo Hayha.

    Whether you think the added dynamic is good or bad is entirely subjective, but you can't deny the dynamic is there and changed the game.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Adapting your playstyle, which is to kill as many players as YOU can, so you don't frequently run out of ammo is entirely possible.

    The fact you WANT to drop as many kills as you could in past games doesn't mean it negates your playstyle. You guys can call it "nerfing" or "capping" high skilled players all you want, but the fact is there are several examples of people dropping 80-100+ kills as infantry in the beta where attrition was even worse than it will be at release.

    If you want to be as effective as people playing in a full squad, play with friends. You want to play solo? Maintain your ammo more effectively and make sure you hit a resupply point before you actually run out.

    For the 4th time, I don't see how not being able to personally and consistently drop a specific and totally random number of kills you want to means attrition is bad for the game.

    You adapt by going to supply crates 24/7. You don't have to change anything else about how you play if you're already playing well. Attrition adds nothing positive to the game. It's just a layer of busywork added so the average player can feel like they are teamworking hard and being useful when they push a button to give someone health or ammo 1 out of the 5 times that someone requests it.

    Well that's an overly simplistic way of putting it, but there are ways to adapt so you're not incessantly just running for ammo. Like actively attacking objectives instead of solely searching for players all over odd places and lanes on the map. To say it adds nothing is naive, at least to me. Imo emphasizing teamwork is a good thing, and further punishing stationary, non contributing, extreme long range playstyles is a worthwhile side effect. And I love more tactical style shooters, so having emphasis on ammo management for the first time in a while in this franchise is definitely a welcome change.

    Frankly, imo, dismissing attrition as bad for the game and adding nothing worthwhile solely because it prevents you from killing as many people as you desire to kill is a weak argument, let alone a super selfish and personal one.

    It limits your tactical options when you only have enough ammo for 5-6 kills before needing to resupply. You can no longer effectively play the point man and pick people off from a distance overlooking an objective as your team storms it. You can no longer flank around an objective and kill all the campers as effectively. Basically any strategy that doesn't involve being tied to the hip of a medic or support player has become either more irritating to pull off or not worth even trying now unless there's also going to be a supply crate nearby.
    -
    So instead of having a ton of different ways to effectively attack or defend objectives we have to make sure we zerg up with our team or stick to routes that include as many supply crates as possible. Reducing the number of effective tactics is boring to me. No new additional worthwhile gameplay tactics have been created from attrition, previous ones have just been made less viable/more annoying.

    I disagree. If you plan your shots right you can still be point man and still flank since you still can pick up bullets from the dead.
  • BaronVonGoon
    6656 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Why is everyone acting like the playerbase is split into two objective groups, the "high skill" players who will run out of ammo every life, and the "low skill" players who will never run out of ammo before dying?

    That's a super one dimensional way of looking at this. On top of the fact that dying before you run out of ammo doesn't magically mean that you don't have the exact same ammo count as everyone else when you respawn. I'm sure it will happen to high skilled players plenty.

    The aversion to running out of ammo in a game where resupplying ammo has been a core gameplay mechanic since the very first game in the series is pretty crazy to me. I don't understand how people can play BF and be so intent on achieving a self-sustained lone wolf playstyle.

    I've seen so many people online telling newer, less skilled players to "git gud" over the years in regard to so many different gameplay mechanics. It's super ironic that now self proclaimed higher skilled players are calling for an entire gameplay mechanic to be outright removed or changed to the point it may as well not even be included, instead of adapting.

    You can flip it, turn upside down do whatever you want with it, it remains as clear as day. They themselves who developed the game imply that it is not punishment to one group of players, meaning IT IS to another. You know what? Forget what Dice says, logic dictates it too. One group live longer and; therefore, are more likely to be affected by less ammo. Logic + math = as clear as day.

    Now adapting is a whole different argument. Ofcourse skilled players will adapt and be fine.

    It's the annoyance of it. Adding mechanics that affect one group over another and calling it team oriented. Yes, there's some truth to that -- Sure it makes me be more squad oriented (Going to my random squad mate melee-ing him in the face till he drops a pack). But you're still relying on randoms. Teamplay isn't changing that much because of this mechanic. Hardcapping the effectiveness of skilled players IS changing, you're sending them scavenging for ammo rather than continuing to murder the enemy team.

    The point is you're looking at this like it's black and white when it's not. You're splitting an entire playerbase up into two groups, when in reality it's not that straightforward at all. All attrition entails is starting out with less ammunition. It affects everyone in the same exact manner.

    If you look at Dice's blogpost they are splitting the playerbase into two groups, unskilled and skilled***. But let's ignore the term skill for now.

    The statement above would be true if there were no other variables involved. The variable in question here is time. Not all players are created equally, some players die fast and some don't. Attrition affects players who stay alive longer than it does so those who die fast. If you continue to disagree on this point then we've reached an impasse.


    ***"In fact, if you’re new to Battlefield, you might not even notice the Attrition system; chances are you’ll die before you run out of ammo. New players won’t be punished by the Attrition system"
    *https://www.battlefield.com/news/attrition-system-battlefield-5





    Tell me, how does the so called high skilled player running out of ammo because he lived so long differ from the low skilled player running out of ammo because they sprayed through 3 mags at a total of two enemy players within 1 minute of spawning?

    You're generalizing. You're essentially saying that unskilled players who have one way for attrition to affect them negatively, spraying till empty are somehow equal to skilled players who accomplish so much more in a life and in a round than unskilled players. Yet somehow this mechanic affects both equally. Attrition affects skilled players more often and limits them in what they can do more so than it does unskilled players. True or not?

    Picture this *in BF1*:

    -Noob runs out sprays gets 2 kills and dies at 45 seconds because he's a noob, short life expectancy. It's normal.

    -Veteran goes on flank or uses superior aim and goes on 21 killsteak then dies.

    Picture this *in BFV*:

    -Noob runs out sprays gets 2 kills, dies after at 45 because he ran out of ammo.

    -Veteran goes on flank or uses superior aim and goes on 9 player killstreak then runs out of ammo and dies.

    Veteran affected more negatively by attrition, noob not really affected at all.


    Just because someone dies repeatedly doesn't somehow negate that they also spawned with as many rounds in reserve as the people who are living longer lives on average

    That's like saying fish shouldn't die on land because they have access to oxygen same as humans. There are always other variables involved, skilled and unskilled are variables that you can't ignore. Dice doesn't ignore these variables, they discuss them in the blogpost on attrition, so why are you insisting on ignoring them?
    The real thing you guys should be focusing on isn't how frequently greater or less skilled players will run out of ammo, it's how you should adapt your playstyle so you're not running out of ammo frequently

    It's the end game. Adaptation. Ofcourse that's what we will do. But it's irrelevant to the topic being discussed. The principle here is attrition punishes one group more so than it does another. Telling me to accept it and adapt is ridiculous though yes it's the practical thing to do. The point remains, *I* am required to adapt, noob isn't, Dice's blogpost quote says this exactly, in fact, it uses the word 'punishment'.

    I can't take an argument seriously against attrition when it hinges on "this mechanic is bad because it doesn't allow me to play exactly how I want". Which is essentially what you're arguing for with your "you're sending them to scavenge for ammo instead of continuing to murder the enemy team" statement.

    This is your interpretation of what I said? This is NOT why I think it's bad. I think it's bad because it targets one group and doesn't target another. Again THEY SAY SO THEMSELVES. It artificially balances out skill. THATS why it's bad.

    It seems to me, at least from a first glance observation, that you prefer a super lone wolf style of play. I don't get why that type of playstyle shouldn't have clear downsides in a game that should be emphasizing teamwork as much as possible.

    Because the majority of the playerbase are lone wolves just like me. Meaning we play with randoms. That's how it is. Introducing mechanics to force people to play together DOES NOT work. Seriously, we're arguing this point now? Whatever they do, it won't work. It's a casual game, most players are out there to do whatever they want in a sandbox. Go see Overwatch and see what forced teamplay mechanics do to a playerbase.

    Frankly, your "I can't drop 70 kills" argument just seems super selfish to me, not an indicator of how attrition as a mechanic is actually something that negatively affects the game.

    That was just the beta. In due time I will. And it being selfish is irrelevant when the reason for the drop in kills is attrition, the topic we're discussing. The # of kills is just my example to illustrate how attrition affected me in the beta, it affects many thousands of players the same exact way as it did me.
Sign In or Register to comment.