We have pushed a fix to address the issue with Rank 20 rewards. If you are missing your rewards for Class Rank 20, please play a match to completion and the Rewards should drop into your Armory.

Thanks for sticking with us.

Attrition video -- Levelcap

Comments

  • JamieCurnock
    282 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    Who the hell is going to choose a pouch and a crate!?

    vjxktHF.gif

    Haha, hats off to you if you used both!
  • Sixclicks
    4385 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 9
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    bran1986 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Here's the post I was talking about. It was in the weekly debriefing on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/9lngks/battlefield_v_weekly_debrief_october_5th/

    reddit_snipers.png

    That seems to refute that infographic, so I wonder which is actually correct.

    I think it is the infographic. I talked to a DICE developer in a stream. He said he pulled the class popularity data that morning(3rd or 4th day of the beta) and he said support and medic "needed some love" for release. I took that to mean assault and scout were incredibly popular compared to medic and support. So when the numbers came out I wasn't shocked at all.

    Both are, people misread and jump to conclusions, just like this so called punish veteran players.

    The infographic says deployed(respawns) nothing about usage.

    So then that would mean recon was the 2nd least (3rd most) used class in the beta, but had to respawn the 2nd most. That could, not does, indicate that recons were dying more often than other classes relative to their usage rate. Which, if true, would seem to indicate recon is relatively weak (which is something I agree with).

    Yet in all their debriefings and dev talks I never see them acknowledge any concerns that bolt actions don't do enough damage despite plenty of recon players complaining about it. And then I see a concern about an automatic weapon on the forums and the question is mentioned within a week or so in their debriefings. It's as if they're completely ignoring recon players' concerns.
  • DingoKillr
    2877 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    bran1986 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Here's the post I was talking about. It was in the weekly debriefing on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/9lngks/battlefield_v_weekly_debrief_october_5th/

    reddit_snipers.png

    That seems to refute that infographic, so I wonder which is actually correct.

    I think it is the infographic. I talked to a DICE developer in a stream. He said he pulled the class popularity data that morning(3rd or 4th day of the beta) and he said support and medic "needed some love" for release. I took that to mean assault and scout were incredibly popular compared to medic and support. So when the numbers came out I wasn't shocked at all.

    Both are, people misread and jump to conclusions, just like this so called punish veteran players.

    The infographic says deployed(respawns) nothing about usage.

    So then that would mean recon was the 2nd least (3rd most) used class in the beta, but had to respawn the 2nd most. That could, not does, indicate that recons were dying more often than other classes relative to their usage rate. Which, if true, would seem to indicate recon is relatively weak (which is something I agree with).

    Yet in all their debriefings and dev talks I never see them acknowledge any concerns that bolt actions don't do enough damage despite plenty of recon players complaining about it. And then I see a concern about an automatic weapon on the forums and the question is mentioned within a week or so in their debriefings. It's as if they're completely ignoring recon players' concerns.

    What seems to have happen is that a selected group has suggested that Bolt Action need a nerf because they don't like the play style. Look at LMG the same group does not like them either but when players actual mention problems DICE looked and decide to make changes. DICE have not done the same for BA because all those arguing against changes still reference BF1 as their example.
  • UnderseaAcademic
    272 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Ultimate troll from DICE - make a first person SHOOTER and not give you bullets.

    never forget the ea ethos -

  • Hawxxeye
    2610 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 9
    Who the hell is going to choose a pouch and a crate!? That's some proper dedication to resupplying! (Also a bit boring compared to mines)
    .
    Actually I also ran with pouch and crate on the bf5 beta cause I was finding the AT mines pretty lame and the vehicles a very uncommon sight.
    The idea was that I would use the pouch on myself and individuals and proactively leave ammo crates on places with several allies.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Here's the post I was talking about. It was in the weekly debriefing on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/9lngks/battlefield_v_weekly_debrief_october_5th/

    reddit_snipers.png

    That seems to refute that infographic, so I wonder which is actually correct.

    maybe he means sniper as a sub-class within recon? the class was called recon, not sniper.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    edited October 9
    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.

    Yeah, but that thought doesn't also take into consideration how the bad players are faring.
    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'.

    It also changes the type of skill involved. It's exchanging some of pure aim skill for an elaborate gameplanning skill.

    Aiming isn't the only skill in FPS.

    Your argument assumes that pure gun skill is the only thing that should be considered into qualifying a player as good. Every tactical skill includes managing attrition as a skill.

    I don't know why you are taking DICE's comments that seriously. They are not the players who will determine these things. A player who doesn't adapt to attrition is a forever bad player. A player not impacted by attrition is always going to be below you if he always stays in the "not-impacted" category. If he wants to get better, he will have to adapt like you.

    Also, different TTK impacts one's kill performance. Also, you are comparing your performance of a beta for a new game to your performances in a game you have played for a while. Everyone is better at a game they have played for a while than a brand new one.

    Did you get 70 kills in the bf1 beta or off the bat in BF1? If not, you have your reason.....


  • Trokey66
    6596 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hmmmm......

    "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


    No mention of 'bad' players just that new players might not even notice it.

    Suggesting that as players get to know and get better at the game, they should learn about the affects of attrition and adapt.

    This further implies that experienced and knowledgeable players should adapt more quickly to the mechanic.
  • Hawxxeye
    2610 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »

    Suggesting that as players get to know and get better at the game, they should learn about the affects of attrition and adapt.

    This further implies that experienced and knowledgeable players should adapt more quickly to the mechanic.

    It’s easier to cry for change than to adapt.
    This seems to be the current meta in the western world.
  • Sixclicks
    4385 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 9
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Here's the post I was talking about. It was in the weekly debriefing on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/9lngks/battlefield_v_weekly_debrief_october_5th/

    reddit_snipers.png

    That seems to refute that infographic, so I wonder which is actually correct.

    maybe he means sniper as a sub-class within recon? the class was called recon, not sniper.

    Sniper was the only combat role available in the beta, so it's the same thing in that case.

    We've already determined what they meant. The infographic says most "deployed" class. Deployed, meaning spawned. Recon was the class that spawned/respawned the 2nd most.

    While that Reddit post by DICE claims scout was the 3rd most played class which I'm assuming would be recorded in total time played rather than number of respawns.

    Based on that, if I had to guess for the other 3 classes regarding most time played, I'd assume it's similar to BF1's class distribution.

    1. Assault
    2. Medic
    3. Recon
    4. Support

    Support was the least played by quite a margin in BF1. Unfortunately it feels like it could turn out that way again based on the beta. Which is problematic when we need to rely on supports a lot more for ammo when you're not near a supply station.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Sniper was the only combat role available in the beta, so it's the same thing in that case.

    We've already determined what they meant. The infographic says most "deployed" class. Deployed, meaning spawned. Recon was the class that spawned/respawned the 2nd most.

    While that Reddit post by DICE claims scout was the 3rd most played class which I'm assuming would be recorded in total time played rather than number of respawns.

    Based on that, if I had to guess for the other 3 classes regarding most time played, I'd assume it's similar to BF1's class distribution.

    1. Assault
    2. Medic
    3. Recon
    4. Support

    Support was the least played by quite a margin in BF1. Unfortunately it feels like it could turn out that way again based on the beta. Which is problematic when we need to rely on supports a lot more for ammo when you're not near a supply station.

    Was the 2 shot rifle in the recon class a "sniper" per se? Or was that a DMR/?

    Also, support was the most useless class in BF1 pre TTK patch. But when I last played it a couple weeks ago, I saw plenty of them, since their guns were pretty decent.

    Unfortunately, I think you're right about BFV, though. MMGs/LMGs should be the only guns allowed to have meaningful suppression. Otherwise, the simplicity of having easier guns in medic/assault will rule the day.

    Low TTK favors quick firing weapons like SMGs or guns that have resetting recoil patterns like the STG.

    No one has the kind of time needed to use support guns, besides as a defender on GOperations. Everything else will get punished for not being as quick.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    edited October 9
    I just have some thoughts after reading that "attrition affects skilled players more than unskilled players".

    1. Doesn't attrition change the definition of what a skilled player is? Meaning, just because you were getting more kills in a past BF game doesn't mean the game should be the same or reward the same exact tactics you used in those games. If someone is better at dealing with the resupply chore than others, doesn't that get included in what a skilled player is? Why is gun skill the only criteria being used here?

    Isn't this like comparing a player who is good without 3d spotting to one who is with it? I am bad at dealing with 3d spotting, and prefer it not be there. But, if a player knows how to use that feature better than others, doesn't he have to be considered good at the game, even though he might be worse in a different setting?

    2. You getting less kills per round than your most recent BF game is not proof attrition is affecting you. All you have to do to answer this question is this:

    How many kills did you average per round when you first placed the beta or full game for BF1 (or whatever your last game was)?

    Every player gets better at a game as they go along. One dude in the LevelCap thread said he used to get 70 kills, but was getting 50 kills in BFV.
    I asked that guy how many kills he got when he FIRST started playing BF1. You already know you are better at games you are experienced at and are worse at games that are new to you. You already know you will get more kills as you keep playing.


    3. Doesn't a quick TTK seriously affect unskilled players negatively and reward skilled players who have experience in gun fights?

    Conclusion: there is no reason to think that BFV, as a whole, lowers the skillceiling. Focusing on attrition, without including TTK's impact on the game, is a bait and switch. "Look over here. I've found something that seems bad when you isolate it from everything else." -- I see what you did there.

    You are entitled to your preference. So, stop acting like you need to come up with a more universally appealing reason when you discuss your preference to others.

    Even if attrition does benefit bad players (which is debatable. Bad players are worse at everything. You know this.), there is no way the quicker TTK won't immediately balance the game in favor of experienced players who are quicker, more precise, and know what to anticipate.

    Therefore, even if there is a trade-off in attirition, there is another trade off in another aspect of the game in your favor. Therefore, isolated attrition bashing really seems like a smoke screen for self-preservation, not an actual appeal to make a game better in some unbiased sense. But that's ok.

    I vouch for attrition because I am biased towards the feature. I don't care that my reason isn't appealing to everyone. Why can't y'all do the same and just say "I am biased against it because my playstyle requires more ammo".

    That is a better consumer argument than pretending your bias isn't a bias.
  • SirTerrible
    756 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I vouch for attrition because I am biased towards the feature. I don't care that my reason isn't appealing to everyone. Why can't y'all do the same and just say "I am biased against it because my playstyle requires more ammo".

    That is a better consumer argument than pretending your bias isn't a bias.

    That's at the core of the entire anti-attrition argument though lol. Attrition is disliked because it just restricts what you can do from a playstyle perspective without adding anything new that you can now do that you couldn't do before. If it meshed with everyone's playstyle nobody would dislike it.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    edited October 9
    That's at the core of the entire anti-attrition argument though lol. Attrition is disliked because it just restricts what you can do from a playstyle perspective without adding anything new that you can now do that you couldn't do before. If it meshed with everyone's playstyle nobody would dislike it.

    Yes, but it creates a new domain of decision-making. I'm aware it restricts players' amount of assertive options, since I dealt with it myself, but now the mental skill of how to stay on top of the ammo-game is in play. It's a new meta. It's not just vehicle spam or OP gun spam. It's ammo spam.

    I'm not saying it's better, but it clearly offers a different skill an opportunity to shine. I like it because it is a new meta. I never thought I'd see a BF game with one that is different from BF3-BF1, where you just position yourself and use the best gun. That made infantry play in those games the same. Again, it's not necessarily better; I am just beyond bored with the current BF infantry formula where you only do one thing, or lose.

    It makes it more arena-like where you are managing non-offensive attributes.
  • Sixclicks
    4385 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 9
    I just have some thoughts after reading that "attrition affects skilled players more than unskilled players".

    1. Doesn't attrition change the definition of what a skilled player is? Meaning, just because you were getting more kills in a past BF game doesn't mean the game should be the same or reward the same exact tactics you used in those games. If someone is better at dealing with the resupply chore than others, doesn't that get included in what a skilled player is? Why is gun skill the only criteria being used here?

    Isn't this like comparing a player who is good without 3d spotting to one who is with it? I am bad at dealing with 3d spotting, and prefer it not be there. But, if a player knows how to use that feature better than others, doesn't he have to be considered good at the game, even though he might be worse in a different setting?

    2. You getting less kills per round than your most recent BF game is not proof attrition is affecting you. All you have to do to answer this question is this:

    How many kills did you average per round when you first placed the beta or full game for BF1 (or whatever your last game was)?

    Every player gets better at a game as they go along. One dude in the LevelCap thread said he used to get 70 kills, but was getting 50 kills in BFV.
    I asked that guy how many kills he got when he FIRST started playing BF1. You already know you are better at games you are experienced at and are worse at games that are new to you. You already know you will get more kills as you keep playing.


    3. Doesn't a quick TTK seriously affect unskilled players negatively and reward skilled players who have experience in gun fights?

    Conclusion: there is no reason to think that BFV, as a whole, lowers the skillceiling. Focusing on attrition, without including TTK's impact on the game, is a bait and switch. "Look over here. I've found something that seems bad when you isolate it from everything else." -- I see what you did there.

    You are entitled to your preference. So, stop acting like you need to come up with a more universally appealing reason when you discuss your preference to others.

    Even if attrition does benefit bad players (which is debatable. Bad players are worse at everything. You know this.), there is no way the quicker TTK won't immediately balance the game in favor of experienced players who are quicker, more precise, and know what to anticipate.

    Therefore, even if there is a trade-off in attirition, there is another trade off in another aspect of the game in your favor. Therefore, isolated attrition bashing really seems like a smoke screen for self-preservation, not an actual appeal to make a game better in some unbiased sense. But that's ok.

    I vouch for attrition because I am biased towards the feature. I don't care that my reason isn't appealing to everyone. Why can't y'all do the same and just say "I am biased against it because my playstyle requires more ammo".

    That is a better consumer argument than pretending your bias isn't a bias.

    Regarding TTK, I personally think a low TTK doesn't require more skill. I believe longer TTKs which emphasize recoil control and accuracy more rather than quick reaction speed or positioning fosters skill more. Although I know the OP believes the opposite of me from past discussions.
  • MarxistDictator
    4381 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 9
    If there's apparently other qualities to being good at this game than being good at killing positioning and making supporting plays why isn't there more to teamwork than throwing pouches/leaving bags on the ground? Teamwork is cooperating to win, throwing bags or resupplying are just regular support functions of playing a class based game. Basically a sign of participation hence the game giving you points for doing basic things like covering for the things people not playing other classess than you can or can't do.

    The funny thing was because attrition didn't allow you to fight for longer than one extended gun battle it required ammo and health spawns everywhere, thus totally replacing the need for teamwork that it was suppose to enforce. It literally hurt the gameplay too much to be present without automated forms of support to restore health/ammo and those same stations removed the need to heal or resupply or look to others for those to most players as a result.

    It failed, and the only way to dial it back effectively and still keep it relevant is to peel back the ammo/health spawns and decrease the busywork and pointless playtime padding of needing to run and back forth to them. Especially on deployment, only grenades should be on a respawn timer seperate of a fresh deploy, all bullet weapons should be maxed out on spawn.

    There's crying about people not adapting and then there's not analyzing the facts in front of you. Radical ideas aren't suddenly good because your only contribution to anything in game is leaving bags around. Not when the associated cost is the flow of the gameplay.
  • Sixclicks
    4385 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 9
    It failed, and the only way to dial it back effectively and still keep it relevant is to peel back the ammo/health spawns and decrease the busywork and pointless playtime padding of needing to run and back forth to them. Especially on deployment, only grenades should be on a respawn timer seperate of a fresh deploy, all bullet weapons should be maxed out on spawn.

    That's definitely the number one thing I hated about attrition. The busy work after spawning where you only spawn with 2 out of 3 mag, so you need to immediately run to a supply station every time you spawn if you want to be at max cap. And it doesn't sound like that's going away even with the changes they're making where they said we'd get one extra mag on spawn and max mags would be increased by one as well.

    Running back and forth for ammo and going for ammo the moment you spawn every time doesn't lead to fun gameplay. It's boring busy work.

    I have a feeling I might end up making the FG-42 my automatic weapon of choice just so that I don't have to worry about ammo. Plus I can also use the shotty sniper M30 drilling on support.
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!