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

  • 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.

    While I do agree that having resupply stations allows people to circumvent needing a teammate for it, I don't see how it completely de-emphasizes teamwork or coordination. A coordinated squad working together with a dedicated support player will still be way better off than the lone wolf who needs to run to a resupply crate every couple minutes. Teamwork and playing roles can actively circumvent the effects of attrition, whereas playing solo heavily relies on getting to and successfully accessing resupply crates before attrition gets you killed.

    Luckily secondary weapons seem to be great and we've only got to try two, and they seem to start with a ton of reserve ammo. It's not like attrition leaves you defenseless.

    I, for one, feel attrition's affect on the pacing of gameplay is a positive change compared to the crazy, rambo, super soldier BF games we've gotten for the past several years. I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.
  • bran1986
    4412 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 9
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    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.

    If you ever need a medic we can squad up sometime.
    Post edited by bran1986 on
  • Sixclicks
    4411 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bran1986 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    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.

    If you ever need a medic sometime we can squad up sometime.

    What region are you in? I've played with @MachoFantast1c0 a few times, but I know he can't do US West with his ping there. I'm in US East. I can do US West and East. EU is playable too, but I'll be around 105 ms latency (I play EU a lot in BF1 regardless since there's more EU servers).
  • bran1986
    4412 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    bran1986 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    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.

    If you ever need a medic sometime we can squad up sometime.

    What region are you in? I've played with @MachoFantast1c0 a few times, but I know he can't do US West with his ping there. I'm in US East. I can do US West and East. EU is playable too, but I'll be around 105 ms latency (I play EU a lot in BF1 regardless since there's more EU servers).

    I squad up with @MachoFantast1c0 all the time on EU servers, but I'm in US east as well. The US east servers have been really bad for me lately, crazy packet loss and lag for some reason.
  • Sixclicks
    4411 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bran1986 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    bran1986 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    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.

    If you ever need a medic sometime we can squad up sometime.

    What region are you in? I've played with @MachoFantast1c0 a few times, but I know he can't do US West with his ping there. I'm in US East. I can do US West and East. EU is playable too, but I'll be around 105 ms latency (I play EU a lot in BF1 regardless since there's more EU servers).

    I squad up with @MachoFantast1c0 all the time on EU servers, but I'm in US east as well. The US east servers have been really bad for me lately, crazy packet loss and lag for some reason.

    Alright, well when the game comes out we'll have to squad up some time. I can play whatever class is needed, but I definitely want to give the RSC on recon a go.
  • BaronVonGoon
    5301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    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?

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.


    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?

    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.


  • bran1986
    4412 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    bran1986 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    bran1986 wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    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.

    If you ever need a medic sometime we can squad up sometime.

    What region are you in? I've played with @MachoFantast1c0 a few times, but I know he can't do US West with his ping there. I'm in US East. I can do US West and East. EU is playable too, but I'll be around 105 ms latency (I play EU a lot in BF1 regardless since there's more EU servers).

    I squad up with @MachoFantast1c0 all the time on EU servers, but I'm in US east as well. The US east servers have been really bad for me lately, crazy packet loss and lag for some reason.

    Alright, well when the game comes out we'll have to squad up some time. I can play whatever class is needed, but I definitely want to give the RSC on recon a go.

    Sounds good :smile:
  • VBALL_MVP
    6154 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    Get gud
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Sorry I'm just getting bored of this roundabout conversation that will never end.

    I like it
  • XxDragonWolf5xX
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    honestly I like the idea of attrition look at it this way people complain about campers across all fps games and people complain it's not realistic enough with attrition in play you get rid of the campers while at the same time get a realistic feel and yes i know it's just a game but in a matter of speaking all games are mearly simulations but i also like attrition idea because it gives a chance to go against the best of the best in the franchise instead of the noobs who in the past just camped next to a infinite supply of bullets or randomly sprayed a corner just because they can with no real thought or concern about waisting ammo

  • Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.
  • Sixclicks wrote: »

    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.

    I shouldn't have said "unskilled'. I should have said "inexperienced".

    Skill is highly overrated on most levels of play, imo. Positioning is most important, imo. I say this because I have never seen a game where someone is so "skilled" that he could expose himself to every direction, kill everyone, and also not get shot by someone. Skill alone just determined one's ability to execute what position dictates.


    Inexperienced players don't know to not rush or how to play defensive without being an irrelevant camper.

    The one thing inexperienced players cannot do is make better decisions than experienced players on consistent basis.

    Quick TTK punishes bad decision making very quickly. Lower TTK like in arena shooters allows for more creativity from the aggressor. Quick TTK requires the aggressor to limit his criteria to survivable options.
  • BaronVonGoon
    5301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 10

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6154 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    I dont see how it makes things easier for one group than the other. Player B is under 1 K/D...I don't think they will agree that they have anything easy.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    I dont see how it makes things easier for one group than the other. Player B is under 1 K/D...I don't think they will agree that they have anything easy.


    Player B is more unlikely to run out of ammo before being killed, and as a result the scarcity affects them less.

    I'm not convinced that it necessarily makes things more difficult for Player A... but it does create limitations to viable engagements. If we're talking purely about being a slayer, then your slaying potential is hindered by the limited ammo. Whether that's good or bad is really up to the player, and what kind of experience they want.

    The big issue for me is that I simply just found it tedious to deal with. I love the ammo depots as they encourage players to stick around objectives, but the frequency of their interaction became a chore. It also severely limited suppression and bullet penetration for any role outside of support... I found that to be fairly dull as well.
  • DeadlyDanDaMan
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    You absolutely, positively, CANNOT prove that. Please. STOP.
  • MacaqueX
    661 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 10

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    Player B will be attritioned more, he will shoot from distance and cover more, and he will miss more.
    Player A will go trough enemy like nothing, take they ammo or pickup loadout from downed players and continue. He will even kill player B with sidearm easy when attritioned and take his loadout.
    If i was never attritioned in bf games i would never pickup some crazy loadouts and i would never experience some fun bf moments.
    Attrition in beta was not problem, on bigger conquest maps idk, they will probably test it and put more ammo stations throughout map.
    Maybe they will add few stations with patch after month when ppl start coming here telling them; ok on this map and this mode attrition is to much, etc
  • Mystriall
    496 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    I dont see how it makes things easier for one group than the other. Player B is under 1 K/D...I don't think they will agree that they have anything easy.


    Player B is more unlikely to run out of ammo before being killed, and as a result the scarcity affects them less.

    I'm not convinced that it necessarily makes things more difficult for Player A... but it does create limitations to viable engagements. If we're talking purely about being a slayer, then your slaying potential is hindered by the limited ammo. Whether that's good or bad is really up to the player, and what kind of experience they want.

    The big issue for me is that I simply just found it tedious to deal with. I love the ammo depots as they encourage players to stick around objectives, but the frequency of their interaction became a chore. It also severely limited suppression and bullet penetration for any role outside of support... I found that to be fairly dull as well.

    How is player B more unlikely to run out of ammo before he is killed? a k/d of 0.8 doesn't mean he's killed before he's out of ammo, maybe he's being killed because he is out of ammo, and doesn't take the necessary steps to get ammo. based on his kpm he's clearly a camper. I consider myself somewhat of a camper, at the very least a very i have a defensive playstyle, and my kpm is 1.24 in BF1. So with 0.5 you aren't doing much in game, or you are missing all your shots, in which case you're running out of ammo and then likely dying because you can't get from your camp spot to a support or ammo station without being noticed and killed.
    -
    Point being you can't deduce from kpm and k/d wheter someone is running out of ammo or not. A guy with 3 kpm and 4 k/d get's to pick up alot more ammo from dead bodies, and we still don't know how the pickup rate will be for the release. In addition the guy with 3 kpm and 4 K/D is likely moving more thus increasing the chances of stumbling over a support with ammo or a crate or an ammo station before he's ran out of ammo.
    -
    The attrition system affects every player the same within the same class. Every assault player will be affected the same, every medic the same, and every sniper the same, and ofcourse the support has unlimited ammo, as it has been since forever about now. As do medics have the same advantage with their health, and as for the medics, that's been a fact since bf1942.
    -
    I don't think we should have 100% auto-recovery of health like in BF1 just because the medic has access to health pouches/crates and an endless supply of health. And i don't think everyone should get 10 mags on spawn simply because the support has access to ammo pouches/crates and an endless supply of ammo.
    -
    I think people should adapt their playstyle to the new system and the new game, instead of complaining about having to do so. I feel like many (not saying any of you) are complaining about them not being able to just jump in from BF1 or any other previous title and play the game just as they have played these other titles.
    Adapt, if you have a support that plays his role in your squad or close to you, then the problem is solved. If not, then you have to play different. Maybe not the way you initially want to play or intended to, but that's the beautiful thing about it.
    -
    I like and welcome the change, change makes you grow.
  • Trokey66
    6623 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Because it's a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER . Shooting skill is integral. Traversing to the next supply crate is NOT a skill. Maybe if we put two rats on the map and one piece of cheddar on the supply crate, whichever gets to it first is the more skillful rat.
    Skill isn't the only thing involved. Decision-making is in play. You should ask the devs for a game where there is only one map that is entirely flat and no objects in it, where everyone always has the same gun. Then you will have a pure skill game.

    Traversing isn't a skill, but going there to be prepared is an aptitude.
    No because if person A has better gun skills and better awareness than player B, whatever secondary skills player B has are just that, secondary skills.

    I feel bad for you. You are trapped inside some idealogy that has never existed. Every FPS has secondary factors that can determine whether or not someone wins a gun fight: like health, ammo, position advantage, team help.

    "I'm more skilled". Ok. And you are playing a team game with uncontrollable variables. Have fun projecting that ideology on reality and demanding it go your way.

    Fine. We disagree on the definition of 'skill'. I thought under the controlled confines of first person shooter, skill was easy to define but I guess not. Forget skill. I don't even know what the central point of our discussion is anymore. Let's get in to the nitty gritty:

    Player A:
    4 k/d, 3 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    Player B:
    0.8 k/d, 0.5 kills per minute, 500 hours in the game.

    1) How would *you* define and characterize these players in terms of performance in Battlefield?

    2) Who is more likely to be affected by ammo scarcity? Meaning whose stats and specifically kills per minute are more elastic to the introduction of ammo scarcity?

    If you answered anything other than 'Both' to #2 then we agree that the dev team introduced a mechanic that affects one group of players more so than it does another. In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    Some think this is ok and call it a challenge. Yes it is a challenge and we'll all adapt. Doesnt change the fact that the devs introduced a game mechanic that they knew would negatively affect one group and not affect the other as much.

    I dont see how it makes things easier for one group than the other. Player B is under 1 K/D...I don't think they will agree that they have anything easy.


    Player B is more unlikely to run out of ammo before being killed, and as a result the scarcity affects them less.

    I'm not convinced that it necessarily makes things more difficult for Player A... but it does create limitations to viable engagements. If we're talking purely about being a slayer, then your slaying potential is hindered by the limited ammo. Whether that's good or bad is really up to the player, and what kind of experience they want.

    The big issue for me is that I simply just found it tedious to deal with. I love the ammo depots as they encourage players to stick around objectives, but the frequency of their interaction became a chore. It also severely limited suppression and bullet penetration for any role outside of support... I found that to be fairly dull as well.

    OR.....

    Player B misses most of his shots when shooting and runs out of ammo.....?
  • BaronVonGoon
    5301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 10
    In other words, it reduces the skill gap makes things just a little easier for one player group at the expense of another player group.

    You absolutely, positively, CANNOT prove that. Please. STOP.

    You don't like what I have to say feel free to stop reading.







    I did. Several times in this thread including the example in the post *you just quoted*. No one in the thread disagrees on the fact that attrition will affect some players more so than it will affect others. Most of us are arguing the fairness of it or lack thereof, some think it's not unfair and say adopt a challenge and adapt mentality and some say it helps one player group by artificially hardcapping the effectiveness of another player group and so can be viewed as unfair.
    Trokey66 wrote: »

    OR.....

    Player B misses most of his shots when shooting and runs out of ammo.....?

    Player B doesn't live long enough to run out of ammo. According to Dice the average player life is 45 seconds. If you go back to Dice's quote in the blogpost, this is EXACTLY what they (the designers of this mechanic) say.
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!