Attrition video -- Levelcap

Comments

  • Mystriall
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V 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.

    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.
    -
    The only ones attrition doesn't affect the same as the others is medics and support. For medics, this is how it has been since bf1942. For support since the inclusing of ammo pouches/crates.
    -
    For all players within a given class, they will be affected the same by attrition. Some players get more kills than others, that's how it always has been, regardless of the attrition system. Some players run out of ammo more often than others, that's how it always has been, even before the inclusing of the attrition system. So then nothing has really changed, other than the fact that for ALL players ammunition has become more scarce.
    -
    So then by your arugments, the way any BF game in the franchise was made, affects some people more than others. The way BF1 was made, made it easier for one player group at the expense of another player group. The way BF4 was made, also made it easier for one group of players at the expense of another player group. etc.. Which again means that nothing really has changed, the gap hasn't been increased or decreased, it's all the same.
  • BaronVonGoon
    6990 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Mystriall wrote: »
    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.
    -
    The only ones attrition doesn't affect the same as the others is medics and support. For medics, this is how it has been since bf1942. For support since the inclusing of ammo pouches/crates.
    -
    For all players within a given class, they will be affected the same by attrition. Some players get more kills than others, that's how it always has been, regardless of the attrition system. Some players run out of ammo more often than others, that's how it always has been, even before the inclusing of the attrition system. So then nothing has really changed, other than the fact that for ALL players ammunition has become more scarce.
    -
    .

    Yes, but some need it more than others because they live longer and so need every last round in their possession. Therefore, limiting what's in their possession is bad for them more so than it is for others who simply don't stay alive long enough to run out of ammo. Right or wrong?
  • Mystriall
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    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.
    -
    The only ones attrition doesn't affect the same as the others is medics and support. For medics, this is how it has been since bf1942. For support since the inclusing of ammo pouches/crates.
    -
    For all players within a given class, they will be affected the same by attrition. Some players get more kills than others, that's how it always has been, regardless of the attrition system. Some players run out of ammo more often than others, that's how it always has been, even before the inclusing of the attrition system. So then nothing has really changed, other than the fact that for ALL players ammunition has become more scarce.
    -
    .

    Yes, but some need it more than others because they live longer and so need every last round in their possession. Therefore, limiting what's in their possession is bad for them more so than it is for others who simply don't stay alive long enough to run out of ammo. Right or wrong?

    Well, you're right on that part, but it won't always be the case, and i think once people get used to the system it will be something that happens rarely. But at the same time those who die before that happening to them have other issues :P
  • BaronVonGoon
    6990 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    Mystriall wrote: »
    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.
    -
    The only ones attrition doesn't affect the same as the others is medics and support. For medics, this is how it has been since bf1942. For support since the inclusing of ammo pouches/crates.
    -
    For all players within a given class, they will be affected the same by attrition. Some players get more kills than others, that's how it always has been, regardless of the attrition system. Some players run out of ammo more often than others, that's how it always has been, even before the inclusing of the attrition system. So then nothing has really changed, other than the fact that for ALL players ammunition has become more scarce.
    -
    .

    Yes, but some need it more than others because they live longer and so need every last round in their possession. Therefore, limiting what's in their possession is bad for them more so than it is for others who simply don't stay alive long enough to run out of ammo. Right or wrong?

    Well, you're right on that part, but it won't always be the case, and i think once people get used to the system it will be something that happens rarely. But at the same time those who die before that happening to them have other issues :P

    Agreed.
  • SirBobdk
    4301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Good/skilled players will not have a problem with ammo, because they will PTFO like CQ is suppose to be like. And 3+1 mag should not be a problem for good players.
    They will either defend or capture flags and get access to ammo. Then we have a large amount of the player base who think they are PTFO but in fact are "looking at flags", tdm players. The stay just outside the flags trying to get kills and they may be really good at it with many kills and a high kdr, but they let others go for the flags. They are now being punished for this by running out of ammo. Either way this system rewards those who defend or capture flags or are in a team playing squard. I like that.
  • Hawxxeye
    6397 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    On a more positive note all this could lead to some interesting videos where someone who has completely run out of ammo sneaking around with a knife in hand in order to kill an enemy and take his weapon and bullets
  • MachoFantast1c0
    2049 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    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.

    I on the other hand found the AT mines far superior to the BF1 version for offensive anti-vehicle play. You could throw down two instantly and blow them up on the spot with your primary or secondary, no need to carefully and slowly position them just to satisfy the non-immediate-proximity constraints that were introduced at some point. Also a lot more consistent for soloing tanks than limpets, which require you to smoke yourself up to stay alive long enough to resupply a second or third to finish them off.
  • Mystriall wrote: »
    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.

    Thank you, this post is awesome and better gets across the message I've been trying to state in this thread.

    That being that looking at this situation as if EVERYONE is split into two groups, "high skill players that get a lot of kills" and "low skill players that die before running out of ammo" is WAY too black and white.

    There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY YOU CAN APPROACH THIS MECHANIC AND IT'S EFFECTS IN SUCH A TRIVIAL, ELEMENTARY, AND SIMPLE WAY.

    Regardless of what DICE devs gave as a clearly quick and concise answer to a complex mechanic that affects EVERYONE to a different extent.

    You can't just split the entire playerbase into people with a 5kd and 3kpm, and people with a 0.8kd and 0.5kpm. Or generalize and act like anyone that doesn't amass huge numbers of kills in a single life is dying before they run out of ammo.

    There were instances in the beta where I'd run out of ammo before getting even 3 kills because I was in a horrible position and sprayed most of my ammo away trying to get out of it. And despite me being a 2+kd and near 2kpm player, there were PLENTY of instances where I died before running out of the initial ammo I spawned with.

    Imo any argument approaching this topic from such an illogically black and white standpoint should just be ignored.
  • Hay-its-dudeman
    364 postsMember Member
    edited October 2018
    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.

    google definition says about skill: "the ability to do something well; expertise."

    If I go with that, your use is more proper than mine. My intended use was "aiming ability".

    That's how I assume most people also used "skill".

    Player A is a better player than player B.

    But just because DICE says player B is likely to die before running out of ammo doesn't mean he will. I think it's just a horrible marketing ploy to deter new players who are afraid of big,bad attrition. Apparently, attrition sends chills down people's spines.

    Even if I agree that a good player will run out of ammo more frequently, that, too isn't proof that it affects them more negatively than bad players.

    Why has this scenario not been brought up:

    If both players run out of ammo, you already know which player is going to adapt better.

    I think your camp is focused on the most surface-level possible.

    Once I realized that camping around the supply stations in Conquest both resupplied me and gave me a tactical advantage, my killing efficiency went up. I would camp on the lower flag on the narvik bridge, outside the tarp, and by sandbags below the bridge on rotterdam. That was one sense in which my use of attrition was an asset. I exploited the ammo game in my favor.

    Point 2
    As I said to someone else, attrition changes the current infantry (positioning+OP gun) meta for a (positioning+OP gun+ammo spam) meta. This means that a good player in BFV will no longer JUST be what they were in BF3-BF1.

    So, in some sense, since it's a different game, the definition of a good player may change.

    You are describing the most recent definition of a good player. That player needs to deal with ammo to be the good one in BFV. Otherwise, he is inferior to a similar skilled player who plays the ammo game better.

    As I said about 3d spotting, 3d spotting benefits players who aren't good without it. But, since it's in the game, "being good without it" doesn't make you better than a player who is good with it. The feature dictates outcomes, and the outcomes dictate who is "good" at that respective game.

    It's like if a non 3d spotting FPS game community migrated to Battlefield and pointed out that 3d spotting spits in their face, because they have worked on being good without it, and it will allow otherwise worse players to compete with them solely because 3d spotting exists and doesn't play to THEIR skillset.

    In your case and theirs, you either accept that a new definition of "good" is in play, bash your head against a wall, or quit. I'd personally rather you not play than have more people but remove attrition.

    Post edited by Hay-its-dudeman on
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, 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.

    I get it that it can be tedious. But like you said, I don't see how it punishes or hinders player A.

    In terms of a slayer I dont think it hurts them either since they will still get ammo from the people they kill. And if they run out of ammo they can do what they did in every other BF game. Grab a dead soliders gun.
  • ragnarok013
    3455 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator

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

    vjxktHF.gif

    Haha, hats off to you if you used both!

    I used both a pouch and a crate as both medic and support since I wanted to play my role. That being said I desperately wished that it was like BF4 and I could choose to use either or instead of having the pouch locked as one gadget.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    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.

    I find it incredibly hard to believe that any player with a K/D of 0.8 would frequently go through their 3 mags before getting killed. On average, they only kill 1 other player before dying... That's some incredibly terrible accuracy for attrition to affect them the same.

    So much so, that I don't think there's any player with those stats, whose accuracy is that bad.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    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.

    I get it that it can be tedious. But like you said, I don't see how it punishes or hinders player A.

    In terms of a slayer I dont think it hurts them either since they will still get ammo from the people they kill. And if they run out of ammo they can do what they did in every other BF game. Grab a dead soliders gun.

    As a slayer, I think it will hinder you regardless of what you do. There will be scenarios where its unoptimal to run over to get more ammo, whether that's from a crate or from the enemies you killed. 3 mags just not being enough to really cash in, so to speak.

    Any time spent grabbing ammo is taking away from your KPM.

    In Battlefield 3, all you had to think about was the map flow, and common hot spots. By the time you ran out of ammo, you already had an insane killstreak. Once you picked up a gun, I think there was a good chance that your slaying potential was now lower, though. I see infinite ammo as being the "maximum" potential for a slayer.
  • Mystriall
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018

    I find it incredibly hard to believe that any player with a K/D of 0.8 would frequently go through their 3 mags before getting killed. On average, they only kill 1 other player before dying... That's some incredibly terrible accuracy for attrition to affect them the same.

    So much so, that I don't think there's any player with those stats, whose accuracy is that bad.

    [removed]

    Time played: 9 days 7 hours. K/D ratio 0.81 KPM 0.8 accuracy 0.14

    [removed]

    K/D ratio 0.8 kpm 0.54 accuracy 0.09

    There are hundreds, if not thousands more like those two.
    Post edited by LOLGotYerTags on
  • Mystriall
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    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.

    I get it that it can be tedious. But like you said, I don't see how it punishes or hinders player A.

    In terms of a slayer I dont think it hurts them either since they will still get ammo from the people they kill. And if they run out of ammo they can do what they did in every other BF game. Grab a dead soliders gun.

    As a slayer, I think it will hinder you regardless of what you do. There will be scenarios where its unoptimal to run over to get more ammo, whether that's from a crate or from the enemies you killed. 3 mags just not being enough to really cash in, so to speak.

    Any time spent grabbing ammo is taking away from your KPM.

    In Battlefield 3, all you had to think about was the map flow, and common hot spots. By the time you ran out of ammo, you already had an insane killstreak. Once you picked up a gun, I think there was a good chance that your slaying potential was now lower, though. I see infinite ammo as being the "maximum" potential for a slayer.

    Are the people who are complaining about the attrition system, doing so because it makes it more difficult for them to get their K/D and KPM stats?
  • trip1ex
    4982 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    It's all relative. It's not like the other side isn't running out of ammo too. So really the overall game doesn't change.

    Just means you gotta go run for ammo more often. Whatever.

    No one is going to pass out ammo more than before at least not relative to how often you need it.



  • BaronVonGoon
    6990 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018

    But just because DICE says player B is likely to die before running out of ammo doesn't mean he will.

    Yes, it does. What's so hard to understand about this? It's logic.
    Even if I agree that a good player will run out of ammo more frequently, that, too isn't proof that it affects them more negatively than bad players.

    Seriously? What's so hard about trying to picture the scenario. Good player lives longer, likely to run out of ammo more so than player who dies fast. Is this not logic? And if so, does it not also mean that they're more likely to be affected by attrition.
    Why has this scenario not been brought up:

    If both players run out of ammo,

    I meam come on. Is this the more likely scenario or is the one where player A lives longer than player B? Why are you dealing with scenarios other than average scenarios, the more likely ones. We're not in uncharted territory here, strong players live longer than weaker or newer players, we have history to prove this and Dice dropped telemetry a year or so ago indicating the average life is 45 seconds, meaning we don't all live for 45 seconds.

    Once I realized that camping around the supply stations in Conquest both resupplied me and gave me a tactical advantage, my killing efficiency went up. I would camp on the lower flag on the narvik bridge, outside the tarp, and by sandbags below the bridge on rotterdam. That was one sense in which my use of attrition was an asset. I exploited the ammo game in my favor.

    That's awful. I really hope this meta doesn't develop.

    So, in some sense, since it's a different game, the definition of a good player may change.

    If this were a movie this would soon be labeled science fiction or fantasy because you're delving into the improbable too much. It'll change how we play but it's NOT going to change the definition of a good player. Please, relaaa, nickel, AKA ART are still going g to be good players, the definition is not going to change to the point where Player B is now going to be considered the better player than the aforementioned. The aforementioned are going to be pissed off because they're running out of ammo so much and having to go scavenge all the time. What do you know AKA ART posted about this exactly just yesterday.

    You are describing the most recent definition of a good player. That player needs to deal with ammo to be the good one in BFV. Otherwise, he is inferior to a similar skilled player who plays the ammo game better.

    Uh huh! Now you're talking. 'Similar' is the keyword. Both are good players and both affected by attrition more than a not-so-good player who dies too fast to run out of ammo.
    In your case and theirs, you either accept that a new definition of "good" is in play, bash your head against a wall, or quit. I'd personally rather you not play than have more people but remove attrition.

    Doesn't add anything to the conversation...
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Mystriall wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    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.

    I get it that it can be tedious. But like you said, I don't see how it punishes or hinders player A.

    In terms of a slayer I dont think it hurts them either since they will still get ammo from the people they kill. And if they run out of ammo they can do what they did in every other BF game. Grab a dead soliders gun.

    As a slayer, I think it will hinder you regardless of what you do. There will be scenarios where its unoptimal to run over to get more ammo, whether that's from a crate or from the enemies you killed. 3 mags just not being enough to really cash in, so to speak.

    Any time spent grabbing ammo is taking away from your KPM.

    In Battlefield 3, all you had to think about was the map flow, and common hot spots. By the time you ran out of ammo, you already had an insane killstreak. Once you picked up a gun, I think there was a good chance that your slaying potential was now lower, though. I see infinite ammo as being the "maximum" potential for a slayer.

    Are the people who are complaining about the attrition system, doing so because it makes it more difficult for them to get their K/D and KPM stats?

    I think it's a factor. Definitely a good reason for some players that I've talked to.

    For me it's a factor as well, but the tediousness of it all was my biggest gripe about it.
  • Mystriall
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member

    I think it's a factor. Definitely a good reason for some players that I've talked to.

    For me it's a factor as well, but the tediousness of it all was my biggest gripe about it.

    I think that has alot to do with what one is used to. You are used to not having to bother with the stuff, thus making having to start doing it tedious. After a little while it becomes a natural thing to do.

    It takes a little while to get used to new systems. So let's not judge it down and under before giving it a proper chance. That being said, i actually like the system. So to me it doesn't matter. And i constantly run out of ammo in BF1. So I don't really feel like I'm noticing that much of a difference to be honest.

  • DeadlyDanDaMan
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited October 2018
    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.

    No, you didn't PROVE anything. You are using conjecture and speculation. You have NO hard facts or data to back you up. Will attrition affect players? Yes, of course it will. It will affect EVERYONE. Will it affect some players more than others? You don't know and you can't prove that it will, no matter how much conjecture and speculation you use. This entire argument is a complete farce.
Sign In or Register to comment.