Weekly BF

BF FiV5 content... -

Comments

  • Loqtrall
    12058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't understand the mentality here. Yes we have a comparative number of maps to bf1 at the moment but the roadmap for bfv is dismal. I'm pinning hopes that they just haven't announced the new maps yet. However, every other bf title would provide 4 more maps in the first dlc. From what I remember, (I may be wrong) the dlc for each bf dropped around about 3 months after release. This gave us a minimum of 4 maps plus some useless stuff like skins etc.

    So usually at around the 3 month mark we would have the vanilla maps and also 4 dlc maps. So far in bfv we have 1 extra map and 1 more confirmed for Feb I think? This puts us 2 maps short of where we would normally be by the three month mark with no confirmation of any more maps coming.

    Like I said I assume they just haven't announced new maps but to me this is a worrying sign.

    And yes I know we have had a few guns and skins but I (maybe selfishly) want new maps and couldn't give a monkeys about the cosmetics.

    And every other BF title had paid dlc and expansions, meaning the dev team had an obligation to deliver what was advertised even if it meant pushing the release date of the content packs back.

    And you are wrong, on top of the first dlc for bf4 consisting entirely of remade, unoriginal maps, bf1s first dlc didn't drop until the game had already been out for half a year. It went 6 months with the only dlc in that span of time being Giants Shadow.

    Aside from that point, DLC in this game is now free due to an immense amount of complaints about paid dlc fracturing the playerbase, which happened literally since premium was implemented in BF3.

    Look at any other AAA game out there with free DLC and you'll see a similar outcome. Whether it's Halo 5, Overwatch, Rainbow Six, Titanfall 2, or any other shooter with free dlc, they release SINGLE maps with other content sprinkled in months apart from each other.

    Halo is in a similar position to BF. They used to offer paid dlc packs with several maps, but halo 5 moved to free dlc and now they get either one new fresh map every 6+ months, or map remakes from old halo games.

    It's just how free dlc works.

    We're talking about one of the biggest game development studios in the world, that work on several franchises of games at one time and are constantly developing new BF titles alongside content for BF titles already released - you can't expect them to push out even a similar amount of content in comparison to what we got with Premium, for free. No developer does, regardless of size or the popularity of thier game.

    Hell, Fortnite is THE most popular game in history, it's garnered billions of dollars for Epic games since its existence despite being free to play, and the ONLY DLC they get is single weapons and cosmetics.
  • thebossman2202
    399 postsMember, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    I don't understand the mentality here. Yes we have a comparative number of maps to bf1 at the moment but the roadmap for bfv is dismal. I'm pinning hopes that they just haven't announced the new maps yet. However, every other bf title would provide 4 more maps in the first dlc. From what I remember, (I may be wrong) the dlc for each bf dropped around about 3 months after release. This gave us a minimum of 4 maps plus some useless stuff like skins etc.

    So usually at around the 3 month mark we would have the vanilla maps and also 4 dlc maps. So far in bfv we have 1 extra map and 1 more confirmed for Feb I think? This puts us 2 maps short of where we would normally be by the three month mark with no confirmation of any more maps coming.

    Like I said I assume they just haven't announced new maps but to me this is a worrying sign.

    And yes I know we have had a few guns and skins but I (maybe selfishly) want new maps and couldn't give a monkeys about the cosmetics.

    And every other BF title had paid dlc and expansions, meaning the dev team had an obligation to deliver what was advertised even if it meant pushing the release date of the content packs back.

    And you are wrong, on top of the first dlc for bf4 consisting entirely of remade, unoriginal maps, bf1s first dlc didn't drop until the game had already been out for half a year. It went 6 months with the only dlc in that span of time being Giants Shadow.

    Aside from that point, DLC in this game is now free due to an immense amount of complaints about paid dlc fracturing the playerbase, which happened literally since premium was implemented in BF3.

    Look at any other AAA game out there with free DLC and you'll see a similar outcome. Whether it's Halo 5, Overwatch, Rainbow Six, Titanfall 2, or any other shooter with free dlc, they release SINGLE maps with other content sprinkled in months apart from each other.

    Halo is in a similar position to BF. They used to offer paid dlc packs with several maps, but halo 5 moved to free dlc and now they get either one new fresh map every 6+ months, or map remakes from old halo games.

    It's just how free dlc works.

    We're talking about one of the biggest game development studios in the world, that work on several franchises of games at one time and are constantly developing new BF titles alongside content for BF titles already released - you can't expect them to push out even a similar amount of content in comparison to what we got with Premium, for free. No developer does, regardless of size or the popularity of thier game.

    Hell, Fortnite is THE most popular game in history, it's garnered billions of dollars for Epic games since its existence despite being free to play, and the ONLY DLC they get is single weapons and cosmetics.

    Thank you! Ive been this forum post and your comments are spot on! I loved playing BF1 and probably had tons of fun with it, but Im not going tk sit here and act like the first 6 month were not tough on the player base. Dont forget BF1 had a low # of weapons too but DICE tried to make it look it was more by adding "Variants" which was obviously crap.

    BFV IMO has added a great system and once they fix the bug issues and start cosmestics and guns and modes we will be good. I like maps but I dont expect 4 maps with the level of detail as the ones in game every 2-3 months in a free updated game.
  • JamieCurnock
    629 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    I don't understand the mentality here. Yes we have a comparative number of maps to bf1 at the moment but the roadmap for bfv is dismal. I'm pinning hopes that they just haven't announced the new maps yet. However, every other bf title would provide 4 more maps in the first dlc. From what I remember, (I may be wrong) the dlc for each bf dropped around about 3 months after release. This gave us a minimum of 4 maps plus some useless stuff like skins etc.

    So usually at around the 3 month mark we would have the vanilla maps and also 4 dlc maps. So far in bfv we have 1 extra map and 1 more confirmed for Feb I think? This puts us 2 maps short of where we would normally be by the three month mark with no confirmation of any more maps coming.

    Like I said I assume they just haven't announced new maps but to me this is a worrying sign.

    And yes I know we have had a few guns and skins but I (maybe selfishly) want new maps and couldn't give a monkeys about the cosmetics.

    And every other BF title had paid dlc and expansions, meaning the dev team had an obligation to deliver what was advertised even if it meant pushing the release date of the content packs back.

    And you are wrong, on top of the first dlc for bf4 consisting entirely of remade, unoriginal maps, bf1s first dlc didn't drop until the game had already been out for half a year. It went 6 months with the only dlc in that span of time being Giants Shadow.

    Aside from that point, DLC in this game is now free due to an immense amount of complaints about paid dlc fracturing the playerbase, which happened literally since premium was implemented in BF3.

    Look at any other AAA game out there with free DLC and you'll see a similar outcome. Whether it's Halo 5, Overwatch, Rainbow Six, Titanfall 2, or any other shooter with free dlc, they release SINGLE maps with other content sprinkled in months apart from each other.

    Halo is in a similar position to BF. They used to offer paid dlc packs with several maps, but halo 5 moved to free dlc and now they get either one new fresh map every 6+ months, or map remakes from old halo games.

    It's just how free dlc works.

    We're talking about one of the biggest game development studios in the world, that work on several franchises of games at one time and are constantly developing new BF titles alongside content for BF titles already released - you can't expect them to push out even a similar amount of content in comparison to what we got with Premium, for free. No developer does, regardless of size or the popularity of thier game.

    Hell, Fortnite is THE most popular game in history, it's garnered billions of dollars for Epic games since its existence despite being free to play, and the ONLY DLC they get is single weapons and cosmetics.

    Like I said, I wasn't sure it was 3 months that dlc is released so yeah I stand corrected on that.

    I think the live service could be great IF it delivers and so far i believe it has. My concern is that the road map still only shows 1 map. If it is six months that the dlc usually drops then maybe they just haven't announced anything yet, hopefully we get the equivalent of 4 new maps at the same pace as dlc was given for previous titles but as regular drops rather than in one go.
    Unfortunately though, like you said "you can't expect them to push out even a similar amount of content in comparison to what we got with Premium, for free". It's for that reason that I would prefer to pay for guaranteed content unless they can deliver the live service with the same amount of maps. If not then ultimately we are just getting less battlefield. Granted it's for less money but I'd wager the majority of people would prefer more content for a reasonable price.

    i don't really play any of the games you mentioned above so this is kind of my first dip into a game with a live service. Come to think of it I played Hitman, that was released episodically which h was similar, i thought that was a terrible model so maybe I'm expecting too much from this live service. Shame though, with less new content to play (specifically maps) the less battlefield I will probably play.

    I still believe in dice though, I'm hoping they can prove everyone wrong and deliver.
  • Loki_Deezie
    872 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What's with this lack of content talk? This game has as much if not more content then most multiplayer games in its first 2 months.

    Rdo has 0 other than 5 story missions and stupid free roam missions that are unimaginative and boring.

    Cod has like 6 maps, all others are Reskins or they changed from day to night...

    Dont get me started on FO76.
  • The_BERG_366
    2438 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 4
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    It’s unrealistic but I think a new map should be released every month to keep players engaged

    There's not a single developer that has done this, it's beyond simply unrealistic. The maps a dev studio even as big as DICE could churn out in a months time would be total crap.

    one map per month would mean 24 maps in two years. bf1 got 20 (+2 for air superiority) maps in two years...
    "beyond simply unrealistic" is quite a bit of an exaggeration.
    now I don't personally think thst we need one map a month but Its not that for off of what we had already....

    also bf1 actually launched with 9 maps. bfv with 8. again Im not complaining about it... just pointing it out..
  • TEKNOCODE
    11142 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    It’s unrealistic but I think a new map should be released every month to keep players engaged

    There's not a single developer that has done this, it's beyond simply unrealistic. The maps a dev studio even as big as DICE could churn out in a months time would be total crap.

    one map per month would mean 24 maps in two years. bf1 got 20 (+2 for air superiority) maps in two years...
    "beyond simply unrealistic" is quite a bit of an exaggeration.
    now I don't personally think thst we need one map a month but Its not that for off of what we had already....

    also bf1 actually launched with 9 maps. bfv with 8. again Im not complaining about it... just pointing it out..

    The difference is paid dlc vs free dlc. I expect bfv to be similar to siege; 3/4 maps per year.
  • thebossman2202
    399 postsMember, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    It’s unrealistic but I think a new map should be released every month to keep players engaged

    There's not a single developer that has done this, it's beyond simply unrealistic. The maps a dev studio even as big as DICE could churn out in a months time would be total crap.

    one map per month would mean 24 maps in two years. bf1 got 20 (+2 for air superiority) maps in two years...
    "beyond simply unrealistic" is quite a bit of an exaggeration.
    now I don't personally think thst we need one map a month but Its not that for off of what we had already....

    also bf1 actually launched with 9 maps. bfv with 8. again Im not complaining about it... just pointing it out..

    The difference is paid dlc vs free dlc. I expect bfv to be similar to siege; 3/4 maps per year.

    I can live with that
  • eb50bass
    189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 4
    DLC no DLC, They chose no DLC so......maps maps and maps. Keep them coming sooner rather then later, or scrap the idea and give us DLC maps, I don't care either way as long as we get maps. I really like the game, but I'm already getting bored of these maps. I'd be happy with another 3 maps asap. A 12 map rotation would sustain me.
  • SovereignGS
    29 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    dA_9_eL_81 wrote: »
    I just hope they add some BF4-weapons and gadgets to BFV... Lets just give up on this game and just go gung-ho all-in and give the authencity of the game a big FY....

    Personally I just wanna play Op Metro 1944 on a dedicated 2000 ticket server....

    BFV's next DLC drop will be called "Terminator." Visitors from the future have traveled back in time to alter the course of history. With them, they have brought back the ultimate weapon of their time. They refer to it only as "[USAS-12]".
  • The_BERG_366
    2438 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    It’s unrealistic but I think a new map should be released every month to keep players engaged

    There's not a single developer that has done this, it's beyond simply unrealistic. The maps a dev studio even as big as DICE could churn out in a months time would be total crap.

    one map per month would mean 24 maps in two years. bf1 got 20 (+2 for air superiority) maps in two years...
    "beyond simply unrealistic" is quite a bit of an exaggeration.
    now I don't personally think thst we need one map a month but Its not that for off of what we had already....

    also bf1 actually launched with 9 maps. bfv with 8. again Im not complaining about it... just pointing it out..

    The difference is paid dlc vs free dlc. I expect bfv to be similar to siege; 3/4 maps per year.

    Well the payment model changed but in theory there should be just as much revenue generated with the new model (of course EA hoped to go more into the direction of fifa... won't happen though). of course the cosmetics are more important now and hence need more time to deliver however the efforts are really not comparable. hence I don't really see why the payment model should habe such a big impact.
    also he didn't say its beyond unrelisitic for free dlc but for dlc in general (again not thst it would make a big difference anyway)
  • TEKNOCODE
    11142 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    It’s unrealistic but I think a new map should be released every month to keep players engaged

    There's not a single developer that has done this, it's beyond simply unrealistic. The maps a dev studio even as big as DICE could churn out in a months time would be total crap.

    one map per month would mean 24 maps in two years. bf1 got 20 (+2 for air superiority) maps in two years...
    "beyond simply unrealistic" is quite a bit of an exaggeration.
    now I don't personally think thst we need one map a month but Its not that for off of what we had already....

    also bf1 actually launched with 9 maps. bfv with 8. again Im not complaining about it... just pointing it out..

    The difference is paid dlc vs free dlc. I expect bfv to be similar to siege; 3/4 maps per year.

    Well the payment model changed but in theory there should be just as much revenue generated with the new model (of course EA hoped to go more into the direction of fifa... won't happen though). of course the cosmetics are more important now and hence need more time to deliver however the efforts are really not comparable. hence I don't really see why the payment model should habe such a big impact.
    also he didn't say its beyond unrelisitic for free dlc but for dlc in general (again not thst it would make a big difference anyway)
    The paid/free models have always provided a different amount of content. Any game with free dlc has never produced equivalent content to bf premium. It was never going to happen with this new model.
  • WrexDotExe
    179 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I miss the gun master mode from BF4, especially the one with the troll setup where everybody started the round with a Riot shield 🤣.
    That game was such an adventure.
  • Faylum
    419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    dA_9_eL_81 wrote: »
    Erm... Can somebody please contact Dice and tell them that when we (the playerbase) asked for more content in the game we were not asking for real in-game currency to buy facepaint for Erica or shredded leatherpants for Gunther.... but for maps, modes & guns...!

    Thank you!

    Just make a sexist comment like women never fought in the front lines on the western front and you'll have every dev under the sun reading your post and looking for a legal bases to have you banned. Then you'll have their attention. But just being a white man complaining... you should know by now how they wont listen to you. You hate whaymen by default!
  • dA_9_eL_81
    1837 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Faylum wrote: »
    dA_9_eL_81 wrote: »
    Erm... Can somebody please contact Dice and tell them that when we (the playerbase) asked for more content in the game we were not asking for real in-game currency to buy facepaint for Erica or shredded leatherpants for Gunther.... but for maps, modes & guns...!

    Thank you!

    Just make a sexist comment like women never fought in the front lines on the western front and you'll have every dev under the sun reading your post and looking for a legal bases to have you banned. Then you'll have their attention. But just being a white man complaining... you should know by now how they wont listen to you. You hate whaymen by default!

    I think u missed my point there matey... My comment was addressed to the fact that Dice is adding real in-game currency instead of maps... It gives a strange feeling that Dice will be focusing their work-effort on pretty skins and fashionable clothing for the characters instead of working on new maps and bug-fixing...

    I never cared about the prosthetic armed female in the trailer and the whole SJW-controvercy... Ppl just gets triggered so easy in 2018 2019....
  • Faylum
    419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    dA_9_eL_81 wrote: »
    Faylum wrote: »
    dA_9_eL_81 wrote: »
    Erm... Can somebody please contact Dice and tell them that when we (the playerbase) asked for more content in the game we were not asking for real in-game currency to buy facepaint for Erica or shredded leatherpants for Gunther.... but for maps, modes & guns...!

    Thank you!

    Just make a sexist comment like women never fought in the front lines on the western front and you'll have every dev under the sun reading your post and looking for a legal bases to have you banned. Then you'll have their attention. But just being a white man complaining... you should know by now how they wont listen to you. You hate whaymen by default!

    I think u missed my point there matey... My comment was addressed to the fact that Dice is adding real in-game currency instead of maps... It gives a strange feeling that Dice will be focusing their work-effort on pretty skins and fashionable clothing for the characters instead of working on new maps and bug-fixing...

    I never cared about the prosthetic armed female in the trailer and the whole SJW-controvercy... Ppl just gets triggered so easy in 2018 2019....

    You misunderstood me actually. I never mentioned cosmetics. I said if you want dev attention you need to make a sexist remark as they will only act when women are being attacked. They will not even bother to gaze at your posts if you talk like a modern day Einstein.
  • G-Gnu
    1442 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 10
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    G-Gnu wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    No, a ligitimate issue with the game would indicate its something objectively, universally wrong with the game or its content. Whereas your gripe is literally an opinion piece.

    It is a legitimate issue for those that do not want to do all the stupid chores to make bits of CC´s to buy essentials to the game ,cosmetics is not essential. So your statement about what is "legitimate" is rather opinion based too , or do you speak for DICE ?
    I do not have any statistics, but i am still sure that there are more then just me that thinks this kind of practice is detrimental to the fun in a FPS game and right now for this game i think the fun factor is something that this game needs to appeal to as many as possible.
    I do not understand why we just cant unlock all guns as we do with the "vanilla" ones and then USE the gun to unlock the specialization without having to chase CC´s , or rather i do understand it´s all about the money in the end, but still.

    Lol disliking how developers designed content to be obtained is not a legitimate issue with the game or its content. It's your personal feelings. The fact of the matter is the weapons are perfectly attainable, not only that, but beyond easily attainable via multiple methods.

    An example of a legitimate issue with how they handle rewarding said content is that the ToW assignments are bugged and you have to join specific servers for them to actually track. That's an objective issue with ToW assignments that effects literally everyone that plays the game.

    And example of a legitimate issue with how they allow you to buy the weapons with company coins after thier event has passed is that once you reach rank 50, you can only obtain company coins via dailies, which reward you a measly amount every day. That's a confirmed issue that effects countless people and is not intentional.

    You personally disliking the intentional method in which content is delivered to you is not a legitimate issue, it's a personal qualm or gripe at best.

    DLC weapons have been locked behind assignments or other means in literally every BF game that has featured dlc weapons.

    At that point you're insisting that there is a legit issue with repeated core design choices in the game, despite them being intentional, solely because you dislike it it. That's nonsense.

    Oh man , sigh... what a load of ...
    An issue is an issue , it can not be more or less legitimate wherever it´s opinion based or a feature that is not function as it should.
    On opinion based issues of course that is an opinion but it will not make it less legitimate, the issue in hand might not be game breaking though but it is still an issue.
    I never stated that there was fault in the software i am still stating that it is a design flaw and that is still a legit issue for me, not for you apparently.
    You seem to be quite narrow minded and did not comprehend that maybe there is an other design direction where you could have game essentials more open to those who do not want the grind and still have the grind for others but with cosmetics.
    A game is for having fun, and this is a FPS game the fun is suppose to be playing and be able to play with different guns and gun settings to try different strategies and helping your squad and team on the field, then having these chores that makes everyone play for them self´s to unlock whatnot is detrimental to the game and i am questioning why guns must be under that design.
    These chores is trying by design to keep ppl playing the game and in my opinion is a flawed, because then you have not put in enough of work into the game it self to be attractive enough to keep ppl playing, sadly in my case this make me feel the total opposite.

    Lmao it's not an issue when we're talking about a mechanic that has been applied throughout the entire history of the franchise.

    That's like insisting having CQL be 64 players is an issue because you prefer CQL with less players or chaos, despite CQL being 64 players literally since BF came into existence.

    There's a difference between legitimate issues and personal gripes when it comes to a long standing system that has not changed much in 10+ years.

    It's not an objective problem, it's not an issue - it's something you dislike because it makes you play in a way you don't want to in order to unlock a weapon. In issue would indicate its an important problem up for debate - whereas what you're saying is essentially that you don't like a long-standing design feature in BF because you'd rather have weapons just given to you. You're expressing a subjective qualm, not a widely-discussed topic seen in a general negative light throughout the community.

    This has not been done in this way ever what i know off.
    And the way it is done is getting worse with every iteration and is swaying players away from focus on the task, and with that it is a issue.
    With your way of thinking there would be no problem if EA decides to lock weapons behind a pay wall, there is no problem to get the gun just pay up.

    And why should i play CQL64 if i think it´s too chaotic ? This makes no sens and the analogy is just complete crap.

    And just because something has been made a long time does not mean it is as default a good thing.
  • StingX71
    817 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    42 launched with 16+ maps with 5 more released via patches. Launching with anything less than 12 is pathetic for this type of game.
  • WrexDotExe
    179 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The Battlefield V experience.
  • GerocK-
    636 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited January 11
    StingX71 wrote: »
    42 launched with 16+ maps with 5 more released via patches. Launching with anything less than 12 is pathetic for this type of game.

    Of course the amount of maps in Battlefield 1942 was awesome in that time, but the maps in later games had much more to offer than the maps in 1942.
    Battlefield has released with 9-11 mapssince Battlefield Bad Company 2 and none of those games were pathetic.
Sign In or Register to comment.