This is straight up insulting.

Comments

  • xeNizKing
    278 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ElliotLH wrote: »
    wc138 wrote: »
    EA short changes their creative studios on resources, gives impossible release dates, and forces their developers into corners that effect the quality of their games. This isn't news. Blaming DICE for the awful constraints put on them by EA is just silly. Just take a look at the quality of their releases before EA bought them out. There's a vast difference, and it makes it fairly obvious where the problem lies (especially if you follow the trend of EA buying a studio and ruining all their games afterwards).

    Blaming DICE for this mess is like blaming your mechanic for a car lot selling you a lemon.

    You want to push for change, scream at EA.

    Took me years to forgive them for Westwood.

    I still haven't. Everytime I see my anthology....part of me just rages. Good thing I have some self control haha
  • rainkloud
    546 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    fakemon64 wrote: »
    The real question is: how much does it cost to create a vehicle in battlefield.

    For the life of me i can't seem to believe something like the tiger took upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars or countless hours of research and development to make.

    Im not trying to downplay the work it takes to program or anything but i just dont see how a single vehicle could necessarily be 'expensive' in relation to everything that goes into a modern game.

    Personally, i would think things like cinematics and voice overs to be more expensive things that would longer to develop and record.

    I think people forget that these aren't static models they are creating. This is Frostbite which is very physics intensive which means not only do the vehicle have all these parameters that have to be configured but you also have to configure how every weapon and surface interacts with it along with what sounds are generated from that interaction. Nobody does physics based games with destruction like DICE does. The reason? It's really hard to do. So when they talk about resources, yes its partly money but more likely to do with lack of skilled people who understand how to incorporate vehicles into Frostbite.

    https://sym.gg/databrowser/#BFV_6_Feb2019/Gameplay/Vehicles/VEH_Airplane_BF-109/$BFV_6_Feb2019/Gameplay/Vehicles/VEH_Airplane_BF-109/VEH_Airplane_BF-109.txt

    That's the main file for the BF109 but just one file out of many. 25,000 lines. Tell me which parts look easy to you?

    They honestly made the right decision in focussing on getting more playable vehicles into the game. Where they shouldn't have cut corners was in not putting German soldiers in the plane.

  • rainkloud
    546 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    So apparently Dice is covering their decision to release half baked game with "We did it to improve your experience" sauce.
    According to them, the reason why German forces are using hijacked British planes to paradrop in Airborn is that they had no time to develop it. They had to make a choice of either making a German plane or add more vehicles for us to play with. Now here is my issue with it:

    1 - What was the point of making more vehicles if they're crazy unbalanced to the point of being obsolete so nobody uses them anyway.

    2 - Why not take more time to develop a game fully before selling it? What prevented you from taking one more year so that we could have a full game at release and finalized post launch content map?
    HSBUBrd.png

    If you look at BF5, its simply astonishing how underdeveloped it is. We get stuff like practice range and Coop which are simply lazy recycled multiplayer locations with nothing interesting in them. Take BF3 Coop for example. Unique locations, fun and interesting missions, unique weapons that we could unlock. BF5 Coop is a joke compared to it, and it took so long to develop? Are you kidding me?

    Now lets take BF5 vehicles, up until recently, most tanks were simply unusable because of extremely weak armor and no splash damage. And even today, tanks need ALOT of tweaking to be a viable option.

    Planes. A total effing mess. We have British fighters that are straight up OP AF, and totally useless Blenheim bombers. MK1 is a total joke, I don't even know why it exists. Couldn't you ditch Blenheim MK1 and give Germans their plane to paradrop from? Like why do Brits get 2 bombers with 1 of them being a total joke? Couldn't you just make 1 good one? Then we have German fighters that are somewhat good against infantry, and total crap against Spitfires because of their lack of firepower, VA can melt BF109 in less than 3 seconds while BF109 needs 5+ seconds to down a spitfire. Yet German Bomber is a total effing monster, carrying 16 small bombs and x4 500KG ones. Now compare that to Blenheim x8 small and x2 250kg bombs.

    This whole thing is an insult to injury. In the next BF game Dice will make excuse of only giving each class 1 primary and 1 secondary because "We had to make sure out netcode was working correctly, so it was either more guns or better connection". It looks like a joke now, it won't be in the future.

    1) I don't see crazy imbalances right now - most things are in a fairly reasonable place. Not perfect and progress should continue but overall pretty good

    2) They need the money. These games aren't cheap to make so they have to release on a regular schedule to keep profits up.

    I don't really agree with your take on planes. I think they all more or less have purposes (of course still needs some fleshing out) but things are pretty good there as well.

    Practice range is a disaster though right now, I agree and from what I hear coop was a waste of good resources. And I agree overall that things are a pretty big mess with no RSP, major bugs still floating around and unclear roadmap. But I feel bad for this poor dev. This is why they hate talking with the community sometimes. They speak honestly and then they get eviscerated over something not very important in comparison with larger issues.
  • rockin_master
    366 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 26
    Go ahead and try to defend the indefensible raincloud. It's fun to watch. I think you don't have a leg to stand on in your stated "argument" because it's not the point of what's being discussed here at all. Your premise is ridiculous and has no merit.

    Niklas is being facetious, he isn't asking an actual question or conducting an actual poll to gauge player response.

    He's acting like what he is. A rich, talentless clod wagging his finger at what he finds to be nothing more than peasants. Treating them like insolent, ignorant children that don't know which way is up and are too stupid to figure it out on their own. All done with the air of an aristocrat, showing no signs of fear of reprisal.

    He's demanding people kiss his ring and be grateful for the crumbs they have, or, maybe they will get even less the next time around. The majority spoke, called his dare and voted to fix the result of his "who really cares, take it and shut up or else" garbage attitude.

    So Niklas started blocking people by the dozens, like a little child would.

    You're the first in line to give that ring a big smoochie raincloud. Go ahead and give it a big wet one while everyone watches.

    Welcome to my ignore list.
    Post edited by rockin_master on
  • 0SiGHT0
    455 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This game is an insult to anyone who is a dedicated player of the Battlefield franchise. Battlefield 4, Hardline, 1 and 5 are all insults.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1395 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The thing is it should have cost very little time and money to get this right, or even half right. Surely changing the British paras into German paras should be a couple mouse clicks to overlay German skins onto the player model framework? I can forgive the planes being the same, after all we have universal weapons.
  • VincentNZ
    1751 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Again: we arent talking here about a Vehicle which you can actually " use " in the Game and which needs to be balanced against others ( another topic where lazy New Dice horribly fails )
    But more or less a Skin for a Plane which highly effects the immersion.
    Highly affects the immersion? In a game where British troops parachute into Norway in 1940 (before the 1st Airborne Division even existed), where German players are using British weapons and vice versa, where everyone has weapons never used by the army they're supposed to be part of, where vehicles that didn't appear until late in the war are running around in 1940, where the uniforms are a silly mishmash of bits and pieces, where players can teleport across the map using a spawn beacon or can be instantly healed of fatal wounds by an injection--but with all that laughably fictional cartoon nonsense going on, it's the lack of a JU-52 that ruins immersion?

    Meanwhile teams can be wildly out of balance, hack users can get away with it for long periods, the network performance is still weak, the UI is a clunky mess, assignments often don't work properly and so on and so forth, and EA has DICE on a tight budget, but why not expend resources creating a transport aircraft players will ride in for a few seconds just for the sake of immersion? Good plan.

    I'm still trying to work out what the actual 'insult' is.

    As stated earlier, we are where we are and continually complaing about the past doesn't help.

    The 'community' have complained about, amongst other things:

    Lack of honesty.
    Lack of transparency.
    Lack of communication.
    Lack of 'histirucal accuracy'.
    Lack of content.

    So now we have a DICE Dev being open and honest about the resource in the studio and engaging with the community about the way ahead.

    Players have complained about Airborne cut scene and lack of JU52.

    So he asks,given the restraints we are under, would you prefer the JU52 at the expense of a future vehicle or would you prefer content?

    Rather than engage constructively on the subject with reasoned opinion about which would be better.....


    Grab the pitch forks and storm the castle.......

    Oh well, let the bandwagon roll on.

    That would be true, if the poll had not been so biased and suggestive, and then failed thanks to the internet. The assumption that he makes is just baseless, but yet so revealing. I mean we can all agree that, while being a minor part of the game, it would have been the right thing to add the JU-52 to the game and fill the plane with the right faction models. It is what we would expect from a game with a prospected scale of Battlefield.
    Now, is the JU-52 really a vehicle? Isn't it more like a house on rails in the sky? Do we really think that the JU-52 is such an expensive asset, that the Soviets will then arrive without the T-34? Nah, of course not. Indeed though, it costs resources and that means a reduction of resources in other departments, but this would only mean we'd see a half-**** job somewhere else.
    He then even had to rollback on his own poll saying that this is, of course, no guarantee for the JU. That is a prime example of how not to handle marketing for a game and why devs should be very careful when posting content related to their product.
  • TheyHaveScissors
    494 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    This game is an insult to anyone who is a dedicated player of the Battlefield franchise. Battlefield 4, Hardline, 1 and 5 are all insults.

    If you compare Battlefield 2 and it's immense possibilities and compare it to the BF's that came next then yes... They're indeed all insults.
  • Kauzer_RF
    220 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BF109 G2 has 4 lmgs and 2 rockets. Problem is that 20mm guns are useless, both sides, maybe hyspana are even worse. Because of that G6, G2 upgrade and Spit MK B are useless. Spit MK A has imba burst and G2 can 1 shoot any plane with rockets, also Spit can not kill AA from save distance. G2 and MK A have different strong and weak sides.

    According eng bomber i agree.
  • Stahlmach
    1131 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    New Dice now got lectured by the german Panzermuseum in Munster with a video for " further education " because unlike Dice said the Battle of Hannut wasnt " the biggest tank battle in history ". That was of course Kursk aka " Operation Zitadelle "....

    https://www.facebook.com/Battlefield.de/photos/a.123580081033713/2253147304743636/?type=3
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1395 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    New Dice now got lectured by the german Panzermuseum in Munster with a video for " further education " because unlike Dice said the Battle of Hannut wasnt " the biggest tank battle in history ". That was of course Kursk aka " Operation Zitadelle "....

    https://www.facebook.com/Battlefield.de/photos/a.123580081033713/2253147304743636/?type=3

    To be fair, could it not have been the biggest tank battle at the time?
  • TheyHaveScissors
    494 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Khronikos wrote: »
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    This game is an insult to anyone who is a dedicated player of the Battlefield franchise. Battlefield 4, Hardline, 1 and 5 are all insults.

    Oh god nobody cares.

    BF Vets care.
  • Kattegat_Twin
    587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I can forgive the planes being the same, after all we have universal weapons.

    Why do we have universal weapons? Who thought it was a good idea to do that? Each side should start with their faction-specific weapons. Playing as an ally and you fancy a German gun? There are plenty lying on the ground beside dead people.
  • NLBartmaN
    2606 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Why do we have universal weapons? Who thought it was a good idea to do that? Each side should start with their faction-specific weapons. Playing as an ally and you fancy a German gun? There are plenty lying on the ground beside dead people.

    That would only work if each weapon has a exact copy on the other faction with just a different skin ...

    Look what different vehicles on the factions does to the vehicle balance, it is pure trash and unbalanced ...

    And don't forget about the assignments and ranking up ... in BF V you can't switch sides, so if you want to rank up a vehicle or want to do some vehicle assignment you have to switch servers until you can get the right vehicle ...
  • TEKNOCODE
    10685 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Astr0damus wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Astr0damus wrote: »
    When I watched this clip about Zappos "work culture", I immediately thought, I bet this is how they get down at DICE-- probably riding skateboards down hallways etc.. I apologize in advance if my assumption is incorrect.
    ===
    Zappos customer service is absolutely amazing. 🤷🏻‍♀️

    Are you wearing a tu-tu?
    (oh wait, it's Monday--I'll ask you tomorrow)
    What if I was? 💁🏻‍♀️
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1395 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    Why do we have universal weapons? Who thought it was a good idea to do that? Each side should start with their faction-specific weapons. Playing as an ally and you fancy a German gun? There are plenty lying on the ground beside dead people.

    That would only work if each weapon has a exact copy on the other faction with just a different skin ...

    Look what different vehicles on the factions does to the vehicle balance, it is pure trash and unbalanced ...

    And don't forget about the assignments and ranking up ... in BF V you can't switch sides, so if you want to rank up a vehicle or want to do some vehicle assignment you have to switch servers until you can get the right vehicle ...

    They don't need to be exact copies. Each should have their pros and cons, but I'm sure a lot of weapons would be for all intents fairly similar anyway - or made that way . You could also do what they did back in the original BF Vietnam (cant remember about BF42.) where you play a map twice, once with each faction. None of this will happen though because players want more, more, more, even if that effects quality. However many of those same people who dont care about faction specific weapons are going apoplectic over their favourite faction not being in game or having an urban map called Stalingrad or a beach map called Omaha.
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!