This is straight up insulting.

Comments

  • fakemon64
    898 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    rainkloud wrote: »
    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.

    Like i said, im not trying to downplay the work it takes. In fact, i never mentioned it being easy at all. I just don't think that their excuse is valid or reasonable...

    Making players choose between having more vehicles or having the vehicles in the game now actually look and work as intended is absurd imo.

    They should have just admitted that things got rushed and they are still behind schedule. This would at least give me faith in their honesty. As of now it feels like bf5 is being held together with promises of content and fixes.

  • fakemon64
    898 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, 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 ...

    Personally i like asymmetry. I think the vehicle balance is bad because of performance issues(overall speed, agility, maneuverability) and not because if weapons and armament.

    Also, about the assignment thing. I dont see why so many people try to rush through assignments. Imo if you just take it slow and at your pace, you can pretty much finish them without changing your playstyle much.

    Personally i wish the weapons in this game were faction specific, but players can unlock a captured version of the gun upon reaching max level with it or something like that. I guess similar to hardline.
  • EdwinSpangler
    1843 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, 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.

    Give us the list of "other things" besides the ju52 that theyre gonna work on. Dont just say "more tanks and planes".. I feel (as others do im sure) that this is just a way to rip us off out of more content should we want the ju52 more..

    Hoestly I couldnt care less one bit..

  • Kattegat_Twin
    856 postsMember, Battlefield 3, 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 ...

    The guns don't need to be exactly the same with different skins. Why not have the equivalent weapons be similar but have their own traits and quirks? Sten has slightly better accuracy, MP40 has slightly less recoil or something(those are not actual stats as far as I know, it's just an example).

    Plenty of games do this. Heroes & generals is one. Whatever faction you're with, you only spawn with faction-specific weapons, but you can pick up any weapon at all that you find on the ground.

    Honestly, both sides being able to spawn with their enemy's weapons is just ridiculous.

    As for vehicles, yes some balancing is needed, but are you really suggesting that both sides should share the same vehicles too?

    And about switching sides: Unless you're playing Grand Ops, you'll switch sides every match. So there's plenty of opportunity to take turns ranking up each side's weapons...
  • Kattegat_Twin
    856 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Mods: I had typed a reply. Went to edit it and now it's gone. What happened?
  • pest174
    811 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    If the scarcity of recourses is an issue, give players mod tools. I'm sure there are players out there will gladly create these in-game assets for free. I've already seen some fantastic mods for both BF1 and Battlefront. The stranglehold the devs/publisher have on this game in trying maintain some sort of visionary integrity is astonishing. I recall a certain statement that said "fun above historical accuracy", but it doesn't feel like we're getting either of those.
  • BiscuitFrenzy
    149 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I did think it was a bit silly that my German paratrooper was having his backside patted by a British paratrooper on the way out of a C-47. I wouldn't know the inside of a C-47 from a JU-52, so all they really had to do was change the skins of the jump master and other soldiers in it.
  • Kattegat_Twin
    856 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2019
    pest174 wrote: »
    If the scarcity of recourses is an issue, give players mod tools. I'm sure there are players out there will gladly create these in-game assets for free. I've already seen some fantastic mods for both BF1 and Battlefront. The stranglehold the devs/publisher have on this game in trying maintain some sort of visionary integrity is astonishing. I recall a certain statement that said "fun above historical accuracy", but it doesn't feel like we're getting either of those.

    Damn, I'd model them some stuff for free. Just put my name in the credits.
  • diagoro
    1593 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, 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?

    If I recall, the description said "largest tank battle to that date", which would be accurate.
  • diagoro
    1593 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I did think it was a bit silly that my German paratrooper was having his backside patted by a British paratrooper on the way out of a C-47. I wouldn't know the inside of a C-47 from a JU-52, so all they really had to do was change the skins of the jump master and other soldiers in it.

    But British troops on the ground can see C-47s flying above, among other things.
  • moosehunter1969
    1108 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Why do people keep assuming that DICE is in a position to in effect tell EA what to do? If EA says this game is launching on this date, end of discussion, DICE has to have it ready to go whether they've had time to do a JU-52 or not. EA owns DICE, EA calls the shots, it is an employer-employee relationship.

    This doesn't mean DICE gets no blame for anything--they designed this horrible UI and that is on them, they chose to put late-war vehicles into early-war battles, they didn't make the network performance as good as it was in BF1 or late BF4, and so on. But I think the excuse that they didn't have time to do some things is reasonable, the time or the resources, because I think EA has them on a tight budget due to this game lacking paid DLC and Premium (another bad decision by EA).

    As for the impact of this particular issue on the game, get real, it has ZERO effect in game, it is a purely cosmetic thing. With all the real problems in BFV, that some folks can find time to moan about petty nonsense like this is hilarious.

    “Netcode” whatever that is, in my experience is BF4 terrible, constant disconnections getting shot around corners and rubberbanding.
    BF1 better, the odd occasion of rubber banding very rare occasions of getting shot around corners.
    BFV none of the above. When it feels like I’m getting shot in one frame or whatever when I listen to the audio I can hear myself being hit by multiple bullets with separate very close together impact sounds. Which is just what I’d expect as the bullets are being fired so many per second that they are going to arrive in very quick succession. It just feels right.

    So what’s the difference. BF4 I had Sky Broadband, BF1 I was with BT and now with BFV I’m with EE.
    My overall experience with EE as a whole has been superb, best connection and stability on everything it’s used on. Sky was always poor.

    No doubt users in other parts of the country or in other countries will have different experiences with different providers.

    I think blaming “Netcode” is far to simplistic and doesn’t take into account any other factors.
  • Necron_Canaris
    38 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I did think it was a bit silly that my German paratrooper was having his backside patted by a British paratrooper on the way out of a C-47. I wouldn't know the inside of a C-47 from a JU-52, so all they really had to do was change the skins of the jump master and other soldiers in it.

    that was the minimum they had to do, I bet if they'd bothered their holes to do just that then 90% of the criticism wouldn't have appeared, it's just the straight up laziness of it all that's shocked most folks and got them asking if they cut corners on something as big as the beginning of the new Grand Operation then what's next, "oh we couldn't be bothered making new factions so we just painted the germans yellow and stuck the stars and stripes on a bunch of brit gear, that's good enough now don't you know".
  • jlayton1982
    162 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why didn't they drop one of the vehicles then to focus the resources elaewhere? Did we really need the Tiger/Sturmtiger or various models of the Churchill tank in the game, since it's set in 1940-41.

    They could've dropped a couple of vehicles and slowly worked on them over the next 12 months to place them in the game when it historically came to that timeframe.
  • echo-smoker93
    81 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited February 2019
    What you were expecting? EA forces them to release a game every year.
  • Astr0damus
    2904 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    rainkloud wrote: »
    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.

    If what you suggest is true (and I have no reason to doubt its veracity) then what they could really use most is a PR person, not just a Community Manager like Braddock (who seems like a good guy) but there needs to be a small crew of people who EXPLAIN what's going on in terms that dosn't make customers mad with statements like "If you don't like it, don't buy it" and "Would you like extra detailed planes, or more vehicles, choose one."
    In Sweden they have something called "Fika", (not the town called Fika) and it's where people get together to have a coffee and a pastry and dialogue and become close to each other.
    DICE needs a Fika-manager.
    Bring about 20 people from this message board to Sweden for a weekend of Fika. Once you meet people in real life, it becomes harder to stay angry with them. Tell us about your struggles and we will understand and be more forgiving. I would like to be one of those 20 since I came up with the idea. DICE can select 10 people and those 10 can select the other 10 "online friends". We would definitely come back and be more understanding (not just "fan-boys") but DICE does so much to woo the youtubers at E3 and other events, why not show us some love? Let's Fika this out together!
    ==
    Fika.jpg
  • SuperiorByGender
    3239 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    rainkloud wrote: »
    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.

    I don't want to look uneducated on the matter because I suck at programming, but isn't BF109 actually flyable? I bet half of that code is dedicated to control physics, speed, and variables for damaged/disabled parts. None of that is needed for a model that is flying in a straight line and is not controlled by anything.
  • Ernie_Shavers
    131 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2019
    I could model the plane for them in a day. Hire me, DICE?

    Niklas's excuse is BS. It's not an honest answer. It's obvious now that DICE took several shortcut's in developing this game in an effort to rush it to market. He's scrambling to cover up that fact and that's why his answer is thoughtless.
    Post edited by Ernie_Shavers on
  • Astr0damus
    2904 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2019
    Forgot to provide link:
    https://www.thekitchn.com/what-in-the-world-is-fika-an-intro-to-the-swedish-coffee-break-the-art-of-fika-219297
    ===
    Fika-2.jpg
    Fika-3.jpg
    Fika-4.jpg
    ==
    Alternatively, we could pay half the expense (since money is tight over there).
    $3000 per person, so each person pays $1500, DICE covers the other $1500 x 20 people and it's only $30,000.
    What is the budge DICE spends on bringing Youtubers to E3? I bet it's a quarter of a million when they come to E3.
    Just some random thoughts on a random Tuesday in February.
  • Trokey66
    9102 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Astr0damus wrote: »
    rainkloud wrote: »
    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.

    If what you suggest is true (and I have no reason to doubt its veracity) then what they could really use most is a PR person, not just a Community Manager like Braddock (who seems like a good guy) but there needs to be a small crew of people who EXPLAIN what's going on in terms that dosn't make customers mad with statements like "If you don't like it, don't buy it" and "Would you like extra detailed planes, or more vehicles, choose one."
    In Sweden they have something called "Fika", (not the town called Fika) and it's where people get together to have a coffee and a pastry and dialogue and become close to each other.
    DICE needs a Fika-manager.
    Bring about 20 people from this message board to Sweden for a weekend of Fika. Once you meet people in real life, it becomes harder to stay angry with them. Tell us about your struggles and we will understand and be more forgiving. I would like to be one of those 20 since I came up with the idea. DICE can select 10 people and those 10 can select the other 10 "online friends". We would definitely come back and be more understanding (not just "fan-boys") but DICE does so much to woo the youtubers at E3 and other events, why not show us some love? Let's Fika this out together!
    ==
    Fika.jpg

    An interesting concept bur who goes and who pays?
  • Astr0damus
    2904 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Should I start an etsy shop with these shirts? (yes or no?)
    (the back of the shirt would say "Don't taze me bro!")
    ==
    Fika-Da-Police.jpg
    Is $12.99 a good price-point?
Sign In or Register to comment.