- 83 Battlefield V - Announcements
- 26.3K Battlefield V - General Discussion
- 841 Battlefield V - Firestorm Discussion
- 4.7K Battlefield V - PC Community
- 1.8K Battlefield V - PlayStation Community
- 1.4K Battlefield V - Xbox Community
- 1.4K Battlefield V - Platoon Recruitment
- 35 Battlefield V - Bugs & Issues
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Imo it will be BF1. EA/DICE took a chance with BFV and it flopped. They won't do that again.
In the end, it's a matter of sales and knowing EA they follow the money and will probably go for a BF1 type of game. Better safe than sorry.
If I'm being honest, they'll be looking at bf3 and bf4 before looking at bf5 or bf5
Those had bigger maps which people seem to love (I don't) but they also had infantry maps which people loved (I did) plus modern weapons.
BF1 will be the success story of the ww games but both I don't think its the formula to attain better success with bf6. The older titles reasonate more
Same bad netcode, same TTK issues etc etc.
Oh and lets not forget, the constant nerfing and buffing of weapons leaving the player with a constant changing game. No rsp.
I feel though, that a longer TTK would hurt several weapons, making them unusable or plain obsolete.
They have to do a rework of all the weapons and balance them one by one.
Regarding maps there should be a good combination of huge, large and small maps.
So, according to your logic, they want the game to be easier for them so the challenge is less so they can be more 'skillful'. Its weird how conservative and narrow minded the competitive scene is.
And that's quite sad. Competitive doesnt mean dumbed down mechanics in my book.
All these features that were in BF4, BF1 are now largely gone in BF5. Features that made aiming harder and thus made it more skillful in that aspect. BF5 is more casual now than the previous BF games.
The result is a casual game with dated shallow gunmechanics that tend to go boring fast, and will not hold players for long. Funny how much this game resembles CoD now.
My response has been far more in-depth than anything you've provided thus far but sure let's dig in
Definition of random via google:
"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision."
Sorry SIPS is not random. User shoots and knows the next time they shoot within a certain window the bullet will deviate from the cursor in the center of the screen. They can choose to wait for spread to reset, magdump and hope they land enough hits before their spread goes out of control, or do something somewhere in-between the two options to try and optimize. There is a conscious choice involved by the user that affects the outcome which means it is not random just because they can't exactly control where their bullet goes (this isn't even 100% possible in BFV btw).
Base spread you have more of a case on and honestly I'm not a huge fan of base spread myself, but base spread very rarely would cause you to miss a shot in BF1 unless you're the moron trying to shoot someone with an smg at 150m.
You can argue against the merits of SIPS, but honestly if you continue to call it a random luck-based factor you don't understand the mechanic and therefore likely shouldn't speak on it or you are trolling. Semi-random is maybe ok because you can't directly control the outcome but acting like the user has no influence is laughable, go watch pros play BFV they absolutely destroy every single game.
I know this distinction may not sound big but it is actually huge as saying random elements immediately implies there's nothing the user can do like its one of the guessing mario party minigames and that's inaccurate and steers the conversation in the wrong direction.
You can control it as much as you can in BF1, that is to say you can reduce your rpm to fire at minspread. You just don't need to do this in BFV because the spread is nowhere near as prevalent, so having that minimal amount of spread adjusting your bullet placement doesn't matter. All this has done is made spread management easier or maybe even nonexistent.
Nice job putting words in my mouth there instead of taking the actual statement which was that set recoil patterns can be practiced down to muscle memory, not overall gun control which encompasses numerous factors. You know what can't be made entirely muscle memory and has to be on some level reactionary? Random recoil and random bullet spread. Amazing how that works.
Also muscle memory is a skill, its just a lower level-skill than positioning or target tracking where there are many more variables.
Pretty sure CS:GO has random bullet spread, unless it was changed at some point.
The analogy I'd use for this is this, what do you think is a better measure of knowledge on a subject: A test where you know what the subject matter will be beforehand but the questions can come from anywhere in that subject or a test where you know what the questions will be beforehand. I would argue the test where the questions aren't known.
That is a game with controllable semi-random elements. Note that I did not say random elements as the user can manage them. To me this is more skilled because there isn't always one answer you can use to cheese your way to win an engagement. The skill ceiling on such a game where all the answers can be known is capped, whereas you can never truly know everything in a game with some semi-random elements. With some semi-random elements you can always learn to manage the combinations of those elements better than your opponent and manage the risks around them better. Every competitive sport has some semi-random elements, however you notice the best players and best teams still consistently come out better than their opposition. That's because they manage those elements better.
To add to this, other players are a semi-random element to the user. You can influence their behavior but never control it. Playing against other players (at some mid or higher level) will always be harder/more skilled than playing bots (as long as the bots aren't invincible or some nonsense) because other players can learn and adapt, whereas you can learn how a bot behaves and beat it everytime.
Unless you're bad at BF1 you'll kill plenty of rushers, rushing still puts you at the disadvantage in BF1. Difference is with clever movement, map, and cover use you can ensure that you can break off of an engagement you can't win or tilt an engagement in your favor while still traversing the map. Between the TTK, map design, and netcode this is much less manageable in BFV, so people just camp or move very little. In BFV those moving are at a much larger disadvantage which is not entirely a good thing for a game that requires map movement and zone control and the core of its primary gamemodes.
Also any 32v32 public game with no competitive matchmaking is inherently casual, sorry to burst your bubble on the other battlefield titles.
My troll radar is not very good so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. Plus with what I've seen whenever ttk comes up I'm pretty sure some people share those beliefs and I disagree with some of the fundamental impact to gameplay those specific suggestions have.
It is actually surprising to me that the movement speed is the same was BF4, it has been a while since I have played BF4 but BFV feels very fast paced to me. I wonder what the speed was for BF1.
So anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong? It's very obvious that you prefer the game how it is. Long range engagements with low skill guns that casual gamers could dominate with, and the last thing you want is players being able to get up in your face. You want to be able to shoot them at a safe range. Then on the other hand you talk about how skilful this is.
It sounds to me like you are actually describing a hardcore mode
You're not lying. I have more difficulty discerning who's closet cheating in this game vs BF1. Sometimes I really can't tell where I could tell like more often than now in bf1.
Minimum they make a pre set for hardcore. Rental servers just mean that only the hardcore players would have to adjust & pay for servers(mainly) so they can play the game mode they want. Which to me is unfair. They had Hardcore preset in BF4 and haven’t since then. Why?
But it wouldn't just be for hardcore players. Some would maybe like to play with TTK 2,0 and 3d spotting and 24/7 twisted steel. I don't know, We all prefer different things and right now we have to play the way DICE thing we want to play and it really don't work imo. One of the good things about rental servers was that you could find a server that fit you and play with people who played the same way as you. I had the best time playing on rental servers where I got to know the players and their way of playing.
IMO, they shouldn't look to much at BF4. For the next BF I hope they decide that BF3 & BC2 need to make a baby
Well, i don't like Hardcore Mode, and most by far do not. That's why that mode has had very low playercounts, if not literally dead (BF1).
I think if many folks would have known it as a Hardcore Mode BF, they probably wouldn't have bought it, and likely why they're dealing with low playercounts, just like those modes. And if they don't want the playercounts to be what they were on HC mode on BF1 by summer, they may want to change it right quickly.
It's the animations man. It's not the movement speed. BF's 4 and prior, had much better animations, and made it seem you were really running, where as starting with BF1 and now, the movement system became very slow and clunky, at leasst how it's visualized.
It seems what DICE did, is went the DICE LA route , whereas if you played the MOH Campaigns (Danger Close now DICE LA) MOH 10 and Warfighter (even Airborne), the movement was very even frustratingly very slow and clunky feeling, even though the ""speed" may be the same. In fact, playing BF1 for the first time, the speed and animations, felt identical to MOH.