Next patch will bring the implementation of...radioactive players.

14567810»

Comments

  • ragnarok013
    2908 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    NLBartmaN said:
    Visibility was perfect in BF1 (even without spotting), why not just copy whatever they did in that game ... why reinventing the wheel?
    I have a lot of criticisms of BF1 but the visibility was on point in that game.
  • Hawxxeye
    5184 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    fakemon64 said:
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    fakemon64 said:


    TacticulBacon wrote: »
    Toxic_CA said:





    YourLocalPlumber wrote: »

    Reading through this post makes me wonder - Since when being a PTFO player is a bad thing, and camping MMG  is a good thing? Because its shocking how many people here are trying to put players who are always on the move as "Run n Gun CoD kids", while thinking that camping in a dark corner with an MMG is "Tactical playstyle"?







    Do you people understand that we, the players who are always running around and murdering piles upon piles of enemies while taking flags are actually winning you the game? While you're just camping in a corner and wasting a team slot.



    Do YOU realise theres two sides to conquest. Attacking and defending? Im sure you're one of those players who captures a flag and blindly runs to the next even though theres still enemies sitting on the flag you just capped







    There's defending a flag and then there's sitting in one spot with your sights held up the entire game. One is productive and beneficial to the team and the other is called camping. 



    Also, I'm not sure you can call it "defending" the flag when I find the majority of mmg campers nowhere near an objective, waiting for their free kill to walk into their sights.



    But guess what, that 'free kill' didn't get to even contest the flag huh? Finding a spot that's 'nowhere near the objective' is sometimes the best way to defend said objective.



    It sucks that this game gets boiled down to blindly sprinting into whatever the closest enemy objective is. Sucks even more that the dev's cater to the players that complain about how blindly rushing into places gets them killed by things they didn't notice.



    It only makes sense to defend a point while directly on it if you need bodies for contesting it. Other than that, directly on a point is the worst place you can be. You're basically just asking to catch a random bomb or shell.



    If you can find a vantage point that gives you a clear shot at enemies before they can set foot on your point, how would that not be 'beneficial'?

    There are no maps in this game that give a complete vantage point over an objective. So people cannot completely deny an objective to the enemies by remaining outside it (unless they can somehow relocate in time to cover other spots). Once the other team gets enough bodies inside the safer zones the objective is gone-bye-bye. So the people who stay outside and shoot people within the objective are often being more of K/D farmers than team players. Of course then are exceptions but those people are always ready to leave their comfort zone if it does no longer serve the objective defense.

    Its about denying the ground in front of and/or around the objective, not the objective itself. If the enemy is being killed or 'camped' on their way to the objective, it's a good thing. Which is different from killing enemies already on the point.

    just performing overwatch on the objective itself is basically no better than just defending it while on it. It still allows the enemy to contest it in the first place. If anything it could be worse, because like you said, its one less friendly body on the point.

    Don't get me wrong, you need players willing to put their body on the point to win matches. But, After taking a point, you need to direct the fighting off of the point by pushing the enemy back and keeping them back.

    The area's between the flags are just about as important as the flags themselves. Sure you don't get points for controlling them but you can stop/slow enemy movement and reduce the number of bodies they can get to a flag, let alone on it.
    My point remains that there are not enough good places to do that from with all the visual obstructions.
  • CaptainHardware
    302 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN said:
    Visibility was perfect in BF1 (even without spotting), why not just copy whatever they did in that game ... why reinventing the wheel?
    Cause its totally different graphics? They absolutely could fix this if they redesigned all of the character models and many of the terrain textures, but that would be a tremendous amount of work and basically bring work on new content to a halt. They can't copy stuff from BF1 that doesn't exist in BFV, it'd have to be redone.

    From what I've seen visibility isn't a big problem if you view the game in 4K HDR, but I doubt even 10% of players have HDR monitors, let alone 4K ones. Most people still game on some kind of 1080p screen. But that's what DICE developed the game for because it makes for good advertising and they look to push limits.

    HDR broke all the lighting in BF1 remember, and it took eight months for a partial fix for that. After the forced HDR patch Battlefield 1 never looked at good.

    I think this is ultimately just a result of bad EA management putting raw performance metrics ahead of the overall player experience. By the time the problem was aggressively pointed out by players in the 1st alpha it was too late to rethink the content.
  • DJTN1
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think they should award players with super high k/d ratios bright gold outfits so they stand out.

    Solves multiple problems and adds challenge!

    LOL
  • Zooboid
    926 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN said:
    Visibility was perfect in BF1 (even without spotting), why not just copy whatever they did in that game ... why reinventing the wheel?

    Cause its totally different graphics? They absolutely could fix this if they redesigned all of the character models and many of the terrain textures, but that would be a tremendous amount of work and basically bring work on new content to a halt. They can't copy stuff from BF1 that doesn't exist in BFV, it'd have to be redone.

    From what I've seen visibility isn't a big problem if you view the game in 4K HDR, but I doubt even 10% of players have HDR monitors, let alone 4K ones. Most people still game on some kind of 1080p screen. But that's what DICE developed the game for because it makes for good advertising and they look to push limits.

    HDR broke all the lighting in BF1 remember, and it took eight months for a partial fix for that. After the forced HDR patch Battlefield 1 never looked at good.

    I think this is ultimately just a result of bad EA management putting raw performance metrics ahead of the overall player experience. By the time the problem was aggressively pointed out by players in the 1st alpha it was too late to rethink the content.

    Spot on about HDR in BF1. Hate the way it was forced in and never removed.
  • barnesalmighty2
    1347 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Perso ally never had an issue with visibility in BFV, until I played it on a standard ps4 and it was a shocking experience. It wasn't that players were particularly hard to see it was the haze on certain maps. Haze that doesn't exist on the ps4 Pro, on the pro visibility is a load clearer and you can see much further too.

    It strikes me as a pretty real advantage having seen it for myself. So I'm sticking to my pro.
  • CaptHotah
    1061 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    When is this change coming?
  • trip1ex
    4655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 14
    NLBartmaN said:
    Visibility was perfect in BF1 (even without spotting), why not just copy whatever they did in that game ... why reinventing the wheel?
    I have a lot of criticisms of BF1 but the visibility was on point in that game.
    Visibility often wasn't good in BF1 either.  Argonne was pretty bad much of the time.  The middle flags on Giant's Shadow were pretty bad.  Sinai could have some terrible heat/sun effects on it. This to name a few examples.  And sometimes flying ....the game basically smeared vaseline across your screen.  I think it was some weather effect.  The result was blurry as all can be.  

    It isn't like the bad lighting began BFV.  No it started before that.  Just that in BF1, for example, you had 3d spotting which helped mitigate it.  Every scout had flares which helped mitigate it.   And then compared to BF1, the environments aren't as cluttered as in BFV.   And then as someone said,  the lighting  was worsened via patches sometime after launch.

  • TheNoobPolice
    1574 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    ^ Yeah it's almost as bad in BF1 - the only reason it wasn't totally cancer to play in that game is because when you were in a firefight with someone you spotted them for yourself, and anyone who did kill someone from a virtually invisible stationary position usually got themselves spotted in the process and quickly taken out by by other players that actually have WASD keys.
Sign In or Register to comment.