Weekly Debrief

So mercury eh?

Comments

  • CHAMMOND1992
    1191 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I'm amazed at all the people on here complaining about Snipers. Like how do you guys play? Do you walk out into the open, and go prone, and wonder why you keep getting sniped?

    I rarely die from Snipers, it's mainly Piat launchers, and camping mmgs.

    Just keep moving, Most snipers don't have the skill to hit a moving head shot. Especially on console

    This map has open areas, but lots of CQC areas near two flags. The D and E flag. That is two flags that cater to CQC
    The B flag is also decent CQC.
    The only flag and area that is dominated by snipers is the C flag and the surrounding mountain area.
    On Breakthrough the first two sectors are Sniper heavy areas, but the next two sectors become more SMG, and LMG dominated.
    Seems balanced to me

    A good map should offer variety in play styles. Yes snipers should dominate certain areas, just like Medics should dominate in other areas


    This.

    Piat and the grenade rfle are way more annoying. People hate snipers because they honestly don't want to think when they move.
  • NLBartmaN
    3478 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I'm amazed at all the people on here complaining about Snipers. Like how do you guys play? Do you walk out into the open, and go prone, and wonder why you keep getting sniped?

    I rarely die from Snipers, it's mainly Piat launchers, and camping mmgs.

    Just keep moving, Most snipers don't have the skill to hit a moving head shot. Especially on console

    This map has open areas, but lots of CQC areas near two flags. The D and E flag. That is two flags that cater to CQC
    The B flag is also decent CQC.
    The only flag and area that is dominated by snipers is the C flag and the surrounding mountain area.
    On Breakthrough the first two sectors are Sniper heavy areas, but the next two sectors become more SMG, and LMG dominated.
    Seems balanced to me

    A good map should offer variety in play styles. Yes snipers should dominate certain areas, just like Medics should dominate in other areas


    Do you forget about ALL the weapons that have 3x scope without glint, almost no drop or recoil and are automatic?

    Moving into the open (which all BF V maps have a lot of, also this new one) is instant death.

    THOSE are the problem ... and kill BF V.

    Unless you have a poor connection (above 60 ping and regular latency variation icon), then you are unkillable and can walk into the open without a problem.
  • dandop_oq7r7ppf
    274 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN said:
    I'm amazed at all the people on here complaining about Snipers. Like how do you guys play? Do you walk out into the open, and go prone, and wonder why you keep getting sniped?

    I rarely die from Snipers, it's mainly Piat launchers, and camping mmgs.

    Just keep moving, Most snipers don't have the skill to hit a moving head shot. Especially on console

    This map has open areas, but lots of CQC areas near two flags. The D and E flag. That is two flags that cater to CQC
    The B flag is also decent CQC.
    The only flag and area that is dominated by snipers is the C flag and the surrounding mountain area.
    On Breakthrough the first two sectors are Sniper heavy areas, but the next two sectors become more SMG, and LMG dominated.
    Seems balanced to me

    A good map should offer variety in play styles. Yes snipers should dominate certain areas, just like Medics should dominate in other areas


    Do you forget about ALL the weapons that have 3x scope without glint, almost no drop or recoil and are automatic?

    Moving into the open (which all BF V maps have a lot of, also this new one) is instant death.

    THOSE are the problem ... and kill BF V.

    Unless you have a poor connection (above 60 ping and regular latency variation icon), then you are unkillable and can walk into the open without a problem.
    Oh I agree. I'm not a fan of the Assualt and LMGs with 3x scopes either. 

    The Assualt class with 3x scopes just feeds into the long range camping meta, along with health attrition.
    Nothing gets on my nerves more when I see a row of assualt players camping the spawn, and basically being sniper 2.0 

  • VincentNZ
    3205 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ said:
    What I don't get people want close quarters in this community so DICE makes a asymmetric map. Now people are not happy with all the mid range fights going on and tanks are now being over shadowed. I think this is fine map and it gives a mixed gameplay experience with lost of vertical terain to fight over!
    Still though still no naval warfare, so that is something the community can blame DICE on but the map has a perfect balance size though I prefer bigger maps like Pantzerstorm or Twisted Steel.

    Hmm, the more I play Mercury the more I see the issues with the map. These issues are also nothing new, but make the map play significantly worse than maps with a similar design premise like Devastation. The game simply lacks any form of real cover.
    All buildings on flag points will be destroyed within five minutes, leaving only hiphigh walls to cower behind. The structures overlooking the flag points will last much longer, and are perfect places to camp around in with almost full view of anyone attacking a flag.
    Moving within flags or attacking/defending will always leave you open to at least two sides. When you want to attack A from above you are opening yourself to all sides. Where are the olive gardens providing visual cover or obscuring vision? The indestructible structures?
    Generally what we can see is how destruction levels do not fare well with the vehicle balance in this game, especially planes and free spawn. As everybody chooses the heavy payload for the ground and nobody actively dogfights, the amount of destruction put onto the levels is immense.
    100%, more indestructible cover or terrain needs adding.

    Might be a good idea to buff the Fortifications system up a bit. Maybe if a Support Engineer builds, the fortification are automatically reinforced and can take a bit of an extra pounding?

    This would not quite work. In order to build fortifications you have to commit yourself for five minutes in safety, for something that again will be destroyed by one strafe from the bomber or simply a tank driving through. Also to build cover you need somewhere to start, it does not help that you start with no cover in the first place. You can see that really well on C in Mercury. You can apparently fortify that place, but it is irrelevant since it takes too long just to build a sandbag.
    The fortification is mostly a gimmick, it is generally meaningless, way less effective than actual cover, can hinder yourself instead of the enemy (barbed wire on E Rotterdam). I only ever build them on Devastation on B and E when I am defending or attacking to minimize entry points and funnel enemies into lanes and favourable engagements. Fortifications can only work in a mostly infantry environment.
  • SendTheInfantry
    778 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 30
    Played like 7 rounds.

    I dont like the map, the layout is too lineair and it's overall too small in its width to have 64 players. It often turns into a stalemate in the middle and that's it. It's a boring map with a moshpit/meatgrinder in the centre.Not much options to flank, because of lack of cover on the beach/dockside. The middle and hills are meatgrindery and lacks cover too.

    The tanks feel out of place on this map, they often just sit on the ridges and farm-sniping infantry away.

    I thought this map would be bigger, what a disappointment.

    Dont get me started about the breakthrough version. It's even worse. Why is DICE so ardent on putting 64 players on small map areas? It just hurts that typical Battlefield gameplay. All creativity gets sucked out.
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1617 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 31
    Mercury is an angry map, it's a constant feeling of I'm going to die at any split second from any direction. There is no respite, it's akin to an angry pitbull biting at your ankles constantly. The feeling of no hope and stress. The map is too small too claustrophobic for 64 players. It's like everything DICE have done recently (Fortress & Grind) cram everything in and make sure it's action packed. No brain, skill or tactics required - everything Conquest shouldn't be. It's new and it's pretty as hell but I don't want to play it - says it all really.
  • Cerben1
    265 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    i think Mercury is a sniper fest as just about any sniperfield map as cqb is not going to happen in this game. any thing simulare to strike at karkand or any city map wold jut be more fun but hey we make an hill layout whit pits for flags to be in so that the sniper kids can do ther kinde of play camp and shoot all day. i dont get it no army has ever put goals to take points in pits whit sloaps around them as thats just death for them self. 
  • Jezzzeh
    753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Think it's a great map, have played all 4 infantry classes on it and it has something for everyone. I've mostly played support and assault though. I feel this map works well with both CQ and Breakthrough. It's a tough map for attackers on Breakthrough especially in the first sector but then that's as it should be.

    Its certainly a big step in a better direction with the release of more content. I'd suggest that for DICE there is little they can do that will change the minds of some people here, but I for one am happy and if we see more of this quality more often it would be appreciated.

    Please sort out sound bug!
  • Key2Destiny
    96 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This map will clearly save BF5 and everyone who doesn't agree is just a hater. /s
  • G-Gnu
    1425 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ said:
    VincentNZ said:
    What I don't get people want close quarters in this community so DICE makes a asymmetric map. Now people are not happy with all the mid range fights going on and tanks are now being over shadowed. I think this is fine map and it gives a mixed gameplay experience with lost of vertical terain to fight over!
    Still though still no naval warfare, so that is something the community can blame DICE on but the map has a perfect balance size though I prefer bigger maps like Pantzerstorm or Twisted Steel.

    Hmm, the more I play Mercury the more I see the issues with the map. These issues are also nothing new, but make the map play significantly worse than maps with a similar design premise like Devastation. The game simply lacks any form of real cover.
    All buildings on flag points will be destroyed within five minutes, leaving only hiphigh walls to cower behind. The structures overlooking the flag points will last much longer, and are perfect places to camp around in with almost full view of anyone attacking a flag.
    Moving within flags or attacking/defending will always leave you open to at least two sides. When you want to attack A from above you are opening yourself to all sides. Where are the olive gardens providing visual cover or obscuring vision? The indestructible structures?
    Generally what we can see is how destruction levels do not fare well with the vehicle balance in this game, especially planes and free spawn. As everybody chooses the heavy payload for the ground and nobody actively dogfights, the amount of destruction put onto the levels is immense.
    100%, more indestructible cover or terrain needs adding.

    Might be a good idea to buff the Fortifications system up a bit. Maybe if a Support Engineer builds, the fortification are automatically reinforced and can take a bit of an extra pounding?

    This would not quite work. In order to build fortifications you have to commit yourself for five minutes in safety, for something that again will be destroyed by one strafe from the bomber or simply a tank driving through. Also to build cover you need somewhere to start, it does not help that you start with no cover in the first place. You can see that really well on C in Mercury. You can apparently fortify that place, but it is irrelevant since it takes too long just to build a sandbag.
    The fortification is mostly a gimmick, it is generally meaningless, way less effective than actual cover, can hinder yourself instead of the enemy (barbed wire on E Rotterdam). I only ever build them on Devastation on B and E when I am defending or attacking to minimize entry points and funnel enemies into lanes and favourable engagements. Fortifications can only work in a mostly infantry environment.
    I do not really understand DICE concept about fortifications, to build up those on some flags is OK, but why would you even have to build those on the fields , like on the Arras map. 
    Those places should be all ready built when the map starts and you have to rebuild them if they get demolished , that way the cover is all ready there and tanks , planes can obliterate them if necessary.  

  • JediMastaWyn
    530 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    A flag is the definition of a 'Killzone' 
  • bigiain
    293 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I don't dislike it, but the size is a little disappointing, It actually looks more like a Rush or Frontlines map.
  • FragbaitDax
    221 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Somebody previously mentioned the similarities between this and Aerodrome and I definitely feel that. If you took Aerodrome and covered it with small bushes everywhere for people to hide in, you'd get this map. Breakthrough on this is a horrible experience (but then, that mode typically is) but Conquest is not much better.

    All it really does is really highlight the critical failure of Dice with BFV: If you have a stacked Discord side against randoms, you're gonna get rolled.

    I get that the long term fans really love playing like that, but it's not going to be a friendly place for the franchise to attract new players. Without a player skill matching function, this game is dead.
  • Agent_Talon
    439 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 31
    Having only played 10 matches on it or so and right now I can say it's not my favorite.  Breakthrough is an absolute mess on this map for sure.  Conquest plays a bit better simply because it spreads the group out a little more but man oh man does playing breakthrough as the attacker feel really bad.

    Wanted to add that I really wish the map was larger, even if to simply allow for the really long roundabout way to get to flags on the opposite side of the map.  It's like a long corridor at the moment and I would have like more space on the sides, just for some breathing room. 
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    844 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VincentNZ said:
    VincentNZ said:
    What I don't get people want close quarters in this community so DICE makes a asymmetric map. Now people are not happy with all the mid range fights going on and tanks are now being over shadowed. I think this is fine map and it gives a mixed gameplay experience with lost of vertical terain to fight over!
    Still though still no naval warfare, so that is something the community can blame DICE on but the map has a perfect balance size though I prefer bigger maps like Pantzerstorm or Twisted Steel.

    Hmm, the more I play Mercury the more I see the issues with the map. These issues are also nothing new, but make the map play significantly worse than maps with a similar design premise like Devastation. The game simply lacks any form of real cover.
    All buildings on flag points will be destroyed within five minutes, leaving only hiphigh walls to cower behind. The structures overlooking the flag points will last much longer, and are perfect places to camp around in with almost full view of anyone attacking a flag.
    Moving within flags or attacking/defending will always leave you open to at least two sides. When you want to attack A from above you are opening yourself to all sides. Where are the olive gardens providing visual cover or obscuring vision? The indestructible structures?
    Generally what we can see is how destruction levels do not fare well with the vehicle balance in this game, especially planes and free spawn. As everybody chooses the heavy payload for the ground and nobody actively dogfights, the amount of destruction put onto the levels is immense.
    100%, more indestructible cover or terrain needs adding.

    Might be a good idea to buff the Fortifications system up a bit. Maybe if a Support Engineer builds, the fortification are automatically reinforced and can take a bit of an extra pounding?

    This would not quite work. In order to build fortifications you have to commit yourself for five minutes in safety, for something that again will be destroyed by one strafe from the bomber or simply a tank driving through. Also to build cover you need somewhere to start, it does not help that you start with no cover in the first place. You can see that really well on C in Mercury. You can apparently fortify that place, but it is irrelevant since it takes too long just to build a sandbag.
    The fortification is mostly a gimmick, it is generally meaningless, way less effective than actual cover, can hinder yourself instead of the enemy (barbed wire on E Rotterdam). I only ever build them on Devastation on B and E when I am defending or attacking to minimize entry points and funnel enemies into lanes and favourable engagements. Fortifications can only work in a mostly infantry environment.
    You might be right. I've personally come to see the value of Fortifications from playing Squad Conquest, but as noted that is a predominantly infantry based mode.
    In that mode my mate runs Medic with smoke while I build under cover as Support. Works great as a communicating squad but it would probably be lost in general solo play.

    I was thinking more along the lines of making Fortifications more resistant to explosives i.e it can survive a single bombing run and protect those within. Obviously then requiring repairs to make it through another.

  • Agent_Talon
    439 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ said:
    VincentNZ said:
    What I don't get people want close quarters in this community so DICE makes a asymmetric map. Now people are not happy with all the mid range fights going on and tanks are now being over shadowed. I think this is fine map and it gives a mixed gameplay experience with lost of vertical terain to fight over!
    Still though still no naval warfare, so that is something the community can blame DICE on but the map has a perfect balance size though I prefer bigger maps like Pantzerstorm or Twisted Steel.

    Hmm, the more I play Mercury the more I see the issues with the map. These issues are also nothing new, but make the map play significantly worse than maps with a similar design premise like Devastation. The game simply lacks any form of real cover.
    All buildings on flag points will be destroyed within five minutes, leaving only hiphigh walls to cower behind. The structures overlooking the flag points will last much longer, and are perfect places to camp around in with almost full view of anyone attacking a flag.
    Moving within flags or attacking/defending will always leave you open to at least two sides. When you want to attack A from above you are opening yourself to all sides. Where are the olive gardens providing visual cover or obscuring vision? The indestructible structures?
    Generally what we can see is how destruction levels do not fare well with the vehicle balance in this game, especially planes and free spawn. As everybody chooses the heavy payload for the ground and nobody actively dogfights, the amount of destruction put onto the levels is immense.
    100%, more indestructible cover or terrain needs adding.

    Might be a good idea to buff the Fortifications system up a bit. Maybe if a Support Engineer builds, the fortification are automatically reinforced and can take a bit of an extra pounding?

    This would not quite work. In order to build fortifications you have to commit yourself for five minutes in safety, for something that again will be destroyed by one strafe from the bomber or simply a tank driving through. Also to build cover you need somewhere to start, it does not help that you start with no cover in the first place. You can see that really well on C in Mercury. You can apparently fortify that place, but it is irrelevant since it takes too long just to build a sandbag.
    The fortification is mostly a gimmick, it is generally meaningless, way less effective than actual cover, can hinder yourself instead of the enemy (barbed wire on E Rotterdam). I only ever build them on Devastation on B and E when I am defending or attacking to minimize entry points and funnel enemies into lanes and favourable engagements. Fortifications can only work in a mostly infantry environment.
    You might be right. I've personally come to see the value of Fortifications from playing Squad Conquest, but as noted that is a predominantly infantry based mode.
    In that mode my mate runs Medic with smoke while I build under cover as Support. Works great as a communicating squad but it would probably be lost in general solo play.

    I was thinking more along the lines of making Fortifications more resistant to explosives i.e it can survive a single bombing run and protect those within. Obviously then requiring repairs to make it through another.

    I'm all about player built fortifications being stronger.  With all the assault players running a rocket launcher they are simply too easy to wipe off the map.  Trenches are the best thing to build atm with sandbags being more of an annoyance than anything. 
  • StingX71
    817 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    So much potential, poorly executed. Snipers again blending into the backdrop like they're wearing ghillie suits. 
  • MidriffUrchin0
    116 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    only played 2 rounds (Conquest and Breakthrough)... so far it is garabage.

    camperfest with people hiding in bushes (I cant even see them nor any scope glint to help me out), everything blends in.
    got "stabbed" in a back by tanks that I cant even here 5m away not to mention just on the other side of the hill
    d

    Right, help me understand something, because I don't understand the mindset of the I can't see everybody on the battlefield. I'm genuine when I ask this

    Would you prefer to play a game with more cartoon graphics, perhaps highly saturated illuminous almost glowing soldiers with low level of detail in the envoronment like minimal rocks and bushes that players can hide in, or a game with highly detailed graphics were gameplay would reflect what soldiers would do in a realistic scenerio, which would be to use the environment, blend in, hide in bushes etc and be a bunch of sneaky **** killing enemy without exposing themselves and revealing as little visibility as possible.

    Isn't this what happens in war? And seeing its a battlefield game with all out war, shouldn't you expect it, its unavoidable.

    I remember playing bf vietnam back in the day, even though the graphics aren't detailed, you could still hide amongst jungle and trees and sneak on the enemy, but that was part of the gameplay. I don't understand this attitude of todays gamer.
  • GRAW2ROBZ
    1937 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    zenn_nme said:
    How it suppossed to look (not my handywork)... :#

    Yeah I was shocked there wasn't a flag on the island.  Kinda like that BF4 map with a flag on the island.
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    844 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    only played 2 rounds (Conquest and Breakthrough)... so far it is garabage.

    camperfest with people hiding in bushes (I cant even see them nor any scope glint to help me out), everything blends in.
    got "stabbed" in a back by tanks that I cant even here 5m away not to mention just on the other side of the hill
    d

    Right, help me understand something, because I don't understand the mindset of the I can't see everybody on the battlefield. I'm genuine when I ask this

    Would you prefer to play a game with more cartoon graphics, perhaps highly saturated illuminous almost glowing soldiers with low level of detail in the envoronment like minimal rocks and bushes that players can hide in, or a game with highly detailed graphics were gameplay would reflect what soldiers would do in a realistic scenerio, which would be to use the environment, blend in, hide in bushes etc and be a bunch of sneaky **** killing enemy without exposing themselves and revealing as little visibility as possible.

    Isn't this what happens in war? And seeing its a battlefield game with all out war, shouldn't you expect it, its unavoidable.

    I remember playing bf vietnam back in the day, even though the graphics aren't detailed, you could still hide amongst jungle and trees and sneak on the enemy, but that was part of the gameplay. I don't understand this attitude of todays gamer.
    I think people are somehow getting different graphic results across different platforms and TV's/Monitors. 

    On standard PS4 normal tv: I found it difficult to see anyone, constantly fuzzy, basically just constantly squinting for movement and enjoying the subsequent eye strain and headaches.

    PS4 Pro 4KTV before the last patch: Million times better, still somewhat difficult to see people past medium distance but not game breaking.

    PS4 Pro 4KTV after the last patch: Perfect. If someones proning in rubble or bushes then their quite rightly hidden. But the first thing I noticed was just how many people prone out in the middle of open areas that where invisible to me before. I've found entire squads. So, Many, T-Bags.
    Absolutely none of the glowing other people are noting, avatars just look normal now, whereas before they looked like anorexics suffering from anaemia.

    For me the ideal gaming model to aim for in terms of visibility is BF1. Beautiful landscape and other players where perfectly rendered.
Sign In or Register to comment.