Weekly Debrief

Has the community changed?

13»

Comments

  • SirTerrible
    1705 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Those with any standards have mostly stopped playing and/or talking about the game so the unpaid shills on Reddit are all that's left lol.
  • trip1ex
    4770 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    since when do millions or hundreds of thousands agree on the same thing?
  • JUJAMAKILL
    331 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    FWIW the only reason I am interested in 5v5 is because our group consists of 5 players. Since DICE doesn't allow 5 man squads it has piqued our interest. I did enjoy the smaller Squad Conquest game mode, but I am wondering if 5v5 is going to be too small to gain much interest, especially with the problem discussed earlier with players dropping out mid game. DICE will need to implement a really interesting and compelling game mode to keep people involved. If it is merely focused on cap and hold 3 flags it will fail before it begins IMO.

    I would like to see something like the co-op based campaign mode but you play against another team of players, instead of AI bots. Something that has multiple objectives and multiple ways of completing them. Like you first need to infiltrate the enemy region, then blow up a runway or comms station, progress to another site to take out the enemy armory or booby trap enemy vehicles to hamper their attack. Then you need to make it out alive via evac, enemies may cut you off or down you in the chopper. The enemy team needs to locate your team and interrupt/prevent you from completing your mission and repair damage done to their sites. Enemies may respawn at any location in the region, but you can only spawn on friendly beacons, squad mates or a site under your control.

    I dunno, something that isn't just straight forward as run to A flag and kill, then run to B flag and kill, then spawn trap lol It needs someway to leave both sides guessing as to where the enemy is and where to attack/defend.
  • The_BERG_366
    2339 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Astr0damus wrote: »
    The_BERG_366 said:


    ProAssassin2003 wrote: »
    I posted on Reddit about how 2 maps are 5 vs 5 only and they should have made them for all modes. The result is I'm being attacked and people are defending the decision for 5vs5 only maps.



    So has the Battlefield community changed and is 5 vs 5 what people want? Is this the future for Battlefield?



    there's more than black and white. just because some like 5v5 exclusive maps doesn't mean they want 5v5 as the only bf mode. personally I appreciate the introduction of specifically for 5v5 designed maps. however i don't see why those maps shouldn't be extended to a full sized map if the capacities are there to do so. however designing a map specifically for 5v5 yields ways better results than taking full sized maps and adjust them to 5v5. in that sense I really like the idea. it's been a long time since we got maps that were actually build for a smaller mode.

    The potential problem I foresee is what will happen when you begin to lose a match and 2 members of the 5 man team leave? 5 v 3 will eventually lead to the last 3 leaving. I don't see too many matches going to completion. 5 v 1 sounds like a load of fun /s

    there's a lot of 5v5 games out there that are very successful. they all have mechanics in place that prevent people from leaving for the most part (cs, rb6 even bf1 incursions).
    also what are you trying to argue here? that 5v5 is a bad idea in general? I mean 5v5 saw great success in video games in general... clearly any concerns about 5v5 generally (independent of specific games) can't be that big of a deal...
  • The_BERG_366
    2339 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Adding modes like 5v5 or Firestorm are not bad in themselves.  However i guess there is a feeling, probably rightly, that due to the lack of 'core' content, that these modes should not be in the game at the perceived expensive of the core multi player content. If we already had 15 maps and new factions and a big player base then these modes wouldnt be controversial and would probably be welcomed.  As it is the base game is still lacking so these added niche modes feel like a kick in the teeth to many in the 'community' who just arent interested in battle royal or competitive modes

    that's not true at all. the situation was similar when bf1 incursions got released. at that point bf1 had all the promised dlcs with lots of new maps (I think 14 new ones at the time), new gadgets and weapons. yet still there were threads everywhere about people complaining about the mode being a waste of time and a waste of recourses that should have better been put into base game to create even more content (just like now).
    if people won't benefit from some idea they will always complain thst these recourses should have been invested in a way that they personally benefit from. also when bfv was presented those modes were promised. expecting them to just scrap them is a ways bigger let down than not delivering as many maps as some people expected (while they never actually promised any number of maps on the first place).
    of course its always the people that are unhappy that are getting vocal, which is understandable and there is nothing wrong with thst. but people somehow follow from that that the people complaining are the voice of the whole community which is far from true...
  • Shadders_X
    483 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Short version

    As I see it, previous installments tried to appeal to both audiences in one way or another. Hence there wasn’t so much heat. BF V made a 180deg turn, tried to cater to the tactical group which is a minority nowadays. And now the developers try to get the action group back, making choices that stomp the tactical crowd once again. That’s why it’s getting intense IMO.
    Hi,
    The current complaints for BFV are visibility of other players near non-existent, sound issues which are critical to game, with many more problems.

    BF2:MC had good visibility, open comms, was tactical, and was not criticised as per BFV. There are too many basic designs with BFV which are a problem - seeing the enemy and sound - which are key to playing the game. Not being able to see other players is not "tactical", it is a critical flaw for a game. 

    In every BF game you are able to see the opponents, whether there was spotting marker or not. As someone in another thread stated, you might as well play the game with the TV turned off. 

    Regards,
    Shadders_X. 
  • TheNoobPolice
    1577 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I'd hate 5v5 I think. It would remove the chaos of war
    This is the problem with the player base.

    You have people that want "muh immersion" and just lots of loud bang bangs with realistic graphics, loads of skins, participation medals in various forms - whether it's awards for time spent in games, or literally a "rank" which effectively just becomes a barometer for how often you've logged in, and then there are traditional first person shooter players that want a meritocratic shooter with a trigger discipline and ballistics based gunplay meta in objective based game modes, that are simply "military" themed and don't care about any of that realism stuff.

    The two things are diametrically opposed and EA needs to create two franchises and stop trying to do everything with Battlefield. Like the old adage goes, "I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is to try and please everyone"

    I would be happy to permanently leave Battlefield if they rebooted MoH, for example - properly this time with high quality production values and a competent product delivery team.
  • xeNizKing
    358 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I can't speak for the community, but 5 Vs 5 modes/maps is definitely not what I want. 
    10 years + of battlefield and I certainly do not want 5v5 to be the focus of the game. Battlefield was never mean't to be an e-sport, I dabbled in ESL for BF3 and 4 and I can tell you right now its just not fun. Battlefield is just too big. Its the same reason competitive planetside never took off no matter how much you downsize it you ruin the general enjoyment of the game for the majority.
  • xeNizKing
    358 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ackers75 wrote: »
    I posted on Reddit about how 2 maps are 5 vs 5 only and they should have made them for all modes. The result is I'm being attacked and people are defending the decision for 5vs5 only maps.

    So has the Battlefield community changed and is 5 vs 5 what people want? Is this the future for Battlefield?

    As the community has diminished you are now pretty much just talking to the core players.
    Trouble is the core players struggle with any sort of critical thinking and take anyone bashing the game as the anti christ.

    Absolute bollocks. So let's see, dice said they shifted 7 million copies, how many post on reddit and these forums? Only over 100k subs reddit and these forums have little activity - the vocal online posters aren't even a smidgen of the true player base number, nowhere near!!!

    Stop exaggerating, just speculation and based on pretty much nothing except imagination.
    I think you are overreacting quite a bit. What they refer to is that the community on the forums has diminished due to the games population diminishing. This is an objective and reasonable assumption purely down to the fact that forum boards on reddit and here are tied directly to the community as a whole. If the general population drops then its likely the forum board use will drop.

    The more people who play generally = a fraction of that increase will use the forum boards.
    The less people who play generally = a decrease of that same fraction will use the forum boards and thus the population will be less. 

    You made far too many assumptions about that statement and got angry. Never a good thing.
  • PtBlankDiplomacy
    94 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Shadders_X wrote: »
    Cpt_Sir_Price said:


    Short version



    As I see it, previous installments tried to appeal to both audiences in one way or another. Hence there wasn’t so much heat. BF V made a 180deg turn, tried to cater to the tactical group which is a minority nowadays. And now the developers try to get the action group back, making choices that stomp the tactical crowd once again. That’s why it’s getting intense IMO.

    Hi,
    The current complaints for BFV are visibility of other players near non-existent, sound issues which are critical to game, with many more problems.

    BF2:MC had good visibility, open comms, was tactical, and was not criticised as per BFV. There are too many basic designs with BFV which are a problem - seeing the enemy and sound - which are key to playing the game. Not being able to see other players is not "tactical", it is a critical flaw for a game. 

    In every BF game you are able to see the opponents, whether there was spotting marker or not. As someone in another thread stated, you might as well play the game with the TV turned off. 

    Regards,
    Shadders_X. 

    👋
    Some players claim to have visibility issues, some don’t including me and my friends. I refuse to acknowledge distant players that blended in nicely and are hard to see, as a visibility issue.

    I had BF2:MC on my PS2 but didn’t have a chance to play it online. But it wasn’t a 32 vs 32 game, more like 8vs8 or 12vs12 wasn’t it? Player count is a key factor here. Also please take into account that the game was made for consoles and on a different engine. There was no prone option either if i remember correctly. In BF2 pc version however players blended in nicely on some maps and there was no 3d spotting/audio spotting either. And this game became a foundation for Project Reality.
    I literally can’t think of any tactical fps game on PC with a player count of 64 players or higher where soldiers stood out. If we had players sticking out like in other frostbite Battlefields, BF V couldn’t be played so tactical as in beta and right after release. It’s already harder to sneak around, uniforms are less important as all soldiers have a radioactive glow now. IMO

    Bugs, sound and netcode issues are here, yes they are irritating and annoying, and a fix can’t come soon enough. You won’t see me arguing about it.

    Voice chat... Look mate, today’s players struggle to use a simple voice comm system which we have now and had for the last 5 games (7 if we count bc1 and bf1943). I’m not familiar with BF2MC’s comms system but I’m sure people just won’t use voice comms as they did in BF2.

    About criticizing. BF2MC was the first BF game on consoles. That marked wasn’t as saturated as it is now. Games where less complex technically and rivalry was not as high as it is today. It was a completely different gaming era, when games released in a complete state and not half baked. There were no DLCs.
  • Shadders_X
    483 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited June 9

    👋
    Some players claim to have visibility issues, some don’t including me and my friends. I refuse to acknowledge distant players that blended in nicely and are hard to see, as a visibility issue.

    I had BF2:MC on my PS2 but didn’t have a chance to play it online. But it wasn’t a 32 vs 32 game, more like 8vs8 or 12vs12 wasn’t it? Player count is a key factor here. Also please take into account that the game was made for consoles and on a different engine. There was no prone option either if i remember correctly. In BF2 pc version however players blended in nicely on some maps and there was no 3d spotting/audio spotting either. And this game became a foundation for Project Reality.
    I literally can’t think of any tactical fps game on PC with a player count of 64 players or higher where soldiers stood out. If we had players sticking out like in other frostbite Battlefields, BF V couldn’t be played so tactical as in beta and right after release. It’s already harder to sneak around, uniforms are less important as all soldiers have a radioactive glow now. IMO

    Bugs, sound and netcode issues are here, yes they are irritating and annoying, and a fix can’t come soon enough. You won’t see me arguing about it.

    Voice chat... Look mate, today’s players struggle to use a simple voice comm system which we have now and had for the last 5 games (7 if we count bc1 and bf1943). I’m not familiar with BF2MC’s comms system but I’m sure people just won’t use voice comms as they did in BF2.

    About criticizing. BF2MC was the first BF game on consoles. That marked wasn’t as saturated as it is now. Games where less complex technically and rivalry was not as high as it is today. It was a completely different gaming era, when games released in a complete state and not half baked. There were no DLCs.
    Hi,
    BF2:MC on XBOX360 was 12v12 players online. You could go prone too. Many people talked in the game - this was how it became tactical. Since squads were introduced, i never hear people talk. Squads isolate 4 players from the other 28 on the team - so no coordination. People did not blend in as reported for BFV, or as i played in the beta. Sound was good too. Spotting was purely people talking to others. 

    Of course, there were bugs - people spawning inside buildings, were invincible, but could kill all those outside. Then there were tanks getting stuck on barrels. Grenades were made of rubber - bouncing everywhere.

    BF2:MC was good because it was basic - no gadgets to assist your game, so people talked. No aim assist, or snap to opponent. The balance of infantry to air or land vehicles was right. The buildings could not be destroyed - so you always had a place to get away from vehicles - now, once the buildings are destroyed, you are a sitting duck all the time. 

    For some reason, Dice seem incapable to understand that more complex the game the more combinations that the game mechanics can be misused. Or the more bugs that will be prevalent. They think players will play the game as intended, not in a way to score cheap points through misuse. 

    Regards,
    Shadders_X. 
    Post edited by Shadders_X on
  • trip1ex
    4770 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 8
    5v5 will die.  IT's just too late.  and resources are spread too thin  for it to thrive.

    But 5v5 obviously a marketing thing.   no one can say they won't get BFV because it doesn't have a ~5v5 sized mode. 
  • PtBlankDiplomacy
    94 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    👋
    Some players claim to have visibility issues, some don’t including me and my friends. I refuse to acknowledge distant players that blended in nicely and are hard to see, as a visibility issue.

    I had BF2:MC on my PS2 but didn’t have a chance to play it online. But it wasn’t a 32 vs 32 game, more like 8vs8 or 12vs12 wasn’t it? Player count is a key factor here. Also please take into account that the game was made for consoles and on a different engine. There was no prone option either if i remember correctly. In BF2 pc version however players blended in nicely on some maps and there was no 3d spotting/audio spotting either. And this game became a foundation for Project Reality.
    I literally can’t think of any tactical fps game on PC with a player count of 64 players or higher where soldiers stood out. If we had players sticking out like in other frostbite Battlefields, BF V couldn’t be played so tactical as in beta and right after release. It’s already harder to sneak around, uniforms are less important as all soldiers have a radioactive glow now. IMO

    Bugs, sound and netcode issues are here, yes they are irritating and annoying, and a fix can’t come soon enough. You won’t see me arguing about it.

    Voice chat... Look mate, today’s players struggle to use a simple voice comm system which we have now and had for the last 5 games (7 if we count bc1 and bf1943). I’m not familiar with BF2MC’s comms system but I’m sure people just won’t use voice comms as they did in BF2.

    About criticizing. BF2MC was the first BF game on consoles. That marked wasn’t as saturated as it is now. Games where less complex technically and rivalry was not as high as it is today. It was a completely different gaming era, when games released in a complete state and not half baked. There were no DLCs.
    Hi,
    BF2:MC on XBOX360 was 16v16 players online. You could go prone too. Many people talked in the game - this was how it became tactical. Since squads were introduced, i never hear people talk. Squads isolate 4 players from the other 28 on the team - so no coordination. People did not blend in as reported for BFV, or as i played in the beta. Sound was good too. Spotting was purely people talking to others. 

    Of course, there were bugs - people spawning inside buildings, were invincible, but could kill all those outside. Then there were tanks getting stuck on barrels. Grenades were made of rubber - bouncing everywhere.

    BF2:MC was good because it was basic - no gadgets to assist your game, so people talked. No aim assist, or snap to opponent. The balance of infantry to air or land vehicles was right. The buildings could not be destroyed - so you always had a place to get away from vehicles - now, once the buildings are destroyed, you are a sitting duck all the time. 

    For some reason, Dice seem incapable to understand that more complex the game the more combinations that the game mechanics can be misused. Or the more bugs that will be prevalent. They think players will play the game as intended, not in a way to score cheap points through misuse. 

    Regards,
    Shadders_X. 
    I think they fully understand that less content and features means less problems, but the marked has a demand for new 'cool' stuff.
    BF2 PC had squad voice channel and command voice channel. Command channel was used for communication between squad leaders and commander. Direct VO for 32p wouldn't work in my opinion, it will be just constant spam and screams. Just like COD but with 32 players.
    BF2 had 3 weapons per class, 7 classes in total. 6 man squads, squad renaming option. Buildings were non destructible too.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Adding modes like 5v5 or Firestorm are not bad in themselves.  However i guess there is a feeling, probably rightly, that due to the lack of 'core' content, that these modes should not be in the game at the perceived expensive of the core multi player content. If we already had 15 maps and new factions and a big player base then these modes wouldnt be controversial and would probably be welcomed.  As it is the base game is still lacking so these added niche modes feel like a kick in the teeth to many in the 'community' who just arent interested in battle royal or competitive modes

    that's not true at all. the situation was similar when bf1 incursions got released. at that point bf1 had all the promised dlcs with lots of new maps (I think 14 new ones at the time), new gadgets and weapons. yet still there were threads everywhere about people complaining about the mode being a waste of time and a waste of recourses that should have better been put into base game to create even more content (just like now).
    if people won't benefit from some idea they will always complain thst these recourses should have been invested in a way that they personally benefit from. also when bfv was presented those modes were promised. expecting them to just scrap them is a ways bigger let down than not delivering as many maps as some people expected (while they never actually promised any number of maps on the first place).
    of course its always the people that are unhappy that are getting vocal, which is understandable and there is nothing wrong with thst. but people somehow follow from that that the people complaining are the voice of the whole community which is far from true...
    This situation is clearly different as BFV has largely failed to deliver what long-time BF fans expect of this series.  So people who normally wouldn't be complaining are sounding off due to the massive lack of content compared with earlier titles, the lack of rented servers, the weak anti-cheat on PC, the network performance worse than BF1 etc.  It's true there are always complainers, some people will complain about a sunny day.  I spent many hours pointing out how silly some of the more irrational and theatrical posters here were, but now BFV has just worn me down--I just can't be happy with a game where the network performance goes downhill, or where the most blatant hack user you can imagine can go on playing for weeks or months.  Most of the blame belongs to EA and its new business model for BFV which has been a disaster, but incompetence at DICE is also a factor.  I still think BFV isn't a bad game, but it could have been so much better.
  • The_BERG_366
    2339 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The_BERG_366 said:


    ninjapenquinuk wrote: »
    Adding modes like 5v5 or Firestorm are not bad in themselves.  However i guess there is a feeling, probably rightly, that due to the lack of 'core' content, that these modes should not be in the game at the perceived expensive of the core multi player content. If we already had 15 maps and new factions and a big player base then these modes wouldnt be controversial and would probably be welcomed.  As it is the base game is still lacking so these added niche modes feel like a kick in the teeth to many in the 'community' who just arent interested in battle royal or competitive modes



    that's not true at all. the situation was similar when bf1 incursions got released. at that point bf1 had all the promised dlcs with lots of new maps (I think 14 new ones at the time), new gadgets and weapons. yet still there were threads everywhere about people complaining about the mode being a waste of time and a waste of recourses that should have better been put into base game to create even more content (just like now).

    if people won't benefit from some idea they will always complain thst these recourses should have been invested in a way that they personally benefit from. also when bfv was presented those modes were promised. expecting them to just scrap them is a ways bigger let down than not delivering as many maps as some people expected (while they never actually promised any number of maps on the first place).

    of course its always the people that are unhappy that are getting vocal, which is understandable and there is nothing wrong with thst. but people somehow follow from that that the people complaining are the voice of the whole community which is far from true...

    This situation is clearly different as BFV has largely failed to deliver what long-time BF fans expect of this series.  So people who normally wouldn't be complaining are sounding off due to the massive lack of content compared with earlier titles, the lack of rented servers, the weak anti-cheat on PC, the network performance worse than BF1 etc.  It's true there are always complainers, some people will complain about a sunny day.  I spent many hours pointing out how silly some of the more irrational and theatrical posters here were, but now BFV has just worn me down--I just can't be happy with a game where the network performance goes downhill, or where the most blatant hack user you can imagine can go on playing for weeks or months.  Most of the blame belongs to EA and its new business model for BFV which has been a disaster, but incompetence at DICE is also a factor.  I still think BFV isn't a bad game, but it could have been so much better.

    exactly... its different in a worse way yet the complaints stay the same, that's exactly the point.
    I do agree with almost all of what you said and am honestly baffled after playing some 64 player gamemodes recently (due to lack of other options, which is in itself a source of disappointment for me), that people still enjoy playing these modes. despite playing on low ping hit confirmation lacks behind significantly making it feel like im playing on East (about 100 ping ) in this regard. I'm anything but happy with the game as a whole myself, but the reason for people to complain about 5v5 is not the state of the game. it might amplify the complaints but isn't the actual reason.
  • craign82
    223 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    When is this 5v5 coming out?
    Will it be as good/intense as Rainbow 6 Siege?

Sign In or Register to comment.