BFV is a campy, try hard, insta death bore.

Comments

  • Kattegat_Twin
    758 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 18
    @Dank_Jeezus Insta death, as you call it, is not boring to me. It's more realistic (yes, yes, I know this isn't a milsim, but a little bit of realism is good). I'm not the kind of person who gets upset when I die, and I die a lot. If I run around a corner and get sprayed down, that's my fault, not the fault of the guy waiting for me. I much prefer dying quickly, and killing quickly. I hate games where you have to empty 30 bullets into a guy before he drops, that's just stupid.

    You don't need to spend 5 minutes looking for people in bushes. how about let other people run ahead of you and pay attention when they drop, and assess where the threat is? Then go flank those "campers" and take them out?


  • trip1ex
    4657 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 18
    Yes, BFV is super campy. But it's not a user issue. Go play other games like CSGO, Black Squad, BF3/BF4, Insurgency etc... You'll notice they're less campy. Campy, but less so. The reason is map design. Unlike BFV, the other games have more urban warfare in them. More complex structures, alleyways, complex buildings -- as opposed to the one or two story houses in BFV. The map design doesn't encourage players to camp, it doesn't make it particularly advantageous for them to camp. You can always anticipate where the enemy is going to be coming from and you can move in relative safety knowing that the enemy is somewhere *there*.

    But in BFV with maps being nothing but open fields with trees, small houses, dirt and rocks everywhere the anticipation factor is much less effective. It's alot more random. When you can't effectively anticipate where the enemy is, you're more likely to hunker down and keep an eye out the horizon till some poor soul gets in your field of view and you take them out, then he calls you a camper in the chat.

    It's not the players, it's the garbage map design.
    Open spaces are more conducive to camping, but the verticality of BF3/4 was a double edged sword in this regard. Recons tended to camp on tall structures, as they do in this game as well. The spawn beacon made things worse ... even if they died, they'd spawn back on their skyscraper. People camped on top of the buildings and the water tower in Flood Zone. People camped on the main skyscraper on Hainan Resort. People camped on top of the skyscrapers on Dawnbreaker. People even camped on the mountain on Dragon Pass. Sometimes it felt like half of my team or the enemy team was sitting in one spot all day, whilst putting claymores, spawn beacons and TUG-S next to their lofty position.

    Camping on tall structures wasn't even limited to objective game modes. DICE had to remove the ladders on Siege of Shanghai TDM and Zavod 311 TDM because they were being abused by Recons camping on the roof for the entire match.

    Whenever I see a tall structure, I can't help but think "There's some imbecile sitting up there", and in the vast majority of cases, there's somebody there with all of the tools for setting up the best camping spot up there. In BF4, this would include the gadgets I mentioned before, the SRR-661 with a 40x scope, bipod and range finder. Sometimes, they'll even have some tryhard secondary weapon, such as the G-18 or Serbu Shorty in BF4, or the .44 Magnum in BF3.

    Don't even get me started on the crane snipers ... I hope they never put cranes in a BF game ever again ...
    The thing with BF4 and what I think Baron was saying was you knew where the campers were.  You could anticipate where they were going to be.  There wasn't a billion rooftops.  The roof tops weren't cluttered with tons of hiding spots either.  And so you can freely move about in "safe" areas.  

    BFV gets rid of a lot of that because there is so much clutter on the maps and visibility is so bad.   BF4 had  relatively fewer hiding spots.  It had better visibility and you had 3d spotting along with being 2d spotted when you fired unless you used a silencer.

    There isn't that much  "Where's Waldo" in BF4 unlike BFV.

    Same thing with CS.  CS actually is a camp a hallway game.  But you know the enemy is going to be there.  You don't have trouble finding the enemy.  There are only so many spots they can be. You can clearly see the enemy too last I played the game which was over 10 years ago.  :)
  • spartanx169x
    695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Xepburn said:

    trip1ex said:
    My boredom of BF is  tied to the lack of an exciting win condition


    This is an extremely interesting comment.

    On some level, BF has always lacked an "exciting win condition."  Wins and losses result from thousands of barely perceptible "micro-exchanges" between players.  It can be very difficult for players to truly understand why their teams won or lost (although people in chat are sure to dumb it down to things like "too many snipers" or "bad tankers").  And usually by about the halfway point of a match, it's pretty obvious which team is ultimately going to win.  As players, we just tend to accept that this is the way things are.

    I do think BFV tried to address this in some ways.  Specifically, Dice added the "Final Stand" team-BR to Grand Operations.  Unfortunately, it only triggers in a small percentage of matches; even then, it rarely delivers that intense, "final circle" feel of something like PUBG.

    A game that I think does this really well is Overwatch, with its "overtime" mechanic.  In those overtime moments, it's incredibly obvious what each team needs to do in order to win.  Likewise, individual players can have tremendous impact on the game during those moments; players get the opportunity to feel like the hero, to feel like their play made the difference.

    Now, I don't necessarily think a similar mechanic would be a great fit for BF.  In my opinion, the BF experience (unlike Overwatch) isn't about being the "hero."  It is about being the common, unremarkable soldier in a chaotic world.  I think the key is finding some sort of balance.  However, as it stands, mindlessly zerging between the same three points while tickets bleed at seemingly arbitrary rates is problematic.  And this is one of the main reasons why I liked BF1's version of Grand/Shock Operations more than BFV's version.  The win conditions were clear, and the individual player could occasionally have a moment of brilliance that resulted in one team's permanent progress.

    I agree with the gist of what you're saying but  I feel like there was more excitement around trying to win  in past BF games.  If nothing else because of the lack of distractions like assignments and career stats and youtube.  But also because Conquest back in BF42 was relatively few flags on most maps and when your team was bleeding they were bleeding.  You knew it.  Your team's ticket total flashed red on the HUD.    That effect is gone, you got more flags in Conquest designed in such a way so teams play ring around the rosie  and the idea of having to take a flag from the enemy or getting a bleed or breaking a bleed seems to have been lost.   

    I played Obliteration mode in BF4 and maybe looking back that kept me excited about BF as Conquest in BF4 was getting worse where flags were starting to change hands too frequently ...that or no one advanced on a map like Locker with 64 players.   Obliteration, on the other hand,  had some real objectives to it where if you didn't play them you could lose in a little as 5 minutes.   And yet  if you were in the game then you still had a chance to win.  It was really only at the very end, the very last minute or two and only when your team was behind 2-0 that you had no chance to win.  Otherwise there was always a chance to make a great run on an mcom, blow it up and tie or win the round.  And if you were ahead 2-0, there was the opportunity to knock the other team out.  And if you were behind 2-0 there was still that moral victory of going the distance if you could hold out the last 2 minutes.  

    I feel like old Conquest had more of that, where you could still turn things around late in a match if your team got ahold of the bleed.   I feel like there was some more hanging on in the latter stages to secure a victory.  

    I also feel like they could have improved upon what they had whereas it feels like they not only didn't improve upon it they made it worse.

    Obliteration in BF4, sold me on the entire series and was sorely missed in HL, BF1 and now V. It is the best gametype you can play if you are not good, because kills and deaths don’t contribute to the score and winning . I might die 20 times in a match with only 5 kills, but I was often the player that made the winning play delivering the bomb and detonating it. Doing so have a great feeling of accomplishment and sacrifice of dying was worth it. I would play V right now if they had it but have basically quit playing V. Since BF4 obliteration , I have subsequently gotten much better but I still miss that gametype. It’s a great gametype for newcomers to the series.
  • BaronVonGoon
    6656 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 18
    BaronVonGoon said:
    Yes, BFV is super campy. But it's not a user issue. Go play other games like CSGO, Black Squad, BF3/BF4, Insurgency etc... You'll notice they're less campy. Campy, but less so. The reason is map design. Unlike BFV, the other games have more urban warfare in them. More complex structures, alleyways, complex buildings -- as opposed to the one or two story houses in BFV. The map design doesn't encourage players to camp, it doesn't make it particularly advantageous for them to camp. You can always anticipate where the enemy is going to be coming from and you can move in relative safety knowing that the enemy is somewhere *there*.



    But in BFV with maps being nothing but open fields with trees, small houses, dirt and rocks everywhere the anticipation factor is much less effective. It's alot more random. When you can't effectively anticipate where the enemy is, you're more likely to hunker down and keep an eye out the horizon till some poor soul gets in your field of view and you take them out, then he calls you a camper in the chat.



    It's not the players, it's the garbage map design.

    Open spaces are more conducive to camping, but the verticality of BF3/4 was a double edged sword in this regard. Recons tended to camp on tall structures, as they do in this game as well. The spawn beacon made things worse ... even if they died, they'd spawn back on their skyscraper. People camped on top of the buildings and the water tower in Flood Zone. People camped on the main skyscraper on Hainan Resort. People camped on top of the skyscrapers on Dawnbreaker. People even camped on the mountain on Dragon Pass. Sometimes it felt like half of my team or the enemy team was sitting in one spot all day, whilst putting claymores, spawn beacons and TUG-S next to their lofty position.

    Camping on tall structures wasn't even limited to objective game modes. DICE had to remove the ladders on Siege of Shanghai TDM and Zavod 311 TDM because they were being abused by Recons camping on the roof for the entire match.

    Whenever I see a tall structure, I can't help but think "There's some imbecile sitting up there", and in the vast majority of cases, there's somebody there with all of the tools for setting up the best camping spot up there. In BF4, this would include the gadgets I mentioned before, the SRR-661 with a 40x scope, bipod and range finder. Sometimes, they'll even have some tryhard secondary weapon, such as the G-18 or Serbu Shorty in BF4, or the .44 Magnum in BF3.

    Don't even get me started on the crane snipers ... I hope they never put cranes in a BF game ever again ...

    Definetly. Can't argue about all the camping in BF4. But it was very predictable and the sniping back then was difficult due to the low velocity of bolt actions, low ttk, 3d spotting and auto rotation on console. Snipers were a nuisance but weren't very effective.

    In BFV it's alot harder to predict where a camper set up shop.
    Post edited by BaronVonGoon on
  • StormSaxon
    565 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    BF4 fewer ca ping spots... bah. Don’t make me laugh.

    Every map was jam packed with prime camping spots... Flood Zone was essential built for snipers and supports to set up and dominate. Locker, every corner would have someone hunched in the corner, snipers and LMGs down every corridor, snipers covering the one flank route... “campers” have existed in every version of the game, and every map has areas for them to set up.

    in fact zerging is the standout trait of BFV. See that far more than you did in BF3-1. In BF3-4 would get 4 man medic trains... but since medic is only good at very close quarters in BFV you don’t see medic trains so much, just human waves. And since snipers are so .... finesse.... in BFV, it’s hard to camp with a sniper and achieve anything except duel other snipers.
  • MemesterChief
    96 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    That feel when the game is basically free with an orgin BASIC sub and you still can't find US Breakthrough servers. Despite the problems BF1 had, it still seemed to have more matches than BFV does now. I hope they get 1 last shot at BF6 before being axed
  • Mr_I3urzum
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 18
    @Dank_Jeezus Insta death, as you call it, is not boring to me. It's more realistic (yes, yes, I know this isn't a milsim, but a little bit of realism is good). I'm not the kind of person who gets upset when I die, and I die a lot. If I run around a corner and get sprayed down, that's my fault, not the fault of the guy waiting for me. I much prefer dying quickly, and killing quickly. I hate games where you have to empty 30 bullets into a guy before he drops, that's just stupid.

    You don't need to spend 5 minutes looking for people in bushes. how about let other people run ahead of you and pay attention when they drop, and assess where the threat is? Then go flank those "campers" and take them out?


    So I take it you wouldn't mind getting rid of repair for vehicles seeming how you don't mind a little bit of realism.
  • oldmandown65
    93 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Rocks, trees, foliage and grass is the big difference.  In BF 4 you could be seen from across the map, in BFV you can step on an enemy and not know it and n time.  But it’s realistic...
  • SirTerrible
    1639 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Snipers would even camp on the top of the skyscrapers on Dawnbreaker. Did anyone actually die to one of those snipers? They had such a terrible view from up there that the only thing I can think of is that they were dueling other snipers that were doing the same thing. BF4 snipers were more pathetic than they were annoying sometimes lol.
  • Trokey66
    8176 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    @Ferdinand_J_Foch

    BF4 had a fewer camping spots and you knew where the camping spots were and you could see the campers.  And thus you knew where to be on the look out for campers and where you could move more freely (safely) to avoid them.  


    I'm not sure about the spots being fewer, but they were definitely predictable.

    Basically, any structure that is more than two stories high will have a high chance of camping Recons on it in BF4. I've seen campers on some of the most ridiculous spots ever. The worst one was a nest of snipers on the mountain of Dragon Pass ... until that point, I didn't even think it was possible to get there, but lo and behold, I got my head taken off by one of the snipers in that nest ... I couldn't help but laugh at loud at how absurd it was.

    There was a similarly ridiculous death I had against a sniper in Paracel Storm ... one of the buffoons sniped me from the aircraft carrier, shortly after I managed to get close to the B flag. I was astonished to see someone actually succeed with that kind of spot, before realising that the Recon's team was losing by hundreds of tickets ... karma, I suppose.

    To this day, you'll find these campers. Five years after the release of BF4, and you still have people playing in such an idiotic fashion. Sure, they can do whatever they want, but it's just so ... stupid.

    I used to enjoy putting Claymores down on the route those spots.

    I would giggle and give a long range T Bag.......
  • idk1233211
    632 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    give snipers wind conditions they have to account for , more realistic then.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    filthmcnasty said:
    I like how it is, the best softcore mode yet. You have to pat more attention to your surroundings and use the right equipment. I play Breakthrough and Ops, Outpost atm, and I can't even count how many times I've seen teams lose because they refuse to use smoke when traversing open terrain ideal for sniping, not using enough medics, too many snipers when attacking, and timidness when capping an objective.

    Few people use their heads. BF5 has a learning curve but it's no worse than most other games. CoD is about knowing the maps, Fortnite is luck/tactics for surviving, BF is knowing the classes.

    If you think this is bad, play R6:Siege, The Last of Us, World of Tanks, etc.

    BF5 is not hard
    Well said.  I saw a post on Reddit where someone complaining about the game being "campy" etc. actually said that he realized he could adapt to BFV by altering his play style to take into account the folks hiding in dark corners etc., he just refuses to do so.  Okay, I guess he's at least being honest about it.  But it still amazes me that someone playing a new game which works differently from older games would think it makes more sense to be stubborn than to figure out how to play under the new conditions.  What happens when someone like that tries PUBG, does he refuse to take into account things like no spotting, no respawning, needing to find weapons and ammo?  I didn't have to go looking for weapons and ammo in Battlefield, so I'm not going to do that now--bang, dead.  You have to laugh at some of these opinions.

    A lot of us don’t like it but aren’t indifferent. Hell, i play a lot of games with gunplay similar to bf5.

    My “argument” is this game is live service, casual in nature (really it is, come on...) and for ages was a game my hardcore buddies could play with my weekend warrior buddies.

    Me not liking the game for being hardcore-lite is just my opinion. But it’s ever more apparent that most players don’t want that. Especially the silent majority of players who dice has admitted we’re leaving in droves.

    It’s too late now, but let’s be honest. You guys are the minority here and are the minority in almost every fps I’ve played, from halo CE to BF1.

    Dice making the game play like this was a huge mistake for all sorts of reasons.


    I hope you don’t take this as a personal attack. I don’t think I’m wrong here though.

    In response I'd have to ask how PUBG, a game thoroughly "hardcore" from top to bottom, has sold over fifty million copies if players who like a more hardcore game are in the minority?  That's got to be more than every BF title put together.  It seems to me that if a game is as entertaining as PUBG can be--and no game I've ever played got my heart pounding and my hands sweating like PUBG--then players will put up with challenging shooting mechanics and fast TTD and no respawning and no spotting and so on.  I have to wonder, if BFV has been more bug-free, and had new maps and other content arriving at the same rate as say BF4, and the lame cosmetics and other distractions were not there, would be there so many players as unhappy with "hardcore-lite" as you think there are?  My guess is if the game had been more polished and we had twenty maps--and the network performance wasn't such a fiasco--we wouldn't be hearing many of these complaints.

    BTW, I appreciate your civility. 
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BaronVonGoon said:
    Yes, BFV is super campy. But it's not a user issue. Go play other games like CSGO, Black Squad, BF3/BF4, Insurgency etc... You'll notice they're less campy. Campy, but less so. The reason is map design. Unlike BFV, the other games have more urban warfare in them. More complex structures, alleyways, complex buildings -- as opposed to the one or two story houses in BFV. The map design doesn't encourage players to camp, it doesn't make it particularly advantageous for them to camp. You can always anticipate where the enemy is going to be coming from and you can move in relative safety knowing that the enemy is somewhere *there*.



    But in BFV with maps being nothing but open fields with trees, small houses, dirt and rocks everywhere the anticipation factor is much less effective. It's alot more random. When you can't effectively anticipate where the enemy is, you're more likely to hunker down and keep an eye out the horizon till some poor soul gets in your field of view and you take them out, then he calls you a camper in the chat.



    It's not the players, it's the garbage map design.

    Open spaces are more conducive to camping, but the verticality of BF3/4 was a double edged sword in this regard. Recons tended to camp on tall structures, as they do in this game as well. The spawn beacon made things worse ... even if they died, they'd spawn back on their skyscraper. People camped on top of the buildings and the water tower in Flood Zone. People camped on the main skyscraper on Hainan Resort. People camped on top of the skyscrapers on Dawnbreaker. People even camped on the mountain on Dragon Pass. Sometimes it felt like half of my team or the enemy team was sitting in one spot all day, whilst putting claymores, spawn beacons and TUG-S next to their lofty position.

    Camping on tall structures wasn't even limited to objective game modes. DICE had to remove the ladders on Siege of Shanghai TDM and Zavod 311 TDM because they were being abused by Recons camping on the roof for the entire match.

    Whenever I see a tall structure, I can't help but think "There's some imbecile sitting up there", and in the vast majority of cases, there's somebody there with all of the tools for setting up the best camping spot up there. In BF4, this would include the gadgets I mentioned before, the SRR-661 with a 40x scope, bipod and range finder. Sometimes, they'll even have some tryhard secondary weapon, such as the G-18 or Serbu Shorty in BF4, or the .44 Magnum in BF3.

    Don't even get me started on the crane snipers ... I hope they never put cranes in a BF game ever again ...

    Definetly. Can't argue about all the camping in BF4. But it was very predictable and the sniping back then was difficult due to the low velocity of bolt actions, low ttk, 3d spotting and auto rotation on console. Snipers were a nuisance but weren't very effective.

    In BFV it's alot harder to predict where a camper set up shop.
    BF4 had choppers, and parachute spawn beacons, which meant every rooftop was a potential sniper nest.  Shanghai, Dawnbreaker, Zavod, Firestorm, Sunken, Golmund--BF4 was so three-dimensional that you had to keep one eye up or you were in danger of being sniped from someone on top of a building or antenna or cracking tower or whatever.  That the devs have taken away that ability to easily get on top of buildings in BFV suggests those snipers weren't as ineffective as you paint them.

    There are only a few of those elevated sniper positions in BFV, and I think it's significant that they can either be destroyed or there is someplace higher with a line of fire to them or they are accessible from the ground.  I can't imagine why the devs would have done that unless snipers in high places were considered a problem in previous titles like BF4.
  • bigiain
    242 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The roofs in BF4 were at least close to the action if you wanted to use a camping squad member as a spawn point, you just parachuted off the roof and were at a flag. Here they're as far from the flags as possible a lot of the time.
  • StormSaxon
    565 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Not quite.
    BF4 recons we even further away, as far as they had bullets that could travel more than 250 meters.

    And the got every, some buildings we’re very high and they were always tying to go everywhere.. anywhere.
Sign In or Register to comment.