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

Comments

  • Caustic
    24 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    You know something's wrong with the multiplayer experience when my preferred way to unlock guns is to farm Combined Arms for Company Coin and just pay to unlock them a few days after the Chapter ends.
  • xBCxSEALxTEAMx6
    1415 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    That's EXACTLY what it is, and i would hope DICE would respond to the OP''s concerns. 
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Ferdinand_J_Foch I agree about the BF4 remotely operated mortar 100%, in fact it was one of the few things that I intensely disliked about the game since counter mortaring, something I loved to do became obsolete and the mortar lost a balance point.
    The remote mortar nonsense reminds me of the times I would track down a firing mortar, only to find that it's user is nowhere near it.

    The worst incident regarding this happened earlier in the game's life cycle. I found a mortar, and nobody was on it. When I went near it, some sniper sitting not too far off took my head off. The sniper had the same clan tag as the mortar user ...

    ... felt like throwing my PS3 out of the window after that.
  • Ceph_v74
    249 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I would say try Firestorm but the latest release messed it all up. It requires tight squad play and is a well done BR, shame about the current issues.
  • BURGERKRIEG
    831 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think after E3 the positive P.R. largely Helped by the YouTube Game changers being flown out to L.A. and having their collective egos stroked, has brought new players to the title.

    DICE has fallen yet again at the first hurdle of the “new start” by failing to deliver the content they publicised at E3 on time.

    This “live service” business has turned out to be awful. If the micro transactions aren’t flooding in, then the game is left half baked. 
  • spartanx169x
    683 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think after E3 the positive P.R. largely Helped by the YouTube Game changers being flown out to L.A. and having their collective egos stroked, has brought new players to the title.

    DICE has fallen yet again at the first hurdle of the “new start” by failing to deliver the content they publicised at E3 on time.

    This “live service” business has turned out to be awful. If the micro transactions aren’t flooding in, then the game is left half baked. 
    They keep using the words "Live Service", I don't think it means what they think it means (Paraphrasing a quote from a movie).

    I say that to bring humor to the situation. But  If it was "live service" we would at a minimum get a patch of something at least every two weeks. given the amount of bugs in this game, they should be pushing out a patch every week. Surely they can fix at least one thing per week. It would go a long way toward showing they are actually accomplishing something, and making progress.  In addition, they could reverse a patch if it broke anything and it would be easier to diagnose problems when they fix one thing and break another.  It certainly appears when they do push patches out and things break they struggle to even figure out why. 
  • DJTN1
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'm not 100% sure but I think, on consoles anyway, they have to get updates approved so there's no way to "Live Service" a bug fix. In gaming, it seems like a live service is just a way to turn store items on and off and up the prices. The assets and game have to be updated with a certified patch.

    Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing the benefits of a live service except to say "we now have a live service", the latest trend in cutting edge tech.

  • spartanx169x
    683 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DJTN1 said:
    I'm not 100% sure but I think, on consoles anyway, they have to get updates approved so there's no way to "Live Service" a bug fix. In gaming, it seems like a live service is just a way to turn store items on and off and up the prices. The assets and game have to be updated with a certified patch.

    Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing the benefits of a live service except to say "we now have a live service", the latest trend in cutting edge tech.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, I will just use this example. EPIC is the model for live service. They push out updates on a nearly weekly basis and monthly basis across all platforms. In addition,  they will often push out a patch/change and if it breaks something, they have and do reverse it, often with hours.  So to say "Live Service" can't fix bugs  is simply not  accurate, EPIC does it often with Fortnite. 

      EA has not done this with BFV or Anthem. Their live service is nothing more than PR speak trying to copying EPIC's success without willing to put in the work to do so.   
  • RABID_4TUNA
    73 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I think after E3 the positive P.R. largely Helped by the YouTube Game changers being flown out to L.A. and having their collective egos stroked, has brought new players to the title.

    DICE has fallen yet again at the first hurdle of the “new start” by failing to deliver the content they publicised at E3 on time.

    This “live service” business has turned out to be awful. If the micro transactions aren’t flooding in, then the game is left half baked. 
    Bethesda seems to have fallen into its own trap at the same time
  • RABID_4TUNA
    73 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited June 25
    DJTN1 said:
    I'm not 100% sure but I think, on consoles anyway, they have to get updates approved so there's no way to "Live Service" a bug fix. In gaming, it seems like a live service is just a way to turn store items on and off and up the prices. The assets and game have to be updated with a certified patch.

    Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing the benefits of a live service except to say "we now have a live service", the latest trend in cutting edge tech.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, I will just use this example. EPIC is the model for live service. They push out updates on a nearly weekly basis and monthly basis across all platforms. In addition,  they will often push out a patch/change and if it breaks something, they have and do reverse it, often with hours.  So to say "Live Service" can't fix bugs  is simply not  accurate, EPIC does it often with Fortnite. 

      EA has not done this with BFV or Anthem. Their live service is nothing more than PR speak trying to copying EPIC's success without willing to put in the work to do so.   
    Just to let you know, EPIC's employees go through a severe crunch routine for said live service model.

    By "severe", I mean endless hours and no break.
  • DJTN1
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DJTN1 said:
    I'm not 100% sure but I think, on consoles anyway, they have to get updates approved so there's no way to "Live Service" a bug fix. In gaming, it seems like a live service is just a way to turn store items on and off and up the prices. The assets and game have to be updated with a certified patch.



    Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing the benefits of a live service except to say "we now have a live service", the latest trend in cutting edge tech.





    I'm not disagreeing with you, I will just use this example. EPIC is the model for live service. They push out updates on a nearly weekly basis and monthly basis across all platforms. In addition,  they will often push out a patch/change and if it breaks
    something, they have and do reverse it, often with hours.  So to say "Live Service" can't fix bugs  is simply not  accurate, EPIC does it often with Fortnite. 

      EA has not done this with BFV or Anthem. Their
    live service is nothing more than PR speak trying to copying EPIC's success without willing to put in the work to do so.   
    DJTN1 said:
    I'm not 100% sure but I think, on consoles anyway, they have to get updates approved so there's no way to "Live Service" a bug fix. In gaming, it seems like a live service is just a way to turn store items on and off and up the prices. The assets and game have to be updated with a certified patch.



    Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing the benefits of a live service except to say "we now have a live service", the latest trend in cutting edge tech.





    I'm not disagreeing with you, I will just use this example. EPIC is the model for live service. They push out updates on a nearly weekly basis and monthly basis across all platforms. In addition,  they will often push out a patch/change and if it breaks
    something, they have and do reverse it, often with hours.  So to say "Live Service" can't fix bugs  is simply not  accurate, EPIC does it often with Fortnite. 

      EA has not done this with BFV or Anthem. Their
    live service is nothing more than PR speak trying to copying EPIC's success without willing to put in the work to do so.   


    A "Live Service" model is a form of content deployment and distribution. Like assets, ie micro transaction items. It is not a pipeline for deploying executables. Bug fixes usually require a client or server executable / service update.

    The fact that Epic updates their software stack in a timely manor and EA doesn't is irrelevant. Well except that it sucks for us BF players.
  • RABID_4TUNA
    73 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    As far as I can tell an EA “live service” is an excuse to launch a broken game like BFV or Anthem then hope you can fix it sometime down the line when the micro transaction money kicks in.

    What the service entails is initially vague as they don’t want to promise too much if the game is a flop. Then anything they do deliver is a bonus.

    BFV is a badly designed game, delivered late in a deeply technically flawed state. Add to that a slow drip feed of sub par content. 

    I will always think of that when I hear the term “live service” in future as it’s all I’ve experienced.
    As Mr. Ferdinand J. Foch wrote in another topic...

    "It's certainly possible to do it well, but at the moment, only a few companies have a live service without it being completely awful. A particularly popular example is Warframe, but that's a free to play game which features a lot of cosmetic microtransactions locked behind F2P style grinds.

    Overall, yes, this 'live service' thing isn't very good. After all, why would anyone expect a large trove of quality content for free? Almost nothing in life that is free is all that great.

    Every video game developer and publisher wants a profit ... it only makes sense that they focus on things that make them a profit, even if we as consumers don't like them. People don't like lootboxes, but these things earn massive amounts of revenues at very little costs. The only realistic way that we can stop this practice is to not buy into it.

    This logic can also be expanded onto a live service model. Game companies don't usually hand out content for free just because it's a nice thing to do ... they do it to incentivise microtransactions, or foster enough goodwill for people to buy the next game. EA probably believed that it could make more money through a live service funded using MTX, rather than the old season pass model. They didn't do all of this just to be nice ... they did it because they honestly believed that this would improve their financial status. If EA were told and convinced that they would lose out on money making opportunities with this live service, they wouldn't have done it, even if it had the potential to make their customers happy.

    Rainbow Six Siege is where this principle is extremely obvious. Ubisoft didn't make that 'Rainbow is Magic' event just because they wanted to have a jolly old time ... they did it to push those damned Event-only Alpha Packs which contained exclusive cosmetics. They could have charged for those cosmetics directly and still made a fair bit of money ... hell, they could have made those cosmetics free. However, they went down the Alpha Pack route. They did this because it would be better for Ubisoft if we spent up to $40 gambling for packs in order to get Unicorn Tachanka rather than buying Unicorn Tachanka directly for 'only' $10-15."
  • PrairieGeek
    362 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    spartanx169x said:

    DJTN1 said:
    I'm not 100% sure but I think, on consoles anyway, they have to get updates approved so there's no way to "Live Service" a bug fix. In gaming, it seems like a live service is just a way to turn store items on and off and up the prices. The assets and game have to be updated with a certified patch.



    Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing the benefits of a live service except to say "we now have a live service", the latest trend in cutting edge tech.





    I'm not disagreeing with you, I will just use this example. EPIC is the model for live service. They push out updates on a nearly weekly basis and monthly basis across all platforms. In addition,  they will often push out a patch/change and if it breaks
    something, they have and do reverse it, often with hours.  So to say "Live Service" can't fix bugs  is simply not  accurate, EPIC does it often with Fortnite. 

      EA has not done this with BFV or Anthem. Their
    live service is nothing more than PR speak trying to copying EPIC's success without willing to put in the work to do so.   

    Just to let you know, EPIC's employees go through a severe crunch routine for said live service model.

    By "severe", I mean endless hours and no break.

    That is called the death march. Every software developer knows it. It happens in every release
  • ragnarok013
    2585 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    I think after E3 the positive P.R. largely Helped by the YouTube Game changers being flown out to L.A. and having their collective egos stroked, has brought new players to the title.

    DICE has fallen yet again at the first hurdle of the “new start” by failing to deliver the content they publicised at E3 on time.

    This “live service” business has turned out to be awful. If the micro transactions aren’t flooding in, then the game is left half baked. 
    Bethesda seems to have fallen into its own trap at the same time
    RABID_4TUNA as one who frequently plays Fallout 76 I will say that BGS is at least listening to their player base after the disastrous launch. BGS was ardently against NPCs in FO76 but now after the community pushed back vocally we're getting a lot of changes that appear to make the game more like FO3\NV in terms of NPCs, dialog, structure etc. Does it excuse the state the game launched in? Positively not but they are trying to work with their community and I think that is a good thing regardless of what Pewdiepie says.
  • DJTN1
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @spartanx169x I get what you're saying and I understand you but perception and feelings have no bearing on truth. A core game bug fix is not deployed through a live service.

    And yes, it is wrong that ea presents their "Live Service" as something good for its customers when it's mearly a cash grab that has the opposite effect.

    As someone pointed out in an earlier post, it's impractical to believe ea or any company is going to give anything of value away for free. No matter how they spin it.

    We are not victims, we have the opportunity to participate or not. And if the next battlefield is anything like BFV, I won't be buying it.

  • BaronVonGoon
    6441 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DJTN1 said:


    spartanx169x wrote: »
    DJTN1 said:

    I'm not 100% sure but I think, on consoles anyway, they have to get updates approved so there's no way to "Live Service" a bug fix. In gaming, it seems like a live service is just a way to turn store items on and off and up the prices. The assets and game have to be updated with a certified patch.







    Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing the benefits of a live service except to say "we now have a live service", the latest trend in cutting edge tech.











    I'm not disagreeing with you, I will just use this example. EPIC is the model for live service. They push out updates on a nearly weekly basis and monthly basis across all platforms. In addition,  they will often push out a patch/change and if it breaks

    something, they have and do reverse it, often with hours.  So to say "Live Service" can't fix bugs  is simply not  accurate, EPIC does it often with Fortnite. 



      EA has not done this with BFV or Anthem. Their

    live service is nothing more than PR speak trying to copying EPIC's success without willing to put in the work to do so.   



    spartanx169x wrote: »
    DJTN1 said:

    I'm not 100% sure but I think, on consoles anyway, they have to get updates approved so there's no way to "Live Service" a bug fix. In gaming, it seems like a live service is just a way to turn store items on and off and up the prices. The assets and game have to be updated with a certified patch.







    Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not seeing the benefits of a live service except to say "we now have a live service", the latest trend in cutting edge tech.











    I'm not disagreeing with you, I will just use this example. EPIC is the model for live service. They push out updates on a nearly weekly basis and monthly basis across all platforms. In addition,  they will often push out a patch/change and if it breaks

    something, they have and do reverse it, often with hours.  So to say "Live Service" can't fix bugs  is simply not  accurate, EPIC does it often with Fortnite. 



      EA has not done this with BFV or Anthem. Their

    live service is nothing more than PR speak trying to copying EPIC's success without willing to put in the work to do so.   





    A "Live Service" model is a form of content deployment and distribution. Like assets, ie micro transaction items. It is not a pipeline for deploying executables. Bug fixes usually require a client or server executable / service update.



    The fact that Epic updates their software stack in a timely manor and EA doesn't is irrelevant. Well except that it sucks for us BF players.

    From a software developer operations standpoint, I have no
    doubt that is the way they approach it. However, for any company to promote “Live
    Service” as a perceived benefit/ advantage /selling point then it absolutely matters
    how often they push out updates of any kind-new updates/patches/whatever.

    Simply because, perception is very much customer service.
    Meaning, if the customers/players perceive that the developer is dragging their
    feet, it does impact how that player will feel about continuing to play that
    game. From a player’s perspective, what they see or don’t see is their reality-
    They either see a developer constantly working to make the game better by
    making updates often, or they see a developer doing nothing but the standard monthly(is
    it even monthly with BFV?) or quarterly updates.

    People will continue to support a game if they feel the
    developer is making every effort to support the game. Additionally the reverse
    is also true, if players see or in this case don’t see any efforts being made
    because updates don’t come out often and when they do they break more stuff and
    months later  the same glitches remain  and or more/different glitches  are now effecting the game, players  start to give up and walk away to find
    something else.  

    Both with Rainbow Six and Fortnite, the developers have
    earned the reputation, that they are actively making big efforts to make their
    games better thru “Live Service”.  As a
    result, players continue to actively support the game.  Now contrast that with how EA has approached
    not just BFV but also Anthem, both have lost players in droves and will
    continue to.  Players see active support(pushing
    put updated almost weekly regardless of what they are) vs the bare minimum of
    support/ or lack of adequate support(lucky if you get an update monthly but
    typically quarterly, regardless of what they are).  Ubisoft and EPIC continue to make a killing
    from MTs for their efforts. EA is barely scraping by.  

    EA/DICE could push out even a tiny update every two weeks
    and it would go a long way toward improving the perception of their support vs
    the lip service that is currently being done. 
    They could, but they won’t. You can bet the top level managers are already
    focusing on their next games and have written off BFV and Anthem( Anthem may
    get more support, but even that is iffy).

    Well said.
  • spartanx169x
    683 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DJTN1 said:
    @spartanx169x I get what you're saying and I understand you but perception and feelings have no bearing on truth. A core game bug fix is not deployed through a live service.

    And yes, it is wrong that ea presents their "Live Service" as something good for its customers when it's mearly a cash grab that has the opposite effect.

    As someone pointed out in an earlier post, it's impractical to believe ea or any company is going to give anything of value away for free. No matter how they spin it.

    We are not victims, we have the opportunity to participate or not. And if the next battlefield is anything like BFV, I won't be buying it.

    Agree 100%.  
Sign In or Register to comment.