BF5' gunplay is pretty good; good building blocks for future bf titles.

Comments

  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 20
    I did say the gunplay is only part of the equation.  The netcode, TTK, visibility, soldier movement, attrition, etc all combine to make the game more twitch-or-camp with less tactical choice in between.  All things being equal, twitch and camp *are* the more successful options.  Not the *only* options and not *only* because of the gunplay, but biased that way to make it less fun for me and the gumplay is, yes, partly to blame.

    Notice my use of 'less' and 'more' not 'none' or 'all'.  It's just a tendency.  But for me (and a lot of others that prefer BF1) it's enough to make it feel un-fun or at least much less fun than BF1 and, so, a huge disappointment.

    I played BF4 for 1300+ hours.  BF1 for 2000+ hours.  BF5 for 50+.  It was all I could take.  Too depressing.  I still play BF1 regularly.  The gunplay is better.  In my opinion.

    Hey I have only played it for 50 hours and not lately, so maybe it's better now and maybe it's hard to tell with all the other problems on top, but from what I'm reading, my reasoning is not way off and plenty of people feel similarly.

    But "BF5 gunplay is pretty good"?  Nah.  "good building blocks for future bf titles"?  I really hope not.
    Yes, I did notice that You did bring up those other things, but to say its more of a successful option, even more so than playing the objective is still a little bit hyperbolic .   It's not an absolute choice, but its still a false choice nonetheless when you say that. You're indicating its the best way to play and indicated that those two are the best options when in reality, The more successful ones are the ones that play the game to win.

    You did say the gunplay is a detriment to the game as a whole
     
    I know you brought other stuff but I was addressing that comment in the previous post that you replied to when I brought up the other variables and why it seemed like you made it the gunplay being simplified the central issue

    I would contend that BF5 gunplay would be more appealing if it didn't have all the other stuff surrounding it. If they reverted back to autogen, if they were no super bullets. I argued its still an enjoyable experience to me even with those more so than bf1 gunplay, but I digress. I  still think gunplay isn't the issue that people are claiming it to be. It's what the game has been built around and upon that is the issue.

    I'm addressing the gunplay/gun handling by itself and not things surrounding it. If you put bf1 gunplay mechanics into bf5, I don't think it makes bf5 a better game. Simply because bf5 as a whole game is poor. I would even say that it makes BF5 worse. On the other hand, if you put bf5 gun mechanics into bf1, I think it makes it a better game. The only exceptions I'd have is the SLRS working like SLRs with no spread and lmgs working like mmgs but I still think it'll be overall a better experience.

    In bf1, you simply pull down in one direction for recoil. You pull down(full auto mind you) and when you're suppressed, you disengage and use your movement to the best of your ability to try to get out that situation. In bf5, you don't pull down one direction. Every gun is different (well, except for the SARs) and some people will never learn the muscle memory of shooting the gun in addition to pulling down. It's 'learnable' but just because its 'learnable' doesn't make it easy. The narrative that you are putting out kinda seems to suggest that's what its happening. 'It's simplified, its memorizing stuff and that's it' kinda thing.

    We can agree to disagree on skill thing. I happen to think it just highlights different areas for different games. I believe the bf5 gunplay is more skillbased, while the movement in bf1 is more skill based and if they can marry the two together in some way, it would be a great game.
  • disposalist
    8505 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 20
    Happy to agree to disagree ;^)  But certainly the more BF5 could take from BF1 the better!  But we are past that now, I think.  Mind you, they did try and make BF1 more like BF4 over a year in...  Unfortunately...
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Happy to agree to disagree ;^)  But certainly the more BF5 could take from BF1 the better!  But we are past that now, I think.  Mind you, they did try and make BF1 more like BF4 over a year in...  Unfortunately...
    Unfortunately, BF5 is cooked. I agree with you in saying the BF5 we have now is the complete battlefield. Not much if anything will change between now and another year from now. The core game is the issue. There's no sense of community with that game. Attrition, bad map design, bad live service and what seems to be a focus on 5v5 is what the game is.

    It's up to the next battlefield to capture what made bf5 great and unique. BF5 can be enjoyable to some degree. I enjoy it, but I don't enjoy it as much as bf1. BF1 is a better game. Wasn't perfect, but it was a better polished game. I can spend hours and get lost playing bf1. BF5, I can't enjoy it past a couple of hours or so. I just find the gunplay more appealing but as a game, its not that much appealing. 
  • JamieCurnock
    558 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 21
    Question for those people who really enjoyed the gunplay in bf1. Did you generally use a single fire rifle or did you mainly use a fully automatic?

    I found it incredibly frustrating to have my cross hair on someone's head but because of the rbd the bullets are flying over his shoulder (I'm not saying this happens all the time tho). From speaking to people about bf1 this didn't seem to be a thing when using single fire rifles and only really punished those using fully automatic guns.

    I haven't had this once on bfv (bugs aside) and any shots I missed were because I aimed badly not because of what seemed to me to be a mechanic that is purely there to try and level the playing field.
  • X_Sunslayer_X
    763 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Question for those people who really enjoyed the gunplay in bf1. Did you generally use a single fire rifle or did you mainly use a fully automatic?

    I found it incredibly frustrating to have my cross hair on someone's head but because of the rbd the bullets are flying over his shoulder (I'm not saying this happens all the time tho). From speaking to people about bf1 this didn't seem to be a thing when using single fire rifles and only really punished those using fully automatic guns.

    I haven't had this once on bfv (bugs aside) and any shots I missed were because I aimed badly not because of what seemed to me to be a mechanic that is purely there to try and level the playing field.

    i mainly played as medic and thus used all SLRs in BF1 fairly much.
    i never felt like missing many clean shots due to RBD most of the time it was due to me moving or getting hella suppressed by multiple enemies. but whenever i saw an enemy out of position i could easily punish him.
    unlike as medic in BFV where i have to pray to the gods then the horizontal spread/recoil will not screw me over like a breeding-stallion. i mean i get it SMGs are notoriously inaccurate but why have the one really integral class to team-play stuck on these worthless excuses for balance?
  • JamieCurnock
    558 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 21
    i mainly played as medic and thus used all SLRs in BF1 fairly much.i never felt like missing many clean shots due to RBD most of the time it was due to me moving or getting hella suppressed by multiple enemies. but whenever i saw an enemy out of position i could easily punish him.
    unlike as medic in BFV where i have to pray to the gods then the horizontal spread/recoil will not screw me over like a breeding-stallion. i mean i get it SMGs are notoriously inaccurate but why have the one really integral class to team-play stuck on these worthless excuses for balance?

    That's similar to what I've heard from others. I really think that rbd punished those players using fully automatic weapons which I why I felt frustrated by the mechanic. I guess you could argue it was a ww1 game and so the fully automatic guns won't be as accurate as games set in a later time period so maybe from that point of view it made sense.

    I get the frustration with medics and I agree they need more diverse weapons however from a breakthrough perspective I think the medic class is far far more useful in bfv than in bf1, not neccessarily because of load outs but because of the way those load outs encouraged some people to play. At least in bfv medics are in the fight, reviving etc and not on the perimeters playing recon with a health pack (I get not everyone played medic bf1 like this tho).
  • X_Sunslayer_X
    763 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    i mainly played as medic and thus used all SLRs in BF1 fairly much.i never felt like missing many clean shots due to RBD most of the time it was due to me moving or getting hella suppressed by multiple enemies. but whenever i saw an enemy out of position i could easily punish him.
    unlike as medic in BFV where i have to pray to the gods then the horizontal spread/recoil will not screw me over like a breeding-stallion. i mean i get it SMGs are notoriously inaccurate but why have the one really integral class to team-play stuck on these worthless excuses for balance?

    That's similar to what I've heard from others. I really think that rbd punished those players using fully automatic weapons which I why I felt frustrated by the mechanic. I guess you could argue it was a ww1 game and so the fully automatic guns won't be as accurate as games set in a later time period so maybe from that point of view it made sense.

    I get the frustration with medics and I agree they need more diverse weapons however from a breakthrough perspective I think the medic class is far far more useful in bfv than in bf1, not neccessarily because of load outs but because of the way those load outs encouraged some people to play. At least in bfv medics are in the fight, reviving etc and not on the perimeters playing recon with a health pack (I get not everyone played medic bf1 like this tho).

    yeah on breaktrough it might encourage pushing as attacker but other then that what good are you too your squad you are a sitting duck 80% of the time and whenever you do get into a position you are now after putting in much more work on somewhat equal footing with assault and support and now recon has better CQC weapons as well with pistol-carbines....
  • JamieCurnock
    558 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 21

    yeah on breaktrough it might encourage pushing as attacker but other then that what good are you too your squad you are a sitting duck 80% of the time and whenever you do get into a position you are now after putting in much more work on somewhat equal footing with assault and support and now recon has better CQC weapons as well with pistol-carbines....

    Yeah makes sense that medics class is more useful in game modes where the engagement distance is shorter (breakthrough/frontlines/grind etc). I can see how in conquest it would feel fairly useless most of the time.
  • bran1986
    5660 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    i mainly played as medic and thus used all SLRs in BF1 fairly much.i never felt like missing many clean shots due to RBD most of the time it was due to me moving or getting hella suppressed by multiple enemies. but whenever i saw an enemy out of position i could easily punish him.
    unlike as medic in BFV where i have to pray to the gods then the horizontal spread/recoil will not screw me over like a breeding-stallion. i mean i get it SMGs are notoriously inaccurate but why have the one really integral class to team-play stuck on these worthless excuses for balance?

    That's similar to what I've heard from others. I really think that rbd punished those players using fully automatic weapons which I why I felt frustrated by the mechanic. I guess you could argue it was a ww1 game and so the fully automatic guns won't be as accurate as games set in a later time period so maybe from that point of view it made sense.

    I get the frustration with medics and I agree they need more diverse weapons however from a breakthrough perspective I think the medic class is far far more useful in bfv than in bf1, not neccessarily because of load outs but because of the way those load outs encouraged some people to play. At least in bfv medics are in the fight, reviving etc and not on the perimeters playing recon with a health pack (I get not everyone played medic bf1 like this tho).

    The only automatics that were punished by spread were smgs. That only happened if you didn't burst properly, even then the trade off was the smgs were the strongest weapons in their niche. Sure they had some competition in the support class with the Burton and the BAR, but it isn't like in BFV where medic is outgunned in every niche by a lot of different weapons. As a medic you're two choices are to go Thompson and Suomi to maximize any edge in a very small niche or choose a weapon that allows you to kill at slightly longer ranges while giving up cqb potential to nearly every automatic in the game.
  • DingoKillr
    3516 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Question for those people who really enjoyed the gunplay in bf1. Did you generally use a single fire rifle or did you mainly use a fully automatic?

    I found it incredibly frustrating to have my cross hair on someone's head but because of the rbd the bullets are flying over his shoulder (I'm not saying this happens all the time tho). From speaking to people about bf1 this didn't seem to be a thing when using single fire rifles and only really punished those using fully automatic guns.

    I haven't had this once on bfv (bugs aside) and any shots I missed were because I aimed badly not because of what seemed to me to be a mechanic that is purely there to try and level the playing field.
    I used all equally in BF1 it depended on what I wanted to do on a map/mode that day.
    There are mechanic in BFV to level playing field which actual work against. BF1 was better with most of  those mechanics. 

    BF1 SLR, SMG had increase spread the faster you fired so at short range you could easily compete why at long range you need to slow your fire rate. LMG cool downs much large than now, also had reverse spread which meant not the best up close and at range likely to miss a few shoot, it did not matter if you where on a bipod(improved later).  BA for long range you had low damage and drag, while making more effective at under 150m, faster swap and draw for pistols.

    Combined it meant SMG had slight advantages at short range due to ROF, at medium range SLR and BA had advantages and BA at long. No weapon class dominated at all ranges nor did any infantry class not have a weapon to compete at any range.

    Look at BFV. Pistol carbines and carbines have to be added to expand the ranges of 2 infantry class badly.
    Recon BA and SLR has low velocity, non center return,  higher increase spread when firing fast, large delay on spread decrease going from hip to ADS and movement to stationary and higher spread on movement when compared to Assault SAR. This gives the SAR advantage enclose and at range.  Why is a 5 bullet SLR setup to be better at short range instead of long, while the higher mag is better at long? 
    Then you have Medic SMG with low velocity, high recoil and low ammo pickup compared to Assault AR which has range and high ROF with less recoil which gives them a upper hand at short range. 
    Shotgun with pellets are close quarter not even short range, yet we don't have multiple shot from pellets at short range. Why? I believe it is because they don't want 1HK in CQB yet we have other weapon with TTK so quick you won't have time to respond. 
    MMG have both a small cooldown(SMG mag size) but a massive hipfire spread and needing a bipod to be accurate. So what we got is AR that have the advantage at short to medium ranges and SAR at medium to long.

    Not onces did I have my crosshair over a target and found it frustrating in missing because of RBD in BF1. Yet in BFV because of RBD and other mechanic I find gunplay extreme frustrating unless using AR or SAR. 
  • SirTerrible
    1695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    In BF1 with semi autos you had to aim and pace your shots to a varying degree depending on range and gun. In BFV you only have to aim, there's little depth otherwise. Just spam away and pull your aim down a bit. Feels easier/less skillful to me, and even if I'm wrong about it being less skillful it at least feels less satisfying and less fun due to its mechanical simplicity imo.
    .
    RBD in BF1 was so misunderstood. It didn't make the guns inherently inaccurate at all. In BF1 with stuff like the Mondragon, 8 .35 Marksman, RSC optical, Howell, Selb Marksman, etc I was pretty consistently in the 45-55% accuracy range. You could land shots if you knew what you were doing.
  • JamieCurnock
    558 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Cool, thanks for all the replies, interesting responses and good to see some other points of view. Obviously people on here have a much better grasp of the whole rbd thing than me so i can only go on my own experiences. I loved bf1 at the time but I always felt the guns felt a bit off compared to bf3/bf4. Maybe it wasn't rbd, maybe I'm just garbage at the game, either way I find bfv to be a lot more satisfying and closer to bf3 or 4 than bf1. I instantly loved it when I played the beta and it hasn't changed since, in fact I enjoy it even more now I'm used to it. I just want more maps.
  • SirTerrible
    1695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Cool, thanks for all the replies, interesting responses and good to see some other points of view. Obviously people on here have a much better grasp of the whole rbd thing than me so i can only go on my own experiences. I loved bf1 at the time but I always felt the guns felt a bit off compared to bf3/bf4. Maybe it wasn't rbd, maybe I'm just garbage at the game, either way I find bfv to be a lot more satisfying and closer to bf3 or 4 than bf1. I instantly loved it when I played the beta and it hasn't changed since, in fact I enjoy it even more now I'm used to it. I just want more maps.
    The game didn't do a great job of explaining how the guns worked, though most games don't really explain gun mechanics so it's not a huge failing on DICE's part or anything. I don't think the gunplay was that intuitive but it was certainly fun once you figured it out. That's one thing BFV has going for it, the gunplay is pretty intuitive in general.
  • mf_shro0m
    1398 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)

    i mainly played as medic and thus used all SLRs in BF1 fairly much.i never felt like missing many clean shots due to RBD most of the time it was due to me moving or getting hella suppressed by multiple enemies. but whenever i saw an enemy out of position i could easily punish him.
    unlike as medic in BFV where i have to pray to the gods then the horizontal spread/recoil will not screw me over like a breeding-stallion. i mean i get it SMGs are notoriously inaccurate but why have the one really integral class to team-play stuck on these worthless excuses for balance?

    SMGs shoot pistol rounds. Look up videos of people using Tommys, PPSHs and MP40s on YouTube. Irl they have barely any recoil whereas in BFV ADSed the Tommy has more recoil than ARs and LMGs that shoot larger rounds
  • mf_shro0m
    1398 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 22
    bran1986 wrote: »
    (Quote)

    The game didn't do a great job of explaining how the guns worked, though most games don't really explain gun mechanics so it's not a huge failing on DICE's part or anything. I don't think the gunplay was that intuitive but it was certainly fun once you figured it out. That's one thing BFV has going for it, the gunplay is pretty intuitive in general.

    Yeah DICE didn't do a good job explaining it but some of the gamechangers like Xfactor made the whole situation far worse and it became ridiculous at the end. You had and still have people believing all gunfights in BF1 are completely rng and there is no skill. If DICE actually used people that knew what they were talking about as gamechangers, I think the perception of BF1s gunplay would have been vastly different than it is now.

    How were these gamechangers chosen? Are they just popular you tubers?
  • bran1986
    5660 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    bran1986 wrote: »
    (Quote)

    The game didn't do a great job of explaining how the guns worked, though most games don't really explain gun mechanics so it's not a huge failing on DICE's part or anything. I don't think the gunplay was that intuitive but it was certainly fun once you figured it out. That's one thing BFV has going for it, the gunplay is pretty intuitive in general.

    Yeah DICE didn't do a good job explaining it but some of the gamechangers like Xfactor made the whole situation far worse and it became ridiculous at the end. You had and still have people believing all gunfights in BF1 are completely rng and there is no skill. If DICE actually used people that knew what they were talking about as gamechangers, I think the perception of BF1s gunplay would have been vastly different than it is now.

    How were these gamechangers chosen? Are they just popular you tubers?

    I think it is just popular YouTubers and streamers.
  • mf_shro0m
    1398 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bran1986 wrote: »
    y_j_es_i wrote: »
    bran1986 wrote: »
    (Quote)

    The game didn't do a great job of explaining how the guns worked, though most games don't really explain gun mechanics so it's not a huge failing on DICE's part or anything. I don't think the gunplay was that intuitive but it was certainly fun once you figured it out. That's one thing BFV has going for it, the gunplay is pretty intuitive in general.

    Yeah DICE didn't do a good job explaining it but some of the gamechangers like Xfactor made the whole situation far worse and it became ridiculous at the end. You had and still have people believing all gunfights in BF1 are completely rng and there is no skill. If DICE actually used people that knew what they were talking about as gamechangers, I think the perception of BF1s gunplay would have been vastly different than it is now.

    How were these gamechangers chosen? Are they just popular you tubers?

    I think it is just popular YouTubers and streamers.

    What did people like xfactor say exactly?
Sign In or Register to comment.