5.2 TTK change [Megathread]

Comments

  • PsyLightTrigger
    3 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    I am a game developer, and I'm honestly shocked AAA game dev's would be making these rookie mistakes. Whoever came up with this mouse-over spotting idea because they can't see people in bushes-- fire them right now. Stop catering to the people who enjoy long, unrealistic time to kill and complain about 'prone campers'. Stealth movement through the underbrush is a legitimate tactic. You are watering down the player's raw skill to spot things on their own. It's almost as dumb as the idea to make sniper scopes that *always* glint in the sun no matter what direction they are facing. Stop trying to make the game *fair*. War isn't fair. Don't cater to every sniveling child who can't last more than 5 seconds the moment they pick up the game. Make them grow a backbone and learn to master weapons rather than making systems that make the game go too easy on them. People are happy with where the TTK is now. Nobody asked for these changes. You tried doing 'balance changes' shortly after launch. The game was fine, people loved it, and then it turned to mush. Now the game is making a comeback because they like where the balance is at, and they love the new content, but you're making the same mistake again. People don't like the arcade-like feel of high TTK & hints-- it denies skilled players kills. Many of those systems also give the enemy an unrealistic advantage. Yes I know not all video games are meant to be realistic, but you have stunning realism in every aspect of the art--yet won't embrace the realism of combat. Many people play WWII games to re-live historic battles, and the tactics used in those battles are undermined by these overly user-friendly systems. Removing the third-person bombing reticle was a step in the right direction, but this new patch will really water down the experience.
  • mf_shro0m
    2348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hello, after reconsideration of the data - or lack thereof - and the facts, I am looking forward to 5.2. Why? DICE aren't directly changing the TTK. They gave us a few graphs from the most popular weapons that make the TTK look longer. For all we know about these changes, the graphs could match other weapons in the game now. If that is the case, the TTK isn't changing, those weapons are just getting nerfed.

    We don't know what less used weapons will become. The TTK for those weapons might be getting shorter, and because we lack that data, I can't conclude that the TTK is getting longer across the board.

    There is an issue with the less used weapons. Take the Thompson vs the EMP for example. The Thompson has a fast RoF, high magazine, and great damage model over range. This makes the weapon useful in close quarters and mid-range. The EMP has a lower damage model, a slower RoF, and a smaller magazine. This makes the weapon obsolete in close quarters because it just isn't useful there. The lower recoil is supposed to make it useful at mid-range, but the Thompson can still trump it due to its overall better balanced stats.

    This issue is what 5.2 is attempting to tackle. Weapons like the EMP and MP40 should be more useful at the ranges they're supposed to be good at, instead of getting trumped by the Thompson.

    This isn't like last December where the TTK is getting longer across the board. The announcement admitted to needing to balance each weapon one by one. This means that the TTK could be getting shorter or longer, depending upon the weapon. Yet we lack the proper data to conclude that the TTK is changing.

    And, balance changes aside, we're getting Community Games and Wake Island. So I am looking forward to 5.2. Please stop pressuring DICE to not change the TTK. We barely even have the full picture as to what they're doing.

    Thanks for the updates!

    🙎🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️

    If they made the M1A1 an 8HK at 50m and didn’t nerf the rest of the SARs the M1A1 would be made utterly obsolete

    If they the Tommy a 6HK at 10m (when 20m and 30m engagements are commonplace in-game) it would become simply worse than the sten, mp40, etc at distances over 10m and with the sten’s superior accuracy it wouldn’t even be close unless they also nerfed all the other SMGs

    The same applies with all the other examples and we’ve also been presented with examples from ARs, MMGs and PCs meaning that most guns in the game will need nerfs. Then after that if the STG and M1A1 get a nerfs and the other ARs and SARs also get nerfed then you can’t not nerf the LMGs otherwise they’ll be indisputably the best guns in the game. The game would be even more unbalanced than it was at launch and so they’d have to nerf the LMGs too. By this point you’ve nerfed about 80% of the guns in the game and there could be even more ripples after that
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hello, after reconsideration of the data - or lack thereof - and the facts, I am looking forward to 5.2. Why? DICE aren't directly changing the TTK. They gave us a few graphs from the most popular weapons that make the TTK look longer. For all we know about these changes, the graphs could match other weapons in the game now. If that is the case, the TTK isn't changing, those weapons are just getting nerfed.

    We don't know what less used weapons will become. The TTK for those weapons might be getting shorter, and because we lack that data, I can't conclude that the TTK is getting longer across the board.

    There is an issue with the less used weapons. Take the Thompson vs the EMP for example. The Thompson has a fast RoF, high magazine, and great damage model over range. This makes the weapon useful in close quarters and mid-range. The EMP has a lower damage model, a slower RoF, and a smaller magazine. This makes the weapon obsolete in close quarters because it just isn't useful there. The lower recoil is supposed to make it useful at mid-range, but the Thompson can still trump it due to its overall better balanced stats.

    This issue is what 5.2 is attempting to tackle. Weapons like the EMP and MP40 should be more useful at the ranges they're supposed to be good at, instead of getting trumped by the Thompson.

    This isn't like last December where the TTK is getting longer across the board. The announcement admitted to needing to balance each weapon one by one. This means that the TTK could be getting shorter or longer, depending upon the weapon. Yet we lack the proper data to conclude that the TTK is changing.

    And, balance changes aside, we're getting Community Games and Wake Island. So I am looking forward to 5.2. Please stop pressuring DICE to not change the TTK. We barely even have the full picture as to what they're doing.

    Thanks for the updates!
    So you think that the Sten or MP40 will now have a different damage model than the Tommy and that they now balance damage not on calibre or weapon class, but by individual weapons? Like Hardline did it with their splendid weapon balance? And the M1916 will now do more damage than the MG42, since the ROF is lower?
    Sure they could do that, but this would mean that instead of just tweaking one stat per weapon class they now have to do it individually for every weapon in this game in relation to spec trees, mag sizes, ROF and recoil values. Besides they have only said that recoil, ROF and ammo capacity will be tweaked accordingly, nothing else so far. 
    The Tommy does not trump the other SMGs at all, it lacks the most important hipfire spec, it has a tremendous amount of recoil, it has a terrible pattern and this is further emphasized by the higher ROF. It is a one-trick pony and it's saving grace is the drum mag. The MP28 specced for hipfire does an overall better job up close and the MAB is one of the best all-rounder SMGs, with decent ranged performance.
    You want people to use other weapons? Sure, then educate the players yourself instead of just displaying meaningless stat bars so everybody plays by feeling or needs to go on 3rd party sites like symthic to understand that all weapons are already valid as they are.
  • Jayrixx
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    PartWelsh said:
    moose004 said:
    The graph at 4:56...are they seriously saying that an MG42 will take THIRTEEN ROUNDS to kill somebody at 100 meters with these changes?
    Please consider that we're making ROF and Recoil adjustments to the weapons too. It's going to be best to view these changes in the context of gameplay when you get hands on next month.

    So you guys are making more weapons into low-recoil lasers and increasing the number of bullets needed to kill.
    This + 3d auto-spotting sounds like all you care is lowering the skill difference between players as much as possible, the game's quality and longetivity be damned.
    Why not simply make the current TTK and weapon-handling a "Hardcore Mode" and leave it in the game for players who like it, and name your post-changes game a "Normal Mode" for those who want lasers and high TTK? Or hell, even simply make a poll for players to see if they want those massive changes?
    We both know you won't though. Since the suits who don't even play the game but gave you an order to nerf it might not like what they see. That said thanks for basically letting me know I should uninstall after the patch though.
  • MusicienElegant
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    mf_shro0m wrote: »
    Hello, after reconsideration of the data - or lack thereof - and the facts, I am looking forward to 5.2. Why? DICE aren't directly changing the TTK. They gave us a few graphs from the most popular weapons that make the TTK look longer. For all we know about these changes, the graphs could match other weapons in the game now. If that is the case, the TTK isn't changing, those weapons are just getting nerfed.

    We don't know what less used weapons will become. The TTK for those weapons might be getting shorter, and because we lack that data, I can't conclude that the TTK is getting longer across the board.

    There is an issue with the less used weapons. Take the Thompson vs the EMP for example. The Thompson has a fast RoF, high magazine, and great damage model over range. This makes the weapon useful in close quarters and mid-range. The EMP has a lower damage model, a slower RoF, and a smaller magazine. This makes the weapon obsolete in close quarters because it just isn't useful there. The lower recoil is supposed to make it useful at mid-range, but the Thompson can still trump it due to its overall better balanced stats.

    This issue is what 5.2 is attempting to tackle. Weapons like the EMP and MP40 should be more useful at the ranges they're supposed to be good at, instead of getting trumped by the Thompson.

    This isn't like last December where the TTK is getting longer across the board. The announcement admitted to needing to balance each weapon one by one. This means that the TTK could be getting shorter or longer, depending upon the weapon. Yet we lack the proper data to conclude that the TTK is changing.

    And, balance changes aside, we're getting Community Games and Wake Island. So I am looking forward to 5.2. Please stop pressuring DICE to not change the TTK. We barely even have the full picture as to what they're doing.

    Thanks for the updates!

    🙎🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️

    If they made the M1A1 an 8HK at 50m and didn’t nerf the rest of the SARs the M1A1 would be made utterly obsolete

    If they the Tommy a 6HK at 10m (when 20m and 30m engagements are commonplace in-game) it would become simply worse than the sten, mp40, etc at distances over 10m and with the sten’s superior accuracy it wouldn’t even be close unless they also nerfed all the other SMGs

    The same applies with all the other examples and we’ve also been presented with examples from ARs, MMGs and PCs meaning that most guns in the game will need nerfs. Then after that if the STG and M1A1 get a nerfs and the other ARs and SARs also get nerfed then you can’t not nerf the LMGs otherwise they’ll be indisputably the best guns in the game. The game would be even more unbalanced than it was at launch and so they’d have to nerf the LMGs too. By this point you’ve nerfed about 80% of the guns in the game and there could be even more ripples after that

    That is the data we're missing. And they said upfront RoF is being changed. The Thompson could take 100 bullets to kill at 20m, but if it's RoF is 5,000 it won't matter much assuming the magazine is large enough. And they also admitted to changing the magazine count.

    We literally don't know how they're going to balance everything.
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 said:
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    (Quote)
    You mean the poor player retention is caused by gunplay, the thing that many people liked and is well-received, and has little to do with, say, marketing, communication Dev side, delayed and unfinished content (to this day), patches not improving the gameplay, and a perceived content drought (8 weeks ToW with just cosmetics and knifes)? That is a pretty steep claim, mate.

    Do you know what a 'contributing factor' is?


    @****_shro0m only the first part was directed specifically at you. The 'spread mechanics' via recoil in BFV are a lot more forgiving than those of BF4 meaning that actual TTK in BFV is often closer to theoretical TTK in my opinion.

    The second part of my post was to the thread in general.

    EDIT: It would appear that em ef is filtered, oh well......

    Yeah, but then you could just as well say, that the one well-received feature of this game is a contributing factor to keep players playing the game, right?
  • DingoKillr
    4352 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hello, after reconsideration of the data - or lack thereof - and the facts, I am looking forward to 5.2. Why? DICE aren't directly changing the TTK. They gave us a few graphs from the most popular weapons that make the TTK look longer. For all we know about these changes, the graphs could match other weapons in the game now. If that is the case, the TTK isn't changing, those weapons are just getting nerfed.

    We don't know what less used weapons will become. The TTK for those weapons might be getting shorter, and because we lack that data, I can't conclude that the TTK is getting longer across the board.

    There is an issue with the less used weapons. Take the Thompson vs the EMP for example. The Thompson has a fast RoF, high magazine, and great damage model over range. This makes the weapon useful in close quarters and mid-range. The EMP has a lower damage model, a slower RoF, and a smaller magazine. This makes the weapon obsolete in close quarters because it just isn't useful there. The lower recoil is supposed to make it useful at mid-range, but the Thompson can still trump it due to its overall better balanced stats.

    This issue is what 5.2 is attempting to tackle. Weapons like the EMP and MP40 should be more useful at the ranges they're supposed to be good at, instead of getting trumped by the Thompson.

    This isn't like last December where the TTK is getting longer across the board. The announcement admitted to needing to balance each weapon one by one. This means that the TTK could be getting shorter or longer, depending upon the weapon. Yet we lack the proper data to conclude that the TTK is changing.

    And, balance changes aside, we're getting Community Games and Wake Island. So I am looking forward to 5.2. Please stop pressuring DICE to not change the TTK. We barely even have the full picture as to what they're doing.

    Thanks for the updates!
    That is what I think is going to happen too. However I think there might be an average increase in TTK on now just to meet the balance of some of the slower TTK. 
  • MusicienElegant
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I am a game developer, and I'm honestly shocked AAA game dev's would be making these rookie mistakes. Whoever came up with this mouse-over spotting idea because they can't see people in bushes-- fire them right now. Stop catering to the people who enjoy long, unrealistic time to kill and complain about 'prone campers'. Stealth movement through the underbrush is a legitimate tactic. You are watering down the player's raw skill to spot things on their own. It's almost as dumb as the idea to make sniper scopes that *always* glint in the sun no matter what direction they are facing. Stop trying to make the game *fair*. War isn't fair. Don't cater to every sniveling child who can't last more than 5 seconds the moment they pick up the game. Make them grow a backbone and learn to master weapons rather than making systems that make the game go too easy on them. People are happy with where the TTK is now. Nobody asked for these changes. You tried doing 'balance changes' shortly after launch. The game was fine, people loved it, and then it turned to mush. Now the game is making a comeback because they like where the balance is at, and they love the new content, but you're making the same mistake again. People don't like the arcade-like feel of high TTK & hints-- it denies skilled players kills. Many of those systems also give the enemy an unrealistic advantage. Yes I know not all video games are meant to be realistic, but you have stunning realism in every aspect of the art--yet won't embrace the realism of combat. Many people play WWII games to re-live historic battles, and the tactics used in those battles are undermined by these overly user-friendly systems. Removing the third-person bombing reticle was a step in the right direction, but this new patch will really water down the experience.

    But we don't have enough data. Also the "spotting reticle" already exists in the game. They're literally just increasing it's radius.

    I definitely agree with the realism and hardcore take on your post, but we literally don't have enough data yet.
  • MusicienElegant
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    (Quote)

    So you think that the Sten or MP40 will now have a different damage model than the Tommy and that they now balance damage not on calibre or weapon class, but by individual weapons? Like Hardline did it with their splendid weapon balance? And the M1916 will now do more damage than the MG42, since the ROF is lower?
    Sure they could do that, but this would mean that instead of just tweaking one stat per weapon class they now have to do it individually for every weapon in this game in relation to spec trees, mag sizes, ROF and recoil values. Besides they have only said that recoil, ROF and ammo capacity will be tweaked accordingly, nothing else so far. The Tommy does not trump the other SMGs at all, it lacks the most important hipfire spec, it has a tremendous amount of recoil, it has a terrible pattern and this is further emphasized by the higher ROF. It is a one-trick pony and it's saving grace is the drum mag. The MP28 specced for hipfire does an overall better job up close and the MAB is one of the best all-rounder SMGs, with decent ranged performance.You want people to use other weapons? Sure, then educate the players yourself instead of just displaying meaningless stat bars so everybody plays by feeling or needs to go on 3rd party sites like symthic to understand that all weapons are already valid as they are.

    Well obviously. Of course they should take into account every other stat. Bullet velocity included.

    Also, finger tapping, my friend. I've learned how to headshot in ADS with the Thompson at 30+ meters. And it feels disgusting every time. Lot of fun though.

    My point is simply that we don't have enough data. Because of that, I want to try the changes to really see how they perform
  • MusicienElegant
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    mf_shro0m wrote: »
    Hello, after reconsideration of the data - or lack thereof - and the facts, I am looking forward to 5.2. Why? DICE aren't directly changing the TTK. They gave us a few graphs from the most popular weapons that make the TTK look longer. For all we know about these changes, the graphs could match other weapons in the game now. If that is the case, the TTK isn't changing, those weapons are just getting nerfed.

    We don't know what less used weapons will become. The TTK for those weapons might be getting shorter, and because we lack that data, I can't conclude that the TTK is getting longer across the board.

    There is an issue with the less used weapons. Take the Thompson vs the EMP for example. The Thompson has a fast RoF, high magazine, and great damage model over range. This makes the weapon useful in close quarters and mid-range. The EMP has a lower damage model, a slower RoF, and a smaller magazine. This makes the weapon obsolete in close quarters because it just isn't useful there. The lower recoil is supposed to make it useful at mid-range, but the Thompson can still trump it due to its overall better balanced stats.

    This issue is what 5.2 is attempting to tackle. Weapons like the EMP and MP40 should be more useful at the ranges they're supposed to be good at, instead of getting trumped by the Thompson.

    This isn't like last December where the TTK is getting longer across the board. The announcement admitted to needing to balance each weapon one by one. This means that the TTK could be getting shorter or longer, depending upon the weapon. Yet we lack the proper data to conclude that the TTK is changing.

    And, balance changes aside, we're getting Community Games and Wake Island. So I am looking forward to 5.2. Please stop pressuring DICE to not change the TTK. We barely even have the full picture as to what they're doing.

    Thanks for the updates!

    🙎🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️

    If they made the M1A1 an 8HK at 50m and didn’t nerf the rest of the SARs the M1A1 would be made utterly obsolete

    If they the Tommy a 6HK at 10m (when 20m and 30m engagements are commonplace in-game) it would become simply worse than the sten, mp40, etc at distances over 10m and with the sten’s superior accuracy it wouldn’t even be close unless they also nerfed all the other SMGs

    The same applies with all the other examples and we’ve also been presented with examples from ARs, MMGs and PCs meaning that most guns in the game will need nerfs. Then after that if the STG and M1A1 get a nerfs and the other ARs and SARs also get nerfed then you can’t not nerf the LMGs otherwise they’ll be indisputably the best guns in the game. The game would be even more unbalanced than it was at launch and so they’d have to nerf the LMGs too. By this point you’ve nerfed about 80% of the guns in the game and there could be even more ripples after that

    That is the data we're missing. And they said upfront RoF is being changed. The Thompson could take 100 bullets to kill at 20m, but if it's RoF is 5,000 it won't matter much assuming the magazine is large enough. And they also admitted to changing the magazine count.

    We literally don't know how they're going to balance everything.

    At present most of the guns have fairly realistic stats regarding mag size and RoF and I’m against them making the guns even less realistic than they currently are

    Eh, true. I do agree with that. I respect the realism, despite how little there is.
  • MusicienElegant
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    mf_shro0m wrote: »
    Hello, after reconsideration of the data - or lack thereof - and the facts, I am looking forward to 5.2. Why? DICE aren't directly changing the TTK. They gave us a few graphs from the most popular weapons that make the TTK look longer. For all we know about these changes, the graphs could match other weapons in the game now. If that is the case, the TTK isn't changing, those weapons are just getting nerfed.

    We don't know what less used weapons will become. The TTK for those weapons might be getting shorter, and because we lack that data, I can't conclude that the TTK is getting longer across the board.

    There is an issue with the less used weapons. Take the Thompson vs the EMP for example. The Thompson has a fast RoF, high magazine, and great damage model over range. This makes the weapon useful in close quarters and mid-range. The EMP has a lower damage model, a slower RoF, and a smaller magazine. This makes the weapon obsolete in close quarters because it just isn't useful there. The lower recoil is supposed to make it useful at mid-range, but the Thompson can still trump it due to its overall better balanced stats.

    This issue is what 5.2 is attempting to tackle. Weapons like the EMP and MP40 should be more useful at the ranges they're supposed to be good at, instead of getting trumped by the Thompson.

    This isn't like last December where the TTK is getting longer across the board. The announcement admitted to needing to balance each weapon one by one. This means that the TTK could be getting shorter or longer, depending upon the weapon. Yet we lack the proper data to conclude that the TTK is changing.

    And, balance changes aside, we're getting Community Games and Wake Island. So I am looking forward to 5.2. Please stop pressuring DICE to not change the TTK. We barely even have the full picture as to what they're doing.

    Thanks for the updates!

    🙎🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️

    If they made the M1A1 an 8HK at 50m and didn’t nerf the rest of the SARs the M1A1 would be made utterly obsolete

    If they the Tommy a 6HK at 10m (when 20m and 30m engagements are commonplace in-game) it would become simply worse than the sten, mp40, etc at distances over 10m and with the sten’s superior accuracy it wouldn’t even be close unless they also nerfed all the other SMGs

    The same applies with all the other examples and we’ve also been presented with examples from ARs, MMGs and PCs meaning that most guns in the game will need nerfs. Then after that if the STG and M1A1 get a nerfs and the other ARs and SARs also get nerfed then you can’t not nerf the LMGs otherwise they’ll be indisputably the best guns in the game. The game would be even more unbalanced than it was at launch and so they’d have to nerf the LMGs too. By this point you’ve nerfed about 80% of the guns in the game and there could be even more ripples after that

    That is the data we're missing. And they said upfront RoF is being changed. The Thompson could take 100 bullets to kill at 20m, but if it's RoF is 5,000 it won't matter much assuming the magazine is large enough. And they also admitted to changing the magazine count.

    We literally don't know how they're going to balance everything.

    At present most of the guns have fairly realistic stats regarding mag size and RoF and I’m against them making the guns even less realistic than they currently are

    However, the Trench Carbine supposedly had a significantly higher RoF than in-game. So some guns might become more realistic at the compromise of others.
  • MusicienElegant
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    (Quote)

    Sure they could do that, but this would mean that instead of just tweaking one stat per weapon class they now have to do it individually for every weapon in this game in relation to spec trees, mag sizes, ROF and recoil values.

    Bruh, reread the announcement. This is exactly what they said they're doing.
  • Trokey66
    9160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    (Quote)

    Yeah, but then you could just as well say, that the one well-received feature of this game is a contributing factor to keep players playing the game, right?

    If you are suggesting that this 'one we'll received feature' is the ONLY reason they continue to play then no, it is not a contributing factor.

    That is not what a contributing factor is. It is not the sole reason for something happening but is one of a number reasons that must be considered.

    Yet there are many in this thread that are claiming unequivocally, that gunplay is NOT a contributing factor in players leaving just because they like it. That may be true for them but not for those that have left.
  • MusicienElegant
    232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    (Quote)

    Yeah, but then you could just as well say, that the one well-received feature of this game is a contributing factor to keep players playing the game, right?

    If you are suggesting that this 'one we'll received feature' is the ONLY reason they continue to play then no, it is not a contributing factor.

    That is not what a contributing factor is. It is not the sole reason for something happening but is one of a number reasons that must be considered.

    Yet there are many in this thread that are claiming unequivocally, that gunplay is NOT a contributing factor in players leaving just because they like it. That may be true for them but not for those that have left.

    Awwhhhhh, logical, open-minded post for once. 👍
  • FranzJeger
    82 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AFoQ3loUQY

    Basically confirms what everyone already thought, Dice management what to sell more copies of the game to appease Christmas n00bs players. What they have grossly underestimated is how many existing players will leave this game after they implement these changes. 

    How on earth can anyone on earth be so out of touch with their customer base?? Literally W...T...F??? BF 6 better be one of the best games ever or else this franchise will die out. 
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 said:
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    (Quote)

    Yeah, but then you could just as well say, that the one well-received feature of this game is a contributing factor to keep players playing the game, right?

    If you are suggesting that this 'one we'll received feature' is the ONLY reason they continue to play then no, it is not a contributing factor.

    That is not what a contributing factor is. It is not the sole reason for something happening but is one of a number reasons that must be considered.

    Yet there are many in this thread that are claiming unequivocally, that gunplay is NOT a contributing factor in players leaving just because they like it. That may be true for them but not for those that have left.
    Well, it is about the only thing people agree on, that the gunplay is "good". Now is it perfectly balanced or particularly engaging or deep? Nah, it works decently, though. It is certainly a reason why people kept playing a game that has had and continues to have a lot of issues.
    Did people leave, because of the gunplay, sure for different reasons. Maybe it was not HC enough, maybe it was too fast, maybe people do not like all the screenshake that replaced the spread we had before. We do not know.
    However, we can assume that this is the least "contributing factor" of people pushed out of the game, and I'd wager it pulled into the game. Why? Because it is the only "issue" that allows for an opinion on both sides. Nobody claims that the marketing was good, or that he likes getting the third knife in three weeks, or getting a delayed and unfinished product. Player retention was bad not because the game just plays okay, it was bad because DICE did everything they could to muck it up.
  • SuperiorByGender
    3239 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AFoQ3loUQY

    Basically confirms what everyone already thought, Dice management what to sell more copies of the game to appease Christmas n00bs players. What they have grossly underestimated is how many existing players will leave this game after they implement these changes. 

    How on earth can anyone on earth be so out of touch with their customer base?? Literally W...T...F??? BF 6 better be one of the best games ever or else this franchise will die out. 
    How? Simple, and it was described in the video - People who make this gamedon't even play FPS game and don't care how it actually feels. I don't understand how can someone be in charge of something that he/she doesn't use?

    When they invited an actual ESports player who knows how FPS games should play, we got BF5. Gunplay in this game was honestly amazing. Felt good, satisfying and required skill to play. But many noobs who don't bother taking time to learn cried and now Dice is changing everything upside down to make it more noob friendly. 

    If I were a developer who was in charge of creating  gunplay in BF5 I would be in a deepest depression right now. Seeing how your creation is being destroyed before your eyes against player's will must kill you from the inside.
  • xBCxSEALxTEAMx6
    1492 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AFoQ3loUQY

    Basically confirms what everyone already thought, Dice management what to sell more copies of the game to appease Christmas n00bs players. What they have grossly underestimated is how many existing players will leave this game after they implement these changes. 

    How on earth can anyone on earth be so out of touch with their customer base?? Literally W...T...F??? BF 6 better be one of the best games ever or else this franchise will die out. 
    Well, they should. The older players are few and far in between. The game needs newer players or this game will dead by spring. If you had the numbers, they wouldn't have to do it, but when more folks are playing Skyrim remastered than this game before the trial, that may be the sign of trouble lol.
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    (Quote)

    Sure they could do that, but this would mean that instead of just tweaking one stat per weapon class they now have to do it individually for every weapon in this game in relation to spec trees, mag sizes, ROF and recoil values.

    Bruh, reread the announcement. This is exactly what they said they're doing.
    Nah not precisely. They said that apart from looking at the damage they are looking at recoil changes and ammo counts. Also individual ROF changes and spec trees were mentioned. Nothing is said about balancing weapons on an individual level beyond the latter two.
    I very much doubt that they will drop damage based on calibre and weapon class, and do so individually. This has been proven very ineffective if you recall Hardline's performance in the balance department. It simply creates FOTM weapons.
    Mate, and I do not want to call you out, or critisise. I guess it is easier to control recoil on console with the reduced pattern modifier and reduced Vrec, but really, if you are using an automatic weapon, aim center mass, not go for headshots. There is no benefit in this game to go for headshots as they are accidental.
    The huge amount of recoil in this game will cause your aim to go up and to the side, exactly not the directions you want your crosshair to move. Head hitbox is maybe 20x40cm, while upper body is 40x60cm. That is a third of area for only a 2x modifier. Also if you tap, aiming at the head you are decreasing your dps further, while still hitting less.
    The Tommy Gun is not an effective weapon at ranges where you have to go ADS, and you have to go ADS sooner, since you are missing the second hipfire perk. Use the MAB instead for fights at 20m and beyond. Easier to use at all ranges and very effective close to medium.
This discussion has been closed.