Stepping on some toes now. (Talking about players of BFV)

Comments

  • CSO7777
    2025 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    KPNuts74 said:
    CSO7777 wrote: »
    As you say it is an FPS-game and kills are fundamental for the game (and should matter).

    BF is "war", the games objective is to kill the enemy and conquer their flags.

    Having a low KD is not fun for most people, if you just get killed over and over again it becomes pretty frustrating. Players can still use KD to measure improvement (or the opposite) in their gameplay.

    And if someone likes to have a very high KD with a very low KPM then so be it. These players have always been in BF-games.

    Of course the game should encourage objective play as much as possible, but that has nothing to do with KD.

    Nonsense. The only way I know how to take (or defend) an objective is kill the enemy. These players who believe running to an objective and hiding in a bush is good play need a wake up call.
    My last sentence was apparantly not worded very well (I'm Danish). You say the same as I do higher up in my post.

    What I meant is that Dice has to encourage objective play and this doesn't mean that the KD-stat should be removed.

    KD is still a good personal metric for how well you perform one of the basic tasks in a FPS-game - killing the enemy.
  • trip1ex
    5301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 10
    KPNuts74 said:
    trip1ex wrote: »
    sad thing is they originally went that route in BF1.  OR at least they originally didn't count kills as ticket bleed in Conquest.   Never understood the back track on that except obviously they got scared at the initial complaints.  Of course they managed to keep in the worst part of the new Conquest system which was counting tickets up per flag owned instead of majority bleed which led to fewer comebacks.

      
    It’s an FPS. Of course KD and kills are important.

    STrawman argument.  

    The pt of not counting kills as ticket bleed in BF1 Conquest beta was to focus the game more on objective play and the strategy that goes along with that.    Mindless farming is less rewarded under such a system as far as the outcome of the round goes.  

    PUre k/d matters less.    Kills are necessary to take/defend objectives.  


  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    STrawman argument.  

    The pt of not counting kills as ticket bleed in BF1 Conquest beta was to focus the game more on objective play and the strategy that goes along with that.    Mindless farming is less rewarded under such a system as far as the outcome of the round goes.  

    PUre k/d matters less.    Kills are necessary to take/defend objectives.  


    Battlefield =/= conquest

    Even though conquest is the staple of BF game modes - it's not the only mode. What connects pretty much all game modes is killing the opponent, and while it's not the main focus in other than TDM, gunmaster, etc - it is still an important part of all of them, even CTF.
  • CSO7777
    2025 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 10
    trip1ex said:
    KPNuts74 said:
    trip1ex wrote: »
    sad thing is they originally went that route in BF1.  OR at least they originally didn't count kills as ticket bleed in Conquest.   Never understood the back track on that except obviously they got scared at the initial complaints.  Of course they managed to keep in the worst part of the new Conquest system which was counting tickets up per flag owned instead of majority bleed which led to fewer comebacks.

      
    It’s an FPS. Of course KD and kills are important.

    STrawman argument.  

    The pt of not counting kills as ticket bleed in BF1 Conquest beta was to focus the game more on objective play and the strategy that goes along with that.    Mindless farming is less rewarded under such a system as far as the outcome of the round goes.  

    PUre k/d matters less.    Kills are necessary to take/defend objectives.  


    The KD stat is still important, it is an FPS game and you gun is your main tool. Not having stats for showing how well you perform with your main tool would be weird.

    The ticket system has always been that flags drained tickets and that spawning (after dying) cost a ticket. This has been working well for a long time and when Dice tried messing with the formula in BF1 it was a fail (and was hated by the 'community' in general). A person capping flags and dying a 100 times without killing anyone, is not contributing positively to the teams score (they cost 100 tickets), otherwise we could as well remove the guns and just have a flag-running game instead.

    Whether kills scores higher than flag captures (or other objective) is another story. I personally think the scoring system should be used by Dice to encourage players to use their classes and play what-ever objectives a given game-mode has.

    In reality, if you play support/medic/recon you can easily get high on the scoreboard, just from helping your team-mates (supply/spot) and I think the scoring system is one of the lesser issues of BF(V).
  • trip1ex
    5301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    STrawman argument.  

    The pt of not counting kills as ticket bleed in BF1 Conquest beta was to focus the game more on objective play and the strategy that goes along with that.    Mindless farming is less rewarded under such a system as far as the outcome of the round goes.  

    PUre k/d matters less.    Kills are necessary to take/defend objectives.  


    Battlefield =/= conquest

    Even though conquest is the staple of BF game modes - it's not the only mode. What connects pretty much all game modes is killing the opponent, and while it's not the main focus in other than TDM, gunmaster, etc - it is still an important part of all of them, even CTF.
    strawman argument.  

  • trip1ex
    5301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 11
    CSO7777 said:
    trip1ex said:
    KPNuts74 said:
    trip1ex wrote: »
    sad thing is they originally went that route in BF1.  OR at least they originally didn't count kills as ticket bleed in Conquest.   Never understood the back track on that except obviously they got scared at the initial complaints.  Of course they managed to keep in the worst part of the new Conquest system which was counting tickets up per flag owned instead of majority bleed which led to fewer comebacks.

      
    It’s an FPS. Of course KD and kills are important.

    STrawman argument.  

    The pt of not counting kills as ticket bleed in BF1 Conquest beta was to focus the game more on objective play and the strategy that goes along with that.    Mindless farming is less rewarded under such a system as far as the outcome of the round goes.  

    PUre k/d matters less.    Kills are necessary to take/defend objectives.  


    The KD stat is still important, it is an FPS game and you gun is your main tool. Not having stats for showing how well you perform with your main tool would be weird.

    The ticket system has always been that flags drained tickets and that spawning (after dying) cost a ticket. This has been working well for a long time and when Dice tried messing with the formula in BF1 it was a fail (and was hated by the 'community' in general). A person capping flags and dying a 100 times without killing anyone, is not contributing positively to the teams score (they cost 100 tickets), otherwise we could as well remove the guns and just have a flag-running game instead.

    Whether kills scores higher than flag captures (or other objective) is another story. I personally think the scoring system should be used by Dice to encourage players to use their classes and play what-ever objectives a given game-mode has.

    In reality, if you play support/medic/recon you can easily get high on the scoreboard, just from helping your team-mates (supply/spot) and I think the scoring system is one of the lesser issues of BF(V).
    strawman argument.  I never argued k/d has no importance nor did I argue for not showing stats. 

    Yep DICE changed the Conquest scoring system in BF1 originally.  That's what I said already.  And it's sad they did so because it would have focused the gameplay more around taking and holding objectives.  It's a subtle difference because obviously you have to kill to take and hold objectives. 

    But the subtle difference is you can't outkill your way to winning if the enemy holds the objectives and you don't bother trying to take them back aka it makes the pure kill farmers less important.  You have to play more strategically to win.  

    The community unfortunately never understood the change.  And just reacted like you react.  Oh might as well not have guns and emotional reactions like that.  

    My post has nothing to do with being on the scoreboard.  



  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    strawman argument.  

    Wow. Never would have expected that response from you.

    This is a free-form discussion the last time I checked.
  • Skill4Reel
    395 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DICE should find a way to put the people who PTW (Play To Win) on the same servers with each other.  Whether that be a ranked area for platoons as I have always suggested, or something else that they come up with.  There needs to be a place in theses games that people go where they know that they are expected to play to win.  If not the next Battlefield game is going to be more of the same old crap on every server. 
  • CSO7777
    2025 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    CSO7777 said:
    trip1ex said:
    KPNuts74 said:
    trip1ex wrote: »
    sad thing is they originally went that route in BF1.  OR at least they originally didn't count kills as ticket bleed in Conquest.   Never understood the back track on that except obviously they got scared at the initial complaints.  Of course they managed to keep in the worst part of the new Conquest system which was counting tickets up per flag owned instead of majority bleed which led to fewer comebacks.

      
    It’s an FPS. Of course KD and kills are important.

    STrawman argument.  

    The pt of not counting kills as ticket bleed in BF1 Conquest beta was to focus the game more on objective play and the strategy that goes along with that.    Mindless farming is less rewarded under such a system as far as the outcome of the round goes.  

    PUre k/d matters less.    Kills are necessary to take/defend objectives.  


    The KD stat is still important, it is an FPS game and you gun is your main tool. Not having stats for showing how well you perform with your main tool would be weird.

    The ticket system has always been that flags drained tickets and that spawning (after dying) cost a ticket. This has been working well for a long time and when Dice tried messing with the formula in BF1 it was a fail (and was hated by the 'community' in general). A person capping flags and dying a 100 times without killing anyone, is not contributing positively to the teams score (they cost 100 tickets), otherwise we could as well remove the guns and just have a flag-running game instead.

    Whether kills scores higher than flag captures (or other objective) is another story. I personally think the scoring system should be used by Dice to encourage players to use their classes and play what-ever objectives a given game-mode has.

    In reality, if you play support/medic/recon you can easily get high on the scoreboard, just from helping your team-mates (supply/spot) and I think the scoring system is one of the lesser issues of BF(V).
    strawman argument.  I never argued k/d has no importance nor did I argue for not showing stats. 

    Yep DICE changed the Conquest scoring system in BF1 originally.  That's what I said already.  And it's sad they did so because it would have focused the gameplay more around taking and holding objectives.  It's a subtle difference because obviously you have to kill to take and hold objectives. 

    But the subtle difference is you can't outkill your way to winning if the enemy holds the objectives and you don't bother trying to take them back aka it makes the pure kill farmers less important.  You have to play more strategically to win.  

    The community unfortunately never understood the change.  And just reacted like you react.  Oh might as well not have guns and emotional reactions like that.  

    My post has nothing to do with being on the scoreboard.  



    Apparantly the community in general likes things like they have always been. You opinion differs.

    The argument is still that you have to kill the enemy to capture his flag, this has to be rewarded.

    The people killing most enemies, while PTFOing, are contributing more to the outcome of a match, than people just capping and not killing enemies (or even constantly dying trying to PTFO).

    And the old argument of dead players cannot capture/defend flags is also still very valid.

    I agree that we need more PTFOing in BF, but we don't need mindless chickens (zerging or trying to cap flags alone), so its a balance Dice has to find...
  • KillaDaddyofTwo
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    A majority of games are bad at all games. It's just the way it is. Just accept and move on.
    While there's some truth to what you posted,  I think DICE needs to do MORE to encourage team play.

    It's literally the main reason I've stuck with battlefield for so long,  The feeling of accomplishing a win by helping revive / spot / drop health or ammo / repair friendly armour and destroying enemy armour and Air vehicles.

    I was in a game with losthunter earlier and he saw my team message asking friendly planes and assaults to take out enemy planes and armour.

    It speaks volumes about the mindset of players when you literally have to beg your team to try to help you fight for the win 

    It shouldn't be too much to expect players know how to play a specific class,  what their strengths and weaknesses are.

    I Don't know what to suggest for dice to make teamplay more enticing,   more points?  Quicker levelling up?  

    Something needs to be done though,  Games where players play purely for themselves just makes it frustrating af for the players who play for the overall team effort.


    I think they should do "Sniper class" caps as an option in servers.  If a team is limited by 1 sniper per squad, it would take out alot of those who just sit there and snipe all day.  Perhaps a way for a "Top Squad" to have extra priveledges on a server, such as the ability to force unlocked squads to merge together, to fill up squad rosters, and force 1 sniper per squad.  I am a veteran of all of the BF games, have played these games for well over 25 years, and the amount of lazy do nothing players is getting worst and worst. I agree 100% with the OP.  The BF franchise is going for the worst, and I think they really need to rethink who their core players are, and not give into the scrubs. 
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4776 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    A majority of games are bad at all games. It's just the way it is. Just accept and move on.
    While there's some truth to what you posted,  I think DICE needs to do MORE to encourage team play.

    It's literally the main reason I've stuck with battlefield for so long,  The feeling of accomplishing a win by helping revive / spot / drop health or ammo / repair friendly armour and destroying enemy armour and Air vehicles.

    I was in a game with losthunter earlier and he saw my team message asking friendly planes and assaults to take out enemy planes and armour.

    It speaks volumes about the mindset of players when you literally have to beg your team to try to help you fight for the win 

    It shouldn't be too much to expect players know how to play a specific class,  what their strengths and weaknesses are.

    I Don't know what to suggest for dice to make teamplay more enticing,   more points?  Quicker levelling up?  

    Something needs to be done though,  Games where players play purely for themselves just makes it frustrating af for the players who play for the overall team effort.


    I think they should do "Sniper class" caps as an option in servers.  If a team is limited by 1 sniper per squad, it would take out alot of those who just sit there and snipe all day.  Perhaps a way for a "Top Squad" to have extra priveledges on a server, such as the ability to force unlocked squads to merge together, to fill up squad rosters, and force 1 sniper per squad.  I am a veteran of all of the BF games, have played these games for well over 25 years, and the amount of lazy do nothing players is getting worst and worst. I agree 100% with the OP.  The BF franchise is going for the worst, and I think they really need to rethink who their core players are, and not give into the scrubs. 
    Don't blame the players.  Blame the devs. Need to get back to PROMOTING the game as a team play game.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4776 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DICE should find a way to put the people who PTW (Play To Win) on the same servers with each other.  Whether that be a ranked area for platoons as I have always suggested, or something else that they come up with.  There needs to be a place in theses games that people go where they know that they are expected to play to win.  If not the next Battlefield game is going to be more of the same old crap on every server. 
    Erm. Hello? You don't play to win? Perhaps you need to play a different game. 
  • trip1ex
    5301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    strawman argument.  

    Wow. Never would have expected that response from you.

    This is a free-form discussion the last time I checked.


    Another strawman argument.
  • trip1ex
    5301 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 12
    CSO7777 said:
    trip1ex said:
    CSO7777 said:
    trip1ex said:
    KPNuts74 said:
    trip1ex wrote: »
    sad thing is they originally went that route in BF1.  OR at least they originally didn't count kills as ticket bleed in Conquest.   Never understood the back track on that except obviously they got scared at the initial complaints.  Of course they managed to keep in the worst part of the new Conquest system which was counting tickets up per flag owned instead of majority bleed which led to fewer comebacks.

      
    It’s an FPS. Of course KD and kills are important.

    STrawman argument.  

    The pt of not counting kills as ticket bleed in BF1 Conquest beta was to focus the game more on objective play and the strategy that goes along with that.    Mindless farming is less rewarded under such a system as far as the outcome of the round goes.  

    PUre k/d matters less.    Kills are necessary to take/defend objectives.  


    The KD stat is still important, it is an FPS game and you gun is your main tool. Not having stats for showing how well you perform with your main tool would be weird.

    The ticket system has always been that flags drained tickets and that spawning (after dying) cost a ticket. This has been working well for a long time and when Dice tried messing with the formula in BF1 it was a fail (and was hated by the 'community' in general). A person capping flags and dying a 100 times without killing anyone, is not contributing positively to the teams score (they cost 100 tickets), otherwise we could as well remove the guns and just have a flag-running game instead.

    Whether kills scores higher than flag captures (or other objective) is another story. I personally think the scoring system should be used by Dice to encourage players to use their classes and play what-ever objectives a given game-mode has.

    In reality, if you play support/medic/recon you can easily get high on the scoreboard, just from helping your team-mates (supply/spot) and I think the scoring system is one of the lesser issues of BF(V).
    strawman argument.  I never argued k/d has no importance nor did I argue for not showing stats. 

    Yep DICE changed the Conquest scoring system in BF1 originally.  That's what I said already.  And it's sad they did so because it would have focused the gameplay more around taking and holding objectives.  It's a subtle difference because obviously you have to kill to take and hold objectives. 

    But the subtle difference is you can't outkill your way to winning if the enemy holds the objectives and you don't bother trying to take them back aka it makes the pure kill farmers less important.  You have to play more strategically to win.  

    The community unfortunately never understood the change.  And just reacted like you react.  Oh might as well not have guns and emotional reactions like that.  

    My post has nothing to do with being on the scoreboard.  



    Apparantly the community in general likes things like they have always been. You opinion differs.

    The argument is still that you have to kill the enemy to capture his flag, this has to be rewarded.

    The people killing most enemies, while PTFOing, are contributing more to the outcome of a match, than people just capping and not killing enemies (or even constantly dying trying to PTFO).

    And the old argument of dead players cannot capture/defend flags is also still very valid.

    I agree that we need more PTFOing in BF, but we don't need mindless chickens (zerging or trying to cap flags alone), so its a balance Dice has to find...
    The first line is just propaganda.  If  in general people wanted things the same then we would still be playing BF42.  But we're not.  

    Also I don't think the community (which is really was just  few loud voices) even understood the change.  

    Because contrary to false narratives, kills were still rewarded.  You had to kill to take and defend flags.  Getting a flag or keeping it was the reward.  

    That would have focused the killing more on the taking/holding of objectives.    Note:  you still had all the personal  kill, k/d and point stats for killing.  

    And the "old argument" that dead people can't take/defend flags is an argument for the beta BF1 scoring system because you still had to kill enemies trying to take your flags and you had to kill enemies trying to defend their flags if you wished to take them.

    The beta BF1 scoring system was a vote for PTFO over TDM.

    Sad they didn't stick with it for more than what felt a millisecond.    

    And if you played Obliteration in BF4 like I have, you had the same system where kills didn't take off ticket bleed.    The only difference with such a system is subtle. The player who purely farmed without any regard to the objectives tended to lose more than the player, who was just as good at killing, but focused his killing around playing the objectives.  He might not have ended up with as good of a k/d playing the objective but he won more matches.  That's the subtle difference.  

    Also we have  had kills not take off tickets in other modes for one side or even both sides.  In Rush, defenders have no tickets.  So they were free to die as much as they wanted.  And the attackers didn't get anywhere unless they played the objective.   Same in OPerations in BF1.  In Breakthrough in BFV.  Bf1 had other modes where kills didn't take off tickets.  Frontlines in BF1  is another example.  Pigeons I am sure there are more in various BF games that I forgot.   Mind you the same "community" plays these modes.










  • CSO7777
    2025 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    CSO7777 said:
    trip1ex said:
    CSO7777 said:
    trip1ex said:
    KPNuts74 said:
    trip1ex wrote: »
    sad thing is they originally went that route in BF1.  OR at least they originally didn't count kills as ticket bleed in Conquest.   Never understood the back track on that except obviously they got scared at the initial complaints.  Of course they managed to keep in the worst part of the new Conquest system which was counting tickets up per flag owned instead of majority bleed which led to fewer comebacks.

      
    It’s an FPS. Of course KD and kills are important.

    STrawman argument.  

    The pt of not counting kills as ticket bleed in BF1 Conquest beta was to focus the game more on objective play and the strategy that goes along with that.    Mindless farming is less rewarded under such a system as far as the outcome of the round goes.  

    PUre k/d matters less.    Kills are necessary to take/defend objectives.  


    The KD stat is still important, it is an FPS game and you gun is your main tool. Not having stats for showing how well you perform with your main tool would be weird.

    The ticket system has always been that flags drained tickets and that spawning (after dying) cost a ticket. This has been working well for a long time and when Dice tried messing with the formula in BF1 it was a fail (and was hated by the 'community' in general). A person capping flags and dying a 100 times without killing anyone, is not contributing positively to the teams score (they cost 100 tickets), otherwise we could as well remove the guns and just have a flag-running game instead.

    Whether kills scores higher than flag captures (or other objective) is another story. I personally think the scoring system should be used by Dice to encourage players to use their classes and play what-ever objectives a given game-mode has.

    In reality, if you play support/medic/recon you can easily get high on the scoreboard, just from helping your team-mates (supply/spot) and I think the scoring system is one of the lesser issues of BF(V).
    strawman argument.  I never argued k/d has no importance nor did I argue for not showing stats. 

    Yep DICE changed the Conquest scoring system in BF1 originally.  That's what I said already.  And it's sad they did so because it would have focused the gameplay more around taking and holding objectives.  It's a subtle difference because obviously you have to kill to take and hold objectives. 

    But the subtle difference is you can't outkill your way to winning if the enemy holds the objectives and you don't bother trying to take them back aka it makes the pure kill farmers less important.  You have to play more strategically to win.  

    The community unfortunately never understood the change.  And just reacted like you react.  Oh might as well not have guns and emotional reactions like that.  

    My post has nothing to do with being on the scoreboard.  



    Apparantly the community in general likes things like they have always been. You opinion differs.

    The argument is still that you have to kill the enemy to capture his flag, this has to be rewarded.

    The people killing most enemies, while PTFOing, are contributing more to the outcome of a match, than people just capping and not killing enemies (or even constantly dying trying to PTFO).

    And the old argument of dead players cannot capture/defend flags is also still very valid.

    I agree that we need more PTFOing in BF, but we don't need mindless chickens (zerging or trying to cap flags alone), so its a balance Dice has to find...
    The first line is just propaganda.  If  in general people wanted things the same then we would still be playing BF42.  But we're not.  

    Also I don't think the community (which is really was just  few loud voices) even understood the change.  

    Because contrary to false narratives, kills were still rewarded.  You had to kill to take and defend flags.  Getting a flag or keeping it was the reward.  

    That would have focused the killing more on the taking/holding of objectives.    Note:  you still had all the personal  kill, k/d and point stats for killing.  

    And the "old argument" that dead people can't take/defend flags is an argument for the beta BF1 scoring system because you still had to kill enemies trying to take your flags and you had to kill enemies trying to defend their flags if you wished to take them.

    The beta BF1 scoring system was a vote for PTFO over TDM.

    Sad they didn't stick with it for more than what felt a millisecond.    

    And if you played Obliteration in BF4 like I have, you had the same system where kills didn't take off ticket bleed.    The only difference with such a system is subtle. The player who purely farmed without any regard to the objectives tended to lose more than the player, who was just as good at killing, but focused his killing around playing the objectives.  He might not have ended up with as good of a k/d playing the objective but he won more matches.  That's the subtle difference.  

    Also we have  had kills not take off tickets in other modes for one side or even both sides.  In Rush, defenders have no tickets.  So they were free to die as much as they wanted.  And the attackers didn't get anywhere unless they played the objective.   Same in OPerations in BF1.  In Breakthrough in BFV.  Bf1 had other modes where kills didn't take off tickets.  Frontlines in BF1  is another example.  Pigeons I am sure there are more in various BF games that I forgot.   Mind you the same "community" plays these modes.










    Still the guys pushing, killing enemies and capturing flags, are doing the hard work and should be rewarded for that. Running to a already cleared (of enemies) flag and capping it should count less. This is totally fair.

    The same goes for players defending contested flags, they should get rewarded for their kills as well.
  • losthunter340
    127 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    A majority of games are bad at all games. It's just the way it is. Just accept and move on.
    While there's some truth to what you posted,  I think DICE needs to do MORE to encourage team play.

    It's literally the main reason I've stuck with battlefield for so long,  The feeling of accomplishing a win by helping revive / spot / drop health or ammo / repair friendly armour and destroying enemy armour and Air vehicles.

    I was in a game with losthunter earlier and he saw my team message asking friendly planes and assaults to take out enemy planes and armour.

    It speaks volumes about the mindset of players when you literally have to beg your team to try to help you fight for the win 

    It shouldn't be too much to expect players know how to play a specific class,  what their strengths and weaknesses are.

    I Don't know what to suggest for dice to make teamplay more enticing,   more points?  Quicker levelling up?  

    Something needs to be done though,  Games where players play purely for themselves just makes it frustrating af for the players who play for the overall team effort.


    I think they should do "Sniper class" caps as an option in servers.  If a team is limited by 1 sniper per squad, it would take out alot of those who just sit there and snipe all day.  Perhaps a way for a "Top Squad" to have extra priveledges on a server, such as the ability to force unlocked squads to merge together, to fill up squad rosters, and force 1 sniper per squad.  I am a veteran of all of the BF games, have played these games for well over 25 years, and the amount of lazy do nothing players is getting worst and worst. I agree 100% with the OP.  The BF franchise is going for the worst, and I think they really need to rethink who their core players are, and not give into the scrubs. 
    Don't blame the players.  Blame the devs. Need to get back to PROMOTING the game as a team play game.

    I guess its the devs fault for players beeing mindless zombies most of the time.... :D
  • The_BERG_366
    2817 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Another strawman argument.

    Stop using this term please...
    A strawman argument is NOT simply an argument that is irrelevant to your point.
  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Another strawman argument.

    Wrong. That was a statement not an argument.

    Kind of like: I thought I was replying to a human - only to find out I was engaging in a discussion with a badly programmed troll-bot."
  • AhuronIV
    25 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    My favorite game mode is Breakthrough by far, and this game mode is simple as ****, push into enemy areas and take it or stay into your objectives for defending it. How can be possible that too many people play it so bad? A couple of squads can carry vs 32 players if they play for the objective, I'm tired to play with people camping on respawns, people riding alone into objectives (dying of course), and my favorites ara players who camps with our tanks in base, those are amazing. 
    This afternoon I played a game on Marita, my team defends,well on the last 3 objectives an only squad took C and B ALONE meanwhile my team was pushing their respawn. 4 men defeat 32 players. I can't understand how many people can "enjoy" this game lying down and shooting all the time xD.
  • Hawxxeye
    7963 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 14
    AhuronIV said:
    My favorite game mode is Breakthrough by far, and this game mode is simple as ****, push into enemy areas and take it or stay into your objectives for defending it. How can be possible that too many people play it so bad? A couple of squads can carry vs 32 players if they play for the objective, I'm tired to play with people camping on respawns, people riding alone into objectives (dying of course), and my favorites ara players who camps with our tanks in base, those are amazing. 
    This afternoon I played a game on Marita, my team defends,well on the last 3 objectives an only squad took C and B ALONE meanwhile my team was pushing their respawn. 4 men defeat 32 players. I can't understand how many people can "enjoy" this game lying down and shooting all the time xD.
    Because most people are more comfortable with campi...eh  I mean...defending than attacking. So when they are attackers they will still try to play as defenders unless either better players or a super attacker biased map like BT Aerodrome, carries them.
    .
    Of course there are those teams who also fail at defending in BT because these people only care about defending their K/D
Sign In or Register to comment.