Major problem with Frontlines game mode!

2»

Comments

  • SliceNaToooR
    244 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 2017
    As an Infantry-only player, Frontline is by far my favorite mode right now.

    -Good numbers : 16v16 (32v32 is nice in theory but it can get too crazy in practice)
    -No running around in circle only capping flags (Conquest)
    -No vehicles mayhem (Conquest & Operations)
    -The vehicles / infantry ratio is just about right. (unlike some map in Rush and 40 man Ops)
    -No planes (possibly only because of the current map in the mode?

    Vehicles can still be the difference maker, but they don't ruin the experience, as much.

    The action is centered to one objectif and this make the fights intense and less random, less chaotic.


    My one and only major problem with the mode, is that not enough people play it. (It's frequent ton only have 1 populated server on PC)

    My second problem with it, is that I want more maps with this mode. Do it DICE! :)


  • incapslap
    3513 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    V2Face wrote: »
    What's up guys, just want to bring up an issue I see and maybe get a discussion going. To begin I really like the mode and with the talk of competitive coming I have a feeling frontline is going to be pretty close to what we see as far as the mode.

    It's really almost perfect, but I do see a few major issues currently and especially if I am correct and this is the building blocks mode of competitive.

    First issue I have is the win conditions, I do not like the fact that you can not complete the map and still win! This should be a draw! One side should have to FULLY COMPLETE the map to take victory! This is not competitive in it's current state and can be exploited for kill farming stat padding, all things you DO NOT want in a competitive game!

    My second issue, and I get it's controversial, but there needs to be a hard limit on classes. Like in overwatch where you can't have 6 widowmakers sniping on one team you should not have 10 scouts per team. Team switching of course needs to go! Aim assist auto rotation needs to be DISABLED!

    other than those few things I feel this is a damn good game mode for competitive. It's just a few changes that absolutely 100% must be made! I'm serious Dice! You need to make some tweaks if this is your competitive mode or it will fail!

    But yeah just a few thoughts, maybe you guys have a different idea on things or whatever. But if you do I'd like to hear others opinions on it and it would be great to see some posts from people on the dev team about this lol

    Battlefield will never be competitive. Comparing this to Overwatch is way misguided, Overwatch competitive is horrible and your actual skill and how you climb is based off of wins and losses on a team of 5 random players.

    It was competitive in BF3, and that was also the best game in the series.

    Overwatch shouldn't really be competitive, but it is. Funny that.
  • incapslap
    3513 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    I don't sense that Frontlines has the building blocks of a competitive mode any more than Rush or Domination or Pigeon mode.

    Kill farming/stat padding isn't going to stop on pubs if there are ties in addition to wins and losses. On pubs, most don't care about winning as it is. And thus playing Frontlines is ultimately frustrating in my experience as most camp. It gets old trying to take objectives when you see half your team not moving one inch forward.

    And so yeah something like class limits could help.

    I also think just recording wins/losses would help. No points or k/d. If you really want an objective mode then that would help.

    Or if the player is sitting far from the flag zone camping for too long then a virtual commander could come and shoot them in the back for being a coward and not advancing to the objective.

    And/or your sniper rifle could break after 6 shots which would force you to move up. You could say the same thing for a medic rifle or Support gun.

    16v16 players though means no one is going to be fielding 16 man teams in Esports.

    Yeah, one of the worst aspects of Frontlines is objective exploitation. Played one game where a whole squad was simply trying to spawn kill and get into camping positions to shoot the enemy from behind; never once tried to cap the flag.

    If it were divided up into two flags in a few spots it may help with that. And it may be better strategically.

    But it's a fun mode and a good concept for a competitive mode. Probably not as good as Operations, but it allows for pretty complex tactics.

    It wouldn't be 16v16 if it was competitive. Competitive has traditionally been 5-12 in battlefield, just because it is a little less chaotic, with better teamplay.

    But for all we know this 'Competitive Experience' could just be Conquest Small. It does sound like it'll be another ranked mode though, so possibly Squad Rush or Squad Operations.
  • trip1ex
    4979 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 2017
    For the people who say they don't want the mode, I can understand that. I in my early days of the whole multiplayer boom wasn't a fan of the more serious games or modes either at first. It's just not for some people and I get that.

    But again that's why they don't just have a sole competitive game mode. Overwatch for example has quick play, arcade, custom games, brawls, event games like PVE stuff. It's not just competitive and in fact that's actually the smallest player base of all modes.

    But it allows players that want a more competitive experience to play in a more serious fashion.

    The fact is we are getting a competitive mode and I have a feeling a lot of players that are against it will turn around on it if it's done well. It won't in any way effect the normal casual modes, I'm almost certain competitive will have different balance and rules than casual modes so this shouldn't change anything for those who don't want to play ranked.

    The problem is BAttlefield is all about large scale battles. It has been since it came out over 15 years ago.

    Competitive games all seem to be 6v6 or fewer.

    And so you don't really have Battlefield if you have 6v6 or fewer. It turns into a different game which basically means they have to come up with an entire new game and popularize that in addition to what we have now.

    I don't see it happening. That's a huge task in and of itself and they can't even fix a lot of current issues as it is.
  • incapslap
    3513 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    For the people who say they don't want the mode, I can understand that. I in my early days of the whole multiplayer boom wasn't a fan of the more serious games or modes either at first. It's just not for some people and I get that.

    But again that's why they don't just have a sole competitive game mode. Overwatch for example has quick play, arcade, custom games, brawls, event games like PVE stuff. It's not just competitive and in fact that's actually the smallest player base of all modes.

    But it allows players that want a more competitive experience to play in a more serious fashion.

    The fact is we are getting a competitive mode and I have a feeling a lot of players that are against it will turn around on it if it's done well. It won't in any way effect the normal casual modes, I'm almost certain competitive will have different balance and rules than casual modes so this shouldn't change anything for those who don't want to play ranked.

    The problem is BAttlefield is all about large scale battles. It has been since it came out over 15 years ago.

    Competitive games all seem to be 6v6 or fewer.

    And so you don't really have Battlefield if you have 6v6 or fewer. It turns into a different game which basically means they have to come up with an entire new game and popularize that in addition to what we have now.

    I don't see it happening. That's a huge task in and of itself and they can't even fix a lot of current issues as it is.

    Matter of opinion. A lot of players who prefer competitive and Conquest Small will tell you that battles are more intense when playing with less people. It's more about strategy and tactics, there are more intense gun fights (less interruption), you get far less spam, etc. And Squad Rush was just as intense.

    And just look at the state of the game now:
    - large-scale battles
    - people either run from flag to flag capping points and hardly fighting or they sit in a single room spamming grenades

    Pick one.
  • trip1ex
    4979 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    incapslap wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    For the people who say they don't want the mode, I can understand that. I in my early days of the whole multiplayer boom wasn't a fan of the more serious games or modes either at first. It's just not for some people and I get that.

    But again that's why they don't just have a sole competitive game mode. Overwatch for example has quick play, arcade, custom games, brawls, event games like PVE stuff. It's not just competitive and in fact that's actually the smallest player base of all modes.

    But it allows players that want a more competitive experience to play in a more serious fashion.

    The fact is we are getting a competitive mode and I have a feeling a lot of players that are against it will turn around on it if it's done well. It won't in any way effect the normal casual modes, I'm almost certain competitive will have different balance and rules than casual modes so this shouldn't change anything for those who don't want to play ranked.

    The problem is BAttlefield is all about large scale battles. It has been since it came out over 15 years ago.

    Competitive games all seem to be 6v6 or fewer.

    And so you don't really have Battlefield if you have 6v6 or fewer. It turns into a different game which basically means they have to come up with an entire new game and popularize that in addition to what we have now.

    I don't see it happening. That's a huge task in and of itself and they can't even fix a lot of current issues as it is.

    Matter of opinion. A lot of players who prefer competitive and Conquest Small will tell you that battles are more intense when playing with less people. It's more about strategy and tactics, there are more intense gun fights (less interruption), you get far less spam, etc. And Squad Rush was just as intense.

    And just look at the state of the game now:
    - large-scale battles
    - people either run from flag to flag capping points and hardly fighting or they sit in a single room spamming grenades

    Pick one.

    No not really an opinion. Pretty hard to deny BF isn't about large scale battles.

    And that there is a different challenge here than with other games that are about 6v6 or smaller battles to begin with.

  • ninjapenquinuk
    1973 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    A game will only be 'competitive' if the players playing want to it to be. It's less to do with the game mode and more the attitude of the players. If you have two platoons facing off against each other in frontlines then that will be more 'competitive' than 2 sides made up of total randoms. On the flip side, even if you made a 'competitive' mode for BF1, if the players on either side still played to enhance K/D or max their own points, then the game will still be 'casual'.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3410 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Its up to DICE to see if people really do want a competitive mode, and it seems that they have made their decision. I'm not too terribly opposed to a SEPARATE competitive mode, as long as those 'competitive' elements remain in their respective game mode only.

    Now, lets have a look at CSGO. In that game, the AWP is extremely good, but it is very costly, so not only do you need a fair bit of money to buy it (keeping your economy in mind), you also need to assess the risk of losing your AWP to an enemy player. This makes it balanced in competitive mode. However, in modes like TDM and Casual, you don't need to worry about economy so much, so everyone starts running around with AWPs and Negevs.

    In this case, the imbalance in non-competitive modes aren't intentional. Nonetheless, you do have to ensure that competitive game mode changes do not translate to the 'main' game. If this can be done, then I have no real issues with catering to professional/competitive players.
  • incapslap
    3513 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    incapslap wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    For the people who say they don't want the mode, I can understand that. I in my early days of the whole multiplayer boom wasn't a fan of the more serious games or modes either at first. It's just not for some people and I get that.

    But again that's why they don't just have a sole competitive game mode. Overwatch for example has quick play, arcade, custom games, brawls, event games like PVE stuff. It's not just competitive and in fact that's actually the smallest player base of all modes.

    But it allows players that want a more competitive experience to play in a more serious fashion.

    The fact is we are getting a competitive mode and I have a feeling a lot of players that are against it will turn around on it if it's done well. It won't in any way effect the normal casual modes, I'm almost certain competitive will have different balance and rules than casual modes so this shouldn't change anything for those who don't want to play ranked.

    The problem is BAttlefield is all about large scale battles. It has been since it came out over 15 years ago.

    Competitive games all seem to be 6v6 or fewer.

    And so you don't really have Battlefield if you have 6v6 or fewer. It turns into a different game which basically means they have to come up with an entire new game and popularize that in addition to what we have now.

    I don't see it happening. That's a huge task in and of itself and they can't even fix a lot of current issues as it is.

    Matter of opinion. A lot of players who prefer competitive and Conquest Small will tell you that battles are more intense when playing with less people. It's more about strategy and tactics, there are more intense gun fights (less interruption), you get far less spam, etc. And Squad Rush was just as intense.

    And just look at the state of the game now:
    - large-scale battles
    - people either run from flag to flag capping points and hardly fighting or they sit in a single room spamming grenades

    Pick one.

    No not really an opinion. Pretty hard to deny BF isn't about large scale battles.

    And that there is a different challenge here than with other games that are about 6v6 or smaller battles to begin with.

    Well, yes, it is an opinion. And I made an argument as to why.

    Also look at the comment above suggesting how Frontlines is far better than Conquest. Less can be more.
  • Zer0Cod3x
    246 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Frontlines is relatively easy to follow as a spectator, and also lends itself well to small playercounts and many clutch moments. The same can be said for Operations and Obliteration.

    CQ, whilst it is the primary gamemode, doesn't do this nearly as well as any of these gamemodes. Which is why they are far superior gamemodes to CQ.
Sign In or Register to comment.