• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,126
Chile
That's what everyone has been hyping up? I'm fairly new to the series but was extremely disappointed after playing it a few times. Operation Metro is such a clusterfuck.

It's liked because it's a clusterfuck. I am enjoying the map even though I'm a vehicle player, I think that Al Sundan and Panzerstorm are the best BFV maps, but I still enjoy the stupid chaos of Op. Underground and better balanced maps like Devastation or Rotterdam.

Op. Underground is better than BF3's Metro on Conquest, but Rush on Metro was insanely good. It managed to turn me from a CoD fan into a BF fan

Does anyone play firestorm

Not many sadly. EA sent it out to die. It should be F2P. I like it better than other BRs because it's a simpler experience.
 

Fuhgeddit

#TeamThierry
Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,698
I can't believe how many people don't revive when I'm right there and no enemy in sight lol
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,029
I really wish Operation Underground had its own playlist or something, because I'm just going to quit a server the moment it swaps to this map. It doesn't belong in the standard Conquest lineup at all.
 

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,126
Chile
I really wish Operation Underground had its own playlist or something, because I'm just going to quit a server the moment it swaps to this map. It doesn't belong in the standard Conquest lineup at all.

Don't worry, the same people that complains about not enough content, will do the Underground 24/7 playlist when RSP arrives

I feel like this thread has me like

giphy.gif


I cannot hate Op. Underground, sorry Battlefield Battlefield, I have failed you.



Anyway, I had a question for everyone here. What's your opinion on the Rotation? It basically groups small maps -> medium maps -> big maps -> medium maps -> small maps

Do you like it? I kind of wish I could go from Rotterdam to Al Sundan to Mercury to Op. Underground or something more mixed
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
Fuck map voting. The same maps just get played over and over.

Just make it random.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,029
Don't worry, the same people that complains about not enough content, will do the Underground 24/7 playlist when RSP arrives

I feel like this thread has me like

giphy.gif


I cannot hate Op. Underground, sorry Battlefield Battlefield, I have failed you.

Haha, I don't mind that people enjoy the Underground/Metro/Locker stuff. To each their own. But you citing Rush on Metro as a turning point for you from Call of Duty to Battlefield is largely the point of frustration I have with maps like this. I don't care that they exist, but they play like ass Conquest maps, much better tailored for other modes. It appealed to the Call of Duty market precisely for its claustrophobic, kill farming design. I know several people who, just like you, cite Metro as the map that turned them from Call of Duty to Battlefield when the series was blossoming off the coattails of Bad Company 2. Which is fine, when the player count is reduced and the game mode encourages it.

It's just frustrating as someone who plays Battlefield fundamentally for its more expansive design, that being Conquest, the entire reason I got into the franchise at all, and to now have servers blended with a map that takes 20 minutes to churn through 64 players throwing themselves up against each other in bottlenecks to kill farm. The map inherently, in 64 player Conquest, does not accomidate team or class coherency. And I mean, that's not just Underground's fault; Battlefield V has major issues in this area anyway. But nobody, not even the biggest Metro fans, ever talk to me about how great the map is on Conquest. They specifically cite Rush or other modes with smaller player counts and better balance for the objectives, or cite how fun it is to kill farm and whatever KDR they got.

I think that's why people who really fucking hate Metro cite it as such a major problem for the series. Doesn't matter how fun it is, it's arguably the worst representation of the core Conquest formula, playing to a single strength of the series (shooting and kill farming) at the cost of all the others.

Battlefield 3 was great, as was Battlefield 4, with 24/7 Metro/Locker servers. I just wish it was removed from standard rotation.

And yeah, not a fan of map voting. I love the idea in theory but it from previous experience in other games it leads to the same maps getting played over and over.
 

Skade

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,851
I think that's why people who really fucking hate Metro cite it as such a major problem for the series. Doesn't matter how fun it is, it's arguably the worst representation of the core Conquest formula, playing to a single strength of the series (shooting and kill farming) at the cost of all the others.

You know. What i like in Metro Conquest (and the grind mode we have from time to time) is that it looks like a more or less convincing battle with a well defined frontline. Something that almost never happens in the other maps on Conquest because i always think there's too many flags and no way to have a proper defense unless you play with 31 friends in your team.

Yes, Metro enforce the frontline by having few paths due to the underground nature of the map. But at least, there's a frontline.

Honestly for me, a mostly Breakthrougth player, Underground is now my favorite Conquest map (and least favorite BT map, weirdly).
 

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,126
Chile
Haha, I don't mind that people enjoy the Underground/Metro/Locker stuff. To each their own. But you citing Rush on Metro as a turning point for you from Call of Duty to Battlefield is largely the point of frustration I have with maps like this. I don't care that they exist, but they play like ass Conquest maps, much better tailored for other modes. It appealed to the Call of Duty market precisely for its claustrophobic, kill farming design. I know several people who, just like you, cite Metro as the map that turned them from Call of Duty to Battlefield when the series was blossoming off the coattails of Bad Company 2. Which is fine, when the player count is reduced and the game mode encourages it.

It's just frustrating as someone who plays Battlefield fundamentally for its more expansive design, that being Conquest, the entire reason I got into the franchise at all, and to now have servers blended with a map that takes 20 minutes to churn through 64 players throwing themselves up against each other in bottlenecks to kill farm. The map inherently, in 64 player Conquest, does not accomidate team or class coherency. And I mean, that's not just Underground's fault; Battlefield V has major issues in this area anyway. But nobody, not even the biggest Metro fans, ever talk to me about how great the map is on Conquest. They specifically cite Rush or other modes with smaller player counts and better balance for the objectives, or cite how fun it is to kill farm and whatever KDR they got.

I think that's why people who really fucking hate Metro cite it as such a major problem for the series. Doesn't matter how fun it is, it's arguably the worst representation of the core Conquest formula, playing to a single strength of the series (shooting and kill farming) at the cost of all the others.

Battlefield 3 was great, as was Battlefield 4, with 24/7 Metro/Locker servers. I just wish it was removed from standard rotation.

And yeah, not a fan of map voting. I love the idea in theory but it from previous experience in other games it leads to the same maps getting played over and over.

Yes, it's understandable. I really do.

Metro was a huge change for Battlefield, I guess I did like it because it was a map created with a lot of focus on console (I played it on PS3), so having only 24 players didn't felt as claustrophobic and as mindless as it really is. It left room for strategy when taking M-COMs down, so I guess that's why once I bought the full game I was so happy playing Caspian Border, Teheran, Seine Crossing.. etc

That said, I enjoy Op. Metro, or Underground, more, as part of the mix but hate the 24/7 servers. I hate them because they have way too much fucking tickets and it goes on and on... I like as a attack/defend BT (or Rush), and then go on to another map. It gets too repetitive even with all the fun I have.
 

Kotze282

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,248
So are we getting Rush this week? Would really love and try Op Underground with an actual enjoyable framerate. Also, I hope Rush will have more than the three stages Breakthrough has. Progressing is what makes or "breaks" Breakthrough maps, and it is also one of the reasons BF1 Operations was so much better.

I kinda feel like however much content they will drop for BFV, the simple fact that it looks so much worse than BF1 does on PS4 Pro will always keep me from really enjoying it. Shame everything is locked in and they won't do anything or even talk about IQ.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,904
I really want something like this again.

Map was fucking garbage and the gameplay of BF1 probably did irreparable damage to the psyche of your average player, resulting in the stale, static gameplay we have now.

PTFOing in that game was running into gas + mortar spam + arty truck spam + bomber spam. No wonder people can't get off their ass in the sequel that has even less visibility.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,904
I'll just leave this here. Lmao.

Funny video from Jack but I hope DICE doesn't nerf MMGs any further, they do 1 thing really well. Some of the situations where he gets 6+ kills is where an MMG is supposed to shine aka holding a lane and having the ammo capacity to lock it down for a bit.

Shotguns are much better on underground IMO
 

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,126
Chile
Well, I do have to give props to DICE for representing the world wars.

World War 1 was indeed a spam of artillery, poison gas, death by long machineguns and sniper, where rushing objectives was futile

World War 2 was the land of the Machine Guns and being impaled by tanks and planes. Well, tanks aren't that good, but you get the idea.

/s
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
BF 1 was nice. It actually felt like a battlefield.

I'm so bored of BF V. The rank grind didn't help me at all, nor did adding a couple of maps. Previous titles I could play for hours on end, day in and out. I get annoyed with BF V after a round or two. This game just doesn't captivate me and it's hard to explain why.

I'm hoping the Pacific changes my attitude.
 

Olengie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,377
Map was fucking garbage and the gameplay of BF1 probably did irreparable damage to the psyche of your average player, resulting in the stale, static gameplay we have now.

PTFOing in that game was running into gas + mortar spam + arty truck spam + bomber spam. No wonder people can't get off their ass in the sequel that has even less visibility.
I hope you realize I was more talking about atmosphere.
 

Deleted member 135

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,682
I couldn't get into BF1, played less than 20 hours of it. Conversely I really enjoy BFV, at least on Al Sudan, Panzerstorm, Arras, and Twisted Steel.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
There is just nothing to do. No cool dog tags, service stars, or anything to work on. Sure they added ranks, but it's just CC (which became useless) and an ugly dog tag every 50 ranks. The assignment system is garbage. For long term play, the game is horrible compared to previous entries.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
I mean it has almost been a year and the game is now in an "acceptable" state. There are still a myriad of problems with it.

The Pacific is definitely make or break for me. If it's something new, interesting, and fun. Yeah, I'll stick around. However, if it's just BF V with some palm trees and little to no improvement, I'm out.

The next game is rumored for next year anyways and this will probably become a graveyard given its history and overall reception by the community.
 

Deleted member 135

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,682
There is just nothing to do. No cool dog tags, service stars, or anything to work on. Sure they added ranks, but it's just CC (which became useless) and an ugly dog tag every 50 ranks. The assignment system is garbage. For long term play, the game is horrible compared to previous entries.
See that kind of stuff has never mattered to me, I play to play so I can see how BFV would suck for someone who cares about medals and shit.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
I mean I also play the game because I enjoy BF. I have over 300 hours so far. However, having worse progression than the previous titles isn't doing it any favors. It also doesn't help this game is lacking in so many areas.

I mean if I just started playing the game. This game would probably seem pretty good. However, after a year of dealing with all of this and still running into problems we had since launch, it gets tiring.

BF V reminds me of Halo 4. H4 was a subpar Halo game, but it was still Halo, so I played it. BF V is easily the worst game in the mainline series, but I continue to play it because it's BF.
 

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,126
Chile
Oh it's ranking time?

BF4 > BFV > BF3 > BF1 > Never played Hardline.

I could easily see BFV as the top spot if they do make it better.

BF 1 was nice. It actually felt like a battlefield.

I'm so bored of BF V. The rank grind didn't help me at all, nor did adding a couple of maps. Previous titles I could play for hours on end, day in and out. I get annoyed with BF V after a round or two. This game just doesn't captivate me and it's hard to explain why.

I'm hoping the Pacific changes my attitude.

Maybe I shouldn't ask this, but, Are you personally ok? I don't know, but reading you sometimes makes me wonder that. I mean I know in the internet there's a lot of hyperbole, but I rather just ask.

To me, what really BFV lacks to make it a better experience, leaving the actual core problems, is the presentation. It feels half cooked against BF4 and specially BF1. The ambiance, the music, the menus... there is a lot to be desired.

out of the ones I played:

BF 1 > BF 4 > BF 3 > BF V > BF HL

also: I would pay good money for BF1's female announcer in BFV...

That would be great, but I think that the announcers could do with some rework.. again linking it to the presentation.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
Yeah, I'm fine.

This game is just a massive step back in the series and I'm critical about it.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
Things they did right with BF V:

Movement- The sliding, climbing, sprinting, and etc. all feel great. This is definitely a step up in every way. It's harder to go back to older titles because of this.

Animations- You no longer have medics just running around instantly reviving players, nor do you have players that instantly pop out of their tank, kill someone that got too close and instantly pop back into it. The animations help both with gameplay and immersion.

Fortification: It's a bit unbaked, but there is some merit to the system. I'd like to see it return in future titles.

Refining the spotting system: The old system wasn't good, games became Doritos simulator. The issue wasn't them refining the spotting system; it's just that BF V has poor visibility combined with the new system.

Now for the issues:

Vehicles: They are a step down in this game. Vehicle combat isn't fun. It's either you sit far back and snipe or you try to push and get swarmed by Assaults. Air combat is the worst in the series by far and needs a complete overhaul. Also, we don't even have boats.

Weapons: The skill tree limits any type of experimentation. It leads to static gameplay where everyone is choosing the same loadouts because you can't customize your weapons. Furthermore, a lot of the weapons play the same with only a slight variation in the stats. It's boring; just slap 3x on almost everything.

Class roles: They are undercooked. The specializations in each class pretty much don't matter at all. I don't even know why they bothered to add it. Class balance is also in a poor state.

Attrition system: I think it works well for vehicles, but the whole idea needs to be scrapped when it comes to infantry gameplay.

Maps: There isn't a single memorable map. They range from bad to decent. Where is a Caspian Border? Lancang Dam?



I'm not even going to talk about performance, cheaters, balance, and etc. this is just purely from a gameplay perspective.
 

icecold1983

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
4,243
Things they did right with BF V:

Movement- The sliding, climbing, sprinting, and etc. all feel great. This is definitely a step up in every way. It's harder to go back to older titles because of this.

Animations- You no longer have medics just running around instantly reviving players, nor do you have players that instantly pop out of their tank, kill someone that got too close and instantly pop back into it. The animations help both with gameplay and immersion.

Fortification: It's a bit unbaked, but there is some merit to the system. I'd like to see it return in future titles.

Refining the spotting system: The old system wasn't good, games became Doritos simulator. The issue wasn't them refining the spotting system; it's just that BF V has poor visibility combined with the new system.

Now for the issues:

Vehicles: They are a step down in this game. Vehicle combat isn't fun. It's either you sit far back and snipe or you try to push and get swarmed by Assaults. Air combat is the worst in the series by far and needs a complete overhaul. Also, we don't even have boats.

Weapons: The skill tree limits any type of experimentation. It leads to static gameplay where everyone is choosing the same loadouts because you can't customize your weapons. Furthermore, a lot of the weapons play the same with only a slight variation in the stats. It's boring; just slap 3x on almost everything.

Class roles: They are undercooked. The specializations in each class pretty much don't matter at all. I don't even know why they bothered to add it. Class balance is also in a poor state.

Attrition system: I think it works well for vehicles, but the whole idea needs to be scrapped when it comes to infantry gameplay.

Maps: There isn't a single memorable map. They range from bad to decent. Where is a Caspian Border? Lancang Dam?



I'm not even going to talk about performance, cheaters, balance, and etc. this is just purely from a gameplay perspective.

bro, lancang dam was one of the worst maps in bf4
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
Players opinions vary on maps, so that's fine.

What I'm trying to get at is, DICE releasing a few new maps doesn't fix the core issues this game has. These issues should have been fixed months ago, yet they still persist.
 

Moose

Prophet of Truth - Hero of Bowerstone
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,164
Rankings:

BC2 Vietnam > BF4 > BF3 > BC2 > BFV > BC1 > 1943 > BF1
 

Deleted member 135

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,682
I hated the weapon customization they introduced with 3, I much prefer BFV's system. Its more like BC2's system than anything else. Weapon customization becomes bloat at a point, playing the MW beta just brought me back to that awful feeling that BF3 started and BF4 compounded for me.

1943 is also my favorite Frostbite Battlefield, so maybe that tells you all you need to know about my tastes. I prefer simplicity and straightforwardness. Pure combined arms combat. BFV is the closest the series has been since 1943 to that.
 

icecold1983

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
4,243
Players opinions vary on maps, so that's fine.

What I'm trying to get at is, DICE releasing a few new maps doesn't fix the core issues this game has. These issues should have been fixed months ago, yet they still persist.

Based off of comments made by David Sirland during the BF4 CTE, i think Dice knows how to fix most of the issues but its too much work for the limited resources EA allows them for this title. They fix the small things they can within the limitations set by EA.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
What's the consensus on best tanks and tank loadouts?

Brits:

Valentine MK III. Just go full right side, but pick up the RoF upgrade in the middle. This setup pretty much dumps on everything.

Gerry:

Panzer IV or Tiger 1 are both worth trying for overall usefulness.

Panzer IV go full left side and at the end you can pick the AP rounds for more AT or the canister shot for infantry.

Tiger 1 go right side, but you can take some of the middle perks because they are useful and just depends on your playstyle.

Light tanks went from being the meta to one of the worst picks because of the 20mm nerf. The 20mm does zero damage against tanks. So, you have to choose between a gun that does great damage against infantry, ok damage against light vehicles, and zero damage against tanks. Compared to a gun that does ok damage against infantry, light vehicles, and tanks. Plus you are extremely squishy. You might as well pick something that doesn't blow up in two seconds and can still engage everything effectively. So go medium or heavy.
 
Last edited:

ThisOne

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,938
Brits:

Valentine MK III. Just go full right side, but pick up the RoF upgrade in the middle. This setup pretty much dumps on everything.

Gerry:

Panzer IV or Tiger 1 are both worth trying for overall usefulness.

Panzer IV go full left side and at the end you can pick the AP rounds for more AT or the canister shot for infantry.

Tiger 1 go right side, but you can take some of the middle perks because they are useful and just depends on your playstyle.

Light tanks went from being the meta to one of the worst picks because of the 20mm nerf. The 20mm does zero damage against tanks. So, you have to choose between a gun that does great damage against infantry, ok damage against light vehicles, and zero damage against tanks. Compared to a gun that does ok damage against infantry, light vehicles, and tanks. Plus you are extremely squishy. You might as well pick something that doesn't blow up in two seconds and can still engage everything effectively. So go medium or heavy.
Thanks! I'm getting back to Conquest after basically exclusively playing Firestorm for the last several months.
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,569
One thing I never understood and I don't think DICE even bothered to look into it. You can pick the 20mm and AP rounds. I was thinking, ok you can use the AP rounds to damage tanks. Nope, 20mm AP rounds does nothing against tanks. So what's the point of putting the AP rounds on that side of the tree? It makes no sense. AP rounds gives you less splash damage against infantry, so......what are you supposed to do with it?
 

ThisOne

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,938
Yeah, balance in this game feels almost non-existent. It's like they're only concern is quashing bugs so actual balance changes are minimal and pretty half baked.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,029
Of the current form of Battlefield (so basically ditching 1942, BF2, and 2142)

BF4 > BF1 > BF3 >>> BFV

Battlefield 3 was a great game with awful net code that resulted in a lot of dying around corners. I think it was peer to peer or something? I don't remember. Just a strong game hampered by technology. I actually didn't put an enormous amount of time into it like I did some of its predecessors and successors. I remember it most for excellent maps like Firestorm and Caspian Border, awful maps like Metro, and the completely unbelievable visual and technical presentation that seemed leaps and leagues ahead of every other game out there. Was definitely a massive turning point for DICE/EA and the series representation in the market.

Battlefield 4 is my gold standard for the series. Not faultless by any means, but the best collection of memorable maps with standout points of interest as capture points, sandbox-like gameplay, weapon/gear balance, vehicle usefulness, a genuine sense of frontlines and accomplishment in capturing objectives, gorgeous presentation, and I actually liked the campaign (sacrilegious, I know). Unforgivably awful launch, but the post launch support in fixing bugs, balancing the game, and adding new content was just marvellous in the long run.

Battlefield 1's arcade focus rubbed me the wrong way at first, but once I found a groove I really feel it stands as arguably the most polished. It's tight, loud, exciting, and generally well balanced across weapons. Vehicles took a hit from people whining they were too tough, but even so they're a lot of fun to use. There's some really strong Conquest maps in the roster that are home to very memorable matches. It's also outrageously gorgeous and absolutely perfect in its visual/audio representation of an exaggerated WW1 battlefront. Might not have been the Battlefield 4 evolution I wanted, but there's a fantastic game in there that presents and plays very well, while also being distinctly Battlefield.

Battlefield V is a handful of great ideas badly executed with little confidence in a coherent, focused direction overseeing map design, weapon balance, vehicle functionality, damage model, class system, gadget use, visibiity, and other nuances to ensure they all come together. They don't. It's like a hundred different people making parts independently without communicating or ensuring everything works together for a coherent whole. Throw in a mess of bugs, technical issues, broken design, clumsy interface, and miserable post launch support and you've got, by far, the most unremarkable and forgettable entry in the series. Which is sad, because I do love a lot of the ideas they had.

BF V is easily the worst game in the mainline series, but I continue to play it because it's BF.

Exactly how I feel. I don't outright despise the game. If I did I wouldn't play it at all. And even though I'm tremendously disappointed, the disappointment isn't strong enough to stop me from playing the game forever. Like, Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is one of my all time favourite multiplayer modes ever forever. I poured hundreds upon hundreds of hours into it. Andromeda's was shitty by comparison. So shitty that I barely touched it. Battlefield V isn't like that.

But part of it is because Battlefield, as a franchise, has no equal. As in, there is nobody else out there making a game like Battlefield. So even at its worst, which Battlefield V definitely is for me, I can't just put it down and go play Battlefield Competitor that offers more or less the same experience but with a different spin. It just doesn't exist. And so I keep playing.

That being said a good chunk of what would be Battlefield V play time has now been allocated to Hunt: Showdown. That's a good example, actually. PUBG was my go-to battle royale game, but that's been almost entirely replaced with Hunt. They're different enough that the experience isn't identical, and Hunt's strengths and originality can shine through, but the one-life-survival element is at the guts and thus it captures a similar, and more favourable intensity.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,904
One thing I never understood and I don't think DICE even bothered to look into it. You can pick the 20mm and AP rounds. I was thinking, ok you can use the AP rounds to damage tanks. Nope, 20mm AP rounds does nothing against tanks. So what's the point of putting the AP rounds on that side of the tree? It makes no sense. AP rounds gives you less splash damage against infantry, so......what are you supposed to do with it?

They balance via spreadsheets and data, rather than just having a few designers as tastemakers, or a core group of trusted players. This leads to erroneous balance changes, like the ones made to pistols. The answer is not to nerf the revolver, the answer is to give people a reason to use the other guns. Who is out there complaining about medium distance pistol shots? It's not a thing. Never has been. I remember when the V40 grenade was killing people in one hit in BF4 when it was never designed to do that. The data showed that people were overwhelmingly using the V40s. It took them six months to actually address it, and it wasn't some major bug causing the problem. Alan Kertz even talked about it on twitter months after players had noticed it's a thing, asking if it was really happening.

Play your own game.

I think if DICE devs played the game in a live environment with real players more they'd have a better understanding of the flaws in their design choices.