I had more fun playing Amiens on BF1 .
Amiens 1 - 0 Rotterdam , my experience.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Battlefield V |OT2| Empire of the Soon
- Thread starter iRAWRasaurus
- Start date
I had more fun playing Amiens on BF1 .
Amiens 1 - 0 Rotterdam , my experience.
It started out as a Conquest Assault map, which caused a lot of players on attack to panic and/or quit every time it came up. There were issues with bombers killing everyone on spawn and the planes in this aren't great for back capping. I think it's a pretty good map now, but those problems stick with a lot of people.
Nah - Amiens was the same thing every single time. Fight for C and D round the bridges. Gas. Gas, more gas. Train comes in and completely ruins any sort of conquest game people might have been enjoying. Rinse and repeat.
It suffered from the same problem most of BF1 did - it wasn't organic. It led to essentially the same fight every single time. Your experience only changed whether you won or lost. Flanks were incredibly rare. Effective flanks even rarer. Flanks that recovered a losing position - never (though in fairness that was partly because DICE completely messed up the conquest scoring mode in 1 ruining the whole mode).
Whereas in Rotterdam you can lose B and D and go behind on tickets yet easily come back with a good flank to E/A whilst holding C. The battle can be between E and A or B and D or even centred round C. The bridge can see intense action or simply be a flanking route.
You maybe right , bf1 and previous bfs gave me a feeling like i was doing shit and just having fun.
Jumped in for some games months after the last time I played the game.
BFV got better for sure, but still doesn't fully click with me and with BF1 in comparison. Lacks atmosphere, the right energy that overwhelmes battles and encounters on BF1.
And still, my eyes hurt, turn red. Can't play more than 1-2hrs I need to rest and go offline for the whole day. It happens only with BFV. There's something wrong with the visuals settings and the enemy players being smaller or someway merging with the background. Tried with other users to point this out from the day one... I give up.
BFV got better for sure, but still doesn't fully click with me and with BF1 in comparison. Lacks atmosphere, the right energy that overwhelmes battles and encounters on BF1.
And still, my eyes hurt, turn red. Can't play more than 1-2hrs I need to rest and go offline for the whole day. It happens only with BFV. There's something wrong with the visuals settings and the enemy players being smaller or someway merging with the background. Tried with other users to point this out from the day one... I give up.
CoD community is going crazy right now with MW. It feels almost the same
BF1 was nothing like 3/4 and V is closer to 3 and 4. BF1 was the most arcadey, least sandboxy of any BF game. It was amazing for the first few hours - then suddenly it was like "BF easy mode". V is miles better gameplay wise - they just have botched the content but seem to be getting on track with it.
BFV has a higher skill gap which was very much needed since BF1 was horrid gas/grenade spam central and everyone was marked and just became a bit rubbish!
BF1 had good maps. Mostly bad, but some good. The problems were mainly how modes worked and how vehicles interacted with infantry. Bombers were obnoxious, tanks wouldn't fucking die without two or three players directly hammering the tank all at once, and Behemoths stole away defending teams into a gigantic, distracting vehicle that derailed the match immediately after spawning.
Frankly, BF1's biggest sin, bullshit like Elites and Behemoths aside, was butchering Conquest and never returning it to how it should've been. Because of how the scoring model changed for BF1 CQ, making a comeback once the enemy had a 150 point lead or so became incredibly difficult. You basically knew who won the match a solid 15-20 minutes before the match was over, and in spite of a fixed version that played more like classic CQ being tested on the CTE (where you only scored when you held majority), it never saw the light of day in the public version of the game.
Behemoths, Elite Kits, explosive spam, choke points galore. It wasn't a great time. Easily my least favorite Battlefield game in retrospect. BFV is undoubtedly a step in the right direction after how badly BF1 bungled things.
Last edited:
Yeah exactly. I'd put the vile elites to the back of my mind. The behemoths are IMO the worse thing DICE ever did, along with the awful botching of the conquest scoring mode.
You are losing - so you get a massive thing to just bomb the enemy with. It won't change the course of the match because DICE have ensured comebacks are impossible. So you might as well all pile in and rack up kills whilst the winning team run round like headless chickens for 10 minutes with constant screen shake and insta death if they move from cover. Awful.
I'd agree that BF1 is the worst BF game by a mile. BFV is better - by some margin. Its gunplay and moment to moment gameplay is up there for me with 3. Its just not got the same content volume nor intriguing content yet.
Starting to really warm to the maps. I think there's only 1 or 2 that I really dislike (coincidentally both sandy middle eastern levels - I can't remember their name). Compared to the newest Modern Warfare where there's only 1 or 2 I actually like (and one of them is actually Picadilly which has a massive Era hatred!).
I would love, love to see a 64 player large scale version of Lofoten and Provence though. Do we know if this is planned?
I would love, love to see a 64 player large scale version of Lofoten and Provence though. Do we know if this is planned?
I want more maps based on ruined cities the Last Tiger war story made me want it more especially the Cathedral final stand
I have to say the campaign is simply amazing. Best one yet and I've been playing them for at least the last decade. But now, with bfv being so good I have to divide my time!
I played 8 hours of BF1, I have over 80 in BFV (and I only got it in June).
BFV is so much better than BF1 it's not even funny.
BFV is so much better than BF1 it's not even funny.
Yep. BF1 is a good game mainly because of the great atmosphere.
BFV is much better. Once you experienced the gunplay and movement of V it is hard to go back, even to BF4.
I'm not sure whether you are joking or not (sometimes it's hard to tell), but I really love BF1. Including crazy WWI setting (cars looking like transformed knights:), behemoths, elites, color palette and the whole spectacle (vehicles exploding in big balls of fire). Russian maps are one of my favorites from all the Battlefields that I've played. BF1 is so different from other BF games that it just makes me smile. There, I said it.
OP
OP
I tend to rarely hate maps in general as well. I do prefer some maps more than others.I like all the maps in all the Battlefields!
Defenders don't have tanks on phase one in Iwo Jima. I think defenders will lose their sole remaining tank on Monday on Pacific Storm. In the way, level 0 tanks guarantee an even situation where no side will be more pimped depending on the driver's veterancy.
Squad spawns are broken, as of Sunday.
And of course, upgraded planes raping everyone. Even if they trade plane for one bombing run, those bombs and cannons destroy clusters around objectives in Breakthrough.
On Pacific Storm and I'm on the US side in the AA on the boat shooting down planes and my team moves up 2 sets of flags and all of a sudden it says I'm out of bounds and kills me. Nothing I could do. I was protecting my teammates in the air and I get screwed over. Feels bad man.
BFV has great maps and some that are just ok.
Panzerstorm
Rotterdam
Hamada
Al Sundan
Iwo Jima
Pacific Storm
Operation Underground
Devastation
I think those are great to good. The rest are ok to meh. I don't get the love for Arras, it's just a merry-go-round. Marita is the worst of the bunch, but it's not that bad, I think it does it's job but I don't miss playing it.
Also realizaed I'm about to get to 400 hours in this game. Sometimes it feels like it's the only thing I play lol
How feasible is to introduce an audio option to have language as "same as team" ? I would love to have German announcer playing as them, Japanese playing as them, American english as them, etc. without having to switch them
Panzerstorm
Rotterdam
Hamada
Al Sundan
Iwo Jima
Pacific Storm
Operation Underground
Devastation
I think those are great to good. The rest are ok to meh. I don't get the love for Arras, it's just a merry-go-round. Marita is the worst of the bunch, but it's not that bad, I think it does it's job but I don't miss playing it.
Also realizaed I'm about to get to 400 hours in this game. Sometimes it feels like it's the only thing I play lol
How feasible is to introduce an audio option to have language as "same as team" ? I would love to have German announcer playing as them, Japanese playing as them, American english as them, etc. without having to switch them
Oh, we are doing map rankings?
Theses are all Conquest.
Pacific Storm
Al Sudan
Mercury
Arras
Twisted Steel
Hamada
Panzerstorm
Iwo Jima
Rotterdam
Marita
Operation Underground
Really its only Fjell, Narvik, Devastation, and Aerodrome that I either don't like or are unremarkable.
I'm sure Wake Island will take that top spot though.
Theses are all Conquest.
Pacific Storm
Al Sudan
Mercury
Arras
Twisted Steel
Hamada
Panzerstorm
Iwo Jima
Rotterdam
Marita
Operation Underground
Really its only Fjell, Narvik, Devastation, and Aerodrome that I either don't like or are unremarkable.
I'm sure Wake Island will take that top spot though.
BF1 had a lot of issues. A LOT. I will list them so BFV fans dont think i am being ignorant about BF1's problems.
- Elites. Easy kills
- Behemoths. Easy Kills.
- Tanks. Easy Kills.
- Awful sector designs that made them impossible to capture in Operations.
- Grenade spam
Scoring was poor all around. Attacking team would get up to 3 tries to do the first map, 2 behemoths and if they won the first map they would get the 2x victory bonus. Meanwhile the defending team would get fewer points because they wouldnt be capturing as many flags in the first place, and then wouldnt get the 2x victory bonus until the second map which would usually finish within the first sector leaving them with a very small victory bonus. It's crazy how they never fixed this. Proof that they never play their own game.
And that is the biggest problem i have with BFV. there is no way any dev would be ok with playing this game. its just not fun. shooting doesnt feel good. killing people doesnt feel fun. Why did they take out the kill chirp that made BF1 so good? everyone is a sniper. Assault players with theirs semi auto rifles. Support players with their LMGs. Snipers of course with their sniper rifles. Time to death is all wrong. you cant fucking see any enemies until its too late. maps are too open. i played Iwo Jima yesterday for a good two hours. it sucks. absolutely random flag placements with little to no cover.
yes, BF1 chokepoints were bad, but the solution is NOT to have any chokepoints whatsoever. you cant have wide open maps in a mode like breathrough where you are supposed to advance and capture the flags at all cost. its infrurirating getting picked off over and over again. doesnt matter if you are flanking or rushing with your group. operation metro is pretty awful too. smoke everywhere. cant see anyone. it doesnt play like the BF4 operation metro.
you can probably fix this by having 40 player maps so you can actually flank every now and then, but DICE sucks and took out those 40 player operations in BF1. Again, they dont play their own game.
- Elites. Easy kills
- Behemoths. Easy Kills.
- Tanks. Easy Kills.
- Awful sector designs that made them impossible to capture in Operations.
- Grenade spam
Scoring was poor all around. Attacking team would get up to 3 tries to do the first map, 2 behemoths and if they won the first map they would get the 2x victory bonus. Meanwhile the defending team would get fewer points because they wouldnt be capturing as many flags in the first place, and then wouldnt get the 2x victory bonus until the second map which would usually finish within the first sector leaving them with a very small victory bonus. It's crazy how they never fixed this. Proof that they never play their own game.
And that is the biggest problem i have with BFV. there is no way any dev would be ok with playing this game. its just not fun. shooting doesnt feel good. killing people doesnt feel fun. Why did they take out the kill chirp that made BF1 so good? everyone is a sniper. Assault players with theirs semi auto rifles. Support players with their LMGs. Snipers of course with their sniper rifles. Time to death is all wrong. you cant fucking see any enemies until its too late. maps are too open. i played Iwo Jima yesterday for a good two hours. it sucks. absolutely random flag placements with little to no cover.
yes, BF1 chokepoints were bad, but the solution is NOT to have any chokepoints whatsoever. you cant have wide open maps in a mode like breathrough where you are supposed to advance and capture the flags at all cost. its infrurirating getting picked off over and over again. doesnt matter if you are flanking or rushing with your group. operation metro is pretty awful too. smoke everywhere. cant see anyone. it doesnt play like the BF4 operation metro.
you can probably fix this by having 40 player maps so you can actually flank every now and then, but DICE sucks and took out those 40 player operations in BF1. Again, they dont play their own game.
BF1 actually got the synergies between classes right as opposed to BFV where the assault class is so obviously better than everything else.
I played some Pacific for the first time this weekend. Breakthrough is awesome and the environments are fantastic. Felt great to leverage tools like smoke grenades to push into an objective rather than just brute force and I think that's one of the underappreciated highlights of Battlefield. Huge nest of enemy machine guns pinning us down and a couple smokes can neutralize them in a tactical way.
One thing that I noticed is that sometimes squad leaders will forget to give orders or forget to use their points. Yesterday, I took over a squad as we were about to lose and we were sitting on at least a V bomb if not more in points. Could've been huge if used earlier as we were a sliver away from capping both points just 5 minutes prior. I, as a squad member, can spam Request Order all day but what got me thinking is we really need the Commander position back. Just someone with a bird's eye view that can direct squads, issue orders, and direct their call-ins as well.
I'm curious as to the reasons for its removal from a design perspective. Was it too time intensive to get right? Abused by players? Not used enough? Maybe didn't have enough to do within the game to warrant an entire position. I have fond memories of a commander helping at the exact right moment in 2142 so maybe their could be some room for it to be re-added in future versions.
?????? the the gunplay (including TTK/TTD) in Battlefield V is one of it's superior features. They hit that sweet spot where you're not pouring bullets into people but you can still outplay. It's feels great when I did back-to-back games of Modern Warfare and Battlefield V yesterday.
One thing that I noticed is that sometimes squad leaders will forget to give orders or forget to use their points. Yesterday, I took over a squad as we were about to lose and we were sitting on at least a V bomb if not more in points. Could've been huge if used earlier as we were a sliver away from capping both points just 5 minutes prior. I, as a squad member, can spam Request Order all day but what got me thinking is we really need the Commander position back. Just someone with a bird's eye view that can direct squads, issue orders, and direct their call-ins as well.
I'm curious as to the reasons for its removal from a design perspective. Was it too time intensive to get right? Abused by players? Not used enough? Maybe didn't have enough to do within the game to warrant an entire position. I have fond memories of a commander helping at the exact right moment in 2142 so maybe their could be some room for it to be re-added in future versions.
?????? the the gunplay (including TTK/TTD) in Battlefield V is one of it's superior features. They hit that sweet spot where you're not pouring bullets into people but you can still outplay. It's feels great when I did back-to-back games of Modern Warfare and Battlefield V yesterday.
this x10000. I put hundreds of hours into that game. BFV didn't do it for me in the same way. I also don't understand why they didn't just copy and paste operations with the behemoths, such a great game mode
Many want to relive the war as accurately as possible.
Going prone with their skins blending into the environment. Lmao
A team with a half competent commander would smash a team without one in BF4 and there weren't that many people who seemed interested in playing that role. Very difficult to balance and I could imagine it would be worse now, players would just quit if they were on the side without the commander.
Do we know if a chapter 6 with new maps is coming? Eurogamer piece said no more maps in 2020 but can't find confirmation?
Edit: double checked the piece and was referring to no battlefield 6 until 2021, rather than no dlc next year. Apologies.
Edit: double checked the piece and was referring to no battlefield 6 until 2021, rather than no dlc next year. Apologies.
Last edited:
User Warned: Trolling
tldr:
I suck at this game and don't know how to play it and it's all evil DICE's fault
I havent seen posts this low effort since gamefaq. and my god, that gif is giving me aids.tldr:
I suck at this game and don't know how to play it and it's all evil DICE's fault
I loved BF1 for capturing the absolute meat grinder and frantic charges of WW1 battles. Purely as a Battlefield game it wasn't that great. More like a spinoff comparable to Battlefield Hardline.
The current squad system is way better than commanders in BF4.
I think BF is just not for you. Just play COD or CSGO, whatever.
It is ok not like games, but expecting the series to somehow morph to your whims, despite clearly going against what the majority wants, is dumb. You will never get your BF game. Don't come complaining about meatgrinder action and being unable to flank in Breakthrough... It is literally the design goal of this mode: nonstop action in a couple sections of the map. Conquest is what you want to play for movement and flanks...
You will never have fun with BF so why even bother.
And of course Elites were easy kills, killing Flame or MG kits was easier than killing normal soldiers. You see a noob in the Elite armor, thinking he was going to perform now, and you pop the rocket into him.
There is no info about 2020 yet, but the next battlefield comes out in 2021, so you can be sure we will get them
OP
OP
Yeah I thought so.
I've just re-read the quote I mentioned and it is referring to no new Battlefield game next year rather than content, apologies for the misunderstanding as I did think it was strange.
Sorry for that bud, I see it's a sensitive topic for you.....
OP
OP
I disagree. The assault class is an assault class now with assault weaponry and explosives.
Whereas the medic class which has the ability to heal itself and others has SMG's. I think that is better balanced. In BF1 the medics had very strong guns (many the best in the game) and the self heal ability.
I main medic in BFV (and I did in BF1) and I personally think V is better balanced. Assault's weakness is they can't always insta heal.
But I did have fun with BF. Played it for almost 400 hours and was pretty good at it. you can look at my BF1 stats here.
BF1 had chokepoints in operations which was the mode i almost exclusively played, and was the definition of meatgrinder action. you could still flank as long as you had enough skill to kill 4-5 people by yourself on the flank. The problem here is that maps here are way too open. in BF1, there was a map in the russian DLC that was very similar. Set on a flat farm with zero cover and it was pretty much impossible to take. i feel like every map in this game is like that. player visibility, time to death, attrition mechanics (no regen health is absolutely bizarre), 64 player servers, and long range guns just exacerbate the problem. in retrospect, the gun balance in BF1 was perfect because assault only got SMGs, medics got small magazine semi rifles, and support was the only one with long range rifles that didnt do so well in short range.
p.s i meant Elites were way to easy to get kills with. and i only bothered because everyone said the latest maps were a return to form for BF. youtubers and era posters raved about it so i figured why not give it another chance. i find it bizarre that Dice did a complete 180 of their most popular Battlefield ever to give their most hardcore gamers what they want and the same youtubers were still not happy. its clear that there is a problem because no one is happy.
I've always had a knack for actually tracking and shooting with weapons in FPS/TPS. But put me in a vehicle and I'm crashing into the planes in this game and I'm flying into walls, trees, oceans. I even have trouble trying to control tanks.
feel like Halo had the easiest learning curve for operating vehicles.
feel like Halo had the easiest learning curve for operating vehicles.
Of all the things to complain about in BFV the TTK is not one of them. The gunplay and TTK are the best they have ever been in the series. It's right in the sweet spot of things feeling punchy but not turning into a who-sees-who-first-wins fest (CODMW).
Honestly the Gunplay is 99% of the reason I keep coming back to this game despite the anemic content updates.
Honestly the Gunplay is 99% of the reason I keep coming back to this game despite the anemic content updates.
