• 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.

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,922
They use them because they're the best SMGs in the game by a country mile, and no matter how you spec them can outgun any other SMG. The only weapon that comes close to their killing power, without or without light bolt, is the Zk-383. And that's only competitive with light bolt.

So make them harder to control? In what world is "make an iconic .45 sub gun feel like shit" preferable? Take away the god tier hip fire for starters.

Increasing the BTK just means accuracy becomes more important, which favors skilled players. This is not going to go the way DICE thinks it's going to go.
 

Trisc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,489
So make them harder to control? In what world is "make an iconic .45 sub gun feel like shit" preferable? Take away the god tier hip fire for starters.

Increasing the BTK just means accuracy becomes more important, which favors skilled players. This is not going to go the way DICE thinks it's going to go.
Accuracy is already important. Being able to control the recoil of the Suomi and Thompson, which is incredibly easy to do, means you'll kill at the same ranges as any other SMG in the game, but faster. This is the entire point of the BTK changes, which is to create niches within weapon archetypes so you can't just equip an all-rounder and be done. Right now, I see very little in the way of weapon variety, because people are focusing on using specific weapons due to them being statistically superior. Right now, what matters is fire rate, because recoil control is extremely easy, and nearly every gun within a weapon class has the same damage profile.
 

SpottieO

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,618
I legitimately get the concerns about the proximity spotting system. It's genuinely kind of a strange idea thing to introduce.

But the gun changes? I think there is obviously issues with weapons and effectiveness at ranges beyond where they should be used. I don't think that altering BTK (is that what this is being called) means that they are altering the gunplay of BFV.

Having CTE would definitely be nice though so we could try these changes rather than argue about them without understanding how it feels.
 

Deleted member 135

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,682
So make them harder to control? In what world is "make an iconic .45 sub gun feel like shit" preferable? Take away the god tier hip fire for starters.

Increasing the BTK just means accuracy becomes more important, which favors skilled players. This is not going to go the way DICE thinks it's going to go.
Who gives a fuck if its "iconic"? What matters is that its balanced, and right now it clearly isn't.
 

Ostron

Member
Mar 23, 2019
1,953
Accuracy is already important. Being able to control the recoil of the Suomi and Thompson, which is incredibly easy to do, means you'll kill at the same ranges as any other SMG in the game, but faster. This is the entire point of the BTK changes, which is to create niches within weapon archetypes so you can't just equip an all-rounder and be done. Right now, I see very little in the way of weapon variety, because people are focusing on using specific weapons due to them being statistically superior. Right now, what matters is fire rate, because recoil control is extremely easy, and nearly every gun within a weapon class has the same damage profile.
Yeah honestly the balance pass is needed. People are complaining about weapon balance, saying that it doesn't happen is disingenuous.

People are forgetting to mention the M1907 in these RoF/BTK discussions, it is a beast and always has been. In competitive you see two assault rifles, STGs and 1907s, maybe a Sturmgewehr here and there (semi autos are banned, hehe). 1907s can compete with SMGs (suomi is banned, but thompsons and the ZK) and STGs are a bit better at range due to hitting heads and will outclass SMGs. For support there is the FG, I think some may use the lewis if it's not banned. Anyway competitive means very little, especially in BFV, but there are go to weapons that are the most effective leaving everything else in the dust, as the stats will tell you.

Especially SMGs are in a poor state. There are three to use, but the difference isn't really that huge. Sure you can use the EMPs and the like, but why would you? It's a different skin and your gun is ever so slightly worse at everything you can do with thompson, suomi, and the ZK. I'd love to play around with differnet types of SMGs that do feel unique, but that option isn't really there.

So hopefully it turns out well, it certainly seems good on paper.

The spotting change however will probably bring ton of headaches. Wait until people are incorrectly spotted in grass or through objects and smoke. That is one area that does not need to be tampered with any more, and certainly not by auto-spotting enemies within view. That being said, plenty of good games, like Enemy Territories Quake Wars, had red doritos and wasn't any worse because of it. So maybe it's won't be bad here once you get used to it... wait and see. I don't think it's needed but we'll see if the game is worse because of it.
 

Trisc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,489
Pretty much. The stats back up DICE's reasoning, and the fan backlash is totally unwarranted. /r/BattlefieldV is usually a shithole, but with the news of 5.2, it's been especially bad: karma farmers posting "lmao mg42 in 5.2 will take like a hundred bullets" and getting thousands of upvotes. They don't want meaningful discussion on the patch, they just don't want it in the game.

I agree with the sentiment that it needs to go into a CTE first, but there's very little doubt in my mind that this patch is both needed and will be good for the game. People screaming about DICE pandering to "Christmas noobs" and whatnot is so mind numbingly stupid, I don't even know where to begin. It's as if one person decided to make shit up that's completely fucking wrong because it sounded right to them, someone else heard it passed off as legitimate reasoning and believe it, and things spiraled out of control from there.

It ticks me off. Game dev is hard! DICE has the data to prove these balance changes are necessary, and if you want to see the stats for weapons to understand why the BTK changes are necessary (not the TTK, because they've said time and again that the goal is to create new effective ranges for weapons while maintaining their old TTK within those ranges), you can go to Sym.gg and compare every AR, every SMG, every LMG, every MMG. You'll find that their RPMs are basically the only thing that actually matters, since they all do the same damage.

This post is mostly just me ranting, Os. It's not directed at you.
The spotting change however will probably bring ton of headaches. Wait until people are incorrectly spotted in grass or through objects and smoke. That is one area that does not need to be tampered with any more, and certainly not by auto-spotting enemies within view. That being said, plenty of good games, like Enemy Territories Quake Wars, had red doritos and wasn't any worse because of it. So maybe it's won't be bad here once you get used to it... wait and see. I don't think it's needed but we'll see if the game is worse because of it.
I agree. I think this is a particularly weird decision that won't solve the problem of visibility in places where soldiers should stick out. Instead, it'll likely punish soldiers who are actually camouflaging themselves in the environment at a distance. I'm skeptical as to whether the change from the existing 8 meters (people act as if this is a new feature, when it's not) to 15 meters is going to be as substantial as backlash would have you believe. Given the BFV community has shown it's completely unable to understand positive change (BTK changes) from negative change (2018 TTK changes), I'm for once just going to err on my own gut feeling: this is a mistake, and this will be the change DICE will revert or reduce.
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,556
The problem seems that DICE has shown only nerfed weapons, which suggests that the overall lethality is going to go down.
They didn't show it because it doesn't seems to exist :
Why is your first response to OP Weapons to Nerf stuff rather than Buff stuff?
[...]
Many weapons are receiving buffs to elements that are not damage.
It's about doing less damage ( at different range ), but people will have better result if they didn't manage recoil.

But it's true that it doesn't help that we have yet to see the full range of the change.... something Dice should share already so we can really know if what some of us fear is true or not.
 

Heromanz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,202
I remember the last time that I stood a ttk change it was a disaster. That's why most players are apprehensive about this change.
 
Last edited:

kratos2412

Member
Nov 3, 2018
740
Germany
Yes. Watch the scoreboard during a lopsided conquest match. The guys on the losing team will have extraordinarily low kills, deaths, and raw score. It's because the others quit out mid round and were slowly replaced. I have never left a closely contested game where my team stood a chance and lost by 50 tickets or so. The vast majority of the times I quit a night of BF early is due to a hacker or getting curbstomped over a series of rounds where the teams don't scramble.

The game sorts new players to the server in an A/B format, so if your team is down 12 guys and the others 3, you'll have to wait for six people to join before you start to make up the difference. It's incredibly dumb.

I left most conquest games because its Boring.
I dont know whats going on, game design is meeh and cant see shit etc. etc.

Conquest got fucked up big time.
But im glad you all are enjoying Breaktrough.
 

WillyFive

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,980
I left most conquest games because its Boring.
I dont know whats going on, game design is meeh and cant see shit etc. etc.

Conquest got fucked up big time.
But im glad you all are enjoying Breaktrough.

This has been a problem with DICE games for years. They have the most primitive matchmaking in the AAA industry.
 

SapientWolf

Member
Nov 6, 2017
6,565
I remember the last time that I stood a ttk change it was a disaster. That's why most players are apprehensive about this change.
I actually don't mind a change to BTK for automatics but I think any attempt at a quick fix is only going to expose other underlying balance issues. BF4 labbed several balance changes for months in CTE servers before they rolled them out and the end result was huge overall improvements in the gunplay.

If suppression was more of a factor then maybe some of the automatics wouldn't feel so redundant. But I think the community would push back on any change to that as well. The core problem is that BFV is such a meat and potatoes infantry focused game that it lives and dies on its gunplay.
 

Scary_Larry

Banned
Jan 3, 2019
610
I left most conquest games because its Boring.
I dont know whats going on, game design is meeh and cant see shit etc. etc.

Conquest got fucked up big time.
But im glad you all are enjoying Breaktrough.

Bought this game last night and that was my impressions as well. Was hoping this one would bring back the fun of 3 and 4, but this game is rough. Very rough.
 

Hystzen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,401
Manchester UK
Man I actually miss Levolution and the destruction from 3 and 4. Dropping a skyscraper or blowing up a road with gas pipes was damn fun and twisted the level design. The mudslide in lumphini garden was the best changed elevation of the whole map.

the next bf needs bring it back and push it further
 

elenarie

Game Developer
Verified
Jun 10, 2018
9,823
Sounds good to me.

Man that sub got super toxic very quickly.

It's just not healthy going there. :/ Stress and negativity is constant.

Man I actually miss Levolution and the destruction from 3 and 4. Dropping a skyscraper or blowing up a road with gas pipes was damn fun and twisted the level design. The mudslide in lumphini garden was the best changed elevation of the whole map.

the next bf needs bring it back and push it further

Different games, different flavours.

BF4 had levelution / levolution / whatever we even used to call it, I keep forgetting. Large set pieces, but mostly scripted ones that always resulted in the same outcome.
BF1 shifted the focus towards large player-controlled behemoths vehicles with much more dynamic destruction.
BFV upped the dynamic destruction even more, added bullet penetration, and also player-controlled artillery strikes and massive rocket explosions.

In an ideal world, it would be nice to combine all three. :p But things are not always ideal, haha.
 
Oct 26, 2017
17,383
I think I'm gonna take a break from this game for a while until there are more maps, I have no interest in the game outside of the Pacific content as of now
 

Trisc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,489
Levolution wasn't a bad mechanic, but it definitely screamed "it's the next gen, check out what this hardware can do!" With time, it became less and less interesting, because it was plainly a gimmick. It often made maps play worse, like with Siege of Shanghai and Lancang Dam. I much preferred non-scripted moments that the map design demanded of players, such as falling back in Damavand Peak to dive off the helipad into the map below.

Sidenote: I'd love to see Damavand Peak reimagined in BFV, a la Operation Underground and Pacific Storm.
 

Skyfireblaze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,257
It's just not healthy going there. :/ Stress and negativity is constant.



Different games, different flavours.

BF4 had levelution / levolution / whatever we even used to call it, I keep forgetting. Large set pieces, but mostly scripted ones that always resulted in the same outcome.
BF1 shifted the focus towards large player-controlled behemoths vehicles with much more dynamic destruction.
BFV upped the dynamic destruction even more, added bullet penetration, and also player-controlled artillery strikes and massive rocket explosions.

In an ideal world, it would be nice to combine all three. :p But things are not always ideal, haha.

Sorry to hear that you all over there have to endure such a toxicity and stress because of such online communities, it's one thing to be dissatisfied with a game but communities like over there take it far too far :(

As for different games and different flavors, it's too bad that you can't have all at once but yeah I can see how that's not feasible or ideal. Personally I like where BFV went in terms of gameplay, it's the best the gameplay has ever been but I wish the next game would dial back on the "seriousness" of it all. BF1 and BFV almost feel like they want to be war documentary at times with a very clean, minimal and almost sterile feel to menus, very cruel with death-cries and orchestral music. That might also be down to the eras depicted and I know war is anything other than fun or nice and no matter how you spin it something abhorrent cruel and brutal that nobody deserves to live through though to me that kind of depiction kind of clashes with a multiplayer game a bit where I just want to have fun.

I think this kind of presentation is all fine for single-player segments but for multiplayer I hope the next Battlefield goes back to a more video-gamey not as serious feel like BF2-4 have been. Basically, give me that kind of atmosphere and attitude back:



Still war yes but more game focused and clearly a game that doesn't take itself too serious.
 

Jimnymebob

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,638
I've finally picked the full version of this up, and I'm liking it so far. It feels a lot better than BF1, for sure, but mainly because I'm glad there are some decent automatic weapons.

The only disappointing thing so far is the fact that I was having trouble getting into a full breakthrough match, which is why sold me on it during the free weekend, but I guess that's because that CoD domination style variant of Conquest is a weekly challenge. Speaking of, I've won every match of that so far, which I'll never do once I get to the win a match of that game mode challenge.

With the starter guns, talking about the Sten here mostly, are their stats so good because they're good weapons, or is it just because they have the 4 ability slots already filled, and filling other guns slots will bring their stats to to that level?
 

Zareth

Member
Oct 25, 2017
429
I've finally picked the full version of this up, and I'm liking it so far. It feels a lot better than BF1, for sure, but mainly because I'm glad there are some decent automatic weapons.

The only disappointing thing so far is the fact that I was having trouble getting into a full breakthrough match, which is why sold me on it during the free weekend, but I guess that's because that CoD domination style variant of Conquest is a weekly challenge. Speaking of, I've won every match of that so far, which I'll never do once I get to the win a match of that game mode challenge.

With the starter guns, talking about the Sten here mostly, are their stats so good because they're good weapons, or is it just because they have the 4 ability slots already filled, and filling other guns slots will bring their stats to to that level?
Mostly because they are already maxed out. There are a lot of SMGs that are significantly better once you get them unlocked completely such as the Suomi, ZK and Thompson. Although the new patch coming might close that gap.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,960
Hey guys, I have played Battlefront II a bit recently. As much as BFV sucks in some ways, but Battlefront II is just another world of trash.

Holy shit a tank controls like a potato in there. What the fuck? You have a small pebble in the way and the walkers/character cannot overcome it. If you know that scene from Robocop where the fat-robot gets stuck on the stairs, that is Battlefront II.
Characters are all clunky and slow, but not when you have to jetpack or dash as a hero. The game is slower than Gears, but it has movement abilities are like in OW. UI is even worse, I opened a lootbox and it was empty... People just shoot at each other in the corridor, 10x10, braindead map design.

In conclusion, don't complain about BFV too much. With this revelation, BFV turned out alright.

In other news, BFV seems to return to the pre-Pacific levels of activity on the XBL charts.
 
Last edited:

Jimnymebob

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,638
Mostly because they are already maxed out. There are a lot of SMGs that are significantly better once you get them unlocked completely such as the Suomi, ZK and Thompson. Although the new patch coming might close that gap.

Right, OK. I remember having fun with the Sten back in the beta, and I found it OK when I tried it last night, but I wouldn't mind giving some of the other SMGs a try, now I know that they're not universally bad compared to that in the long run.

I've never enjoyed playing medic in BF, which is strange as I always gravitate towards support/healer classes on games, but I think they've finally nailed how they work here. That being said, I could do without the passive aggressive thank you command spam because I've not revived a guy with 2 grenades on his body who died in the middle of the open lol.
 

terrible

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,296
Toronto
If done right I think the weapon changes will make the game more fun. Having more time to figure out where you're getting shot from in a game with visibility like this is a good thing to me. It'll lower the effectiveness of defensive play by a bit and moving around the maps will be a bit easier. If they eventually remove health attrition the pace of the game will be real nice ;)
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,556
I remember playing it in Duo with my friend.
Then cheesing the ToW firestorm objectives at night solo where there was 16-20 players server, and never touching it ever again because of the removal of Duo.

At least the map assets were put to good use, and allowed them to make a.......... squad conquest/TDM map. lol