-
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
There are a lot of things they should have just copied from BF1.
Well to be fair I did play the game a few days ago with friends and we still had a blast, I still think the Pacific Playlist is great but I haven't played the game long enough overall nor am I good enough to have a founded opinion on things like TTK and bugs. We did encounter the one or other cheater on PC but playing on PC for years and years that's not something I'm fussed about, we simply left the game and went for another server. Annoying for sure but not mood-breaking for me.
All I can say is, I really like to play BFV, especially with friends but only on the pacific maps, I loved BF2, BF 2142, BC2, BF3 and BF4 and I really wish DICE would go back into that direction. Just pure multiplayer fun and craziness witrhout all this war documentary dressing with dramatic music and voices and whatnot. I sadly never really had the chance to play Hardline but I really didn't like BF1, for me it leaned far too heavy into the war documentary thing I just mentioned and I just didn't like the settings and maps save for 2 or 3. What they should keep from BFV though is the physicality gameplay and more emphasis on squads and teamplay.
I miss the sweet spot sniper mechanic. That's another thing they should have kept. It made snipers actually stay on the move rather than just staying in one place in the back the whole time. Snipers had to constantly move up and back depending on where the big fights were happening. It was nice.
BFV: Recon with semi-auto UZI.
When they implemented Trench Carbine, or whatever it was called 40 bullet semi-auto Recon weapon, it was really strong. You could drop 5 fuckers with one magazine, perfect weapon for close/mid range. Or so I remember?
When they implemented Trench Carbine, or whatever it was called 40 bullet semi-auto Recon weapon, it was really strong. You could drop 5 fuckers with one magazine, perfect weapon for close/mid range. Or so I remember?
Took an Origin trial to play this for a bit as I thought there was no way any of the complaining about this game was in good faith. End result is that I fucking hate nearly everything about it and I'm delighted that I didn't waste any actual money on it. It's like the culmination of nearly every single thing I've disliked in the Battlefield series since 2142, all neatly wrapped into one giant package.
The movement is still a mess, since BC2 it has had you getting stuck on all sorts of random bits of scenery, and once again the same happens here. There's also still randomness all over the place with places you climbed fine the last time suddenly just making you jump against it fruitlessly. Which has been an issue since like BF3 and if anything has just gotten worse since then.
The performance is surprisingly poor. BF1 ran mostly fine on my machine, this game doesn't look a lot better but runs significantly worse, with lots of unexplained frame drops. The audio glitches out often too, sometimes you don't hear an enemy's footsteps at all, while other times they're so loud all around you it's impossible to place them. And on several occasions I've heard audio looping endlessly after planes crash etc. Cars coming up behind you are sometimes silent until they're right on you.
The team balance is completely non existent, there has not been one close match of conquest since I started playing. It's simply one team stomping the other to death, time after time until 1/4 of the server just quits rather than suffer any longer.
The hit detection feels inconsistent. Earlier I shot at a guy with his back to me and hit a Garand headshot and got the orange popup, fired again as he turned with my crosshair square over him and nothing happened twice while he looked around for me without even moving from the window he was in. On other occasions, I've landed body shots on players who literally have nothing but their head visible.
Many maps feel terrible to me in Conquest. Hamada in particular is the worst BF conquest map I've ever played, it's even worse than Locker, the Iron Gator and Metro (which was remade again, for reasons that I will never understand). It epitomises the complete loss of any kind of pacing from Conquest since around BF3 in favour of this massive random, unreadable mess where capturing flags means nothing. It's also the opposite of half the bad maps lately in the series, trading in chokepoint heavy grindfests for not being able to move 3 inches in any direction after spawning because if you want to move anywhere there's at least 500 sightlines looking right at you.
Tried Breakthrough instead and really didn't like it at all. Maybe it needs smaller player counts becase chucking 64 players toward 1-2 points is just a recipe for disaster. It's just endless explosive spam for people playing the objective while everyone else forms a neat circle around it just deathmatching.
Most teammates seem to have no game sense at all. You can cut swathes through groups of players with tunnel vision. You can get shot behind a group of friendlies with 100% certainty that not a single one will think to turn around and check out why there's a dead person there all over a sudden.
The game has little going for it over any other BF game I've played, except that it maybe doesn't have the powerups and "hey your team is losing, how would you like the ability to click on a map and make people die" stuff that BF1 had. The series has totally lost its identity by this point for me, it's just this brainless mess for 30 minutes at time with absolutely no pacing going on whatsoever. The worst thing is that the ingredients are all here for a decent experience, it just massively fluffs its lines at every possible opportunity. The back and forth on weapon balancing and TTK I've read about feels like the most apt thing possible for this game to be honest, it just has no identity or feeling of direction at all.
The movement is still a mess, since BC2 it has had you getting stuck on all sorts of random bits of scenery, and once again the same happens here. There's also still randomness all over the place with places you climbed fine the last time suddenly just making you jump against it fruitlessly. Which has been an issue since like BF3 and if anything has just gotten worse since then.
The performance is surprisingly poor. BF1 ran mostly fine on my machine, this game doesn't look a lot better but runs significantly worse, with lots of unexplained frame drops. The audio glitches out often too, sometimes you don't hear an enemy's footsteps at all, while other times they're so loud all around you it's impossible to place them. And on several occasions I've heard audio looping endlessly after planes crash etc. Cars coming up behind you are sometimes silent until they're right on you.
The team balance is completely non existent, there has not been one close match of conquest since I started playing. It's simply one team stomping the other to death, time after time until 1/4 of the server just quits rather than suffer any longer.
The hit detection feels inconsistent. Earlier I shot at a guy with his back to me and hit a Garand headshot and got the orange popup, fired again as he turned with my crosshair square over him and nothing happened twice while he looked around for me without even moving from the window he was in. On other occasions, I've landed body shots on players who literally have nothing but their head visible.
Many maps feel terrible to me in Conquest. Hamada in particular is the worst BF conquest map I've ever played, it's even worse than Locker, the Iron Gator and Metro (which was remade again, for reasons that I will never understand). It epitomises the complete loss of any kind of pacing from Conquest since around BF3 in favour of this massive random, unreadable mess where capturing flags means nothing. It's also the opposite of half the bad maps lately in the series, trading in chokepoint heavy grindfests for not being able to move 3 inches in any direction after spawning because if you want to move anywhere there's at least 500 sightlines looking right at you.
Tried Breakthrough instead and really didn't like it at all. Maybe it needs smaller player counts becase chucking 64 players toward 1-2 points is just a recipe for disaster. It's just endless explosive spam for people playing the objective while everyone else forms a neat circle around it just deathmatching.
Most teammates seem to have no game sense at all. You can cut swathes through groups of players with tunnel vision. You can get shot behind a group of friendlies with 100% certainty that not a single one will think to turn around and check out why there's a dead person there all over a sudden.
The game has little going for it over any other BF game I've played, except that it maybe doesn't have the powerups and "hey your team is losing, how would you like the ability to click on a map and make people die" stuff that BF1 had. The series has totally lost its identity by this point for me, it's just this brainless mess for 30 minutes at time with absolutely no pacing going on whatsoever. The worst thing is that the ingredients are all here for a decent experience, it just massively fluffs its lines at every possible opportunity. The back and forth on weapon balancing and TTK I've read about feels like the most apt thing possible for this game to be honest, it just has no identity or feeling of direction at all.
Last edited:
I heard Pacific content is so good, it's not, it's trash, the reason why you think it's good because the rest of the game is garbage, and when they finally made something slightly better than trash, you thought it was good...
Uninstalling again, EA/DICE sold us a lemon, how you don't have auto balance or switch teams 18 months later, PATHETIC..
Uninstalling again, EA/DICE sold us a lemon, how you don't have auto balance or switch teams 18 months later, PATHETIC..
The Pacific maps are easier on the eye and a little closer to what I think a lot of people were hoping for in terms of cosmetics. There's also that odd thing where people for some reason need to have heard of the battle to enjoy a map.
I do think a big part of the good reputation is that the Pacific brought a lot of people back who were willing to move a bit more, it looked closer to Battlefield trailers than the rest of the maps. I'm not sure that's still true, although apart from Iwo Jima the maps tend not to have the ridiculous elevated spots for players to go and not do much.
I do think a big part of the good reputation is that the Pacific brought a lot of people back who were willing to move a bit more, it looked closer to Battlefield trailers than the rest of the maps. I'm not sure that's still true, although apart from Iwo Jima the maps tend not to have the ridiculous elevated spots for players to go and not do much.
Pacific was cool and all, but it fell off rather quickly. It didn't help that it started with two maps, and you had to play them over and over and over again. Good maps, but not that good for 24/7ing them.
Nah it just isn't the same. There is just something really badass about running around with a bolt action iron sights sniper rifle in BF1 and just picking people off at range. It was so damn satisfying and fun to do. It made me feel like I was actually helping the team as a sniper instead of just sitting in the ass end of nowhere like most people do in 4 and 5.
Iron sights sniping btw is another thing that BFV sucked at implementing since it was halfway impossible to spot an enemy that was 15ft away let alone accurately track someone at range.
OP
OP
I had the same feeling. The Pacific content was the best content we had seen so far. The maps were good. The guns felt great. The vehicles felt great. We got the Bazooka and the anti-air launcher which actually felt like a good answers to vehicle campers. It was FAR from perfect, but it felt like BFV was finally starting to become something worth playing.Strange but I really miss the global for selecting operations in BF1.
Also this
But NOPE. Dice decided to flip the playerbase the bird.
Yep, it was 2 weeks of bliss with a glimmer of hope to turn things around. Then 5.2 happened, got dragged on for months, reverted back to near pre-5.2 TTK, then the announcement to longer update the game. Now it's despair everywhere.
Yeah I know. So much potential down the drain over a relatively small number of issues. If they had released the game without the moronic assignment system, the buggy UI, and terrible matchmaking problems the game could have been something great. Oh and if they hadn't wasted god knows how many resources on a Battle Royal mode that nobody even asked for.
Imagine if they hadn't put in the assignment system and instead of making a BR mode they instead put all those resources and man power towards fixing the various issues with the UI and Matchmaking.
I really hope that the person who gave 5.2 the go-ahead isn't in a decision making position anymore......
I imagine that alot of people either got demoted, transferred, or outright fired. This game was a massive PR shitstorm from the start. And it has undoubtedly dragged Dice's reputation through the mud in the eyes of alot of people. I know it has for me at least.
Dice had always been known for buggy Battlefield games, but the gameplay itself was always absolutely amazing underneath it all. The sound design as well was always top notch. Dice is among the best in the industry at that. And so the games would be a mess at the start, but Dice would always get it under control after some time. And they would ALWAYS support the game for as long as they could. They did that with 3 heading into 4 and 4 heading into 1 and with 1 heading into 5.
Remember during the lead up to BFV when they started handing out the BF1 map packs for free? That way everyone could enjoy the content before the playerbase migrated to 5? That's the Dice that I loved. It's why I have been willing to Day 1 all their Battlefield games since I started playing them.
This whole decision is just so god damn disappointing. I'm never gonna Day 1 a game of theirs again after this. They have completely lost my trust.
Dice had always been known for buggy Battlefield games, but the gameplay itself was always absolutely amazing underneath it all. The sound design as well was always top notch. Dice is among the best in the industry at that. And so the games would be a mess at the start, but Dice would always get it under control after some time. And they would ALWAYS support the game for as long as they could. They did that with 3 heading into 4 and 4 heading into 1 and with 1 heading into 5.
Remember during the lead up to BFV when they started handing out the BF1 map packs for free? That way everyone could enjoy the content before the playerbase migrated to 5? That's the Dice that I loved. It's why I have been willing to Day 1 all their Battlefield games since I started playing them.
This whole decision is just so god damn disappointing. I'm never gonna Day 1 a game of theirs again after this. They have completely lost my trust.
Star Wars Battlefront II is also getting its last major content update tomorrow. I have a feeling that both SWBF2 and BFV are not longer going to receive major content updates because from here on its all hands on deck for BF6 (and probably SWBF3). With DICE being work from home it would have made it even harder to work on 3/4 games simultaneously.
I enjoyed my time with BFV, especially the Pacific and Greek maps, I still think it has the best gunplay and movement of any FPS on the market and any Battlefield game overall. I'll keep coming back to it until BF6 is out (assuming I don't hate it like I hated BF1).
I enjoyed my time with BFV, especially the Pacific and Greek maps, I still think it has the best gunplay and movement of any FPS on the market and any Battlefield game overall. I'll keep coming back to it until BF6 is out (assuming I don't hate it like I hated BF1).
Dice would have to be absolutely insane in order to waste time on another battle royale that people don't want.
Yeah, it's really irritating to see people acting everywhere like that the game cease to exist. Are we so used to the GaaS treadmill nowadays that once a dev even announces there won't be no more (big/real) content that we treat it as dead? It's not like BFV is a subscription-based game where you invested maybe hundreds of bucks over the course of the past few years and expected it to go on for a decade (okay, some may have spend money on MTX but that's their choice and everyone knows from history that BF is not a franchise that goes on for decades like WoW).
I remember the times of CoD 1 when it's gotten two free content patches (new maps) and a fee-based addon "Global Offensive" which added new mechanics, a new but shorter campaign and again new maps. Another content patch after that and that was it. And we played that game for years. Sure there was mods and custom maps back then but me and many others played the original on standard servers, way after CoD2's release.
Even when CoD4 was released I took another look into CoD1 and found servers and people still playing the game; this was six years after the original CoD. Maybe because it was such a great game and maybe no one will play BFV in three years' time because many people don't think the same about BFV. Fair point. But before I go on let me slide in here that I'm no BF fan (and I think that fandom more often than not brings out the worst in people) and I definitely played BFV less than BF1, 4 and 3, 2, Vietnam and 42. Yeah, I played a lot of BF games, some more, some less but I haven't spend more than 200 hours on a single BF games because I usually have a very diverse set of games and genres and switch back and forth.
So I'm not a fan of DICE or BF in general, and it's not that I want specifically Battlefield V to "stay alive" and I don't want to argue away any concerns for the game or its flaws. I'm more of "philanthropist of gaming" who wants games in general not be killed off and who wants people to enjoy and play games together. So this is not to ignore the shit DICE has done, it is to still find the fun and be more optimistic and positive despite of that.
I know that ranting is easy, especially nowadays where there's money and clicks to be made with rants, and it's been proven over time that those (negative) videos are heavily favoured by YouTube and/or the viewers. It doesn't have to be like that, though.
So, with that out of the way I still think BFV is a fun game to play! Even watching some YouTubers or friends playing makes me already going back to enjoy it for a hours. Getting kills, capturing objectives, taking down vehicles is still a blast. People think they have no control over it and it is ONLY up to the devs to keep a game alive. Sure, providing regular content is a good basis and of course they need to keep their servers alive. However, games in the past have shown that updates alone is not saving a game either.
Although a dev can do great on their own to keep a game alive (as in having a healthy player base), it's also the people that keeps a game alive. You can still play it. You can still play it in a years time and you're the community and the player base that is also needed for others to enjoy it because then there are plenty of servers. If you have fun with it, keep playing it, keep talking about, keep doing YouTube videos that doesn't tell interested people "It's dead, Jim" so you accelerate its "death" on top of DICEs actions. Yes, DICE is to blame for a fucking a lot, of how they lack vision, how they listened to the wrong people, how they didn't deliver what most people wanted and as for many devs you're right to think they sabotaged themselves.
However, that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it anymore (or maybe you haven't enjoy it since its start or somewhere along the last couple of years or months, but that is a different story and you probably will have moved on long time ago). Because the thing is, for all its flaws, it's still a very unique game that incorporates huge battles (that isn't battle royale with all its tropes such as no real respawn, RNG) with infantry and vehicles. I still like CoD for it's short action-bursts in arena-like fights. But I've never seen them as competition because both games deliver such a different and unique experience. There are games like Hell Let Loose, Post Scriptum, etc. but they go for a very ultra-realistic approach which might not everyone's cup of tea and have less than 2.000 and 500 players respectively. That's not quite the same as BF.
You don't need psychological manipulative GaaS practices to enjoy a game and you don't need the promise of years of ongoing content updates. It sure helps and maybe people who already stopped playing it somewhen were hoping for the next big thing that makes them play it again – okay, not everyone wins, that sucks and I'm sorry if the game turned out not what many people wanted.
But there are still people having fun and when you stopped for other reasons than having no fun with it, you can always go back and enjoy it. It doesn't have to be the "saddest thing" you've ever bought and I know that I'm perhaps going against the general internet sentiment here and seeing all the other comments on Reddit, YouTube, etc. it's easy for everyone to chime in and do the same. If you're enjoying Warzone or CoD or any other game right now than this is great. Having a great time is always better than... having not.
It's just that I think you can still have a great time with BFV, too. Go get your friends and conquest the shit out of Iwo Jima, Twisted Steel, Rotterdam and the like.
Bad post. The game you used as a comparison point launched with more and dramatically better content than BFV will end with, wasnt insanely bug ridden, didnt run like trash, wasnt devoid of cheat protection, had team balance, had working sound, had working hit detection and netcode etc etc etc.
Content is only one of the issues people are complaining about WRT end of support.
And I pointed it out that the game still, despite the lack of (future) content isn't as dead as many people and/or YouTubers colour it and then you picked one thing, a comparison, turned to technical issues (beyond content) like sound and performance and now circled back to content (which wouldn't fix the technical issues you pointed out, hence my question). So I'm at a loss here now, but it's okay, I've said everything I wanted to say.
I didnt circle away from or back to anything. The problems with BFV are both content and game quality, both of which will now remain in their current state. For some reason you brought up a game for comparison that shares neither problem to somehow prove a point that makes no sense.
Most people expected the game to have a balanced matchmaking. There is none, and with the game going into the maintenance mode in June, there will never be.
The announcement was disappointing in two ways:
• There is no new content since Feb, and the leftover scraps will be delivered in June
• Core problems haven't been fixed, and they will never be
30 vs 20 starts of the game, GO being pointless, Firestorm dropping 2s into 4s, planes tanking the anti-air tank and one-shotting it. The potential for the great game will never be realized, and I think a lot of the people still expected something after the numerous messages from DICE how they aren't going to abandon BFV.
It's a horrible weapon type and one that, in my opinion, has needed a complete reworking since the game was released. A lot of it is due to visibility issues and bipod issues.
They. Better. Fucking. NOT. Be working on a Warzone copy.
They need to get their house in order first. Make a great BF game first and foremost.
It worked out for COD because their house has been in order more or less since 2007.
The next game should have no gameplay unlocks whatsoever. Every single gun, gadget, specialization, and (ugh) weapon attachment should be available from minute one.
Cosmetic unlocks only.
That said I really hope they don't go back to the BF4 level of weapon attachments or even worse, try to emulate CODMW's gunsmith. I fucking hate attachments, I think the specialization system in BFV was near-perfect.
Cosmetic unlocks only.
That said I really hope they don't go back to the BF4 level of weapon attachments or even worse, try to emulate CODMW's gunsmith. I fucking hate attachments, I think the specialization system in BFV was near-perfect.
the bipod not the issue it could be perfect and still wouldn't make any sense the game simply isn't designed for that type of combat outside of certain areas in certain game modes m
Basically every Battlefield Youtuber is asking for BF4 attachments to return.
The most maddening thing about Firestorm is that EA already had a successful Battle Royale game, and they wanted to get another finger in that pie for some reason. Without also being F2P, Firestorm wasn't ever going to reach the same heights as Apex. I don't think it tanked the game, but it didn't help.
I agree so much. It just adds to many variables that distract from actually playing the game.
Ideally I'd also want there to be no cosmetic customization whatsoever because it nearly always looks ridiculous and disrupts the visual identity of the game. I have a feeling they will choose (or rather already chose) the setting of the next game based on how well they can thematically integrate paid cosmetics. Clearly the past two game's settings did not work for them in that regard.
You know what that means right? Gas masks.....gas masks everywhere.....
If they made it free to play from the get go, with perks for BFV owners, it could've been a succes story. It still is one of the best playing BR's out there, in terms of movement/gunplay.
But no....... EA wanted to keep it behind a paywal.....
The F2P + buy the full game combo will be too much for EA to pass up. It works great for Warzone/MW. You need a 'free' point of entry nowadays.
DICE should put zero effort into singeplayer as well, complete waste of time at this point.
The free part doesn't even need to necessarily be a BR. It just needs to be a taste of what DICE does best, which is a giant sandbox with vehicles.
Re-comer here:
1. Is there still no auto team balance which BF1 already had (and multiplayer games two decades ago)?
2. How can I report someone for cheating or other non-acceptable behaviour?
3. Just had a very good round and then suddenly, after accepting a promotion to squad leader the screen turned black, BFV loading sign in the upper right corner and I was in the game mode menu... I don't think the round was over and even if it was it missed the statistics screen. Does this happen?
1. Is there still no auto team balance which BF1 already had (and multiplayer games two decades ago)?
2. How can I report someone for cheating or other non-acceptable behaviour?
3. Just had a very good round and then suddenly, after accepting a promotion to squad leader the screen turned black, BFV loading sign in the upper right corner and I was in the game mode menu... I don't think the round was over and even if it was it missed the statistics screen. Does this happen?
1.Uninstall.
2. Play a different BF game
3. BFV doesn't exist..
I've played a lot of Warzone and MW since putting BFV down. Apart from the insane TTK and some balance issues, it's pretty great. But the vehicles and projectile simulation is still terrible. There's a hole in the market the size of the Grand Canyon for a well done Battlefield game that can do what BF does best, but in a BF3/4/ + Warzone format.
MW does it well and brings a concept I want in BF: different gun types having different running speeds, sprint to fire, ADS etc... all of that impacted by the amount of crap you put on your gun. I want Battlefield to extend that differentiation to classes as well, including picking different armor loadouts. I know it has existed to some degree in past games (Bullpups having a built in hipfire bonus, for instance), but they could get really creative with it. It's a fun part of MW. I think DICE could straight up do better. MW is really held back by the terrible perk system, whereas BF should come up with many different classes and sub classes.
I think you should get X amount of loadout points and be able to spend them however, with classes getting discounts and/or buffs on gear considered core to their class identity. This would allow them to differentiate between an OG naked wood AK-47 and a completely blinged out modern rifle that's just straight up functionally better. When you introduce a cost, you suddenly don't have to pretend that a 900 RPM gun and a 500 RPM gun are on the same spectrum balance wise. CS does this through cash. I think BF can do it through your amount of armor, grenades, gadgets, ammo etc... using the loadout points. How "heavy" your loadout is could even extend to things like spotting time and spawn time.
An RPG would 'cost' a lot to the point where you'd have to sacrifice on weapons (like an engineer) but a LAW would be 'cheap' enough for most loadouts to have one, giving players a way to fight back against vehicles without feeling like it's rock-paper-scissors, as an example. The performance difference (damage, speed, reload etc...) between the two would be tweaked to make each 'cost' feel appropriate.
Overall, XP gating is here to stay. The days of just having everything day 1 are over. They need to give people stuff to do. DICE just shouldn't be stupid about it and gate game changing things behind a ton of game time (BFV vehicles) or make core functions of classes (like medic reviving) optional.
MW does it well and brings a concept I want in BF: different gun types having different running speeds, sprint to fire, ADS etc... all of that impacted by the amount of crap you put on your gun. I want Battlefield to extend that differentiation to classes as well, including picking different armor loadouts. I know it has existed to some degree in past games (Bullpups having a built in hipfire bonus, for instance), but they could get really creative with it. It's a fun part of MW. I think DICE could straight up do better. MW is really held back by the terrible perk system, whereas BF should come up with many different classes and sub classes.
I think you should get X amount of loadout points and be able to spend them however, with classes getting discounts and/or buffs on gear considered core to their class identity. This would allow them to differentiate between an OG naked wood AK-47 and a completely blinged out modern rifle that's just straight up functionally better. When you introduce a cost, you suddenly don't have to pretend that a 900 RPM gun and a 500 RPM gun are on the same spectrum balance wise. CS does this through cash. I think BF can do it through your amount of armor, grenades, gadgets, ammo etc... using the loadout points. How "heavy" your loadout is could even extend to things like spotting time and spawn time.
An RPG would 'cost' a lot to the point where you'd have to sacrifice on weapons (like an engineer) but a LAW would be 'cheap' enough for most loadouts to have one, giving players a way to fight back against vehicles without feeling like it's rock-paper-scissors, as an example. The performance difference (damage, speed, reload etc...) between the two would be tweaked to make each 'cost' feel appropriate.
Overall, XP gating is here to stay. The days of just having everything day 1 are over. They need to give people stuff to do. DICE just shouldn't be stupid about it and gate game changing things behind a ton of game time (BFV vehicles) or make core functions of classes (like medic reviving) optional.