Is it good now?

Not exactly better or worse, it has its own problems.

fpbp

>almost a year later and you still die to 1 frame deaths and every weapon or gadget that was interesting was nerfed into oblivion
>it's literally just cod now with terrible maps.

The gunplay in the beta was much, much better. Currently everything either 1 shots you due to lag or doesnt do enough damage to be viable. It's BF4's ROF meme gameplay all over again.

Also bigger head hitboxes make the game absolutely garbage for any engagements.

>it's literally just cod now with terrible maps.
Honestly, I'm still impressed by how bad the maps in the demo were. DICE has been making BF games for over 15 years now and despite all that experience, the map layouts in BFV and battlefront 2 have never been worse.

The main problem is they found out people like corridor tunnel shooters for infantry, and wide open shit maps like Panzerstorm for vehicle combat. They have no clue how to do anything inbetween so every map feels and plays the same, with constant chokepoints around certain areas due to no one wanting to flank or push because they want to pad their dumb stats.

A good example of this is comparing Rotterdam, Devastation and Arras. Most players only want to hang out around 3 of the 5 flags on each map, usually because that's where all the action is. Where as maps like Fjell is just a shitty version of metro/lockers with planes that instantly ruin the map because of how unbalanced ground vs air is. Dice absolutely sucks when it comes to vehicle vs infantry. A great look at this is BF4 for when pilots could fly for almost 2 years in the littlebird and Attack chopper and just eat infantry until players got good enough with the SRAW to take them out. So what did they do?

Worse in pretty much every possible way.

bfv is the biggest downgrade in battlefield history

I played BF1 for just hours and hours and it always felt so good to me, would genuinely rate it a 9/10 game. BFV has always just felt so hollow in comparison and I’ve still yet to figure out just what the “bleed out or call for help” mechanic adds to the game.

It doesn't even have the eastern front or the Soviets. It doesn't have the actual bulk of WW2. It's not a real WW2 game.

And never has there been a better example of EA deciding “If it sells well and maintains a sizable user base we’ll keep updating it and giving you DLC—if not, we’re just gonna take your $60 and leave you hanging!” Sad!

> they found out people like corridor tunnel shooters for infantry
Do they thought? I always assumed that metro and locker were popular because they were the only maps that had no vehicles, not because the map layout was anything close to being good.

Bleed out works really well for games where you actually need to work with a team and the player culture is receptive to helping each other e.g. the Enemy Territory series. For a mindless deathmatch game like BFV, it's pretty much pointless though.

Avoid it like a plague.
BFV is just terrible.

Awful map design, many bugs (game often lags/stutters which makes it unplayable) and the terrible customization system (pic related how customization should be handled).

Attached: 7vXGETu8EpVIuEcA4ZF0Y70RKdu.jpg (800x450, 80K)

Yet in Enemy Territory the „bleeding out” mechanics was handled a lot smarter. It should be a quick, instant revive - not a small animation which doesn’t add anything gameplay.

gameplay is fine, some maps are lacking, devastation in particular

the main problem is the lack of ww2 content people wanted

instead we get a Swedish rifle once a month that was fired 2 times during the war, and greece, things that no one fucking wanted

don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning man

There's a few other infantry focused maps in BF4 that were insanely more interesting and had levels of depth to them, such as Propoganda and Guilan Peaks (it's kind of a junglish map with choppers and atvs only), problem is many players don't want depth, they want constant action to shoot people and pad their stats. Stats pretty much killed Battlefield games.

If you were to ask people why they liked locker or metro, it's because they can hold down areas, chuck/spam explosives or clean up whole crowds who aren't paying attention and feel good about themselves. Even better if you had a medic slut to follow you around and just go 99 and 2 and watch as everyone calls you a cheater. It was too easy. In BF5 at least getting revived is a risk for the medic now.

/thread

another problem with the game is the ttk, after the ttk was changed late in battlefield 1 to universal praise, they changed it back to 1 extra bullet to kill, generally making it more difficult for individual skill to shine

no one wanted attrition as well, yet dice had to copy pubg and fortnite, for no fucking reason, as big team gameplay is diametrically opposed to battle royale gameplay

basically a tidal wave of stupidity and not giving the core audience of battlefield what they wanted

The animation is there to make medics useful and stop people camping a choke point being able to res each other faster than the enemy can possibly kill them. DICE really hates good map design and infantry based explosives being useful, so that's their solution to the res immortality problem. Of course, the entirely predictable result is that strangers don't res each other because it's too much of a chore, but hey, creating obviously bad game mechanics is DICE's thing now.

It's worse and feels like a joke, bf1 was a solid game.

Attrition also turned every map into a wall of players running toward points in conquest vs another team running away from them to capture another point to catch up. Anyone who stayed to defend is 9/10 destroyed and just respawns at the next flag. It's a constant game of grabass without any real strategy except numbers.

Also all the pistols are fucking useless but the magnum, how I don't know.

I actually liked BF1 better despite all its flaws. BFV has no redeeming qualities.

You deserved a gold bar for the comment son

the ttk nerf basically makes every weapon useless, just like in early bf1, this promotes less aggression along with attrition, meaning you have less bullets, and only enough health for one engagement

combine that with the lack of effective spotting and you get a campfest, that doesn't reward aggression

anyone who bitches about explosives is a fucking retard

another tool taken away from the players ability to fight when outnumbered

It’s funny how the DICE team doesn’t know what the fuck they want to achieve with BFV now.

First they announce the game as a fun and arcade shooter just to change it after the release to make it more realistic and grounded. In result we have a clusterfuck of a design.

To OP: game is riddled with small, but god-awful problems. For example, players spawning in your tank often block your vision with their animation of the exiting from the vehicle. I stopped counting how many times it made me miss/lose the track of the enemies. Who fought it would be good idea?

>There's a few other infantry focused maps in BF4 that were insanely more interesting and had levels of depth to them, such as Propoganda and Guilan Peaks (it's kind of a junglish map with choppers and atvs only), problem is many players don't want depth, they want constant action to shoot people and pad their stats.
That theory operates on the assumption that most players actually bought China Rising and Dragon's Teeth, which is pretty unlikely. In all likelyhood the reason that Metro and Locker were the most popular infantry maps is because they're the only ones in the base game.
If you look at BF1 that had multiple infantry centric maps in the base game, the tunnel map (argon forest) was one of the least popular.

I have hundreds of hours in every Battlfield game on PC. I have less than 10 hours logged for both Hardline and BFV

Honestly, everyone should have at least as much ammo as in BF4 in reserve, and at the same time, they should kept up the amount of bullets taken where aim actually matters. Right now you have bads spraying wildly or click spamming down hallways with stupidly accurate semi-autos and LMG/MMGs making pushing impossible because you get 2 tapped by random shit and taking 1 round basically makes you a gimpy useless retard for any other engagement. It makes every firefight completely RNG and boring as a result.

I hate people that want "hardcore" modes in this battlefield because balancing around taking any sort of damage 1 time is a nightmare for this, it allows you counter play apart from always humping a medic or being one yourself. Or the best idea, not moving and camping. The only thing that matters in the game currently is ROF for any weapon, everything else apart from mag size is irreverent because if you throw out 15 rounds in a spray and 4 land, you win.

Did they add the United States yet? Kinda stupid to have a WWII game without the main character.

no

That's coming up in a couple of months.

>Factions
>United States Marine Corps
>Imperial Japanese Army

>Weapons
>M1 Garand
>BAR M1918
>M1919 Browning

>Maps
>Iwo Jima (Fall 2019)
>Two unnamed maps (2020)

Yes, that is literally the only content for that entire 5th "expansion". Imagine trusting EA to actually deliver on free content.

Of course most players didn't get the expansions, because they figured why bother when I have metro/locker? It's the Dust2 / q3dm17 / wake island / deck17 / facing worlds effect.

The difference between bf1 and bf4 was bf4 has way more tools you could use to push or kill an enemy around corners, as well as straight up hallways with little variation in height. Argon Forest was very green and cluttered with lots of different angles to be attacked from, making it difficult to push if your team was super awful. Did BF1 even have spawn beacons? I forget.

Either way, nade spamming and noobtubing/rpging down hallways was basically what lockers and metro were for their whole incarnations until Dice decided to nerf reloads on rockets/nades, which instantly gimped engineer in the regular game and made vehicles even more boring to fight against. In bf5, I forget I even have a nade button because it's so fucking useless now.

yikes!

>Of course most players didn't get the expansions, because they figured why bother when I have metro/locker?
That's some hardcore cope, bud.
Like I said, if BF players liked tunnel maps, then argonne forest would have been the most infantry map, but it wasn't because they had different options in that game.

It's so bad even its actual paid shills in the EA Partners program can barely go a week without talking about how shit it really is.

So discarding the rest of the post is a good idea?

BF4 and BF1's infantry gameplay is vastly different due to the tools being used. BF4 and BF5 allow for more hallway type combat to be the norm, while BF1 allowed you to be more open with options.

Coping? Hardly, I gave up on Battlefield awhile ago, but I'm telling you the reasons why certain stages were popular. I didn't play much of BF1 because it basically took everything I hated about BF4 and threw it all into a really dumb package of overly strong easy to use vehicles vs dumb sheep infantry. It gets boring just farming players all day.

The game is just bad. Like, it's not even the whole "SJW" fiasco from release, the game is actually bad.

I feel like you could just go back to the BF1942 formula, add third person and you'd have a game the Fortnite generation would love

One of DICE 's senior designers on Twitter made a poll about all of the maps in the series, here are the results.

Attached: EB1ORSQW4AEgvIh.jpg (602x2047, 264K)

Be quiet. Someone might hear this and think that this is a good idea.

It only shows which game sold more copies. A few years ago Karkand would be first.

Twitter polls are pretty much the least useful metric possible, since twitter attracts an extremely narrow sample demographic. If you conducted the poll on reddit, /veddit, launched a poll through the actual game software or (gasp) just used statistics of which maps were the most played by the most players, then you would get much more reliable data.

>Maps
>Iwo Jima (Fall 2019)
>Two unnamed maps (2020)

It's Wake Island and that other fucking map that name I forgot from Battlefield 1943. Dice can't be that retarded to think they're fooling anyone here.

Never, to be quite frank with you

>tfw I missed out on battlefield vietnam and by the time I played it it was already dead
>only was able to play against bots
Even against only bots that game was cool as shit

So is there gonna be another BF game? Because I want them to double down on failure.

Attached: I came here to laugh at you.png (194x194, 89K)

There basically has to be, since DICE are EA's only capable AAA studio now that Bioware's slow rot has destroyed both the company and their reputation.
However, considering how disappointing Battlefront 2 and BFV were for EA, I think you'll probably be seeing some major changes to the format that let them drastically cut costs while taking advantage of non-lootbox DLC.

Meant for
Obviously.

>Metro on 2, Locker on 6.
Keep that on mind when normies shitpost on BF.

I reinstalled it and it's even more soulless than I remember.

Comparing to the very first trailer they didn't doubled down.

Even fucking Fallout 76 has more redeeming value, and 76 is hot garbage. Let that sink in just how bad this game is.

No, worst map design in the series by far.

>Do they thought? I always assumed that metro and locker were popular because they were the only maps that had no vehicles, not because the map layout was anything close to being good.
I think it's just because Metro was the quicket way to earn points to unlock stuff. Out of the 5 top played maps 3-4 were big maps but Metro being no. 1 made Dice go nuts on infantry maps think that's what all their players wanted now.

Maybe they'll cut back on spending all their money on graphics for once and focus on making the core gameplay better.

I see Yea Forums shit on bfv a ton but I got hundreds of hours in it between the story mode, coop, firestorm and multiplayer, it's amazing. I love the weekly items and camos to work for. It's weird that it gets so much hate here when ingame the text chat is filled with Yea Forums comments I see daily - yikes, cringe. People on there act like people on here.

Funny fact: most of the original DICE team left the team during Battlefront 2 development.

It seems like they not only don’t know what they are doing but also don’t know HOW to do something. That explains all the bugs and glitches.

They can't do that with a mainline BF game, because they've made GUD GRAFFIX one of their core selling points for so long. A downgrade would get slaughtered by the market for being a sign of EA cheaping out again, even if the gameplay was improved.

However, launching another low budget spin off a la heroes would let them save money as well as pump in a shit load of cosmetics. The only problem is getting the right setting to be able to have cosmetics that appeal to zoomers, which will be a big concern after pushback against those sorts of cosmetics in V basically ended up forcing them to kill off all the profitability they had planned for the game.
I wouldn't be that surprised if you saw a casual BF title come out soonish that was set in some sort of near future or alt-history setting with non-state factions (i.e. gangs or something) so that they could pump out a shit load of colorful badass/"punk"/zazy fashion cosmetics and vehicle skins. Maybe even some hero shooter elements like named classes/heroes and special abilities.

Attached: maxresdefault(6).jpg (1280x720, 249K)

Unlock systems and weapon bloat are the seed of evil.
The faster we cut it the sooner we will deal with people addicted to unlock grind like to meth.

>2, 3, 4 and 6
Some of the absolute worst maps ever in Battlefield history.
I don't know about those BF1 maps because I've never played it.
Also BF4 doesn't get enough credit for its maps, it has some real stinkers but overall it's much better than BF3. It's a travesty that they they ended up bringing some of that garbage into BF4 post launch.

>after pushback against those sorts of cosmetics in V
Fat load of good that ended up doing, the whole game still completely lacks that WW2 feel and aesthetic.

No.
Go play Rising Storm 2.
Apart from the lack of terrain vehicles it's what Battlefield should have been.

yes
you have to pay 12$ to be a girl with ponytail
otherwise all the women have no hair and look like hitler youth.

It was the best they could do with the shitty assets they had on hand and no money or time to put something better together, nor the ability to remove the female models. Just imagine how bad the game would have looked if the original cosmetic assets had've gone ahead or even been expended.

> it's what Battlefield should have been.
>Skill based shooting.
>Game loop that heavily punishes stupidity and impatience.
Don't kid yourself friend, even the 1942 and 2 guys wouldn't have made that game. Infantry combat in BF has always been casual as fuck.

Why won't they make another one?

Attached: e3-2019.png (157x321, 67K)

It's pretty casual actually famalam. I can see how Zoomers would consider RS2 to be hardcurr AF though if coming from shit like battlefield Fortnite and overwatch.

It's bizarre that they refuse to make another scifi battlefield given that 99% of the problems that BF and battlefront currently have in regards to vehicle balance come from them having to be faithful to real-life designs.

Scifi setting would also allow them to bring back the ridicilous though hard to master oldschool helicopter and jet physics.

lol no

Attached: 8ebbeb76.jpg (700x982, 167K)

I don't need you. Sixty feet of bridge I can get almost anywhere, smuck!

You could do a lot more than that though e.g.
>Man portable railgun that can damage aircraft.
>IR or otherwise enhanced vision for pilots so that ground targets are actually reasonably visible.
>Proper AA guns on ground vehicles.
>360 look-through vision for in first person for aircraft.
>Vehicles that can climb or jump on top of terrain in urban maps.
>Improve weapon variety/vision/firing arcs etc. for secondary gunners, specially tail gunners and apc gunners and the like.
>Improved vehicle weapon variety in general e.g. missiles on tanks, 'sniper' cannons on aircraft, 4x4s with decent weaponry etc.

There's so much you could do with it before you even start getting into shit like mechs, jetpacks and hover tanks.

Nobody working there was there 10+ years ago.

I don't like the switch to an infantry only/close quarter style. DICE turned Battlefield into CoD.

>people defending bf1
Fucking disgusting.

I played it yesterday. It's meh, but I've personally never really like battlefield games. The maps are too big, there's too much crap going on, and you can get killed without seeing anyone, then you have to wait ages to respawn (relative to other shooters), and it takes forever to run to the action. I guess I prefer shooters that are more tight knit and compact.

>the satisfying scream of the roastie "soldier" when she dies

cringe

Imo better because it doesn’t have 3D spotting so you feel like you’re actually looking for enemy troops instead of red markers. Also the German tanks are cool as fuck

Attached: 0DC1E44F-F0E0-4664-BFD7-D4EE47AD9ABD.jpg (4032x3024, 2.76M)

How come there's no Normandy map or any other "iconic" location?

It could be one of the hidden maps, maybe. But here's a better question to ask:

>Q: How come it took a year for the US to be a faction and the Soviets and eastern front aren't even on the expansion road map?
A: Because nu-DICE's management is utterly retarded and out of touch.

the goal of bfv was to focus on lesser known battles/conflicts/missions, at the very least as a base, guide or theme for the maps and sp missions. the devs seem to want to avoid stuff like another normandy landing since nearly every ww2 game has that

>>Q: How come it took a year for the US to be a faction and the Soviets and eastern front aren't even on the expansion road map?
It's made on purpose. They want to push more content related on less known places of WW2. They pulled the same shit on BF1 when they voluntarily ignored trench maps and the french and russian armies at launch.
The campaigns of BF1 and V really showed that too. It's all about rewriting History.

Nearly every WW2 game has it because it's fun and frostbite could have definitely breathed some life into it, compared to previous versions.
What's not fun is getting some generic-ass map created for an irrelevant battle that joe normie probably hasn't even heard of.
Not doing much trench warfare in BF1 made sense, because trench combat is pretty shit to actually play, but leaving out all the iconic battles and places of WW2 is just completely braindead. My expectations have not been subverted DICE.

An Operation (or whatever it's called in V) map that starts on the beaches of Normandy and goes deeper into the land could've been nice though.

Good stuff to mention to the devs. It could have worked, it just wasn't in the plans for the game.

I don't think they want people to have fun.

>OMG WW2 IS SO BORING, WE HAVE DONE DDAY 50 FUCKING TIMES NOW
>Devs put in little known battles to make the game more interesting
>REEEE, THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE DDAY, THE FUCKING JEWS ARE GENOCIDING THE WHITE RACE!!!!!

There’s „Grand operation” mode or something. Played once, it was a chore.

pretty much - people are picky, bfv is tons of fun, play almost daily on pc. just wish firestorm was more populated during the day, always get shafred with EU lobbies till after 3-4pm. it's a great way to relax after stressful conquest games for a bit. gameplay changes like the reduced marking makes combat so much better.

I love grand ops, the night version of panzerstorm was intense.

How do I get gud and learn to enjoy battlefield games?
I'm this guy
I bought a years worth of origin access...

>bfv is tons of fun
>unironically plays the BR mode
kys DANNYonPC

Idk, I always was a huge killzone fan, class based fps with cap points is my favorite setup for online shooters so going to bf series was a smooth transition for me. map awareness/common enemy spots is standard for any fps but beyond that I've had to learn to just slow down and not rush around so much when playing. I'm a 1.6 k/d so no where near great but I've had a few 50+ kill games, a lot of it is finding the proper gun for your playstyle and then having non-potato teammates. I regularly play with the same 7 people on bfv so we always have enough for a full squad daily and then some to watch each others backs. I like support with the lewis bullet hose or the ls/26 which is a laser. For medic the MAB seems to be the new favorite for me. Don't play much recon or assault. I also don't care about w/l ratio all that much, try and just focus on my own score and staying alive, trying to outplay people who do kill me and learn how to avoid dieing again to that person. firestorm is nice for forcing me to use guns I don't normally use though the extra armor/hp makes counting bullets q no no since the damage doesn't translate the same to regular online. Also if you want to level a gun up fast play the coop missions a few times, that used to give good weapon exp so you aren't gimped when taking a new gun into conquest or something. Unless that has changed in a recent patch.

idk who that is, is he like the brother of frankie on pc? br mode is just a nice break from regular online. i like it more than pubg, haven't played apex or fortnite but those games didn't interest me to try.

Hello DICE employee.

>OMG WW2 IS SO BORING, WE HAVE DONE DDAY 50 FUCKING TIMES NOW
That was a common opinion circa 2007. However, after a decade of no major WW2 games, a WW2 game was in greater demand than anything else and people were disappointed that BF1 was set in WW1.

>Devs put in little known battles to make the game more interesting
There are a lot of iconic battles that weren't saturated during the WW2FPS era e.g. Stalingrad, Kursk, the bulge, barbarossa, el alamein, tobruk, bocage, market garden, DDay paratrooper landings, commando raids on the V2 facility, the battle of britain etc. etc.
Meanwhile, BFV has zero noteworthy battles, mostly due to your bosses decision to make the base game about the UK. But even then it basically ignores all of the iconic battles that the brits fought in as well, in favor forgettable garbage like narvik or completely made up ones like twisted steel and al sundan.
So you can see why people might be less than impressed with the content in your game.

>THE FUCKING JEWS ARE GENOCIDING THE WHITE RACE!!!!!
Sure, but they're doing that by promoting abortion and race mixing, not by making shitty WW2 games, sven.

what about cod ww2? i didn't play it but that that have normandy? that was before bfv or am i mistaken?

>buys premium without liking their games
>buys games while knowingly not liking the gameplay
You are the cancer killing video games

did that?

I already got sick of Marita, Mercury was such a comfy map, im hoping the don't fuck up Al Sudan.

It did, but that's pretty irrelevant given that BFV was in development long before CODWW2 was announced.

The War mode had a map that started on the beach of Normandy.

Attached: kangslayer.jpg (409x606, 119K)

Cuck

Dude, it cost £20 for a whole year.