Author Topic: BATTLEFIELD V  (Read 29349 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #180 on: November 09, 2018, 11:25:11 PM »
Didn't like it. Thought it was mostly a clusterfuck of chaos in pub games especially on maps like shanghai but that's fine. We all have specific modes we may like that DICE has introduced over the years that are mostly niche things. My issue is more with the balance of the mode. I don't like a solid icon on screen that says shoot this guy going to arm the thing. Just make it like rush and let anybody arm. Or if they want to stick to a specific bomb guy role then just make that guy who is carrying the bomb use a different character model so you have to visually identify that he is carrying it. Hell make him move slower for all I care. But don't mark him on the map and via a 3d giant dorito. This isn't capture the flag imo. It's doesn't need that blinking omni-present shoot me indicator.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 11:32:02 PM by Stoney Mason »

thisismyusername

  • GunOn™! Apply directly to forehead!
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #181 on: November 09, 2018, 11:33:18 PM »
Except the whole point of the mode is to deliver the bomb to the arm points. :doge Obliteration's key component is the chaos you get from your entire team having to push the bomb toward the goals and the "defense" on stopping them from using a helicopter (or jet) to deliver it. If the bomb indicator wasn't there, the rounds would end in 5 minutes flat (and I have had rounds last that long in the past now that I think of it... mostly because of the Obliteration dogtag that brought newbies that really just wanted to play Conquest into the mode).

It's basically Battlefield: Football. And as someone that hates sports in real-life, the mode's chaos and vast teamwork needed to get the bomb to the site because of that "please shoot me, I'm carrying the bomb" indicator was an adrenaline rush.

But that aside: The problem with the bomb drop mode in Operations is the fact that you can bomb 3/4 of the sites and still lose. I had 80% of matches in the beta do that shit and it really soured me on the Operations mode. You push with your team hardcore and get "majority" of the objectives done, but somehow DICE counts "lol that one site? Still up, you lose despite the defense failing to stop you."
 Like, I could understand if it was 2/4 of the sites into a draw or hell 1/4 of the sites, but really 3/4 is a loss? :doge
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 11:37:40 PM by thisismyusername »

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #182 on: November 09, 2018, 11:42:56 PM »
If the whole point of the mode is bomb delivery then I would rather it was just a variation on rush. A mode they actually have a little experience with. What's they have done with that airdrop mode will not satisfy very many people and its for lots of reasons. Everytime I see anybody play offense on that mode, the frustration at what is happening is obvious immediately. The good players don't even like to pick up the bomb.

Rush has also become a niche mode in Battlefield but its about a billion times better and more strategic than that airdrop mode.

Parachuting off Damavand Peak is about 1000x more exciting than what they delivered in airdrop. It just feels half-baked. Like somebody thought it would be cool to jump out of airplanes but they didn't evolve the idea any further than that.

Rahxephon91

  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #183 on: November 09, 2018, 11:53:59 PM »
The real question is why would anyone play anything but Conquest.

What BF needs to do is take ques from Enemy Territory and have the control points have actual value and effects.

thisismyusername

  • GunOn™! Apply directly to forehead!
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #184 on: November 10, 2018, 12:00:22 AM »
If the whole point of the mode is bomb delivery then I would rather it was just a variation on rush. A mode they actually have a little experience with. What's they have done with that airdrop mode will not satisfy very many people and its for lots of reasons. Everytime I see anybody play offense on that mode, the frustration at what is happening is obvious immediately.

Honestly: What's the difference? The bomb indicator was there in BF4's Obliteration because you could put the bomb in a vehicle or jet and arm within 2 minutes of it "reset"ing/spawning. That's why it was like that in BF4. BF4's variant of it is basically Conquest (A/B/C points) with Rush (Arm A/B/C with the bomb).

Operations was trying to merge the two again in BF1, but did it poorly. Because instead of "arm these objectives and if taken you are 1-3 toward the goal/win" it became "cap these flags, but you need both to push forward a la Rush. However with the series' idiotic fanbase, they'll cap flags thinking it's Conquest and not go for the other or swarm toward the other and not defend the one the defense retakes to where it becomes spawn rape a la Rush. Oh and the Arty truck is absolutely worthless and whoever spawns in it needs to be put on the rack for not helping their team." Not a bad fusing of the two, but IMO Obliteration's "chaos" was the key component on trying to fuse the two because Rush has a few problems. Which I'll get to in a minute.


Quote
Rush has also become a niche mode in Battlefield but its about a billion times better and more strategic than that airdrop mode.

I agree with you it's better than the Operations mode. But Obliteration? It's a toss up for both as my favorite mode in the series. I like Conquest, but it's no Rush/Obliteration for me.

Quote
Parachuting off Damavand Peak is about 1000x more exciting than what they delivered in airdrop.

Yeah, but that map was ass on anything non-Rush, let's be honest.

Now then: Rush has been (IMO, but I'm a die-hard Rush fan, so it's VERY VERY VERY VERY tough to appease me) shit since BF3. They took a few good steps toward fixing the problem that the mode had in Bad Company 1 AND 2 (objective harm, team-objective-harm in BC1 was removed in 2 to where both team and non-team objective harm was removed in 3). But also regressed because you couldn't blow certain areas out for better or worse. Grand Bazaar Objective B's "hell-room" first-set was never fixed. If you camp across from the MCOM and prone/clip into the wall, you can avoid most of the grenade spam coming from BOTH directions. This problem wasn't fixed necessarily in 4, but they removed the "prone-clip" with the "push yourself away from the wall" if you were clipping system. So it meant holding rooms was a bit harder, but also tougher for attackers.

BF1 tried to fix this "hell room" defense that the mode had for ages by randomizing the locations each time the map was loaded (sometimes they were to the left, sometimes to the right) which I thought was a good idea, but it didn't fix the fundamental issue with Rush: There was "lanes" and so long as your team (if you have like 16 folks playing Rush that know what they're doing on the same side compared to pub games) was on the ball, it was nearly impossible to attack even with the random-ization.

Which is where Obliteration sort-of solved the problem because instead of camping 2 sets and watching 3 lanes, you had to traverse around the map with the bomb and keep a few folks on your team back or spawning at the uncap to try to stop the arm/go for the defuse compared to Rush.

But that's an aside:

The main problem with Rush is that most of the cover is nearly not able to be destroyed (mostly for the defenses sake) but that makes attacking harder because you can't "punch through" the defense at times. And map design. They don't really design maps with "Rush" in mind anymore. They sort-of fixed this with the randomization system in BF1 but it wasn't enough (IMO) to actually "fix" the mode, which just soured a bunch of hard-core Rush fans like me.
----

The major problem with the Operations mode compared to 1's is that--Actually, I've lost my train of thought on that. Give me a minute....  Yeah, the beta's Operation mode was 2 days. Which is okay, because Operations in 1 was like that but but it wasn't on the same map, it was different. The problem is 1) the 3/4 loss issue and 2) I agree in this case that the bomb shouldn't be 100% seen by the defense to try to make them "paranoid" on keeping some folks at the objective sites (but reducing the objectives to 2 or 3 instead of 4). But also 3) the foritfication system for better or worse also hinders attacks because you can be a well-meaning teammate, but if you remove the "hole" someone just created to try to get through by repairing it back up, you can't get the bomb anywhere fast enough compared to Obliteration where even an ATV could reach a bomb site (though this is countered hard by the Javelin/SOFLAM lock-system/combo).

With BF1's variant on the idea: You're basically infantry only with no fire-support of a vehicle that can "make the bomb less squishy" which is the problem with the "100% seen" system.

If that makes sense. Since I totally lost my train of thought.

Honestly though, if they were going to do Rush and Conquest together: Shock Operations was be near the "perfect" mix of the two. You still have Operations (BF1 variant)'s "cap these flags to push up" but it limits the game to like 32-42 players (like Rush) and thereby less "chaos" on trying to cap the flags and you have 1-2 attacks on the map before it moves to the next map. I feel if they were going to do Shock Operations here, making the bomb the "first attack" and thereby if you succeed to get 2-3 of the 4 sites armed, you get a tank or something to help you out in the cap flags, or something like that.

but really, if they dropped the bomb arming segment of Operations and just made it Obliteration-only-mode, it'd be better off.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #185 on: November 10, 2018, 12:10:05 AM »
The real question is why would anyone play anything but Conquest.

What BF needs to do is take ques from Enemy Territory and have the control points have actual value and effects.

We've talked about it before but the thing is Battlefield is now so many different things to so many different people that its hard to make meaningful changes to the formula without alienating some part of the fanbase that is going to whine and carp endlessly.

At this point, the only real thing I think people can agree on is that Battlefield will always have "classes" and conquest in some version will always play a large part in the game. Once you go beyond that everybody has their own take on the franchise that they think everybody else should agree with even though everybody has jumped on at different points and battlefield is different to each and every one of them.


All that being said, I'm actually quite pumped to play the game. I can't say that I felt that way during the beta, but whether it's some of the fixes, or just nostalgia, I'm looking forward to the title when it was in real danger of being the first battlefield game, I hadn't purchased in a really long time.

Who knows how I will feel when I play it. But for now, I'm excited to play it on launch day.


thisismyusername

  • GunOn™! Apply directly to forehead!
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #186 on: November 10, 2018, 12:13:56 AM »
The real question is why would anyone play anything but Conquest.

Because Conquest is shit. "Musical flags for 20-60 [fuck those 1000+ticket servers] minutes" is not my idea of fun. :snore

Really, if they were to fix Conquest's major problem (caps giving more points than defenses, considering defending your hold of 3 of the 5 flags means you get bleed, having more is nice for faster bleed but not the end goal) of people "swarming" flags and moving to the next one instead of holding the one flag they just took, I'd probably wouldn't be so tired of the mode. But they haven't fixed it. So it's :snore because after a whole bunch of hours of it through the series timeline, I'm just so over it, especially coming from Rush or Obliteration where there's more push/pull and actual defense on objectives.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #187 on: November 10, 2018, 12:21:32 AM »
post

The thing is I'm fine with operations or grand operations as they are now called as a general concept. It was okay in Battlefield 1. I didn't love it. But I didn't hate it. I ended up playing a decent amount of it because that is what my friends wanted to play mostly even though I was mixed on it myself. I preferred the 40 player version of it ( I think it was 40) for example rather than the 64 player version so you actually had some room to potentially flank.

My main takeaway from the experience in battlefield one was that mode needs really simple gameplay modes. The more complex the modes get, the worse it feels because a lot of casual people play that mode and getting them to play objectively is almost impossible. Trying to have a group split and take three separate bases simultaneously in operations in bf1 as simple as that concept is was like pulling teeth. 80% of the time it was a complete fail and then you'd get a behemoth and maybe be able to do it. I hated wasting my time, churning through tickets when my team had no real chance or co-ordination to achieve the goal. The problem is that air drop mode felt exactly like that to me in the beta. I know they wanted to expand the mode in general because it was popular in battlefield one but they also need to keep in mind who is playing that mode, and its often super casual people so you can't demand much from them imo.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #188 on: November 10, 2018, 12:37:13 AM »
For what its worth my favorite battlefield mode is Rush. I adore Rush. But I understand the issues. The maps that work best for rush don't work best in conquest. So when you try to force them it ends up undeserving both modes.

Rush also for me works best when its 24 to 32 players. I've never liked 64 player rush. And rush can have limited vehicles but it needs to be that. Limited vehicles. When you get too many vehicles nobody can push which makes the mode boring.

All those things work against rush after bad company since battlefield players generally demand more vehicles, they don't generally want the linear maps that rush tends to have, and they tend to want 64 players in everything.

That being said, I put a ton of time into rush on BF 3 and BF 4 and I adored it even though it got progressively weaker in each entry. Battlefield 1 was the end for rush. I barely played it in that game. It just didn't work.

toku

  • 𝕩𝕩𝕩
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #189 on: November 10, 2018, 01:07:39 AM »
A lot more words and sharp introspection on this page that modern battlefield games deserve imo

BF's need to be different or "innovate" with every iteration doomed them to only get it "right" every couple versions or long after launch.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #190 on: November 10, 2018, 06:38:19 PM »
https://mp1st.com/news/battlefield-5-best-weapons-for-each-class-listed-based-on-time-to-kill-chart-analysis-stats-revealed

Interesting data. Sounds like they buffed semi-auto's which is cool because they were poop in beta.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 03:42:40 PM by Stoney Mason »

TEEEPO

  • hi, i suck
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #192 on: November 13, 2018, 11:47:42 AM »
best battlefield since 2  :rejoice

Rahxephon91

  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #193 on: November 13, 2018, 12:05:07 PM »
I agree that Conquest could use some improvements. Actually have some thing going on with the points beyond consonantly just going from point to point mindlessly. Give a reason to defend points and be satisfied with having majority of them.

But Rush to me is just crap. Feels like funneling to basically meat grinder points and loses the point that Battlefield is about big open maps.


Rahxephon91

  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #194 on: November 17, 2018, 03:53:56 AM »
Ok I think this game is pretty good.

I don't like the lack of guns, weapon customization, and some of the maps.

I think specialization is kind of meh.

But the gunplay is really good. The destruction level honestly is really good. Fortifications kind of work. The new mechanics really facilitate team play as now cover fire means something and you can't just click to spot. Meaning smoke and awareness are really important.

I don't know so far it seems really good.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #195 on: November 20, 2018, 11:41:20 PM »
Played for about 5 hours today. Which says something right there because I almost never play a videogame for that long nowadays.

I could quibble and equivocate and mention bugs or other minor things imo but ultimately I think it does a lot more right than it does wrong. It does a lot more right than battlefield 1 did for sure. And it just plays really well.

There is a greater skill gap like the prior battlefield games. The gun play is improved. The squad play is improved and is probably the best its been in a long while in the franchise.

The game is some times more defensive oriented than I would like due to the lack of spotting but it also improved conquest a great deal. Fighting over a flag is intense. The battles are longer. And staying and defending is actually a worthwhile pursuit which also hasn't been the case in a battlefield game for a long time.

I still think they botched Grand Operations by moving it away from what it was in battlefield 1 but from the actual gameplay side, I had few complaints about the game in general.

Visibility is much improved from the beta. i can actually see shit. You still might get killed because you didn't spot somebody but its now on you looking for them, instead of literally not being able to see them because of bad lighting.


Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #196 on: November 21, 2018, 10:17:01 AM »
The air drop game type seems really lame especially since the defense gets to see who is carrying the bomb with a big fat icon on screen. Who's idea was that. Nobody likes modes that do shit like that. Dice has tried it before with obliteration and nobody liked that either. They don't seem to get that attacking should be as fun and reasonable as defending. And without the behemoths, to sort of propel you to victory, I have a feeling defense will always win an absurd amount of these rounds.

https://twitter.com/NiklasAstrand/status/1065244820275367938

 :jawalrus

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #197 on: November 23, 2018, 08:27:34 PM »
Ok, my Battlefield buddies bought it so I was pressured to dive in as well.

So far... better than expected. Certainly much better than the beta.
Still getting the hang of things but good times.
🤴

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #198 on: November 23, 2018, 10:11:09 PM »
It's a solid iteration of the franchise.

Also one of the more challenging iterations in quite awhile.

Battlefield 3, 4, and 1 were all kind of tore from the same cloth. Not bragging but because of the hours I had put into the franchise they had become pretty easy games. It was rare that I wasn't super high on the leaderboard with a high kd.

This one is a whole different ballgames. Some games I rock. But there are also games where I just play like dog shit, have terrible aim, and just suck. That's kind of a refreshing thing. To feel like you have to re-learn how to play properly.

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #199 on: November 24, 2018, 08:27:57 AM »
It's a solid iteration of the franchise.

Also one of the more challenging iterations in quite awhile.

Battlefield 3, 4, and 1 were all kind of tore from the same cloth. Not bragging but because of the hours I had put into the franchise they had become pretty easy games. It was rare that I wasn't super high on the leaderboard with a high kd.

This one is a whole different ballgames. Some games I rock. But there are also games where I just play like dog shit, have terrible aim, and just suck. That's kind of a refreshing thing. To feel like you have to re-learn how to play properly.
Yeah, I feel his levels the playing field a bit. Veteran players no longer automatically have the biggest advantage.
🤴

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #200 on: December 03, 2018, 06:20:14 PM »


I like the game but Joe's right. Player count is way down, sales are way down and following their tradition this generation EA has once again 'killed' another one of their franchises.
🤴

toku

  • 𝕩𝕩𝕩
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #201 on: December 03, 2018, 07:22:06 PM »
whew there are more ppl watching warcraft 3 rn on twitch than battlefield v

thats a bomb

TEEEPO

  • hi, i suck
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #202 on: December 03, 2018, 07:24:48 PM »
best battlefield ever  :fbm

toku

  • 𝕩𝕩𝕩
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #203 on: December 03, 2018, 07:36:38 PM »
*shroud starts streaming*
*goes up 20k viewers*

Those EA checks never bounce  :-*

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #204 on: December 04, 2018, 08:22:58 AM »
none of my friends want to return for V :(

I miss my BF3 crew :(

kingv

  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #205 on: December 04, 2018, 12:22:03 PM »


I like the game but Joe's right. Player count is way down, sales are way down and following their tradition this generation EA has once again 'killed' another one of their franchises.

Next year they can just bring back Medal of Honor.

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #206 on: December 04, 2018, 05:18:40 PM »
https://twitter.com/Battlefield/status/1069708134426533890

Jesus christ, what's going on at DICE and EA.  :doge
🤴

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #207 on: December 04, 2018, 06:22:43 PM »
I mean the delay was one day. Not that big a deal.

https://twitter.com/Battlefield/status/1070075326280187909

mormapope

  • WHADDYA HEAR, WHADDYA SAY
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #208 on: December 06, 2018, 11:24:42 AM »
If you own BF1 or BF4, you can get BFV for 30 bucks.

Bought it for dat bomba price.
OH!

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #209 on: December 06, 2018, 02:41:14 PM »
I feel so dumb for buying the Deluxe like a week ago when my buddies told me to.  :doge

A Battlefield game bombing right out of the gate. JESUS CHRIST EA.
🤴

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #210 on: December 15, 2018, 02:21:34 PM »


I haven't had time to try out the new patch myself. But I had some fun last week with the MP40 unlocked.
Any of you guys tried the new TTK patch? How does it feel compared to pre-update?
🤴

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #211 on: January 17, 2019, 03:22:58 AM »
Must say I'm enjoying this game again, made new friends, joined a villainous group and it's going swell.


Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #212 on: January 17, 2019, 06:13:31 PM »
As long as you stick to conquest and Breakthrough and skip the big empty sand map the mileage is pretty good.
Aerodrome is my favorite map so far.

Grand Operations is garbage though.
🤴

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #213 on: January 18, 2019, 12:24:45 AM »
I've said it before but I quite like the game. Battlefield 4 and Bad Company 2 are probably my favorite battlefields and this one is behind those two but that's not bad company to be in which makes it my third favorite battlefield game.

I like that semi-autos have a real place in the game for once. And once you adjust to the playstyle, I think its super enjoyable.

I've put 127 hours into the game since launch in November.

https://battlefieldtracker.com/bfv/profile/xbl/Stoney%20Mason/overview

By comparison I put 142 hours into battlefield 1 in the entire life cycle of that game.

https://battlefieldtracker.com/bf1/profile/xbox/Stoney%20Mason



Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #214 on: March 21, 2019, 11:54:34 PM »



« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 12:19:10 AM by Stoney Mason »

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #215 on: March 22, 2019, 01:04:19 AM »
I still play this game daily on PS4 if anyone wants to play with my high ping ass

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #216 on: March 25, 2019, 12:52:23 PM »
Played a couple of solo firestorm games before work.

It's good. I mean I'm not a br person but in squads this is the one I would probably play aside from apex which I still think is the best one by quite a margin.

This one feels more like the slower traditional br games like blackout or pubg but since I like the gunplay in battlefield alot more than those franchises I prefer this one especially since you can have full destruction over building campers.

The major current issue with it is the looting system. When you kill people its a loot pinata with all their stuff popping out all over the floor with tiny text. They need to add a list option like apex so I'm not being all fiddly with it. The speed and efficiency of looting is more important than some aesthetic goal. That's the only real flaw I noticed.

I would still prefer to play the regular mp over this but that's because like I said, I'm not a big br person, and I enjoy the regular action filled combat of traditional mp over battle royale games.

For people who are more "mil-sim" I think they will enjoy this quite a bit, but like I said, I still think Apex Legends is the BR game with the most fun factor in it along with foreward thinking game design and innovation.

I'll play squads with friends tonight to give more of an impression of that aspect.



thisismyusername

  • GunOn™! Apply directly to forehead!
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #217 on: March 25, 2019, 01:30:57 PM »
The roadmap though...

:kobeyuck

2 new maps within six months of launch.

MMaRsu

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #218 on: March 25, 2019, 03:47:56 PM »
Firestorm is allright. Got 5 kills and 3rd place with a nice LMG I had from the beginning
What

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #219 on: March 25, 2019, 10:42:39 PM »
Played this evening with my squad. Netted two wins. Game is dope. Much better in squads where you can apply actual squad tactics.


« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 11:31:37 PM by Stoney Mason »

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #220 on: March 26, 2019, 02:41:07 AM »
Firestorm is allright. Got 5 kills and 3rd place with a nice LMG I had from the beginning
Got second on my first try, i was dicking around on the ground when the other dude got the higher ground and anakin'd me. Didnt play it again after, no local servers and I cant do this with 200 ping. Dont want to play sneaky ninja games all the time when I know im better than people.

duckman2000

  • A lot of shit pisses me off
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #221 on: March 26, 2019, 07:26:54 AM »
Gave Firestorm a shot because every damned person I know love PUBG (I don't). They loved Firestorm, and I didn't. Which sounds about right. Maybe it's just the shock going from Apex to this that messes everything up so I'll give it another shot tonight.

MMaRsu

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #222 on: March 26, 2019, 07:52:02 AM »
Just play more Apex with me Duckman  :-*
What

duckman2000

  • A lot of shit pisses me off
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #223 on: March 26, 2019, 09:59:28 AM »
That's probably what'll end up happening, but we sort of bullied one of our friends into buying BFV for this.  :teehee

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #224 on: March 26, 2019, 10:29:32 AM »
I didn't care for pubg but that was mainly because it was so clunky and the map was so big that the game felt super slow to me. Looting and waiting for the circle felt like 98% of the game. Also building camping was so strong since nothing was destructible.

Firestorm by comparison is smooth (not looting), relatively fast as games take maybe 20 minutes or so, and there are viable options to take on building campers. So for me it fixes the stuff I didn't like about pubg.

Now Apex is a completely different kind of experience and is really good in its own right through just good design and focus on a completely different playstyle that rewards aggression.

MMaRsu

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #225 on: April 06, 2019, 06:54:38 PM »
What

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #226 on: June 05, 2019, 02:56:52 PM »
#

Straight Edge

  • Boots & Braces
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #227 on: June 05, 2019, 08:22:16 PM »
Just got my 110th squad win. Anyone here on the US east coast?
Oi Oi

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #228 on: June 06, 2019, 12:30:24 AM »
I havent touched Firestorm again, I only play conquest, grind (when available) and rush (when available)

Merch

  • Junior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #229 on: November 01, 2019, 03:49:47 AM »
The Pacific content is out. It's pretty good.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #230 on: November 01, 2019, 03:55:12 AM »
Been busy with other stuff so I've missed like the last 4 or 5 maps. I'll give it a try tomorrow evening.

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #231 on: November 01, 2019, 07:51:59 PM »
Ever since they dropped that Metro map Battlefield V has been in an upward spiral.

Haven't had a chance to play the pacific stuff yet myself but the reception has been positive so far.
🤴

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #232 on: November 02, 2019, 06:26:08 PM »
*me after 4 hours in the pacific*

Battlefield is back baby  :whew
🤴

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #233 on: November 03, 2019, 01:03:50 AM »
Played a decent amount this weekend. I'm not representative because I always liked Battlefield V and thought the bitching and moaning was mostly overdone but to each his own.

But yeah the two pacific maps are really good. The lighting and graphics are great on them. The game in general is in good shape imo. There are currently like 15 conquest maps. Wake Island is still coming for December. There are like 50 to 60 weapons in the game. Yeah its good.

TEEEPO

  • hi, i suck
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #234 on: November 04, 2019, 02:55:45 PM »
fantastic update for what was an already great game though the hackers are out in full force :maf

Rahxephon91

  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #235 on: November 05, 2019, 06:04:54 AM »
Not really seeing what people are talking about.

The new maps are sterile and boring just like pretty much all the DLC maps. Dice has really forgotten how to make exciting maps. Maps that have areas of cool set pieces, that lends themselves to exciting battles.  Now it just feels like land masses where you play musical chairs.

I’m happy they made the weapons purchaseable, but the medic guns all feel shitty and the same. I’ll just stay with the mp40. Man do the smgs feel weak and not impactful. Shooting people offers no real feedback.

This game is still trash. I don’t know what happen to Dice. Battlefield needs a rethink.

Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #236 on: November 13, 2019, 04:13:12 PM »
The Pacific update made me feel 16 again and you can't put a price on that

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #237 on: November 13, 2019, 05:40:32 PM »
Yeah I'm kinda re-addicted to the game. Even metro is pretty good as an example. For what its worth I've always hated that map in a 32 versus 32 context. It was pretty fun on like 360/ps3 with a smaller player count but I thought it was garbage on the full 32 versus 32 platforms. It's actually not bad in this version by comparison. It's not my favorite compared to say a normal map but at least in this version it feels like there are more ways to flank around B versus being stuck in literally one bottleneck the entire time.

TEEEPO

  • hi, i suck
  • Senior Member
Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #238 on: November 13, 2019, 07:35:37 PM »
you only have yourself to blame for being pinned down at a chokepoint in this version of metro with the various flanks, arguably making it the only good version in existence.

Re: BATTLEFIELD V
« Reply #239 on: November 13, 2019, 09:33:39 PM »
I’ve always hated Metro too. It was the anthesis of Battlefield to me—a poor imitation of Call of Duty—a duck masquerading as a pig, but I’m with you. This Metro works. TEEEPO and I used to play Battlefield when we were 16.  :heart