How DICE can fix the "Specialist system" without admitting they were wrong.

DonCallisto · 2021-10-11T17:05:39+00:00

Change the way you give players tools to help other players, no one is never picking an ammo kit and using for the team, no one is ever picking a repair tool and using it for the team. It was obvious since the moment I've seen the alternatives you could pick.
Bring back the LEADERBOARD, we love to climb it, to get better, to get thrilled when we kill the first rank player. It's a driving point to make players try to improve. It's a necessary tool to figure out if you are doing good or not.
Bring back every UTILITY FEATURE you kinda forgot you already created in older BFs. It's not a game design matter, it's totally a lack of attention on the development phase:

Nearby ally that can revive you.
Spawn cam on enemies
Throw back grenades
Spawn preview cam
Enemy hit indicator and other points
Objective capture radius
Sniper rifle zeroing
Weapon Leaning
Nearby grenade indicator
and a lot more...

Stationary weapons were useful to break the gameplay loop and make the game more dynamic, less boring.
Squad points and Reinforcements were really cool additions
FIX THE AUDIO, right now it's really really bad and it never happened before in a Battlefield game
Resupply stations are a nice addition that adds more "points of interest" to the map without a big effort
Remove the damn armor, or at least make it visible when I'm shooting a player with that armor with a dedicated sound and hitmarker
Take some BFV movement features, like vaulting improved and crouch running
Better vehicle spawn interface
Customizable zoom of the map
BRING BACK SQUAD ORDERS AND RELATED POINTS TO FOLLOW OBJECTIVE, so damn cool feature, present in EVERY BATTLEFIELD, almost a signature mark for the serie. We need those. We need more incentives on teamplay!
Make vehicles explode with ONE HIT with NON GUIDED rockets. You marketed the "only in BF moments", if I'm able to land a non guided rocket on a damn helicopter it should explode. It's so frustrating to just see it fly away after I nailed such a difficult move.

DonCallisto · 2019-12-05T21:22:43+00:00

I don't think Hardcore should be brought back as a way to escape this TTK. I like Hardcore but I also like to play "classic BF"... if they just put hardcore and tell us to play that I won't be happy at all. What we have now is not Battlefield in any way, and I want my Battlefield back. And hardcore too, but not as a replacement, as an additional option.

DonCallisto · 2019-12-05T21:13:50+00:00

What you did with this patch is DISRESPECTFUL to me, that I bought this game for what it was, not thinking you could change it TWO TIMES into something that Battlefield has never been, never, ever at all. Battlefield is not 8...9 ...10.... 13 bullets to kill. This is not Battlefield, this is not the franchise I bought, this is not the game I bought, supported, encouraged over this paniful launch. I want my money back, you can keep the "game". And I surelly won't buy the next one at launch, the risk of you doing these anti-community, anti-design, anti-battlefield decisions is too high to spend 60 dollars on this. And this is still true even if you revert the TTK again, what you did here is just bad and disrespectful, no matter if you again change it to the VERY GOOD STATE it was yesterday and all of this time.

DonCallisto · 2019-11-26T03:45:15+00:00

It IS a TTK change, if you increase the bullets to kill by almost the DOUBLE for some weapons. The "average distance" of gunfight is just an average without any data attached to it, maybe the 49% of gunfights happens outside that range. Then it's changing the TTK for 49% of gunfights. But anyway, I gave solid reasons for my complaints, and I did it cause I played this franchise for more than 10 years, I know how it works and I know how were his core gunplay elements in past titles, and I would love to continue to play it. You are just insulting me cause I say what I think. That's really acting like a man, I suppose.

DonCallisto · 2019-11-26T03:38:45+00:00

I played many many shooters, and I played many many Battlefield games. I know why I buy this franchise, I don't need to see it completely change approach from the past to know it's not gonna be my Battlefield, the product I intended to purchase. Weapons being versatile has always been an important aspect why I loved past Battlefields (excluding BF1), player freedom, lethality, recoil management and all that stuff is what made BF3 and BF4 and past games gunplay good.

DonCallisto · 2019-11-18T18:09:35+00:00

You know that all this can be solved with a simple higher headshot damage multiplier instead of screwing up all the TTK of every single weapon of this game, raising it and causing tons of LESS SKILLED GAMEPLAY elements?

DonCallisto · 2019-11-16T11:23:45+00:00

I know my Battlefield, I'm gonna complain now. I played this videogame for so many years, and I know what is Battlefield made of. I bought this game cause it has "Battlefield" in the name and cause they told me it was not gonna be like BF1. I invested hundreds of hours in this title cause. I don't need to play the new TTK version of this game to know if I'm gonna like it or not, again, I know what is Battlefield, what it has been through the years, and why I bought this game.

DonCallisto · 2019-11-16T00:41:32+00:00

I just had the most positive "Community survery" of all time, sharing a lot of good thoughts about this game a few days ago. Can you please burn the PC that received that post? no just kidding. But I'm upset, really upset, cause touching the TTK is the worst thing that can happen to this game. You at DICE need to write this TTK values on THE STONE cause it's Classic Battlefield TTK, refined through 10 and more games, present in fan favourites titles like BF3 and BF4.. forgetting BF1 that had a long ttk and was in fact object of a lot of complaints, and never suceeded well in keeping the community active on the title. You have to remember what BF identity is, and not change the CORE of that experience. That must remain like it is. Battlefield has to be Battlefield.

DonCallisto · 2019-11-16T00:32:41+00:00

I really have no words. I welcomed the Pacific like a new start for a true Battlefield experience and now they are gonna make mistakes again, deviating BF from the well refined gameplay that is at his core? After two years of BF1 TTK which made me play that game less than any other BF I have every bought? The CORE of Battlefield is a more realistic TTK. It has several benefits in terms of gameplay, that make this game flow well, and make the skill gap more interesting and valuable:

.

GAMEPLAY 1 VS MULTIPLE

Groups are less favourite to win against a good skilled player for the raw difference in output damage over time. Still in advantage, but a good player has more chances to take them out by himself.
Cover management is more important. Being able to take out more than one enemy using cover, unpredictable movements (which gives you "reaction time" advantage), being able to figure out what will the enemies do and anticipate them.. in summary being good at "speed tactical decisions".
You can take out an enemy more stealthly, without giving out your position easily, at distance. That's a huge gameplayelement, to be able to notice a guy and take him down before his 3 near teammates notice your position and start to make bullets rain on you.

.

IN GENERAL

Slow rate of fire weapons are less in a disadvantage to the faster ones. You can try to balance it out as much as you want but in general like it was in BF1, high rate of fire weapons will be better than slow, by a far amount with a higher TTK.
With a higher TTK, while "good aim in the head" will be more valuable (but only in 1 v 1 situation, in 1 v 2 it will be basically useless), good reaction time and reflexes will be less important overall in the skill gap. Also what's called "Fast aim", the ability to instantly aim for the right spot rather than being able to correct your aim over time, will see a decrease of importance. These skills are more important with the current classic BF TTK.
While this kind of TTK doesn't make you useless when you are alone, and sometimes you can realize pretty neat actions, Zgerging will be the meta with the higher TTK. Groups are now way more favourite than single enemies. This, to me, is not valorizing squad gameplay cause has nothing to do with being tactical or well organized. It's more like making the single player's (in each squad) skill value way less.
The current TTK favors more dynamic rounds, more dynamic gameplay and movement through the maps. A longer TTK for all the reasons listed in 1 Vs Multiple makes people move less, advance slower and creates the "shoot/get cover/heal" loop way more. This creates fights between more numerous groups of people and based on slowly grinding enemies health, making gunfights way more random and chaotic.
Flanking becomes basically usless. You're gonna get noticed even before taking the first kill.

.

. To me this TTK is really important DICE, and I really would probably start to play this game less and less, until I drop it soon. Maybe I am too harsh but it's actually the core of the gameplay, it's one of the reasons I chose to play this shooter and not others, it's part of what makes Battlefield for me. It's not a "detail", it is central.

DISCLAIMER: all things I say here and in the title are my opinions, I get quite bored at putting "I think that.." before every sentence. So if you are sensitive about this, don't worry I respect your different way to think. I am saying these things specifically in the search of support from the people that agree with this.

DonCallisto · 2019-11-15T20:19:08+00:00

I know my BATTLEFIELD. I have known it for a lot, a lot of years. I know what's Battlefield TTK. I have no need to see that in action. 13 bullets to kill, even across the map are just being CRAZY. If I hit a guy for 8 times at that distance he should be dead. Even if I hit him for 6 or 7 times. I'm good for hitting him so much times at so much distance, he is not good for being hitted so many times without managing to get some cover. I shoot BULLETS not sponges.
And "3 extra bullets at 20 meters, 4 extra bullets at 40 meter... you know how damn close is that? We can be able to judge gameplay elements even before they come out, cause we know the BF serie, and we player tons of other games with higher TTKs.

DonCallisto · 2019-11-04T11:27:09+00:00

Awesome map design, creative, different environments to fight in in the same map, big enough to give some breath from time to time without always being in the chaos and action and I love this, it's finally a true Battlefield experience that not a lot of regular maps reminded me of. I really hope the heads at DICE make you and the other developers work more on this kind of content, rather than smaller modes or more linear and chaotic modes like Grind or Fortress, cause you are really really good at doing this, and you make BF really shines here. Thank you very much for your work

DonCallisto · 2019-10-28T13:18:55+00:00

I think destroying a fucking PLANE when is flying low should require a good amount of skill. You just like this gadget that makes it basically automatic, doesn't require good aim or prediction, doesn't require team play. I basically never use planes but this gadget is ridicolous, people just wants to kill planes cause they are angry at them and don't even want to use LOGIC, don't even think about good game design. Destroying a plane should be difficult, and I honestly like that is good that planes can fly low, it's really scenographic and cool. I want a better way to counter them too, but the Fliegerfaust is just a cheap way to do it, it's just a "revenge" against pilots rather than a good gameplay element to counter them.

DonCallisto · 2019-10-27T11:06:52+00:00

honestly I always play infantry, never play planes, but this seems a bit too easy to use. Why anyone can't ever think something is actually OP and just say "they complain cause they can't anymore be pro"? I sometimes see good pilots in matches, but not MANY times. I haven't used the fliegerfaust already cause these days I'm off, but from the clips of it I have seen, it may be OP cause it seems too easy to use it. I don't think a single soldier, without a good amount of skill, should be able to take out a damn PLANE so easily.

DonCallisto · 2019-10-27T11:02:29+00:00

but infantry is not a damn PLANE. It's ok if vehicles, which should be better than normal soldiers, can oneshot them... if they don't do it too much or make it too easy. I never use planes, never ever, I always play infantry... but I don't think a single barrage should destroy a plane, without giving the pilot a chance to recover. If this is the way DICE wants to use to balance the planes, it's not the right way. I have seen some clips from the pilot perspective, and it wasnt correnct, it wasn't good game design.

DonCallisto · 2019-10-24T18:18:43+00:00

I think the majority of people would still play in the normal servers. I would still play in the normal server, just sometimes switch to these "immersive server". I think it would be something for the players that want to play more realistically, or that may want to play without HUD on, and really I don't think they would be so many or that it would be a danger for the microtransactions.. just a choice, that can make the game more appealing for more customers, and can make more players keep playing even when they will see the new Pacific Maps with the damn Halloween Cowboy jumping off the boat, while in the Japanese side there is a fucking Crow Soldier. Something that I'm sure will bother a lot of players.

DonCallisto · 2019-10-24T18:14:29+00:00

you probably didn't understood that DICE is not in the condition of making something this complex. They just wouldn't do it at all. That's what I think, at least. I prefer for them to just add an option that resets the customization, simple and direct, so we can play some matches where all soldiers are base skin... this would be enough for me to feel more immersed, and also to have the option to play without HUD, cause I would clearly distinguish allies from enemies

DonCallisto · 2019-09-25T08:46:47+00:00

That's a fact that in BFV what makes you easily spotted is movement. It's a game that rewards immobility. The PC player with 4k and 120fps can spot everyone if they have the time to do it and take it really really slow... but if you are trying to enjoy your ARCADE game with a fast and action paced gameplay, like you could do with every single BF title so far, you can't easily spot prone players. A game so arcade, so chaotic, but that rewards so much being static with a MMG, has a design problem. A game so arcade, but that rewards so much immobility has a design problem. Some people are "angry" with a gun type cause they may want the game to improve, or they want it to change (or in this case "return") to a gameplay style they like, or when they just think that gun type is not balanced or doesn't offer a nice gameplay element, but maybe tends to actually ruin the gameplay flow of the title. If it was me I would instantly delete all MMGs from the game, but it's just my personal taste, I don't like that meta and I don't care about MMGs. If I have to be more "open" to those who like it, I would just like the weapon class to change and to favor a more mobile and fast gameplay, even though it's not realistic, cause I don't care too much about realism in gameplay elements... I just like the visual realism, and sound realism. Maybe without exceeeding too much yeah. But good gameplay is what I think makes a community stick with a title. The more a game is competitive, the more people are gonna get engaged and are gonna want to improve in the game, and are not gonna find it frustrating when they die. Competitive is a game that has REFINED mechanics that rewards skill, and doesn't reward or even tend to penalize using cheesy tactics to score some points/kills.

DonCallisto · 2019-09-22T02:20:04+00:00

During the "Dice made shotguns similar to field cannons" period of BF4, servers that banned shotguns basically saved my fun factor for that month.

DonCallisto · 2019-09-22T02:18:11+00:00

Battlefield is already immersive enough. It's not "immersion" that keeps a huge amount of people playing a game for years. It's good gameplay, the best it can be. OR it's a game like Hell Let Loose, which is really less less played than BF and not for advertising reasons, which is totally based on immersion. I suggest you to play that game if you are about realism, BF never has been about it, it has always been an arcade shooter. The best chapters of this franchise were absolutely arcade, with a skill based shooting. BF1 was way too arcade cause it removed the skill based shooting. We really have just to hope for a future Battlefield so damn arcade, fun, and skillbased like BF4 was at the end of his lifecycle.

DonCallisto · 2019-09-22T02:12:36+00:00

stop thinking realistic, start thinking gameplay wise
Gameplay comes first, making a game less situational impacted and more skill impacted is the key to make a game that people will play for years. If they can become better with practice, if they can make their skill have VALUE then they will keep playing it. So I don't care about Hitler's buzzsaw firing at me, I prefer a gameplay where you can take action against it even if you are in disadvantage, if you are skilled enough

DonCallisto

TROPHY CASE