DICE to Rollback TTK Changes and Remove "Conquest Core" Playlist in Battlefield V

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,660
DICE has listened to the community and is in the process of rolling back time-to-kill (TTK) changes that made enemy players into bullet sponges. Also it is getting rid of the "Conquest Core" playlist which featured the faster TTK values. These changes are a server side change so no patch or downtime is necessary. DICE has listened to the community on the time-to-death (TTD) of certain weapons and is in the process of "changing" them to better suit the game. The rollback will occur on December 18th at 4am PT / 7am ET / 1p CET. DICE is still taking advice on how to bring new players into the game without oversimplifying the core Battlefield experience for veterans.

It's important to acknowledge that we have a challenge bringing new players into Battlefield V and onboard them to become more experienced Battlefield players. It's been a challenge across our games for a long time, as many will know, and becomes even more important for us to improve upon our post-launch experience with consistent updates to the game through the Tides of War. Our desire to service a game that caters to old and new players will continue. How we get it right isn't easy, nor will it be quick, and we appreciate when the community comes together and helps us on this journey.
 
Battlefield has never had this problem. Not 1942, not BF2, not 2142. The gameplay is what is it. The core mechanics are not difficult. You don't need to know jack crap to just jump into a server and play one or two of the classes.

How simple do they feel they need? This is the problem with EA being involved. "It has to appeal to EVERYONE!" no... it just needs to appeal to about a hundred million gamers worldwide. It fills a niche. It was never a universal game, just a dang good one for anyone who cared to try.

It's worlds easier to learn than say... DOTA2.

I get the feeling EA would have called Tribes "too complicated" too. Which is the entire problem!
 
cageymaru said:
DICE is still taking advice on how to bring new players into the game without oversimplifying the core Battlefield experience for veterans.
Click to expand...
That ship has already sailed, DICE. You had that chance with the reveal and marketing and you fucked that up royally. When people spoke up about it you told them "if you don't like it, don't buy it." And here we are.
 
BF is always broken. After the BF4 nonsense, I refuse to buy into the franchise.
I was a hardcore BC2 and BF3 player. The brokenness in those games was tolerable.

DICE has advanced from broken games to "refuse to buy" games.
 
This BF is garbage. I've had every bf game with tons of hours in each one and this one just pisses me off at every attempt to play it for various reasons.

At this point just scrap it, refund everyone their money and pretend it never happened.
 
Armenius said:
That ship has already sailed, DICE. You had that chance with the reveal and marketing and you fucked that up royally. When people spoke up about it you told them "if you don't like it, don't buy it." And here we are.
Click to expand...

Budzman said:
This BF is garbage. I've had every bf game with tons of hours in each one and this one just pisses me off at every attempt to play it for various reasons.

At this point just scrap it, refund everyone their money and pretend it never happened.
Click to expand...

AMEN! This is a new era, you WILL censor your games or you will be crushed. The brown, the gay, and the female will no longer be tolerated.
 
Damn, you folks are negative - how many complaining have actually played this game?


It's better than BF1 and the gunplay was (and apparently is again) very good, on par with BF4. Overall multiplayer feels closer to Bad Company 2 than more recent BF games, which is a pro in my book.

Assuming they undo all of the stupid TTK/TTD changes, this game is worth checking out during the inevitable Christmas sale.
 
BF 1942 and then BF3 where the best. I almost want to reinstall BF3
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
SamuelL421 said:
Damn, you folks are negative - how many complaining have actually played this game?


It's better than BF1 and the gunplay was (and apparently is again) very good, on par with BF4. Overall multiplayer feels closer to Bad Company 2 than more recent BF games, which is a pro in my book.

Assuming they undo all of the stupid TTK/TTD changes, this game is worth checking out during the inevitable Christmas sale.
Click to expand...

as long as ppl like you keep buying games from firms like EA, things will just keep getting worse.
a publisher whom with every new game gives you less content than the last, and with every new game charges you more money via micro transactions, with every new game being a lesser reskined version of the last, with no bold moves to innovate with new genre or gameplay, just less from the same while charging you for more, and you keep buying to the point that they think you are moron who needs to be re-educated, a bleep in a sea of bleeps that need their mind to be molded to suit the political agenda of the day.
personnaly i just want them to make a good game worth the AAA price, not charge me more to stay competitive in multiplayer or artificialy make my single player game a hassle to force me to buy from the shop, i dont want them to sell me half the game for full price, then charge me later for the other half via DLCs, and i sure don't fuking need them to tell me what to think or how to behave, but hey that's just me, and that's just you.
 
Last edited:
SamuelL421 said:
Damn, you folks are negative - how many complaining have actually played this game?
It's better than BF1 and the gunplay was (and apparently is again) very good, on par with BF4. Overall multiplayer feels closer to Bad Company 2 than more recent BF games, which is a pro in my book.
Assuming they undo all of the stupid TTK/TTD changes, this game is worth checking out during the inevitable Christmas sale.
Click to expand...

Not really though, they nerfed the shit out of BF because of a bunch of snot nosed whiny cry babies. I'd had enough after BC2 and admit I haven't tried anything since. Scratch that, I tried the BF1 demo and was like 'mother of gawd is this shit', fuckem and a very spectial FUCK YOU GOES OUT TO EA for ruining the franchise with second rate game devs suckin up to a bunch of candy asses who have no skill so they bitch about anything they can like name calling, if people aren't talking shit to you its because you suck! BF series up to 2142 was one of my all time favorites, thousands of hours. I even mapped for 1942 and Desert Combat.
 
I don't understand all the crying about the TTK changes. The changes, at most, made a kill take one more bullet and only from certain guns and only when dealing with body shots.

Saying the changes ruined anything is a pretty dramatic way to describe the minor impact of what changed.
 
Tbird761 said:
I don't understand all the crying about the TTK changes. The changes, at most, made a kill take one more bullet and only from certain guns and only when dealing with body shots.

Saying the changes ruined anything is a pretty dramatic way to describe the minor impact of what changed.
Click to expand...
I couldn't even tell the difference.. People are way too opinionated when it comes to this update.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mkk
like this
Hmm Didn't they say if you don't like it Don't buy it? Well I guess people aren't and the servers are drying up AS THEY SHOULD #NOONESBATTLEFEILD #FUCKYOUDICEANDEA

NOW MAKE 2143 ASSHOLES!
 
I have had issues since BF2 "myself". Not likely to ever purchase BF one, nor BFV after numerous complaints I personally had or had witnessed with BFBC2, BF3 and 4.

As are as the "dumbing down" and "reversing changes" I do not know, but likely they could have kept it simple and looked from a more realistic perspective, take the "game" out of the equation for a moment.

The soldiers are wearing armor, or behind some type of protective barrier, my $.02 (long form of course).

A bb gun (sort of speak) will take many shots to kill unless you are "very lucky" with a single perfect shot to an eyeball type thing, where taking a 50 cal to the face will kill you period (or hits you in shoulder, arm will get taken clean off, talking the rifle not handgun) as would a tank round or a missile/rocket.

Standing on an exploding grenade or other munition you are equally dead but being "stabbed" is not nor ever should be 100% chance of instant death (unless in the throat or eyeball).

IMHO they are not trying all that hard to "keep it real" even though they depict most of the BF series to be "virtually" real combat, folks should treat as it is either 100% game OR a simulation, so should they big time.

Problems seem come in (or remain) when they or "fans" cannot seem to make up their mind about such and so balance and rebalancing becomes par for the course instead of just making the overall experience "better".

I just found it frustrating as oh hell when I played BC2, 3, 4 where I could shoot someone in the face with an RPG or tank shell they might as well have laughed it off (had happen where 2 or 3 tank shells before they died, but one or 2 rpg into that tank I was dead...FFS they were on foot) but if they pulled out their puny pistol they could one or 2 shot me no problems at all o_O ?
 
Good change. Original gun play felt pretty solid, and I'm enjoying the game. I'm glad they listened to the community on this one.
 
I'm enjoying BFV for now.

That being said, I'm tired of developers catering games to the lowest skill denominator. Want to know how I learned to be a decent FPS shooter? By getting stomped on for years and actually working to improve my skills in the early games like Quake, Unreal, and Counter Strike. These new players need to stop complaining and just learn to get gud. The all inclusive coddling is bullshit.
 
Ive had em all, and glad they went back to the orginal TTK values. Feels better. Game looks beautiful and runs amazing, even DX12 is working great (on my Vega anyways). Looking forward to new maps coming and some further balancing to be done. I agree no coddling the greenhorns, but as a company trying to grow the playerbase, I can see why they did it...
 
Here are things they should do to simplify shit they made too complicated just because.

1) Fix dropped ammo and health crates. Its not obvious you have to interact with them to get more ammo, or health packs. Don't change anything else about how they function, just make it when you run over it you get a health pack, or a ammo pack.
2) Why do we need a separate button for vault/jump? default should be one key does either function. If some players want to split them up, make it an option.

Not simplification, but the plane vs plane guns are way to nerfed. Why are we pushing for .5sec TTD when on the ground, but in the air it takes minutes to kill a plane with guns.


That said. The maps seem a bit dull or maybe its just the limited number of them, Grand Operations, is more like Jr Operations, failing or winning has no real impact on progress. Operations in BF1 have tension, and a goal (at least for attackers),is a downer if you win on defense and its all over, kind of, but attacking winning brought another map, there was a reason to push.
 
Rizen said:
Good change. Original gun play felt pretty solid, and I'm enjoying the game. I'm glad they listened to the community on this one.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it was a poor decision and a good move on their part to walk it back. The change wasn’t noticeable in all situations, but it did genuinely take the medic’s guns from bad to terrible along with most of the low rate of fire guns in the game.

opfreak said:
The maps seem a bit dull or maybe its just the limited number of them, Grand Operations, is more like Jr Operations, failing or winning has no real impact on progress. Operations in BF1 have tension, and a goal (at least for attackers),is a downer if you win on defense and its all over, kind of, but attacking winning brought another map, there was a reason to push.
Click to expand...

With operations being sort of pointless now, I think they should do away with it or make some big changes. The maps are part of the problem, BF1 only had one more map then BFV at launch but it did have more variations of those maps on different game modes - BFV desperately needs this. They should bring back the one win on defense mechanic to win as well.

Biggest issue with operations imo - we need better (any) balancing after each match. BF1 did this reasonably well. Need to prevent the situation where operations becomes so one-sided that it gets boring over the course of the rounds. If one team is destroying the other repeatedly, you always get people leaving the server - meaning the stacked team now has 10 extra players as well and the losing team has no hope of winning in any of the remaining operations rounds.
 
A lot of "get skill" shit in here. More like, "get balance" and "get netcode".
 
Furious_Styles said:
How about stop buying games from clueless devs? Glad I passed on this game especially with the BR delays.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so I didn't preorder. I waited for positive reviews AND a sale to buy.

Nevertheless, getting directly to the point: every developer is fucked up. Let's just clear the air here. Every. Developer.

Any AAA release or early release has major, passionate support and criticism.
 
The silliest part about this whole TTK change thing... was that DICE had a method for testing this crap, it was the CTE. But I guess with BFV they just threw that out the window, kind of like how they dumped the entire community support out the window with BF1 when they decided to launch without usable custom servers, clans, etc. It really is just going backwards over and over again, always managing to ignore anything they might have learned from the previous games at this point.
 
Furious_Styles said:
How about stop buying games from clueless devs? Glad I passed on this game especially with the BR delays.
Click to expand...
If you've actually been following the game and/or playing it yourself (which you could have trialed for a full 30 days for $15), the game itself is well done. There are a lot less game breaking bugs than previous releases - the biggest "bug" seems to be that you stop accruing currency to buy cosmetics which is, imo, a minor problem - and the netcode, while not perfect, is significantly improved over what BF4 launched with (which is the game that everyone has rose colored glasses for right now).

The reason everyone was upset about the TTK change is because the game played very well and it was fun. It addressed a lot of the community complaints from BF1. They removed 3D spotting and the gun play was a lot faster. It was a dumb decision to change it, but it seems they have learned that lesson now, at least.

The biggest challenge the developers have is how toxic the gaming community has gotten over anything that could conceivably be construed as "diversity". Women in the game really doesn't make any difference, it's just different character models, and you can change all of your own characters to men if that really concerns you. Don't buy into the nonsense.
 
Rizen said:
If you've actually been following the game and/or playing it yourself (which you could have trialed for a full 30 days for $15), the game itself is well done. There are a lot less game breaking bugs than previous releases - the biggest "bug" seems to be that you stop accruing currency to buy cosmetics which is, imo, a minor problem - and the netcode, while not perfect, is significantly improved over what BF4 launched with (which is the game that everyone has rose colored glasses for right now).

The reason everyone was upset about the TTK change is because the game played very well and it was fun. It addressed a lot of the community complaints from BF1. They removed 3D spotting and the gun play was a lot faster. It was a dumb decision to change it, but it seems they have learned that lesson now, at least.

The biggest challenge the developers have is how toxic the gaming community has gotten over anything that could conceivably be construed as "diversity". Women in the game really doesn't make any difference, it's just different character models, and you can change all of your own characters to men if that really concerns you. Don't buy into the nonsense.
Click to expand...

I played the beta, it was just another BF1 reskin with a few minor changes. Not my cup of tea. However I was interested in the BR mode. Not so much anymore when I can see that the core game devs are doing. I know they aren't specifically making the BR mode, but when they base a change like that on data without any real community feedback it just smacks of cluelessness about what current players like about the game.
 
SamuelL421 said:
Damn, you folks are negative - how many complaining have actually played this game?


It's better than BF1 and the gunplay was (and apparently is again) very good, on par with BF4. Overall multiplayer feels closer to Bad Company 2 than more recent BF games, which is a pro in my book.

Assuming they undo all of the stupid TTK/TTD changes, this game is worth checking out during the inevitable Christmas sale.
Click to expand...

I think it's the best war FPS out right now and the only one worth the price tag.
 
Rizen said:
The biggest challenge the developers have is how toxic the gaming community has gotten over anything that could conceivably be construed as "diversity". Women in the game really doesn't make any difference, it's just different character models, and you can change all of your own characters to men if that really concerns you. Don't buy into the nonsense.
Click to expand...

Which could have easily been prevented by using actual stories of women in WW2 of which there are lots(especially snipers from Russia being quite well known), instead of genderswapping Operation Gunnerside to be a mother/daughter team instead of the badass Norwegian commandos that actually pulled it off. The same goes for the other revisionist bullshit in the other stories as well. Even the initial knee-jerk reaction to the announcement trailer wouldn't have been as bad(there's always going to be that one asshole who complains about everything) if the woman in that trailer didn't have a cyborg arm that is more capable than a lot of prosthetics in 2018(the random katana on the back of the other british soldier was equally as silly).

Yet instead of bothering to grasp why some of the more rational people with complaints might dislike it, they decided to just label everyone as misogynists who shouldn't buy their game.
 
Merc1138 said:
Which could have easily been prevented by using actual stories of women in WW2 of which there are lots(especially snipers from Russia being quite well known), instead of genderswapping Operation Gunnerside to be a mother/daughter team instead of the badass Norwegian commandos that actually pulled it off. The same goes for the other revisionist bullshit in the other stories as well. Even the initial knee-jerk reaction to the announcement trailer wouldn't have been as bad(there's always going to be that one asshole who complains about everything) if the woman in that trailer didn't have a cyborg arm that is more capable than a lot of prosthetics in 2018(the random katana on the back of the other british soldier was equally as silly).

Yet instead of bothering to grasp why some of the more rational people with complaints might dislike it, they decided to just label everyone as misogynists who shouldn't buy their game.
Click to expand...
Honestly I didn't watch the reveal trailer and I didn't pay any attention to the resulting controversy. All I really care about is if the resulting product is fun to play or not. I think it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isp
like this
I hate the screams. Just don't like shooting women and hearing that response.
 
Merc1138 said:
Which could have easily been prevented by using actual stories of women in WW2 of which there are lots(especially snipers from Russia being quite well known), instead of genderswapping Operation Gunnerside to be a mother/daughter team instead of the badass Norwegian commandos that actually pulled it off. The same goes for the other revisionist bullshit in the other stories as well. Even the initial knee-jerk reaction to the announcement trailer wouldn't have been as bad(there's always going to be that one asshole who complains about everything) if the woman in that trailer didn't have a cyborg arm that is more capable than a lot of prosthetics in 2018(the random katana on the back of the other british soldier was equally as silly).

Yet instead of bothering to grasp why some of the more rational people with complaints might dislike it, they decided to just label everyone as misogynists who shouldn't buy their game.
Click to expand...

I think both the marketing and production of the game feel very out of tune with the Battlefield demographic. Classical, large scale warfare enthusiasts. Not adding women per-say, thats just a natural evolution in gaming trends but like you said the trailer seemed very out of character for a Battlefield game, even the maps I do like seem clunky and poorly designed. The Classes are funky. Everything seems antithetical to even something as recent as Battlefield 4. I can't help but wonder if this is even the same group of developers and producers from BF4 and BFBC2. One of the reasons I skipped out on either Battlefront is that they admitted during the development process that both games were largely developed by devs traditionally assigned to post launch DLC.

It feels like everything post BF4 has had a made a serious directional shift. BF4 was buggy as shit I didnt even bother with it until the first big patch but still design and tone were reasonably consistent with previous games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top