The Anti-Cheat System Is Broken in Battlefield V

iRevert

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
469
That was a trimmed down post I did (yes you don't just let everyone have report rights from get go) and have be able to have cases reviewed properly if you do get a player reviewed ban

But his snapping is very suspicious, but seem this with promod players I just have to play differently when some one is playing like this (like don't run out and kill everything because he might be there, have to play more careful)
He's a former ESL Proleague player (and while that isn't an excuse as cheaters exist on the top level as well) he also was a part of the group polled by DICE to improve weapon play in BFV. I used to play against him in BF4 on a infy only server along with a number of other high level players and super tryhards. You do have to adapt to their playstyle but you also quickly learn that if your aim isn't on point its over.

He's always been a bit notorious for flicking and his past streams show it.

Having seen reports people make on players has put me in the group that would never endorse an overwatch system without some failsafes. Hell I was reported for "one shotting" people in BF4 from across the map with a TOW, it didn't matter that they were flying a jet/helicopter like an idiot what did matter was that I was constantly killing them and placing high on the scoreboard. Rather than thinking that it might be them it had to be an excuse that it was cheating, you see this so much in streamers on PUBG that report page is just a goldmine of comedy from angry entitled players.
 

stolikat

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
54
Such a horrid game. I am sad to see the franchise get ruined by EA. I played BF42 and BF2 then stopped playing. Sad
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
300
I don’t know I feel that the new TTK just has the normal solo players hurting more than usual. I play pretty much only with a squad on discord and never solo, same group of guys from past battlefields. We play nightly, and nightly there are hackusations. I can say we’ve only run into two or three blatant cheaters since release. We have a blast, so I see this post and the posts on reddit and I’m actually having the opposite experience.
This.. Seen some cheaters, but it isn't overflowing with them as it's getting portrayed in here. Had much worse experiences with cheaters in bf3.
What I've noticed is that a lot of people call hacks on skilled players. Most people are oblivious in that game, so seeing someone that actually know how to play the game might make them think they are cheating.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,687
These days there are mods to make games like this run in extremely low graphics mode, basically it makes the game look like Fortnite on a phone. That lets you see through things because those things aren't even there with the hack on.
I used to play TFC on an S3 virge and fooling around one day I discovered that one of the graphics modes (maybe OGL) didn't render properly so I could see people touching walls lol. Legit cheat but it was horrible looking so I didn't play that way.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
794
He's a former ESL Proleague player (and while that isn't an excuse as cheaters exist on the top level as well) he also was a part of the group polled by DICE to improve weapon play in BFV. I used to play against him in BF4 on a infy only server along with a number of other high level players and super tryhards. You do have to adapt to their playstyle but you also quickly learn that if your aim isn't on point its over.

...s.
1 guy vs 100,000 cheaters

anticheat system is still shit. Zero excuse for game devs ( all of them ) to allow this
 

Silentbob343

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
1,782
Yeah those days...

"Really" good headphones and putzing about with the interp settings...

Which actually translates into lots of wallhacks, prefiring, and netcode exploitation.

Luckily aimbots were terrible.
His point wasn't that cheats didn't exist back then, but rather you could find a good server or servers with mods/admins that policed for sketchy activity. That isn't the case anymore as you thrown into random pools. I used to play MOHAA on a handful of servers as they would look into and kick/ban players that were found to be cheating.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,616
Most of these cheats work by intercepting calls between the game and Windows and messing directly with the video card. This problem cannot be solved without the help of video card makers and Microsoft. Both have incentives to play dumb about their roll, though.
 

iRevert

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
469
Is punkbuster not a thing anymore?
Punkbuster was phased out post BF4, it also was false flagging a lot of people (and continued to do so) for things like RGB control on motherboards as well as a false positives that they are refusing to lift as it would show how grossly negligent they've become. They took a stand that their system does not put out bad waves except in rare occasions and despite community testing finding 4 ban waves in a year popped were triggered by non-cheat software they are refusing to roll back those waves or admit any wrong doing.

Frankly PBB needs to overhaul or just stop being a thing.
 

iRevert

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
469
1 guy vs 100,000 cheaters

anticheat system is still shit. Zero excuse for game devs ( all of them ) to allow this
You missed the chain of comments, the point was that the anticheat is bad however an overwatch system wouldn't be right for the battlefield series due to players like Relaaa being out there (and how many people lack basic understanding of core mechanics of the game even with hundred of hours played).

I agree that Fairfight is a steaming pile and you'll see a spike when the BR mode rolls out before it becoming non-existent again a few months later when the next game rolls out.

What is needed is a multi-tiered system not only at the server level (private servers) but also at a software/statistical level (flagging players for statistically impossible things IE 20 headshot kills with an ammo bag) and then also at a peer level. This is something we aren't going to see because it would "cost" too much to implement private servers and frankly DICE/EA isn't willing to allow much in the way of third party anti-cheat detection.
 

SamuelL421

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2016
Messages
241
About 2/3 of the way through this video he mentions a cheat where all enemies on the map are spotted at once. I have seen this several times now, when it happened my squad laughed and thought it was a bug...

I've seen blatant cheats a few times in both BFV and before in BF1 but it is cheats like this that highlight the problem. Fairfight supposedly analyzes stats to ban cheaters. If that is true, an action that is impossible to reproduce without cheating (again, spotting all players at once) should be instantly flagged. I have to assume one of the following: either FF can't catch even obvious cheats or EA / DICE are knowingly giving only temp bans / no punishment (cheaters are not afraid to use obvious cheats).
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
7,363
Perhaps I missed the comment, but Blizzard's cheat stuff works pretty good doesn't it? Seems like a good tech to license
 

Fumz

n00b
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
24
It's not just Battlefield; it's all ea games as ea has made the conscious decision to forgo a client side ac in all their titles. Combine that with ea's position on cheaters (they're customers too), and I would argue that the ac is actually working as intended.

For years, if you got a ban in an ea game, all you had to do to circumvent the ban was create a new account, put a game on it, even a free one, then have an ea live advisor transfer the banned game to the new account. This was known by the cheating community, and it was known by the Origin devs. For Years.

As to the claim that blatant hackers would get quickly picked up by Fairfight... lol. That's not based in fact. The reality is that the only blatant hackers that get "permanently" banned (until they create new accounts) are the ones who show up on reddit or other gaming media, like here. Even then, there's still only a slim chance the hacker will get banned and be forced to go through the 5 minute hassle of creating a new account.

As for server tools and good admining: dice hired phogue a year before BF1 released. Phogue wrote procon. Yet, despite having phogue as a member of the team, the rsp was released in such a poor state that you could not even password protect your server. There will be no proper admin tools coming in BF5, or in any future ea/dice title. dice literally hired phogue to not work.

To the white knights defending cheaters in the game, even in this thread, wtaf? You got called a cheater so that's evidence the game doesn't have a cheating problem? That's nonsensical... and frankly, stupid. BF5 has the cheating problem one would expect a game to have that has no client side anti cheat. Everyone in battlefield now is accused of hacking. The community, rightly so, has zero confidence in the dev's ability or willingness to police their games. They have demonstrated that, repeatedly, through sw battlefront 1 and 2, titanfall 1 and 3, bf1 and bf5.

Yes, punkbuster was antiquated and needed to be replaced, but the answer was never to replace it with nothing, because it's absurd to think you can release an fps on the pc and protect it with... well, nothing really, because you're too lazy to fix the fatal flaws in the game's engine.

Technical debt is a real thing. The fundamental problem with battlefield is Frostbite. It was designed for the console. Because it's a console engine it doesn't need to perform the same sanity checks that are required on the pc. This has never been addressed by dice. Instead, they're using band-aids with denuvo hoping that nobody will notice the big gaping wound requires stitches, not band-aids.

Like I said, working as intended. The only thing that matters is short term profits, and retaining as many customers as possible.
 

Seventyfive

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,347
About 2/3 of the way through this video he mentions a cheat where all enemies on the map are spotted at once. I have seen this several times now, when it happened my squad laughed and thought it was a bug...

I've seen blatant cheats a few times in both BFV and before in BF1 but it is cheats like this that highlight the problem. Fairfight supposedly analyzes stats to ban cheaters. If that is true, an action that is impossible to reproduce without cheating (again, spotting all players at once) should be instantly flagged. I have to assume one of the following: either FF can't catch even obvious cheats or EA / DICE are knowingly giving only temp bans / no punishment (cheaters are not afraid to use obvious cheats).
Yea there are lots of things that are obviously wrong as far as fairfight should be concerned such as shooting 30 bullets and getting 30 headshots within a 3 second window with all the headshots being achieved from over 500 yards away.... pretty fucking obvious and yet fairfight does nothing.
 

Iceshot

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
180
The Battlefield franchise (for me) died after BF4. I knew once 3rd party server rental and Procon were taken out in BF1 it was the death kneel for Battlefield on PC. Without a doubt Battlefield "was" my favorite FPS franchise of all times. I'm very salty about the steaming pile of low skill gap garbage that is BF1 and BF5.

Have over 4000+ hours in BF3 and BF4 and honestly have not (yet) found a PC FPS franchise to take it's place. BF3 and BF4 were a near perfect fusion of Arcade / precision (skill) FPS gameplay. WW3 shows a lot of promise but without server rentals and strong admin control, I fear it will die off in 6-12 months (no real sense of community) once it goes retail.
 

Gatecrasher3000

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
324
yeah I am a big BF fan, but at this point im just waiting for another game to come along for the cheaters to move to. seems like they just troll the most popular game at that time, they moved from PUBG to BFV, but I know they will get board eventually and leave me and the 12 other guys who play BF to enjoy the game. shameful..
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,290
I'm not saying that there is or isn't a cheating problem in the game, but the spectator mode in BF5 is pretty broken and you really can't reliably use it to tell if someone is cheating or not. It does not accurately reflect what the player is doing in game.
 

Met-AL

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
7,889
I'm not saying that there is or isn't a cheating problem in the game, but the spectator mode in BF5 is pretty broken and you really can't reliably use it to tell if someone is cheating or not. It does not accurately reflect what the player is doing in
game.
What? You can't spectate a player and tell that they are cheating when they are snapping to enemy targets through walls and trying to shoot them before they clear said wall?
 

ZiggyDeath

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
222
His point wasn't that cheats didn't exist back then, but rather you could find a good server or servers with mods/admins that policed for sketchy activity. That isn't the case anymore as you thrown into random pools. I used to play MOHAA on a handful of servers as they would look into and kick/ban players that were found to be cheating.
I used to play CS (pre 1.0) and DOD in those early competitive leagues like OGL. The admins were all corrupt and were cheating in subtle ways. The only difference between that and other servers is the ones that would admit it.

In fact in league play, how admins verified walling was through watching replays with wallhacks on. And you can also guess that it wasn't too uncommon for players/admins to lose their replay files or "forget" to record.
 

alamox

Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
596
as if wasting your time on this crappy half finished woke wannabe game isn't enough, he wants ppl to spend their time recording ppl play to give to EA and try and help a publisher whio calls you neck bearded ignorant, instead of asking for a refund because of an unplyable garbade filled with hackers, that's on them not on you, and i think this could be easily won in court.
ruin that garbadge publisher, maybe we will start seeing better games from the studios remaining alive, and games will become cheaper, no more pression for small studios to spend half the cost on marketing just to keep up with these greedy publisher with their executive taking hundreds of millions a year on salary & bonuses, with devs underpaid and overworked to the point of draining any passion they had, pretty sure gaming would thrive, if EA & Activision come to disapear.
 
Last edited:

viscountalpha

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
2,548
I didn't get this game because EA are pushing rapid release schedules now. That means EA is going to abandon the game and not provide fixes. Activision does the same thing with COD. They rush to patch stuff right after launch then a short time later it's abandoned.
And people wonder why retro gaming is surging right now.
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
300
I'm really surprised that all of you guys have experienced so many cheaters. I have a lot of hours in BF5 and only seen a handful of cheaters.
Now BF3.. That one had a lot of cheaters.
Did something change from BF1 to BF5? Seen players get the ban in BF1 as I'm guessing it happens in rows where they get hundred if not thousands of cheaters banned at once.
Either way BF need something like the updated VAC using deep learning for anti cheat.
 

phatbx133

Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
713
I find hard to believe DICE cannot afford battleye ?

Fornite with battleye successful.

BFV with broken anti-cheats unsuccessful.

I don't own BFV, I wait for deep discount around $5-10 buck I could snagged it.

I just bought STAR WARS Battlefront II for $4.50 last month or so.

2 cents.
 

likeman

Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
726
Lack of pb streaming (no unique hardware id or to tie to the person pc or account) makes it nearly impossible to ban someone who is cheating and is avoiding fairfight

Yes hardware bans can be avoided but when I look at the big 3 anticheat for past bf bans and inforced bans you see the same person try and join a anticheat server over a past year or even 2 (these will be your mum and dad's kids/ teenager pc)
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
846
I find hard to believe DICE cannot afford battleye ?

Fornite with battleye successful.

BFV with broken anti-cheats unsuccessful.

I don't own BFV, I wait for deep discount around $5-10 buck I could snagged it.

I just bought STAR WARS Battlefront II for $4.50 last month or so.

2 cents.
The problem is not that EA/DICE can't afford battleye; they won't use it because EA feels anti-cheat software that scans your system is an invasion of privacy. That is why DICE is stuck with FF.
 

Iceshot

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
180
Battlefield has been remade into yet another low skill gap FPS franchise (COD) designed to hold you interest for 6 months. Dumbed down and catered to casuals. From the gunplay, to the server set-ups, lack of clan organization, a dumbed down version of battlelog, no deep progression system, shallow gameplay mechanics, etc. For me, it is beyond obvious that EA ordered Dice to dumb down Battlefield in a woefully misguided attempt to chase after COD's larger and more casual player ba$e. Battlefield 1 and 5 are little more than reskinned Battlefront (a view I'm far from alone in sharing). BF1 and BF5 have the looks and basic look & composition of classic Battlefield, but most of the key fundamentals that made Battlefield great, are now a shadow of their former self or simply no longer exist.

PC Battlefield 3 & 4

* Vast choices in 3rd party server hosts (gone)
* Strong Admin control and ability to police server from trolls and cheats (vastly diminished to the point of being a bad joke vs Procon)
* 100's of unique community developed plugins for Procon enhancing gameplay, server management, and fun factor (gone)
* Strong player / clan communities who play together for years (from Hardline forward, on PC, most competitive players / clans quit between 6-12 months)
* High skill gap -- easy to pickup, difficult to master, always a challenge (BF1 and BF5 are nowhere even close vs BF3 and BF4. Gameplay and gun mechanics in BF1 and BF5 greatly dumbed down)
* High K/D recognized almost always resulting in being at top the leaderboard at the end of the round (now a mindless / boring "participation award" like system for points)
* Highly customizable weapons with vast amounts of accessory combo's that really allowed you to fine tune your weapon (BF1 and BF5 offer nowhere near the adjustments options of BF3 & BF4)

I've been playing Battlefield since 1942 and hardcore from 2142 through BF4 (over 4000 hours). Battlefield 1 and 5 are "Battlefield" in name and appearance only. The "heart and soul" has been carved out. EA is where great gaming studio's go to die...
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,290
Battlefield has been remade into yet another low skill gap FPS franchise (COD) designed to hold you interest for 6 months. Dumbed down and catered to casuals. From the gunplay, to the server set-ups, lack of clan organization, a dumbed down version of battlelog, no deep progression system, shallow gameplay mechanics, etc. For me, it is beyond obvious that EA ordered Dice to dumb down Battlefield in a woefully misguided attempt to chase after COD's larger and more casual player ba$e. Battlefield 1 and 5 are little more than reskinned Battlefront (a view I'm far from alone in sharing). BF1 and BF5 have the looks and basic look & composition of classic Battlefield, but most of the key fundamentals that made Battlefield great, are now a shadow of their former self or simply no longer exist
It's pretty obvious you haven't played the game from this post. The core mechanics of the game are actually very good including the gun play, which is almost universally praised relative to the last few games. The game is being hampered more by DICE's marketing and communications than the actual game itself. After the last patch especially, the actual game play is in a very good state. It just needs more content.
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,290
What? You can't spectate a player and tell that they are cheating when they are snapping to enemy targets through walls and trying to shoot them before they clear said wall?
What part of my statement "it does not accurately reflect what the player is doing in game" did you not understand?
 

FearTheCow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
5,108
What part of my statement "it does not accurately reflect what the player is doing in game" did you not understand?
Did you actually watch the video? Or do you really think someone running around with a mmg getting rapid fire ling distance head shots isn't what is actually happening? Just with how fast the kills happen makes it impossible.
 

wnielsen

n00b
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
22
It seems good matchmaking would fix this. All the cheaters would bubble up to their own server.
Battlefield 1942 is still my favorite, I was sad the ship combat never caught on as much as I liked. Loved Battlefield Vietnam custom servers. One was all helicopters with rockets. Played a great many hours on that server.
Yes, I am old. :)
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,687
So this is par for the course for battlefield. Not sure what the news is. If you take a realistic shooter that is popular you are always going to have shit tons of cheating for 20 years nothing at all has changed. . And way back when I played BF3 which was my first BF game I had noticed DICE really didn't mind letting the client instruct the server on all sorts of stuff that should have been easy to stop or prevent. Like you know get knifed in the back buy a guy from half way across the map.

That said BF went on and people kept playing it so no the game wont be dead. People who play realistic shooters like COD, CS, and BF are just used to this shit every day in every server.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,687
You missed the chain of comments, the point was that the anticheat is bad however an overwatch system wouldn't be right for the battlefield series due to players like Relaaa being out there (and how many people lack basic understanding of core mechanics of the game even with hundred of hours played).

I agree that Fairfight is a steaming pile and you'll see a spike when the BR mode rolls out before it becoming non-existent again a few months later when the next game rolls out.

What is needed is a multi-tiered system not only at the server level (private servers) but also at a software/statistical level (flagging players for statistically impossible things IE 20 headshot kills with an ammo bag) and then also at a peer level. This is something we aren't going to see because it would "cost" too much to implement private servers and frankly DICE/EA isn't willing to allow much in the way of third party anti-cheat detection.
What does the game being like BF have anything to do with it, is Relaaa like some how unusual, there are many pros in games like CS that use overwatch. And yes they get accused all the time. I don't get your argument. OW in CS is designed to validate itself by grading the people who review and measuring them against controls, the higher up you go the better the OW reviewers are where as a 13 year old kid might only be validated on silver games, this stuff is just basic shit for someone building such a system and validating it any major company could be doing it. All the things you are suggesting are all being worked into many modern games like CS. Anticheat is not some simple thing now days in modern games its a multi faceted solution in an arms race with the cheaters. They are now implementing AI heuristic solutions too. One thing people forget is that just cause a company doesn't announce something doesn't mean they are not doing anything no one really knows what is going on behind the scenes in their code, and most game companies take a stance of purposely not advertising or explaining how their anticheat systems work. For instance valve uses trust factor which is essentially like a credit score for gamers but that doesn't mean no one else is doing something like that, for instance people don't talk about it but I notice in Overwatch (the game) that if you have a smurf account you get placed in an unusally high number of matches with other players of low level (not your skill level but your rank) this suggests that blizzard is preferring to group new accounts together just like valve does with trust factor.
 

Iceshot

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
180
It's pretty obvious you haven't played the game from this post. The core mechanics of the game are actually very good including the gun play, which is almost universally praised relative to the last few games. The game is being hampered more by DICE's marketing and communications than the actual game itself. After the last patch especially, the actual game play is in a very good state. It just needs more content.
Context is important. Very good compared to what? Sure the patches have helped, but it's little more than lipstick on a pig compared to BF3 and BF4. Incremental improvement of BF5 vs BF1 (which there has been) is a poor narrow sighted benchmark. Other than graphics, I struggle to think of a single metric in BF1 or BF5 I find an improvement over BF3 & 4.
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,290
Context is important. Very good compared to what? Sure the patches have helped, but it's little more than lipstick on a pig compared to BF3 and BF4. Incremental improvement of BF5 vs BF1 (which there has been) is a poor narrow sighted benchmark. Other than graphics, I struggle to think of a single metric in BF1 or BF5 I find an improvement over BF3 & 4.
Having fired up BF4 recently to compare against BF5, I don't agree. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I think a lot of people have rose colored glasses when it comes to BF4. It was an excellent game in it's time and still holds up very well today, but the actual game play in BF5 - particular gun play - is at least as good, if not better.

The only thing that I think BF5 needs is better maps.
 

PhaseNoise

2[H]4U
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,067
Battlefield has been remade into yet another low skill gap FPS franchise (COD) designed to hold you interest for 6 months. Dumbed down and catered to casuals. From the gunplay, to the server set-ups, lack of clan organization, a dumbed down version of battlelog, no deep progression system, shallow gameplay mechanics, etc. For me, it is beyond obvious that EA ordered Dice to dumb down Battlefield in a woefully misguided attempt to chase after COD's larger and more casual player ba$e. Battlefield 1 and 5 are little more than reskinned Battlefront (a view I'm far from alone in sharing). BF1 and BF5 have the looks and basic look & composition of classic Battlefield, but most of the key fundamentals that made Battlefield great, are now a shadow of their former self or simply no longer exist.

PC Battlefield 3 & 4

* Vast choices in 3rd party server hosts (gone)
* Strong Admin control and ability to police server from trolls and cheats (vastly diminished to the point of being a bad joke vs Procon)
* 100's of unique community developed plugins for Procon enhancing gameplay, server management, and fun factor (gone)
* Strong player / clan communities who play together for years (from Hardline forward, on PC, most competitive players / clans quit between 6-12 months)
* High skill gap -- easy to pickup, difficult to master, always a challenge (BF1 and BF5 are nowhere even close vs BF3 and BF4. Gameplay and gun mechanics in BF1 and BF5 greatly dumbed down)
* High K/D recognized almost always resulting in being at top the leaderboard at the end of the round (now a mindless / boring "participation award" like system for points)
* Highly customizable weapons with vast amounts of accessory combo's that really allowed you to fine tune your weapon (BF1 and BF5 offer nowhere near the adjustments options of BF3 & BF4)

I've been playing Battlefield since 1942 and hardcore from 2142 through BF4 (over 4000 hours). Battlefield 1 and 5 are "Battlefield" in name and appearance only. The "heart and soul" has been carved out. EA is where great gaming studio's go to die...
Good summary. BFV can be fun, but it really doesn't feel like a Battlefield game much anymore. I don't know how to quantify it (I'm sure you could explain the nuts and bolts if pressed), but one of my main gripes is that vehicle balance just feels way off in BFV. The previous games had effective combined arms, but tanks are really odd beasts in BFV. Or maybe it is just me?
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,290
Good summary. BFV can be fun, but it really doesn't feel like a Battlefield game much anymore. I don't know how to quantify it (I'm sure you could explain the nuts and bolts if pressed), but one of my main gripes is that vehicle balance just feels way off in BFV. The previous games had effective combined arms, but tanks are really odd beasts in BFV. Or maybe it is just me?
My only real problem with the tanks in BFV is that using the turrets is essentially a death sentence and serves no real purpose in game play. It's impossible to use them, you have no cover and will be killed immediately, and even spawning in them is risky.

They really have to be supported by infantry to be effective. Which I suppose is historically accurate for the period, but not especially fun to play versus how tanks were in BF4.
 

spaceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
14,762
Battlefield is dead. Ea has killed another one. Bf4 still has a pulse and live admins. The spirit of the game still lives. It's on life support though.
 
Last edited:

PhaseNoise

2[H]4U
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,067
My only real problem with the tanks in BFV is that using the turrets is essentially a death sentence and serves no real purpose in game play. It's impossible to use them, you have no cover and will be killed immediately, and even spawning in them is risky.

They really have to be supported by infantry to be effective. Which I suppose is historically accurate for the period, but not especially fun to play versus how tanks were in BF4.
So that's probably what it is then - that tanks aren't actually line-busters anymore? You just get flanked by 2 (sometimes 1, if you don't see them close) assaults, and that's a GG. Normally your defense against such would be said gunner watching your back, but as you say that's just an instant death spot now.
 
Top