Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You’ve also spurred us to make some meaningful improvements to the core gameplay experience, including adjusting the gameplay tempo, improving soldier visibility and reducing player friction.

Very interesting. Quite similar to my view of how I felt things were playing in the closed alpha. I hope they work on the vehicle "feel" too. Good to hear however.

I can say that the gaming community continues to remain extra toxic over this title.

Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I can say that the gaming community continues to remain extra toxic over this title.

Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.

It's important to remember that it's not "the gaming community" itself that is being extra toxic over this title.

It's the ridiculous manchildren who think that EA is pushing some kind of SJW agenda. It's the people who probably won't buy the game and it's the people who outright will sometimes admit that the only reason they follow/tweet at the devs and community team for the game is to troll and to try to make the team feel bad about what they're working on or to get burnt out over it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.

Pardon?

Complaints have been made *throughout this thread* about historical innacuracies within the game that have nothing whatsoever to do with women on the battlefield. Reducing it all to just "they just don't want chicks" while completely ignoring the other complaints is a cute way of slandering everyone who complains about innacuracies as a misogynist.

Eumerin wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.

Pardon?

Complaints have been made *throughout this thread* about historical innacuracies within the game that have nothing whatsoever to do with women on the battlefield. Reducing it all to just "they just don't want chicks" while completely ignoring the other complaints is a cute way of slandering everyone who complains about innacuracies as a misogynist.

I wasn't talking specifically this thread, but over all. If you want to see what I'm talking about, feel free to visit any number of you tube videos, game sites, and game reviews ranting about it. I've tried to engage some of these people in discussion on the subject, and all they actually seem to (think) they know is 'No wimminz on der front!'

And it's now time to close this thread, and many others, as politics is now verboten.

Personally I would have preferred they said they are releasing an Alternative WW2 game and go on with it, it would have been, in my opinion, widely accepted and not much controversy would be about it.

What is definite is preorders are really low that shows that for many reasons the buyers base is not sold to the product, shame.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I would have preferred they said they are releasing an Alternative WW2 game and go on with it, it would have been, in my opinion, widely accepted and not much controversy would be about it.

What is definite is preorders are really low that shows that for many reasons the buyers base is not sold to the product, shame.

The only numbers I've seen regarding preorders are basically just Amazon's preorders--which while low, aren't factoring in that there is no real 'exclusive' benefit for preordering in general nor is there one for specific retailers.

People keep comparing the numbers to Call of Duty--which has extensive preorder perks that give you a headstart on leveling and unlocking equipment. Battlefield doesn't. The deluxe edition gives you some uniforms right off the bat, but most of what would normally be the 'preorder perks' for a game like Battlefield are part of the "Road to Battlefield V" events being run on the Battlefield games.

And those require you to play Battlefield 1 or Battlefield 4, acquire a certain amount of points and you get exclusive weapon skins in BFV.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

What is definite is preorders are really low that shows that for many reasons the buyers base is not sold to the product, shame.

Since EA has been taking a preorder hit for a while now, and on games besides Battlefield, so BFV might not be the issue.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

What is definite is preorders are really low that shows that for many reasons the buyers base is not sold to the product, shame.

Since EA has been taking a preorder hit for a while now, and on games besides Battlefield, so BFV might not be the issue.

EA has been taking a preorder hit since they've stopped doing "exclusive" content as heavily as other companies.

Another thing to consider is the launch of Origin Premium, which gives you full access to any new EA titles from launch. Probably doesn't account for a huge amount of the drop, but, for instance, if you wanted this year's FIFA and BFV you might be better off subscribing to that than pre-ordering either/both.

I'm looking forward to trying out the Beta next week. Shame it launches the day before Spiderman really, as that'll probably divert most of my attention. Still plan to give it a good old go though, as the BF1 beta was enough to hook me on the whole game.

Personally I feel it is a combination of everything happened so far that drives the sales down, I do not think they could have managed it worse than they already did, I guess we will have a better picture after launch the fact they delay it probably shows
they do not feel that confident with the current window and wisely decided to change it.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I feel it is a combination of everything happened so far that drives the sales down, I do not think they could have managed it worse than they already did, I guess we will have a better picture after launch the fact they delay it probably shows
they do not feel that confident with the current window and wisely decided to change it.

What's the point of preordering a digitally available product if there's no benefit?

This really isn't rocket science. Battlefield doesn't have anything that will help or hinder you for preorders--this affects preorder numbers. Amazon also only counts physical copies for their preorders.

To be honest, I don't really see the pushing back of the release as a bad thing; I'd much rather get a better game a month or two later than something less that it could be at launch. I think quite a lot of games over the last few years have released in such a situation and could have benefited from just a bit more work being done before launch.

Not to mention that the original launch was slap bang between Red Dead Redemption 2 and CoD: Whichever One It Is This Year. The latter is a direct competitor for sales and the former is one of the most anticipated games of the last half a decade. Makes sense to move your release away from that if you can.

That said, the push back does mean it's now releasing after most of the other big autumn releases (Spider-man, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, RDR, CoD) so I wonder if that might hurt its sales among the audience that doesn't necessarily buy new games that often. I know it pushes me towards buying AC:O at launch and waiting for BFV at Christmas, even though I'm still looking forward to it immensely. Before the move, it was a straight toss between the two for me.

To be fair, they were also smart by making it so Battlefield was one of the 'bundle' titles for a new Xbox console. There's a whole special Battlefield Xbox console that some people might opt to get for Christmas.

Eumerin wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.

Pardon?

Complaints have been made *throughout this thread* about historical innacuracies within the game that have nothing whatsoever to do with women on the battlefield. Reducing it all to just "they just don't want chicks" while completely ignoring the other complaints is a cute way of slandering everyone who complains about innacuracies as a misogynist.

You do remember this is DakkaDakka right?

ValentineGames wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.

Pardon?

Complaints have been made *throughout this thread* about historical innacuracies within the game that have nothing whatsoever to do with women on the battlefield. Reducing it all to just "they just don't want chicks" while completely ignoring the other complaints is a cute way of slandering everyone who complains about innacuracies as a misogynist.

You do remember this is DakkaDakka right?

I'm reminded of it every time someone fails to read the response before posting.

Aside from the network issues that come with the territory of a server test, I'm liking what I see in the beta. The feedback loop on the guns isn't quite as satisfying as it was in BF1, perhaps due to the proliferation of automatics rather than the rifles I tended to stick to in BF1, but it's not far off. The movement does feel a little sticky at times (something I think they've said they'll address in the final release based on feedback) and the changes to spotting will take some getting used to, but on the whole, it's got most of what I liked about the last entry.

One thing I do hope makes a return in the final release is the non-cosmetic customisation to guns. Things like changing the zoom levels for weapons within the range the sight/scope allowed and the various reticle options on snipers. There seems to be plenty of cosmetic options but none of this that I can find.

So they finally posted up the few preorder items.

I like 'em.

Oh sweet! I just saw the firestorm Ranger set alone on their Instagram page, but so far looks great!


I'm enjoying the beta so far, its almost bored me out now, but thats because its so little content and I can't be upset over it really. I love the more tactical element and it almost feels like they turned on "hardcore" mode for the entire game with limited health, limited ammo, and a bigger focus on squadplay.

Only complaints as of right now is that its REALLY quiet in the game, I can barely hear the screaming of the guys dying on the ground next to me, but apparently its a bug they are working on a fix for at the moment, so hopefully it'll better. Also 5 is the key to self heal with the pouches and currently can't be rebound in the beta... hopefully that gets fixed for release because its a pain to reach and press.

Other than that.... the revive icon is SUPER small, and light blue/green which often blends in so well into the Narvik map I can barely see it. Speaking of which, same goes for Objective Flags, I can't see them to save my life because they fade so well into the background since they are grey-toned.

I'm not sure I like pre-ordering. Not really much use for it, they should just call it like it is- 'give us money now and we'll give you extra stuff'. Not like they're gonna run out of digital copies.

DICE/EA has seemed to have turned their marketing around, from all hush hush and little to no info to full blown WIP pics of maps and vehicles over Twitter to build hype.

Those of you who played Rotterdam during the Open Beta will know of White House, or the B site, going over a second pass they made it possible to further reinforce and barricade an already heavily defensible position.




The Staghound is currently being worked on vehicle wise, a WIP from another kind DICE dev




New pictures from the map Arras and Hamada as well as a comparison for size of exactly how big Hamada is.


Hamada:


Aras:



Beta Wise I think they stated that Spawn Protection would be removed upon full launch of the game and they've increased the lighting to reflex sighting to make it easier to see.

Thought this was a cool thing to see! Recon class counting headshots!





Also I think this is the best video in terms of information I've seen so far, especially with the concept art

Continuing on with more information, they recently released their second Dev Talk which overview a lot of the gameplay changes, mechanics, maps, etc etc they are looking at and adding.




For those who don't wanna watch I grabbed a TL;DW from Reddit

Tweaking attrition:
Devs want to nudge attrition in the right direction but still want it to be fully part of the game.
More ammo on spawn.
More max ammo capacity.
Ammo tweaking will be weapon specific (not all weapons may be affected, some more than others).
Medpack on spawn.

Improving visibility:
Adding a haze to the background to make enemies stand out.

Fixing some lighting issues (notably in Rotterdam).
Fine tuning lighting in specific locations.
Death experience and pacing:
Devs agree with the community that current death timer made the game feel too slow.
Devs want highs and lows moments in the game, but find that the high moments are not high enough (this is partially caused by soldier downtime). They want moments of pure chaos.
Tweaking "bleeding out" timer, you are not punished anymore if you decide to hang on, respawn timer will be reduced accordingly.

Audio immersion:
Fixed the audio bugs which contributed to make the game too silent. Audio should feel like war once again.

Time to kill and time to death:
Trying to find that sweet spot to cater to both players who love it or hate it.
From the data, players have learned to move closer to cover to avoid getting killed too easily.
Certain weapons stand out (more effective at most engagement distances), "won't name specifics *cough*STG*cough*". Those are gonna be tweaked to "bring them into the fold".
Confirmed Netcode issues in regards to Time to death, "you receive more damage than you should be in one update, which is due to packet loss, netcode, delays and high rate of fire weapons". Currently looking into fixing this.

Vehicles (Tanks):
Beta testers felt that the tanks were too slow/heavy and not offensive enough against infantry, but dev says the more agile/anti-infantry tanks weren't in the open beta, as well as anti-aircraft vehicles.
Devs were happy with the tuning on the new turret system on the heavy tanks, but plan to make the turret turn faster on the medium and lighter tanks. Light tanks will have a "very fast" turret turning speed.
Devs want the tanks to be the "dragons of our game", once they show up on the field, "everyone should relate to that". If you see a friendly tank, you should push alongside it, if you see an enemy tank, you should cower in fear.
Heavier tanks are robust, hard to take down, but slow, less effective against infantry, more effective against other vehicles, and the opposite is true for lighter tanks, more agile, used to kill infantry, harass and flank.
Tweaked systemic damage (such as canon disabled or track disabled), they want to reward players who chip away at tanks without necessarily destroying them, but don't want to penalize tank drivers too much, leaving them with nothing to do. Added turret damage which slows down turret turning speed, as well as engine damage, which cripples its movement.

Vehicles (Airplanes):
Beta feedbacks tell that the difference between the two fighter planes was too great and people didn't like it. Devs are taking step to make them much more similar and better than they were in open beta.
Overall players found fighter planes not agile enough.
Not being able to acquire ground targets as easily as in previous titles.
Players most happy with the BF 109 plane, but devs say even that one wasn't were we needed it to be.
Tweaked visibility for pilot and gunner, extended spotting range. "We want planes to participate in the ground combat".
Dev excited about the broader spectrum of vehicle classes in BFV, says it was a bit lacking in BF1.
Talking about anti-aircraft tanks, such as the Flakpanzer and Valentine MK 1 AA, they have "tons of canons and tons of bullets flying through the sky".

Pictures!

Fresh of the press is two depictions of the Assault class, one for Axis, and one for Germans, warning, these pictures are HUGE, so I went ahead and put them in the spoilers.




Turret Rotation speed for lighter tanks is much faster than heavier variants


German Support Class


More destruction!

I note that the game comes with a varying amount of "Special Soldier Sets" depending on the version you buy.

I've tried a bit of Googling to see if these will be unlockable during the course of play but can't find anything about it.

Lacking Twitter/Instagram is there something I've missed or is this just an unknown at the moment?

 Souleater wrote:
I note that the game comes with a varying amount of "Special Soldier Sets" depending on the version you buy.

I've tried a bit of Googling to see if these will be unlockable during the course of play but can't find anything about it.

Lacking Twitter/Instagram is there something I've missed or is this just an unknown at the moment?

Firestorm Ranger is the "preorder" set. We don't know if/when it will be available outside of that.
The Paratrooper sets seem to be exclusive to deluxe...but it's been heavily implied they're going to be coming with the first Tides of War event and you just get them immediately unlocked/pulled from the reward pool.

The tank going through the tram haha love it.

While I cannot say for sure, some of the SJW declarations may stem from the negative reactions Dunkirk received for not including women soldiers or non whites, despite being a period piece. At some level, griping about this is somewhat of turn about is fairly play in that regards I suppose, but I haven't read the comments and cannot say for sure. Merely noting there is always some level of pot calling kettle black in these sorts of things.

Overall I thought the gameplay was pretty good in the beta. I liked the reduced ammo count, the ability to toss ammo to team mates, etc. I also like the more fluid motions of the characters and some of the reloading mechanic changes. I would have prefered the KAR, Garand, Einfield as the standard weapons to start with. It worked just fine for Day of Defeat or the early Call of Duty titles. However, this fits more into the battlefield mold from the last few years with some nice changes to mechanics.

I'll pick it up and play it.

 Souleater wrote:
I note that the game comes with a varying amount of "Special Soldier Sets" depending on the version you buy.

I've tried a bit of Googling to see if these will be unlockable during the course of play but can't find anything about it.

Lacking Twitter/Instagram is there something I've missed or is this just an unknown at the moment?

Ooh! They just answered this the other day in an AMA on Reddit




I believe the parts are also interchangeable, together they form a unique look, but that doesn't stop you from using a helmet from the Desert Medic for the Phantom Major or vice versa. You also SELECT which sets you want, rather than randomly obtaining them in a loot box, so if you want two sets for Axis and two sets for Allies, or four for one, or all of them, it's however you decide.

Road to Battlefield right now only allows you to unlock the "Arras" weapon skins for the Lewis Gun, MP-28, and one more I can't quite recall, I imagine the two sets will come as we near closer to release date.

Anyone played this yet? I managed to squeeze in a half hour of game time Tuesday night. Way too early for me to give impressions, but I'd like to hear what others have to say about the game.

The War Stories were fantastic.

Multiplayer is in a decent spot from the outset. Biggest issue is, as usual, Assault and Medic kits' weaponry compared to Recon's Sniper Rifles.

Assault gets semi-auto rifles(M1A1 Carbine, G43, Turner SMLE and likely another one I can't remember off the top of my head) and Assault Rifles(STG-44 notably) that all get the same quality of optics as the Recon's sniper rifles without the bullet drop or scope glint.

Medic has SMGs. They're basically lasers in some cases.

Having played the game a little more now, I gotta say I think I actually prefer 1. I really miss the old spotting system, I find it really hard to actually see enemies in V before they start shooting at me. I also feel that 1 looked sharper and sounded better, everything in the new game just sounds muted by comparison. I'm hoping I just need to get used to the new game, but so far it's not really clicking with me.