Me too, when the Battle of Hanut Operation came out I loved how dark the first day was. Really sucks that it's not as unique as it was on release since the brightness has been turned up
I did that Operation. We never changed the lighting. It's as it was on day 1.
Will you at least take it into consideration? There’s so much blue in that image, it’d be much nicer toned down.
Everything is possible, but Devastation is trending extremely high in terms of popularity and satisfaction. Not really feeling that changing something that works and is popular is recommandable. There are more important issues at hand. ;)
The top-left one is fairly blue, wouldn't you say? Cause I just ran into this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/ciimta/we_all_want_this_dice_please/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
😜
I am not a guy that gets involved much with color work, but personally I think the art team did an amazing job with our worlds. Such variety. Wait until you see Marita live. :3
This issue is related to your internet connection. See the orange icon on the top right corner.
Having that said, preferably you shouldn't end up without a gun. Will investigate on how we can adress that without causing side effects for players with a more stable connection. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Oh for sure, that actually makes a lot of sense! While remaining accurate is definitely a super important thing, I did really enjoy some of the prominent set pieces like the crashed zeppelin in Giant's Shadow. They really made those maps memorable for me, and made them more visually interesting. Even though you aren't one of the art guys, do you think that future maps could have similar things as the war progresses? Like something similar to the destroyer in Suez being a set piece in maybe a Pacific map? Thanks so much for the reply, and I'm sorry if I'm a nuisance!
I would love that. Heck, I hope one day we do base jump maps again, but then again, not always my call. :)
Hey u/kenturrac , sorry for the @, but I noticed you answered some other questions in this sub so I thought I'd take a crack at it.
I'm just wondering what the general idea is regarding the aesthetics and visual themes of maps. In Bf1, there were huge fires and plumes of smoke in the background, which was pretty neat, but in Bfv, theres not much for that. Idk if you personally had anything to do with these design changes, but I'm just wondering why this did change. I thought Bf1 dealt with colors really well, and Bfv just does it differently.
Was this overall mood shift intentional? Or was it just how the maps developed aesthetically? If you see this, thanks for your time, and I love your work!! :)
Hey, no worries about the tag and thanks for the nice words! <3
In simple terms, you can say that I am the gameplay guy and not the art guy, but I will try to give some information as best as I can explain.
We normally do a lot of research for our ingame worlds and I think compared to others in the industry we have a fairly high expectations on our selfs when it's about delivering worlds as closely to the real places as it can be. This means sometimes not showing the all out war on the horizon if it didn't happen. Take Rotterdam, I have heard a few times that it doesn't portray the grittiness of WW2 and yeah, it probably doesn't convey the typical picture of WW2, but it shows the day the "surprise invasion" happened. There wasn't much bombardment. I think we went way further than what actually happened already.
Devastation then on the other hand shows the scene after the bombing. So comparable this is probably 400% more of what you would expect from WW2.
Again, I am not the art...
Read morePlus enemies are showing as in our sector but you cannot get to them.
That is sadly a bad side effect of good sector setup. It's hard to explain,so I made this picture: https://imgur.com/a/0uod42W
This is very rough representation of Panzerstorm Breakthrough which uses the same retreat mechanic. It's a good example because the issue you are describing mostly happens on big maps with long distances between sectors.
So on this map, when the attackers took sector 1, defenders have 60 seconds to retreat from the blue and white area of sector 1 to the white area of sector 2. If we would allow attackers to move into sector 1's blue area (the former defender HQ), then we would run the risk that the attackers would just snowball through the map. Killing defenders on their retreat, putting them into the 15 seconds respawn queue while walking up closely to the next sector.
I am not 100% happy with that situation, but I haven't found a good solution yet that guarantees "no snowballing".
Read moreThe linear layout of A and B in the first sector on Twisted and Devastation is an interesting design choice ... basically you can defend A from B (especially on Twisted where you have sightlines to everything). So most of the defenders can be at B while defending A … this makes a flank to B equally pointless. Seeing a lot of teams now on Day 2 not getting out of the first sector on these 2 maps on XB1 NA.
I think so far it seems like all first sectors are a bit hard for being first sectors (we normally want the first sector to be attacker favoured and tune up the difficulty over time). I want to wait for telemetry to actually see the win rate. Twisted Steel offers a lot of flanking routes though and the attacker have a tank as well. So right now I think Twisted Steel is mostly okay. Devastation is a difficult one since the lanes are so close, but we have to see how it plays throughout the weekend. The meta normally adjusts. (Pro-tip: as an attacker, build the ladder at the front of the cinema)
Read moreThx for letting me know. Will fix! <3
This also happens on devastation. If you try to attack church from the German spawn after first sector is down. In first phase you're in bounds, but right after second phase starts it turns into our of bounds. You have 4 seconds to make 10 second run. Good luck.
That's shouldn't be the case. I would like a video. Rush uses the same logic as Breakthrough. Meaning defenders have 60sec to retreat to the next sector.
On Narvik after capturing 3rd sector and you are on the top right corner at the edge of the map, you are instantly put out of bounds when next sector opens with no chance of making the run....
Plz fix
I am not entirely sure where that is, but I will have a check.
Will the mcom artillery call-ins still be available for frontlines?
They are for now. Same for Airborne. I will most likely remove them tho. In the moment we introduced reinforcement-call-ins, I should have removed them. The new call-ins work better, are properly indicated to friends and enemies. It's just a better replacement.
Appreciate that you take ownership of the problems but isn’t dev work a team effort? Surely QC should take part of the blame.
I made the Rush adjustments which includes these spawns. So it's my fault. Sure, it could have been caught in testing, but at the end of the day I am responsible for the quality of the content I deliver.
Also, I get peoples frustration over the current buggy state of the game and there are absolutely no excuses for it. I hope tho that everyone realises how big of a game BFV is and how much testing every patch requires. I really want to break a leg here for my QA colleagues. It's not their fault.
Believe me when I say that we all take the current state very serious and want to and have to do better going forward.
Read moreMy bad. Luckily that one of the pre round spawns. So this won't happen mid game.
Will fix! Thanks for reporting!
yeah exactly. what did they do all the months..?! why not give us ALL maps..!?
It's needs to be setup, tested and be on quality. The main focus was to first get Rush right and then possibly expand it, if the community likes the direction we are heading. :)
Don't forget, we work on many different things at the same time. Maps, modes, quality of life fixes, bugfixes, etc. So Rush wasn't the only thing we focused on during the last weeks and months. In the meantime you got a map, more really close on the horizon, Frontline changes, Outpost and more to come that we haven't even announced yet. ;)
definitely not the old rush expereince, still garbo
Any kinda of more detailed feedback would be appreciated. I sadly can't work with that kind of feedback. Could you evaluate what's not to your liking? <3
First of all, thank you for your communication with the community, I really appreciate these kind of posts where you explain why you made certain choices!
Anyway, question to you Matthias: Could you tell us why it is not so reasonable to design certain rush maps to include e. g. a base jump à la Bf3 or something similar?
Well, first we would need a base jump map like Damavand Peak which we currently don't have and since the locations of our maps are inspired by real life locations of WW2, it's probably hard to find such places.
Having that said, we all love Damavand Peak. So I am sure, if we ever leave the historical space, we would love to go a bit nuts again. :)
artillery call in was the best part of rush. thanks for ruining it.
stop taking stuff away from us -
GIVE US MORE instead.
we paid money you remember..?
You can still call-in artillery via the squad leader reinforcement menu.
While i do disagree about locking tanks on a per-map basis, I think that (after 450 hours of game, i main each class (a bit less the recon)) you should strongly reconsider the assaulter AT equipment. I don't know why you took that choice (do you want people producing more battlefield moments video?), but this mechanic is definitely illed
- even just one assaulter, if he manages to get behind you is enough to destroy a tank (and it's not that hard, especially in conquest), so this is anti-team play at all;
- almost each assaulter rifle is between the best rifles of the game, being effective at various range, so is the most played class
- the tanks and the turret are slower, and above all they can't shoot (especially the big tanks) at their feet, given the limited turret angle
- the upper gunner is a death trap, and can't defend this threats at all
- suspension and first person input lag are... pretty crappy, makes really hard shooting while moving, but this is another subject
besides this it's the first BF where i really enjoy playing tanks (but it's mainly because i love WW2 tanks, lol). BTW I'm pretty ok with the classes and their damage model
This is what i think about what must be mostly reworked about tanks ( u/PartWelsh and u/Braddock512 often said that you guys like feedbacks, i hope you consider this, also there was a thread on this sub some time ago about) but i think i can say that most of the community here thinks that there is something to be reworked about assaulters AT equipment and tanks (in particular, sharing those points)
I should clarify that I am not a weapon or vehicle designer. So I can't really comment on the specifics. I just wanted to share the design philosophy that is laying the ground work here - freedom and choice are in the hands of the player.
I will forward the specific feedback tho. :)
No, this part:
"As you know, we also made adjustments to the Reinforcement artillery barrage a few updates back."
I hope I didn't write something wrong here. :O
From what I remember the team adjusted the cam shake and also introduced the cam shake slider. Hope I didn't remember that wrong. If so, my bad.
When we released Rush, we released the Artillery in the same week. So naturally everyone used it all the time and some feedback was that we should just remove it from this mode. I felt like it has a place in this mode. We already removed the V1 call-in since we felt it would be too strong against 16 people defending 1 or 2 stations. The artillery is a way softer version of that and less deadly. So it seems like a fair fit. :)