DICE Team
DICE Team
@larry_54235 wrote:
Reducing number of vehicles. How's that going to reduce the walking simulator aspect? Wouldn't you want to increase the number of vehicles? A step backwards don't you think?
That is indeed something we're looking to address. As outlined in the blog, by working towards ensuring that there are more transport vehicles active on the map. However, increasing the number of active vehicles on the map isn’t something we can do as a short term solution as this has the potential to impact our separate work on improving game performance, but we do hear you on this and want to do what we can to approach the problem from different angles.
Our further intent is to shift which type of vehicles can be available. In short, we're reducing the focus of which vehicles you encounter by shifting the Nightbird and Bolte into attack. This opens up more slots for transport vehicles to become available.
Another part of that change is reviewing if we can restrict the call-in system to only light vehicles and Ranger. This would mean that attack vehicles would now only be available via the Deploy Screen, alongside helicopters.
@edgecrusherO0 wrote:
@larry_54235 No, vehicle spam is bad and isn't a solution to the problem of traversal. Civilian vehicles would help, but it's still not a fix alone. There need to be map changes, and IMO DICE should very much be considering more spawn points beyond just your squad/captured points. With maps being so much bigger now, we need additional spawn locations, but I guess that's not on the table.
Correct, the changes we're intending to make for vehicles aren't a single solution for traversal, but will help address parts of that problem, as well as Intensity.
@FashionMax wrote:Cover and Line of Sight -Honestly, all of this is great. We'll just have to wait and see how these changes affect player activity and movement once the updates are live. My one BIG hope is that these aren't the only changes being made to Kaleidoscope and Renewal, but that these are just examples of things being changed that you have done so far, with the intention to implement more cover and line of sight blockers at/between each objective on each map.
You wrote a lot of great feedback, so thank you for that! Sorry for shortening that in my response, but I wanted to call out the most important bit here in bold.
Yes, there are more changes we're making for these maps that we didn't show in this blog. Especially for terrain elevation, images didn't do the changes justice. For example, we'll have more terrain elevation to block Line of Sight but you don't really notice that until you are physically running up a hill and notice that you now find yourself hidden from enemy fire, versus how it used to be.
@Joe234567891011 wrote:
Looks like they are catering to the anti vehicle crowd. That makes me very unhappy. Vehicles are the entire reason I play the game in the first place. That cooldown time is insane along with less vehicles on the map. Battlefield was built on combined arms. Will give it a shot but ultimately these decisions will make me uninstall after 400 hours of fun
We'll have the vehicle changes as part of our next game update, so please try them out and let us know what you think. Overall, we learned from feedback that vehicle combat was too overwhelming and intense on most occasions; e.g. too many, and too often. Vehicles will still be there, but the overwhelming intensity should be addressed with these changes.
Accessibility to vehicles was something I just gave up on. And this change on first impressions is likely to make it worse.
my reference point is BF4. Vehicles were pretty well balanced. With a team you could survive pretty well, but up against an organised infantry you could easily wipe out.
on 2042, getting a vehicle is near on impossible, I just gave up bothering. The time out is just dumb. It totally spoils the flow as a vehicle driver. I expect that as a squad on comms you can organise a team to dominate vehicle spawns making it a lot easier to get a good vehicle based game going. But on your own, forget it.
also, I always switch between ground or air secondary weapons.
Neither of which I’ve been able to effectively use. Planes are Almost always hitting the deck and flying out of bounds, which is fair enough, good pilots will use the environment.
But when they don’t or they make a mistake, or I’ve prepared well in advance for a decent vantage point it’s for the most part pointless waist of time.. Missile lock range is too short. Most of the time even with a lock and no flares or defences having coaxed them out before firing, the missiles would just shoot off randomly.
even when I do get a hit, it’s hard to tell if it’s had any real effect. For the most part it requires other players or planes to be engaged to get a confirmed kill.
so until squad play is improved and comms enabled, as a lone player, it’s overall just quite disappointing not at all satisfying playing to take vehicles down.
Personally I don’t think 128 player servers will ever be balancable from a vehicle point of view. You need more vechicles. Not less. So with 128 players, I just don’t see that working, especially if for performance reasons you can’t add more tanks.
You are exactly right! Completely ridiculous that they want to reduce the amount of armored vehicles and helis! Its already so damn hard to get a tank and now they want to reduce that amount and increase cool down?! They will destroy vehicle gameplay with those changes! 2 tanks per team of 128 player severs thats so god damn awful!!! Previous battlefield games had more tanks per team on 64 players and you're telling me they want to make it even less... These maps need more vehicles (Tanks, transport, etc) not less! They will lose the core battlefield fans who enjoy the combine arms of vehicle gameplay!
