Original Post — Direct link

What I'm talking about are posts and comments such as "why couldn't they just copy and paste the BFV movement and gunplay into BF4 maps and call it done," or things along those lines. First, it should go without saying that it is not that easy, but apparently there are tons of people who genuinely believe that they can just build an entire near-future Battlefield game on top of mechanics designed for a WWII game.

Even from the very first reveal trailer, it was obvious that BF2042 would have a completely different design philosophy than BFV. I personally adore the physicality of the movement and animations in BFV, there is no other game that gives such a sense of presence in a multiplayer shooter. It is also incredibly fitting for a WWII game; the promotional material, the single-player stories, etc are focused around how individuals and their relationships fit into the greater whole of a war. However, BF2042's philosophy seems to be focused more toward "all-out warfare" and fostering those "only in BF momentstm ." That same level of grit and physicality as BFV would be neat to explore in a near-future setting, but the design goals this time around seems to be focused on scale and identity. The story is centered on how worldwide conflicts, global catastrophes, and humanitarian crises, how those shape our identity, and how war functions in that world.

Now, we all have opinions on whether those goals make sense for a BF game, whether those goals are designed around gameplay or cosmetics first, etc. But those foundational elements of what makes BF2042 what it is will likely not change.

One of the software engineers that comments a lot in this sub mentioned that prone on back, revive animations, etc just don't align with the design goals of the game enough to warrant the insane amount of dev time it takes to get those to work properly. This seems at odds with what was said earlier, that they would be "building on BFV's movement system." He explains that he is referring to the basic functionality of the movement in BFV including running, mantling, not getting caught on rocks or other objects in the scene, etc. The main priority, according to the dev, is being able to get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible. In BFV, the maps were littered with rubble, debris, rocks, foliage, etc, but there was never really an instance where your traversal was interrupted by these things unless it made sense. In this sense, BF2042 does a reasonably good job of building upon BFV's movement; with the enormous maps and huge scale, the traversal sprint is really nice to get a little speed boost while moving between objectives. This seems to have been a simple miscommunication between what the devs understand to be "movement" (literally moving across the map) and what the community understands to be "movement" (control of the character's body). After reading the dev's explanation of why they chose to not to invest in implementing prone on back, granular movement, immersive animations, etc, it made a lot of sense that those wouldn't fit into BF2042's design philosophy.

Criticism of BF2042's core design philosophy is fair, I have some criticisms of my own. But please keep in mind that these elements are so fundamental to the design of the game that it's pretty unreasonable to change them at this stage. This includes revive animations, prone on back, picking up ammo/meds from crates, the things that DICE specifically focused on in BFV to promote the theme of "physicality." This does not necessarily mean that the absence of those things in BF2042 is a downgrade. Now, there are things that fit within the theme that 100% should be in the game such as certain UI elements (capture radius, icons for ammo/meds), better distinction between allies and enemies, a more robust scoreboard, etc. But "BFV movement and gunplay copy/pasted onto BF4 classes and maps" is just not the game they're making. If you don't like the game they are making, that's okay, and this sub is a good place to discuss that. But attacking and insulting the devs, asking "what they have been doing for the past 3 years," insinuating that the engine, UI, and map design can be "copy/pasted" from past games (ignoring the complete overhauls they likely had to do to accommodate 128 player matches), and asking them to alter the core experience of the game just comes across as pointless complaints and whining.

For the game they are making, the devs obviously care a ton about making it the best possible experience it can be, so the most useful feedback reflects issues that inhibit the core goals of this interpretation of Battlefield. One example is high-mantling; it actually is in the game, but some objects can't be vaulted over where you reasonably should be able to, making it feel unreliable and causing players to question what they actually can vault over. Another is weapon and vehicle balance; there was an AMAZING write-up by a user on this sub detailing how tanks can be changed to be more reliable and responsive while fitting the near-future setting, and another user wrote a wonderful post about bolt-action performance including bullet velocity, drag, and drop compared to other weapons such as ARs and DMRs. This is the type of feedback that greatly enhances the core experience of the game and makes it feel tight, smooth, and intuitive. The current implementation of Specialists makes it hard to discern allies from enemies and that should be addressed, but removing Specialists entirely would inhibit the core themes of the game. The super fast acceleration and slide canceling makes it very hard to track enemies, but they will likely not slow down the movement speed or remove traversal sprint since it is designed around having larger maps with more space between objectives.

I've played every BF game since BF1942 when it came out in 2002. It has been so much fun watching it grow, evolve, and redefine itself over the years while still keeping its core identity intact: pure, unbridled fun! There has not been a single BF game where my buddies and I can't hop into a vehicle and launch ourselves off of a cliff over the front lines with tank shells whizzing by and zigzagging through sniper fire, and there has not been a single BF game where a dozen or more players are focused into a single area going head-to-head over an objective with hundreds of bullets flying and explosions punctuating the chaos. Every game has had a different interpretation of that core identity - BF2 was focused on team organization and communication, BFBC2 was focused on destruction and weight, BFV was focused on physicality, etc - but they have all been games which throw you into a massive multiplayer sandbox and let go of the reigns. BF2042's theme and interpretation is different than anything we have had before, I have my fair share of critiques with it, but goddamn it if I didn't "just one more match" the hours away until 3am just like I did with every other BF game. So let's discuss our critiques and issues with this interpretation of Battlefield, how it has been affected by modern gaming trends, whether its core themes have or have not been decided by high-level business decisions; but let's focus our feedback on things that the devs can actually do to make this iteration and interpretation the best experience it can possibly be.

External link →
10 months ago - /u/lytlb1t - Direct link

Quality post. Thanks for doing such a good job at summarizing my replies the last days.

10 months ago - /u/lytlb1t - Direct link

Originally posted by striker890

Cool to see that you developers are still active even though the massive deconstructive feedback here. Since this seems a really direct way to give some feedback I would just like to address one really important point that seems to be the core of all this negativity here.

It's definitely the missing incentive to play objective.

This has a few reasons I belive. First of all the scoreboards are not really tailored to represent the points earned by an individual. If squads are the goal here I would like to see some sort of identity of a squad shown in the scoreboard so it creates some incentive for the squad to play together.

Secondly leaving the point right before its captures or dying won't reward any points. For the time it takes to capture the point reward is way to low, especially time spent getting to a point.

Additionally I feel like vehicles should be able to be spawned at those points to make it faster to traverse the maps.

Transporting players in any vehicle to captures might need to give points.

Allow squad leader to mark objectives and reward those objectives with more points as we used to.

Bring back more pronounced score in the ui so people feel more accomplished by playing objective. Generally there needs to be more points for playing objective and far more points reviving since it's extreme risk, at least how it currently is.

One last thing, on another topic player models seem a bit tiny and hard to hit.

After all this I have to say, while there where things off in the beta, I really had fun playing it even though it was conquest, and I am not the conquest player usually. Also the most fun was the round where B and C objective where bugged as HQ and basically only the other 4 where playable. That round it really felt like playing 128 players. That was insane.

Hej, as I mainly work on stuff like soldier physics and health, I have to give you the generic answer that feedback is being collected and looked at accordingly and many changes are still coming.

10 months ago - /u/lytlb1t - Direct link

Originally posted by GendaIf

I dont know what really qualifies as soldier physics. A frequent thing i noticed happen was when a soldier fell from a ledge or roof onto a floor they would pass through the floor they land on for a brief second making them very hard to shoot, besides that, soldier physics in particular the momentum, ragdoll etc, as well as the health (ttk) and health indicators are all great. Fixes to hit detection/hit reg will make health feel more consistent when those fixes come, but when those things werent an issue those facets of the game seemed really good.

Yes these are the subjects I touch. Following/landing on the ground is something we are working on all the time, so this might as well have been fixed already as it doesn't ring a bell.