Battlefield 1 general discussion

IvoryTower

Do kills count towards the points in conquest at all?

I hate when it seems like you're winning the whole way through a game but you can never seem to get ahead of them, at one point we had all flags and still couldnt get ahead

gimli2112

IvoryTower wrote: »

Do kills count towards the points in conquest at all?

I hate when it seems like you're winning the whole way through a game but you can never seem to get ahead of them, at one point we had all flags and still couldnt get ahead

Yes but not as much as before, it's more about capturing and holding points. Kills had little bearing in the beta and there was uproar so they buffed it a bit.

Noxin

IvoryTower wrote: »

Do kills count towards the points in conquest at all?

I hate when it seems like you're winning the whole way through a game but you can never seem to get ahead of them, at one point we had all flags and still couldnt get ahead

Yes kills count now. They didn't originally.
That said, if you had all flags, kills would not be able to keep up.
Only thing I can imagine is that it had got close to the end of the round and your team was at a massive loss. Too much so to catch back up.

IvoryTower

that explains it so we were probably being massacred

Maximus Alexander

Noxin wrote: »

Yup. You can't sit at the back of the map in boats anymore but up close they do ruin it.
Usually if I miss a defense dreadnought spawn, I'll jump into a defending boat. You seriously rack up kills against attacking boats as they usually concentrate on the big boy.
I'd generally circle around and drown them, head back around the other side of the boat, wait for attackers and rinse, repeat.

The train is probably the sturdiest of the lot but gets melted if people plan right and line the tracks with mines. Did that once and then found a nice little tucked away spot for my AT gun. A support squad mate seen what I was doing and sat there with me - resupplying and gunning anyone down who got close. We melted the train in no time.

Aye, if more people did this then the dreadnought would be super effective. I find that so few people do though and it usually gets melted. The big cannons on the ship are epic and absolutely rack up the kills, vapourise tanks etc, so I suppose it's no bad thing that it generally doesn't last too long.

Wonda-Boy

Ahh lads that Artillary truck on Monte Grappa with the AA gun instead of cannon is some craic, the amount of abuse I was getting last night for being a camper (its a ****in AA truck). Just because the planes cant rape unhindered now the saltyness was huge.

Its kills for free as to get any type of action they have to fly low and if you anyway decent on the gun its carnage for them.

XtraFalcon

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The dreadnought is the easiest of the 3 to take down tbh. Torpedo boats ruin it quickly.

Torpedo bombers also do crazy damage, also if you're a handy enough pilot and own the fort on Fao Fortress you can have some fun playing with enemy fighters.

In saying that, the Dreadnought is the worse of the 3 Behemoths in my opinion as you can't take back many (if any) flags and all it does it cause the defenders some minor discomfort before they sink it. It's been on more than one occasion I've seen the Behemoth sit in it's spawn position and using the mortar to get kills rendering the 3 auxiliary gunners useless.

I've seen the train turn the tide on Amiens, Argonne and Sinai Desert. The airship is also handy on maps like Ballroom Blitz and St. Quentin's Scar because both maps are so open.

The maps I've seen the Behemoths to be useless on are Empire's Edge, Fao Fortress and Suez.

gimli2112

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

Ahh lads that Artillary truck on Monte Grappa with the AA gun instead of cannon is some craic, the amount of abuse I was getting last night for being a camper (its a ****in AA truck). Just because the planes cant rape unhindered now the saltyness was huge.

Its kills for free as to get any type of action they have to fly low and if you anyway decent on the gun its carnage for them.

Yeah, saw a video called something like "5 things you need to buy with war bonds" and the AA gun for the truck was one of them.

Maximus Alexander

Yeah as an occasional attack plane pilot I hate the AA truck. If the enemy are dominating us in the air I usually hop in an attack plane because, somehow, I seem to be pretty decent at dogfighting in the thing even though I never was in previous BF games. You've only to shoot down a couple of planes though before an AA truck appears and ruins your day. :pac:

IvoryTower

i dont even notice the air battles at all, only time i realise theres planes on the go is when one crashes in front of me or there's bombs landing on my tank

Maximus Alexander

95% of the time I don't either, but it only takes one or two decent pilots on the opposite team before any tanks, stationary weapons, or groups of infantry will start disappearing into craters pretty quickly. That's usually when I'll take to the skies and mop up a little.

gimli2112

I've been killed a fair few times by the bomber while capturing points and once while on top of the airship on the machine gun, the fecker!

OldBean

Unless the attacking team are really sucking (500+ point difference/Can't get a single point on Operations) I don't see the need for more than 1 behemoth. I've thought it could be a nice feature if it's deployment could be voted for, rather than automatically coming at the start of each round of Operations.

XtraFalcon

OldBean wrote: »

Unless the attacking team are really sucking (500+ point difference/Can't get a single point on Operations) I don't see the need for more than 1 behemoth. I've thought it could be a nice feature if it's deployment could be voted for, rather than automatically coming at the start of each round of Operations.

Operations should be laid out as:

First Attack - No change.

Second attack - A 50-100 ticket increase for attackers.

Third attack - Ticket increase with behemoth.

Considering they already have a quicker capture time and regain back more tickets after taking a sector by killing retreating enemies which are marked on their mini-maps, it's a wonder how the attackers are losing at all.

Maximus Alexander

XtraFalcon wrote: »

Considering they already have a quicker capture time and regain back more tickets after taking a sector by killing retreating enemies which are marked on their mini-maps, it's a wonder how the attackers are losing at all.

Well, because the defenders can camp and have unlimited tickets...

XtraFalcon

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Well, because the defenders can camp and have unlimited tickets...

I've yet to experienced heavy camping from a defending team, I have seen people sticking to the bunkers like they were earning money in the first set of flags on Ballroom Blitz, but nothing out of the ordinary.

As an attacker all you need is to have more on the flag than the defenders and the flag will fall in a few seconds, it's the Soviet Strategy of charging the flags.

I was playing Operations over the weekend and the sheer amount of defenders that stayed within "our part of the map" (Once the sector had fallen and they defenders are ordered to retreat) was absolutely ridiculous. We got back about 40 tickets or so because none of them retreated. I'm all for making your heroic last stand but that's just stupid and hurts the team overall.

As I said I've not experienced a team doing it heavily so I can't give any details apart from what I've experienced from my own games.

Maximus Alexander

I agree that a vaguely organised attacking force will generally overrun the defenders pretty easily on most points. But therein lies the problem, more often than not you'll have 32 people doing their own thing, most of them making bad decisions and frittering away tickets. Then this is amplified on the points that are harder to break.

There are a few points where this headless chicken approach can make advancing almost impossible. One example is the bunker that would be B on Monte Grappe in conquest. In operations, you'll generally have 15-20 of the defenders camping inside. Not all you have to do is get 16-21 attackers to stand on the hilltop at the fortress gun for a few seconds, but they won't do this. They'll keep rushing the bunker entrances over and over like lemmings while the tickets take a nose dive. :pac:

Anyway, I don't think it's horribly imbalanced. Or at least, I don't think it matters much even if it is. It tends to be a lot of fun, it's not competitive, and you'll end up being on both sides of it.

I think in map design terms those Monte Grappe bunkers are a load of crap though.

ahnowbrowncow

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I agree that a vaguely organised attacking force will generally overrun the defenders pretty easily on most points. But therein lies the problem, more often than not you'll have 32 people doing their own thing, most of them making bad decisions and frittering away tickets. Then this is amplified on the points that are harder to break.

There are a few points where this headless chicken approach can make advancing almost impossible. One example is the bunker that would be B on Monte Grappe in conquest. In operations, you'll generally have 15-20 of the defenders camping inside. Not all you have to do is get 16-21 attackers to stand on the hilltop at the fortress gun for a few seconds, but they won't do this. They'll keep rushing the bunker entrances over and over like lemmings while the tickets take a nose dive. :pac:

Thats all you have to do provided you control A and C which you most likely won't seeing as you have more attackers at B than they have defenders, plus it's harder to stay alive on top of the bunker than inside when you have enemy planes doing bombing runs and enemy snipers at A and C. So controlling the bunker is key to progressing.

OldBean

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

In operations, you'll generally have 15-20 of the defenders camping inside. Not all you have to do is get 16-21 attackers to stand on the hilltop at the fortress gun for a few seconds, but they won't do this. They'll keep rushing the bunker entrances over and over like lemmings while the tickets take a nose dive. :pac:

But in fairness, that's not much fun. Storming the bunkers is. I can't blame people for trying to take on the bunkers at all.

Maximus Alexander

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Thats all you have to do provided you control A and C which you most likely won't seeing as you have more attackers at B than they have defenders, plus it's harder to stay alive on top of the bunker than inside when you have enemy planes doing bombing runs and enemy snipers at A and C. So controlling the bunker is key to progressing.

There are often so many of the opposition inside that you can comfortably stand on top of the bunker without taking any hits tbf. I've stood there many a time for up to a couple of minutes typing in the chat "Can we all please just stand on top of B" with nary a bullet coming near me. :pac:

There is no C at that point. You might be thinking of the next phase, which tends not to be as bad for some reason. Maybe because the defenders are more spread out with 3 points to defend.

dreamers75

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Well, because the defenders can camp and have unlimited tickets...

Isnt that their job?

Maximus Alexander

dreamers75 wrote: »

Isnt that their job?

What's that got to do with the price of potatoes?

Jamiekelly

Looks like great squads aren't that hard to find...
Nearly 20,000 points each average.

Korvanica

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Looks like great squads aren't that hard to find...
Nearly 20,000 points each average.

Yes they are you lucky **** !

psnKOB79LFC

New conquest is better than the crap in the Beta but it is a con nonetheless.

Check out Drthvedas youtube video on this.

Basically the chances of come backs are far gar less with the new version but people are believing the lie that the games are closer because the score gap can be less than BF4 and bf3.

Ask yourself, how many games hae you experienced a come back. I'd like to do the stats but if my team is winning or losing at half point the chances of winning are very slim and that is why new conquest is a little stale and predictable

psnKOB79LFC

After playing Rainbow 6 I'd personally like to see BF1 run a dual ranking system, eg an overall rank based on experience and then a score or ranking for skill with the latter based on something other than SPM.

In Rainbow Six this gives massive incentive for a player to see if they can get to the top diamond rating each season and as that isn't easy it promotes squashing up with other ptfo players.

I think BF1s ranking system is old and out of date

IvoryTower

agreed, im enjoying it all the same but you can tell from 5-10 min who has won

Just coming back to this after a small hiatus.

I'm finding it really hard not to spam the spot button.

I've just a learned habit from years of BF that sees me press it rapidly in certain situations.

Korvanica

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Just coming back to this after a small hiatus.

I'm finding it really hard not to spam the spot button.

I've just a learned habit from years of BF that sees me press it rapidly in certain situations.

I feel you, having the same issue. Getting more disciplined with it though.

XtraFalcon