Battlefield 1 Beta Feedback Leads to Conquest, Vehicle Changes

Horses may no longer be quite so unstoppable.

83 Comments

Following the recent conclusion of Battlefield 1's open beta, DICE has shared its plans to tweak the game based on fan feedback.

"When we build a new Battlefield game it's important for us to try new things, we want to stay fresh and renew the franchise with each new installment," lead world designer Daniel Berlin said in a new blog post. "However, it's equally as important that we take the feedback that you, the community, are giving us."

One piece of feedback leading to change involves scoring in Conquest mode. Battlefield 1's did away with the traditional scoring method for Conquest, where teams competed to exhaust the other team's supply of tickets by holding more capture points and killing enemies. In Battlefield 1, this changed: teams would gain points only by capturing and holding points, and the goal was to end up with more than the other team. That's now changing.

"The next time you play the game, capturing the objectives AND getting kills will both contribute towards the final score of a Conquest match," Berlin said. "You have spoken, we have listened!"

No further specifics were shared regarding that change, and even less was said about alterations coming to Rush.

"We have also been monitoring and listening to your comments in regards to the Rush game mode," Berlin continued. "It's super exciting for us to bring back Rush for Battlefield 1, and we are aiming to make it the best Rush experience to date. We are making tweaks to the game mode as we speak with your feedback as the backbone to the entire process."

Finally, the last area Berlin discussed making changes to was multiplayer balancing, which largely seems to revolve around vehicles and horses.

"We're also looking into balancing other elements, including the weapons and vehicles," he said. "The Light Tank, which is a bit too effective in the open beta, will definitely receive some work, and we agree that horses can take a few too many rounds at the moment. We've also learned through the beta that you guys need more tools to deal with vehicles earlier, which we'll definitely look into (including a gadget for the Support class which should help neutralize powerful vehicles)."

DICE likely had no shortage of feedback to pore over, as Battlefield 1's beta was the biggest in EA history with more than 13 million players. With the game's October 21 launch approaching, it recently announced a free map that will be released to all players in December.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: GS News Update: Battlefield 1 Beta Feedback Changes

GameSpot may get a commission from retail offers.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 83 comments about this story
83 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for robbiejones
robbiejones

236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nothing wrong with the tanks.the problem was that you needee Assualt class to deal with them and their statistics chart showed that the assualt class was the most preferred followed by sniper I think. Now they said that support will have a gadget to help deal damage to tanks so thats good, but all they needed to do was increase time to tank spawns. I hated a lot of the changes from early bf3 to bf4 due to players bitching to DICE.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for robbiejones
robbiejones

236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nothing wrong with the tanks.the problem was that you needee Assualt class to deal with them and their statistics chart showed that the assualt class was the most preferred followed by sniper I think. Now said that support will have a gadget to help deal damage to tanks so thats good, but all they needed to do was increase time to tank spawns. I hated a lot of the changes from early bf3 to bf4 due to players bitching to DICE.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DarkLord
DarkLord

356

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

I think the only thing that made the light tank OP was the buckshot canister was too accurate at medium to long range. That needed a nerf. The horses were perfect as they were. I went against a few one-on-one and beat them more often than not. The Sentinel needs a buff though. You can't the broad side of a barn with that thing!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rosinmonkekyx17
rosinmonkekyx17

3019

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Horse is so much fun ^-^

Upvote • 
Avatar image for manowar71
manowar71

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I think the horses are good as they were in BETA. They are special vehicles that should give you some advantage over the other players. And if you are a sharp shooter and you shoot the man, not the horse you can kill your opponent easily.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

32080

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By R4gn4r0k

TBH I didn't feel horses were unstoppable, neither was the light tank if people did some freakin' TEAMWORK.

I didn't feel the new Conquest was worse than before, and I've been playing Battlefield and Conquest since 1942 !

To be honest this list sounds a lot like DICE caving in to a bunch of whiners and complainers "I can't kill the tank :'( "Horses are too hard ! :(" "I want the old Conquest" "I want rush like it was before", which I'm not happy with.

But I am happy with changes to Support, it had nothing vs tanks...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for JediMasterJ42
JediMasterJ42

237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

I liked that kills didn't count towards the score in conquest - disappointed they're changing that back. Agreed that the light tank was too powerful, but more so that it was too accurate; I think they should keep tanks as powerful as they are, but increase the spawn time on them. Agree with the horse nerf. Love the WW1 setting.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for KamikazeDonut
KamikazeDonut

3016

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 128

User Lists: 1

Edited By KamikazeDonut

A lot of these issues could have been avoided if they had just given us another map that wasn't a sniper/vehicle haven so that we can get a better feel for the balancing of the game.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xutroy
xutroy

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@KamikazeDonut: Not going to lie. I loved driving around in a tank all match with my buddies. Just staying in the tank taking positions and and just laughing it up all the time. Like how you didnt need to get out of a tank to fix it. So many times opposing teams tanks just stopped firing at the tank when people would get out as i stayed in to repair. Good times.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Purpledust
Purpledust

346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@KamikazeDonut: lets keep crying about it into 2017

Upvote • 
Avatar image for moriwenne
moriwenne

148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

So, if I understand this correctly, after the beta on that one map, where everyone was incentivized to play sniper because the map was very open, players cried that their kills didn't count towards the objective? So do we want more teamplay? More people playing the map and it's objectives? Or do we want 80% snipers and just a handful of people trying to cap?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

32080

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@moriwenne: Yeah if I get this right, people complained too much, so DICE is changing everything for the complainers :/

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fjr
FJR

1

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I personally agree that the only tank that felt overpowered was what I called the land blimp tank.. With a full squad of guys in it it was unstoppable..to be fair I haven't unlocked the anti tank weapons but I was able to kill them with map artillery...horses on the other hand were worse than tanks very fun to use though...in my opinion I think they should change horse hp and wait until two weeks after launch to address tanks..thats just my take

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xutroy
xutroy

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@fjr: Full squad in a tank, that was me and my friends all the time if we could. Such a blast.

Horses on the other hand were freaking walking tanks made of flesh and glue.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vh0515
VH0515

319

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Hopefully they can make Rish mode as good as it was in BfBc2. That's all I really played in that game.

3 • 
Avatar image for Urizen5
Urizen5

521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

I think tanks just need sticky bombs to disable them. put tanks in a position of no movement but still have armor and gun. force them to repair or flee.

Never really had an issue with them. 2 level 2 support can take out a tank. add a rocket gun from assault. tank is dead. Tanks are a team based enemy to beat, that's all

4 • 
Avatar image for Tekcor
Tekcor

145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Noo. Conquest is NOT about kills. Conquest is about the objective. Killing is the means to the end, NOT the goal. Kills should not count as points for your team. I guess maybe unless YOU are inside the objective area.

Too many players treat conquest as deathmatch already. This change only supports those players.

8 • 
Avatar image for juyan16
juyan16

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Tekcor:

Nothing more satisfying than capturing a flag all by yourself in Conquest.

3 • 
Avatar image for nl_skipper
NL_Skipper

2184

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@Tekcor: It has always been this way in Battlefield Conquest mode though so I don't think it'll change much of anything. The majority of tickets are drained from objective control as usual I would assume... although this time it sounds like you earn tickets instead of lose them, and I also heard mention of a timer so I'm a bit confused to be honest... never played the beta myself,

I'm just glad to hear they're actually listening to some suggestions from the players, and imo conquest definitely didn't need any changes to the scoring format.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Tekcor
Tekcor

145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@nl_skipper: You're right that conquest has always been this way, but that doesn't make it right. Just familiar. I've been hoping for many games now that Dice would do something about the wandering idiots.

In traditional Battlefield games, you had one attacking force and one defending force. Yes, even in conquest. Tickets were a number of reinforcements. So getting a kill meant burning an enemy ticket. Holding more bases meant additional bleed. Tickets weren't always balanced either, with attackers frequently having more to give them time to push into bases before bleed made the match impossible to win.

In Frostbite era Battlefield games, Conquest is little more than a cluster**** with vehicles. Neither team is attacking or defending, instead two armies decide to meet up at the same time and battle over a patch of otherwise unoccupied land. Yeah... makes sense.

2 • 
Avatar image for Purpledust
Purpledust

346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By Purpledust

@chrislast: wow u mad cuz bad (aka I disagree with you so i will bash you and insult you: yea thats what you did. mad cuz bad)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for nl_skipper
NL_Skipper

2184

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Edited By NL_Skipper

@Tekcor: Oh boy now you're talking my language... I totally get what you're saying but imo the root of the issue you bring up is the maps, and not the way score is done. Oh man, the map quality has really declined in recent era BF games :(

I love the style you just mentioned where the maps aren't even balanced, but they'd simply adjust the ticket ratio to compensate for that, and it made for a lot more intense matches... not as much back and forth cluster fuckery as I've seen in BF3/4 where maps seem to be painstakingly designed to basically be symmetrical and giving neither team any unique ground... aka BORING. Not to mention all the empty space between most capture points, more than half the maps feel like featureless fields in between objectives.

I'm really hoping for better maps this time around... give me more actual tactical battlegrounds like in BF2 instead of a bunch of distance objectives with nothing in between, and always starting at opposite ends, and always with a central point, and an odd number of objectives, and no capable mains, always in the same layout... eh, gets a bit dull hey?

2 • 
Avatar image for Tekcor
Tekcor

145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@nl_skipper: Yeah, map design is probably my biggest complaint about Frostbite era Battlefield games, though there are a number of game mechanics that really bug me. Squad spawning is probably the worst. Used to be a beacon must be deployed by a squad leader for members to spawn. Now any member can spawn on any other member. Coupled with the much shorter respawn timer, and it means a single squad can prove to be unstoppable. Either you wipe out the entire squad in about 5 seconds, or they're just going to keep coming.

But map design... jeez. They're usually all circlejerks. BF4 nerfed the hell out of explosives because of Metro and Locker, but the problem wasn't explosives, it was the map design. You can't design maps like a funnel and expect anything else. Linear maps can work, like Camp Gibraltar and Karkand, but they shouldn't be a funnel.

Then you have maps like Panama Canal, Nelson Bay, and Caspian Border that just lay the posts out like they were thrown at a dart board. It's no wonder players capture a post and just run to the next, never bothering to defend it. The best maps were designed to setup a front for the two teams to push against each other.

I'm not even bothering with BF1. I played the beta. I really didn't like it. But that's more to do with the time period. There's nothing I like about WWI. The weapons felt clumsy. Which I understand is the point, but it doesn't make me want to use them.

2 • 
Avatar image for Keitha313
Keitha313

1679

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 28

User Lists: 0

I think they need to limit the amount of snipers capable of using scopes, the game had too many people needlessly sitting back and doing nothing for the team they wouldn't spot and half the time they'd be lousy shots from distance.

2 • 
Avatar image for Dilandau88
Dilandau88

656

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

They changed conquest back to the old way. GREAT NEWS. THE GODS HAVE ANSWERED MY PRAYERS

3 • 
Avatar image for tysontalksbad
TysonTalksBad

71

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@chrislast: what's with the stick up your ass?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58bf2c0ad76b2
deactivated-58bf2c0ad76b2

82

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Much as I don't like to harangue devs for making their own game, these changes disappoint me. I liked the fact that tanks were powerful, if unwieldy, potential game-winners and conquest was more about balancing offense and defence, rather than sniping attrition.

Sigh. Bloody purists.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for nl_skipper
NL_Skipper

2184

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@FinalPreator: I think the main problem in the beta was that people had yet to unlock the powerful anti-tank tools more-so than the tanks actually being OP. Hopefully they'll strike a nice balance because the tanks SHOULD feel powerful to an extent.

This coming from someone who usually plays as infantry (and rarely anti-tank) so I'm very often at the worst end of tank exchanges, but it'd just feel wrong if you could 1v1 a tank without a problem, and it's usually not hard to hide from a tank if you're playing smart on foot, and not trying to Rambo in the middle of a capture point.

On the flip side I also want to feel that power when I do decide to drive a tank, and not get blown up by the nearest sniper or medic player!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wretch1d
Wretch1d

921

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

Need to buff machine guns, they were a bit too under powered compared to the rifle, two or one hit form a rifle compared to a hosing from the machine guns

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5a50575ec5600
deactivated-5a50575ec5600

1725

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

I had a blast.

It's a rock paper scissors thing, tanks aren't op, anti tank waepons aren't op, planes aren't op

whining OP

5 • 
Avatar image for gotrekfabian
gotrekfabian

5413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 52

User Lists: 0

@Raidendude153: I couldn't agree more. I thought the game was the most balanced BF I have played in a long while and didn't need much to be changed but t seems that the players of the last few games have spoke and just want more of the same again. SMH

2 • 
Avatar image for se7en1989
se7en1989

605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

The cry babies have spoken

6 • 
Avatar image for thespicychiken
TheSpicyChiken

448

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@se7en1989: Here's the thing those of us fine with it said nothing. So that's why there were changes. Tanks made total sense, there was no take shell blowing up behind you and you run away. Now you die.. I got used to playing arma 3 where a tank had you dead to right over 200meters away at times.... I guess BF is for the casual gamer now, who wants to be Rambo. Not just another cog in the war machine.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Keitha313
Keitha313

1679

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 28

User Lists: 0

@se7en1989: Guess you'll just have to get good.

4 • 
Avatar image for se7en1989
se7en1989

605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Keitha313: You needed to get good, thats why people like you cried saying the tanks were too powerful ;( go play cod....

Upvote • 
  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2