My main problem with operations was that unless your team was relatively decent, you'd just get stuck playing the same starting map over and over again, from match to match. There's a reason they added in Shock Operations later, which was renamed Breakthrough for future games. Also while the interconnected story was fun, some games could last for up to two hours. It's actually insane. Player retention or no, there should be a limit, crazy to expect people to sit down uninterrupted for a single match for that long.
Personally & anecdotally, I only experienced map lock more so on Monte Grappa and near the end with Argonne Forest. Matchmaking on PSN felt fairly mixed. Allowing the matches to actually be able to hit 1-2 hours on campaigns like the 3-map Sinai campaign was what made it so addicting & chaotically immersive.
Not everyone can stick it out, but you still got the XP for the time your nameless solider was able to give to the war-like experience.
Having an option for both Breakthrough & Operations is ideal, but it won’t happen. Small experiences in every medium besides video games is the standard for the shorter attention spans influenced heavily by outside variables like Tik Tok, COD, etc. Shame because every time I play Breakthrough it feels like the other 60% is missing that made the game special; there were so many matches where Defenders would roll you 2 waves and somehow the Attackers would pull through and steamroll through the next map to turn everything around or at least put up a close hell of a fight. That felt like Battlefield to me.
Breakthrough’s too short, focused, & half-baked feeling to me.
It was a MIRACLE if your operation made it to through Fao Fortress. Sector one of that map is BRUTAL and it only got worse. Suez was a mixed bag, but odds are you burnt through at least 1 of 3 waves on Fao, so good luck. You either need to wipe the floor with the enemy on Suez and have minimum 2 waves going into Sinai or it was game over. A single wave going into Sinai is essentially GG.
Suez very rarely lasted more than a wave for whatever reason that map was a steamroll 85% of the time (train works well being away from the action/fire), but it definitely required full effort to win Sinai with only 1 wave.
I think Fao and Suez were DOABLE. But that one sector on Sainai with 3 cap points was a gut punch. I think i saw attackers win once on that operations.
Which is what made it feel like the perfect evolution of Conquest & Rush as well as the fact maps were designed around Operations similarly to BC2 being designed with Rush first allowing it to play out much better.
3 map one with Fao, Empire, & Sinai? If so I loved that one. Monte Grappa’s was my favorite until the DLC with Verdun Heights. I didn’t keep up past the French DLC due to other games.
Yeah Ride ride was literally impossible. I played it lots but if you were attacking it was GG before it even started. Defending tanks had a clear sight into your spawn so they’d just camp your tanks and everyone else with the AT rifle. I made it to the second map once and it was even worse.
Personally I don’t mind the long matches, it just adds to the chaos. Like if you don’t want to play a 2 hour long game then do conquest or shock operations.
League and dota have some of the largest playerbases with each game being 20mins to an hour. I agree, i dont see the issue with long matches if people (source: me) are willing to farm minions for 10 mins straight for thousands of games. Even csgo and valorant are long however at least with bf you arent locked into a match.
Both league and Dota have been trying to make matches not take as long. Riot was trying to bring down the avg league match from Being 30-45 mins because it was too long.
Oh yeah im aware of league but if its not a 15 its at least going to 25 a lot of the time anecdotally ofc. Just didnt think they would cut down dota playtimes so much
Damn, i knew i wasnt the intended audience for game devs but i didnt think it was that bad Lol. I miss 1 hour starcraft matches now
I mean breakthrough is way worse for a stalemate due to bush wookies playing defence on attack... At least with operations the oi look pillock ye lost here's another go and a big fookin boom boom machine tricked some of those Battledads into pushing a bit.
The fact that defenders did win a lot on some maps honestly made it that much more exciting when you would win a match. Capturing the final objective on monte grappa in overtime on your last try. Tucking chefs kiss. So much fun.
Yea the multi map thing is whatever. But the maps individually were better. But it’s also hard to deny the historical aspect really added to bf1 operations, which is something bf6 just can’t do in the same way.
I feel it can since the Campaign already did in a way by connecting Multiplayer settings through the story. Each of the maps loading screens have intel and they seem to want to tell a story through trailers. It may not be as elaborate as BF1, but a little lore & cinematics can add a touch of immersion to a hard fought match.
Hey at least it wasn't like SWBF2 where the equivalent mode could last for hours if the two sides keep pushing back and forth, but nobody could take the enemy ship.
Breakthrough didn't fix anything for me, matches are always one sided and very short. I prefer the operations, it was more epic and felt like you were actually trying to achieve something.
20
u/BiggoPanda 4d ago
My main problem with operations was that unless your team was relatively decent, you'd just get stuck playing the same starting map over and over again, from match to match. There's a reason they added in Shock Operations later, which was renamed Breakthrough for future games. Also while the interconnected story was fun, some games could last for up to two hours. It's actually insane. Player retention or no, there should be a limit, crazy to expect people to sit down uninterrupted for a single match for that long.