Jump to content
_Assad

BattleFeels 5 Reveal May 6th

Recommended Posts

@KFAJ 2142 is almost 10 years old though, when it was launched the futuristic scene was just opening up and it was something new from stale world war based games at the time. I just personally think in the current time, there's just too many futuristic shooters out, especially with the CoD series going the way of Exo suits and wall running and weird asf guns.

You mentioned BF4 was going that way anyway? The only futuristic tech in BF4 was restricted to the Final Stand DLC, merely because the theme of the Final Stand DLC was near future. The rest of the game has nothing remotely scifi/futuristic.

@Zinn Hardline should have been an expansion pack for BF4, it would have been cheaper to produce and benefited both games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PityFool said:

You obviously don't play battlefield.

I have next to me standin (under a pile of dust) BF 1942 + extensions Road to Rome & Secret weapons of ww2, BF: Vietnam, BF2 + BF2:SF, i also played BC2 (the beta) and BF3 (beta) and have BF4

6 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

I agree with Pity, have you played battlefield before?

I guess more as you did ^^

~1500 hours bf1942 (perhaps even more) and also i think ~2500 hours bf2 (my main account had about 300k points on public server, say 100 points / game, would be around 3000 games public on just that account)

I didnt play vietnam that much, and i ragequit all the newer ones very fast, BF 1943 was sort of fun, except massive pay 2 win

ps: best bf map of all times: 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@PityFool I think people's main complaint with the futuristic setting is the whole exo-suit thing. When Titanfall first did it, it was really cool, but then CoD did it with AW and BO3, and Halo 5 did something similar as well (in the case of Halo, it makes alot more sense because Halo has always been set in the future). If you look at games like Planetside 2, they are set in the future, but nobody complains that the setting is stale. EA could do something similar with the next BF, and I think it would be really well received. I would certainly enjoy it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@PityFool

No, Hardline is not Battlefield and would only have served to severely split the BF4 playerbase into people who bought the pack and people who didn't. If you bought BF4, was it to play cops and robbers? Of course it wasn't, so anyone who had Premium would feel fucked out of an expansion and I doubt it would have sold half as many copies as the real Hardline if it had been a "silly" expansion. No servers would run it, basically.

They could have spent 6 more months polishing Hardline, added a bit more stuff to it and found some other overall tag for it. It was always going to suffer from BF4's disaster year but could easily have become its own cross of PayDay and CS or something.

Btw, it's true that BF5 was likely going to be futuristic and it still might be. DICE have hinted at the next BF 214X game for years (I think they even had easter eggs for it in BF3) and while no one pays much attention to it, the Battlefield games do have an actual story in them. So if you're playing Final Stand with hover tanks, that's the next step in the timeline. They could have scrapped it since, though.

Also, I would honestly prefer futuristic over "modern" and "old" because I've already spent 20 years seeing the same guns in literally every single FPS game. You can only stick so many FAMAS', Garands, M16s and AK47 variants in my face before I start clawing my eyes out. It doesn't have to be obscenely futuristic, just enough to allow for different game mechanics and designs other than "burst fire M16" and "Full auto M16". Likewise, I honestly don't get the MMO grind culture among teens and people in their early 20s: Fuck having "content" if it's worse than what you've already got. There' s no point in unlocking 20 assault rifles and just as many upgrades for each, if only 4 of each are viable anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have next to me standin (under a pile of dust) BF 1942 + extensions Road to Rome & Secret weapons of ww2, BF: Vietnam, BF2 + BF2:SF, i also played BC2 (the beta) and BF3 (beta) and have BF4

 

Ok so the last BF game you played to any meaningful extent was BF2. You played beta's and RQ'd everything since then... Now you have an opinion on the next one...

7 hours ago, GehakteMolen said:

I thought bf was dead already?

If EA doesnt want to kill it even more, its ww2 or nothing, ww2 (or korea or perhaps vietnam) means:

  • No jets, jets suck for balance (or terrible jets)
  • No choppers, choppers suck for balance (or crappy choppers with zero armor)
  • No heat seeking / guide missiles, missiles suck for balance
  • Lots of different tanks / spgs / tank destroyers (just look at wot) so many potential for different vehicles
  • A bazilion ``historical locations``, to give some atmosphere
  • Snipers / shotguns / mps, they all have use, they are not gimmick
  • AA / stationary AT guns, mg nests, they can all be used, and are usefull
  • possibility of having boat vs boat combat

Ww2 is the perfect setting, since all the retarded things that can screw up balance are not there, sure a certain tank of rifle can be too strong, or a map can be bad, but modern bf suffers from the same, and on top of that jets / attack choppers are always either OP as hell or totally useless...

TL:DR: only thing that can revive BF at this point is ww2 or perhaps korea war / vietnam, there way to many shitty ``modern`` games, look at wot and how popular it is, ww2 is by far the best theme for a game, so why not use it?

- You thought BF was dead...? BF4 is actually a really good game in its final state and has had a very healthy playerbase. You would know this if you played it.

- "No jets, jets suck for balance." The only time jets are effective is when there's a skilled pilot in them, 95% of the playerbase cannot fly them for shit because they take a lot of skill. Not to mention there's AA and all kinds of vehicles that are more than capable of swatting a jet out the sky.

- "Choppers suck for balance" Ok again, this is Battlefield we're talking about, huge maps with lots of vehicles is the what the franchise is all about. The helicopters in BF4 are actually slightly underpowered, they're in a good spot if you ask me because again they take skill to do well in.

- No missiles. Alright modern combat without missiles, yea right... Lock-ons are a little cheap but they're not overpowered. The ground to air lockons are actually pretty bad and only work against poor pilots. The only lockon type missile I would complain about is the MBT Law which acts like a dumbfire unless you shoot at a ground vehicle where it becomes a smart missile. Guided missiles? You mean like the SRAW or TOW? Those take skill.... you actually have to practice to get any good at using them.

- You want fucking SPGs? Really? Its battlefield not WoT, there are a few armoured vehicles per team, and they will perform almost identically to each other. Even if they had a Tiger vs a M4, both would reload and deal the same damage because its BF not WoT. 

- There's AA, AT guns and MG nests all over the place....

- BF4 has boats fucking everywhere too, boat vs boat happens all over the place.

 

I apologise if I seem a little aggressive, reading your points just gives off the distinct impression you have never played any BF games and don't really understand what the franchise is all about.

@Zinn You misunderstood me, as did I you. I was entailing that Hardline should have just been an extra DLC for BF4, premium members get it as part of their premium benefits. Not even as a title at all, just a couple different gamemodes with some extra goodies and things to change it up a little, a way of testing the waters so to speak. That wouldn't split up a community any more than those that prefer TDM over Conquest for example.They would no have had all the added expenses of producing a standalone game and it would not require nearly as much content to be suitable. If they found the DLC to be popular then they could risk launching a standalone title "Hardline" which would probably garner more attention than "Battlefield: Hardline" and be far more polished thanks to anything they learn from the initial DLC.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the RAM requirements that people are merely predicting it looks like shit will probably be fully destructible which is definitely leaning another modern setting, WW2, or the futuristic one...

 

Actually now that I think of it; AMD has been partnered with dice for so long that It really wont surprise me at all if they release BF2143 next year with their Vega 10 chips. Because EA and Sony have both in the past partnered with GPU companies to show off their new architecture/game engines. So an AMD Vega 10 chip with the next generation of Frostbite for 2143 as a benchmark of sorts for particle effects and physics as a whole would seem likely considering they did the exact same with 2142 and Planetside 2.

So that leaves either another MW setup or a hopeful WW2 return.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GehakteMolen said:

I have next to me standin (under a pile of dust) BF 1942 + extensions Road to Rome & Secret weapons of ww2, BF: Vietnam, BF2 + BF2:SF, i also played BC2 (the beta) and BF3 (beta) and have BF4

I guess more as you did ^^

~1500 hours bf1942 (perhaps even more) and also i think ~2500 hours bf2 (my main account had about 300k points on public server, say 100 points / game, would be around 3000 games public on just that account)

I didnt play vietnam that much, and i ragequit all the newer ones very fast, BF 1943 was sort of fun, except massive pay 2 win

ps: best bf map of all times: 

 

So you admit you barely played BF3 or BF4?

Both of those games are extremely good. How can you say that battlefield is dead when the last game you spent any serious time in was BF2? 

I had well over 1000 hours in BF2 by the time I bought BF3. I have 500+ hours in BF3 and around the same in BF4. After BF2, BF3/4 are far from what I would call dead. And frankly, DICE have worked extremely hard on BF4, releasing so many updates and rebalances and improvements,  comparing BF4 now to when BF4 was released is literally like comparing WoTs Beta with WoT now. 

 

also, @PityFool, I actually think the Handheld stingers and shit are slightly OP, they can keep a heli perma critted if you get hit by one, IMO they could do with a bit of a reload nerf, but apart from that yeah, Helis are in a sweet spot now.  (also active radar and the MBT Law can go fuck Themselves)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if anything, i want an extra futuristic setup (think fucking starcraft not 2143) or 'Nam. There were not enough good 'Nam games.

WW2 has been (ateast for me) told so many times it got boring. There are just so many times i can play Tobruk and El Alamein before all the dust starts to itch my balls.

Slightly modern settings are overdone as well.

I would still like a WW2 setting if it explored less known theaters of operation and stuff like the Secret Weapons expansion back then. Plus, the 5 year old in me that played BF1942 as the first computer game wants to see WW2 in dank graphics.

 

On the balancing situation. I have not played BF4 much. Only like 100 hours. Didnt like it, no interest to go back to it.

What i do know is that going 80-0 or 80-1 on Caspian Border or OP Firestorm in BF3 Jets was also pretty stupid. Everything can be balanced if implemented correctly and if the devs try enough.

Also please no more maps like Metro or Locker pls. It was very triggering seeing all those tards that played those cancer maps 95% of their games go to the forums and QQ about tanks and helis being OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GehakteMolen said:

I have next to me standin (under a pile of dust) BF 1942 + extensions Road to Rome & Secret weapons of ww2, BF: Vietnam, BF2 + BF2:SF, i also played BC2 (the beta) and BF3 (beta) and have BF4

I guess more as you did ^^

~1500 hours bf1942 (perhaps even more) and also i think ~2500 hours bf2 (my main account had about 300k points on public server, say 100 points / game, would be around 3000 games public on just that account)

I didnt play vietnam that much, and i ragequit all the newer ones very fast, BF 1943 was sort of fun, except massive pay 2 win

ps: best bf map of all times: 

 

I'd have to agree that 1bf942/bf2 if only for the dozens of great mods that were made by the community. Some of the best bf memories i have are from playing bf2:Project Reality. bf3/4 tried to gain replay value by offering weapon grinds instead of modding, which really is a shame imo. And yes, i've played all of them, unfortunately enjoying them less and less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still servers up for BFBC2(most fun BF game)

 

Futuristic does not excite me at all. Oversaturated market with the majority belonging to the CoD franchise.

Tell me honestly, has anyone actually brought a BF game for the single player story? It was an addition to fight the CoD crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

also, @PityFool, I actually think the Handheld stingers and shit are slightly OP, they can keep a heli perma critted if you get hit by one, IMO they could do with a bit of a reload nerf, but apart from that yeah, Helis are in a sweet spot now.  (also active radar and the MBT Law can go fuck Themselves)

They can be cheap yea, but they're not gamebreaking, if they were good then you would see more than 3 guys using them per round. I think they should have slightly less ammo and a slight reload nerf and then they'll be fine.

This is all just nitpicking though, the game itself is quite well balanced considering how many different elements there are. Most of the guns in the game are quite well matched when comparing them with their peers, there's the occasional turd and diamond but they're mostly all effective and good for different situations.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PityFool said:

They can be cheap yea, but they're not gamebreaking, if they were good then you would see more than 3 guys using them per round. I think they should have slightly less ammo and a slight reload nerf and then they'll be fine.

This is all just nitpicking though, the game itself is quite well balanced considering how many different elements there are. Most of the guns in the game are quite well matched when comparing them with their peers, there's the occasional turd and diamond but they're mostly all effective and good for different situations.

 

I can agree with that. though I would say the reason no one runs stingers is because Stingers are only used against helis/jets. if you come up against a tank or any land vehicle your stinger is completely useless, whereas a lot of the ground RPGs and shit can also be used to hit helis if you are good at them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, PityFool said:

Ok so the last BF game you played to any meaningful extent was BF2. You played beta's and RQ'd everything since then... Now you have an opinion on the next one...

- You thought BF was dead...? BF4 is actually a really good game in its final state and has had a very healthy playerbase. You would know this if you played it.

- "No jets, jets suck for balance." The only time jets are effective is when there's a skilled pilot in them, 95% of the playerbase cannot fly them for shit because they take a lot of skill. Not to mention there's AA and all kinds of vehicles that are more than capable of swatting a jet out the sky.

- "Choppers suck for balance" Ok again, this is Battlefield we're talking about, huge maps with lots of vehicles is the what the franchise is all about. The helicopters in BF4 are actually slightly underpowered, they're in a good spot if you ask me because again they take skill to do well in.

- No missiles. Alright modern combat without missiles, yea right... Lock-ons are a little cheap but they're not overpowered. The ground to air lockons are actually pretty bad and only work against poor pilots. The only lockon type missile I would complain about is the MBT Law which acts like a dumbfire unless you shoot at a ground vehicle where it becomes a smart missile. Guided missiles? You mean like the SRAW or TOW? Those take skill.... you actually have to practice to get any good at using them.

- You want fucking SPGs? Really? Its battlefield not WoT, there are a few armoured vehicles per team, and they will perform almost identically to each other. Even if they had a Tiger vs a M4, both would reload and deal the same damage because its BF not WoT. 

- There's AA, AT guns and MG nests all over the place....

- BF4 has boats fucking everywhere too, boat vs boat happens all over the place.

 

I apologise if I seem a little aggressive, reading your points just gives off the distinct impression you have never played any BF games and don't really understand what the franchise is all about.

In BF4 choppers are indeed more under as overpowered, but thats the problem, you cant balance it good, like in wot you will never be able to balance arty of WTF-E100

besides that, BF4 (and 3) maps are all cramped and small if i have to believe ppls opinion on it (and those are good players, not the turds who cry for claymores on official forum)

BF4 cant stand in the shadow of BF2, the maps are smaller and way less imersion (and everything got dumbed down a lot)

http://imgur.com/KgnAf

Compare the mighty BF2 map with the tiny BF3 map...

11 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

So you admit you barely played BF3 or BF4?

Both of those games are extremely good. How can you say that battlefield is dead when the last game you spent any serious time in was BF2? 

I had well over 1000 hours in BF2 by the time I bought BF3. I have 500+ hours in BF3 and around the same in BF4. After BF2, BF3/4 are far from what I would call dead. And frankly, DICE have worked extremely hard on BF4, releasing so many updates and rebalances and improvements,  comparing BF4 now to when BF4 was released is literally like comparing WoTs Beta with WoT now. 

BF3 sucks dik, so thats excatly how the game NOT should be, BF2 is one of the best games ever made (objective, just read the old reviews) it was revolutionary and it stood head and shoulders above the rest, everything made after that (except 2142) is a cheep cod clone, and play shit, look how long BF2 lived and how dead all those others are...

even in 2009, like 4 years after the release, every saturday there were easy +1000 full servers, thats 60k ppl online simultanous, BF4 can only dream of those numbers

so if EA wants to save the franchise, its simply: make a copy of BF2, or give up..

BF2 had by far the best gameplay of any BF, it just lacked in balance, they can ofc also make it modern, but to set it appart from all the modern fail shit, they better make it ``old``, so make it different...

ps: and i played (and seen) and heard enough of all the ``new`` BF`s to know they are all without exception shit, BC2, BC2:V, BF3 all suk dik, BF4 is better, but still not good...

for comparison: all new COD`s are all shit. s.h.i.t. i was never a big fan of Cod, but COD UO / 2 / 4 were objective good games, and i in the end played them a fair bit, that cant be said from all the trash made afterwards (every new one a bit worse)

ps ps: and its not nostalgia, since while most new games are trash, GTA V is way better as GTA IV, so new games can be good, but they mostly suk because devs listen to much to the player base, 99% of the players has no idea about playing the damm game they whine about, let alone stuff like actuall balance. Just look at wot, Serb is 100% right he never gave a damm about the player base, since the few times WG did listen to the players it turned out terrible... (tier 10 TDs and meds beiing a player base ``idea``, so go figure, meds (would) work, but TDs?...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GehakteMolen said:

ps ps: and its not nostalgia, since while most new games are trash, GTA V is way better as GTA IV, so new games can be good, but they mostly suk because devs listen to much to the player base, 99% of the players has no idea about playing the damm game they whine about, let alone stuff like actuall balance. Just look at wot, Serb is 100% right he never gave a damm about the player base, since the few times WG did listen to the players it turned out terrible... (tier 10 TDs and meds beiing a player base ``idea``, so go figure, meds (would) work, but TDs?...)

Devs listening to their players is *NOT* a bad thing. Look at the success Amplitude have had developing Endless Space/Legend with extended EA programs.

I think you need to stop frothing at the mouth and calm down because shooting off silly generalisations makes you look foolish and we all know you're not that stupid :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GehakteMolen said:

In BF4 choppers are indeed more under as overpowered, but thats the problem, you cant balance it good, like in wot you will never be able to balance arty of WTF-E100

besides that, BF4 (and 3) maps are all cramped and small if i have to believe ppls opinion on it (and those are good players, not the turds who cry for claymores on official forum)

BF4 cant stand in the shadow of BF2, the maps are smaller and way less imersion (and everything got dumbed down a lot)

http://imgur.com/KgnAf

Compare the mighty BF2 map with the tiny BF3 map...

BF3 sucks dik,

Dude what the fuck are you on about...? The maps are most certainly not cramped and the ones that are too big actually hurt gameplay, look at the dragon valley remake for BF4, the map is absolutely enormous and the map is actually worse off because its so big, it just doesn't work with the gameplay. 

BF2 was a great game and I loved it to bits but BF3 was incredible and now BF4 is pretty damn good. I just cannot take these points seriously.... I think the issue is that the gameplay sped up through the years and you just can't keep up with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PityFool said:

BF2 was a great game and I loved it to bits but BF3 was incredible and now BF4 is pretty damn good. I just cannot take these points seriously.... I think the issue is that the gameplay sped up through the years and you just can't keep up with it.

Im sorry, but BF3 was beyond terrible, and is exactly why BF is shit nowadays

But we wont agree on this i think ^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GehakteMolen said:

Im sorry, but BF3 was beyond terrible, and is exactly why BF is shit nowadays

But we wont agree on this i think ^^

We'll have to agree to disagree. The game was hugely popular and far from bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BF4 is cramped. Uhh, okay?

 

Gomud Railway is huge, And I hate it. The smaller maps are all more popular. And, if you think about it, the most popular BF2 maps were the smaller ones. Strike at Karkand, Sharquai Peninsula, Musthaur City (however its spelled) Finding a Full server playing on Zatar Wetlands, or Op Clean sweep wasn't very common...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bf2 maps were big because they were all like 1 texture.  Now you have to actually fill that land with scenery hence why the new bf maps are "smaller". Smaller in size, bigger in scale

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i do like huge maps a lot. I really dislike being forced into engagements by the map design. If i want to take flag C without any motherfucker seeing me then i think i should have the option to use the map and sneak around and shit. This is mostly impossible on many maps ive played in BF3 and 4. Call me a casual and a nostalgic but taking the british base 10 minutes into the game on Tobruk in BF1942 without being seen or shot at once was quite entertaining. Not to mention rage inducing for the enemies.

Another point is that the larger the map is, the more important vehicles are. And again, i do think vehicles should be the centrepoint of the game, not infantry combat, but thats mostly just me. Good luck getting to do anything on El Alamein/Clean Sweep without hopping in a jeep/boat at least. MingLee

The only BF3 maps i liked were Firestorm/Caspian and the AK maps. Im not sure i like any BF4 map apart from maybe Paracel and Silk Road. Mind you, i never bought the Premium or any expansion for BF4.

To the guys who play BF4, are jets actually able to do anything except kill other jets and annoy helis? I mean, look at the Jets in BF2 (huge ass bombs), then BF3 (effective rocket pods, useless bombs) and then BF4. They look more like a novelty item rather than a functional part of the game.

Also throwback to the BF1942 assault rifle plane hunting. That was dank. Until the guy dropped a bomb on you with the splash of Gold CGC shells. And El Alamein carpet bombing from the british side. :disco:

 

Fucking nostalgia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can in jets, you can get guided AT missles with them, and the main cannon on most jets does destroy light vehicles - you can also get them for scout helis, but when you do that you swap something out that severely limits your air combat power so a lot of people in helis especially just go AA missles since staying alive is #1 priority and the single biggest threat to a scout heli is another heli or jet. 

honestly, boat combat was never a thing in BF2 or BF3. no one ever used them for anything except transport, in BF4 boat combat is quite common though, which is great. 

 

also its perfectly possible to sneak into objectives and take them from out under the enemies noses. doing that is often the way to break a stalemate. 

 

I actually don't like Silk road much in BF4, and find Paracel to be pretty meh. Silk road is just... boring, its tanks sniping at each other all game. I find its very stale gameplay for me, and with Paracel I just, I dunno actually. it just doesn't appeal to me. 

 

my absolute favorite maps in BF4 are maps like Operation Mortar - I love that map. Wave Breaker is also pretty cool and Lost Islands I think is a better version of Paracel Storm, frankly, I think Naval Strike is probably the best BF4 DLC out of them all, IMO. 

 

meanwhile, my Favourite maps in BF2 were Strike at Karkand, Zatar Wetlands, and probably Sharqi peninsula. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dragos_CS I prefer the maps that are balanced and allow for both good vehicle combat and areas for infantry fighting without too much vehicle interference. Don't get me wrong, I may primarily play infantry, but I love using all the vehicles too. 

You must have had China Rising DLC to play Silk Road, if you liked vehicle based maps then Golmud Railway, Rouge Transmission and Lancang Dam are pretty decent from the base game. Second Assault DLC has Firestorm, Caspian and Oman in it. 3 of the 4 maps in China Rising are vehicle based, the entire Naval Strike DLC is heavily based on Boats and Air Vehicles. Final Stand DLC is all vehicle based maps, the only truly infantry based DLC was Dragons Teeth. 

Jets are very good in the right hands, the stealth jets are primarily good against air vehicles but can equip guided missiles that can dish out some damage to land vehicles. The attack jets are less effective against air vehicles but can dominate land vehicles with a powerful 30mm cannon and rocket pods or, my personal favourite the JDAM bomb. When the enemy team has a good jet pilot, you notice it fairly quickly when either your helis are dropping out the sky or your ground vehicles seem to vanish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shackram said:

It's Battlefield, DICE and EA. It's going to suck.

Hey now, now you're making me worried about Mirror's Edge Catalyst :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...