people complaining about immersion and authenticity and i'm over here fiending for some rocket launcher loop de loops and jihad jeeps.Yeah the trailer was weak. It could be mistaken for a early gen console reveal trailer to demonstrate how much shit can be on screen at the same time.
i need some multiplayer footage asap though because that trailer wasn't good.
Vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=275&v=xegBXGaFrOU)
i didn't expect any of this from dice, especially after how they botched battlefield 1. this could easily be my goty and again every following year after
so no auto health regen is supposed to be some kind of new incredible feature huh
Especially after playing Red Orchestra back in the day on its many maps of the city I really have wanted a Stalingrad set game where it's just progressive and you can drop in and out to the "same battle" until it concludes and starts over. With all the house to house fighting, the progressive leveling of the entire city, etc.What you need to play is this:
Verdun, which I played an hour of with some random dudes due to the Steam thing, actually does a form of this in the one mode at least (was the only one with players...four) where you defend/attack each progressive trench line across No Man's Land, including artillery waves, whistles, machine guns, etc. I haven't really looked into the game too much, but like the main menu is setup as a map of the current state of the front and you pick from various locations (the maps) along it. It bends and changes too so it's not the same set in the same order.
Wolf:ET had the "front" system like this that decided the map rotation based on victories/objectives. But especially Battlefield has at this point shown they can do maps with the size and density and player count within Frostbite. And Operations/Frontlines in 1 starts to toy with this but it still felt like an extended corridor. The first Battlefront did this with some of its maps already too.
So like, if I was in charge and the only person at EA not working on Star Wars, I'd reboot Medal of Honor with a Medal of Honor II set around that type of Battle setpiece. D-Day especially could be a homage to both AA (and its expansion) and Airborne by having you either drop behind or spawn at the beach, then up onto it and back through the hedgerows into France. That would be the largest challenge, to incorporate that as a single front and battle. But most of the others, like Stalingrad, you could probably do comparatively easily by restricting the spawning to controlled points along the front. Bastogne or the Bulge in general would be fairly easy to "control" the points to create it at some point over the course of the battle.
I've noted before that some game, and a DoD map, did this over a decade ago, by swapping out the maps as the parts were captured. Rush as a mode basically already does this from a functional stand point, it turns off the spawn points, and silently swaps in and out the chunks of the maps. Frontlines/Operations and the upcoming Grand Operations in a way take these ideas into account but they still don't really have "consequences" related to the course of the battle beyond where the next points will be. (Or at least that I'm aware of.) A Stalingrad setting used like I'm thinking of would mean that if Pavlov's House doesn't survive the siege (or is destroyed in the course of the battle before any kind of use of it for defense even could occur), it's simply not there to be used later if need be. (Or used by the Germans even!)
D-Day is a bit more difficult as you can't really push the paratroopers back anywhere, or the troops landing, except into the Channel. I suppose a series of successful German counterattacks later in the battle could push the front back to the beach and force that to be refought over.
Having to account for spreading fires and stuff could be interesting, you don't live long enough to die from hunger or gain much from amputation. Some "downed" modes in games could be a semi-amputated mode already, like in Siege or PUBG where you're just bleeding out. (Another once DoD feature!)
The main conundrum that I'm trying to think about being introduced is rather than you progressing to new setups or pristine maps or even ones that you'll destroy on the way to the next one is the question of whether to destroy defenses or not since you may have to come back that way. I've long thought it interesting how these defenses and how to attack them can dynamically appear in something like DoD or DoD:S or RO, and how even that changes despite the map being the same, simply from individual players priorities, but in BC2 you could see some effect from the destructible buildings in terms of providing dynamism to the points (until a tank rolls in and blows the whole thing apart instantly) themselves and the paths to them. The theory here would be that in quickly capturing a location without needing to level the block you're also preserving it for a potential defense. Call of Duty 2's Stalingrad campaign loops you throughout a single map and shifts the enemy spawn waves, broken walls and rubble around to create a feeling like you're attacking a point, capturing it, holding off a counter attack, then moving to a different spot you basically did a small skirmish in to defend it now from a massive counter attack, that forces you back and into the area and buildings (which were scenery earlier) as a set of defensive points. (The first game did a similar stunt in its Stalingrad with, I think the Red Square, but it's just scenery from two locations. I don't remember if UO does anything in Bastogne or similar. 2 does the multi-waves on Hill 400 after its D-Day landing mission path.)
Though I also don't know what kind of level of strategerey people are looking for in their FPS with large maps. (And nearly unstoppable vehicles...) A "B" on a map may be as complex of objective as players will accept. Call of Duty had you attack into and seize before then defending Pavlov's House, but that kind of mission design being innovative is over two generations ago now, let alone the places multiplayer map and objective design has trended.
movement in this game is soooooooooooooo goooooood especially when you're on an epic run and hitting everything with epic timing did another bounding off multiple things with a pair of grapples into one last grapple onto the drop ship again
plus exploiting the momentum system is some kind of crazy evil magic that's so much the key to being unfair to others in this, dead stops and odd angles and fakes...i played infinite warfare a bit the other day and i realized that was the main difference, they nailed the wall running and sliding but it has absolutely none of the momentum control and i realized i was constantly trying to fake one way to boost back the other and land beside a guy at a 90 degree angle but you simply can't
in a match earlier these dudes were campin up by this rock i grappled in out of nowhere, did a back boost to instantly drop and killed the first guy then went like i was going around the rock to get the other guy since he put up a shield, but actually grappled back to the left towards the shield and then used the momentum to launch me into the air over it and then boosted again backwards so i was like above the dude flyin to what once was my right firing on him :dead
:lawd bless up :rejoice
did i mention that i love this games movement system
I'm actually surprised this game isn't doing far worse considering how shit it is compared to Titanfall 1.diaf
If respawn doesn't go back to Tf1 for influence and continue down this tf2 path the franchise is dead.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I didn't ask that question because I think it's the same kind of game, I asked that question because I was vaguely aware of the fact that you liked / had liked the game before and I think we have similar tastes in shooters. Shukran.i do quite like Siege too, probably my second place fav of recent shooters after Titanfall 2
dirty bomb is easily a 9 >:(
If they want to add women they could have added actual Soviet ones that had real achievements instead of English The Boss. ::)
If they want to add women they could have added actual Soviet ones that had real achievements instead of English The Boss. ::)
It's easier to make a game that's complete fabrication than it is to make a game that says, "Actually, the Eastern Front decided the war." Americans need their participation trophies for being the world's best 70th minute substitution.
The usual suspects are butthurt again that you can be a woman soldier because it "effects the realism" of video game war. :neogaf
It's easier to make a game that's complete fabrication than it is to make a game that says, "Actually, the Eastern Front decided the war." Americans need their participation trophies for being the world's best 70th minute substitution.I find it amusing that in the case of both Battlefield and Call of Duty, the endless churn of soldiers to death represented by the fast respawning/countdown until certain number of deaths are recorded/etc. system is far more respective of the Eastern Front than the Western Front where most soldiers on both sides went for years without suffering severe injury, let alone dying.
On the subject, I always thought it interesting how Day of Defeat built so many of its maps around the Italian Campaign or Falaise. Anzio, Avalanche, Saints, Switch, etc. are all set in Italy. Caen, Donner, Flash, Kalt, etc. are in Falaise, some during the winter. Jagd is in one or the other depending on if you're playing the Source version or not. So many WW2 games, even media, do D-Day, then you skip straight to The Bulge and then the war's over. (Except stuff like Band of Brothers and Hell's Highway which both pop up to the North for Market Garden.)
IIRC, BF1942's expansions did add stuff like Italy and some Free French stuff and so on...though that's a very different DICE from the current one. BF1 was almost a parody of what that DICE would have done with the war. :lol
https://store.steampowered.com/app/418460/Rising_Storm_2_Vietnam/
The fact that the women thing is what people want to whine about when you can complain about many many many actual issues that have hampered the franchise in recent iterations speaks volumes to me.
The Northern forces offer a broader mix, with the People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN - or NVA) as the regular, disciplined and better-equipped main fighting force, in comparison to the National Liberation Front (NLF) guerrilla fighters, equipped with whatever weaponry was passed down the chain to them from Russia and China - known as the Viet Cong. For supporting weapons each has:this reminds me that in Battlefield: Vietnam, the whole point of hiding in the grass was defeated because it'd show the other players username when you moused over them
PAVN/NVA - heavy artillery, surface-to-air missile defenses and rapid reinforcement from the Ho Chi Minh trail
NLF/VC - a mix of ordnances (mortars, rockets, white phosphorous) used in a heavy barrage
To compete with the Southern forces’ mobility, the Northern forces have their own mobility - and stealth:
NVA and VC squad leaders can place spawn tunnels widely across the maps, allowing themselves and their squads to spawn much closer to the action - or even behind the lines
Given their “home field advantage”, any NVA or VC crouching or prone in cover can’t be spotted by Southern helicopters or aircraft
SA-2 Missiles - the quick way to counter Southern air assets is by calling on surface-to-air missiles, if the commander can time it right
“Ho Chi Minh Trail” ability - the NVA/VC commander can activate this ability to accelerate his team’s spawning rate, when times get desperate
“Ambush Spawn” ability - the NVA/VC commander can also cause anyone on his team who is waiting, to spawn on his location for potentially devastating ambushes.
The weaponry for the Northern forces is wide-ranging - the PAVN well-equipped with modern weapons delivered from Russia and China, while the VC have to work with a wide variety of weapons:
AK-47 and Type 56 Assault rifles
Russian SKS-45 and US M1 Carbines and Mosin Nagant 91/30 rifle
MN 91/30 and SVD sniper rifles
PPSh-41 and French MAT-49 SMGs
IZh-58 double-barrelled shotgun
DP-28 and RPD LMGs
RPG-7 rocket launcher
MD-82 toe-popper mines, Tripwires and Punji traps
i don't even own it username lol, tripwire has burned me too many times
https://imgur.com/gallery/GuXkj7Estill the best BF1 trailer:
Do u know how they call battle royale in russia?
Do u know how they call battle royale in russia?
Do u know how they call battle royale in russia?
a battle quarter pounder?
also thisusername rated bc2 a 10 so what does he know
hendry The bear
13 minutes ago
Me:MOM SAVE MONEY!!
Mom: for what honey?
Me:BATTLEFIELD V!!
Mom:OK
Wait, the war against the Netherlands is part of the campaign?It actually took them longer to take the Netherlands than they anticipated and they feared it would mess up the rest of their campaign.
So i guess it's gonna be pretty short. :doge
Wait, the war against the Netherlands is part of the campaign?
So i guess it's gonna be pretty short. :doge
We have developed far more efficient methods of occupation in the meantime though, Have you ever been to Venlo or Roermond on a weekend? :smugI live on the Dutch coast and it's flooded with Germans during the summer every year.
The Dutch retaliated though by conquering the German Alps every winter :goty2
We have developed far more efficient methods of occupation in the meantime though, Have you ever been to Venlo or Roermond on a weekend? :smugI live on the Dutch coast and it's flooded with Germans during the summer every year.
The Dutch retaliated though by conquering the German Alps every winter :goty2
They head for the beach, buy up all the bottled water and bread in the supermarkets and dig holes.
josh orr
3 hours ago
uhhhh don't like political agenda getting shoved down my throat, dislike
vide0gameCaster
3 hours ago
I'm uneducated and my wallet is happy about it!
thorsten94vfl
2 hours ago
Battlefield 3: 70 guns
Battlefield V: 70 genders
Ewan Piotrowski
2 hours ago
The fact that they are trying to make ww2 “politically correct” is so stupid, this war was so gruesome and terrible, mankind literally was at its breaking point and the fact that they are trying to make a political statement from it is simply disrespectful.
Jared Cosby
3 hours ago
What happened to the Transgender amputee mode?
Tristram
2 hours ago
Oh that's terribly generous that they're giving us all this content for free this time around. Definitely doesn't have anything to do with the fact they want to push this 1984 esc political narrative down as many peoples throats at possible... Definitely pure generosity here.
lmao at the comments all complaining about the campaign focusing on "untold stories" and at least involving a lady instead of being yet another trip through the same battlefields that every other WWII game already didQuotejosh orr
3 hours ago
uhhhh don't like political agenda getting shoved down my throat, dislikeQuotevide0gameCaster
3 hours ago
I'm uneducated and my wallet is happy about it!Quotethorsten94vfl
2 hours ago
Battlefield 3: 70 guns
Battlefield V: 70 gendersQuoteEwan Piotrowski
2 hours ago
The fact that they are trying to make ww2 “politically correct” is so stupid, this war was so gruesome and terrible, mankind literally was at its breaking point and the fact that they are trying to make a political statement from it is simply disrespectful.QuoteJared Cosby
3 hours ago
What happened to the Transgender amputee mode?QuoteTristram
2 hours ago
Oh that's terribly generous that they're giving us all this content for free this time around. Definitely doesn't have anything to do with the fact they want to push this 1984 esc political narrative down as many peoples throats at possible... Definitely pure generosity here.
in the second Medal of Honor game you played as French Resistance lady from the first game!!!! let the campaign do that kinda stuff and mebbe we gonna get a White Death set of missions one of these days! :mafALSO DRIVING TANKS THROUGH BUILDINGS
As a dude who only was playing medic, throwing out packs is broken or misdesigned. You can only do it if the prompt comes up, and you have to be a specific distance from people, too close and you can't just drop them on people anymore. You literally have to "throw" them to people. So my old thing of sneaking into cover where guys are and dropping them some health and then moving onto the next is worthless.
Like, they flat out admit "we have no idea why people like Bad Company 2 (https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-24-dice-ponders-what-did-people-really-like-about-battlefield-bad-company)."
Spoiler: Because it was fun and despite some balance issues (helicopters on console, destruction on all platforms, map design for Conquest), it was rock solid fun. 1943 was the same: It had 3 maps (well 4 but one of them was a plane map, so fuck that in the count) and you could go up into the air in a plane, bail out and land on a flag sneaky-breaky like and take out folks that were spawning or defending it with your team spawning on you soon after.
DICE keeps changing up systems that don't really need to be changed (beyond suppression, which really should probably just be removed from the game, it's been poorly thought out for 4 entries now) and this change toward a "tacti-cool" sort of deal just flies in the face of "established" rules in BF.
But like, a lot of that is basic Battlefield problems. I think it was BC2 and BF3? where lots of people played medic for the early guns the class had and would never actually medic. Games would end and I'd have like 90% of the medic points because I was the only one reviving and throwing health around. Actually, BF2 had that too. Really, BF2 was the last time I truly saw most people playing the classes outside of sniper and anti-tank.
i bet DICE got a big ol graph that said "nobody was giving anyone ammo or health"
balancing the vehicles against the BETA data seems like a bad idea considering that so much of the easy anti-tank stuff was further into unlock trees, so nobody had it...they still were barely a problem from what i saw unless they actually had support gunners
i saw more tanks and apcs fuck themselves up than anyone else do anything to them, maybe what they mean about movement and damage states, i mentioned the one tank got stuck in house debris and it was like the debris was constantly slowly damaging it
finally, chat profanity filters are why Trump won
Progression and Customization – We’re working on making the user journey one that’s smooth and personal.I mean, this means absolutely nothing. Was it rocky and not personal before or wat?
Tweaking attrition:
Devs want to nudge attrition in the right direction but still want it to be fully part of the game.
More ammo on spawn.
More max ammo capacity.
Ammo tweaking will be weapon specific (not all weapons may be affected, some more than others).
Medpack on spawn.
Improving visibility:
Adding a haze to the background to make enemies stand out. (Example by /u/CrafterOfSwords)
Fixing some lighting issues (notably in Rotterdam).
Fine tuning lighting in specific locations.
Death experience and pacing:
Devs agree with the community that current death timer made the game feel too slow.
Devs want highs and lows moments in the game, but find that the high moments are not high enough (this is partially caused by soldier downtime). They want moments of pure chaos.
Tweaking "bleeding out" timer, you are not punished anymore if you decide to hang on, respawn timer will be reduced accordingly.
Audio immersion:
Fixed the audio bugs which contributed to make the game too silent. Audio should feel like war once again.
Time to kill and time to death:
Trying to find that sweet spot to cater to both players who love it or hate it.
From the data, players have learned to move closer to cover to avoid getting killed too easily.
Certain weapons stand out (more effective at most engagement distances), "won't name specifics *cough*STG*cough*". Those are gonna be tweaked to "bring them into the fold".
Confirmed Netcode issues in regards to Time to death, "you receive more damage than you should be in one update, which is due to packet loss, netcode, delays and high rate of fire weapons". Currently looking into fixing this.
Vehicles (Tanks):
Beta testers felt that the tanks were too slow/heavy and not offensive enough against infantry, but dev says the more agile/anti-infantry tanks weren't in the open beta, as well as anti-aircraft vehicles.
Devs were happy with the tuning on the new turret system on the heavy tanks, but plan to make the turret turn faster on the medium and lighter tanks. Light tanks will have a "very fast" turret turning speed.
Devs want the tanks to be the "dragons of our game", once they show up on the field, "everyone should relate to that". If you see a friendly tank, you should push alongside it, if you see an enemy tank, you should cower in fear.
Heavier tanks are robust, hard to take down, but slow, less effective against infantry, more effective against other vehicles, and the opposite is true for lighter tanks, more agile, used to kill infantry, harass and flank.
Tweaked systemic damage (such as canon disabled or track disabled), they want to reward players who chip away at tanks without necessarily destroying them, but don't want to penalize tank drivers too much, leaving them with nothing to do. Added turret damage which slows down turret turning speed, as well as engine damage, which cripples its movement.
Vehicles (Airplanes):
Beta feedbacks tell that the difference between the two fighter planes was too great and people didn't like it. Devs are taking step to make them much more similar and better than they were in open beta.
Overall players found fighter planes not agile enough.
Not being able to acquire ground targets as easily as in previous titles.
Players most happy with the BF 109 plane, but devs say even that one wasn't were we needed it to be.
Tweaked visibility for pilot and gunner, extended spotting range. "We want planes to participate in the ground combat".
Dev excited about the broader spectrum of vehicle classes in BFV, says it was a bit lacking in BF1.
Talking about anti-aircraft tanks, such as the Flakpanzer and Valentine MK 1 AA, they have "tons of canons and tons of bullets flying through the sky".
Devs want the tanks to be the "dragons of our game", once they show up on the field, "everyone should relate to that". If you see a friendly tank, you should push alongside it, if you see an enemy tank, you should cower in fear.🎶dream the impossible dream🎶
Who's idea was that. Nobody likes modes that do shit like that. Dice has tried it before with obliteration and nobody liked that either.
If the whole point of the mode is bomb delivery then I would rather it was just a variation on rush. A mode they actually have a little experience with. What's they have done with that airdrop mode will not satisfy very many people and its for lots of reasons. Everytime I see anybody play offense on that mode, the frustration at what is happening is obvious immediately.
Rush has also become a niche mode in Battlefield but its about a billion times better and more strategic than that airdrop mode.
Parachuting off Damavand Peak is about 1000x more exciting than what they delivered in airdrop.
The real question is why would anyone play anything but Conquest.
What BF needs to do is take ques from Enemy Territory and have the control points have actual value and effects.
The real question is why would anyone play anything but Conquest.
post
The air drop game type seems really lame especially since the defense gets to see who is carrying the bomb with a big fat icon on screen. Who's idea was that. Nobody likes modes that do shit like that. Dice has tried it before with obliteration and nobody liked that either. They don't seem to get that attacking should be as fun and reasonable as defending. And without the behemoths, to sort of propel you to victory, I have a feeling defense will always win an absurd amount of these rounds.
It's a solid iteration of the franchise.Yeah, I feel his levels the playing field a bit. Veteran players no longer automatically have the biggest advantage.
Also one of the more challenging iterations in quite awhile.
Battlefield 3, 4, and 1 were all kind of tore from the same cloth. Not bragging but because of the hours I had put into the franchise they had become pretty easy games. It was rare that I wasn't super high on the leaderboard with a high kd.
This one is a whole different ballgames. Some games I rock. But there are also games where I just play like dog shit, have terrible aim, and just suck. That's kind of a refreshing thing. To feel like you have to re-learn how to play properly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZFsTJj4X54
I like the game but Joe's right. Player count is way down, sales are way down and following their tradition this generation EA has once again 'killed' another one of their franchises.
Firestorm is allright. Got 5 kills and 3rd place with a nice LMG I had from the beginningGot second on my first try, i was dicking around on the ground when the other dude got the higher ground and anakin'd me. Didnt play it again after, no local servers and I cant do this with 200 ping. Dont want to play sneaky ninja games all the time when I know im better than people.
but reddit and youtube community weren't bitching about balance? how did you miss this?
but reddit and youtube community weren't bitching about balance? how did you miss this?
I'm talking about post changes. Or whenever any things changes that community thinks they have perfect insight into. Imo the long rang ability to delete everything was a problem. So extending the ttk with certain weapons was needed imo. (Mounted and prone mmg's being a prime offender.) Also visibility and not being able to see certain people proned up in certain areas have always been a problem since day one. The up close thing where you can see people spotted is also fine to me. I don't agree with the current complaining. There were problems in various areas and there continue to be which is why they made certain changes. I played the game post changes and it was fine to me. (Outside of the metric tons of bugs which got introduced which DICE should be railed at on)
They are entitled to their opinion of course. I just don't agree.
sirland was the lead mp designer/producer for bfv and it seems like the changes to management are why he and many of the core dice staff have left for greener pastures in recent months, which doesn't bode well for future battlefield titles especially now that respawn has taken over dice la. fucking upper management. sirland, who worked at dice for 11 years, did promise that he'll be writing a lengthy post on the current state of the company so that should be juicy
Battlefield 3 was really my fav. I'm done with BFV btw, they pulled support for local servers and im not playing with 3000000 ping
After BF4 I lost all will to play that series again tbh. How you can shit so hard on a fanbase, and release such an unfinished piece of shit, I dont know. But that is DICE and EA I guess.
After all this time, DICE:
- cutting away at community servers (once a staple, now thrown aside for funneled matchmaking)
- avoiding CTEs (having even less community engagement after recent shitshows)
- offering up non-existent anti-cheat systems, and non-existent team balancers
I think chasing innovation kinda fucked them. They would be killing rn still if they had taken BF3 and just...CoD'd it. Little and incremental system changes on a year by year basis. Then maybe a bigger game/engine change every 3 or so years. Imagine instead of going for collapsing buildings and massive map changes they did a game with more realistic or detailed interiors? I think at it's core, the best aspect of BF is that it's a giant sandbox. Instead of always changing the sandbox, maybe just add more toys instead?
Imagine instead of going for collapsing buildings and massive map changes they did a game with more realistic or detailed interiors?
I think at it's core, the best aspect of BF is that it's a giant sandbox. Instead of always changing the sandbox,
maybe just add more toys instead?
I think chasing innovation kinda fucked them. They would be killing rn still if they had taken BF3 and just...CoD'd it. Little and incremental system changes on a year by year basis. Then maybe a bigger game/engine change every 3 or so years. Imagine instead of going for collapsing buildings and massive map changes they did a game with more realistic or detailed interiors? I think at it's core, the best aspect of BF is that it's a giant sandbox. Instead of always changing the sandbox, maybe just add more toys instead?
Battlefield 3 was really my fav. I'm done with BFV btw, they pulled support for local servers and im not playing with 3000000 ping
My feeling always was that they wanted Battlefield to take off as e-Sports but it never did.
Felt like every other breakup tbh :fbmBattlefield 3 was really my fav. I'm done with BFV btw, they pulled support for local servers and im not playing with 3000000 ping
sorry they nixed the servers. they didn't even announce it until someone called them out for it on twitter, must've felt bad man :fbm
I played BF3 on PC again yesterday, game's still good but the servers are all *MY FAVORITE MAP 24/7 50000000 tickets* lmao
Not even gonna read already uninstalled
It isn't dead until EA does a failed reboot.
That's what this game is, dude
That game simply dropped off because it took too long to get into shape.
As an old BF2 fogey that also liked BC2 and loved BF1943: anyone know if there’s a current game that scratches a similar itch with its multiplayer?Insurgency: Sandstorm
I’ve heard that about Insurgency Sandstorm, but am hesitant after the devs left Day Of Infamy to die on the vine and lose all its population (DOI is really good).They had no choice because they had to move onto a new engine and DOI alone could not pay the bills as sales weren't as good as projected (they commented on this in the documentary as well).
How is it similar, Nintex? I kinda want to add a new shootbang.Gunplay feels more realistic with a fast TTK like BF2 and it relies on teamwork more so than being a lone wolf like in modern BF games.
Metro was still fun though.