Battlefield 1 Catch-All: It is LIVE!

Seems like modes and roles depend on each server.

I don't know. There's something satisfying about using the bolt action and killing people who are running automatics. Granted, it doesn't happen too often in extreme cqc, especially on console without the snap-to-head aiming you can achieve with practice with a mouse, but it's still extremely satisfying when you pull it off.

Also, it took me a couple attempts to embrace the automatico. It feels so different from everything else in the game. But the TTK is so insane and it feels less limited than the shotguns in terms of range, I ended up loving it the second time out. It does feel overpowered once you get the hang of it, though. I started feeling bad when some poor medic would get too shots on me and I'd turn and one-burst him in the chest. Crazy powerful with that ROF.

I still die to shotguns more than i do to automatico...

ranalin wrote:

I still die to shotguns more than i do to automatico...

I do too. But I prefer to use the auto. It's harder to use, but more versatile. I value that.

ranalin wrote:

I still die to shotguns more than i do to automatico...

I die to the Hellriegel more than both of them...

Evo wrote:
ranalin wrote:

I still die to shotguns more than i do to automatico...

I die to the Hellriegel more than both of them...

I'll let you know if I ever die. Mwahaha

I've been getting into a different kind of auto... the Auto LOADING.

Which has me now on the M1907 SL Trench, which is even better.

I dunno, I haven't really sunk my teeth into this game just yet, though I suspect I will soon.

The Automatico feels most like a BF4 gun of any I've tried. Probably closest to the MTAR or one of the SMGs. It's devastating up close and serviceable at mid-range if you're careful, but the clip is small enough that I think it's fairly balanced. You can't chew through an entire squad with one like you can with the AEK in BF4.

Shotguns are weird and I haven't figured them out. I've been one-shot at insane distances with BF1 shotguns, but it seems to take me about 3 shots at short range to kill with the things. The pellet spread seems unpredictable, at least until you put in the time to get a feel for them I guess.

At some point they fixed support. At launch the bullet spread on all the support weapons was insane. You were great at suppression but good luck killing anything. Now... man. I'm counter-sniping as support. It's awesome. Maybe not as good short-range as assault, but the long-range accuracy makes up for it in most cases.

Recon, I've played a total of about 5 minutes. Bolt-action rifles are no fun at all for me and if that was the whole game I'd uninstall tomorrow. I do like medic though, and the automatic weapons in that class are serviceable all around. It's easy to tap fire and get good distance accuracy.

Overall, I feel like BF1 is a more polished game than BF4 but it's also less fun than BF4. Though I really like vehicles, and the vehicles in BF1 all kinda stink. I've gone on some insane tears with the artillery truck, which feels as close to a BF4 tank as you can get in BF1, and the heavy tank is a powerhouse if played right, but overall it's just not as rewarding to use vehicles in BF1 as it was in BF4. The skill ceiling seems lower, and there's more mandatory teamwork built into the design (as with everything in BF1).

I agree with a lot of that, CM, (other than the fact that I love BF1 and just liked BF4).

I'm a close support Recon/Scout a lot of the time. I like throwing flares in bf1 in close support and using iron sights or 2-4x zoom scopes for front line support. I use my pistol a fair amount. This game has been awesome for me so far with the slightly longer times to kill giving me an advantage over the same style in BF4.

As for vehicles, they're definitely less fun than their BF4 counterparts. I think. Since there's no test zone like in BF4, it's extremely hard to try anything out outside of the game itself. I'm loathe to try new things, as I don't want to screw my team over trying some suboptimal loadout. It's really sort of a strange omission.

I've had immense fun playing as a heavy tank with a full squad or riding shotgun on a heavy gun when a squad mate had a land ship. That said, I'm not a huge vehicle guy, so the infantry play feeling great is what makes the game good to me. It seems like vehicles are appropriately difficult to destroy, while not being indestructible versus concerted counter-measures by multiple enemies.

Love the Automatico. Agree it feels balanced. The small mag and high ROF means a quick kill in cqc, but two kills in a mag with good shooting. Better have that 1911 handy and hope you're up against 3-4 enemies tops, even on a flank. On a flanking run, many guns are better, including the default MP18, in my opinion. That's a good all-arounder. I've had great games with it.

Shotguns aren't really my jam, so I've only played with them a couple times. The one I used felt decent. Good up close with one- or two-shot kills, then pretty crap at range beyond 10 meters or so.

Overall my default choice with vehicles is the heavy tank (the blockade runner or whatever it's called, with 4 seats). It can stand well on its own, and does solid damage. Also, the light tank basically can't hurt it. If you see that little thing, just get in its face and fire until it goes down. I think a lot of people who choose the light tank don't realize just how weak its cannon is. But since the heavy tank is terribly slow, has poor maneuverability, and the guns all have a narrow arc of fire, placement and facing is crucial. I've gone 80/3 in rounds where I got my hands on a heavy tank, but have also gone down in seconds when I overextended myself and the enemy team had capable assault players. Really, with all the vehicles, you can't get close without infantry support to back you up. They're pretty much all sitting ducks if you're in the open and there are a few enemy assaults around. It's a far cry from BF4 where you can drive around like a crazy person blowing up buildings and people will just run in fear.

Random vehicle tips? Use third-person mode basically always. There's very little benefit to first-person mode, unlike BF4. And if you get the heavy tank on Mt. Grappa, park your butt in the tunnel and stay on your toes. Unless your team is terrible, controlling that tunnel generally means the other team won't be able to effectively field any tanks and a win is almost guaranteed. It's a boring but effective job. There are some good spots on other maps as well, but infantry support is more important (in the courtyard on Ballroom Blitz, for example).

complexmath wrote:

The skill ceiling seems lower, and there's more mandatory teamwork built into the design (as with everything in BF1).

Yup.

The presence of 'skill compression' is strong in this one. It's no surprise (though complete omission of passworded servers had more to do with it) that most players from the competitive scene and the highest tier of public players have more or less quit on the series or begun to begrudgingly go back to BF4 (some have gone back to BF4 completely).

As you say though, there are some 'positives' but skill compression is a lazy way of addressing the issue of trying to strike balance in a 'complex' multi-layered game like this.

I missed out on playing during launch thanks to various RL factors and I've only begun to really get a couple good sessions in (I'd previously been restricted to WEEKLY TOTAL of 3-4 hours on average), but it does seem like the patches since launch have addressed or at least mitigated SOME of the glaring issues I saw in the beta and the closed alpha.

What do you mean by 'skill compression'? This is not a term that I've heard before.

I'm guessing that you mean that the game has been designed and built to prevent more skilful players to utilise this during the game. However, I'm interested to know what elements of the game have been used to do this.

Is it the availability of weapons and equipment to the various classes? I was certainly surprised by versatility of the Browning Automatic Rifle, which can be used as a LMG, a quasi-assault rifle, and a marksman rifle.

Is it the maps? It's very difficult to find an area that one can patrol and control effectively for any significant period of time.

Is it a combination of everything, so that no individual player can 'exploit' their skill without a strong squad?

DICE using spread to balance weapons in this game would be the biggest one, but I will get to that one later.

Some of it can be seen in the new ticket-burn mechanics. Controlling majority of total flags used to mean that you'd completely block the opposing team's ticket burn on you. Now controlling ANY number of flags does allow the team to continue to burn the opponent's tickets. This along with kills not burning the opposing team's tickets, would translate to losing quite lopsidedly even if you outplayed your opponent toward the latter half of the match. It also wrested a lot of nuances in map control away from the players. Granted those were nuances not often practice, and clearly DICE felt that more drastic effect the ticket drain/gains the flag controls had, the better people would push themselves to play the objective. I think some of DICE's intended effect happened... I could break down this further of how this kind of mechanic would be abused in a competitive/highly-organized environment but lot to cover here.

Gadgets:
Continuation of 'gadgets' for the sake of having extra options without much in place to impede them. Mortars are one, they certainly add to the 'impression' of assisting while they so seldom do, and more manual and direct approaches will always add more to the team.

Gas Grenades is the one people most have gripes with. It's a toss, a simple toss is all it takes to either kill off or greatly hinder those caught in it in a massive area. That isn't to mention the Gas Grenade unlike the fire nades, leaks through everything, it's a giant blob that ignores most walls (as almost all walls have holes/doors/windows), goes up and down floors, and it for a moment freezes anyone caught in it (masking animation), and then forces them to be stuck in hipfire mode and also partially deaf and blind (the visual obstruction... the AUDIO obstruction). It might seem like a less effective variation of fire grenades, but really it's just an obnoxious gadget that I feel exists more for the 'artistic' and 'thematic' reasons rather than gameplay-based ones. Have I mentioned that people spam them almost always wiping out massive swaths of any key area at almost all times? Yeah there's that 'oh I tossed a gas nade into an area, and went in there guns blazing with my trench shot gun' but really, is that 'depth'? What counters did the opponent have? What intricacy was there? Fire nades on the other hand, I do feel are excellent to have, they're better implemented, less glitchy, and etc.

Speaking of fire, the random little itty bits of fire all over the place that burn you. This might feel like 'oh cool, that's realistic, FINALLY fire that's not just for decoration.' Well, from a gameplay perspective, they're insanely obnoxious, pointless and especially noticeable on certain maps, which is can literally be a city burning down. Did they at least place fire in seemingly purposeful areas? No. It's absolutely randomly sputtered all over the place.

Weapons
But really the biggest gripe I have is the weapon balancing. I won't touch shotguns here, that's a universal thing. In fact since the shotguns were 'balanced' in a recent patch, I actually feel like shotguns in Battlefield is in a better place than it's ever been, arguably closest it's been to CS:GO shotgun balancing which I feel is one of the most well done balancing of shotguns in shooters (I am not saying I don't find them obnoxious still, but yeah).

DICE has decided that this will be the game where class selection, and more importantly weapon types of each respective class, will MATTER. In other words, every weapon will have its own effective range. Not only did they shuffle the classes around again, they also greatly nerfed the effective ranges of all the guns. I am... GOOD with this. So was a huge portion of the competitive and higher-end players. The big problem was the method with which they went about doing it.

DICE used the traditional method of dropping distance over damage. Good, fine, one of the most noticeable and biggest ways you can limit a weapon's effective range. Bullet drop, also fine, not common in other games, but pretty much a staple in the Battlefield series now. But the bullet velocity was jacked up... and to cap everything off, they used spread as a primary adjuster of effective ranges in very broad strokes.

Let's say your crosshair is a single-pixel dot. The spread increase rate and the maximum spread would detect how fast/large that dot becomes while shooting beyond your first shot, and how big that dot can get after sustained semi-automatic/automatic fire.

DICE decided to go nuts with spread in BF1, as the nearly sole driving factor in addressing effective ranges. It's just slightly less so now, but the spread wasn't just affecting effective range, but also the quality of CQC combat as well. There's simply noticeably less nuance in CQC combat now. The fact that you HAVE to wait for spread to reset hasn't resulted in any slower or more 'skillful' approaches to combat, the TTK is still obscenely (and now unpredictably/randomly) low, and what we have is muddy combat where the amount of skill required to achieve maximum efficiency with is simply too low.

Dancing is the new meta game, arena-styled gliding and jumping (still a thing), and never letting your fingers off the sprint key (in fact, now it's all about spamming it). Aiming? It took me 10-12 hours before I felt like there wasn't much more significant aiming proficiency for me to continue develop, before I felt like I was being bottle-necked by my aiming quality. Now I am just getting used to other things, mostly decision related, and... 'dancing' related.

Now the spread overall seems slightly less appalling on certain weapons, DICE always tweaks these (not always listed on official patch notes usually). So we'd have to see. BF4 was just at the cusp of the tolerable levels of spread, BF1 based on what I saw in Closed Alpha, Beta, and a little bits of Launch (I only recently started really sinking time into the game), it's not nearly there yet. That said, most of the comp community has dropped the verdict, on account of this and DICE not bothering to ship with passworded servers until just now (letting us know basically DICE doesn't care).

I just get the Xbone and started to play the game right away. Just finished the campaign but the mp is pretty difficult, at least for me that came from PC but I'm trying to get use to the controller. If anyone wants to play or join, just add me!

Map design is another big thing, the overall approach seems to be more built around 'epic moments' and 'beautiful landscapes'. This is a pattern that was noted in Battlefield 4, with more emphasis on novelties like Levolution rather than just having solid map design, which Battlefield 3 is no longingly looked back on for. Battlefield 1 seems to have kind of lazily continued that trend.

Conquest Maps are ok, some maps flawed than others that are just fine, too much open spaces, with the new vehicle spawns and game design hindering transition between areas. The infantry mode cut outs are abominable at times. The spawn system is still a mess, but those are bigger issues than skill compression issues.

The gas spam needs to be the top priority, IMHO. Even just dropping it down to 1 grenade instead of 2 would help. It makes the game much less fun.

Gas is weird. Running assault, outside of the time to put on a mask it really isn't an impediment at all. The autimatico trench is still a monster when hip fired. The damping of visual/audio cues for situational awareness is more of a problem, though for normal play (ie. not competitive) people don't seem sufficiently organized for this to be an actual problem. It is a real problem for weapons that need to be fired while ADS though. And elite classes (flamethrower guy, etc) all have no defense against gas.

Smoke is nuts. It's so dense that I often just go prone until it dissipates. I suppose I could just turn down graphics settings to make smoke/fog less obstructive, but... meh. Overall, smoke is by far the most annoying throwable for me in BF1, as I literally can't see a thing. It's completely debilitating.

One thing that's weird about BF1 is that grenades and projectiles in general travel much farther/in a flatter arc than in BF4. You can throw grenades a ridiculous distance with pinpoint accuracy, and even tank projectiles are more accurate. I'm sure there's some gameplay reason for this, but it's very weird going from BF4 where things /should/ be vastly superior, to BF1 where they often actually /are/ superior, at least insofar as aiming and effective distance is concerned. I think this has to be the result of an effort to make the game more accessible to new players. It leads to some weird effects though, like using a heavy tank to take down the blimp.

setrio wrote:

I just get the Xbone and started to play the game right away. Just finished the campaign but the mp is pretty difficult, at least for me that came from PC but I'm trying to get use to the controller. If anyone wants to play or join, just add me!

Added, although I'm in the UK but if you see me about at some stage throw me an invite. I enjoy playing this solo but squading up is the way foward.

I think I disagree on the hate for the gas grenade, especially when compared to the fire grenade. Although I agree that there should be less of them, and maybe the gas spread should be toned down a bit.

Both the Fire Grenade and the Gas Grenade are area denial weapons. Both of them make a place pretty unpleasant for some number of seconds. The difference is that with a Fire Grenade your only option is to get out of that area, if you don't you die, it is pretty much that simple. However the Gas Grenade gives you an opt-in where you can keep in the area that is being denied, but you will be hindered by the gas mask.

I think the gas grenade makes things far more interesting for 95%+ of players. Sure there is some super small minority at the very top that might not like what it does to gameplay, but they should just be playing CSGO anyway.

Also, I think for maps it seems to me that the maps were designed first for Operations, just like in BC2 it felt like some maps were designed first for Rush, and in BF3 and BF4 I think it was very obvious they were designed for conquest. In Operations the action is so much more focused, just on 1 or 2 points instead of spread out like it is in Conquest. I think the St. Quentin's Scar, the one with the church or something that is all rubble on one point, is REALLY bad about this. Don't get me started on the desert maps, both Sinai and Suez are freaking nightmares.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

I think the gas grenade makes things far more interesting for 95%+ of players. Sure there is some super small minority at the very top that might not like what it does to gameplay, but they should just be playing CSGO anyway.

This sentiment makes me sad, and I feel is a bit unfair. CSGO while is the pinnacle of 'aim' or 'precision' based gameplay, many (not majority, but enough to count) prefer other games, Battlefield is one of them. Fire feels fine due to its small area of effect, and the fact that once you reposition/avoid you're not chopped down to 50% effectiveness, almost literally... and you can still deny movements /occupation of small areas and chokes. Gas on the other hand, is pretty much one size fits all. It's just too deadly, especially when you consider the nade spam method that is just all too common place in Battlefield (32 v 32).

I agree with you on Suez and Sinai as being the worst offenders.

There's also the one with the water with the fortress in the South Central portion of the map that feels quite literally broken in smaller map modes, and feels odd in Conquest.

Edge of the world is a different one, that's got C, D, E, straight down the middle, that one seems ok, but the vast open spaces just BEG for snipers to be jerking off on any given vantage point doing... NOTHING.

I feel like some design decision in Battlefield were just made for the sake of exaggerating marketing bullet points or enhancing the whole 'Only in Battlefield' experience (greatly expanding the options for the most optimal bush wookie experience, pick up kits, GREAT EXPANSIVE maps, and etc), instead of trying to encourage players into the kind of gameplay experience and challenge that only Battlefield offers... things like negotiating/complimenting/using vehicles, utilizing the map to control different flags (not to find the most comfortable mountain bush/rock to snipe off of), creating flag holds, pushing the objective or high value assets, choosing the right class for what your team needs at the time (which is so rarely the Recon), and pushing themselves to clear out any given flag in the most effective way possible.

It made for pretty decent review scores from outlets that don't generally play beyond the first couple weeks (example: the GiantBomb discussions on Battlefield 1 for their end of year deliberations). A whole lot of flavor, but not a whole lot of substance beyond it.

Ugh the pick up kits. The superman/ironman armor sets. God damn those things. Cheap thrills for the lucky fella, because he won the item spawn lottery. I laugh hysterically when I pick them up (and I DO find myself having to pick them up, because I don't want them being picked up by the enemy), just because how insane they are.

Ok, I m done being poopooy, I am gonna have to dig my teeth into the game further to take away more positives, or at least see if they're there (and I certainly have seen a good deal of interesting and/or nice changes), since I will likely wind up playing this as the competitive scene is allegedly set to give the game a go when the passworded servers finally come out (the scene's been butchered on both sides of the Atlantic already though...).

Tried out the game via Origin Access's trial and I love it. Will likely go in on the full game and will start adding origin IDs from the OP (down for BF4 too).

Thanks for posting, pikey. You said a lot of things I agree with.

One thing I'll disagree with is that the needed class is almost never recon. I like to play recon with flares and iron sights + pistol as a closer combat type scout. If nobody on your team is running flares, the other team will always be invisible on the mini-map. Since camouflage is actually fairly effective in this game (as is evidenced by the trench people lying still and being nearly undetectable, especially if you're forced into a gas mask), the flares can make a huge difference in taking a point. I do miss the universal weapons, as I much prefer the option to run with an smg or even a marksman's rifle like the medics have this time around. Especially on console, it's very hard to headshot consistently inside 40 yards with a bolt action. Switching to the pistol seems to take an ungodly amount of time this time around too. And the range of the pistols isn't what it was in bf3/bf4.

I understand you're probably right in terms of how most people play, though. A lot of people play recon sitting back and taking pot-shots, which rarely does much good.

Does it seem to anybody else that the grenade spam is bad at the launch of EVERY battlefield game? Like, can't we learn this lesson and maybe plan for it a bit? I hate being forced to play assault all the time because of the gas spam. (Agreeing with Pikey here that gas is the worst offender, since it effectively cripples scout/medic weapons while leaving support and assault basically unmolested).

Recon isn't my fav class, just because I'm not very good with the sniper rifles but when I do play as it, got to be aggressive, those flares are one of the most useful gadgets in the game, espeically considering that hardly anyone seems to spot. Which is another thing I do as the scout, make sure I spot people before taking a shot since I miss so often or clip them.

I haven't really played an FPS for much time since BC2/MW2. MW2 really put me off, with COD4 they had a great thing going and then it became way too overbloated. Possibly why I'm enjoying this so much, it isn't overblown with gadgets, perks ect. Yeah it has flaws (Suez on Conquest is a horribe map) and nothing will ever beat BC2 for me (mainly due to the people I played it with)

I just wish they had a put in a place to practise with vehicles, the single player controls aren't the same and I really hate having to waste a spawn trying to figure out how to fly a plane.

onewild wrote:

I just wish they had a put in a place to practise with vehicles, the single player controls aren't the same and I really hate having to waste a spawn trying to figure out how to fly a plane.

The flying controls you use in the 2nd story act are the same you'd use in MP.

They changed it so you can't pull all the same stunts and stuff, I understand that because useless people like me would never pass the mission if they were the same.

Haven't played BF1 in a while. Is there still a group that plays together regularly here? I'm on the PC.

As always, an interesting discussion on GwJ.

The only aspect on which I wish to offer an opinion is gas grenades. I'm actually pretty happy with where they are. As Kamakazi010654 points out, it's an area denial weapon... of sorts. The map design makes very difficult to hold any position for any length of time; there are simply too may entry points and too may points that can be overlooked by snipers. As a result even an organised, fast-moving squad is at risk of being flanked (whether by accident or design). Gas grenades come in very useful as a way of 'shutting the door' on side streets, alleys and doorways. (I'm thinking in particular of Amiens.)

Yes, there are point where it gets very spammy. The number of grenades chucked around inside bunkers can be pretty comical.

However, without the gas grenades, I suspect that more Operations and Conquest matches would descend int Team Deathmatch free for all.

Pikey26 wrote:

I agree with you on Suez and Sinai as being the worst offenders.

There's also the one with the water with the fortress in the South Central portion of the map that feels quite literally broken in smaller map modes, and feels odd in Conquest.

Oh man the hatred I have for those desert maps, in pretty much all game types.

The other one you are talking about is FAO Fortress, and yes, when playing TDM or Domination, it's completely broken. If one team gets on top of the big tower and defends the lower level, it's gg as they can snipe pretty much anywhere on the map. Unfun.

onewild wrote:

Recon isn't my fav class, just because I'm not very good with the sniper rifles but when I do play as it, got to be aggressive, those flares are one of the most useful gadgets in the game, espeically considering that hardly anyone seems to spot. Which is another thing I do as the scout, make sure I spot people before taking a shot since I miss so often or clip them.

So true. I am a spot spammer, so much so that I got an audio cue that lets you know that there is apparently a limit to the frequency that you can spot. Also, individual spotting seems to last far shorter than in BF4. I agree, though, that no one spots, and for the sheer number of Recon troops, it doesn't look like they are spotting either.

TL;DR - onewild is a saint.

Abu5217 wrote:
Pikey26 wrote:

I agree with you on Suez and Sinai as being the worst offenders.

There's also the one with the water with the fortress in the South Central portion of the map that feels quite literally broken in smaller map modes, and feels odd in Conquest.

Oh man the hatred I have for those desert maps, in pretty much all game types.

The other one you are talking about is FAO Fortress, and yes, when playing TDM or Domination, it's completely broken. If one team gets on top of the big tower and defends the lower level, it's gg as they can snipe pretty much anywhere on the map. Unfun.

onewild wrote:

Recon isn't my fav class, just because I'm not very good with the sniper rifles but when I do play as it, got to be aggressive, those flares are one of the most useful gadgets in the game, espeically considering that hardly anyone seems to spot. Which is another thing I do as the scout, make sure I spot people before taking a shot since I miss so often or clip them.

So true. I am a spot spammer, so much so that I got an audio cue that lets you know that there is apparently a limit to the frequency that you can spot. Also, individual spotting seems to last far shorter than in BF4. I agree, though, that no one spots, and for the sheer number of Recon troops, it doesn't look like they are spotting either.

TL;DR - onewild is a saint.

I almost never shoot without spotting first as a recon. Unless it's an up-close panic shot, I'm spotting first almost without fail. I often spot 3 enemies in a row before opening fire. Especially with iron sights, it makes things easier in general. I'm playing on ps4, and many times enemies are tough to see due to conditions, explosives spam, or myriad other effects in the game.