Battlefield 1 Catch-All: It is LIVE!

Pages

IT IS OUT NOW!

WORLD WAR I

  • War Planes
  • Horses
  • Landships (Big Tanks)
  • Light Tanks
  • Behemoths* ("Game changing" vehicles that are hulking in size and powerful, current available forms of Behemoths are MASSIVE war planes and Zeppelins.)
  • Battlelog phased OUT in favor of in-game menus and mobile-only Companion App.
  • Surprisingly good Singleplayer?
  • Community Options still NOT announced/released as of 10/24/2016

*CLICK HERE* for Gametags, PSN logins, and Origin Usernames

HOW TO VIDEOS:

Spoiler:

Thanks to the launch of BF4, I'm going to pass on this until a year after launch at minimum.

ooh, a WW1 Battlefield game would be a nice change of pace.

WW1, WW2 or the next 2142 please.

Need to change it up!

I would prefer the battlefields of Amber as the next setting for Battlefield.

Edwin wrote:

Thanks to the launch of BF4, I'm going to pass on this until a year after launch at minimum.

To be fair to them, Battlefront was fairly smooth. On the other hand it turned out to be much less ambitious a game than BF4 was, I think, at least relative to other games during its release time.

I'd like to think I'll have learned from my almost identical experiences from the last like... two Battlefield games and Battlefront. There's this very initial burst where I think "THIS IS AMAZING" and then all the irritations start to pile up and wear on me over time.

Things I want from DICE for this game:
1. Stop segregating the audience with for-pay map packs. Other devs/publishers are learning this. Follow suit. People will pay extra money for all kinds of silly add-on stuff. Weapon and player camos and vehicle skins and... whatever. Find another way to get money that doesn't cut the available player base for each new batch of content.
2. For the love of god, stop allowing server admins to basically ruin the flow of the game with their insane settings. Have some guts and insure some at least small amount of consistency of experience. Stop making it an hour long process for me to find a decent server running the mode I want.

And I'm absolutely sure there's more but I've been away from the series for such a long time I can't remember all my complaints.

Great points Thin_J. Totally agree with them all!

I just want a Bad Company 3. They even hinted at it on their Twitter feed...

https://twitter.com/Battlefield/stat...

LockAndLoad wrote:

I just want a Bad Company 3. They even hinted at it on their Twitter feed...

https://twitter.com/Battlefield/stat...

aw man that just might pull me back in

Bad Company 3? I'm in. BC2 > BF3, BF4

Another want: Don't dare throw away all the netcode work that got done on BF4. If this ends up another release plagued by getting shot half a second after getting completely around a corner and hilariously mismatched kill cams vs target perspectives DICE really will once again retake their mantle as the king developer of busted ass game releases.

They really need to stop gating basic class abilities. Requiring multiple levels for defib's idiotic.

cube wrote:

They really need to stop gating basic class abilities. Requiring multiple levels for defib's idiotic.

This is my biggest problem with the whole "unlocking" thing that Battlefield and Call of Duty have done for so long now (hell, even Battlefront did this to an extent).

Let me have my full basic kit for a given "class", and let unlocks be for the purpose of lateral growth, not vertical.

Farscry wrote:
cube wrote:

They really need to stop gating basic class abilities. Requiring multiple levels for defib's idiotic.

This is my biggest problem with the whole "unlocking" thing that Battlefield and Call of Duty have done for so long now (hell, even Battlefront did this to an extent).

Let me have my full basic kit for a given "class", and let unlocks be for the purpose of lateral growth, not vertical.

Yeah 100% this.

I will say that Hardline and Battlefront were both fairly stable so I'm at least less concerned about the launch being botched like it was for BF4. Going to WW1 or WW2 would be cool to me. Something different at least from the Modern thing.

Having been involved in competitive for a decent chunk (currently participating in CCS 10v10, the only active competitive scene left for NA/SA, besides the random and occasional 5s 8s cups that ESL likes to open up to NA on EU schedule)... I think this game could absolutely and really use a match making system.

Yes, they introduced it for Hardline, and yeah it didn't work at all there, but I think that was largely on account of the fact that A. They didn't commit hard to it enough, and B. The game was pretty much dead right out of the gate.

The matchmaking system would first of all ease the pressure on the public play (stacking is as big of an issue as hackers, and really all it takes is like 2-3 half DECENT vehicle players to completely wreck a server out of balance), it would ease the balancing issue of too many crazy/unnecessary gadgets without stunting the experience of casual and less hardcore players who enjoy them (by simply running rulesets for the MMR environment), and it would provide a more healthy foundation... an functioning pyramid for the 'competitive' scene they've repeatedly failed at establishing to properly come into form. Getting into competitive in Battlefield 4, especially 8s and 10s that involve vehicle specializations is trying to climb Mt. Everest with a handful of friends carrying burlap sacks (building a team) or trying to squeeze into an Illuminati (joining an existing team). The skill gap, never mind of those who are just starting to play competitive and those who have been, between even the few existing teams is absolutely massive. The big question is, is EA willing to fork out the costs of running a proper matchmaking system (aka host matchmaking servers that will be more intensive than server lists.... paying for servers that these matchmaking games will be played in each region.... and etc).

Everything else is pretty straight forward, stuff Thin mentioned, not having an engine/netcode that so heavily leans on client side, better Q/C before release, not going too nuts with gadgets and weapons that simply exist for the sake of existing rather than genuinely adding to the game, retaining lessons learned in previous games for new ones (Hardline and Battlefront totally missed out on or completely ignored lessons, technical and balance-based, learned in BF4 during CTE and etc) and on a continued note, maybe designing the weapons with emphasis on quality and balance rather than variety.

garion333 wrote:

Bad Company 3? I'm in. BC2 > BF3, BF4

Really? Good thing the like function went live today!

I thought everyone wrote off BC2 once 3 released. I loved BC2, and gave up on the series after about 15 hours into the MP of BF3. They would have to give up on the feel that they've established to get me back, though.

Most likely coincidence, but NVIDIA is making its big 'secret event' reveal on the same day.

Maybe this has been said before, regardless I was Snooping around on the BF event page and saw that they appear to be releasing some of the DLC for free.

Between now and May 10th, both Dragons Teeth and Robbery (BFHL) DLCs are free. Not sure if that's limited time or forever. As someone who owns all BF DLCs I have no problem with them giving it away at this point. More people the better.

Soooo, if you own just the base games go snag some free DLC!

Oh and Double XP is up

Pikey26 wrote:

Most likely coincidence, but NVIDIA is making its big 'secret event' reveal on the same day.

Hope that is their new GPU announcements.

If the BF announcement is Bad Company 3 or 2142 based, then I'll definitely be interested. If it's WW1 then that's not so exciting for me. I've got over 800 hours in BC2, so it's definitely my favourite of the whole series.

I know it's a core part of the BF games, but having to deal with vehicles just makes me not so excited. I've enjoyed the skirmish size maps way more. I'd LOVE to have wide open mixed terrain maps without vehicles. I'd much rather spend time in a match hunting down players instead of being in tank busting mode 50% of the time.

100% disagree. I love the vehicle aspect of the game. Take it out and you may as well just play COD.

BlackSabre wrote:

100% disagree. I love the vehicle aspect of the game. Take it out and you may as well just play COD.

Oh i know they're part of it... just not looking forward to that part. Hope they design the maps better where they can't be exploited as much as they were on 4.

I'm with you ran. And it sucks because I prefer the way BF's infantry combat feels over CoD or others. So the only place to get it is BF... but in the core game modes that means getting killed multiple times a match by things I had no way of fighting in the moment.

The get halfway to a control point with your squad then get bombed or rocketed into oblivion by a jet or helicopter then repeat six more times before the pilots need to take time to repair loop is one of the absolute worst in all of multiplayer gaming.

If we go through the same initial run on a new game like we did with the last two where all the AA options are garbage on release... Ugh.

Domination guys!

Pikey26 wrote:

Domination guys!

Sure. On the three servers that run it without packing 40 players into a map that handles 20 at best.

But that's back to my server settings complaints

WW1 actually seems ideal to me in terms of vehicle balance. Biplanes, for example, would be fun to fly and dogfight, but unlikely to dominate the map no matter how skilled the pilot.

You're kinda missing the point. You get killed by something you had no way of fighting because you chose a kit that is specialised in killing infantry. You made the choice to have a better chance at infantry vs vehicles. You had the choice to chose an engineer and have access to rocket launchers, mines and all sorts of AT devices at the cost of being weaker in infantry fights.

But that's where Battlefield excels since you fight in a team and while you have your role, the engineer has his/her role too. The problem here is that you want to be a swiss army knife that can do everything and it's not designed that way. Sometimes, if you want to get a cork out of a bottle, your best option is the bottle opener, not the swiss army knife which has a bottle opener attachment that isn't as good.

Not if they add arbitrary Air to Ground capabilities, which there must be some otherwise, dog fighting planes are just decoration/ambiance.

No iglas and stingers in WW1, MAA prototypes barely existed in WW1... they'd be out of control.

edit There's a dom server up right now, i m playing in one. (streaming too if you're bored).

BlackSabre wrote:

You're kinda missing the point.

No, I won't speak for anyone else, but I get it. I just don't care.

They have what is to me the best feeling fast infantry combat in shooters. The fact that the game contains vehicles is purely a hindrance to the fun.

You don't agree, and that's fine, but I'm not ignoring your point. It's just completely irrelevant to me.

Add me to the Just give me Bad Company 3 already crew. Loved BC2 and used to play it hours on end with guys from other gaming forum I was on. At first we rotated between it on Cod4 but soon it was the only game on the menu.

Love the vehicles, BF3 is still my sweet spot for the series to date. Really don't want more drones, ucavs or other exploits/built in griefing again. Completely with Thin_j on hoping they build on where they've got to with the netcode, rather than scorched earth revamp again ... but, given the current love the MP world has with cloud based instancing, I have a horrible suspicion the new Battlefield will be following suit, and we may lose the dedicated server options.

Also hope they move away from the web browser; great for stats viewing, horrible for launching the game every time.

Pages