• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Battlefield 6: Levolution ''on steroids'', full crossplay, 4-player squad, Free to play mode and more

Fiddle

Fiddle

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
1,627
Whenever there's a mention of BC2's destruction there's always people who come in to say "but the map turned into a wasteland!" as its some sort of problem that cannot be fixed easily. The pathetic destruction the future games had is one of the many reasons why its completely gone from the public consciousness, they really need to bring it all back in full swing. BF is just COD with vehicles now, and Warzone is creeping up on that too.

You can balance the destruction very easily in my mind. Make the buildings a little stronger, make satchel charges or C4 take longer to respawn or require only Support characters to fill you up, make matches last a little less time. Literally anything can be done. The wasteland argument is so dumb.
 
Jarrod38

Jarrod38

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,677
Fiddle said:
Whenever there's a mention of BC2's destruction there's always people who come in to say "but the map turned into a wasteland!" as its some sort of problem that cannot be fixed easily. The pathetic destruction the future games had is one of the many reasons why its completely gone from the public consciousness, they really need to bring it all back in full swing. BF is just COD with vehicles now, and Warzone is creeping up on that too.

You can balance the destruction very easily in my mind. Make the buildings a little stronger, make satchel charges or C4 take longer to respawn or require only Support characters to fill you up, make matches last a little less time. Literally anything can be done. The wasteland argument is so dumb.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Playing Rush on BC2 was just the best. Strapping C4 on a quad and rushing the first house on Port Valdez and taking it down in a few seconds was awesome.
 

Deleted member 37928

Banned
Jan 10, 2018
6,927
Fiddle said:
Whenever there's a mention of BC2's destruction there's always people who come in to say "but the map turned into a wasteland!" as its some sort of problem that cannot be fixed easily. The pathetic destruction the future games had is one of the many reasons why its completely gone from the public consciousness, they really need to bring it all back in full swing. BF is just COD with vehicles now, and Warzone is creeping up on that too.

You can balance the destruction very easily in my mind. Make the buildings a little stronger, make satchel charges or C4 take longer to respawn or require only Support characters to fill you up, make matches last a little less time. Literally anything can be done. The wasteland argument is so dumb.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think they have to make the destruction more dynamic. The reason it's easy to bring buildings down is because they have static key positions that always lead to the same result if you destroy them. But if two shots at the same position will cause various degrees of unique damage people will look for opportunities when they arise rather than going out of their way to create their own.
 
Fiddle

Fiddle

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
1,627
Tekku said:
I think they have to make the destruction more dynamic. The reason it'a easy to bring buildings down is because they have static key positions that always lead to the same result if you destroy them. But if two shots at the same position will cause unique damage people will look for opportunities rather than creating their own.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Maybe even a bit of randomness to the location of the buildings? Not completely prodedural but just randomness to the rotation of buildings would help so much.
 
Smash-It Stan

Smash-It Stan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,275
Any reason for me to actually be excited for this after the nonsensical bungled messes that were 4(at launch), 5 and BF1?
 
AYF 001

AYF 001

Member
Oct 28, 2017
828
I suppose last-gen cross-play would only be for smaller 64 person modes on less destructible portions of maps now that I think about it.

Vehicle physics are hopefully another thing they improve upon. I don't think BF1 and V had the same issues as 4 where ATVs felt like goddamn moon rovers with how they'd get air bouncing over every little thing, making them impossible to steer in some cases. Planes could also use more effective air braking to make better strafing runs and have more unique handling characteristics regarding acceleration, climb rate, turning, and max speed. Since they've already introduced bombers like the Ilya and Ju-88, I'd also like to see pilotable B-1 bombers and AC-130s if the scale is being increased, which would physically spawn on capture points to make their presence more balanced.


Smash-It Stan said:
Any reason for me to actually be excited for this after the nonsensical bungled messes that were 4(at launch), 5 and BF1?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
3 year development cycle, as opposed to 2 years with 4 and V. Another studio will be focusing on the last-gen version, so DICE can concentrate on their design and polish.
 
brawndolicious

brawndolicious

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,925
Ramirez said:
BC2's destruction was what made it so great, I really hope they bring it back.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This sounds a lot better than BC2 or any of the other BF games in the last decade, the rumor is they're actually doing calculated destruction rather than just blowing out predetermined sections of each building. That could make the destruction look a lot more dynamic and interesting.

I remember when BC2 came out it was around the same time as Red Faction: Guerilla and there was a big pissing contest between fans of each. BC2 had cool graphics but RDF actually calculated all the destruction so you felt like you had to plan out the best way to make a building topple over.

Calculated destruction combined with fortifying buildings that BFV had could make for some pretty cool gameplay.
 
Ramirez

Ramirez

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,228
brawndolicious said:
This sounds a lot better than BC2 or any of the other BF games in the last decade, the rumor is they're actually doing calculated destruction rather than just blowing out predetermined sections of each building. That could make the destruction look a lot more dynamic and interesting.

I remember when BC2 came out it was around the same time as Red Faction: Guerilla and there was a big pissing contest between fans of each. BC2 had cool graphics but RDF actually calculated all the destruction so you felt like you had to plan out the best way to make a building topple over.

Calculated destruction combined with fortifying buildings that BFV had could make for some pretty cool gameplay.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, yea, improving it goes without saying. I just finished Control, that game has calculated destruction on objects in the environment, pretty fun to just fuck shit up.
 
Arn

Arn

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,737
This is honestly such a nothing rumour, the sort of semi-obvious non-commital guff that anyone can say to get some online kudos.

Better destruction and four person squads are just a given.
 
Azai

Azai

Member
Jun 10, 2020
3,966
Well making everything destructible will probably make tanks even more annoying than they already were in BF4.
BF4 had many maps with wide open areas and tanks would just snipe you from the other side. Being able to destroy every building would mean that at the end you have a flat map without cover. Thats why after BC2 they reduced it.

And the Squad/Platoon system sounds good but at the ende its a Battlefield game and no sim like Squad. You can have these features but BF players barely use their Headset let alone would follow orders of a platoon/squad leader. BF is a casual shooter which is played as lone wolf by most players.
Unless the game is tailored around these platoons with a win only being managable when the team coordinates I dont see this feature being any more useful than normal Squads in previous games.
Reminds me of the commander feature in BF4 which was pretty much pointless.

But hey. Maybe DICE noticed that there is a trend for more mil-sim like games or a more simulation-like/realistic approach in war games.
I would love BF to be more strategic and more hardcore and not mainly a big TDM with objectives being a bonus for many.
 
Pheonix

Pheonix

Banned
Dec 14, 2018
5,990
St Kitts
disparate said:
While a battle royale could be cool with Battlefield destructibility, it seems weird for EA to have two since they've got Apex Legends already.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Seems people forget that battle royal is just a mode and not a genre. Probably because some devs have based their entire game on just that one mode.

Battle royale is just deathmatch or team deathmatch on steroids.
 
Azai

Azai

Member
Jun 10, 2020
3,966
arsene_P5 said:
Levolution on steroids sounds like music to my ears and I expect a big leap forward, if those current gen versions don't offer crossplay with the last gen versions. By Jaguar!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thats what I wonder. Maybe I misunderstood but the leaks says that last gen will also have crossplay with next gen. Which would mean that there are smaller scaled modes maybe but his basically would mean that next gen and PC would need the same destruction system and alike which then means that it would not use the full potential of next gen and PC.

But maybe they just meant last gen with last gen crossplay
 
Nateo

Nateo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,545
4 players squads, ofcourse they are fucking dumb enough to stay with that count.
 
Azai

Azai

Member
Jun 10, 2020
3,966
Mr Eric said:
Came to say this. With the close to 0 anti cheat system they have on pc, this could be a huge problem for crossplay with consoles.

At least i hope they will not force crossplay with PC and we will be able to chose to stay between console players.

Everything else is quite a given for bf6 and i'm fine with it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Havent played BF5 but in all previous games I havent seen any hackers on PC. Havent played BF1 that much but I think there was no server browser, right?

With 3rd party servers on PC which were managed by admina there wasnt a problem with hackers.
 
CRIMSON-XIII

CRIMSON-XIII

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,173
Chicago, IL
is there any significance or special value to the destruction first introduced within battlefield bad company 1 and 2? Is the idea that levolution got better with BF3 and 4? I played most of the Battlefields but it felt like Bad Company did the destruction very well.
 
Kinthey

Kinthey

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
22,320
When I hear "levolution on steroids" I'd expect the destruction of the buildings to look as spectacular as the one of the skyscraper in BF4. Not sure that's feasible
 
ScatheZombie

ScatheZombie

Member
Oct 26, 2017
398
Azai said:
Havent played BF5 but in all previous games I havent seen any hackers on PC. Havent played BF1 that much but I think there was no server browser, right?

With 3rd party servers on PC which were managed by admina there wasnt a problem with hackers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A simple Google search will yield nigh-infinite results for hacking problems across all Battlefield games on PC for the past decade.

It is only marginally fixed by having third party servers with active admins able to kick hackers quickly.

Consoles generally don't have that luxury as the main matchmaking loop dumps you into unmanaged EA servers. That's the issue. Consoles only avoided hackers by being exclusively on consoles (there are hackers on console too, just significantly less so). If you throw console players onto regular EA PC servers - which are historically and notoriously flooded with hackers - you've just made the game unplayable for console players.

They either need to build a better system for allowing console players to connect to third party servers with active admins to avoid hackers (instead of pushing everyone into unmanaged random servers), build a way, way better anti-cheat system for BF6 (considering BF5 doesn't seem to have one at all), or allow console players to turn off cross-play with PC.
 
Zachary_Games

Zachary_Games

Member
Jul 31, 2020
2,965
apieceofstrange said:
Lol 90% of people still can't even buy a next gen console, and that doesn't seem like it's going to change anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There will be 20M+ next gen consoles and high end PCs by next Christmas I reckon.

If you look at sales data for Hitman 3, next gen versions dramatically outsold last gen editions.

I think it's a safe assumption that the large bulk of sales will be on PS5/SX/PC considering the core player base will grow by the time BF6 releases.
 

Deleted member 45130

Banned
Jun 17, 2018
3,244
XR. said:
Tell me, what happens when a cheater is in your 64-player match? How many times does this happen?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I see aims snapping from quite long distances in kill cams in Warzone a lot more often than I thought I would. Why would this be any different?

It would be a better experience for me personally if they either implement anti cheat at the level Valorant does or provide crossplay between all platforms with the ability to disable PC crossplay.
 
Wolf

Wolf

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,849
I just want a battlefield game that plays like bad company 2.

That was perfection.
 
MrRob

MrRob

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,671
Glad it seems that they are going back to a battlefield 3 type of style regarding destruction. BF3 was the last time I really got into a FPS. Probably put over 500 hours in that game. Was so fun playing with people from oldGAF.
 
Azai

Azai

Member
Jun 10, 2020
3,966
ScatheZombie said:
A simple Google search will yield nigh-infinite results for hacking problems across all Battlefield games on PC for the past decade.

It is only marginally fixed by having third party servers with active admins able to kick hackers quickly.

Consoles generally don't have that luxury as the main matchmaking loop dumps you into unmanaged EA servers. That's the issue. Consoles only avoided hackers by being exclusively on consoles (there are hackers on console too, just significantly less so). If you throw console players onto regular EA PC servers - which are historically and notoriously flooded with hackers - you've just made the game unplayable for console players.

They either need to build a better system for allowing console players to connect to third party servers with active admins to avoid hackers (instead of pushing everyone into unmanaged random servers), build a way, way better anti-cheat system for BF6 (considering BF5 doesn't seem to have one at all), or allow console players to turn off cross-play with PC.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
idk. I have 700 hours in BF4 and almost as much in BF3 and really never encountered a single hacker. Not saying there are non and maybe I didnt notice them but at least in those 2 games I never had an issue.
In CoD there were/are way more.
 
SapientWolf

SapientWolf

Member
Nov 6, 2017
6,565
Azai said:
idk. I have 700 hours in BF4 and almost as much in BF3 and really never encountered a single hacker. Not saying there are non and maybe I didnt notice them but at least in those 2 games I never had an issue.
In CoD there were/are way more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think BFV was the first time the hackers didn't even bother to hide it. Got real depressing seeing the same blatant hackers over and over.

There's zero chance of forced PC crossplay in the paid console SKU. That's their cash cow.
 
Joffy

Joffy

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,153
Fiddle said:
Whenever there's a mention of BC2's destruction there's always people who come in to say "but the map turned into a wasteland!" as its some sort of problem that cannot be fixed easily. The pathetic destruction the future games had is one of the many reasons why its completely gone from the public consciousness, they really need to bring it all back in full swing. BF is just COD with vehicles now, and Warzone is creeping up on that too.

You can balance the destruction very easily in my mind. Make the buildings a little stronger, make satchel charges or C4 take longer to respawn or require only Support characters to fill you up, make matches last a little less time. Literally anything can be done. The wasteland argument is so dumb.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think the destruction just has to leave more rubble. Rather than a blown up building with basically nothing left, it should be a sizeable mound of rubble which can still act as a bit of cover
 
jokkir

jokkir

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,171
Y'all made me reinstall BF3 and BC2 to try them again. Though on Xbox this time due to PC issues.
 
Tora

Tora

The Enlightened Wise Ones
Member
Jun 17, 2018
8,640
What kinda annoys me about both BF1 and BFV is long after my friends and I lost complete interest in the games, they would get an influx of content (especially maps)

It's kinda weird going onto BF1 especially and looking at 20+ maps that we never got to play and are also almost unplayable because not that many people are playing so you have to hope that they're on the rotation
 
Professor RAWR

Professor RAWR

Member
Jul 26, 2018
2,386
Tripwire-Stone said:
Stop with the battle Royale garbage. Focus on what makes battlefield great
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How can you avoid BR when their biggest competitor is making BILLIONS from Warzone alone sand it's still popular one year later. Of curse they're gonna focus on BR. Will gain more attention especially in social media/streaming world. Would be awesome to see BF6 one of the top games in Twitch/Youtube. I don't even know if Battlefield was ever in the top 5 games in Twitch.. like ever. Maybe BF1 on launch? That's it.

It also has lots of potential. Gameplay/tactics can change quickly due to destruction, requires more planning to destroy other squads, etc.
 
SomeOneInaHat

SomeOneInaHat

Member
Nov 9, 2017
863
What went wrong with the Battlefield V's Battle Royal mode? It released and then I heard nothing but grief about it, so I never tried it. There is room for a great Battlefield BR, but I don't know what I'd change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.