Deleted member 24118

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,920
I don't think strictly locking weapons with classes is a good idea. This is an FPS, not a MOBA. people want to use fun weapons regardless of class. I want to use shotgun in a close-quarter infantry map, and I don't want to be stuck with a repair tool. For the same reason I strongly oppose faction exclusive weapons. Nobody cares about factions, especially when there isn't even a campaign to show what the hell those factions are about. This is just locking guns behind arbitrary criterion.

Part of the reason the balance is so bad in the Frostbite games is because of how generalized the classes are.

In BF4 everybody who knew what they were doing played Engineer (or Assault if the map had no vehicles), because all-class weapons meant that every class was more or less equally good at killing infantry. Why would you play recon when every class can equip a DMR? Why would you not play the class with the best anti-vehicle weapons if not because their infantry weapons are worse? BFV has the same issue, all the weapons (except smgs RIP medics) are good at all ranges so everybody just runs Assault because they can bust tanks as well as infantry.

BF1 was the first time since the first Bad Company game that there was actually a reason to run every class, and a lot of that is because they got rid of all-class weapons and made it so each class has their own preferred engagement range.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Part of the reason the balance is so bad in the Frostbite games is because of how generalized the classes are.

In BF4 everybody who knew what they were doing played Engineer (or Assault if the map had no vehicles), because all-class weapons meant that every class was more or less equally good at killing infantry. Why would you play recon when every class can equip a DMR? Why would you not play the class with the best anti-vehicle weapons if not because their infantry weapons are worse? BFV has the same issue, all the weapons (except smgs RIP medics) are good at all ranges so everybody just runs Assault because they can bust tanks as well as infantry.

BF1 was the first time since the first Bad Company game that there was actually a reason to run every class, and a lot of that is because they got rid of all-class weapons and made it so each class has their own preferred engagement range.
Yup yup

All class weapons are dumb
 

Saucycarpdog

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,795
Part of the reason the balance is so bad in the Frostbite games is because of how generalized the classes are.

In BF4 everybody who knew what they were doing played Engineer (or Assault if the map had no vehicles), because all-class weapons meant that every class was more or less equally good at killing infantry. Why would you play recon when every class can equip a DMR? Why would you not play the class with the best anti-vehicle weapons if not because their infantry weapons are worse? BFV has the same issue, all the weapons (except smgs RIP medics) are good at all ranges so everybody just runs Assault because they can bust tanks as well as infantry.

BF1 was the first time since the first Bad Company game that there was actually a reason to run every class, and a lot of that is because they got rid of all-class weapons and made it so each class has their own preferred engagement range.
Agreed.

This is how games like Rising Storm 2 and Hell Let Loose work as well. Those games don't let you choose any weapons you want because then most players would only play 2 classes.

Hell Let Loose in particular also limits how many players can be a certain class so that half the team isn't running snipers or anti-tank launchers. Though I doubt DICE would be brave enough to implement such restrictions.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,312
How do you delete someone else's comments?
For real!
On a serious note I disagree with pretty much each of these stances vehemently. After BF4 was fixed that was the perfect Battlefield game in my eyes. The sandbox, customisation and gunplay haven't been matched by any game after that.
They definitely have... regressed in some areas since BF4.

I'm sure they'll build pretty cool graphics tech with the new consoles in mind... but I have no idea where they go from a gameplay perspective. Just seeing what MW did with Warzone vs what BFV shat out with Firestorm boggles my mind. Making basically BF4 with new tech would be my preference at this point. Not because I don't think something better could be made, but because I don't trust the leadership and vision from EA DICE.
 

Deleted member 24118

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,920
I agree with some of this, but most of your points are a bad idea for Battlefield. Seems like you want it to become a hardcore FPS, like the mentioned Squad, which is not what Battlefield is about anymore. The most popular Battlefields in recent time are a more casual experiences, compared to the original. BF3, BF4 or even BC2.

Commander was to be a huge feature coming into BF4 and it turned out that nobody cared about it, seems like a waste of time to me. I also highly disagree with limiting to only two game modes and no CQB maps. They all serve a purpose. BF1 added two new now fan favorite game modes, Breakthrough (Operations) and Frontlines. I feel like Conquest, while a classic gamemode, is outdated and boring and I'm glad DICE is making new fun modes, we need more options, not less.

Locking weapons is a bad idea as well. People will just play the class and faction for its weapons, regardless of it's other abilities, this will never work.

Commander mode in Bf4 was an incredibly shit version of what you had in BF2. Just another example of how far that game regressed from its predecessors.

In BF2 the commander was actually on the ground. He had physical commander assets to defend. He had proper assets that squad leaders would actually request. The command map had proper functional orders and markers that weren't just an Attack/Defend flag X.

In BF4 the commander isn't on the ground so he can't jump in and out of the FPS gameplay, and the assets aren't on the map so you just lose that entire gameplay dynamic. The UI is jank and the mode is frustrating to access. All your assets are useless because everybody has regenerating health and tons of ammo, can jog across the map in thirty seconds, and the maps are infantry spam-tubes where the fight is going to be in one of two places (and full of people spamming Q) so why do you need someone to tell people where to go. No wonder people didn't bother with it in BF4. I didn't either. It was shit.
 
Last edited:

cgpartlow

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,052
Seattle, WA
Honestly a big thing for me would to bring back the BF3 and 4 progression. I liked just playing a class and unlocking things. Getting currency and then figuring out what to buy always felt less exciting to me. Even if it gives the player a little more control since technically they get to choose. I never knew what to buy or I'd forget to buy something before a match. I liked just getting a thing and then trying it out.
 

Castamere

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,517
Nah, if you look at old interviews around that time they state that they tried up to 256 or even 512 players. It's not an engine limitation. Also didn't the Dice developer on here state that the consoles couldn't handle the higher tick rate? It's consoles

So they refuse to optimize and adapt their engine around it? Its like saying 360/Ps3 couldn't handle 64 players, except it did in several games. Dice just didn't want to optimize and compromise to allow it, or design for it. You cant just shove 256 players into Operation Metro. I mean you can, but it will play like shit. Uping player count isn't a small thing, you have to design the entire game around that and make sure its fun.

Otherwise you get poorly though out shit, like for example, in the opposite direction, Bf4s bomb defusial mode that didn't even have an attack timer at launch, so attackers could camp forever.
 
Nov 11, 2017
2,258
Warzone is basically what BF should have become but they took it in the opposite direction against very obvious trends. Not even necessarily as a 'battle royale' game but massive battles where you let people do whatever the hell they want.
 

MintMuffin

Banned
Jun 4, 2020
51
Part of the reason the balance is so bad in the Frostbite games is because of how generalized the classes are.

In BF4 everybody who knew what they were doing played Engineer (or Assault if the map had no vehicles), because all-class weapons meant that every class was more or less equally good at killing infantry. Why would you play recon when every class can equip a DMR? Why would you not play the class with the best anti-vehicle weapons if not because their infantry weapons are worse? BFV has the same issue, all the weapons (except smgs RIP medics) are good at all ranges so everybody just runs Assault because they can bust tanks as well as infantry.

BF1 was the first time since the first Bad Company game that there was actually a reason to run every class, and a lot of that is because they got rid of all-class weapons and made it so each class has their own preferred engagement range.
Plenty of people play as Assault because assault rifles are amazing, plus fast healing ability. People like to use sniper rifle because headshot kill feels good, no matter how effective DMR is, it won't replace sniper rifle. Support is the only under-used class, and that's because it's not fun to play. To balance a game, you should make all class fun, not to force players to choose classes that are not fun, nor should you make some classes less fun just so that other classes look better in comparison.
 

Deleted member 24118

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,920
Having played BFV recently, you can hit tanks for literally 3 damage with rpgs. If you're killed by a single, or even a couple, infantry you fucked up pretty bad. When you get in a tank, you can also play in 3rd person which is a hilarious advantage in a 1st person game. A vehicle player has so many advantages, you have to really work to lose to a handful of infantry.

If a solo infantry player can coat your tank in explosives and rocket you multiple times before you can find them despite having literally every advantage in doing so, I don't how you wouldn't deserve to be blown straight to hell.

Vehicles should have a significantly smaller playable area than infantry. BF6 needs to get rid of tanks hanging out on the edge of the map and retreating out of the playable area the second a rocket goes by. This would prevent passive vehicle play and ensure that there's always a route to flank vehicles. Dice needs to decide whether vehicles are a tactical choice or a killstreak.

No, what they need to do is bring back the Anti Tank class with actual limitations.

Nobody complained that tanks were overpowered in BF2 (aircraft was another issue). A solo Anti Tank was a serious threat to a tank, two and you were fucked. AT mines were also a big deal since you couldn't just shoot them like you can these days, you had to have an Engineer go and manually clear them.

The difference was that there were actually drawbacks to playing Anti Tank or Engineer so they weren't around every corner. Vehicle balance is a mess these days because they have to make them work with 75% of every team playing the AT class. Once again BF1 was the first (and last) time vehicles were in a decent spot, BF3/4/5 have been a disaster in this regard.

Plenty of people play as Assault because assault rifles are amazing, plus fast healing ability. People like to use sniper rifle because headshot kill feels good, no matter how effective DMR is, it won't replace sniper rifle. Support is the only under-used class, and that's because it's not fun to play. To balance a game, you should make all class fun, not to force players to choose classes that are not fun, nor should you make some classes less fun just so that other classes look better in comparison.

Like I actually played BF4. 80% of every team was Engineer except for on Metro where they played Assault, Recon and Support were basically memes. It's great that you played Recon even though this objectively made you a detriment to your team; wouldn't you rather be able to play the class you want and be useful?
 

Jakisthe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,760
Having played BF4 for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours, the idea that people only played Engineer or Assault on no vehicle maps is just not true. No class seemed to get more than *maybe* 30% of the distribution, and I have no idea which class that could be if that is the case because it seemed real evenly spread.
 

JamRock7

Banned
Aug 19, 2019
2,125
FL
Battlefield 5 was a game made with little passion. That much is clear.

Its like it was focus tested by a bunch of suits and they tried to pander to everyone (which isnt possible because then no one is pleased)

Please. Whatever the next BF game is, I hope DICE makes a game they WANT to make. Have a vision and enough passion to see it through. BF5 is one of my most depressing gaming experiences ever. Next to Battlefront 2015
 

MintMuffin

Banned
Jun 4, 2020
51
Like I actually played BF4. 80% of every team was Engineer except for on Metro where they played Assault, Recon and Support were basically memes. It's great that you played Recon even though this objectively made you a detriment to your team; wouldn't you rather be able to play the class you want and be useful?
That sounds like an incredibly try-hard server, and I doubt any kind of balancing would make it fun to play in it. Those people will always try to min-max the perfect loadout and never use anything else.

Luckily, I didn't play in that kind of server during my over 1000 hour play time. To answer your question: I don't care about being useful that much. I know I'd get fewer kill with sniper rifle than assault rifle, but I'd still play recon because headshot feels good. I play videogame to have fun, and BF4 is a fun game to play even when my team is not winning, which is exactly why I love it more than most other multiplayer shooter. It's unfortunate that DICE created huge sandboxes with interesting physics and tons of toys to play with, yet the only way some people get enjoyment out of them is by pumping up K/D.
 

Linus815

Member
Oct 29, 2017
20,159
I really dislike how Jack is always critical after the fact, when game isn't particularly relevant anymore for franchise.

When games is the entry of franchise? Very rarely any, especially harder, criticism comes from him.

The reason why I stopped watching Jack's vids is because of the update cycle. Every time an update was about to hit, he would be super critical. Then the update hits and "wow, BF is actually fucking amazing now, guys" - only for him to get critical again once an update is about to hit.

I know he was/is part of the EA gamechanger program and that he gets invited to events by EA/DICE all the times. I don't think he'"s a "shill" but he's definitely a lot softer on the games initially and then shits on them when it's "safe" to do so. I noticed something similiar with another EA gamechanger, Blackpantha,, guy does racing game vids, whenever a new NFS releases it's always "the one we have been waiting for" then when a new one gets announced "you know, actually, the previous game wasn't all that" - most egregious example would be NFS Payback where he went as far as to claim that the slot machine rng progression was a good thing, then when the new NFS was announced, he was saying how good it is that traditional progression is back.
 
Last edited:

Raigor

Member
May 14, 2020
15,312
If it was a waste they wouldn't do it, plain and simple. Battlefront and Blops4 dropped the SP, sequel games returned it. Clearly it makes a difference to the bottom line or it wouldn't be there.

Even Overwatch 2 is adding it. You might not care about it, but its delusional to think no one does.

SP campaigns require massive investements; 75% of Titanfall 2 budget went into the SP campaign and the MP only got "25%".

Battlefield has always been a MP centric franchise, people does not care a lot about SP and they should not waste millions and millions to make a 6 hours story, better use that money to make big maps and launch and optimize the engine ever more.

10 launch maps, 128 players, new Frostbite > SP & MP
 

HaloForzaGuy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
695
SP campaigns require massive investements; 75% of Titanfall 2 budget went into the SP campaign and the MP only got "25%".

Battlefield has always been a MP centric franchise, people does not care a lot about SP and they should not waste millions and millions to make a 6 hours story, better use that money to make big maps and launch and optimize the engine ever more.

10 launch maps, 128 players, new Frostbite > SP & MP

I dont play the campaigns... Ai is not at the level yet where it feels immersive
 

Castamere

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,517
SP campaigns require massive investements; 75% of Titanfall 2 budget went into the SP campaign and the MP only got "25%".

Battlefield has always been a MP centric franchise, people does not care a lot about SP and they should not waste millions and millions to make a 6 hours story, better use that money to make big maps and launch and optimize the engine ever more.

10 launch maps, 128 players, new Frostbite > SP & MP

It doesn't work that way, because they're not investing that much money into the MP. No publisher will agree to that. So you get 1/3 third the content that would have been there at full price still, because they don't want to double the multiplayer content. That's the reality, and like I said several games tried this gen in the "give you the same mutil without SP" way, and if it worked as well as you claim it would, then we wouldn't be getting SP with Blops5 this fall, and we wouldn't have gotten it with Battlefront 2.

I mean shit, Overwatch should be the golden child of that. It launched at full price with 0 single player content, all competitive multiplayer, was a MASSIVE success and not only are they adding it, they're dedicating the sequel to it. Why? Because there is a market for it. A massive single player market, that's clearly worth the extra 75% or they wouldn't do it. Dice should make them better, like Cod has tried to do all gen, instead of whatever they're doing.
 

Stock

Member
Oct 25, 2017
490
Luxembourg
Feel like they should drop WWII setting completely. It was really uncomfortable to be assigned to the Axis side or even really seeing any of the Nazi stuff with the prevalent and troubling resurgence of white nationalism in our modern history. Just don't have the (perhaps naive) degree of separation to enjoy WWII shooters like I once did in the genre's heyday.

Also hard drive space is at a premium these days so a MP only title would be nice, or simply make the SP Campaign download optional.
 

amardilo

Member
Oct 30, 2017
238
UK
After all the DLC maps and updates I really liked BF4 and I think it was my most played console game this generation (think I am in the 100s hours on PS4 and about 100 hours on Xbox One). I'd be happy if they made a modern day multiplayer only game with all the customisation and number of maps of BF4 (it had some updated BF3 maps in it's DLC) with features like night modes.

Just add cross play (I know a lot of PC players would have an advantage so just give the option to have have controller only games), improved graphics, 4K and higher frame (i.e. locked 60 and unlocked 60+) rates to the console games and I'd be happy. Also I'd be happy with just Conquest and Rush game modes.
 

Raigor

Member
May 14, 2020
15,312
It doesn't work that way, because they're not investing that much money into the MP. No publisher will agree to that. So you get 1/3 third the content, because they don't want to double the multiplayer content. That's the reality, and like I said several games tried this gen, and if it worked as well as you claim it would, then we wouldn't be getting SP with Blops5 this fall, and we wouldn't have gotten it with Battlefront 2.

I mean shit, Overwatch should be the golden child of that. It launched at full price with 0 single player content, all competitive multiplayer, and not only are they adding it, they're dedicating the sequel to it. Why? Because there is a market for it. A massive single player market, that's clearly worth the extra 75% or they wouldn't do it. They should make them better, like Cod has tried to do all gen, instead of whatever they're doing.

The point is that DICE is not good at making SP campaigns, they peaked at BC2 and BF3 nearly a decade ago.

The rest? BF4 was ok, BF1 and BF V Story Chapters were mediocre; if they are not willing to make something good, they should not bother at all.

EA added SP campaigns in both TF2 and BF2 because people complained way too much, TF2 ended up being good, BF2 did not.

COD has always been both a SP & MP title, Battlefield selling point was "massive maps + destruction", that's why i'm saying that they should not bother with SP campaign unless they are SURE to make a good product. I'd rather see BF6 with no compaign than another mediocre one like BF1 & BFV.
 

Floex

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,837
NO NO NO single Campaign, there is zero reason for it to be. If anything make a separate franchise for it.

More than happy with 10 maps at launch but would love a day/night cycle to keep them fresh.
 

Segafreak

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,756
Can we just have a modern game like BF3 again. BF4 was a huge disappointment, BF5 was bad, never bothered with the cop game and when BF1 launched I was at the store looking at the shelves and chose Titanfall 2 over it and didn't regret the decision.


Is weird how since Titanfall 2 and Overwatch (at least for me) there hasn't been another good shooter game to play.
 

NightShift

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,147
Australia
O yes dice and make sure all maps from bc1 and bc2 are in multiplayer please

Forget campaign
I don't mean just for the multiplayer. They should continue the story of BC games too because they had great campaigns.

It's sad to see so many people wanting the campaigns to be gone. We should be demanding better, not less.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
I don't mean just for the multiplayer. They should continue the story of BC games too because they had great campaigns.

It's sad to see so many people wanting the campaigns to be gone. We should be demanding better, not less.
What if I haven't enjoyed a single player campaign in a military shooter in over a decade and I'd rather them focus on the content I actually like to play and spend money for.
 

Floex

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,837
I don't mean just for the multiplayer. They should continue the story of BC games too because they had great campaigns.

It's sad to see so many people wanting the campaigns to be gone. We should be demanding better, not less.

They've shown they can't handle it time and time again. More than happy to see an SP campaign but not if it's going to impact the MP.
 

NightShift

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,147
Australia
What if I haven't enjoyed a single player campaign in a military shooter in over a decade and I'd rather them focus on the content I actually like to play and spend money for.
Not everybody just buys it for the multiplayer though. We saw that with Titanfall, Battlefront EA and whatever that one Call of Duty was called. People still like to just have a campaign in their shooters.

Also, play Titanfall 2.
 

Dodgerfan74

Member
Dec 27, 2017
2,696
What if I haven't enjoyed a single player campaign in a military shooter in over a decade and I'd rather them focus on the content I actually like to play and spend money for.

If they don't spend millions of dollars of their budget on mediocre content you and others fans of the franchise don't want, how will they say they did on the back of the box that most purchasers won't ever even see? Clearly they need to make an SP campaign.
 

Deleted member 24118

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,920
That sounds like an incredibly try-hard server, and I doubt any kind of balancing would make it fun to play in it. Those people will always try to min-max the perfect loadout and never use anything else.

Luckily, I didn't play in that kind of server during my over 1000 hour play time. To answer your question: I don't care about being useful that much. I know I'd get fewer kill with sniper rifle than assault rifle, but I'd still play recon because headshot feels good. I play videogame to have fun, and BF4 is a fun game to play even when my team is not winning, which is exactly why I love it more than most other multiplayer shooter. It's unfortunate that DICE created huge sandboxes with interesting physics and tons of toys to play with, yet the only way some people get enjoyment out of them is by pumping up K/D.

I mean, I guess.

I think a game is more fun when I can utilize multiple playstyles and know I'm contributing to my team (since, you know, it's a team game) than it is when there's literally one viable playstyle and anything else is just ruining it for everybody unfortunate enough to be matched with me. I play Scout in BF1 all the time solely because I like using the most "historically accurate" loadout possible, not because I'm a "tryhard" trying to pump up my Kay Dee, and it's awesome because despite this silly reason I'm still helping my team out and contributing in ways other classes can't instead of being dead weight like I would be if it had BF4 balance. Almost like it's possible to have fun and try to win at the same time, I know.

But you do you.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
5,382
Does it really matter for these kind of games? Do they even have any kind of continuity or is every new entry essentially a "reboot"?

I don't follow these games so I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but that's why I assumed until now.
 

Potterson

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,502
What does "reboot" even mean here. It's not like there's some kind of overlapping narrative.
 

Joffy

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,163
I agree for the most part although I don't think Battlefield's problems of late have anything at all to do with the setting/time period. Modern warfare is easily the most boring route they could take but I'm not fussed as long as they rediscover the sandbox elements of the earlier games in the franchise (prior to BF3, which was the beginning of the slide).

I will say I've hugely enjoyed Breakthrough on some of the newer maps in BFV so I wouldn't be averse to them reusing that (or souped up Rush again) but I'd generally prefer them to throw out all the surplus modes and focus on conquest. I'd like vehicle spawns back to how they used to be, more downtime, and preferably no spawning on squads unless someone's dropped down a beacon. Make the classes even more distinct, bring back to the big reliance on ammo providing and medics, and generally make holding a specific flag more important than just another factor ticking down the tickets. Oh and fuck snipers, put a cap on the number in a team.
 

haradaku7

Member
May 28, 2018
1,865
battlefield 6 should be 2146! drop the capign stuff please dedicate more staff on a better multiplayer exprience...