What BFI has right and how to improve BFV

[mf_shro0m]

@ArchAngeL_777

BFB-LeCharybdis said:
Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream ‘casual’ market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I’d been aware of CoD for years, but I’d never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was.

Alright in a perfect world scenario where EA decides this is well worth the investment, keep Battlefield for the traditionalists, as there doesn’t seem to be a lot of friction between earlier generations described. Do you think it would be possible to incorporate aspects of BF1942 - BF4 into a single game that both generations of players would enjoy? Or are they also just too different?

I actually think this ‘SWBF arena’ crowd would like the older PC games. There was a lot of features in the older games that would appeal to someone not interested in a twitch shooter. Class structure was more rigid and had better defined roles. The Commander and the on-ground commander assets were something special. Spec Ops class could use C4 to blow them up robbing the enemy commander of UAVs, Artillery, and the enemy team’s Radar minimap. Engineers could repair them and had plenty of vehicles to repair. Vehicles didn’t just drive off on you LOL!! Ammo and medics were critical. There were a lot of vehicle options. These are all options that a more casual player can get into without feeling like they have to be on top of their FPS game.

The term ‘casual gamer’ is too much of a blanket term for market segmentation imo. It’s an oversimplification.

The stuff you mentioned sounds like it’d appeal to older players who don’t have the reflexes needed to compete in twitch shooters anymore. I think most youngsters are too impatient and KD obsessed to spend their time sneaking behind enemy lines to plant bombs on vehicles n stuff. That’s more the kinda thing older players who’re patient and care about tactics would do.
I wouldn’t be surprised if most older players could be considered ‘casual players’

[ArchAngeL_777]

@y_j_es_i

@ArchAngeL_777

BFB-LeCharybdis said:
Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream ‘casual’ market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I’d been aware of CoD for years, but I’d never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was.

Alright in a perfect world scenario where EA decides this is well worth the investment, keep Battlefield for the traditionalists, as there doesn’t seem to be a lot of friction between earlier generations described. Do you think it would be possible to incorporate aspects of BF1942 - BF4 into a single game that both generations of players would enjoy? Or are they also just too different?

I actually think this ‘SWBF arena’ crowd would like the older PC games. There was a lot of features in the older games that would appeal to someone not interested in a twitch shooter. Class structure was more rigid and had better defined roles. The Commander and the on-ground commander assets were something special. Spec Ops class could use C4 to blow them up robbing the enemy commander of UAVs, Artillery, and the enemy team’s Radar minimap. Engineers could repair them and had plenty of vehicles to repair. Vehicles didn’t just drive off on you LOL!! Ammo and medics were critical. There were a lot of vehicle options. These are all options that a more casual player can get into without feeling like they have to be on top of their FPS game.

The term ‘casual gamer’ is too much of a blanket term for market segmentation imo. It’s an oversimplification.

The stuff you mentioned sounds like it’d appeal to older players who don’t have the reflexes needed to compete in twitch shooters anymore. I think most youngsters are too impatient and KD obsessed to spend their time sneaking behind enemy lines to plant bombs on vehicles n stuff. That’s more the kinda thing older players who’re patient and care about tactics would do.
I wouldn’t be surprised if most older players could be considered ‘casual players’

It’s really any fan of more strategic gameplay or who just loves the overall theater aspect of Battlefield chaos. Most long time fans who played those old PC games were not old back then. Remember the last PC only title was Battlefield 2142 13 years ago. A gamer in their 40’s who played those PC games back then was late 20’s to early 30’s. Granted this was before E-sports, COD4, and everything that pushed Battlefield in the direction it went in.

BF4 might be what I consider the best BF since, but it’s a rat race by comparison. The flags are so close together that it’s a constant twitch shooting exercise. People don’t stop to let you repair, so engineer work is minimal. Commander is a reduced version of the PC games. Planetside 2 is currently the most comparable game to those old PC titles, and there’s players of all ages playing it. There’s even little kids playing because its T rated and Free to play.

And speaking of rating, those old PC Battlefield games were T rated as well. T rated games imo are the best because they seem to have to focus more on raw gameplay mechanics.

[BFB-LeCharybdis]

@y_j_es_i

@ArchAngeL_777

BFB-LeCharybdis said:
Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream ‘casual’ market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I’d been aware of CoD for years, but I’d never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was.

Alright in a perfect world scenario where EA decides this is well worth the investment, keep Battlefield for the traditionalists, as there doesn’t seem to be a lot of friction between earlier generations described. Do you think it would be possible to incorporate aspects of BF1942 - BF4 into a single game that both generations of players would enjoy? Or are they also just too different?

I actually think this ‘SWBF arena’ crowd would like the older PC games. There was a lot of features in the older games that would appeal to someone not interested in a twitch shooter. Class structure was more rigid and had better defined roles. The Commander and the on-ground commander assets were something special. Spec Ops class could use C4 to blow them up robbing the enemy commander of UAVs, Artillery, and the enemy team’s Radar minimap. Engineers could repair them and had plenty of vehicles to repair. Vehicles didn’t just drive off on you LOL!! Ammo and medics were critical. There were a lot of vehicle options. These are all options that a more casual player can get into without feeling like they have to be on top of their FPS game.

The term ‘casual gamer’ is too much of a blanket term for market segmentation imo. It’s an oversimplification.

The stuff you mentioned sounds like it’d appeal to older players who don’t have the reflexes needed to compete in twitch shooters anymore. I think most youngsters are too impatient and KD obsessed to spend their time sneaking behind enemy lines to plant bombs on vehicles n stuff. That’s more the kinda thing older players who’re patient and care about tactics would do.
I wouldn’t be surprised if most older players could be considered ‘casual players’

Agree. But ‘Casual’ or ‘SWBF’ seem’s be the accepted term on the forum for those who enjoyed the play style of BF1, so it seem’s easier to call it that.
BF1 is a game that caters to a very broad variety of play styles, experience and ability levels so it’s actually impossible to sum up its demographic. It attracted players from almost every demographic.

Never had the chance to play the older titles but if they’re anything like BF1 I’d probably love them.

Before BF1 I just sort of drifted in and out of games, no particular genre, now the only thing I play really is Battlefield.

[BFB-LeCharybdis]

@y_j_es_i Cheers for the Planetside tip, I’ll check it out.

Edit-It’s free to play! I’m on it!!

[mf_shro0m]

@BFB-LeCharybdis

y_j_es_i said:

ArchAngeL_777 wrote: »
BFB-LeCharybdis said:

Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream ‘casual’ market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I’d been aware of CoD for years, but I’d never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was.

Alright in a perfect world scenario where EA decides this is well worth the investment, keep Battlefield for the traditionalists, as there doesn’t seem to be a lot of friction between earlier generations described. Do you think it would be possible to incorporate aspects of BF1942 - BF4 into a single game that both generations of players would enjoy? Or are they also just too different?

I actually think this ‘SWBF arena’ crowd would like the older PC games. There was a lot of features in the older games that would appeal to someone not interested in a twitch shooter. Class structure was more rigid and had better defined roles. The Commander and the on-ground commander assets were something special. Spec Ops class could use C4 to blow them up robbing the enemy commander of UAVs, Artillery, and the enemy team’s Radar minimap. Engineers could repair them and had plenty of vehicles to repair. Vehicles didn’t just drive off on you LOL!! Ammo and medics were critical. There were a lot of vehicle options. These are all options that a more casual player can get into without feeling like they have to be on top of their FPS game.

The term ‘casual gamer’ is too much of a blanket term for market segmentation imo. It’s an oversimplification.

The stuff you mentioned sounds like it’d appeal to older players who don’t have the reflexes needed to compete in twitch shooters anymore. I think most youngsters are too impatient and KD obsessed to spend their time sneaking behind enemy lines to plant bombs on vehicles n stuff. That’s more the kinda thing older players who’re patient and care about tactics would do.

I wouldn’t be surprised if most older players could be considered ‘casual players’

Agree. But ‘Casual’ or ‘SWBF’ seem’s be the accepted term on the forum for those who enjoyed the play style of BF1, so it seem’s easier to call it that.
BF1 is a game that caters to a very broad variety of play styles, experience and ability levels so it’s actually impossible to sum up its demographic. It attracted players from almost every demographic.

Never had the chance to play the older titles but if they’re anything like BF1 I’d probably love them.

Before BF1 I just sort of drifted in and out of games, no particular genre, now the only thing I play really is Battlefield.

I wonder how BFI’s demographic changed after the TTK overhaul. When BFI first came out I quit after two weeks because the slow- TTK ruined the gunfights for me. I only started enjoying the game when I went back to it three/four weeks ago and now the TTKs in it are about the same as they are in BFV. BFI’s health system combined with the new TTKs feel great and I’m actually loving the game

If you don’t mind me asking, how old are you?
I’m 23

I get the feeling that BFI’s demographic shifted towards the younger end of the scale after the TTK overhaul and tbh I find it a bit hard to fathom what the folks who aren’t so adept at fps do in BFI now. I mean do they mostly just spam mortars, main vehicles and man turrets?

And what would be more interesting is if BfI’s demographic hasn’t actually changed much. If that were the case then surely fast TTKs aren’t to blame for a lot of players abandoning BFV and never coming back because they would surely have done that to BFI too. So perhaps map design, vehicle balance, class balance and the health attrition are the main causes

Btw what does SWBF stand for?

[mf_shro0m]

@BFB-LeCharybdis

@y_j_es_i Cheers for the Planetside tip, I’ll check it out.

Edit-It’s free to play! I’m on it!!

Tbh it was someone else’ recommendation but hope you have fun anyway haha

[BFB-LeCharybdis]

Balls, apologies @ArchAngeL_777 I appreciate the Planetside 2 tip, it looks good.

@y_j_es_i I’m 40 and I only got into gaming properly maybe 3 years ago when I settled down and started staying in more at night.

I’ve only ever played with the TTK.2 and while it was a challenge at first I like it. As mentioned before it’s more a combination of things that makes the TTD in V seem so quick, map, visibility, NetCode, servers, weapons etc.

In regard to age, the platoon I used to play with ranged from 18-50, all joined Battlefield with BF1 and loved it. And now virtually all have quit V completely.
In regard to BF1’s TTK most of the younger members told me that TTK.1 was better, so I think it’s different for each person.

That’s part of what I mean when I think BF1 just had mass appeal. All ages, background and experiences played BF1 and found something they enjoyed about it.

SWBF? I think Star Wars BattleFront. I’m not sure why though.

[ArchAngeL_777]

@BFB-LeCharybdis

Balls, apologies @ArchAngeL_777 I appreciate the Planetside 2 tip, it looks good.

SWBF? I think Star Wars BattleFront. I’m not sure why though.

No problem lol. Planetside 2 on PS4 has dwindled in numbers over the years, but you can still find 100+ player battles with larger vehicle counts than a typical Battlefield game. PC had a lot more players. The vehicle vs vehicle warfare in Planetside 2 is crucial because you are fighting on large continents with a lot of bases. You need to hold the area around a base with spawn APCs in order to keep an assault going. So an engineer had a lot to do, AA is more crucial to keep aircraft off your troops, tanks and other vehicles are needed to hold the area, etc. The game has a Platoon system built in so communication is much better than most game. There’s outfits that run platoons and coordinate between squads.

Planetside 2 is a marathon, not a sprint like most other games. You dive in and do whatever you can to help the fight at a given moment because no one Rambo is going to win a base LOL!!

A lot of these elements were in the old PC Battlefield games which is why I think BF1 players would like those old games. And yes SWBF does mean Star Wars Battlefront. I guess he means the 2015 Battlefront game.

[ragnarok013]

@BFB-LeCharybdis

@ragnarok013

@BFB-LeCharybdis

@ragnarok013

@M_Rat13

@MBT_Layzan

I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess.

BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I’d forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren’t just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric. And then Dice dropped the ball, hard… BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that’s a shame. Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.

I have to disagree here. I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they’d ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2’s commander, BF4’s assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4’s UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We’d have a normal hard core and core setting as well. I’d leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I’d have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the “only in Battlefield” moments that we used to have until BF1.

Interesting. I found BF4 to be good but quite dull in comparison with 1.

While you may not like BF1, you can’t deny it’s the runaway hit of the Battlefield series in terms of sales and player base. Mainly because the console market on the whole absolutely loved it.

I’m wondering if this desire for a return to things past would work in terms of a modern player base?
For me that’s the biggest problem Dice has at the moment. It can design games around the wants of the older Battlefield crowd, as V was mean’t to be a return to Battlefields roots, but in terms of what a modern market wants people just aren’t as interested. I might be wrong but I believe V only sold as well as BF4?

In terms of current interest in the gaming community even the YouTubers are switching back to BF1 as it doubles their viewers. The ‘Only in Battlefield’ moments mean different things to different generations.

I’m quite fortunate that I loved 1 but I’m enjoying V also, I think there’s a lot of potential still to come.

In terms of a Battlefield future I’d quite like it if EA/Dice developed two separate lines of the Battlefield franchise.
Say ‘Bad Company’ which would harken back to the older titles in game design. I think it would be smaller in terms of sales/player base but I imagine the games would play at a higher level and standard of player.
And the ‘Battlefield’ which would have BF1’s grandeur and mayhem. Designed more around having fun, it would probably have a far larger player base tapping into the more ‘casual’ crowd.

For me, I’d play both.

BFB-LeCharybdis for my perfect Battlefield it’s more a mesh of what made Battlefield great for a few eras, the older refractor titles are represented but for me it’s mostly drawn from the Frostbite titles when BF was really big on console and PC as a basis, with the refractor stuff thrown in where it makes sense. I think DICE is having so much trouble making a Battlefield that that everyone almost universally likes again because they in essence have three competing player bases. We have the old Refractor PC only crowd who wants the large battles (BF1942-BF2142), we have the early Frostbite crowd (BC2-BF4) and then we have the post SWBF crowd (BF1-BF5). The first two have traditionally gotten along well even if back in BF3 there was a bit of friction due to the influx of new console players from Halo, COD, and Gears of War who were pretty infantry centric. However the last group seems to largely at odds with the first two from what I’ve seen on social media and the forums.
.

Regarding sales, BF4 I believe out-sold BF5 if the youtube pundits are to be believed, however we don’t know since they’ve not released any player or sales numbers for 5. I see a lot of Youtubers actively playing and making content for BF4 and BF3 more than BF1 but I don’t doubt you when you say that many are also making BF1 vids since we haven’t had a lot of new content in BF5 outside of cosmetics and limited time game modes. I think BF1 had solid sales mainly because it wasn’t Hardline, the marketing campaign was excellent, and the community was starving for a main line war game from Battlefield after the Hardline situation. Pair that with COD: IW’s disaster of a marketing campaign and we received a lot of new players during BF1. Don’t get me wrong on BF1, I bought the collector’s edition, I played it a lot and had fun in BF1 with friends. That being said it wasn’t a game that I’d play by myself more than once in a blue moon unlike all of the BF titles before it where I played for hours each night on all three platforms.

.
I’ve got a lot of nostalgia like many people for Bad Company, however I think we as a community need to look at what exactly the community thinks makes a “Bad Company” game or we’re going to get a lot of people yelling “Hey this isn’t Bad Company, it’s just BF6!” when\if it releases. First and foremost it was the campaign, as long as there’s a tongue in cheek Kelly’s Heroes type of campaign a large part of the player base will be happy. But what makes it a Bad Company for Multi-player? Now this is where we’re going to have issues IMO since traditionally BC has had small infantry centric maps where vehicles can have an effect. BC games had no jets just choppers, small player counts per map even on PC, and maps specifically designed for the game mode that they were on (which is why BC2 rush and BF3 DOM had such awesome maps). They also had a bizarre class structure where the medic had LMGs and assault had ammo. I could have fun with a game that does all of this again but I’d like a class structure closer to BF3-4 than BC2’s or BF1-5. We need out medics up reviving people not back laying prone with an MG-3.

Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream ‘casual’ market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I’d been aware of CoD for years, but I’d never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was.

Alright in a perfect world scenario where EA decides this is well worth the investment, keep Battlefield for the traditionalists, as there doesn’t seem to be a lot of friction between earlier generations described. Do you think it would be possible to incorporate aspects of BF1942 - BF4 into a single game that both generations of players would enjoy? Or are they also just too different?

Keep Bad Company as its own title or drop it entirely, the last thing needed is more division over a Battlefield game.

Create a new title for the BF1 ‘SWBF arena’ crowd, I don’t know call it Battlefield Insurrection, or something far more catchy. I’d use it as a base to try out new fads that grab hold of the publics interest, like Battle Royale for example.

Dice gets to keep the original fan base and continue expanding into the more technical shooter market, whilst at the same time keep hold of the large lucrative mainstream market.

BFB-LeCharybdis no I certainly don’t underestimate the mainstream casual appeal of BF1, in fact I think it’s the main sticking point between the newer BF1-BF5 players and the older two groups of players that I referenced. Most of the people that I play with not only lament but ridicule BF1 for it’s perceived casualization of the Battlefield formula. Add in the debut of animations that lead to the loss of many “only in Battlefield” moments and people really start with the vitriol. One of the common sayings that I hear is that BF1 had “too much Battlefront and not enough Battlefield” in its DNA. BF1 was certainly a commercial success, it’s a beautiful game both in graphics and sound and had a rather bug free launch as well; on paper it’s a great game - it was just missing that “secret sauce” that the Battlefield titles before it had for many of my fellow players.

[ragnarok013]

@y_j_es_i

@BFB-LeCharybdis

[»]
y_j_es_i said:

ArchAngeL_777 wrote: »
BFB-LeCharybdis said:

Agree that a lot of the points you made contributed to the success of BF1, but I think your under estimating just how much of a cultural phenomenon BF1 was and how perfect it was designed for a more mainstream ‘casual’ market. It brought in people like me who had until that point absolutely no interest in FPS shooters. I’d been aware of CoD for years, but I’d never even heard of Battlefield. What brought me here is that absolutely everyone I knew was talking about BF1 and how amazing it was.

Alright in a perfect world scenario where EA decides this is well worth the investment, keep Battlefield for the traditionalists, as there doesn’t seem to be a lot of friction between earlier generations described. Do you think it would be possible to incorporate aspects of BF1942 - BF4 into a single game that both generations of players would enjoy? Or are they also just too different?

I actually think this ‘SWBF arena’ crowd would like the older PC games. There was a lot of features in the older games that would appeal to someone not interested in a twitch shooter. Class structure was more rigid and had better defined roles. The Commander and the on-ground commander assets were something special. Spec Ops class could use C4 to blow them up robbing the enemy commander of UAVs, Artillery, and the enemy team’s Radar minimap. Engineers could repair them and had plenty of vehicles to repair. Vehicles didn’t just drive off on you LOL!! Ammo and medics were critical. There were a lot of vehicle options. These are all options that a more casual player can get into without feeling like they have to be on top of their FPS game.

The term ‘casual gamer’ is too much of a blanket term for market segmentation imo. It’s an oversimplification.

The stuff you mentioned sounds like it’d appeal to older players who don’t have the reflexes needed to compete in twitch shooters anymore. I think most youngsters are too impatient and KD obsessed to spend their time sneaking behind enemy lines to plant bombs on vehicles n stuff. That’s more the kinda thing older players who’re patient and care about tactics would do.

I wouldn’t be surprised if most older players could be considered ‘casual players’

Agree. But ‘Casual’ or ‘SWBF’ seem’s be the accepted term on the forum for those who enjoyed the play style of BF1, so it seem’s easier to call it that.
BF1 is a game that caters to a very broad variety of play styles, experience and ability levels so it’s actually impossible to sum up its demographic. It attracted players from almost every demographic.

Never had the chance to play the older titles but if they’re anything like BF1 I’d probably love them.

Before BF1 I just sort of drifted in and out of games, no particular genre, now the only thing I play really is Battlefield.

I wonder how BFI’s demographic changed after the TTK overhaul. When BFI first came out I quit after two weeks because the slow- TTK ruined the gunfights for me. I only started enjoying the game when I went back to it three/four weeks ago and now the TTKs in it are about the same as they are in BFV. BFI’s health system combined with the new TTKs feel great and I’m actually loving the game

If you don’t mind me asking, how old are you?
I’m 23

I get the feeling that BFI’s demographic shifted towards the younger end of the scale after the TTK overhaul and tbh I find it a bit hard to fathom what the folks who aren’t so adept at fps do in BFI now. I mean do they mostly just spam mortars, main vehicles and man turrets?

And what would be more interesting is if BfI’s demographic hasn’t actually changed much. If that were the case then surely fast TTKs aren’t to blame for a lot of players abandoning BFV and never coming back because they would surely have done that to BFI too. So perhaps map design, vehicle balance, class balance and the health attrition are the main causes

Btw what does SWBF stand for?

y_j_es_i for me BF1 was a lot more enjoyable when we received the revised TTK 2.0 because I hate bullet sponges in any shooter that I play. Many of my friends are of the same mind regarding TTK but I know there’s a sizable chunk of the BF1 and BF5 player base who like longer TTKs. SWBF mean Star Wars Battlefront, that abbreviation is how we distinguish Battlefront from Battlefield when using abbreviations.

[DingoKillr]

Attrition has been in many BF games just levels vary.
In BF2 Health was key as no auto regen
Ammo was had no proximity but could get full ammo on everything, not good.
True(spread&recoil) TTK was fine with the health. Gadget could be spammed.

BF3/4 the worst health every proximity and auto Regen to full health.
Ammo proximity and full on some gadgets while timed on others, very spam. TTK was to much of a mixed bag leading to preferred weapons(boring).

BF1 sames as BF3/4 health and ammo was bad timers on every gadget annoying and pouches supplied all. True TTK was fine less go to weapons and leant more to choice a style to play.

BFV better health but not quite right. No pouch pickup. Grab health not pouch then it might be OK.
Ammo is right, pouches are limited, crates are single gadget at a time, no timers so can get full gadgets of multiple crates quickly. Pouch pickup is bad for some classes while to good for others.
Not looking forward to grab ammo.
TTK is bad, creates go to guns, classes and impact health.

Here the issue if you are going to have a BF3/4/1 health TTK is fine. If you have BF2 health or part of TTK needs to be longer. Ammo needs pickup looked at.

[XTS-KingBeef]

@M_Rat13

@ragnarok013

@M_Rat13

@MBT_Layzan

I never really liked either game. Though BF1 was better. I miss games like 1943, bf3, Vietnam. 2142. Bf1 to me was a sign of how it was all going, and here we are now with this mess.

BF1 is the best battlefield of this decade. I’d forgotten what a real battlefield felt like until I played BF1. It was a return to form where weapon class each had a role, eventually (LMGs needed some tweaks), where soldiers/vehicles moved like they had weight, and weren’t just UFOs, and where everything was just so immersive and atmospheric. And then Dice dropped the ball, hard… BFV is like taking that perfectly made cheese and tomato pizza that has all the right textures and tastes from BF1, and then slapping on the pineapple from BF4 on top of it. If BC3 is just a BF4 clone, battlefield is dead to me, and that’s a shame. Becuase for one glorious moment, we had BF1. We had, perfection.

I have to disagree here. I really wanted to like BF1 but it was so freaking bland and boring and never felt like a real Battlefield title to me. To me BF5 is a step in the right direction and actually feels more like a Battlefield title than BF1 although for the next one I wish they’d ignore everything after BF4 (and SWBF) and take what made the series great from BF1942-BF4 and build upon it instead of repeatedly shaking up the etcha-sketch and starting over from scratch. My perfect Battlefield would be to use BF3 as the basis minus suppression, then add BF2’s commander, BF4’s assist counts as kill and counter knife, BF4’s UI and weapon customization system and a robust RSP that replicates all of the abilities that we had with procon\r-con. We’d have a normal hard core and core setting as well. I’d leave all of the animations and attrition on the cutting room floor as if my soldiers ever crossed LD with less than their full combat load I’d have had more than strong words with them. All of the animations severely limit all of the “only in Battlefield” moments that we used to have until BF1.

Battlefields in modern settings are so focused on making you this run and gun machine, they forget that battlefield is, first and foremost, a strategic game. You shouldn’t win a gunfight becuase you have the better twitch reflexes (mainly talking ADAD spam) or the better gun, it should be who gets the jump on their opponent first, and it’s what BF1, and the original battlefields, did. Oh, and getting the jump doesn’t mean camping, that’s a different thing.

you should always win a fight you are better equipped to fight i.e. better gun
you should always win a fight because you have better reflex’s its an FPS first and formost.

to add I have played a few hours of bfv and I must say its terrible and tbh worst bf of all time lol bf1 sucked but I could play from time to time were as bfv as soon as the game starts Im ready to alt f4

[BFB-LeCharybdis]

@ragnarok013 I might go back and give BF4 a proper go to see if I can understand what you mean.
In regard to future titles what would you suggest as an answer to satisfying the three distinct player groups?

[ragnarok013]

@BFB-LeCharybdis

@ragnarok013 I might go back and give BF4 a proper go to see if I can understand what you mean.
In regard to future titles what would you suggest as an answer to satisfying the three distinct player groups?

BFB-LeCharybdis I’m not actually sure that it’s possible to appease all three player bases with a single entry at this point. I think the first two can get along pretty well but the guys who want elites and behemoths etc probably won’t be happy with a lot of changes that the established player bases want. A robust RSP with a lot of granular admin server control may be our best shot at satisfying almost everyone so they can tailor the experienced to mirror the entry that they like.

[GRAW2ROBZ]

@ArchAngeL_777

Bad Company destructibility was fun because it was the first games to do it. But reality is, Bad Company 2 took it too far and it wasn’t unusual for maps to get completely leveled. Then all the sudden you had no cover which isn’t going to work well with 64 player games and larger vehicle counts. Not to mention that helped in attack helicopter being viewed as completely OP in Bad Company 2.

While BF3 and BF4 had an infantry focus, it wasn’t at the expense of the maps and vehicles. BF4 in particular still had large vehicle counts and larger maps. But when you look at the maps, there’s usually areas with more congested flags giving rise to heavy infantry fights…the center island flags G and H on Dragon Valley 2015…A and B flag on the island in Paracel Storm…A, B, and C flag in the small town area of Golmud Railway…B and D flags near the dam in Lancang Dam, etc. But generally BF4 maps either provided plenty of cover to move around for infantry, or there were plenty of vehicles like motorcycles, quad bikes, jeeps, jet skis, hover craft to hop in and take off to a flag on the opposite side of the map or wherever.

I wouldn’t say taking destruction to far. It was nice. Also for Bad Company 2 rush mode, the game gave ya a choice to use a vehicle or walk how far. Walking you could sneak around but in open area a chance to be sniped yet. So vehicles got you to the MCOMM’s faster for a plant. We counted on vehicles if we ran low on tickets and put pressure on for the win. Had a little taste of that for BF3 but less destruction.

.

BF4 had more destruction then BF3. But I wasn’t crazy over BF4 vanilla maps either. Also tons of shenanigans on Bad Company 2 with c4 and what not on drones or quads or jeeps. Or tank blasting MCOMM’s or rpg-ing them or 2.0 destruction taking out MCOMMS before DICE moved some MCOMMS outside of buildings and nerfed c4 damages on MCOMMS. Bad Company 2 is still my favorite. Shame the population just about gone for it.

[Lahoo_Eckbert]

I actually loved BF1. It surely wasn’t on par with BF4 nor it felt like an actual BF game, but it had its unique appeal and it’s own unique features.
And it had serious amount content. Lots of factions, maps and weapons.

BFV is a disgrace when it comes to content(or lack of). And sadly with all the BC3 rumors, I highly doubt we’ll get even half the content BF1 had from this point on.

BC3 has to be insanely good for us to be able to forget about this incomplete mess of a game.

[GRAW2ROBZ]

@Lahoo_Eckbert

I actually loved BF1. It surely wasn’t on par with BF4 nor it felt like an actual BF game, but it had its unique appeal and it’s own unique features.
And it had serious amount content. Lots of factions, maps and weapons.

BFV is a disgrace when it comes to content(or lack of). And sadly with all the BC3 rumors, I highly doubt we’ll get even half the content BF1 had from this point on.

BC3 has to be insanely good for us to be able to forget about this incomplete mess of a game.

According to rumors Bad Company 3 been in the works for over 2 years already. So hopefully its good.

[mcRen98]

@GRAW2ROBZ

Lahoo_Eckbert said:
I actually loved BF1. It surely wasn’t on par with BF4 nor it felt like an actual BF game, but it had its unique appeal and it’s own unique features.
And it had serious amount content. Lots of factions, maps and weapons.

BFV is a disgrace when it comes to content(or lack of). And sadly with all the BC3 rumors, I highly doubt we’ll get even half the content BF1 had from this point on.

BC3 has to be insanely good for us to be able to forget about this incomplete mess of a game.

According to rumors Bad Company 3 been in the works for over 2 years already. So hopefully its good.

It better be good enough to wipe the unsatisfactory performance on the one Mainline ww2 game Dice could actually have attempted to make as a true successor to Battlefield 1942 excluding 1943. Bad company 3 better be worth it after 9/10 years of waiting. But at the same time I really do hope they fix Battlefield V and give it the content it desperately needs.

[RossP317]

[/quote]
But at the same time I really do hope they fix Battlefield V and give it the content it desperately needs. [/quote]

My preference would be for them to mothball this dumpster fire with care and maintenance support only. Allow people to go back to BF4 & BF1 with some very minor updates like we saw in Road to Battlefield V. And utilise all the resources they can making the next game as good as we know it can be.

A boy can dream…lol

[bigiain]

I’m really wary of the BC3 talk. Can anyone imagine anything vaguely resembling BC2 in either quality or game play style coming out next.