FEATURED Battlefield 1

Kenrou said:

Some games like Sniper Elite allow you a "decent-ish" emulation of a real life challenge, why not make it a difficulty level ? Easy - Normal - Hard - Realistic. it would remain optional for everyone that wanted to play it.

Click to expand...

Are you speaking in terms of a single player or multiplayer game? Having that many options in a multiplayer game greatly fragments the userbase. I think how Battlefield has had the split between normal/hardcore is about as far as I would want to see. If you want something more realistic look at the ARMA series and similar games to that.

I would say both, but i have always preferred the campaign mode to multi-player. Again, can't you compartmentalize ? more expensive ofc, but you can have a dedicated server for realistic only players difficulty which IMO would give you a greater player base simply because you're catering to everyone

Look what's happening to World of Warcraft, tens of thousands of players (some counts are on the hundreds of thousands) asking for a return to basics or a specific expansion. Blizzard waged war on private servers BUT last i heard they were going to meet with Nostalrius (recently closed) to discuss that very same option.

Kenrou said:

I would say both, but i have always preferred the campaign mode to multi-player. Again, can't you compartmentalize ? more expensive ofc, but you can have a dedicated server for realistic only players difficulty which IMO would give you a greater player base simply because you're catering to everyone

Look what's happening to World of Warcraft, tens of thousands of players (some counts are on the hundreds of thousands) asking for a return to basics or a specific expansion. Blizzard waged war on private servers BUT last i heard they were going to meet with Nostalrius (recently closed) to discuss that very same option.

Click to expand...

You can compartmentalize, but if you look at games that separate all of the game modes and settings too far then the player base dies for the under-played ones. For instance, look at Call of Duty, probably 75% of the players just play TDM and then the rest are split between search and destroy, et all (I haven't played a COD for years, but that's the way it had been). The same issue happens in BF games where there is a clear advantage to which game types are more popular (granted we're fortunate enough to have dedicated servers to not match up with a host/etc) and when they release the expansions/DLC and some of the servers run the new maps and the player base that didn't buy the DLC/premium packs can only play on 'vanilla' servers.

Choice is great for a single-player campaign if that is what the user wants. But I'd argue that offering much more than 2 choices (minus small custom-map/customization settings for individual server decisions) would cause too much of a split, especially in a way that would be 'easy/medium/hard/realistic/etc' for damage modeling. It also is expensive in terms of development costs and balancing.

With regards to the WOW servers, a lot of players miss the nostalgia from the earlier expansions (and vanilla WOW). A lot went and did the private-server+vanilla server stuff and enjoyed it and others found that it was rose-colored glasses. It's true that Blizzard met with the team from that private server company a couple weeks ago. I haven't heard any outcomes of it yet at this point. They mentioned the idea of having a server that didn't have heirlooms and such, but Blizzard hasn't specifically stated they want to have a straight-up vanilla wow server as it would require two separate levels of balancing/bug fixing/etc. But that will all remain to be seen what ends up happening and what the overall user-base that truly wants it and will actually utilize it more than a day or two.

You COULD argue they still don't want to but are being "forced" by a great portion of the player base to do it, which brings it full around to my point.

I personally wouldn't mind if a game only had 2 difficulty options, like normal and realistic but that's my own personal opinion, think the only games i ever played in anything other then normal was Crysis and Metro. Never played anything on easy mode, even for achievements/collectibles, normal is usually good enough to go at your own pace

Funny... the ONLY reason I touch the campaign is because of our reviews here. The campaigns are TERRIBLE... Oy. BF2 didn't even have one (robots on maps.. yay). I haven't played COD campaigns either. These are purely MP games for me.

EarthDog said:

Funny... the ONLY reason I touch the campaign is because of our reviews here. The campaigns are TERRIBLE... Oy. BF2 didn't even have one (robots on maps.. yay)

Click to expand...

PvP much Would be nice to have Human-level A.I. or better but...

Kenrou said:

You COULD argue they still don't want to but are being "forced" by a great portion of the player base to do it, which brings it full around to my point.

I personally wouldn't mind if a game only had 2 difficulty options, like normal and realistic but that's my own personal opinion, think the only games i ever played in anything other then normal was Crysis and Metro. Never played anything on easy mode, even for achievements/collectibles, normal is usually good enough to go at your own pace

Click to expand...

I think that depends on how you qualify a "great portion" of the player base. 10,000 players is .2% of the ~5million player base of WOW. That is hardly worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (possibly millions) (development, testing, planning, project planning, upkeep, etc) costs.

Nostalrius at its peak had 150k online at any given time if were to believe the hype, Warmane always has around 20k-50k online, not to mention all the others. 1.5%-3% might not sound like much but most (if not all) players stopped paying monthly fees to go on a private server and to top it off on a different version ? thats a slap in Blizzard's face, its the same as saying many of them don't like the game as it is now. 150k-300k at $10/month each is maybe small change to a big company, but money lost nonetheless.

But were derailing the thread again sorry

Sign up for the early beta!

https://www.battlefield.com/community/insider

Gameplay trailer :

I've always been a counterstrike guy, but bf1 might sway me over for a little bit... Game looks very awesome from the play throughs I've seen.

Have you seen more than the two that were released? Links!!

This looks amazing. Normally I stay FAR away from COD and Battlefield games but I think I'll actually get this one. I love shooters that are based in history.

There seems to be some MP clips of it, possibly beta. Looks good so far, very fluid

What I want out of this game I wont get.

I want

A return of True aim (bullet goes where the crosshair is even when it's bouncing around or your suppressed)

A return to BF3 suppression.

The head glitch wasn't a term I heard even once in my 700 hours of BF3, this is a word used by console players. Return the bullet path -> line of sight relationship back to BF3.

Fix that ridiculous spread on crewed MG's back to BF3 levels.

Thank you.

I suspect all of these things and designated marksman rifles were bastardized in BF4 in order to accommodate console controllers. So I say bring all the gun play back to PC level and just give console players their stupid auto aim.

Oh and fix the glitchy bipod deployment, it was perfect in BF3.

motherboard1 said:

What I want out of this game I wont get.

I want

A return of True aim (bullet goes where the crosshair is even when it's bouncing around or your suppressed)

A return to BF3 suppression.

The head glitch wasn't a term I heard even once in my 700 hours of BF3, this is a word used by console players. Return the bullet path -> line of sight relationship back to BF3.

Fix that ridiculous spread on crewed MG's back to BF3 levels.

Thank you.

I suspect all of these things and designated marksman rifles were bastardized in BF4 in order to accommodate console controllers. So I say bring all the gun play back to PC level and just give console players their stupid auto aim.

Oh and fix the glitchy bipod deployment, it was perfect in BF3.

Click to expand...

For someone who has no experience with the Battlefield series can you elaborate on what you're referring to..?

So you don't want realistic aim from what I take of it, no compensation for wind, angle etc ? Can't you fix that in settings ?

JCE3000GT said:

For someone who has no experience with the Battlefield series can you elaborate on what you're referring to..?

Click to expand...

Having around 700 hours in BF3, and close to 200 in BF4 I still find myself playing BF3 especially now that summer seems to have rejuvenated the servers.

I'm checking in on this just before I hit the hay for work so I'll drop in tomorrow and go into detail. but basically BF3 gun mechanics felt more realistic than BF4 and just more satisfying in general. They tried to make the changes subtle but to me they are glaring.

I don't dislike BF4 as a game, besides a new host of maps, most of the feel is still there and some forward steps were taken in other areas. IE spotting isn't as spammy as in BF3. Spawn interface is way better. 5 man squads is better than 4. Re balanced defibrillator, solved the Claymore question etc. But everything related to gun mechanics was a step backwards.

------------------------------------

I'll explain one part now.

Have you ever played a first person shooter where your using a semi automatic sniper rifle with high recoil and you've gotta pull down on the mouse violently to try and keep it under control during rapid fire ? Well imagine trying to do that with a console controller, you wouldn't be able to control the camera sway/bounce and would become disoriented quickly. So what they did in BF4 if you were in a similar situation, like being suppressed while aiming down an 8X scope, your sights don't bounce as much and instead your bullets simply don't go where the aimer is, so controlling the sway becomes a non issue and you can aim right on the target, (but still miss).

To add to this, the main weapon where this phenomenon would occur, the DMR class, no longer plays like a semi automatic sniper rifle, you can't even put a scope on them, your limited to 4X sight and they just ain't fun like they were in BF3.

motherboard1 said:

Have you ever played a first person shooter where your using a semi automatic sniper rifle with high recoil and you've gotta pull down on the mouse violently to try and keep it under control during rapid fire ? Well imagine trying to do that with a console controller, you wouldn't be able to control the camera sway/bounce and would become disoriented quickly.

Click to expand...

My last post still stands. I'm curious, how do you play games like Sniper Elite 3 with realistic aim/physics on a console, i mean, do you go to the easiest levels where its mostly turned off or do you learn to control it ? or it's maybe different on a console, no physics to bother the average player ?

Kenrou said:

My last post still stands. I'm curious, how do you play games like Sniper Elite 3 with realistic aim/physics on a console

Click to expand...

I've never played Sniper Elite so I don't know how it compares, lets substitute something I'm familiar with, like Day of Defeat or Americas Army, and then that's just the thing, you don't, and as a developer of what was traditionally a PC game series (battlefield A-Z) but who is changing gears to kater more to a very lucrative console market you instead change your game, taking away from those realistic aim/physics that don't work well with their hardware. That's whats happening. The gun mechanics are being re designed with console shortcomings in mind.

Kenrou said:

i mean, do you go to the easiest levels where its mostly turned off or do you learn to control it ? or it's maybe different on a console, no physics to bother the average player ?

Click to expand...

I'm slightly confused at what is your saying and asking, maybe I'm burnt out from the 12hour shifts @ work, so forgive me I'll try to add clarity. First off I've only played about 20 ish hours of BF4 on console, I'm primarily a PC player since the earliest days of Counter Strike and all the rest, but my friends are console players. ( COD , Destiny etc )

Having plenty of experience on both, you eventually learn that these 2 platforms design gun play in two entirely different ways. I know some games are the same on both platforms Sniper Elite for example, Borderlands 2 etc etc, but could you imagine playing something like Day of Defeat, or Americas Army, Squad, or Arma 3 on a console? Well, Battlefield 3 used more of the freedom that mouse play allows a developer, while BF4 gun play design changed in many area's to become more compatible with the restrictions imposed on the console player by their controllers.

Edit: I'm looking at Sniper Elite on youtube and it's got console first written all over it, it's not a game that takes full advantage of the precision a mouse allows.