>>322895857 I've been a Battlefield fan since 1942, dude.
I'll admit, all those older ones are definite classics, but I've found BF4 to just offer the most by a long shot so far, and it has really been polished out the ass since launch and pretty much every problem it had has been fixed.
Also >BF3 is shit Why do you say that? BF3 isn't my favorite by a couple titles, but it wasn't a horrible game by any means and was miles better than BF4 for awhile.
>>322896514 I really hope that if they make a 2143 they'll still somehow have the same level of weapon variety that BF4 has. Maybe not with all the attachment bloating, but roughly the same amount of guns.
Especially considering that the majority of players have told them to exclusively focus on multiplayer only and do away with campaign altogether. I ain't paying another fucking $80 for something with the same weapon content as SW:BF.
>>322899706 Pretty much the only way to git gud at BF4 is through constant play since there's a fuckload of things you need to learn to play around. You also have to always be as aware of everything going on as you can, being greedy or being aggressive as fuck will pretty much always get you killed if you don't have the skill to pull it off.
Also pick the class that most suits your playstyle and just become the best you can at that class. I did so for Assault and it helps you learn the game much faster while also eventually becoming highly dominant in your favorite class, which is both satisfying as hell and makes you an essential part of any squad rather than being a faggot that switches every 2 seconds yet sucks at every class.
>> shitty weapon balance being fixed as we go, devs been good about this and they are fine tuning weapon balance with every patch, it's kinda hard when you have over 150 weapons in the game but they are getting there, besides that you can engage on so many different distances in this game different weapons will give you advantage in different situations. >> shitty class balance Not true, balance is just fine, I can see how you think assault and engy are most preoccupied classes right now but lmgs and recons C4 evens things up. >> spawn wherever the fuck you want Not true, you spawn on a spawn beacon, mate, vehicle or taken point >> regenerating health time to kill is to short for it to matter >> shitty vehicle balance how? Land vehicles can wreck air vehicles and vice versa, I think it's fine. >> unlock everything This I can agree with, you should have all guns from the get go and just unlock attachements and gadgets >> shitty maps maps were better in bf3, I can say that but there are some really nice maps in premium pack. Vanilla indeed had mostly shit maps. >> spotting Can be turned off entirely and it is on many servers because: >strong community >> retarded gadgets Nope, most of them are useful but very situational, you can end up using those that came from BF3 and top the server, and you unlock them very fast.
> class balance is fine I run engineer like 90% of the time. Giving carbines and DMRs to all classes is the definition of shitty balance. Compare this to BF2 which actually separated medic/assault and recon/spec ops, and gave engineers a shitty gun so they didnt dominate everything.
> Not true, you spawn on a spawn beacon, mate, vehicle or taken point Man guys like you are the fucking reason BF is dead. In BF2 you could only spawn on points or squad leaders. In 1942, only points. Vietnam had it best, with mobile spawn points and spawning on caps.
Don't you see you make the game SIGNIFICANTLY worse by allowing people to insta spawn in vehicles and on all allies. It removes the coordination of attacking a player because some cunt can spawn right on top of him and just unnecessarily increases game speed which makes the game like CoD.
Also, you CAN spawn wherever the fuck you want via the fantastic device known as the SPAWN BEACON which shows how retarded DICE and the community have become.
> you should have all guns from the get go and just unlock attachements and gadgets
Man unlocking attachments is literally the shittest thing, once I unlock a gun I should have access to all attachments. Fuck, there shouldn't even be attachments, keep it vanilla so you can't chuck suppressors on every weapon. Its dice's problem, by trying to cater to the CoD fangays that they need a retarded unlock system, that in turn fucks up class and weapon balance when how it worked in 1942 and Vietnam was fine.
> vehicle balance Over-emphasis on lock on weapons and hard counter vehicles whereas in 1942 and vietnam all classes could deal damage to vehicles and it was more nuanced
Your answers are retarded and betray your likely CoD origins.
BF4 (and BF3) are just bloated messes where they shove in 10000 things. Sadly, I don't think this is something the series will ever come back from.
>>322903256 Are you autistic? Been playing BF games for years, since the first game. BF2 was good but BF4 is an improvement Only shit game was Hardline (like 11 weapons and 3 maps) BF4 has an ass load of people don't know what you mean by "dead game"
>>322905290 Not even the person you're replying to, but I stopped reading "BF4 is more like CoD"
Nigger, BF3 is the closest we had to CoD. Filter, lowest TTK, Assault wrecking everything, Jets being OP cunts in the sky, no limitations on ammo spamming, JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU SHITTER WHO IS BAD AT BF4
>>322903256 >Giving carbines and DMRs to all classes is the definition of shitty balance Assault rifles pretty much do everything carbines can but 10 times better, DMR's are pretty much horrible at everything but long range and even then can be outclassed by some assault rifles. If you think Engineers dominate everything you're fucking bad at the game.
>spawning is bad You do realize the reason vehicles are spawn points now is because the maps are bigger, right? Plus, this is balanced through transport vehicles being the ones that offer the most spawn slots while being offset by having less firepower. Spawn beacons are normally detected after 30 seconds of placement unless the entire team are retards, which is normally never since most teams will have at least 5-10 very good players or competent squad stacks.
>Man unlocking attachments is literally the shittest thing, once I unlock a gun I should have access to all attachments While I can agree the fact you unlock half of the attachments for any given gun through weapon battlepacks is somewhat stupid, it also is justifiable for getting really good with a certain gun and also adds longevity to the game. You realize how garbage the game would be if every person who unlocks the AEK 20 minutes in already has it fully upgraded? It'd be lame as fuck and would give no incentive to stick with a certain gun for a bit. Keeping it all vanilla is stupid as fuck, by the way, why would you add that many weapons to keep them all vanilla? You're literally asking to pay more for less.
>vehicle balance Once again, has pretty much been fixed in the recent half year or so of patching. Really, no vehicle completely dominates the field anymore. And how is it a big surprise that a modern era Battlefield has more lockon weaponry? Also, every class IS capable of dealing damage to vehicles, the Engineer is just obviously the one that is the best at it, which is how it should be.
>>322905837 >You realize how garbage the game would be if every person who unlocks the AEK 20 minutes in already has it fully upgraded? It'd be lame as fuck and would give no incentive to stick with a certain gun for a bit. My god, this is the CoD generation all grown up You're so used to chasing the carrot you can't even fathom a different system
>>322906015 Because the system you're advocating for has proven time and time again that it doesn't keep players around for very long, you fucking moron. As I said, it gives incentive to stick with the game longer than you normally would, which is probably why BF4 still has a very sizable playerbase to this day.
>>322906448 Yes, and that is shitty carrot on a stick incentives Good games still retain their palyerbase after years since they're fun to play, not because you get that endorphine kick from getting UPGRADE GOOD JOB all over your screen
>>322906448 >Because the system you're advocating for has proven time and time again that it doesn't keep players around for very long, you fucking moron Then it's because the game is shit. You shouldn't need a fucking incentive to play a multiplayer video game other than getting better at it, not chasing unlocks.
>>322906823 >THE GAME IS SHIT Because of what? Don't say the unlock system, shitter.
You're the only faggot here who keeps yelling that the game is shit and yet you don't play it, don't know anything about, and keep pointing to a scapegoat unlock system as the shit-all end of discussion.
Yeah, obvious parrot faggots. You do realize that you can have both at the same time, right? And you do realize how fucking dumb it is to either start with all attachments upon unlock or having all guns vanilla as well, right?
>>322907295 >Because the system you're advocating for has proven time and time again that it doesn't keep players around for very long >Then it's because the game is shit Please tell me where I mentioned that BF4 is a shit game.
>>322906709 >>322906903 Cool, we're on equal footing then The game is not inherently bad because it has an unlock system, but unlock systems are also not a requirement for a good game. If anything, they're a detriment to a good game, at least in my opinion. Maybe other people really like unlocking shit, I prefer having all the options available right away
>>322907074 All attachments upon unlock: >Gives players less reason to ever become proficient with certain guns (starting off with a vanilla gun really hammers in the way the gun works better) >Yet again, less longevity to the game. As I said before, unlocks are part of the reason people have stuck with the game for so long and why new players stay >Makes better use of the battlepack system >Nullifies any sense of weapon progression aside from service stars
All guns vanilla: >Nullifies any sense of weapon progression aside from service stars >Not believable at all due to the era BF4 takes place in >Would be horrible to always deal with iron sights on maps as big as the ones in BF4 >Zero longevity and wouldn't hold a playerbase for shit
>>322908071 I haven't played 4, but it's definitely the case with 3. At least vanilla. There's so many urban maps where you can't destroy entire buildings, just specific walls, while BC2 is mostly set in small towns where you can level entire houses.
>>322906836 And? it's not like content automatically means quality as cliche as that is it's definitely true with the recent Battlefields, they just threw in tons of shit and didn't bother to get the fundamentals right and focus on what they did well instead of cramming in every gun and mode in the world let alone having a pointless single player, the amount of time and resources spent on getting more "content" bloated the product so much that it's taken two years! to fix.
>>322908078 >Gives players less reason to ever become proficient with certain gun How about enjoying a certain gun, or making them have strengths and weaknesses to emphasize using different guns for different situations >Yet again, less longevity to the game. 'competitive' multiplayer games don't need artificial longevity increasing mechanics. Something like a MMO might because you're basically waiting for content, but shooters should incite people to paly because they're fun. I unlocked everything in BC like 400 hours ago and I'm still palying it, there's no unlocks in quake or UT and people are still playing it. Upgrades might be good to pull in the masses though, which shouldn't bother you as the individual though, you're not EA >>Makes better use of the battlepack system That's kind of scircular reasoning, you don't need a battlepack system when you don't have unlocks >>Nullifies any sense of weapon progression aside from service stars That's a fact, not an argument for either side
>Not believable at all due to the era BF4 takes place in >Would be horrible to always deal with iron sights on maps as big as the ones in BF4 You know you can have attachments to weapons without having to unlock them, right?
>>322908842 His argument is strange either way. You can have a system where you can put a gazillion attachments on guns and they're all unlocked by default. There's no reason why an attachment system has to be coupled to an unlock system
>>322895092 True. I fucking hated BF games. Fuck every single nostalgiafag who still claims BF2 was good. It had fuckawful hit detection and atrocious grenade spam. BC2 and BF3 also suffered from networking issues which made me stop playing. They finally got their shit together after 2 years of release. Feels so fluid and responsive now, I couldn't even believe it's a Battlefield game when I went back to it a couple of months ago. I hope the support continues at least until BF5 releases. We could still get at least 2 night maps.
>>322909259 >BC2 and BF3 also suffered from networking issues which made me stop playing. Legit question, are you american? I'm yuro and I have never experienced the netcode issues people were having with BC2. Sure, when I'm playing with 100+ ping I occasionally see blood splatter on enemy despite missing, but that's just an issue with client-side hit displaying while it's calculated server-side And I spend a lot of time sniping thongs over various distances, so I ought to notice if my shots are missing
>>322909560 I'm russian, we had a lot of servers and strong 2ch community. Come on, two people could knife each other in BC2 with both of them dying. That's just stupid. And the issue you mentioned pissed me off as well. As for BF3, it's the "die behind cover" thing. Even the recent Venice Unleashed mod didn't fix that, the problem obviously lies deeper than just update rates.
>>322910075 I'm not saying it's great anon, I'm just saying 1942 to 2142 and everything in between considered, BF3 had the best gunplay, because all those games had pretty shitty gunplay. Infinite stamina was fine because there was a lot of running between points.
>>322908675 >How about enjoying a certain gun, or making them have strengths and weaknesses to emphasize using different guns for different situations What's the matter with enjoying a gun where you need to unlock attachments for it? Does unlocking attachments for a gun somehow make it less fun to use? Guns also already have strengths and weaknesses by default, so I don't really understand what you're trying to say with that.
>'competitive' multiplayer games don't need artificial longevity increasing mechanics Wouldn't really consider Battlefield a very competitive game by any means, which is kind of why it relies on the longevity offered by its massive unlock trees. It's great that you still play after all that time in BC, but how is it any different? BC doesn't have much gun or attachment variation to unlock, and it's no different with BF4. I unlocked everything around 600 hours ago and still play very frequently, doesn't make the game less fun for me either. And comparing Quake or UT to Battlefield doesn't really make sense, both of those games are extremely high skill capped games and are arena shooters to boot, they don't resemble Battlefield in any way and are made for a different playerbase.
>That's kind of scircular reasoning, you don't need a battlepack system when you don't have unlocks While true, I like the idea of unlocking most of the camos and emblems through battlepacks, but if it was just those things unlocked through them it'd be pointless. Either way, I suppose the argument works for both sides so we'll just leave it at that.
>>322909457 Well, realistically, having vehicles actually be a problem as a spawn machine is pretty exclusive to certain vehicles (transport helis and LAVs). No one uses a tank or attack heli as a spawn point since they offer firepower, safety and minimal slots. Plus, big maps already do offer a shitload of bike/quad spawns.
>>322907917 >muh BC2 destruction let's not forget that all buildings were two stories max which felt more like cardboard boxes than actual buildings. that's all BC2 had: corridor-ish rush oriented maps with those houses plastered all over the place, the design decision that took a huge shit over everything BF stood for.
>>322910479 > Guns also already have strengths and weaknesses by default, so I don't really understand what you're trying to say with that. You're saying that having unlocks for a gun incentives gitting gud with it, when the gun being fun does that all by itself already. YOu don't need attachments to desire getting good at using a specific gun
>Wouldn't really consider Battlefield a very competitive game by any means Competitive as in you spend most of your time fighting against other players. In games like WoW you spend a lot of time with PvE, where unlocks actually somewhat enhance the content. >It's great that you still play after all that time in BC, but how is it any different? BC doesn't have much gun or attachment variation to unlock, and it's no different with BF4. I unlocked everything around 600 hours ago and still play very frequently, doesn't make the game less fun for me either. You're saying that a lot of unlocks increase the longevity of a game, while I'm saying that you don't need unlocks to have shooters with endless longevity > And comparing Quake or UT to Battlefield doesn't really make sense They're all multiplayer shooters, where you spend your time shooting other players from a first person perspective. That already warrants some comparisons.
>>322911335 >You're saying that having unlocks for a gun incentives gitting gud with it, when the gun being fun does that all by itself already. YOu don't need attachments to desire getting good at using a specific gun But it goes hand in hand with it, a gun is fun by itself already, but having that progressive factor as you unlock more and get better and better with it partially due to experience and unlocks makes it a more personal experience with said gun. Sure, you don't NEED them, but it doesn't hurt it at all, either. So in a way, it is still an incentive for a lot of players.
>Competitive as in you spend most of your time fighting against other players. In games like WoW you spend a lot of time with PvE, where unlocks actually somewhat enhance the content. It kind of works like that for Battlefield, too, though. WoW is a completely different genre and obviously unlocks will have more of an impact there, but the unlocks in Battlefield still have an impact in how players fight each other. It's also kind of the same principle, though, players that have put more time into both Battlefield and WoW have more options, while newer players will have to be more resourceful in order to be more successful at fighting other players, which I honestly think adds a lot of fun to the game when starting out and gives a goal to strive for.
>You're saying that a lot of unlocks increase the longevity of a game, while I'm saying that you don't need unlocks to have shooters with endless longevity Right, but those unlocks are what I found myself staying for ON TOP of the fact that the game was fun to play. It gave me both a goal and a good time, now I stay because I've gotten good and the game is still fun to play. They work hand in hand.
>They're all multiplayer shooters, where you spend your time shooting other players from a first person perspective. That already warrants some comparisons. That's about as far as it goes, though, nothing else is similar about them.
Anyone else have problems with rocket launchers? Sometimes when I fire a rocket directly at a tank it'll go right through or disappear and does no damage, there'll be a little bit of smoke as if the rocket did hit the tank but nothing actually happens.
>>322917998 Still kind of salty about the shotgun nerfs, while I didn't use them I found people whining about them way too fucking much. We'd be on a map like Pearl Market and people would still cry 24/7 about them even though those are the kind of maps they're made for.
Also, what's your top weapons, bros? Here's mine, forever and always.
>>322899315 First of all, there is no space between the first letter and >, you stupid new fag, second if you actually played the game, you would see that the kill feed, everyone isn't using a couple guns. >shitty weapon balance
>bf3 >tank superiority hits >fuck yes, love armored combat in this game >first 2 weeks fine, do really well >learn how to snipe and estimate that follows into 4 >hardcore especially fun when hiding in bushes and ambushing people >after the 2 weeks game gets filled with Javelin teams, people on foot, actual tank combat slows and eventually stops >some of the maps are completely one sided for certain sides with only one objective to hold
both happy and sad the gametype didn't return in 4.
>>322923180 Agreed, as an Assault player tanks are still a scary thing for me to run into, but not nearly as much anymore since hordes of any other class will rush in and fuck the tank. Tanks used to be goddamn scary, man, no matter what class you played.
Although a good tank player is still a force to be reckoned with.
>was playing on Pearl Market >Holding down the alleys from A, E, and D >rack up around 25 kills >enemy starts to seriously swarm me >commander marks me as a high value target >still take down around 10 more people before I get totally overwhelmed >we won the game by a landslide because of it
Is there a better feeling in this game? Also helps that my squad were some kickass motherfuckers.
Old story, but probably my favorite battlefield moment ever.
>trying to get 500 kills with RPK74 >stomping the shit out of enemy team on Lancang Dam >head to objective B, enter building across from D >two enemies on second floor >a sniper who isn't paying attention >and an engineer with his repair torch out >using it to write the word "poop" on the wall >waste them both
>>322936210 People act like Metro was the greatest thing ever because Rush was the game mode everyone was playing on BF3, which Metro wasn't bad for at all. BF4 on the other hand is pretty much just Conquest, which Metro is the worst fucking thing on the planet for and is ALWAYS a fucking meat grinder at the escalators that goes nowhere for 20 mins at a time.
>>322936785 I don't know why, honestly. Battlefield threads actually get quite a bit of replies when there's threads about it on /v/, and it's obvious that quite a bit of people still play it, but there is never a general for it /vg/.
Don't kid yourself, though, the only reason series' like Mass Effect still have generals to this day is because of waifufag autists that talk about the same damn thing every thread.
I'd be interested if someone started one if there were enough people to post in it.
>>322937198 Assault, solely because I like to heal and revive my comrade in arms and I always end up feeling bad when I play other classes and someone near me dies and all I can think of is how I could have revived him had I been playing assault
>>322895092 Oh wow, you bet Headless Chicken Shooter is definitely the pinnacle of teamplay/gameplay in the Battlefield series, and holy moley just look at that map selection where only maybe two of the maps are good!
Am I the only one who prefers faction-locked weapons? I know it generally leads to less weapon variety overall, but it really satisfies my autism when everyone is using the guns they 'should' be using.
>>322899838 >Play planetside >Can easily tell who the Battlefield fags are because they spot EVERYTHING >So many salty tears because guy shouts "ENEMY LIGHT ASSAULT SPOTTED" right behind me >Turn around and blow him away with the broken tier shotguns in that game
>>322939819 That's how it should be, I don't even get why we have three billion weapons when they all basically behave the same.
Give every class two or three faction specific weapons and call it a day. It's easier to balance, and you could actually make each weapon be distinctive in its performance as well as factions having an actual impact other than having a slightly different skin.
>>322895092 I'm mean sure if you wanna just play a game you can just hop into and spastically run around while lights and colors flash your face for 40 min then yeah sure its pretty great at doing that, however if I want to play game with actually teamplay and not a shit playerbase then nothing beats BF2.
>>322901331 Only in BC/2 >>322905837 >>322936785 2bh we in /bfg/ have discussed everything that needs discussion and every playstyle The game has been out for two years and most of us played the game for 700hours before leaving it.(or stop caring about the vg genera l because smaller communities originated on stea. And other social platforms.) BTW checkout the mumble for ppl to play with I think it's bigfatgoys or something like that.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.