| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On December 04 2013 04:57 zoLo wrote: DICE always makes good trailers, but often the game doesn't play out like that when you play, lol. Not saying I expected it to. Bomber on rails at 4:00 That's no surprise to be honest about the rails thing. | ||
|
CrankOut
187 Posts
And the performance seems better on the new maps. Solid 60fps on Ultra with 2x MSAA - but I did not play a old map since the Patch today. | ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
| ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
| ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On December 04 2013 05:23 Torte de Lini wrote: That's no surprise to be honest about the rails thing. It's not because previous games did the same thing. | ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
| ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On December 04 2013 08:21 Divine-Sneaker wrote: Seems like dragon valley actually has 4 AA's and not just 3 lol Oh god AAs | ||
|
altered
Switzerland646 Posts
What people usually mean when they say "its not a infantry map" is "its not a assault class map". Even if they play it with the other classes they play it with the assault mindset. On "armor maps" infantry is very usefull too but the infantry has to play different roles, a role that supports/complements your armor. The problem is people in general dont really like to play anything else than the classic assault role when they are infantry wich consists purely of running to a flag and shooting other infantry players. Planting mines, desiganting, MAVing, ambushing armor in groups and a lot of other stuff inf can do is extremely usefull on armor maps but often players dont know how to do it right or they cant because they are lonewolfing and a lot of those roles are only effective when done in a squad on TS that knows what they are doing. And yes you cant win a match for your team on a big armor map as lonewolf assault, wich you can do to a certain degree on smaller maps but isnt that what a teamgame is all about. You also dont engage every couple seconds so the gameplay feels slowed down wich in general is something people dont want. What they actually want is fast paced Call of Duty style maps that are 5 times bigger and have better graphics but god forbid you tell them that what they want is not what battlefield is all about. Its kind of funny reading all these complaints about the maps and armor focus because i remember that when bf3 was released people complained most about maps like Bazaar/Metro and Seine because they werent open and reminded them too much of COD. I really dont want to be in a game developers shoes nowdays. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On December 05 2013 00:29 TigerKarl wrote: This Altai Range is the worst map in the entire history of Battlefield. I feel like all of those maps are so out of balance, because they are pure vehicle maps and suck for infantery. And that's not what Battlefield should be about Thought BF was supposed to be about vehicles. O_o Do you mean a mix of both is best? Viability for infantry and vehicles? | ||
|
hootsushi
Germany3468 Posts
On December 05 2013 01:03 altered wrote: Maps like the ones from CR or AK from BF3 dont suck for infantry its just that they suck for infantry in pubs because you cant count on your teammates to do what they are supposed to or you cant count on armor to take advantage of the support you are giving them. Also they take a different approach to infantry play than most people are willing to play. What people usually mean when they say "its not a infantry map" is "its not a assault class map". Even if they play it with the other classes they play it with the assault mindset. On "armor maps" infantry is very usefull too but the infantry has to play different roles, a role that supports/complements your armor. The problem is people in general dont really like to play anything else than the classic assault role when they are infantry wich consists purely of running to a flag and shooting other infantry players. Planting mines, desiganting, MAVing, ambushing armor in groups and a lot of other stuff inf can do is extremely usefull on armor maps but often players dont know how to do it right or they cant because they are lonewolfing and a lot of those roles are only effective when done in a squad on TS that knows what they are doing. And yes you cant win a match for your team on a big armor map as lonewolf assault, wich you can do to a certain degree on smaller maps but isnt that what a teamgame is all about. You also dont engage every couple seconds so the gameplay feels slowed down wich in general is something people dont want. What they actually want is fast paced Call of Duty style maps that are 5 times bigger and have better graphics but god forbid you tell them that what they want is not what battlefield is all about. Its kind of funny reading all these complaints about the maps and armor focus because i remember that when bf3 was released people complained most about maps like Bazaar/Metro and Seine because they werent open and reminded them too much of COD. I really dont want to be in a game developers shoes nowdays. I agree with you. The playstyle for infantry on these maps is something else entirely if comparing to maps like bazaar/seine and I don't blame Dice for designing it this way. My problem is a somewhat unbalanced mappool, where most maps are designed armor heavy, which almost always favors engineer class over any other (I'm talking about public matches here). In Conquest Large (which is by far my favorite gamemode since they fucked up Rush in BF3), engineer offers way too much. It's the most versatile class, you can equip Anti-Air or Anti-Tank depending what your team needs, air lock-on is even more powerful than in BF3 and you can carry carbines, which include the ridiculously powerful ACE 52. Comparing with other infantry classes, you are almost on par in infantry vs infantry (thanks to carbines) and absolute top dog vs armor. No other class has that much impact on a game. How often do you really need resupply on a map like golmud? That's why I would LOVE to see Dice reintroduce seine/damavand/bazaar in second assault instead of firestorm/oman so other classes become much more viable again. We need atleast one or two more maps with primarly infantry and armored support (~ 1-2 LAVs, 1 Little Bird) like Flood Zone or Zavod. If you are like me and your team winning is top priority for you, the game forces you to play engineer on almost every map, because of the impact engineer has on the game in comparison to other classes (again: I'm talking about pubs; I have not the faintest clue how this game pans out in a competitive environment). Maybe I'm just waaay to serious for a pub gamer, but that's my opinion at the moment. | ||
|
altered
Switzerland646 Posts
On December 05 2013 01:39 hootsushi wrote: I agree with you. The playstyle for infantry on these maps is something else entirely if comparing to maps like bazaar/seine and I don't blame Dice for designing it this way. My problem is a somewhat unbalanced mappool, where most maps are designed armor heavy, which almost always favors engineer class over any other (I'm talking about public matches here). In Conquest Large (which is by far my favorite gamemode since they fucked up Rush in BF3), engineer offers way too much. It's the most versatile class, you can equip Anti-Air or Anti-Tank depending what your team needs, air lock-on is even more powerful than in BF3 and you can carry carbines, which include the ridiculously powerful ACE 52. Comparing with other infantry classes, you are almost on par in infantry vs infantry (thanks to carbines) and absolute top dog vs armor. No other class has that much impact on a game. How often do you really need resupply on a map like golmud? That's why I would LOVE to see Dice reintroduce seine/damavand/bazaar in second assault instead of firestorm/oman so other classes become much more viable again. We need atleast one or two more maps with primarly infantry and armored support (~ 1-2 LAVs, 1 Little Bird) like Flood Zone or Zavod. If you are like me and your team winning is top priority for you, the game forces you to play engineer on almost every map, because of the impact engineer has on the game in comparison to other classes (again: I'm talking about pubs; I have not the faintest clue how this game pans out in a competitive environment). Maybe I'm just waaay to serious for a pub gamer, but that's my opinion at the moment. Well we can definitely agree on Engineer being the most powerfull class but tbh nothing changed there from BF3. Even on maps like Seine, Bazaar and Damavand ATLEAST half the team needed to be engineer to be able to win a competitive match if it wasnt infantry only settings. The only reason that wasnt so apparent in Pubs is because most of the players in pubs are really bad at utilising vehicles and in addition to that they usually didnt get any support, wich is what allowed good assaults to win the map. In BF3 Engineers had very good weapons too, the M4A1 (and SCAR-H) was better than most of the ARs, probably only trumped by 4 ARs (M16, AEK, M416 and AN94). What changed in BF4 is that Support and Recon now got carbines too wich makes them more viable than they were before. Those classes were viable in BF3 too but highly underrated because they have supportive roles wich people dont like to play (nobody wants to be the wingman). In addition to carbines now being available to recon and support, those classes also got more important because designations and motion sensors are now much more powerfull (one reason for that is the nerf to prox scan) and engineers need ammoboxes to resupply their launchers and mines more often since you dont have the perk for it from the start necessarily. Since Ammoboxes now disapear after death support players need to stay support if they want to continue resupplying. Also the MP-APS gadget for the support class now also allows them to directly support armor wich is a fantastic addition to the game imo. The class that got nerfed is definitely Assault, while they still have the most powerfull guns one of their main tools and tactics got nerfed hard, the paddles. Medic Trains were effective and easy to do tactic in BF3 and there was much (mostly unneccessary imo) whine about it. In Bf4 its seldom worth it playing assault if you are truly PTFOing becasue the paddles arent nearly as powerfull as the tools the other classes have. Except ofc if you play on maps like Locker, Flood Zone (wich is way more infantry focused than Bazaar btw) or now Guilin Peaks. As for second assault i really dont mind firestorm i always enjoyed playing infantry on that map even with all the vehicles and also did well even when playing assault. But i agree with you that Oman was a really strange choice, that map was, even if i liked it visually, really bad gameplay wise, in pubs and even more so in competition. I would definitely prefer if they brought back Bazaar, Kharg or any of the Aftermath maps instead. Talah Market Conquest instead of CQassault would be the perfect infantry map for BF4 imo. But there will be more DLCs and im shure one of them will be infantry focused. | ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
On December 05 2013 01:18 cLAN.Anax wrote: Thought BF was supposed to be about vehicles. O_o Do you mean a mix of both is best? Viability for infantry and vehicles? The Battlefield games have always been at their best, when every playstyle is viable, yes. While of course a certain degree of variation to keep everyone fresh in their head is good, extreme maps like these Chinese DLC maps won't last. But that won't be a long term problem, because there's some good maps in BF4 Vanilla and Caspian Border's soon to be playable. | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/04/battlefield-4-expansions-on-hold-until-game-issues-are-resolved/ | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On December 05 2013 07:32 zoLo wrote: DICE will stop working on the expansion packs until they fix the game's problems. http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/04/battlefield-4-expansions-on-hold-until-game-issues-are-resolved/ + Show Spoiler + Lol, regarding developers working on post-launch stuff, Creative Assembly is hard at work making a "special campaign" for Rome II, while the game is still buggy as junk. X-D It's good that DICE is willing to resolve issues first and add content later. Earning my respect.  | ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
It's not that it makes in any less inexcusable to consistently deliver bullshit experiences to so many users. | ||
|
Torenhire
United States11681 Posts
I mean seriously, hahaha. It's like once a map. Maybe I just need to reinstall or something. | ||
|
hootsushi
Germany3468 Posts
On December 05 2013 08:48 Torenhire wrote: ....this game crashes more than me in a helicopter I mean seriously, hahaha. It's like once a map. Maybe I just need to reinstall or something. Sadly, that doesn't change much. Most of the errors are still on EA/DICE. The first two weeks after launch were terrible then some patch apparently worked for me and I had maybe one DC in 2-3 days and now I'm back at the beginning with constant BF stopped working errors and freezes. | ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
I don't even | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
| ||
|
hootsushi
Germany3468 Posts
![[image loading]](http://s3.gameone.de/gameone/assets/images/000/007/068/blog_picture_large/battlefield4_kicked_teaser.jpg) | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
