Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

Is it I that is insane... or the rest of the world?

moot the hopple posted:

In BFV the Allied tank you could call in as a squad reinforcement was the crocodile which had a flamethrower for the third gunner seat. This flamethrower not only had a lovely range but would also obscure most of the vision of the driver in first person view when fired due to its location. So a gunner could just spam the flamethrower ineffectually, not hitting anyone, while drastically reducing the effectiveness of the main gun at the same time.

So yeah, :dice: has already proven they can make having a gunner a detriment.

Welp, I stand corrected. :shepicide:

Yami Fenrir fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Jun 17, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

priznat
Jul 7, 2009

Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Hopper posted:

Aside from other things, there were generally too few vehicles on most maps, no transport helicopters, so mobility was limited, a BF game needs air and ground transport options, and also zip vehicles like quads.

Yeah it was WW2, but maybe WW2 just isn't a good setting for a BF game if it limits the vehicle options due to "realism".
They should have gone with cyborg woman or whatever that was and gone full one alternate reality instead of giving in to "gamers".

Yeah the realism was not there at all anyway with the weapons being non faction specific and everyone getting the same ones. Probably because balancing is hard.

Also not having well known ones like the Garand at launch was dumb as gently caress.

Krogort
Oct 27, 2013


Yami Fenrir posted:


Although Battlefield staples like spotting apparently being gone might also not help matters?


Removing 3D spotting was brillant, nobody like having to spam the stupid spotting key.
However making most camo blend in perfectly in gravel or whatever sure made it a pain in the rear end to see people on some maps.

They fixed this eventually tweaking character colours and lighting and adding auto spotting at close range but by then the game was already dead.

Bohemian Nights
Jul 14, 2006

When I wake up,
I look into the mirror
I can see a clearer, vision
I should start living today

Clapping Larry

moot the hopple posted:

So yeah, :dice: has already proven they can make having a gunner a detriment.

bf4 autospotted you on the map when you opened fire, so if you were in a tank, having a pubbie gunner was almost always a problem since every single one of them constantly fired at nothing and especially passing jets and choppers, bringing you all kinds of unwanted attention and swift death

Alkydere
Jun 7, 2010
Capitol: A building or complex of buildings in which any legislature meets.
Capital: A city designated as a legislative seat by the government or some other authority, often the city in which the government is located; otherwise the most important city within a country or a subdivision of it.




moot the hopple posted:

In BFV the Allied tank you could call in as a squad reinforcement was the crocodile which had a flamethrower for the third gunner seat. This flamethrower not only had a lovely range but would also obscure most of the vision of the driver in first person view when fired due to its location. So a gunner could just spam the flamethrower ineffectually, not hitting anyone, while drastically reducing the effectiveness of the main gun at the same time.

So yeah, :dice: has already proven they can make having a gunner a detriment.

I'm also pretty sure the fuel-tank trailer was also a giant honking weakpoint...which to be fair it was a fuel tank and generally hidden behind the bulk of the rest of the Churchill (which is not exactly a small tank).

But yeah you got a lovely version of the Churchill with a giant CRITICAL DAMAGE box trailing behind it and the selling point of the vehicle was not only nearly useless as a weapon but actively weakened the rest of its crew's ability to perform.

Chikimiki
May 14, 2009


Hopper posted:

Aside from other things, there were generally too few vehicles on most maps, no transport helicopters, so mobility was limited, a BF game needs air and ground transport options, and also zip vehicles like quads.

Yeah it was WW2, but maybe WW2 just isn't a good setting for a BF game if it limits the vehicle options due to "realism".
They should have gone with cyborg woman or whatever that was and gone full one alternate reality instead of giving in to "gamers".

Even BF1 had bikes and cars and it was WW1 :shrug:

Inspector Hound
Jul 14, 2003



One time, in the elevator up to the concourse on Metro, I swear to God one of the soldiers in the elevator turned to me and said, "You ready?" Then the doors opened and we did Battlefield. It wasn't voice chat, it was in-game dialogue, like a triggered event, like how you'll hear a guy shout "grenade" sometimes.

Blue Raider
Sep 2, 2006





Node posted:

Is there a way to forget Battlefield V and the fact that I ever played it?

Iím sure dice would love you to forget it exists.

Au Revoir Shosanna
Feb 17, 2011

i support this government and/or service

Chikimiki posted:

Even BF1 had bikes and cars and it was WW1 :shrug:

bring back horses :mad:

Zzulu
May 15, 2009


BF1 was really good, I wasn't even aware some people so strongly disliked it.

It was really cool

Orv
May 4, 2011


Au Revoir Shosanna posted:

bring back horses :mad:

I am not a fan of vehicles in general because of their tendency to end up being weapons of mass destruction with no consequences in uncoordinated servers but I can tolerate them. Horses sucked rear end cause they had a trillion health, one shot you in three different ways and for some reason no one would ever shoot at them.

And yeah those are both extremely randos on a server problems but I'm still mad about it.

Mordja
Apr 26, 2014



Hell Gem

Zzulu posted:

BF1 was really good, I wasn't even aware some people so strongly disliked it.

It was really cool
It's also the best Battlefield has looked. Really moody and imo the only game in the series with a definite art style.

Au Revoir Shosanna
Feb 17, 2011

i support this government and/or service

Mordja posted:

It's also the best Battlefield has looked. Really moody and imo the only game in the series with a definite art style.

it's legitimately wild how much better bf1 looks than bf5 despite all the rtx bells and whistles

like it's not even close

Al-Saqr
Nov 11, 2007

The Islamic Orb Illuminati.

Au Revoir Shosanna posted:

it's legitimately wild how much better bf1 looks than bf5 despite all the rtx bells and whistles

like it's not even close

Itís almost like Bf1 was an inspired design for a setting and they went all out to make it wide, expansive and captivating while Bf5 was supremely boring in itís choices for locations and setting.

Insert name here
Nov 10, 2009

Oh.
Oh Dear.
:ohdear:


Orv posted:

I am not a fan of vehicles in general
Sir this is the Battlefield thread

Orv
May 4, 2011


Insert name here posted:

Sir this is the Battlefield thread

I know! :cripes:

My tastes have changed over the years and it really bothers me cause I'm not sure how much I like Battlefield anymore and it suuuuucks.

Hot Diggity!
Apr 3, 2010

MEAN MUGGIN'




I like the vehicles because I get to blow them up

Perestroika
Apr 8, 2010



I challenge anybody to find something more satisfying to do in BF than sneaking up on that rear end in a top hat tank who's killed you three times and kerblasting that sucker with some C4.

Guillermus
Dec 28, 2009





Insert name here posted:

Sir this is the Battlefield thread

I don't like vehicles either. My solution for years has been lots of C4, rockets, mines and of course limpets.

I loving loved limpets

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

Is it I that is insane... or the rest of the world?

I've personally grown to be a bit ambivalent about vehicles. It's always been way more fun to be a tank/chopper than it is to get targeted by one.

I feel like giving vehicles all of those upgrades and unlocks that make them harder to kill/easier to kill infantry (Proximity Scan/Infrared/Reactive Armor/The preemptive explosion thing/etc) on top of natural regeneration just... is actually a bit of a mistake?

They're just too self sufficient imo. This is especially irritating with air vehicles since they're difficult to properly target even without all of those counter measures.

On top of there being, in my opinion, just too many too often usually, even on normal vehicle spawn servers.

When a single tank rolls up to a checkpoint in BF4 it's entirely fine, for example, but I've had games where I was capturing a random point and 2 tanks and an LAV rolled up to it at the same point. And of course they all have infrared, probably also have motion sensors, AND can just straight up ignore a rocket every 25 seconds. ALL of them.

I've been Support with C4 or Engineer basically permanently lately in BF4, and 75% of the game seems to be Engineers no matter what server you're on.

I hope the new BF doesn't emulate that part (since it seems to be trying to be BF4 but MORE) but I'm pretty sure it will considering even the trailer is like "woo vehicle spam!"

Yami Fenrir fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Jun 17, 2021

Hot Diggity!
Apr 3, 2010

MEAN MUGGIN'




Perestroika posted:

I challenge anybody to find something more satisfying to do in BF than sneaking up on that rear end in a top hat tank who's killed you three times and kerblasting that sucker with some C4.

Blowing it up with C4 on a quad bike after you've been spotted by and shot at by the tank because you've been driving straight at it and honking non-stop.

SpartanIvy
May 18, 2007


Hair Elf

Hopper posted:

Yeah it was WW2, but maybe WW2 just isn't a good setting for a BF game if it limits the vehicle options due to "realism".
They should have gone with cyborg woman or whatever that was and gone full one alternate reality instead of giving in to "gamers".

When I first saw the trailer that all the "gamers" hated I was hoping it was going a parallel world approach and we'd get another Spider Tiger :spiderguy:



Would have been rad and refreshing

Eastbound Spider
Jan 2, 2011





Al-Saqr posted:

Itís almost like Bf1 was an inspired design for a setting and they went all out to make it wide, expansive and captivating while Bf5 was supremely boring in itís choices for locations and setting.

if someone told me that :dice: made bfv by accident i would belive them

psyman
Nov 1, 2008


Grimey Drawer

The vehicle entry and passenger animations in BF1/V added a lot to the immersion for me, but I think exit anims should be sped up or have a period of invincibility that runs the same length until the player is in control on-foot.

On that note the most elaborate animation would have to be the Heavy Bomber passenger transitions in BF1 which Iím really fond of despite how tedious they are. I hope more vehicles in 2042 have interiors which allow passengers to clamber around inside rather than being locked to a fixed gunner viewport. Just being able to look freely of the turret and see other players inside a tank or APC would be nice.

psyman fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jun 17, 2021

Nash
Jul 31, 2003

Sign my 'Bring Goldberg Back' Petition


I love both driving tanks and blowing them up. If I see an enemy tank something in my brain screams at me ďyou will blow that up, no matter how many lives it will takeĒ

Raskolnikov2089
Nov 3, 2006

Schizzy to the matic

Yami Fenrir posted:

Not sure why that's your first assumption but ok.

I was just saying that there's very little a gunner can mess up for you in a tank beyond alerting people. Unlike the driver tank. Or any driver/pilot, really.

So if an AI soldier could fill that slot, it'd be neat.

If a gunner is firing nonstop at a jet across the map, you are lit up on the minimap the entire time, making any kind of positioning moves you are trying to make completely pointless. That and they're hyperfocused on a far off pixel and not scanning nearby for a c4 surprise, so they're a lot worse than no gunner at all.

Al-Saqr posted:

Itís almost like Bf1 was an inspired design for a setting and they went all out to make it wide, expansive and captivating while Bf5 was supremely boring in itís choices for locations and setting.

"How about a WW2 game with battles no one cares about?"

Raskolnikov2089 fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jun 17, 2021

RCarr
Dec 24, 2007



I think 3D spotting is great and I will be sad if itís gone forever. Anything that makes me more powerful than 90% of the idiot pubbies who donít use the gameís mechanics is ok in my book.

Kibayasu
Mar 28, 2010



Raskolnikov2089 posted:

If a gunner is firing nonstop at a jet across the map, you are lit up on the minimap the entire time, making any kind of positioning moves you are trying to make completely pointless. That and they're hyperfocused on a far off pixel and not scanning nearby for a c4 surprise, so they're a lot worse than no gunner at all.

"How about a WW2 game with battles no one cares about?"

As if people cared about any of the battles in WWI. I donít think the battles the maps were based on had much if anything to do with the overall impression of BF5.

jisforjosh
Jun 6, 2006

"It's J is for...you know what? Fuck it, jizz it is"


RCarr posted:

I think 3D spotting is great and I will be sad if itís gone forever. Anything that makes me more powerful than 90% of the idiot pubbies who donít use the gameís mechanics is ok in my book.

I'm OK with 3D Spotting if it's a gadget/limited mechanic and not something all soldiers can do at all times

priznat
Jul 7, 2009

Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Itís not battlefield if I canít reflexively spam ďQĒ constantly.

Bohemian Nights
Jul 14, 2006

When I wake up,
I look into the mirror
I can see a clearer, vision
I should start living today

Clapping Larry

Kibayasu posted:

As if people cared about any of the battles in WWI. I donít think the battles the maps were based on had much if anything to do with the overall impression of BF5.

Yeah, making a good map has precious little to do with how historically significant the backdrop is. No-one would have been any more impressed with the inclusion of the battle of the bulge or iwo jima or el alamein or whatever if the map blew chunks anyway

If anything it should be easier to make a good map in terms of pure gameplay if people have no preconceived notions about the location. Narvik sucked because of awful map design by DICE, not because it was a battle that almost no-one had heard about

codo27
Apr 21, 2008



Eastbound Spider posted:

if someone told me that :dice: made bfv by accident i would belive them

Insert name here
Nov 10, 2009

Oh.
Oh Dear.
:ohdear:


Yami Fenrir posted:


When a single tank rolls up to a checkpoint in BF4 it's entirely fine, for example, but I've had games where I was capturing a random point and 2 tanks and an LAV rolled up to it at the same point. And of course they all have infrared, probably also have motion sensors, AND can just straight up ignore a rocket every 25 seconds. ALL of them.
I mean 2 tanks and 1 IFV is the majority of a team's armour for a lot of the maps so I'd be more surprised if they didn't take the point.

Aerith Gainthborough
Jan 9, 2009



All I want is a gimmick class that has a lot of annoying gadgets. I will pay full price if there is one.

Nothing is more fun to me than annoying the enemy team from a nice safe location.

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

Is it I that is insane... or the rest of the world?

Insert name here posted:

I mean 2 tanks and 1 IFV is the majority of a team's armour for a lot of the maps so I'd be more surprised if they didn't take the point.

Duh. It's still incredibly discouraging as an infantry player because you just can't properly deal with it even if you have a few engineer buddies. Rocket peekaboo doesn't work as well as it should because of infrared, they can ignore one or more rockets every 25 seconds and just gently caress off behind a hill or building or whatever to regenerate, not even needing an engineer.

You basically need your own armor, or better yet an air vehicle to have any chance of dealing with that, despite having a class that's supposed to be anti-vehicle. A lot of the gadgets Engineers have are countered by one tank upgrade or another

Like don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying vehicles are OP (well apart from jets but whatever), but they are definitely strong and too self sufficient to be that numerous.

I just think that seeing 50-75% of all people on the battlefield be engineers of one variety or another pretty much every game is kind of a symptom of an underlying problem. Like, if there's 4 classes, the spread should be at least somewhat even, right? Instead you'll have a billion engineers, with a rocket launcher as a mandatory gadget and a repair tool as another nearly mandatory gadget, because what kind of engineer can't repair right? It means that all of the other stuff engineers get largely fall by the wayside. I love little gadgets like the EOD bot but you don't see that little guy anymore, ever.

I just don't want to see the same thing happen in BF2042. Although if every single specialist really can equip rocket launchers we'll probably see even more of that.

Yami Fenrir fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 17, 2021

Raskolnikov2089
Nov 3, 2006

Schizzy to the matic

Im still not understanding why you think a squad of engineers should be able to no sweat defeat a squad of decent armor.

Armor is a force multiplier. To overcome a squad of it, you need more help from your team. This is not a bad thing, and is a key way Battlefield is meant to be played.

priznat
Jul 7, 2009

Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Aerith Gainthborough posted:

All I want is a gimmick class that has a lot of annoying gadgets. I will pay full price if there is one.

Nothing is more fun to me than annoying the enemy team from a nice safe location.

A small, fast, impossibly hard to hit drone that just flies overhead and plays one of a selection of tunes to irritate and confuse.

ďTiptoe through the tulipsĒ on blast

Orv
May 4, 2011


While I agree that a fully leveled and tricked out vehicle from the last few games has probably been too powerful on average, my complaint is mostly that random teammates just let someone go 50-2 in a vehicle and never help take care of the problem, which makes it aggravating. Vehicles overall are mostly fine or slightly overtuned.

FAUXTON
Jun 2, 2005

hope you're doing well


Raskolnikov2089 posted:

Im still not understanding why you think a squad of engineers should be able to no sweat defeat a squad of decent armor.

Armor is a force multiplier. To overcome a squad of it, you need more help from your team. This is not a bad thing, and is a key way Battlefield is meant to be played.

If it's 5 engineers vs 2 tanks you could just have the squad of engineers coordinate poo poo just a little bit and make sure they concentrate on one tank at a time with some spacing between their rockets so they don't get the damage stolen by netcode.

Like I think it's not really in dispute that a functional squad is gonna be pretty OP, but it's so rare that a squad functions as a unit that it doesn't end up being lopsided on average.

FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jun 17, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Alkydere
Jun 7, 2010
Capitol: A building or complex of buildings in which any legislature meets.
Capital: A city designated as a legislative seat by the government or some other authority, often the city in which the government is located; otherwise the most important city within a country or a subdivision of it.




Perestroika posted:

I challenge anybody to find something more satisfying to do in BF than sneaking up on that rear end in a top hat tank who's killed you three times and kerblasting that sucker with some C4.

Killing them in such a way one of their team members gets auto-kicked for teamkilling.

Eastbound Spider posted:

if someone told me that :dice: made bfv by accident i would belive them

EA "Make us a Battle Royale game."
:dice: "O...ohkay, our last one is still going strong but here's a Battlefield game we had the interns make over the weekend?"
EA "N-no...a Battle Royale not a Battle Field..."
:dice: "Oooooh! Um...what's that?"

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply