Battlefield 4 Chat

MiskyBoyy

Sparks wrote: »

What did they get for all that? Fancy dogtags or a camo nobody will notice?

Reddit karma for solving it :P

MiskyBoyy

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

Phantom Initiate Password: 24344241893
Second pass code is 1

Posted the reddit link about it above.

The second password you can enter anything, gibberish even and it still says unlocked. It does nothing yet. That will be for the next Phantom program and will require a new password which they haven't invented yet

lahcen86

Just want to bring it to peoples attention, and gauge your response to the skill points that get stripped from your profile when you go idol.

Essentially, you can spend 4 games bringing up your skill level, only to have all that effort nullified in a single game if you go idol for long enough. I regularly have 23 odd points lopped of my score jsut from a single game if I for instance do not even spawn in once. Its so annoying. Obviously a quick fix would be to make sure you don't ever go idol but sometimes u do for whatever reason and the game ends quick...BOOM skill points deducted. For what ??? Its a load of bollox.

I don't think that skill comes into it at all if you do not even span into a ****ing game. Also, why do stats change if say for instance you join a round just as it ends ?! If I haven't played a second in a round how the **** does that go against my score ?!

Ok rant over.... I feel so much better now.

4Dlolz

I've kind of lost interest in the game at this point...

Dragons Teeth just isn't enough to hold my attention and to be fair I doubt anything would at this stage. I'm not complaining about the bugs like others have done - this is solely me and my preferences. I love Battlefield but I think I know enough about BF4 to give a solid opinion on it. Aside from the problems a lot of people have had - all else being equal - I enjoyed it. I think it was a good edition to the franchise but it could have been much better on the face of it.

*The Bad Company series maps were far better than anything BF4 could muster up IMO. Second Assault could have given us more than four maps (they were already designed and would of taken minimal work to port over). Even at that, Gulf of Oman is a BF2 map (not BF3) and Op. Firestorm was anything but a classic. Where was Seine Crossing, Grand Bazaar, even Damavand Peak for Rush seeing as BF4 forgot about that game mode entirely. Where were the BF3 weapons? An-94, crossbow etc? There was no rubble drop in BF4 at all which I thought was a step back.

*The DLC's left much to be desired. I enjoyed Naval Strike particularly Op. Mortar and Wakebreaker (both of which should have been Vanilla maps to highlight the new naval combat mechanics). I was hoping that a multi-billion dollar company could muster up the expertise to push the boundaries and include underwater scuba diver gun battles (which would be a first), as well as submarines, underwater flags, wrecks, sharks that bite you (like Far Cry 3), Destroyers, tank carrying hovercrafts (not those mickey mouse ones) - all of which modders provided from their basements back in the day for free.

*The CTE should have launched alongside the Vanilla to mould the game into a position where it could be the best it could be early on.

*Levolution was a marketing ploy. There are other games out there, specifically Split/Second Volecity (a racing game) that does better destruction (yes I know it's different) but still. CR had zero levolution and BF4 as a whole took a step back from BC2's destruction. Hell, even Red Faction from back in the day had a better go.....

*Hardline should have been a BF4 DLC. I would have happily handed over 25/30 for it but not 100 quid.

So yeah, at the end of the day I thought it was a good game. Hopefully, they can improve on it and make the battles larger going forward. Would be great to see 128 players in the future. I'm off to play something else now.

paul_booth_fan

lahcen86 wrote: »

Just want to bring it to peoples attention, and gauge your response to the skill points that get stripped from your profile when you go idol.

Essentially, you can spend 4 games bringing up your skill level, only to have all that effort nullified in a single game if you go idol for long enough. I regularly have 23 odd points lopped of my score jsut from a single game if I for instance do not even spawn in once. Its so annoying. Obviously a quick fix would be to make sure you don't ever go idol but sometimes u do for whatever reason and the game ends quick...BOOM skill points deducted. For what ??? Its a load of bollox.

I don't think that skill comes into it at all if you do not even span into a ****ing game. Also, why do stats change if say for instance you join a round just as it ends ?! If I haven't played a second in a round how the **** does that go against my score ?!

Ok rant over.... I feel so much better now.

The whole skill rating is ridiculous, personally I think it's broken. I seen a few different theories on how exactly they calculate it with varying results and accuracy. Whenever I play Rush for instance, you can guarantee my skill points will go up while Conquest can be very hit or miss. If I play Rush for a couple of sessions my skill could go up around 375-400, go back to Conquest and it'll eventually drop below 300.
I wouldn't even bother looking at it to be honest, the SPM is the only stat worth mentioning. Keep pushing the objectives and the rest takes care of itself

mozattack

4Dlolz wrote: »

I've kind of lost interest in the game at this point...

Dragons Teeth just isn't enough to hold my attention and to be fair I doubt anything would at this stage. I'm not complaining about the bugs like others have done - this is solely me and my preferences. I love Battlefield but I think I know enough about BF4 to give a solid opinion on it. Aside from the problems a lot of people have had - all else being equal - I enjoyed it. I think it was a good edition to the franchise but it could have been much better on the face of it.

*The Bad Company series maps were far better than anything BF4 could muster up IMO. Second Assault could have given us more than four maps (they were already designed and would of taken minimal work to port over). Even at that, Gulf of Oman is a BF2 map (not BF3) and Op. Firestorm was anything but a classic. Where was Seine Crossing, Grand Bazaar, even Damavand Peak for Rush seeing as BF4 forgot about that game mode entirely. Where were the BF3 weapons? An-94, crossbow etc? There was no rubble drop in BF4 at all which I thought was a step back.

*The DLC's left much to be desired. I enjoyed Naval Strike particularly Op. Mortar and Wakebreaker (both of which should have been Vanilla maps to highlight the new naval combat mechanics). I was hoping that a multi-billion dollar company could muster up the expertise to push the boundaries and include underwater scuba diver gun battles (which would be a first), as well as submarines, underwater flags, wrecks, sharks that bite you (like Far Cry 3), Destroyers, tank carrying hovercrafts (not those mickey mouse ones) - all of which modders provided from their basements back in the day for free.

*The CTE should have launched alongside the Vanilla to mould the game into a position where it could be the best it could be early on.

*Levolution was a marketing ploy. There are other games out there, specifically Split/Second Volecity (a racing game) that does better destruction (yes I know it's different) but still. CR had zero levolution and BF4 as a whole took a step back from BC2's destruction. Hell, even Red Faction from back in the day had a better go.....

*Hardline should have been a BF4 DLC. I would have happily handed over 25/30 for it but not 100 quid.

So yeah, at the end of the day I thought it was a good game. Hopefully, they can improve on it and make the battles larger going forward. Would be great to see 128 players in the future. I'm off to play something else now.

128 players would be pointless; either lead to maps double the sizes (and whats the point) and/or big clusterfecks. 64 is surely enough...

As for the BC2 love-in, nostalgia no? Also remember that was 12 v 12 so perhaps easier to create maps for, especially linking Rush to Conquest as they had the same number of players.

On the weapons; why do people need the old weapons once again, surely the million weapons we have is not anything but overkill already? I seriously dont get the AN94 and M16 love in - there are 4 classes and a doze of other guns to choose from?

Sparks

mozattack wrote: »

128 players would be pointless; either lead to maps double the sizes (and whats the point) and/or big clusterfecks. 64 is surely enough...

I was happily playing in a CTI game in Arma3 two days ago with over a hundred people in the map. Wasn't crowded, wasn't a clusterf*ck, tactics out the wazoo, was just awesome. BF4... just can't do that.

Doesn't help that you get games like last night's one, where 30 out of 32 players on one side in Locker surrounded the upper and lower entrances to C and stayed there shooting at the doors for 20 minutes straight ignoring the other team end-running behind them to B and A, ignoring the two on our team end-running towards E, and generally being clueless.

That's a major problem with this game. You go into (say) Arma3 as a singleton and yeah, you're heavily outclassed by communicating squads, but you still have a chance to pick off one or two before getting squashed; and the people playing tend to use comms more anyway so singletons are rarer. But in BF4? Forget it. You get one squad of four or five on either team who are using comms and the game becomes this incredibly lopsided pain in the backside to play, wildly unbalanced especially in hardcore. If you're going to design a game that way, then you have to seriously put effort into making teamwork easier; not just rewarding it heavily and hoping people take the hint. Instead, commander orders weren't easy to spot, there's so much visual clutter that any text-based information is overwhelmed, you can't set waypoints for your team on the map, the HUD's clutter and the onscreen map make it near impossible to keep track of your squad, you can't enforce squad respawning to keep squads in roughly one place on the map instead of being spread out all over with no ability to reinforce each other; and on and on and on.

I seriously dont get the AN94 and M16 love in

They were more effective than any of the other weapons in the game.

dreamers75

Sparks wrote: »

They were more effective than any of the other weapons in the game.

L85A2 is better, tbh i think its personal choice with assault rifles.

Sparks

dreamers75 wrote: »

L85A2 is better, tbh i think its personal choice with assault rifles.

Don't tell symthic.com that...

Tazzimus

dreamers75 wrote: »

L85A2 is better, tbh i think its personal choice with assault rifles.

My top gun, and I rarely play as assault.

Beastly.

4Dlolz

mozattack wrote: »

128 players would be pointless; either lead to maps double the sizes (and whats the point) and/or big clusterfecks. 64 is surely enough...

As for the BC2 love-in, nostalgia no? Also remember that was 12 v 12 so perhaps easier to create maps for, especially linking Rush to Conquest as they had the same number of players.

On the weapons; why do people need the old weapons once again, surely the million weapons we have is not anything but overkill already? I seriously dont get the AN94 and M16 love in - there are 4 classes and a doze of other guns to choose from?

The number of players should surely be our prerogative? Servers haven't got the option to increase player count so nobody knows the sweet spot with it being locked in to 64. I for one wouldn't mind bigger maps - larger battlegrounds and higher player numbers are the future anyway so why not reach for the sky and push the boundaries now? The only limitation is console hardware. Here is a game that does set-pieces better than Battlefield 4...

And here is a game from back in the day that does general environmental destruction better than BF4...

And why not push the gameplay boundaries with underwater gun fights?! If you've seen Ghosts single-player scuba diver mission then you'll have an idea what I'm talking about....making that multiplayer would be incredible.

A title like Battlefield should really be pushing the boundaries. They thought they could churn out a new BF every year ala COD but the beta bit them in the ass. It wasn't well received. The community at large does not want the same tired old re-hashed crap annually. And I think the penny has finally dropped.

miralize

If Dice are having trouble balancing maps for 64 people at a time, room for vehicles and mechanics to avoid player density in 10% of the map, how do you expect them to cope with 128+?? Not to mention the netcode issues that BF4 currently has.

Server costs would double with no real added benefit tbh...

DeWinterZero

BC2 was 32 player maximum on the PC, the levels were the same layout as Op Locker ie linear and Hardcore was necessary because otherwise the teleport knifers could knife you before you could drop them with most weapons. And let us not forget the LMG revive squads and the shotgun slug snipers.

These days the best part of Bad Company 2 is the single player. BF3 tops both it and BF4 in the multiplayer. Levolution is something they should drop and just devote more time to designing better maps.

128 player Arma works because to play the game you have to invest much more time. COD/BF4 randomers don't play simulators, they want quick, fun to play games. Besides DICE can't even design good maps for 64 players.

Suba fights work in single player COD but a slow motion multiplayer fps would be an entirely different game design to Battlefield.

dreamers75

Sparks wrote: »

Don't tell symthic.com that...

Best not tell the best Assault players in the world either, they seem to prefer other guns.

Guns in Bf are subjective to personal choice.

MiskyBoyy

For anyone who doesn't have BF4 (PC) you can now try it for free for 7 whole days with Origin's game time: https://www.origin.com/en-ie/news/battlefield-4-game-time-free?utm_campaign=bf-social-us-socom-fb-bf4gametimeannounceblogfb-prev-conv&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&sourceid=bf-social-us-socom-fb-bf4gametimeannounceblogfb-prev-conv&cid=23472&ts=1407433936941

jonski

dreamers75 wrote: »

Best not tell the best Assault players in the world either, they seem to prefer other guns.

Guns in Bf are subjective to personal choice.

agreed whole heartedly , for me as assault it's the Ace 23 , engineer Ace 52 and Support is M249 .

dreamers75

jonski wrote: »

agreed whole heartedly , for me as assault it's the Ace 23 , engineer Ace 52 and Support is M249 .

Bull****

Mtar for engineer and AWS for support.

lets check the stats site to see who is right.

mozattack

My point on the AN94 and M16 "love in" is not that I dont know they are good guns, it is just we have grown adults begging for their return to a game which has over a 100 guns. I find that a little sad really, like it will really make a difference.

My only gripe with the game at the moment is the limited servers we have on PS4 (and Xbox1 too probably), BF3 options were way better in the end. All we can play is the expansion packs or vanilla maps in the same order, same level of tickets and no mixing at all (ever) between Rush and CQ. It is rather dull

mozattack

I think there should be more incentive to using higher optics like the x4 scope on ARs, LMGs etc. At the moment is is actually a disadvantage even and mid range to someone using normal RDS because of the recoil adjustments needed.

For variety is use the x4 or x3.4 with some guns, T88, Sar21, some DMRS etc but Id like to see some real advantages to that set up over the normal RDS.

On another point, anyone ever use the M26 slug? I used it last night and it seems to only do 80-85 damage apart from one kill up close. It is crap, I mean real crap, not even "lets play around with it for a while" crap

Mad_Dave

When the visual recoil fixes get patched into the game 3.4x/4x scopes will become much more useful. Also, the Uniform Soldier Aiming option will allow you to switch from 4x to canted irons and retain the same sensitivity.

DeWinterZero

mozattack wrote: »

On another point, anyone ever use the M26 slug? I used it last night and it seems to only do 80-85 damage apart from one kill up close. It is crap, I mean real crap, not even "lets play around with it for a while" crap

They've to be careful with the power of slug rounds or there would be a return to BC2's slug snipers. I haven't used the slug just the M26 Dart. That can be fun for clearing narrow areas if you're accurate.

4Dlolz

Had a few mates over last night and they asked me to throw on BF4...

Jesus Christ.....those new Dragons Teeth maps are a pain in the hole to play.

The amount of cheating, glitching and general exploiting of the maps is sheer madness. All you have to do is sit on a quad bike, have a mate throw some C4 on the front and blow it up. It's sending cheaters up into the air where they parachute back down onto the top of, normally, inaccessible buildings.

All recons have to do then is throw down a spawn beacon and you have 4 snipers up there for the whole round picking off everything in site....it's almost unplayable particularly when you have whole squads parachuting down onto flags to recapture them within seconds.

I've seen it on Propaganda, Pearl Market and Lumphini Gardens - none of which have choppers.

If you have players getting out of the designated play area and using it to get the advantage then that's game breaking.

mozattack

4Dlolz wrote: »

Had a few mates over last night and they asked me to throw on BF4...

Jesus Christ.....those new Dragons Teeth maps are a pain in the hole to play.

The amount of cheating, glitching and general exploiting of the maps is sheer madness. All you have to do is sit on a quad bike, have a mate throw some C4 on the front and blow it up. It's sending cheaters up into the air where they parachute back down onto the top of, normally, inaccessible buildings.

All recons have to do then is throw down a spawn beacon and you have 4 snipers up there for the whole round picking off everything in site....it's almost unplayable particularly when you have whole squads parachuting down onto flags to recapture them within seconds.

I've seen it on Propaganda, Pearl Market and Lumphini Gardens - none of which have choppers.

If you have players getting out of the designated play area and using it to get the advantage then that's game breaking.

I have a lot of hours on DT and yet to see tha

EoghanIRL

I decimated 100 Percent xp event .
Using 200 percent from battle pack, I now have a spm of 980 something :P

mozattack

SPM is a ruined stat because of double XP weekends etc and battlepacks. Would really like to see the "true SPM" being shown, i.e. the one without double XP, purely out of interest [but even then it will usually just be locker/metro assault players beefing it up].

Ah well.

Spear

Since you'll all have seen the news of Robin Williams death, it seems appropriate to remind everyone he was a gamer and Battlefield player as well.

The Red

Spear wrote: »

Since you'll all have seen the news of Robin Williams death, it seems appropriate to remind everyone he was a gamer and Battlefield player as well.

Whhaffff_

paul_booth_fan

Spear wrote: »

Since you'll all have seen the news of Robin Williams death, it seems appropriate to remind everyone he was a gamer and Battlefield player as well.

Any man who calls his daughter Zelda will always be good in my books.

MiskyBoyy

Spear wrote: »

Since you'll all have seen the news of Robin Williams death, it seems appropriate to remind everyone he was a gamer and Battlefield player as well.

I did not know that! :eek:

He even named his daughter Zelda

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-freakstofamous/11/

Dayum

mozattack wrote: »

I have a lot of hours on DT and yet to see tha

Really?!?!

It's common practice at this point. I'm afraid I can't post links being a new user so you'll have to assemble this yourselves.

https
/www
.youtube.
com/
watch?v
=wG0tAjRK3nM