Battlefield 1 general discussion

Ctrl Alt Delete

thurlesdrunk wrote: »

Not sure if I like the sound of the Hero/Elite classes. Sounds a bit too like Battlefront to my liking. I will keep an open mind until beta comes along though. Rest of the game shaping up nicely but this could be a turn off if done wrong.
In the clips I have seen of these classes they actually look underpowered if anything so we will see.

Agree I'm not liking this it's Battlefield not Battlefront. If those Hero's are like the Hero's in Battlefront and they can make crap of a normal soldier it will be rubbish.

Like I said earlier in this thread the closed alpha was the closest thing I played to BF2 since BF2 and it felt like a battlefield game and had no issues at all and everything was beautifully balanced.

My only concern was how they would alter the alpha in the beta and final game and ruin it. I REALLY hope that don't but looks like they are on course to do just that.

Noxin

Not usually one for reaction videos but seriously.... 13 seconds in had me in absolute tears.

https://twitter.com/Battlefield/status/766379197640179713

Korvanica

Any word on a commander mode for BF1?

SolvableKnave

Noxin wrote: »

Not usually one for reaction videos but seriously.... 13 seconds in had me in absolute tears.

Bulletproof face. Brilliant. :D:D

paul_booth_fan

The only thing the BF1 Elite class seems to have in common with the Battlefront Hero system is that it's a pick up. The LMG guy has extra armour alright, but he was still taken out with a single anti tank grenade in the stream. The Flamethrower is devastating up close, but horrible at anything resembling mid range. The specialist Anti Tank looks like a normal soldier, just that he does insane levels of damage.
They can get into vehicles and move about the map as well, so that'll be interesting. None of them seem to have crazy high levels of health or anything, so I don't think they'll be going through an entire team or clearing a flag by themselves. They definitely won't be bullet sponges like in Battlefront.

TerrorFirmer

I never had any issues with BF4, I was playing since launch and the frame-drops, lag, disconnects, crashes to desktop and almost every other problems that were reported by some people, I can hand on heart say I really didn't experience much of it at all. It definitely wasn't a completely 'broken' game for me. If the game was that universally bad for everyone, it would have tanked.

It's definitely not trolling to say that for some people the BF4 launch was actually fine.

paul_booth_fan

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It's definitely not trolling to say that for some people the BF4 launch was actually fine.

By the same token, for some people, Nazi Germany circa 1943 was fine too.

I'm delighted that some enjoyed the launch, but for the overwhelming majority, it was indeed broke on launch. So broken in fact, that DLC had to be pushed back in order to work on the net code. The game was a widespread joke on launch, so to try say that the release was superb(even compared to the beta) would imply such an illogical avoidance of YouTube, forums, and other players opinions, that I struggle to believe it.
DICE LA are the reason BF4 didn't tank, not the game itself.

Considering Westie is pretty much their best buddy these days, the fact he came out and said this 2 months after release is a good indication of just how bad it was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pN-zpxrOE0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMyliIAdwz8

Compared to the other guys on PS4, I got away very very lightly, and I was still infuriated at times. Don't get me started on that ****ing Naval Strike crap, I stayed away for about 3 weeks when that came out it was so broken.

paul_booth_fan

Just to keep the thread on topic, due to the problems at release for BF3, BF4 and even :pac: Hardline :pac:, there's no way Battlefield 1 will launch poorly. They learned their lessons and I can't see EA forcing an early release this time round. Battlefront launched pretty well I seem to remember, can't see them going backwards at this stage.

MiskyBoyy

The Alpha was very good anyway so I have high hopes.

dunworth1

paul_booth_fan wrote:

Just to keep the thread on topic, due to the problems at release for BF3, BF4 and even Hardline , there's no way Battlefield 1 will launch poorly. They learned their lessons and I can't see EA forcing an early release this time round. Battlefront launched pretty well I seem to remember, can't see them going backwards at this stage.

I thought the bf3 launch was ok?

iLikeWaffles

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

By the same token, for some people, Nazi Germany circa 1943 was fine too.

A little extreme to compare a game launch to the worst atrocity of modern times.




Moving on..........

paul_booth_fan

dunworth1 wrote: »

I thought the bf3 launch was ok?

Nope.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/26/battlefield-3-suffers-severe-launch-issues-players-outraged/

BlitzKrieg

dunworth1 wrote: »

I thought the bf3 launch was ok?

ehh

*shrug*

it had issues, no where near the level of BF4 which was an absolute trainwreck

but the bf3 beta had a tonne of issues and a fair bit crossed over into the initial release


difference between bf3 and 4 I'd say is bf3 was pretty much back on track by the time the close quarters hit. BF4 didnt really get its sh*t together til they did the CTE

though the big takeaway I took from bf3 was the pointlessness of the beta, it was I think a week before launch so none of the countless issues found got fixed by the time of release.


I'll give credit the bf1 beta is much earlier (not as early as hardline though) so hopefully it means it will more likely see a better spread of bugfixes on release.

BlitzKrieg

If you want you can see beta impressions of the previous battlefield games as they were on the forum at the time, with all the glorious hype machine surronding it:

Battlefield 3 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056403444

Battlefield 4: I honestly cant find the bf 4 beta thread...I thought we had one? anyway there is beta impressions give from page 12 onwards here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056967340&page=12

battlefield hardline: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057227096


honestly I actually feel like reinstalling BF3 after reading some of those threads...

paul_booth_fan

iLikeWaffles wrote: »

A little extreme to compare a game launch to the worst atrocity of modern times.




Moving on..........

Meh, a little extreme to call the BF4 release 'superb' just because you didn't happen to suffer like 90+% of the community.

iLikeWaffles

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

Meh, a little extreme to call the BF4 release 'superb' just because you didn't happen to suffer like 90+% of the community.

There you go the 10% I happen to be in has an different opinion than you. Live with it with it and stop crying about it.

paul_booth_fan

iLikeWaffles wrote: »

There you go the 10% I happen to be in has an different opinion than you. Live with it with it and stop crying about it.

Who's crying? You stated your opinion and I stated mine........a debate ensued........in a public forum......shocking, I know, mine just happens to be in the majority. The overwhelming conscious is that the BF4 launch was horrible, from the casuals to the high level 'pros', from players new to the franchise to the veterans. The BF4 launch did a lot of damage to DICEs credibility and until the implementation of the CTE, the future was definitely in doubt.

iLikeWaffles

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

Who's crying? You stated your opinion and I stated mine........a debate ensued........in a public forum......shocking, I know, mine just happens to be in the majority. The overwhelming conscious is that the BF4 launch was horrible, from the casuals to the high level 'pros', from players new to the franchise to the veterans. The BF4 launch did a lot of damage to DICEs credibility and until the implementation of the CTE, the future was definitely in doubt.

Still crying. Its really not healthy to dwell on such things so trivial is it.

paul_booth_fan

iLikeWaffles wrote: »

Still crying. Its really not healthy to dwell on such things so trivial is it.

I know right, tell that to the Jews.

I'm actually busy playing Battlefield now so I'm gonna go cry into my headset :pac:

paul_booth_fan

Quick video on the Elites, pros and cons etc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fsg-ahUuGM

thurlesdrunk

paul_booth_fan wrote:

Quick video on the Elites, pros and cons etc:

As westie says time will tell. We will hopefully see how it works in beta.

XtraFalcon

In terms of the Elite classes compared to Battlefront heroes, there's a massive difference.

In the footage you can see his health get chipped away gradually without much lemming activity from the enemy team.

The openness of the map also helps since hip-fire, range and reload time are now an issue for all the elite classes.

Whereas in Battlefront, all the heros are faster and stronger than an average solider and can take multiple "Soviet charges" from players to try and take one down, and in some modes they can walk behind your spawn area and I assume you can tell how bad that will end.

I see the Elite Classes as a vehicle of sorts, when used right they can be effective if given to the guy who weighs himself for fun; not so much.

My only concern if how they are distributed. If they are in a static place at the start of a match then more than likely most (if not all) will run straight to that area to try and get an early advantage avoiding flags/objectives as they go. This can be seen in Battlefront when one of the Hero pick-ups becomes available, it's not uncommon to see a guy pop a personal shield and then run into enemy soldiers to try and get the card. (If you activate a personal shield in Battlefront, you cannot shoot or be shot you can only kill/be killed via melee attacks)

SharpCoder

Battle..front....field...argghh..

TerrorFirmer

Not wild on this idea, it seems to me like Battlefield is starting to take a leaf out of COD's book, when it started to gradually shift from modern warfare into the gimmicky, sci-fi, hybrid shooter it is now over the course of a few titles. But I suppose we'll see when it's released.

I sort of wish they'd just made Battlefield 1944, they seem so determined to make it a fantasy version of WWI that I don't entirely understand why they chose that time period.

XtraFalcon

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I sort of wish they'd just made Battlefield 1944, they seem so determined to make it a fantasy version of WWI that I don't entirely understand why they chose that time period.

Well World War 2 has been picked apart to death from game designers including the two biggest being Call of Duty and Medal of Honour over the years, so if Battlefield did that, it might seem like they were repeating themselves, albeit on a newer engine.

But World War 1 isn't a very well touched era by bigger titles so it has a lot more potential to work with.

Before Battlefield 1 was announced, there were tonnes of people asking for either a World War 1 or Vietnam era game in videos on Youtube predictions of the next game and news about DICE "Working on a new Battlefield" with a smaller band asking for Bad Company 3.

Also there would be no point in them doing Sci-Fi as Titanfall already leans heavily on that area and that would be 2 Sci-Fi games on the same market from the same parent company within a week of release of each other.

Just my opinion.

paul_booth_fan

Looks like a bit of teamwork and concentrated fire can drop the Elites very quickly. They can also be killed with a bayonet charge or single melee hit from behind. The horses look like fun to be honest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukD671w6_H0

paul_booth_fan

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

I know right, tell that to the........

What? Too soon??

Anyway, on topic. Some more info about the upcoming beta, weapons and game modes etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CRYvcxyTBo

XtraFalcon

Elite classes can ride horses.

paul_booth_fan

I'm cautiously optimistic about Rush. The fact the defenders can use the Telegraph pole or whatever it is to call in Artillery seems to make it a legitimate target rather than a generic MCom tucked away in a building lobby. Player count restrictions I'm a little bit more hesitant about though, the pros and cons are pretty balanced.

XtraFalcon

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

I'm cautiously optimistic about Rush. The fact the defenders can use the Telegraph pole or whatever it is to call in Artillery seems to make it a legitimate target rather than a generic MCom tucked away in a building lobby. Player count restrictions I'm a little bit more hesitant about though, the pros and cons are pretty balanced.

Video was just removed by the user but from the video we can see

• Six sets of telegraph-poles on Sinai Desert.
• The ruins are used on rush.
• No beeping noise, but a bell ringing when the mcom is armed.
• 400 points for destroying an mcom.
• The attackers have a time limit.