• Battlefield Franchise Megathread v4 "Black Panthers in ze Panzers" Edition
    999 replies, posted
You can tell that when turning tides came out they were just like "fuck it".
I have a feeling that BF1's dlc was super rushed so they could fulfill their promises and just work on V considering by late 2016 I think most people were finally starting to realize splitting the playerbase with paid dlc is a shit idea and were resisting against buying maps and shit a fair bit.
I'll believe that 'naked' weapons can compete with their upgraded equivalents when I see it. Upgrade balance was terrible in the beta for guns that were already really good like the STG, and the Suomi KP/31 was literally described as a gun that "underperforms [in its class] until later in its upgrade trees" in one of the official articles covering the beta's weapon selection. Whether that means it's a bad gun until you upgrade it or significantly better than its counterparts because you spent more coins on it, that's not an encouraging thing to hear about infantry weapons. The same problem still remains for tanks. The closest I got to certain choices being 'balanced' involved one choice's trade-off being that it's significantly less useful than its counterpart, or that the extra shells upgrade requires longer resupply times. Furthermore, if this is just going to work like BF4's upgrades where you trade handling characteristics, why does the tree need to function like this and why should people have to buy more than one copy of a gun instead of being allowed to save variant-style loadouts?
BFV still feeling rushed. The DEV updates feels like something that should be given as info 6 months ago, not now.
6 months ago is a bit of a stretch, I'd say they should've released more teasers leading up to Gamescom and E3 where the dry marketing really took its toll. The device diaries now don't feel too bad though.
iirc they have never done long in-depth dev videos like this before.
He isn't wrong though. Game is suppose to be about WW2 yet its missing 2 most important nations in the whole war right from the get-go. That is US and USSR. And he is right, why put in some random way older guns that were barely used in ww2, why didn't they just spend that time making only most important guns of ww2. Let the relics and less used guns just be in dlc. Not the other way around.
I highly disagree. I've been listening to the BF4 songs for the last few days and it directly inspired me to try to edit something cool based on the remaining footage I had for the game. Again and again as I was working in Premiere the songs never failed to pump me up. At one point, I was trying to think of ways I could push my video from beyond just being 'good' to something great and I finally figured it out: all the audio effects I was trying to add and the in-game sounds were superfluous. The footage is only meant to highlight and support the music. That's when I think I created something special. As a matter of fact I've been in the zone, editing for the past six hours. I'm SO excited to share it with you guys that I can't wait for a proper render so here's a WebM until I post it on YouTube. Battlefield 4: Network Noise https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/224422/016350b8-bcf4-4796-bcc7-3e20cf59bca6/Network Noise.webm I hope you guys like it. Feedback and criticism welcome.
Both of these factions joined the fight in 1941, BFV (at launch) takes place in 1940 during the invasion of the Low/Nordic Countries and France, the presence of the US and USSR would be pointless.
It takes place in 1940 but there's an MG42 in the game?
See this is the problem with attributing anything Dice are doing to historical continuity. They have already made it clear that isn't a priority, so people shouldn't be using it as an excuse.
A weapon affects gameplay, a faction doesn't so no it isn't comparable.
I agree with you and your post I quoted before (hence the rating), I just find it a bit funny.
Maybe the MG42 is in the game because Dice is being blatantly rushed out the ass to make this game and they don't actually care much about historical accuracy beyond the surface level right now because they're still trying to make the game not turn your computer into a bomb.
I've been trying to figure out what their rationale is behind how they're picking and choosing what is not in the game because of "Tides of War" and what's in the game because of gameplay reasons. I think the angle they're going for is that they want to get weapons/vehicles used by the factions that are currently in the game (Germany, UK), irrespective of time period. Even BF1942 paid no attention to when something was deployed either, so I'm willing to give them slack on that one. So for example, the reason you don't see an M1 Garand is because that's exclusively an American weapon, and will be added once the US is in the game. The Germans are in the game though, so you have early stuff like MP34 and Pz 38(t) next to new stuff like the StG-44 and Sturmtiger. The BF1 leftovers though are there because of money and time and for gameplay reasons need to fill out slots. Like the M1907 has no right I can't think of any other good reason, especially for the weirder limited run guns that were barely in WWI, and so have no place in WWII.
If that's the case then they should do away with tides of war. See the slippery slope now?
DICE has said before that their focus is on parts of the war that haven't been covered as extensively by media compared to, say, Normandy or Stalingrad. Maybe Russian content will come in a Tides of War drop. Personally I want a Pacific-centric game.
Fair enough, but I hope its varied enough. I'm disappointed that Narvik was UK vs Germany, rather than showcasing the Norwegians. It would had been a huge plus, and Norwegians can be proud to see their country inside. I don't want them to do it for the sake of doing it. Everyone loves a Obama map or Stalingrad because its massive, chaotic and fun
Ah Obama Beach, my favorite presidential battle of the war.
Weird that all we're getting at lauch then is england vs germany and nothing else lol
its just kinda weird that the M1 carbine, a unique american weapon, is in the game but the M1 Garand, THE american weapon, isnt.
The Garand not being in the game is fucking nonsense. ...Also it wasn't only used by the US either, Canada and the UK received a bunch before the US went in. Not tonnes mind you, but probably way more than some of the other weapons in the game, especially some prototype shit
porting over weapons from bf1 is just easier :]
So weird that they couln't include it, considering it was a MP weapon in BC2, yeah I know there was WW2 in SP but still
I can kinda see how porting over some BF1 weapons can be seen as lazy but like BC2, BF3, and BF4 had like mostly all the same weapons and no one is batting an eye. A few BF1 weapons are fine to me, as are some anachronisms.
Plus one of them is the Selbstlader 1916, which is just a fuckin cool gun.
I wonder if they'll go full goof and bring in the experimental types of weapons in the next big patch. Like for example, the 7.62 garand or the m50 reising
bitcoins
BattleBits. But seriously though did they even mention the premium currency actually being here during the beta/alpha? I don't think they did.
Dev confirmed it's currency related to Tides of War as it seems to have its own progression system independent of the base game.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.