Battlefield Franchise Megathread V2 - 'The Future of Warfare Is in the Past' Edition - Games

idk why he refused to aim with the c96 carbine every single time. It seems like you can hold your own alright with it if you land every shot, and he kept deciding to hipfire. some of the waiting for stuff to spawn I attribute to him wanting to try out stuff just to see it though.

[QUOTE=Wulfram;50912833]idk why he refused to aim with the c96 carbine every single time. It seems like you can hold your own alright with it if you land every shot, and he kept deciding to hipfire. some of the waiting for stuff to spawn I attribute to him wanting to try out stuff just to see it though.[/QUOTE] I can totally understand the horse fetish, especially when commentators mentioned on stream that they've never seen a sword kill while mounted. But the other stuff, I just don't understand... it's not like LevelCap was invited to play the game for the first time. And the kw+mouse being awkward doesn't mean anything to me, since they played a couple of rounds before the livestream anywho, plenty of time to adjust. Whatever, the livestream was the main 'menu' of the day for me, seeing stuff flying around, explosions everywhere, horse hype. Can't wait for the insider public beta, I need to 'stick' dynamite to horses somehow :D

Sik tr1cksh0tz with the AT rifle in this video, looks really fun to blast airplanes out of the sky with it. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukOhgCy182w[/media] Extended flamethrower gameplay from jackfrags as well as some sentry stuff and some interesting areas of the map like the upper cliff areas around the narrow canyon flag. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukD671w6_H0[/media]

I really hope DICE won't listen to levelcap's wishes for bf1, he has no single clue what he is talking about.

So does the beta start today for the "insider" members?

[QUOTE=HoliestCow;50923704]So does the beta start today for the "insider" members?[/QUOTE] No. Insiders get it only a day earlier than normal.

[QUOTE=ulvemann43;50923627]I really hope DICE won't listen to levelcap's wishes for bf1, he has no single clue what he is talking about.[/QUOTE] I am dumbfounded that he made a 10 minute video complaining about people being rewarded and incentivized to capture points in conquest, and just how much emphasis he puts on being at the top of the scoreboard. He wants to engineer a point system where he will always be at the top of the score board. Battlefield is a [B]team[/B] game. The point is for your team to win the match. Watching that video it has me wondering if games would be better if they hid the scoreboard entirely and just made it about whether or not your team won. It's incredible how influential the scoreboard and its distribution is on how people perceive and play your game.

Maybe it wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't unlocks and such but it's too late for that now. I get where Levelcap is coming from though. If you're like any other competitive gamer you're gonna want to maximize your score per match and try to find the optimal way to do so. Now, if a lot of choices are equivalent it just means you can have more variety of gameplay without scarifying your score per minute but with conquest as it is gonna be in BF1 you're incentivized to cap as much as possible while avoiding fighting as much as possible. So basically ghost capping in an armored car is the most efficient way to get points.

[QUOTE=Why485;50924140]...He wants to engineer a point system where he will always be at the top of the score board...[/QUOTE] You can actually see, after 20 minutes spent in a tank capturing and holding some points, he was first on the scoreboard. The point system needs to better impact and appeal to infantry. Right now, stack at least one medium/heavy armored vehicle and spam the clunky points, while leaving the open environment ones for snipers and infantry. Within 5 minutes, you can destroy most buildings surrounding a certain point, but struggle with 'natural' environment, such as points protected by giant rocks, pits, crevases. Anyway, I enjoyed the feedback of some other streamers who released footage about the Gamescom event, but I still don't understand what's the content they're not allowed to release atm. NDA and all, I guess it's some sort of exclusive gameplay that shows stuff that didn't appear in the livestream?

Not all of his feedback was dumb, but it's the direction he seems to be pushing, and the reasoning behind [I]why[/I] he wants to change what he wants to change that irks me. Like I've said before, he's a closet Call of Duty player in the sense that those games are small scale infantry focused deathmatch like environments where how well [I]you're[/I] doing is what's emphasized and most important. Almost everything he suggests comes from that line of thinking. Ever since BF4 started winding down, that's the direction he was pushing for the next Battlefield game to be and it really showed how he thinks and approaches first person shooters. I don't want to decry that style of play, because there's nothing wrong with that, but that's not the kind of game Battlefield should be. Battlefield should be about combined arms team play to (in Conquest's case) capture and hold more points than your enemy. It's not about killing or high scores. It's about your team winning the match.

I like levelcap but hearing him say that the changes will cause everyone to fight on the flags and go for flags and play the objective then try to explain why this is a problem is silly. I also like how "advanced conquest tactics" are more or less waiting off the point and getting sick frags on people running in while your dumbass teammates put themselves in all the danger. Though he is right about the "If you kill 3 people, die, and your team secures the point you don't get dick" thing. I hadn't thought about it before but yeah it does kinda fuck first responders who might get 300-400 points out of actually securing the point but lose out on 1000+ that the dudes who waltzed in after you got.

There's nothing that pisses me off more as a conquest player than getting on a flag first, killing 3 enemies, getting to 90% cap and then being killed and missing out on the huge cap bonus.

[QUOTE=Why485;50924601]Not all of his feedback was dumb, but it's the direction he seems to be pushing, and the reasoning behind [I]why[/I] he wants to change what he wants to change that irks me. Like I've said before, he's a closet Call of Duty player in the sense that those games are small scale infantry focused deathmatch like environments where how well [I]you're[/I] doing is what's emphasized and most important. Almost everything he suggests comes from that line of thinking. Ever since BF4 started winding down, that's the direction he was pushing for the next Battlefield game to be and it really showed how he thinks and approaches first person shooters. I don't want to decry that style of play, because there's nothing wrong with that, but that's not the kind of game Battlefield should be. Battlefield should be about combined arms team play to (in Conquest's case) capture and hold more points than your enemy. It's not about killing or high scores. It's about your team winning the match.[/QUOTE] And he goes on and on about tanks being OP. It's like he never once played the closed beta, which i know he did. Tanks are weak. Really, really weak. Have one guy decide he wants a tank dead, and that tank will be dead, period. [QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50924723]There's nothing that pisses me off more as a conquest player than getting on a flag first, killing 3 enemies, getting to 90% cap and then being killed and missing out on the huge cap bonus.[/QUOTE] Planetside 2 has a neat system for that, if you die in a base and it is captured while you are dead, you will get the base cap bonus anyways.

[QUOTE=ulvemann43;50924892]And he goes on and on about tanks being OP. It's like he never once played the closed beta, which i know he did. Tanks are weak. Really, really weak. Have one guy decide he wants a tank dead, and that tank will be dead, period. Planetside 2 has a neat system for that, if you die in a base and it is captured while you are dead, you will get the base cap bonus anyways.[/QUOTE] Planetside 2 has shit reward for playing the objective, you're always better off destroying vehicles or killing infantry.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50924919]Planetside 2 has shit reward for playing the objective, you're always better off destroying vehicles or killing infantry.[/QUOTE] Yes, and i wasn't saying the point system as a whole, i was saying how it treats dying before a cap.

[QUOTE=ulvemann43;50924979]Yes, and i wasn't saying the point system as a whole, i was saying how it treats dying before a cap.[/QUOTE] I suppose, I barely pay attention to when I get points for capping since its always so little.

Battlefield needs a fixed cap progression like Project Reality has if it wants to be truly focused. Otherwise it really will just be people sprinting from objective to objective now, taking potshots along the way, objectives being lost as soon as they're gained as your team vacates the area and the enemy team immediately fills the gap. The Sinai Desert layout is really poorly thought out. There's very little reason why more than a few people would ever go to the southern objective, I imagine it will end up being captured by lone wolves more times than not while everyone just focuses on the super dense cluster of objectives in the north.

Defense kills should give a shit ton of points. That way it gives players a reason to take and hold a point instead of taking one and moving on only to come back and take it again later.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50925219]I suppose, I barely pay attention to when I get points for capping since its always so little.[/QUOTE] Not in bf1, stand on that point for 2 seconds and you already passed 150 points, from what i remember.

[QUOTE=Wulfram;50925831]Defense kills should give a shit ton of points. That way it gives players a reason to take and hold a point instead of taking one and moving on only to come back and take it again later.[/QUOTE] You should get a passive point amount, the more flags your team holds the higher the amount and its multiplied by like 1.5x if you're on a flag. [editline]22nd August 2016[/editline] You should get a bonus for defensive kills, yes, but the emphasis should be on holding as many flags as possible not just holding ANY flag.

[QUOTE=simkas;50923711]No. Insiders get it only a day earlier than normal.[/QUOTE] ...w..why fucking bother?

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;50930083]...w..why fucking bother?[/QUOTE] I guess it is some way to give -everyone- who signed up a reason to feel like they got something from it, not only the ones chosen for the closed beta.

[QUOTE=ulvemann43;50930287]I guess it is some way to give -everyone- who signed up a reason to feel like they got something from it, not only the ones chosen for the closed beta.[/QUOTE] But only 1 day. Really? You can just wait another day to get it anyway.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;50930083]...w..why fucking bother?[/QUOTE] because it will take me a day to download it

ok what do you turncoats think you're doing [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zmuNKDg.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=RB33;50930809]But only 1 day. Really? You can just wait another day to get it anyway.[/QUOTE] Only 1 day early feels like an insult, especially for those who signed up months ago when it was first mentioned. It should have been 3 days at the very least.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50933276]ok what do you turncoats think you're doing [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zmuNKDg.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I didn't get all the meaningless accolades I was promised

u came in too late fam

Some BF1 Premium news [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqnYiwFWEAAD2Zn.jpg[/IMG] France and Russia confirmed, free map Giant's Shadow available in Dec 2016.

They're ALREADY talking about Premium? The beta's not even out yet fuck me