Battlefield Franchise Megathread V1 - 'Hardline is still DLC' Edition - Games

Why do I feel like everyone who complains about a weapon or vehicle in the game on battlelog forums is someone who TRIED to use that weapon in the same way they got dunked on, but [I]cant[/I], so they request / nag about a nerf?

The .44 magnum shouldn't do 50 damage at point blank range (BFH).. Like it would take you off the floor in real life

Open Battlelog, try to join a game, loading screen comes up, then crashes with "Battlefield 4 has stopped working" What do?

[QUOTE=Cabbage;49239062]The .44 magnum shouldn't do 50 damage at point blank range (BFH).. Like it would take you off the floor in real life[/QUOTE] If it's anything like BF4, it's balanced around being a one hit headshot.

[QUOTE=ashxu;49209114]the railgun pick-up in bf4 is awful, easily worst pick-up in the game. doesn't even do as much damage as normal AT weapons, has an insanely long reload, scope's zoom is way too long and can't even 1 hit kill soldiers.[/QUOTE] what. I just started playing BF4 for the first time in almost a year and thought the railgun was retarded powerful and a terrible addition to the game because I just sat at one point one shotting dudes at another point over and over. I was attacking and defending two different points hundreds of meters apart with a one shot kill explosive cannon and only succumbed to the enemy when they threw several snipers, two helicopters, and a jet to strafe my position. [QUOTE=StrawberryClock;49236111]Sometimes you need a good long break to get back into the swing of things.[/QUOTE] I took a long break (look above) and still have no idea how you are supposed to play Battlefield when no one else on your team wants to participate. The individual firefights over points is great fun but when you end an hour or two hour long session without winning a single match whats the point? I just got my internet hooked up and wanted to play a shooter with the group I usually play with. Since this year sucks ass for FPS games we elected to try Battlefield 4 because two of us still had it installed. Cue several matches of us playing Battlefield the traditional way: Our squad fighting and dying and holding a point, consistently outnumbered 2:1 or 3:1, only to eventually get wiped and see the spawn map covered in red squares with the other 28 people on our team forming a semi-circle around the point that they fumbled into out of spawn. After about two hours of this (we lost every game, crushingly) one friend straight uninstalled after having it installed since launch and the other said he is just going to stick with Hardline. What are you supposed to do in this scenario? Leave the server and hope the next one you join is balanced? Not play conquest? Switch teams, abandoning people who don't want to play but further destabilizing balance? It's a consistent problem I only experience with Battlefield. Obviously I lose in other competitive games and I'm perfectly okay with not being the guy winning all the time (personal performance is more important to me than victory, especially in cases where I can't even coordinate with my teammates) but I never have the feeling of powerlessness that a 2 hour session of Battlefield brings, which is the exact opposite of what I should feel when playing a video game. I vaguely considered buying Battlefront because even though it has received a lot of poor reviews for lack of content, I just want a newish game where I can load in and shoot people in the face but now there is no way in hell I'm paying money to possibly run into that frustration. I'll stick to the stack of singleplayer games I have to get through and hope that Battlefield 2016 is more enjoyable.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49250031]I took a long break (look above) and still have no idea how you are supposed to play Battlefield when no one else on your team wants to participate. The individual firefights over points is great fun but when you end an hour or two hour long session without winning a single match whats the point? I just got my internet hooked up and wanted to play a shooter with the group I usually play with. Since this year sucks ass for FPS games we elected to try Battlefield 4 because two of us still had it installed. Cue several matches of us playing Battlefield the traditional way: Our squad fighting and dying and holding a point, consistently outnumbered 2:1 or 3:1, only to eventually get wiped and see the spawn map covered in red squares with the other 28 people on our team forming a semi-circle around the point that they fumbled into out of spawn. After about two hours of this (we lost every game, crushingly) one friend straight uninstalled after having it installed since launch and the other said he is just going to stick with Hardline. What are you supposed to do in this scenario? Leave the server and hope the next one you join is balanced? Not play conquest? Switch teams, abandoning people who don't want to play but further destabilizing balance? It's a consistent problem I only experience with Battlefield. Obviously I lose in other competitive games and I'm perfectly okay with not being the guy winning all the time (personal performance is more important to me than victory, especially in cases where I can't even coordinate with my teammates) but I never have the feeling of powerlessness that a 2 hour session of Battlefield brings, which is the exact opposite of what I should feel when playing a video game. I vaguely considered buying Battlefront because even though it has received a lot of poor reviews for lack of content, I just want a newish game where I can load in and shoot people in the face but now there is no way in hell I'm paying money to possibly run into that frustration. I'll stick to the stack of singleplayer games I have to get through and hope that Battlefield 2016 is more enjoyable.[/QUOTE] You could try playing on a 32 man server. It's what I've been doing for the past year and I've been having much more fun with Battlefield since.

I don't think I ever play on servers with more than 48 players. The huge majority of BF4 maps are just way too small for 64 players and work better with 32-48 instead. [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] And for whatever reason I haven't seen blowout games in a while in BF4. I tend to be extremely careful about which servers I join, such as checking the scoreboard to make sure there isn't a huge 700 ticket discrepancy before I join. I also try to play on servers with ruthless autobalance and favorite those for future reference.

[QUOTE=Why485;49251828]I don't think I ever play on servers with more than 48 players. The huge majority of BF4 maps are just way too small for 64 players and work better with 32-48 instead. [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] And for whatever reason I haven't seen blowout games in a while in BF4. I tend to be extremely careful about which servers I join, such as checking the scoreboard to make sure there isn't a huge 700 ticket discrepancy before I join. I also try to play on servers with ruthless autobalance and favorite those for future reference.[/QUOTE] The blowouts are endemic to Battlefield games in general for me and the people I play with generally agree. You can catch bad losing streaks in any round based competitive game, whether it be down to poor teammates, poor personal performance, technical hiccups, or a combination of all three. But Battlefield is consistently the only game I play where if I join any general 48-64 player large conquest game I know there is a 90% chance it's going to be unbalanced. Total, 700 point blowouts? Not necessarily, but generally decisive victories anyway that become apparent 2 minutes into the game when you cap your point, kill a squad attacking you 1v4, die, and see the enemy team hold every point and your team having no vehicles to use. It's just frustrating regardless of how well I do. The guy who straight up rage uninstalled has even more impressive stats than me and last nights session was the straw that broke the camels back. It's like getting some people together for a pickup flag football game but half the people on your team just refuse to play. I might as well just go play a singleplayer game and shoot bots. I get what you mean about the map design though and it's something I picked up on as early as beta when we had to deal with 64 player Siege of Shanghai servers, and refusing to play Battlefield's flagship mode actually worked when I played BF3 solo. I just played TDM on the smaller maps in 16-24 player servers and generally had fun because unless the enemy team had a solid pair of killers and my team was just feeding, I could pull out a victory even if my team wasn't that great. I guess that's just the flaw of conquest though. I can't tell if it's a game design problem or a community problem. If you aren't seeing blown out games or experiencing the frustration of ending a 2 hour gaming session without being able to say you ever actually won a match then I envy you. For us this has been a noticeable problem since Battlefield 3 and really only seems to be getting worse with BF4 and Hardline.

Reason why I play on Conquest instead of Conquest Large is specifically because the lower number of assets makes it unlikely there will be a snowball effect as there can be in Conquest Large. It can still happen mind you, but even then it's rarely a crushing victory where we spawn camp for 2/3rd of the match. I've gotten many crazy comebacks from 32 player servers. [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] Also, you have much more of an influence on the direction of the match on 32 player servers. Especially if you bring a friend.

[QUOTE=Why485;49251828]I don't think I ever play on servers with more than 48 players. The huge majority of BF4 maps are just way too small for 64 players and work better with 32-48 instead. [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] And for whatever reason I haven't seen blowout games in a while in BF4. I tend to be extremely careful about which servers I join, such as checking the scoreboard to make sure there isn't a huge 700 ticket discrepancy before I join. I also try to play on servers with ruthless autobalance and favorite those for future reference.[/QUOTE] I don't understand this. BFH has much smaller maps and 64 players seems to work fine. Maybe because the cover is more dense?

I played competitive 12v12 yesterday. Best battlefield experience i've ever had. So tense. Too bad everyone is using the most filthy of tactics to kill another person (mbt law on inf for instance). I don't blame them, just expected everyone to hone their gunplay skills more i guess.

Why use gunplay when you can go support and just give yourself infinite explosions.

I decided to play whole match as a camper with gadgets. Surprisingly It worked pretty well. I didn't get much kills but a lot of Spot ribbons. It felt great to be this minor part of the team.

[QUOTE=LoNer1;49255149]I played competitive 12v12 yesterday. Best battlefield experience i've ever had. So tense. Too bad everyone is using the most filthy of tactics to kill another person (mbt law on inf for instance). I don't blame them, just expected everyone to hone their gunplay skills more i guess.[/QUOTE]Back in BF2 Anti-Tank was part of the meta for 5v5 infantry, because with excessive explosive damage to dead bodies they couldn't be revived anymore. If you killed someone with a direct SRAW or ERYX hit they couldn't be revived either.

I tried getting back into this recently but god damn I hate combined arms maps and I feel stupid for just playing locker over and over. The bigger maps are such a cluster fuck. Being infantry sucks since there's so many vehicles that will wreck your shit and so many snipers that get you half way across the map. Then you actually get your hands on a tank and die in 3 seconds, usually by some tank all the way across the map because he has heat vision. That or a jet. I feel like this wasn't as a big of a problem in 2142... well, air was OP in that too.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;49262684]I tried getting back into this recently but god damn I hate combined arms maps and I feel stupid for just playing locker over and over. The bigger maps are such a cluster fuck. Being infantry sucks since there's so many vehicles that will wreck your shit and so many snipers that get you half way across the map. Then you actually get your hands on a tank and die in 3 seconds, usually by some tank all the way across the map because he has heat vision. That or a jet. I feel like this wasn't as a big of a problem in 2142... well, air was OP in that too.[/QUOTE] It's the map design and vehicle counts. The maps are smaller than they traditionally were in 2142 or even BF3 (with some exceptions) but they kept the same amount of vehicles. Siege of Shanghai has roughly a quarter of the play area of the largest BF3 map but has the same amount of vehicles, substituting jets for an assault boat. [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] The DLC maps are much better balanced though.

I feel like the 2142 maps weren't that big. Like at all. But for some reason the gameplay was less aggravating.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49262830]It's the map design and vehicle counts. The maps are smaller than they traditionally were in 2142 or even BF3 (with some exceptions) but they kept the same amount of vehicles. Siege of Shanghai has roughly a quarter of the play area of the largest BF3 map but has the same amount of vehicles, substituting jets for an assault boat. [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] The DLC maps are much better balanced though.[/QUOTE] Were BF3 maps really that big? I can't even remember anymore.

There was that one DLC pack where the whole thing was it had the biggest maps in BF history [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] Armored Kill

[QUOTE=Wulfram;49264305]There was that one DLC pack where the whole thing was it had the biggest maps in BF history [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] Armored Kill[/QUOTE] Oh right, and it was total bullshit because once you were out of a tank you were dead.

Large maps isn't neccesairly better. Small maps with good design is better. Sharqi 16 master race.

Maps are more OKAY if its not on the server "fast vehicle spawn". It just ruins infantry gameplay. Maps like Propaganda , Hammerhead and Operation Outbreak plays well If its max 40 players.

Armored Kill wasn't tanks only. There was infi battle support, too. With 8 tanks on each side, it was quite mental, though. But loads of fun and good practise for jet pilots! (Too bad there would always be those 2 recons trying to snipe eachother from 6KM away)

Good thing they removed the marksman bonus last patch. I'm gonna miss it but it was necessary.

[I]Reading this back, it kind of turned into a rant about the current state of Battlefield and its community. It's not really directed at anybody here.[/I] I prefer large maps with good design. To me, if all you're going to do is play tiny infantry only maps then you're missing the point of a Battlefield game and should play something else. Even the more infantry focused maps in BF2 like Sharqi, Karkand, and Songhua were large maps that played well. Ignoring the grenade spam problem anyway, but that's a BF2 problem, not a map design problem. I hate to use the overused "just go play Call of Duty" meme because COD is ironically turning into Halo these days, but to me it really does seem like people who play Battlefield in tiny overcrowded infantry only maps want the Call of Duty experience but are too ashamed to say or recognize that they want COD. It's okay to like Call of Duty. There's nothing wrong with liking Call of Duty or games like it, just keep your COD out of my main series Battlefield. If I wanted COD (and sometimes I do!), I can just go play that. EA wanted the Call of Duty audience when they made Battlefield 3. They got it, and while I am glad that gunplay in BF4 is very good [I]because[/I] of that, I still think it overall did more harm than good. BF4 vanilla maps suffer from two problems. One is stuffing 64 players into maps clearly designed for 32, which is something I can rant on about at length because I hate the general gaming community belief that more = better. I was surprised that DICE stuck to their guns with Battlefront and pushed a smaller player count despite constant shitposting of "hurr no 64 players". No you retards, higher player counts isn't automatically better, especially if the game isn't designed for it. When you do that, you get fucking 64 player Metro or 32 player Shipment in COD4. It's stupid and counter-productive. The other problem with BF4 vanilla maps is that they put too many vehicles in too small a space. It was mentioned earlier in this thread, and I've said it before myself. Vehicles should be a powerful and relatively rare asset, and BF4 really overdoes it. I think it's a large part of the reason vehicles were so neutered in BF4 compared to previous games, and especially in BF2 which pushed it a [I]little[/I] too far in the opposite direction. They needed weaker tanks/IFVs because they were everywhere, and so you end up creating a cascade of problems that results in why vehicles became so disliked in the first place. It all started at somebody thinking it would be a good idea to put 6 armored vehicles into a very small space. And as a final addendum, I hate talking about BF2 as if it's this flawless masterpiece of game design, because it's really not and has its own set of very stupid problems. At the end of the day, no matter how much I rant about it, [B]Battlefield 4 is not a bad game[/B]. It's actually a very good one that at this point is amazing value for money, especially with everything DICE LA has done to it. It's just [I]different[/I] from what Battlefield used to be, and I miss that. In my head the ideal Battlefield game is something like BF4, but with the soul and design goals of BF2.

[QUOTE=Akasori;49264192]Were BF3 maps really that big? I can't even remember anymore.[/QUOTE] I might be exaggerating a bit but I'm also referring to actual play area. If you consider everything below the rooftops (not including C when it's standing) as play area the actual size is quite small for the amount of vehicles that are in it. Contrast it with something like Caspian or Golmud Railway and then consider that all three maps have roughly the same amount of vehicles (again, subtract 4 jets for an assault boat). I've had games of Shanghai where 11 of my 12 deaths are from tanks. If I hated fighting vehicles in a shooter I wouldn't buy and enjoy Battlefield every year, it's just the simple fact that BF4 maps are oversaturated. [QUOTE=Lizzrd;49264346]Large maps isn't neccesairly better. Small maps with good design is better. Sharqi 16 master race.[/QUOTE] Most fun time in a modern Battlefield game is 24 player Canals TDM and 32 player CTF. Sadly all the fanboys care about is numbers. Bigger maps, more vehicles, more players and gameplay quality be damned. [QUOTE=Why485;49265346][I]Reading this back, it kind of turned into a rant about the current state of Battlefield and its community. It's not really directed at anybody here.[/I] I prefer large maps with good design. To me, if all you're going to do is play tiny infantry only maps then you're missing the point of a Battlefield game and should play something else. Even the more infantry focused maps in BF2 like Sharqi, Karkand, and Songhua were large maps that played well. Ignoring the grenade spam problem anyway, but that's a BF2 problem, not a map design problem. I hate to use the overused "just go play Call of Duty" meme because COD is ironically turning into Halo these days, but to me it really does seem like people who play Battlefield in tiny overcrowded infantry only maps want the Call of Duty experience but are too ashamed to say or recognize that they want COD. It's okay to like Call of Duty. There's nothing wrong with liking Call of Duty or games like it, just keep your COD out of my main series Battlefield. If I wanted COD (and sometimes I do!), I can just go play that. EA wanted the Call of Duty audience when they made Battlefield 3. They got it, and while I am glad that gunplay in BF4 is very good [I]because[/I] of that, I still think it overall did more harm than good. BF4 vanilla maps suffer from two problems. One is stuffing 64 players into maps clearly designed for 32, which is something I can rant on about at length because I hate the general gaming community belief that more = better. I was surprised that DICE stuck to their guns with Battlefront and pushed a smaller player count despite constant shitposting of "hurr no 64 players". No you retards, higher player counts isn't automatically better, especially if the game isn't designed for it. When you do that, you get fucking 64 player Metro or 32 player Shipment in COD4. It's stupid and counter-productive. The other problem with BF4 vanilla maps is that they put too many vehicles in too small a space. It was mentioned earlier in this thread, and I've said it before myself. Vehicles should be a powerful and relatively rare asset, and BF4 really overdoes it. I think it's a large part of the reason vehicles were so neutered in BF4 compared to previous games, and especially in BF2 which pushed it a [I]little[/I] too far in the opposite direction. They needed weaker tanks/IFVs because they were everywhere, and so you end up creating a cascade of problems that results in why vehicles became so disliked in the first place. It all started at somebody thinking it would be a good idea to put 6 armored vehicles into a very small space. And as a final addendum, I hate talking about BF2 as if it's this flawless masterpiece of game design, because it's really not and has its own set of very stupid problems. At the end of the day, no matter how much I rant about it, [B]Battlefield 4 is not a bad game[/B]. It's actually a very good one that at this point is amazing value for money, especially with everything DICE LA has done to it. It's just [I]different[/I] from what Battlefield used to be, and I miss that. In my head the ideal Battlefield game is something like BF4, but with the soul and design goals of BF2.[/QUOTE] Basically what I'm trying to say but better put together. Agree on all points but particularly the end about Battlefield 4 not being a bad game. As much as I bitch about it, the only reason I do is because I'm still invested in the series. If I didn't like or care about the series anymore I'd stop playing about it and stop posting about it, like I did with Call of Duty.

I think it's okay if you just like the infantry combat in BF4. In my opinion, BF4 has a much superior gunplay to COD and even close quarter battles like in lockers feel much better than any Call of Duty I've ever played. I don't think it's fair to look down on people who just like to play infantry. [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] Also, coming back from TF2 makes me appreciate how good the netcode is in BF4.

I like to play infantry only maps/servers because sometimes I just get tired of the fuckers who spend thousands of hours in tanks and planes tearing shit up and no one on my team doing anything to kill them.

For vanilla maps, I think my favorites are Siege of Shanghai, Floodzone, and Rogue Transmission. Each of these maps balance armor and vehicles in relation to infantry very well in my opinion. Golmud is almost alright, but it really needs one or two less armored vehicles on either side. At least it has plenty of jeeps for infantry to stay mobile. With Siege, even though there is a lot of armor in a small space, the main roads and paths can be traversed and controlled by tanks with helicopters offering support from above, but most of the capture points have areas or sections that requires infantry combat to keep a definitive hold on. The verticallity helps give infantry a much higher level of survivability, and this is one of the few maps where transport helos are very useful. With Floodzone, The most exterior capture points can be taken and controlled by armor, but there's not much of either of these to over-saturate the playing field. The two light helos can also be used to help attack these points or to aid support in the close quarters middle section of the map with all the buildings. There's also APCs that can transport infantry do different areas within the bottom of the central area that can't wreak absolute havoc since everyone else is so high up. Rogue transmission feels like a proper battlefield map. There's a decent balance of vehicles while still offering plenty of areas for infantry to run around in. Lots of hilly landscaping plus a decent level of buildings helps the infantry stand a chance against the evenly spread vehicles. For Golmud, I feel like the map design itself is sound, but having like 4+ heavy armor and 1-2 types of every helo is a bit much. Also, I feel like light scout helicopters should just not exist all together. They mix attack and transport helos into a hybrid that's stupidly powerful, especially when you get an on-board engineer repairing constantly. AA eats them up, but they eat up all helicopters fast.

Finally picked up BF4 + Premium, I've only played the default maps so far, but I'm liking them a lot more than BF3, though I haven't played Locker or the dam map yet. I'm just glad no maps feel like they were designed for Rush rather than Conquest like a lot of BF3 maps did.