Battlefield 4 release date set for October 31, Commander Mode and Battlelog 2.0 spilled by retailer - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=simkas;40416974]So you admit the guns were broken, but that somehow made it better?[/QUOTE] It reduced the intensity and the clusterfucky-ness of the combat. Because of how ineffective the weapons were you could actually cross a street half the time without getting insta-killed by an enemy you had no chance of seeing or evading. This made tight squad-play rewarding because a single guy in a good vantage point couldn't actually wipe out an entire advancing squad.

[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;40416980]It does make it better. In Battlefield 3 the guns are crazy precise and you die instantly, but in Battlefield 2 you had to be careful with your shots. You had to shoot in bursts and make sure that you hit them or else you would get spotted. You would usually miss if you fired, so you were encouraged to try and fight as little as possible.[/QUOTE] No, it doesn't make it better, it just makes it more broken. A broken gameplay mechanic can't and doesn't make a game better. You can get used to it and you'll adapt to it, but don't then go and complain about how the next time is worse because it fixed what was broken.

[QUOTE=simkas;40417050]No, it doesn't make it better, it just makes it more broken. A broken gameplay mechanic can't and doesn't make a game better. You can get used to it and you'll adapt to it, but don't then go and complain about how the next time is worse because it fixed what was broken.[/QUOTE] So you prefer dying over and over again as soon as you spawn instead of precise aiming and careful planning?

[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;40417028] Also did you read what I said? I said that was the good thing about it because you died so easily and it discouraged you from blind firing. Although i'm just comparing it to Battlefield 3 where you die just as easily but everything is accurate as fuck. I much prefer the system in Bad Company 2 where everything is accurate but you die in like 12 hits. I'm just saying it's a lot better than dying as soon as you spawn.[/QUOTE] Yes and it's dumb. Enemy players aren't even bullet sponges because you're actually fighting the inaccurate weapons and the awful netcode. BF3 actually has a decent damage model. I don't know about you but I expect players to go down when I put a few rounds into them.

[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;40417028]I know I sound like the kind of guy who defends every bit of a game on a forum but really I never really encountered this in Battlefield 2 or 2142. I know I myself have thrown quite a few grenades, but I rarely see anyone doing it. I dunno, kind of weird. I just see people taking jets and bombing the fuck out of everything. [/QUOTE] Play a game of Strike at Karkand. Whenever I play/subject myself to BF2, every time Karkand goes up on the rotation it makes me cringe. It's basically BF2's social experiment at this point. What happens when you put 64 players in a small urban combat environment? [I]The become grenade spamming, ammo kit throwing, C4 jumping, dolphin diving animals[/I]. To put it dramatically.

The fact they're calling it "armchair general" makes me think that being the commander will somehow hinder one's ability as a normal soldier that would suck

[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;40417060]So you prefer dying over and over again as soon as you spawn instead of precise aiming and careful planning?[/QUOTE] No, because I don't die over and over again in BF3. And if dying over and over is caused by the fact that they fixed part of the game, let it be that, the problem then lies in something else, not in that they fixed something that was broken. Attitude like that is part of what keeps the game industry back, "no, we don't want you to fix broken gameplay mechanics, keep them broken because we're used to them being broken".

[QUOTE=RaxaHax;40417065]Play a game of Strike at Karkand. Whenever I play (or 'subject myself to' depending on how the game goes) BF2, every time Karkand goes up on the rotation it makes me cringe. It's basically BF2's social experiment at this point. What happens when you put 64 players in a small urban combat environment? [I]The become grenade spamming, ammo kit throwing, C4 jumping, dolphin diving animals[/I]. To put it dramatically.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I try to avoid Karkand because it's pretty much the map i'd expect in Call of Duty, a small map full of tight corridors and like no vehicles and heaps of machine guns. I've only actually played a match of it once with bots and it was the worst.

[QUOTE=SteveUK;40417061] BF3 actually has a decent damage model. I don't know about you but I expect players to go down when I put a few rounds into them.[/QUOTE] Group tactics and combined firepower to overcome inefficiency > Lone-wolf strength. [editline]25th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=RaxaHax;40417065]Play a game of Strike at Karkand. Whenever I play/subject myself to BF2, every time Karkand goes up on the rotation it makes me cringe. It's basically BF2's social experiment at this point. What happens when you put 64 players in a small urban combat environment? [I]The become grenade spamming, ammo kit throwing, C4 jumping, dolphin diving animals[/I]. To put it dramatically.[/QUOTE] Karkand is what pretty much every non-vehicle focused BF3 map is today. I'll admit though that 64-player Karkand without grenade restrictions was always pretty dumb, but just like in any online game one has to select servers carefully.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;40417071]The fact they're calling it "armchair general" makes me think that being the commander will somehow hinder one's ability as a normal soldier that would suck[/QUOTE] This is something almost every BF2 server enforced as a rule. [QUOTE=Im Crimson;40417077]Group tactics and combined firepower to overcome inefficiency > Lone-wolf strength.[/QUOTE] It looks like you made up a gameplay mechanic from a broken feature.

[QUOTE=simkas;40417073]No, because I don't die over and over again in BF3. And if dying over and over is caused by the fact that they fixed part of the game, let it be that, the problem then lies in something else, not in that they fixed something that was broken. Attitude like that is part of what keeps the game industry back, "no, we don't want you to fix broken gameplay mechanics, keep them broken because we're used to them being broken".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;40417028]Also did you read what I said? I said that was the good thing about it because you died so easily and it discouraged you from blind firing. Although i'm just comparing it to Battlefield 3 where you die just as easily but everything is accurate as fuck. I much prefer the system in Bad Company 2 where everything is accurate but you die in like 12 hits. I'm just saying it's a lot better than dying as soon as you spawn.[/QUOTE] [editline]25th April 2013[/editline] Wtf where's the edit button why can't I snip this.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;40417071]The fact they're calling it "armchair general" makes me think that being the commander will somehow hinder one's ability as a normal soldier that would suck[/QUOTE] No it wouldn't. If commanders could fight as well as command, they would get an incredibly unfair amount of xp points, and they would be a shit commander as they're not focused on it.

[QUOTE=Scotchair;40417107]No it wouldn't. If commanders could fight as well as command, they would get an incredibly unfair amount of xp points, and they would be a shit commander as they're not focused on it.[/QUOTE] Yeah and if they die they can't actually do anything commander-ey until they respawn. Fighting commanders are the worst.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;40417071]The fact they're calling it "armchair general" makes me think that being the commander will somehow hinder one's ability as a normal soldier that would suck[/QUOTE] I'd prefer if they did. 99% of regular players can't multi-task efficiently enough to simultaneously capture flags, kill enemies and work the commander chair. This was known in BF2 and commanders gained no points for personal captures or kills. This naturally depends heavily on what sort of abilities the BF4 commander will get - without commander spotting, for instance, there'd be a lot less for the commander to do. EDIT: Heh, commander spotting might qualify as another "broken feature" that became a typical game mechanic in the hands of players.

I wonder how they're gonna implement the commander mode. Even in BF2, there was a very low chance that the commander actually did something useful and about a similar chance that the players actually listened to the commander and didn't just go on their own. I wonder how they're gonna make players not just take the commander mode and waste it and how they're gonna make people follow the commander's orders. Extra XP if you do an action the commander gave you an order to do?

[QUOTE=simkas;40417149]I wonder how they're gonna implement the commander mode. Even in BF2, there was a very low chance that the commander actually did something useful and about a similar chance that the players actually listened to the commander and didn't just go on their own. I wonder how they're gonna make players not just take the commander mode and waste it and how they're gonna make people follow the commander's orders. Extra XP if you do an action the commander gave you an order to do?[/QUOTE] They already have the "<squad order> followed" bonus in BF3, so I'd guess they go down that path for commander orders too.

[QUOTE=simkas;40417149]I wonder how they're gonna implement the commander mode. Even in BF2, there was a very low chance that the commander actually did something useful and about a similar chance that the players actually listened to the commander and didn't just go on their own. I wonder how they're gonna make players not just take the commander mode and waste it and how they're gonna make people follow the commander's orders. Extra XP if you do an action the commander gave you an order to do?[/QUOTE] I hope they keep the ability to kick the commander, that was the best. Also the thing with assigning and highest rank gets the role was also pretty good, but I think they should also add the factor of who has the most teamwork points (if they still have that in bf4). That would mean that whoever has the most teamwork points and has the highest rank gets the role. That would be a lot better and stop people getting the role just because they bomb in jets all the time or they rocked the sniper rifle since the game was released. [editline]25th April 2013[/editline] But yeah, even though I seem like I'm going to immediately hate Battlefield 4, i'll give it a chance. I know atleast 3 friends who are getting it on PC and i'll try it out at their place or something. I dunno, I hope DICE can prove me wrong about this.

In PR the commander role was pretty much required to win a game. You have to communicate to all the squad leaders in their respective squads to where they need to go, where an attack is needed and where the enemy units were last spotted. If you've ever been in a serious PR game with a good commander, it tends to get very alpha romeo foxtrot oscar mike all over the LZ with lots of Tango and danger close in your area. Over.

[QUOTE=MendozaMan;40417240]In PR the commander role was pretty much required to win a game. You have to communicate to all the squad leaders in their respective squads to where they need to go, where an attack is needed and where the enemy units were last spotted. If you've ever been in a serious PR game with a good commander, it tends to get very alpha romeo foxtrot oscar mike all over the LZ with lots of Tango and danger close in your area. Over.[/QUOTE]Stay frosty alpha niner.

All this talk of BF2 v BC2 v BF3, but nobody has pointed out the obvious BF2142 was best

[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;40417597]All this talk of BF2 v BC2 v BF3, but nobody has pointed out the obvious BF2142 was best[/QUOTE] I don't mind people saying BF2 is better than BF3 because of entirely arbitrary reasons like map size, squad size, whether or not it has commander or not but I can't really grasp the idea that because BF2 has shitty hit detection, broken hitboxes, and tedious infantry movement that this somehow makes the Battlefield experience [I]better[/I]. Yeah, BF3 lets good single players mow down lots of guys. Is this not what a shooter is supposed to be? Implementing a shitty damage model to lower the skill curve for everyone is horrible design. [editline]25th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;40417060]So you prefer dying over and over again as soon as you spawn instead of precise aiming and careful planning?[/QUOTE] I don't die as soon as I spawn over and over again because I'm decent at the game. Maybe if you practiced in BF3 instead of just wishing it was a broken product like BF2 it wouldn't be as noticeable a problem.

I'll just wait for Battlefield 5 next year.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;40417071]The fact they're calling it "armchair general" makes me think that being the commander will somehow hinder one's ability as a normal soldier that would suck[/QUOTE] If commanders could fight you'd have some that would just run around only using the abilities when it benefits themselves, while ignoring the rest of the teams requests for help.

[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;40416930]A lot less blind fire like there is in Battlefield 3 (Battlefield 3 actually REWARDS blind fire)[/QUOTE] Suppressive fire is a real life tactic so it was interesting to see it included as a reward system, especially in a game that tries to appeal both realistic yet arcadey.

is it just me or the font and the color of it reminds me of black ops 2 somehow

And soon we will see " Preorder Battlefield 4 to gain access to Battlefield 5 Beta!" and "Tired of being able to play the game for only 5 hours a week? then go buy PREMIUM and have unlimited play time"!

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40417656]I don't mind people saying BF2 is better than BF3 because of entirely arbitrary reasons like map size, squad size, whether or not it has commander or not but I can't really grasp the idea that because BF2 has shitty hit detection, broken hitboxes, and tedious infantry movement that this somehow makes the Battlefield experience [I]better[/I]. Yeah, BF3 lets good single players mow down lots of guys. Is this not what a shooter is supposed to be? Implementing a shitty damage model to lower the skill curve for everyone is horrible design. [/QUOTE] Shooter game okay, but then forget about "emphasis on teamplay". "Arbitrary reasons" alright, you see, when I hear "sequel" I think about a sequel, a game that adds upon previous installments of the series. When everything good that made BF2 actually BF2 was degraded or outright taken out, I call spin-off. I give you one reason why BF3 was objectively better than BF2. It was a game, not a browser-run application. In-game server browser, main menu, actual working (and efficient) VoIP.

I want to be excited about this, maybe because I'm a huge FPS player. BF3 was kind of a letdown, but I got a good 84 hours out of (never bought Premium though, or any DLC). I might end up buying this, if only because I don't really want to play another Call of Duty again.

Alright so do I get my money I spent of BF3 back, because this is essentially what it was cracked up to be? :suicide:

Oh boy I can't wait to put down 100 euro's for DLC, err I mean BATTLEFIELD 4!!!!! WOOO FUCK YEHA