How is this even possible. Gameplay is worst then BF4

[Enclosure]

HOW?!

[jeffpmaxs6]

Автор сообщения: Turbo Nozomix

Автор сообщения: jeffpmaxs6

BF2 was great, but you lost me at BF4 recovered. lol. It played well, but is when it went noob friendly and casual.

I find that strange, because Battlefield went noob and casual friendly with the Bad Company games, when DICE switched from PC development to console development, and doubled-down on that approach with Battlefield 3, which was an ultra-casualized take on the main Battlefield series, before backing-off a bit back from targeting casual players with Battlefield 4, which has a lot more gameplay complexity than Bf3.

Could you explain how you see Battlefield 4 as targeting casuals and newbies more than Battlefield 3?

Battlefield 4 is Battlefield 3, with a large ton of added features making the gameplay more complex, and richer and more varied maps. Bf4 even had Bf3's most popular maps in it - but they were far from Bf4's best maps. Bf4's launch maps were mostly mediocre (but still better than Bf3's launch maps), while its best maps came in the China Rising and Final Stand DLCs, as well as the remake of Battlefield 2's Dragon Valley, and that one 'community designed' map.

Bf4 also had more server customization controls, which could drastically change the skill level of the game. And both Bf3 and Bf4 had online hardcore mode, which did basically the exact-same things to the gameplay in both games:

https://battlefield.fandom.com/wiki/Hardcore#Changes_2

So, you could play Bf3's most popular maps with Bf3-style settings in Bf4. You'd just have Bf4's much more expansive loadout options available.

The way I see it a lot of new players came into BF3 and got destroyed by better players. People complain about snipers and air and hit the forums crying and bringing a Christmas list of things they wanted added to counter. BF4 was water down for noobs to compete with better players. And BF4 is when they started nurfing the game under people’s feet. I use to be able to aim the sniper rifle in 2 seconds to take a shot, but after they were done nurfing it there were times I couldn’t even steady the scope on targets sitting still at flags. It’s like the game was protecting the players by either explosions going off near me or suppression even though no one was shooting at me. As soon as the target started running away I was able to aim. : / Sniping became a lot of work and time consuming, not being able to steady. The jets were useless, ground launchers you could lock on and hit targets you couldn’t even see. Going over buildings and hills to hit a tank just coming out of the base. Fun for noobs.

BF4 put the wall up in Casper Border to hinder the snipers game and make it more run gun. BF1-V followed with chock point maps.

[jeffpmaxs6]

Does 2042 use EOMM? I been playing 64p and it seems we either dominate or get dominated and when the tides turn there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. Fun when winning, but when losing it’s like I die from one bullet, die before they even fire or die from a few bullets at distance. Typical BF when players see you first and shoot half a clip in ya, before you even see them.

[TexArcane]

Автор сообщения: jeffpmaxs6

Does 2042 use EOMM? I been playing 64p and it seems we either dominate or get dominated and when the tides turn there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. Fun when winning, but when losing it’s like I die from one bullet, die before they even fire or die from a few bullets at distance. Typical BF when players see you first and shoot half a clip in ya, before you even see them.

I'm convinced it has Dynamic Hit Registration. I started noticing it when S6 began. The low level players clearly take longer to kill and will one pop you from all sorts of places. I assume they're going to have it in the new game as well. It's no where near as bad as COD but it's still there.

[PEPE OSEPE]

Автор сообщения: PRAET0R1AN™

Автор сообщения: Enclosure

Yeah bro,. But there's a 10 year gap between both games. Its unreal how bad gaming is right now.

BF4 is considered by the vast majority of the community as "peak battlefield" in terms of gameplay, movement mechanics, Balance, gunplay and so on.

I'm not sure if you've seen the videos about the EA earnings call recently but the next battlefield game is going to be "heavily inspired" by BF3 and BF4.

2042 was something new for the dev team to try, but it ultimately was unsuccessful when compared to previous entries.

Servers are lagging, crashing always, game used to be the most bugged one in gaming history, it's still full of bugs right now. I know, EA (DICE) already worked on 2042 a lot, but the current state should be the beta or initial release game and not 3 years later. I can guarantee, that the next part will be not better, as you can see, they still didn't learn from it. Battlefield will remain unsuccessfully until EA will be replaced or restructured.

[jeffpmaxs6]

Автор сообщения: TexArcane

Автор сообщения: jeffpmaxs6

Does 2042 use EOMM? I been playing 64p and it seems we either dominate or get dominated and when the tides turn there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. Fun when winning, but when losing it’s like I die from one bullet, die before they even fire or die from a few bullets at distance. Typical BF when players see you first and shoot half a clip in ya, before you even see them.

I'm convinced it has Dynamic Hit Registration. I started noticing it when S6 began. The low level players clearly take longer to kill and will one pop you from all sorts of places. I assume they're going to have it in the new game as well. It's no where near as bad as COD but it's still there.

Yeah I need a lot of bullets to kill someone and I die to only a few, unless I’m sniping. Some maps don’t help with all the cover and places for peeps to camp. Games seem mostly one sided and short. The old maps are better, because peeps don’t pop out from no where and you can see them.

[-Jackel-]

Clown..

[FullTrackFox]

Автор сообщения: jeffpmaxs6

I say BF3 was peak. I played BF2, but missed BC, but later played BC2 after going backwards from BF1-V. BF4 was when BF went casual and if that wasn’t bad enough, the nail in the coffin was changing and nurfing the game mid way when players cried about something. BF4 I think had better graphics and play over BF3, but BF4 is when they water the game down in name of balance and made it a joke compared to BF3. A lot of times BF3 denied me simple kills and was a joke too. Some BF’s need a little fine tuning to run well and smooth, so after that is reach they all play good too me. Though the game doesn’t always respond the way it should, sometimes in your favor and other times not. I don’t take gaming that serious, because sometimes the game does what it wants.

backwards at 1? lol 1 is best.

[v^v^v^v^√\/]

Автор сообщения: Turbo Nozomix

Автор сообщения: v^v^v^v^√\/

No, it's not.
BF3 is the top.
BF4 is where it all started to go down hill.
Bad maps, except Shanghai.
Bad jets.
Bad weapons, were good at start, but they nerfed them to the sh.t a year after release.

No, Battlefield 3 was a huge nosedive for the series and one of its worst, most simplified entries, while Battlefield 4 is where the series recovered in quality in gameplay, and with much better maps...

Lol. It's your opinion, I'm fine with you having it.
But to me, it looks like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Not gonna argue about it, though. Because we definitely have opposite tastes and I don't argue about tastes.

[jeffpmaxs6]

Автор сообщения: FullTrackFox

Автор сообщения: jeffpmaxs6

I say BF3 was peak. I played BF2, but missed BC, but later played BC2 after going backwards from BF1-V. BF4 was when BF went casual and if that wasn’t bad enough, the nail in the coffin was changing and nurfing the game mid way when players cried about something. BF4 I think had better graphics and play over BF3, but BF4 is when they water the game down in name of balance and made it a joke compared to BF3. A lot of times BF3 denied me simple kills and was a joke too. Some BF’s need a little fine tuning to run well and smooth, so after that is reach they all play good too me. Though the game doesn’t always respond the way it should, sometimes in your favor and other times not. I don’t take gaming that serious, because sometimes the game does what it wants.

backwards at 1? lol 1 is best.

No BF1 didn’t go backwards, I went backwards playing older BFs. I actually have been playing BF1 and agree it’s currently one of the best BF. BF3-4 are still good, but seen better days. I only started playing 2042, because I spilled pop on my kb and reset my BF1 keys. I got a new kb, but was too lazy to set my keys up, so I played 2042. It’s been fun when we dominated, but BS when we get dominated, like there is EOMM or lag controlling the out come. So I’ll be going back to BF1-3.

BF3 maps were better then BF4. Almost like dev played the game and new what they were doing, then it all became about money.

[v^v^v^v^√\/]

Автор сообщения: jeffpmaxs6

BF3 maps were better then BF4. Almost like dev played the game and new what they were doing, then it all became about money.

As far as I remember, all people who were developing maps left after creating Shanghai map for BF4. Not gonna provide any proof though because this is from my memory of that period, and I'm too lazy to google it now.
So Shanghai was indeed almost the only map I played from BF4, I had Premium Edition of the game, so that wasn't a problem. The problem was most other maps were just not interesting to play. In a way, how BF2042 maps are not interesting.

[Jez]

imfo about 2042 maps DICE threw in the first bunch of useless AI generated maps and finally decided that players wern't happy and so took a keen look at them and eventually agreed to remaster them, the rest of the game was probably AI generated too apart from Spider Man obviously, so does Mackay still today have the most skins in the shop then ?

[taxi83]

Stop living in the past mate.
I also loved BF4 but im loving 2042 too, its just different, if it was the same as BF4 then you would complain because they charged you money for the same game

[jeffpmaxs6]

Автор сообщения: v^v^v^v^√\/

Автор сообщения: jeffpmaxs6

BF3 maps were better then BF4. Almost like dev played the game and new what they were doing, then it all became about money.

As far as I remember, all people who were developing maps left after creating Shanghai map for BF4. Not gonna provide any proof though because this is from my memory of that period, and I'm too lazy to google it now.
So Shanghai was indeed almost the only map I played from BF4, I had Premium Edition of the game, so that wasn't a problem. The problem was most other maps were just not interesting to play. In a way, how BF2042 maps are not interesting.

BF3 I played mostly Operation Firestorm and Caspian Border. But, starting with 1942 and BF2 the maps seem simple, but worked. But, BF4 it seems like they started listening to all the criers from BF3 and started changing the maps to suit more run and gun. Like the wall in Caspian Border. But, the bigger change was trying to balance the game and nurfing it to death thru out its life. I was use to buying finish games on CD’s, not games still in process and not stop changing and nurfing. BF4 is like when they let the user predict what was in the game and nurf anything people cried about. So BF was finished too me after BF3 when they started doing that. Or at least a game not worth full value, since what you buy can be different what you get after nurfs. I think there more worried about catering to console and trying to use graphics to lure in PC user. And the simple maps and what made BF great being the least priority.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Автор сообщения: v^v^v^v^√\/

Автор сообщения: Turbo Nozomix

No, Battlefield 3 was a huge nosedive for the series and one of its worst, most simplified entries, while Battlefield 4 is where the series recovered in quality in gameplay, and with much better maps...

Lol. It's your opinion, I'm fine with you having it.
But to me, it looks like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Not gonna argue about it, though. Because we definitely have opposite tastes and I don't argue about tastes.

Being able to precisely identity the reasons for a belief generally indicates the opposite of not having an idea of what one is talking about. There's only one of us who has been able to do that, and it isn't you.

Автор сообщения: v^v^v^v^√\/

As far as I remember, all people who were developing maps left after creating Shanghai map for BF4. Not gonna provide any proof though because this is from my memory of that period, and I'm too lazy to google it now.
So Shanghai was indeed almost the only map I played from BF4, I had Premium Edition of the game, so that wasn't a problem. The problem was most other maps were just not interesting to play. In a way, how BF2042 maps are not interesting.

That's weird, because Battlefield 4's map quality got a lot better in (some of) its DLC (some DLC maps were bad - the naval map DLC particularly come to mind). Shanghai is a great map, but it isn't better than many of Bf4's. Shanghai and Dawnbreaker are probably the only two really good launch maps in Bf4 - my favourite being Dawnbreaker. Unlike Bf3, Bf4 had a good number of great maps to play, and you can see the player-base agree with that if you look at play which servers were running which maps, and how many players they had. Battlefield 3's maps in Bf4 didn't have a special following compared to others, and Bf3's own player-base disappeared ages ago, with barely 3 - 5 dozen ingame for the longest time, while Battlefield 4 continued to thrive, and is still going stronger than Bf1.

[Turbo Nozomix]

Автор сообщения: jeffpmaxs6

BF3 I played mostly Operation Firestorm and Caspian Border. But, starting with 1942 and BF2 the maps seem simple, but worked. But, BF4 it seems like they started listening to all the criers from BF3 and started changing the maps to suit more run and gun.

That's actually again kind-of the opposite of what happened. Battlefield 3 focused on a run-and-run, lone wolf gameplay design. The legacy player base was extremely vocal and critical about this on the EA DICE UK forums that were eventually shut-down by EA due to them being overwhelmed with negative criticism towards Battlefield 3.

The accusations that DICE had killed strategic and team-oriented play in Battlefield 3 to cater to casual console players were explicit and widespread. In Battlefield 3, the squad size was capped at four, instead of Battlefield 2's six. There was no Commander role to guide the team to play in an organized manner. The commo rose was a simplified version on PC, and was completely removed in the console versions of the game. All this discouraged playing as a team and turned the game into a mess of run-and-gunning lone wolfs, playing basically team deathmatch.

Again, this was something the classic Battlefield fanbase was very vocal and angry about towards the developers on the DICE UK forums.

And then DICE addressed some of these criticisms in Battlefield 4, by increasing the squad size to 5, bringing back the Commander role, and improving the commo rose and adding it to the console versions.

I wouldn't say that Battlefield 4 did as much as it should have to shift the focus back towards squad play, as it was in Battlefield 2. DICE were still targeting casual console players as their main audience, and players who started the series with the Bad Company games (and the whole purpose of the BC games was to simplify the Battlefield formula, to target casual console players). But Battlefield 4 took the focus off lone-wolf gameplay a bit and restored squad and team controls and mechanics, leading to a somewhat more organized play experience. However, the damage from DICE's disregard for team play in Bf3 had a lasting effect and people came into Bf4 feeling that style of play was normal for the series.