Battlefield General - Discuss the series here

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The Last Stand said:
What's in it for you if it does fail?
Click to expand...
It's not what's in it for me if it fails, it's what's in it for me if it wins.

If Battlefield 6 is successful but still sucks for Battlefield fans, it's gonna be less likely it will appeal to Battlefield fans because they will be pandering to other FPS gamers who jumped shipped from COD and others.
 
Any of the battlefield games on steam worth it despite all the bullshit?

I know about the kernel anti-cheat and community servers being run by party poopers who hate gamer words as well as EA being EA, but under 5$ for each game isn't going to make a difference in EA's checkbook. I played BFBC2, BF3, and BF1 religiously back in the day as well as some of BF4. I just want to know if it's worth it.

I tried to play Rainbow six 6: siege since I heard it went F2P a month or 2 ago and nearly vomited in my mouth when I saw the main menu interface. I'm on a twitch shooter itch.
 
Last edited:
Skill based matchmaking and no server browser...

1754258021253.webp


Billions must die.
 
Spit bucket said:
Skill based matchmaking and no server browser...

View attachment 7732902

Billions must die.
Click to expand...

SBMM is there to protect the normies and to let them think that they are actually good at the game and thus spend more money on Barney the dinosaur skins or whatever to impress other normies/bots.


And yes, normies are too fucking stupid to check/uncheck a box that says "Disable Ranked Play" and then complain why everyone is killing them all the time.


There's a reason why Team Deathmatch is the most popular mode on all of the Call of Dutys every time.

Normies are too retarded to figure out that you need to capture a flag to secure points.


I wish that the world was still a place where normies would get eaten by lions/trampled by elephants like the good old days but unfortunately they get to survive to ruin video games more and more with each passing second.
 
Last edited:
RandomGibberish said:
I wish that the world was still a place where normies would get eaten by lions/trampled by elephants like the good old days but unfortunately they get to survive to ruin video games more and more with each passing second.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the only reason why the gaming industry is slowly collapsing and/or somewhat getting better is because DEI/USAAID funding has ended and the average goyslop enjoyer is slowly getting priced out of new releases with Nintendo setting their games to 80$ as well as inflation effecting all forms of life.

The average person hasn't changed or woken up at all really. As long as they can get their cheap dopamine hit, they don't care if a product is made by people who hate them or see them as an economic unit.
 
Spit bucket said:
Skill based matchmaking and no server browser...

View attachment 7732902

Billions must die.
Click to expand...
Confirmed by an MP1st report and a tweet thread from a Battlefield producer.

Based on that information, we can infer the following: Conquest is more enjoyable with a full lobby of players, regardless of skill level, and therefore should prioritize matchmaking based on server fullness. It may then examine the player’s location and ping to ensure they can stay in the match and see it through to the end, with skill being the lowest factor in this example.

Now, if Battlefield adds ranked or modes more focused on the competitive side, skill might be the highest factor when it comes to matchmaking in that specific mode.

Again, this system should be similar, if not identical, to past Battlefield games. In that case, players worried about matchmaking in matches that always feel like a constant sweatfest, you can probably set those concerns aside.
Click to expand...

A server browser would be a perfect proven solution for optimal matches and player choice. Wouldn't SBMM be more expensive than self-regulated server browsers? I'm trying to figure out how matchmaking would work for large-scale multiplayer battles. Some people focus on objectives, some provide support, some run-and-gun, some may dogfight, all of that could happen in one match.

That's what makes Battlefield fun; those isolated skirmishes you may have where it has you adjust on the fly for whatever is thrown at you from a larger battle.
 
RandomGibberish said:
There's a reason why Team Deathmatch is the most popular mode on all of the Call of Dutys every time.

Normies are too retarded to figure out that you need to capture a flag to secure points.
Click to expand...

Although the point system doesn't reward playing the objective as much as it should to encourage objective play.
 
The Last Stand said:
Wouldn't SBMM be more expensive than self-regulated server browsers?
Click to expand...
It's been mentioned a few times, but to reiterate: It's less about development costs and more about manipulation. Skill-based matchmaking is there to keep bad players from ragequitting, happy players who play for long amounts of time are more likely to make ingame purchases. You throw them a few matches where they're likely to win and a few where they're likely to lose. If they get better their ranking is adjusted so they don't get rid of other bad players.
There used to be posts about 2042's matchmaking taking forever for top-tier nolifers, that's an example of the limitations.
 
I started with BF4 and I've always preferred BF over CoD. That said 6 isnt looking as shit as i thought it would be, gonna be casually optimistic. Also people who say X game is the Y killer are faggot and should go kill themselves.
 
WhoBusTank69 said:
Skill-based matchmaking is there to keep bad players from ragequitting, happy players who play for long amounts of time are more likely to make ingame purchases. You throw them a few matches where they're likely to win and a few where they're likely to lose. If they get better their ranking is adjusted so they don't get rid of other bad players.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the whole concept defeat its whole purpose since the bad players would outperform worse players, therefore the SBMM would just level them out against better players and vice versa? I would think you'd have to intentionally perform at an average level as best you could so that the SBMM could "level" itself to the median or something. I would think that's harder to achieve than being a natural outlier.
 
The Last Stand said:
Wouldn't the whole concept defeat its whole purpose since the bad players would outperform worse players, therefore the SBMM would just level them out against better players and vice versa? I would think you'd have to intentionally perform at an average level as best you could so that the SBMM could "level" itself to the median or something. I would think that's harder to achieve than being a natural outlier.
Click to expand...
Players on either side of the spectrum will never be catered to because the majority are high-average in skill. I don't know if DICE has been up to any shenanigans since BF1's catering to new players with a temporary damage increase until a certain rank but the intent is to draw them in and get them to buy things from the ingame shop like lootboxes, progression skips and most importantly customization options.
The actual gameplay doesn't matter in the big picture of keeping the majority satisfied and coming back because games are now products competing with other products.
 
My biggest issue with shit like SBMM is that it's another barrier to getting a match. These things are fine if the game is popular in a densely populated part of the world. Randomly clicking game modes and hoping you can get a match. Unsure if it is searching or there is nothing fucking sucks.

Joining a match to then be in an empty lobby. Or one with not enough to start a match. It all sucks.

With the current COD, I am pretty sure there SBMM system some how incorporates your connection. I assume it isn't intentional, but it factors into how they balance it. I'll have a few good rounds and then be in a round where the desync is so bad I can't do anything. It's just enemies appearing and I die. It isn't down to reaction times, skill or anything. The game literally becomes unplayable. I'll go from a 2k/d to a 0.4 one for a few rounds before back into a round where I slaughter everyone.

It's fucked up.
 
Last edited:
I bought BF4 and BF1 since the recent reviews aren't mixed like BF3's and BFV's are.

BF3's loadout system is tied to an ancient buggy server browser and BFV has launcher problems from the reviews I'm getting.

Don't know if they're worth it otherwise.

Edit: Apparently BFV isn't half bad nowadays but it's got problems.

1. The game has big open maps in an appeal to make it more milsim like but they were hated and have since gotten updated to better since launch.

2. The game can be buggy as shit sometimes.

3. Again in an effect to make it more milsim and slow, The team play is forced because the ammo and heal strain is elevated this time around, hurting battlefield's arcadey gameplay people love.

There's a reason BF4 and BF1 have higher playercounts despite being older games. The woke shit is a perfect indicator of the game's overall quality.

BF3,BF:H, and BFV are a no I guess then. I've heard hardline is great but no one plays it and the campaign is shit.
 
Last edited:
NeonFlux said:
I bought BF4 and BF1 since the recent reviews aren't mixed like BF3's and BFV's are.

BF3's loadout system is tied to an ancient buggy server browser and BFV has launcher problems from the reviews I'm getting.

Don't know if they're worth it otherwise.
Click to expand...
BF4 used to be tied to Battlelog, too, but they patched a really crappy menu onto it. It's not great and I remember having to edit my loadouts in a match.
 
I kind of don't mind the the lack of server browser outside of Portal. I was playing some BF1 over the weekend and it was a bit frustrating trying to get into a game. Conquest servers either had 0-2 players, or full with 6-10 people queued. If all the people queuing got into an empty server, would have had a game going instantly instead of having to wait 10+ minutes in queue. When I joined a domination server that had about 5 people in it, I thought it might not take long to get the minimum 10 players in to start the match. But it ended up taking at least 15 minutes to get the match started because people kept on leaving.
 
guiltyspark85 said:
or full with 6-10 people queued. If all the people queuing got into an empty server, would have had a game going instantly instead of having to wait 10+ minutes in queue
Click to expand...

Yeah, that shits me.

Worst is when you then join a queue. Finally get it. Then get kicked for a priority player a minute later.

With BF4 getting a bunch of new players, it's insane seeing multible servers with 20 people in queue and there's just empty servers sitting there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom