Battlefield General - Discuss the series here

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • 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
This quote from back in the BF3 days, as well the response to the current state of BF2042, makes that statement seem even more true:

View attachment 2736002

It's as if new DICE tried too hard to appeal to a bigger audience, namely the players that haven't played the previous Battlefield games, and what they did ended up alienating a lot of the actual BF fans.
Oh DannyonPC, such a cuck, surprised he's not simping out the ass for this game.
 
There's stories going around that DICE Sweden has been completely overrun by SJWs and BFV was just the beginning. There were some bad Glassdoor reviews of DICE Sweden that suggest the company is being co-opted.

With this, looks like all the good people have left.
Every big EA studio is overrun by SJWs, it's part of the agenda created by Laura Miele at EA. Each character and story has to be checked by Miele and her office to make sure that it's inclusive, diverse etc. and the same applies to the studios.
 
Bigger maps and more players per server create bigger problems.

Take a look at Zipper's MAG for an example. 256 players in a given game. While technically impressive especially for a PS3 title, it brought with it technical problems. Out of sync servers, spawn killing, player imbalance. That is not fun.

The opposite problem can exist as well. If not enough players are in a game, games can turn into running simulators. It'd be several seconds without even spotting another player. No real engagement, just camp or get the first shot.

I think Battlefield's sweet spot is 64 players with capable hardware. The maps have to reflect that range, otherwise they turn cramped or bloated with empty space.
 
I sure hope he explained that to his wife's daughter.

I think 64 really is as far as it should be pushed. I'd even say that 48 players works better for a lot of maps. I learned this when I was an 24 hour Op Locker Fag some years back. The 64 map becomes an absolute cluster fuck, but with 48 players, it actually became possible to break the grid lock and flanking attempts are not as easily shut down.

In a situation like that, your efforts at back capping, attacking, and hunting a specific vehicle player can actually pay off.

The bigger you make the player count, the smaller effect any individual good player can have. Unless said individual is a good attack heli pilot accompanied by a competent gunner. Then the entire game is shut down. 300-500 combined kills with 0-2 deaths. GGWP.

And I don't think a bigger map is a good solution. Look at what happens in Golmud Railway. It's effectively 2 separate games happening in one map. Any bigger than that and it becomes harder and harder to actually affect the outcome of the game and people are gonna care less and less about bothering to push for a back cap or something.
player numbers aren't the problem, modes and map design are. namely none of the locker problems existed in hardline's locker/metro because it was properly designed with enough routes and flanking options to hardly have a gridlock in the first place. just look how people play locker in the first place, you have the big zerg circlejerking around C, while completely ignoring the outside meaning at some poine someone will ninja all the way back to the spawn or bumrush the backline for some easy kills (if you just chill in the back with an lmg you can farm enormous amounts of salt because watching flanks is apparently "camping").
same for bigger maps. why? because dice' conquest design is absolute ass and has been been for years. or look at it this way, none of this was an issue in 1942/bf2 because maps and modes supported the flow with those player numbers. there's a reason people cite bf1 operations as one of the best modes every released (similar to when 32p rush came out in bc2 because it defined frontlines again, however has it own problem due to static placement. hardline's heist was a nice spin on that trying to diminish those issues).

The opposite problem can exist as well. If not enough players are in a game, games can turn into running simulators. It'd be several seconds without even spotting another player. No real engagement, just camp or get the first shot.

I think Battlefield's sweet spot is 64 players with capable hardware. The maps have to reflect that range, otherwise they turn cramped or bloated with empty space.
bf3 had 128 players on modded beta servers and was fine. again, it's a map and mode issue. big open field (2042) will be ass just like doing 128p rush.

also if you're that ADHD that you can't go seconds without spotting another play why not play fucking cod which is the whole point of that type of gameplay? not that battlefield can't support that just fine like bf3's close quarters dlc showed, but if you design any mode and map around OMG I WANNA PUSH BUTTON AND SHOT, DIE, RINSE REPEAT!!!!1 you'll end up with exactly the shit that is modern battlefield or battlefront.

for the zoomers out there joint ops had 150 player servers 17 years ago.
 
Last edited:
m9ncbxps2y081.jpg

EA and DICE are already doing damage control, and saying that BF2042's issues will be fixed. Given how quickly they gave up on BFV, it's more like wishful thinking that the issues will be fixed, and I can see BF2042 being abandoned sooner.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 2738373

EA and DICE are already doing damage control, and saying that BF2042's issues will be fixed. Given how quickly they gave up on BFV, it's more like wishful thinking that the issues will be fixed, and I can see BF2042 being abandoned sooner.
Given the issues the game already has, both buggy and fundamental, I doubt they'll keep to their live service plans.

I fully expect the first season to have content delays amidst them trying to unfuck the game, especially if they listen to the backlash and gut the specialist system in favor of making a Battlefield title (fat chance when they dug their heels in with that disastrous TTK update that killed BFV, DICE is both incompetent and arrogant as hell).

Hell, they might be better off writing the main game off and focusing on making Portal the star of the show.
 
Given the issues the game already has, both buggy and fundamental, I doubt they'll keep to their live service plans.

I fully expect the first season to have content delays amidst them trying to unfuck the game, especially if they listen to the backlash and gut the specialist system in favor of making a Battlefield title (fat chance when they dug their heels in with that disastrous TTK update that killed BFV, DICE is both incompetent and arrogant as hell).

Hell, they might be better off writing the main game off and focusing on making Portal the star of the show.
it will get updates a year or so, then production on the next game starts and the old one will be dropped. gotta have those suckers pay for gold editions every 1-2 years.
 
Played it on the PS4 for a while and it seems fine to me. Only been playing Conquest and though I'd like to at least try out the game with 128 players, the current size is alright. The most noticeable problems I've seen were being unable to revive people when they die on slopes, stairs or against walls sometimes, and some heavy texture popping at the menu before you start a game. Everyone looks like a blow-up doll before it fixes itself, it's strange.

The post-game victory screen where the top 3 players show up to make their snarky remarks really exposes how big of a problem the Specialist system is in "characterisation" though. Should have made a bunch of skins and characters for people to choose from and let people customize their lines and such. This feels like a step backward even from BF3 a decade ago.

I hope they go all-out in listening to feedback and fixing the game to be more like what people want, but I'm cynical after being repeatedly burned by bad devs across a variety of games.
 
So, is DICE about to go the way of Westwood? Get Tanged/LCL'ed into the collective of EA with BF just another dead franchise? That'll be sad, but then again, I haven't played a BF game in years.
 
So, is DICE about to go the way of Westwood? Get Tanged/LCL'ed into the collective of EA with BF just another dead franchise? That'll be sad, but then again, I haven't played a BF game in years.

That also reminds me of how the original Maxis Studio got killed off, after the SimCity 2013 disaster. Although Maxis still technically exists in the form of The Sims Studio, despite it being made as a separate studio, solely for development of The Sims games.
 
I love how 2042 is so bad, it makes V look great in comparison. And V has lingering issues. I take it Battlefield or DICE is dying.
 
Since I've got the demo/10h-trial, I've played a couple of matches in the Portal mode, what's with the bullets hitting everything but the target in ADS? I had a thompson and was aiming at the guy in front of me but it didn't seem to deal any damage and I ended up killed with a headshot.
 
Since I've got the demo/10h-trial, I've played a couple of matches in the Portal mode, what's with the bullets hitting everything but the target in ADS? I had a thompson and was aiming at the guy in front of me but it didn't seem to deal any damage and I ended up killed with a headshot.

I'm speculating, but to me it seems like they just farmed out to some studio or some department to make the assets for Portal. Then someone else to turn them into a game. Classes, mode settings, gun balance etc. Which was just never dproperly done beyond making the modes functional.

I've mainly played around in BC2. There is no gun balance. Some guns do nothing. Others are overpowered.
 
Here's an article about DICE's toxic work environment, and EA showing it's $$$-self again, in regards to how BF2042 turned out. Given the part where employees can't even make constructive criticism, because of not wanting to "hurt employee feelings", it's no wonder why the old DICE devs left the company, leaving them with inexperienced and soft devs instead.

I7mllfx.jpeg


Since I've got the demo/10h-trial, I've played a couple of matches in the Portal mode, what's with the bullets hitting everything but the target in ADS? I had a thompson and was aiming at the guy in front of me but it didn't seem to deal any damage and I ended up killed with a headshot.

It appears that it's a glitch where ADS firing after sprinting will cause bullets to go off in extreme directions. The devs have acknowledged this bug, and will be planning to fix it, but when the fix will happen is another story.
 
Last edited:
How do you even miss something like that in a first person shooter?

They had an extra year and killed off two of their games early, and they can't even get the shooting to function well?
It's like everything else in the California tech scene: they either fired, harrassed, or otherwise chased off all the competent people who can actually make functional products and know how to make things work, and instead hired inexperienced (and often stereotypical SJW) retards who can't make a functioning anything even if you give them all the time in the fucking world.
 
It's like everything else in the California tech scene: they either fired, harrassed, or otherwise chased off all the competent people who can actually make functional products and know how to make things work, and instead hired inexperienced (and often stereotypical SJW) retards who can't make a functioning anything even if you give them all the time in the fucking world.
I'm not sure if there is a list but how many gaming companies currently reside (or at least have a position) around California? I'm non-American so I am curious.
 
Back
Top Bottom