Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The WW2 era always make for good fun, BUT just gimme Bad Company 3 already!!
Look at GTA V and Skyrim, each have sold 10 million copies alone on PC in large part because of free mods.
Except it is ea and they will fuck this up. I have been playing since the 42 demo but fear this might be it. I really hope they keep the loot boxes fuckery to bf1 levels. I could see them trying some new type of money grab though. I just want the game and ffs a return to competitive play.
Also a big fuck you to my stupid phones autocomplete. Ea is not spelled easier.
Yay or nay, the XM8 LMG was the best gun in BC2
Oh yeah, hardcore mode or gtfo!
yes, I hope this game has slower gameplay and isn't another COD cluster fuck. I feel like theres no reason for them to change from bf1 though. I think they could add different weapons and maps, not change anything else, call it wwii and be done with it. make a ton of money with minimal effort.yup that's my worry as well.. while i still think BF1 is miles better than any of the CoD games it still just feels like one giant CoD game.. zero coordination and complete cluster fuck of people running around like headless chickens.. if it wasn't for the fact that i got it for 50% off on black friday i would of never purchased it.. even at 30 dollars including the premium pass bullshit i still regret ever buying it though. personally i think the competitive team play died with BFBC2.. BF3/4 were complete garbage, big maps but only 20% of the map was actually usable.
AT-4 or GTFO! best weapon ever put into a game, pissed me off to no end that it wasn't included in BF3.. shooting down helicopters from the hill outside the US spawn to the russian spawn on heavy metal was a blast.. took an insane amount of work to get good with that thing but once i got it down there was zero reason for the enemy to ever get in a helicopter because they weren't going to get out of their base with it.
I want 150 player servers like Joint Operations had when BF1 came out.
its kinda funny battlefield is still at 64 players, the same as it was in 2002. that said, it seems like games with more than 64 players don't run too well. pubg, fortnite. both bad examples. fortnite actually isn't too bad. I rubber band all the time in squad, ping always all over the place. squad supports 50v50, but none of the servers go over 40v40.
Yeah there's the technical issue that a greater number of players increases the total volume of data that has to be synced between server and clients 30-60 times every second, but there's also fun factor - which doesn't necessarily increase with greater playercounts.the problem is the more people you add the more variables you add.. more server load, more ping variances, player system performance differences, etc, etc, etc.. doing 64+ players in countries like north america is hard just due the geographical differences of the entire player base.. e.g. from california to NY is over 120 ping difference but putting a server in say chicago doesn't fix the problem since the west and east coast might equal 60 ping to the server florida and texas get screwed having a 90+ ping.. then you have the issue of asian, EU, aussie players trying to also play on the NA server and you add a whole different issue.. so while the idea is nice to have more players, i don't think the infrastructure is there yet to support whats needed for a competitive fps game to support more than 64 players.
Have you play red orchestra 2? Its a little old, but some of the battles can last well over an hour and the squad play is actually used correctly.Seems to me like they turned it into CoD. Infrantry just zerging one another. I prefer more tactical fights, especially with vehicles.
Don't be surprised. The biggest game in the world right now (fortnite) is a BR game with more than 40 million active users and is still growing rapidly. Every single tripleA developer/publisher on the planet probably has BR games in development right now or is trying to figure out a way to shoehorn a BR mode into their existing franchises.Rumor that Battle Royale is coming to Battlefield V.
FFS...
Why is it Battlefield 5? Battlefield 1 was their last game.
Expectations are high let's see what era they are placing this title in. Battlefield V should be in a Modern day, they should continue Battlefield 4 type gameplay.
That's the issue with corporate: they can never look past their own nose. I really don't think the audience that battle royale games like PUBG captured are going to be interested in a game like BFV. Fortnite also has the advantage of being free to play.Don't be surprised. The biggest game in the world right now (fortnite) is a BR game with more than 40 million active users and is still growing rapidly. Every single tripleA developer/publisher on the planet probably has BR games in development right now or is trying to figure out a way to shoehorn a BR mode into their existing franchises.
The Arma 3 servers I frequent max out at 90 or 120 players and seem to work just fine.the problem is the more people you add the more variables you add.. more server load, more ping variances, player system performance differences, etc, etc, etc.. doing 64+ players in countries like north america is hard just due the geographical differences of the entire player base.. e.g. from california to NY is over 120 ping difference but putting a server in say chicago doesn't fix the problem since the west and east coast might equal 60 ping to the server florida and texas get screwed having a 90+ ping.. then you have the issue of asian, EU, aussie players trying to also play on the NA server and you add a whole different issue.. so while the idea is nice to have more players, i don't think the infrastructure is there yet to support whats needed for a competitive fps game to support more than 64 players.
Battlefield in a WW era is a good thing to play but its very hard for BF4 fans to play in older enviornments.3 and 4 were in modern day, that's two in a row. They went back to WW1 for 1, but originally wanted to go back to WW2. They didn't want to go back to WW2 so fast because of how oversaturated the market was in the past. In turn, this paid off in dividends, as people liked the different direction they took. What can be said about the game as a whole for the hardcore crowd, well that's subjective. The game itself was well received. They feel that with this traction, the logical step is to go forward from that in time and move on to WW2.
Personally, I had a great time with 1, getting a group of people together and dominating checkpoints was a hoot. I'm sure 5 will be more of the same.
I think most people that bought pubg at least everyone I know has played most of the battlefield games. if you play multiplayer shooters, you likey have played all the big titlesThat's the issue with corporate: they can never look past their own nose. I really don't think the audience that battle royale games like PUBG captured are going to be interested in a game like BFV. Fortnite also has the advantage of being free to play.
It's going to take alot of Mustard Gas to impress me I was wishing for another modern Battlefield I guess there is next year.
It's going to take alot of Mustard Gas to impress me I was wishing for another modern Battlefield I guess there is next year.
Just because, I guess.
View attachment 67854
if it is wwii, I really hope the gameplay is much different than bf1. well actually no matter what it is I hope its different. "never be the same" give me a little hope, no idea what it actually means.
This is why I skipped BF1, as well. Might as well have just called it "Battlefield: Steampunk." I would have preferred a more realistic take on the period.I agree. BF1 was the first BF I skipped. If you are going to give me classic weapons I want to play bolts only. I realize they added a mode for that later, but the gameplay combined with the rental server program was enough to kill any interest in the game for me.
I really don't get going to WW2 since BF1 played nothing like WW1 weaponry. It will just be more of the same and probably the same number of players dropping off. I wouldn't be surprised if the rental server program stuck around and BF1 turns into what MW2 did to the COD series.
I agree. BF1 was the first BF I skipped. If you are going to give me classic weapons I want to play bolts only. I realize they added a mode for that later, but the gameplay combined with the rental server program was enough to kill any interest in the game for me.
I really don't get going to WW2 since BF1 played nothing like WW1 weaponry. It will just be more of the same and probably the same number of players dropping off. I wouldn't be surprised if the rental server program stuck around and BF1 turns into what MW2 did to the COD series.