Battlefield V

Wish they could go back to the games being good. It was all downhill after2142 which was near perfect.
 
Blade-Runner said:
Look at GTA V and Skyrim, each have sold 10 million copies alone on PC in large part because of free mods.
Click to expand...

How many mods have u installed on gta v?

Or was it the mods that have no offical support in gta v. The sale driver?

Even bethesda blocked together mod from steam. Its the start.

Pc master race its finest glory!


I did found out bf4 and 3 bit boring to play.
I wish more missions than run around same area...
 
Holy shit this is epic? They are going back to World War II? I played 42 back in the day and this is some epic news. You have to be a real poison pill not to be excited about this. This is what I’ve been waiting for. I think battlefield one was an experiment to prep for the main event which will be this game. World War II definitely offers the best set pieces of any war in my opinion and has the best overall combination of land sea and air battles. I don’t think anything has come close to 42 was released . Battlefield two was great in its own way but I never felt like it was as good as battlefield 42 because it did not have a historical context.
 
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.
 
spaceman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


Eshelmen said:
Yay or nay, the XM8 LMG was the best gun in BC2

Oh yeah, hardcore mode or gtfo!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
sirmonkey1985 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


Lith1um said:
I want 150 player servers like Joint Operations had when BF1 came out.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Gabe3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

DICE has said over the years that they often playtest well beyond 64 players, but it's diminishing returns - players just get frustrated with too many people on a map, and "die as soon as you spawn" anxiety is incieased. Some of it can be mitigated by map design, but too many players and you just feel disconnected from most of them anyway.

For me, 48p Conquest in BF3 and BF4 was always the sweet spot. Enough breathing room to feel like you weren't going to be blown up the moment you respawned, didn't really have to fight your teammates constantly to grab a vehicle spawn, etc.

I've also played games like PlanetSide 2 with massive playercounts, and these giant battles would rage on a single server, but the novelty wore off quickly and all that really mattered was your immediate sphere of conflict. Anything happening further away might as well have been happening on other servers. The idea of huge battles is great, but in practice it's equally as isolating as too few players.
 
Last edited:
DICE initially promised 128 player counts for BF2 during the initial media blitz at the time of announcement, but that was wound back closer to release.

Didn't stop the community from running modded servers for 128 players.....not sure that is even possible now given EA's insistence on exerting total control over server infrastructure.
 
It isnt. Ea has been a douchemare with the servers. Even autobalance is broken. Can't even swap squads around after a round. Smh
 
Vega said:
Seems to me like they turned it into CoD. Infrantry just zerging one another. I prefer more tactical fights, especially with vehicles.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Yeah. Killing games is what they do at ea. Throw battlefield in the ditch with the others. Dumbfucks.

I guess it is good news too. Perhaps this and anthems likely flop will either take them out or cause them to hire people who have a fucking clue.

Just like anthem. They are stretching here. Trying to do way too much. It will end up being a crappy, spread out product.
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
Rumor that Battle Royale is coming to Battlefield V.
FFS...
Click to expand...
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 more I hear the less I like BF. The problem is all other MP shooters suck these days, at least the mainstream big budget ones. Did Fortnite really take over PUBG? Last I heard Fortnite was dead on arrival and they tried to copy PUBG changing the entire genre of the game in the process. Looks like that paid off for Epic. Shame that game developers/publishers follow trends these days, and all games have to be social-centric. Remember when games used to be about thinking of an idea and making the most kickass game around it? Yeah I remember. Too bad most developers don't.
 
Gabriel2 said:
Why is it Battlefield 5? Battlefield 1 was their last game.
Click to expand...

Just because, I guess.
bf2142.jpg
 
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.
 
ahs89 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahs89
like this
Drexion said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Arma 3 servers I frequent max out at 90 or 120 players and seem to work just fine.
 
BiH115 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Battlefield in a WW era is a good thing to play but its very hard for BF4 fans to play in older enviornments.
 
Armenius said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 titles
 
I just wish that there would be a mode where you could have large armor battles with no planes ruining the action.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Comixbooks said:
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.
Click to expand...

For once you skipped the LSD before typing words because I gotta agree. BF4 will be half a decade old when this comes out. I wanted a modern combat, desert combat or 2143 on the latest frostbite engine.

When BF4 came out people whined "modern combat is so played out", so DICE zagged and produced BF1, but going and rehashing WWII seems like taking the modern combat criticisms to the extreme.

There's nothing like that feeling in BF3 or BF4 where the round starts, everyone's in base and it's a mad dash to the tanks, jeeps, helis, jets, lavs, boats, motorcycles, whatever you feel like.
 
Last edited:
I purchased BF1 with the season pass thinking it was going to be all that when they first hyped it. I have only made it to the rank of Staff Sgt and pretty much quit the game. There are still a ton of bugs in it. I still play BF3 and 4 because they are easy to learn and have that Battlefield feeling. If the plan is to stick with the BF1 mo, then I will def not be getting on release day. I will wait a while to get it.
 
Gabe3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
brennok said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 miss Desert Combat for 1942. Make that vs a CoD clone and don't replace it 15 months later and we'll talk EA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabe3
like this
Bf hasnt been good since 2142. Loved all of.them until BC came along and messed everything up.

2142 was the best and most balanced. Almost got divorced over my obsession with it.
 
brennok said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm trying to think of how a WWII BF will play after BF1. Outside of the tank gameplay I don't see it being any different. I've probably posted this 100 times already, but late Cold War era is probably a good mix. You don't get IRNV/FLIR, NV was very limited back then and there are less gadgets like the drones and designators which seemed to receive a mixed response from players. But you still get all of the automatic weapons that people clearly want to use, tanks that aren't lame, helicopters, and some older weapons that are not featured in the modern BF games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top