Any news on BattleField 4 ?

Ironchef Chris Wok said:
And most of the Vanilla maps are fun. On a good game of 64 man RUSH on any of the vanilla maps, the experience is SOOOO much better than any COD experience I've ever had, so whoever it is that "told me to go play COD", screw off.
Click to expand...

Like Bad Company 2, the maps feel like they were designed around Rush Mode rather than Conquest (Caspian Border being the one exception) and so Conquest doesn't feel quite right compared to BF2/2142/1942. AK corrected that but having to spend another $15 to get the "correct" BF experience after a $60 entry fee isn't very nice.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Like Bad Company 2, the maps feel like they were designed around Rush Mode rather than Conquest (Caspian Border being the one exception) and so Conquest doesn't feel quite right compared to BF2/2142/1942. AK corrected that but having to spend another $15 to get the "correct" BF experience after a $60 entry fee isn't very nice.
Click to expand...

For the Karkand expanion though, Rush and CQ is great on Karkand/Sharqi/Wake, while Oman Rush is not great while it's an obvious CQ classic.

I will go on record and say Metro Rush with balanced teams is a great time
 
Ironchef Chris Wok said:
For the Karkand expanion though, Rush and CQ is great on Karkand/Sharqi/Wake, while Oman Rush is not great while it's an obvious CQ classic.

I will go on record and say Metro Rush with balanced teams is a great time
Click to expand...

It's played out as all hell and people love to bash it, but I completely agree. Especially if it's a server that limits explosive use as it can get very spammy.

But there is a reason it's one of the most played maps and why they chose it as their alpha/beta map. It's good.
 
illybang said:
It's played out as all hell and people love to bash it, but I completely agree. Especially if it's a server that limits explosive use as it can get very spammy.

But there is a reason it's one of the most played maps and why they chose it as their alpha/beta map. It's good.
Click to expand...

It's because people can rank up quickly, score unlocks quickly, and artificially stack their stats such as SPM. It's not because it's "good".

It's the Nuketown of Battlefield.
 
Plague_Injected said:
It's because people can rank up quickly, score unlocks quickly, and artificially stack their stats such as SPM. It's not because it's "good".

It's the Nuketown of Battlefield.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are those reasons people play it. But those are not the only reasons, like you make it out to be. The map, as already stated, can be very fun and it's laid out for a ton of action.

And to compare this to Nuketown is quite absurd. I know what you're getting at, but it's still a bad comparison.
 
illybang said:
Sure, there are those reasons people play it. But those are not the only reasons, like you make it out to be. The map, as already stated, can be very fun and it's laid out for a ton of action.

And to compare this to Nuketown is quite absurd. I know what you're getting at, but it's still a bad comparison.
Click to expand...

I compare Metro to Nuketown because it is the go-to map for clusterfuck AHDH action fixes. Both maps serve the same purpose.
 
Plague_Injected said:
It's because people can rank up quickly, score unlocks quickly, and artificially stack their stats such as SPM. It's not because it's "good".

It's the Nuketown of Battlefield.
Click to expand...

But all the purdy colorful medals and flashy messages I get for spamming ammo, med kits and shooting in someone's general direction when playing Metro just gives me the greatest sense of achievement!
 
illybang said:
If that's true, then I suggest you go get your ass checked out at the doctors office.

Even if you die a few times to lag compensation, that still doesn't put BF3 even remotely CLOSE to the vicinity of a horrible experience. You can choose to whine about it while many others will look past it and enjoy the game for what it is and everything it does have to offer.
Click to expand...

You mistake lag compensation for client-side hit detection. The entire problem is because the client of your opponent registers the hit, and relays that data through the server. All previous BF games had compensation, none had client side hit registration. None of the previous games would allow you to die around a corner or kill someone after they've reached cover.

Cover and how you experience both shooting and being shot in an FPS is the CORE MECHANIC of the gameplay. If there is no connection between cover and survival, or you're able to kill someone after they are around cover, then its game-breaking.

And to those mentioning BF2, that game had actual lag compensation (based on 100ms ping as standard). As mentioned before, that didn't create situations in which a player dies a second after going behind a wall. The only major problems that mechanic had was sometimes hits just wouldn't register. That was annoying, but not game breaking, as one or two hits not registering would rarely change the outcome of a firefight.

Not only that, but there were tools, configuration file edits, and console commands that could allow you to change the default 100ms compensation to whatever latency you were experiencing with the server. When using those methods, you could have near perfect hit registration.
 
Dethred said:
Cover and how you experience both shooting and being shot in an FPS is the CORE MECHANIC of the gameplay. If there is no connection between cover and survival, or you're able to kill someone after they are around cover, then its game-breaking.
Click to expand...

Exactly! This is why BF3 will be my last in the series, that and BF4 looks more of the same from BF3. I would like to see them return to BF1942 and throw this netcode out. I still haven't had the same amount of fun in a BF game as since 1942. No, Dice is headed down the Modern Warfare path, this last set of expansions felt really weak to me.
 
Dethred said:
You mistake lag compensation for client-side hit detection. The entire problem is because the client of your opponent registers the hit, and relays that data through the server. All previous BF games had compensation, none had client side hit registration. None of the previous games would allow you to die around a corner or kill someone after they've reached cover.

Cover and how you experience both shooting and being shot in an FPS is the CORE MECHANIC of the gameplay. If there is no connection between cover and survival, or you're able to kill someone after they are around cover, then its game-breaking.

And to those mentioning BF2, that game had actual lag compensation (based on 100ms ping as standard). As mentioned before, that didn't create situations in which a player dies a second after going behind a wall. The only major problems that mechanic had was sometimes hits just wouldn't register. That was annoying, but not game breaking, as one or two hits not registering would rarely change the outcome of a firefight.
Not only that, but there were tools, configuration file edits, and console commands that could allow you to change the default 100ms compensation to whatever latency you were experiencing with the server. When using those methods, you could have near perfect hit registration.
Click to expand...

Ahh very well said. Pretty much nails the issue.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Like Bad Company 2, the maps feel like they were designed around Rush Mode rather than Conquest (Caspian Border being the one exception) and so Conquest doesn't feel quite right compared to BF2/2142/1942. AK corrected that but having to spend another $15 to get the "correct" BF experience after a $60 entry fee isn't very nice.
Click to expand...

No way, as someone who plays almost exclusively rush, the maps feel too "tight" for Rush. Maybe 32 person rush, but then that feels too sparse for me. Perhaps Metro.
 
Dethred said:
You mistake lag compensation for client-side hit detection. The entire problem is because the client of your opponent registers the hit, and relays that data through the server. All previous BF games had compensation, none had client side hit registration. None of the previous games would allow you to die around a corner or kill someone after they've reached cover.

Cover and how you experience both shooting and being shot in an FPS is the CORE MECHANIC of the gameplay. If there is no connection between cover and survival, or you're able to kill someone after they are around cover, then its game-breaking.

And to those mentioning BF2, that game had actual lag compensation (based on 100ms ping as standard). As mentioned before, that didn't create situations in which a player dies a second after going behind a wall. The only major problems that mechanic had was sometimes hits just wouldn't register. That was annoying, but not game breaking, as one or two hits not registering would rarely change the outcome of a firefight.

Not only that, but there were tools, configuration file edits, and console commands that could allow you to change the default 100ms compensation to whatever latency you were experiencing with the server. When using those methods, you could have near perfect hit registration.
Click to expand...

And how often does dying behind cover actually happen? A couple of times every game you play? If you're running to cover last minute every time after a firefight, chances are you were going to die before you even reached it in the first place, even if there was what you consider "perfect hit registration". And the network smoothing factor setting fixes most of that for me anyways. Some animations are a bit choppier/glitchier, but I rarely get the dying behind a wall thing.

Sure, everyone wants perfect gameplay, but I don't think the hit registration is as bad as you are making it out to be. It's not bad enough to warrant calling the entire game a horrible experience for most people that play.

And how is one or two hits not registering NOT game breaking? You're telling me hitting someone with a sniper rifle twice and those not even registering is perfectly acceptable? If anything, SHOOTING someone is the ULTIMATE core mechanic of an FPS, and you seem to just disregard that fact somehow.

BF2 wasn't a perfect game, BF3 isn't a perfect game, but they are neither horrible experiences.
 
illybang said:
And how often does dying behind cover actually happen? A couple of times every game you play? If you're running to cover last minute every time after a firefight, chances are you were going to die before you even reached it in the first place, even if there was what you consider "perfect hit registration". And the network smoothing factor setting fixes most of that for me anyways. Some animations are a bit choppier/glitchier, but I rarely get the dying behind a wall thing.

Sure, everyone wants perfect gameplay, but I don't think the hit registration is as bad as you are making it out to be. It's not bad enough to warrant calling the entire game a horrible experience for most people that play.

And how is one or two hits not registering NOT game breaking? You're telling me hitting someone with a sniper rifle twice and those not even registering is perfectly acceptable? If anything, SHOOTING someone is the ULTIMATE core mechanic of an FPS, and you seem to just disregard that fact somehow.

BF2 wasn't a perfect game, BF3 isn't a perfect game, but they are neither horrible experiences.
Click to expand...

This. BF3 isn't perfect by any means; it seems to be missing the "it" factor that I can't quite put my finger on. But it's core shooting mechanics are just fine; in fact they're pretty great, IMO. I really have very little issue actually hitting people; and the few times that I do die behind cover, I realize that I was actually shot prior to actually getting behind it. It is frustrating, sure, but it happens fairly rarely and I understand what happened.
 
TwistedAegis said:
This. BF3 isn't perfect by any means; it seems to be missing the "it" factor that I can't quite put my finger on. But it's core shooting mechanics are just fine; in fact they're pretty great, IMO. I really have very little issue actually hitting people; and the few times that I do die behind cover, I realize that I was actually shot prior to actually getting behind it. It is frustrating, sure, but it happens fairly rarely and I understand what happened.
Click to expand...

This :D

I have great fun playing BF3 with my two older brothers, talking through Skype, with gaming headphones on. We love it. But are very casual players, never #1 top scorers, typically middle of the pack. Only pay two nights a week.

What other game is like BF3 ? Not many, except PS2 just recently, before PS2, there was no Battlefield type game for years, going back to the great Joint Op's.

I don't know why there are not more multiplayer vehicle military shooters out there ? Joint Op's was awesome, they should make a Joint Op's 2.

Is BF3 perfect ? No. But is a great vehicle shooter for sure. I would love to see Valve make a BF style game, running on the Source 2 engine, like their original concept for Team Fortress, but it got canned, was a Battle Field style modern military game.
 
I still want a game, which Valve originally said they were doing in TF2, in which voice comms are modeled in the game environment, rather than some magical radio.
 
BvafwSX.jpg
 
TwistedAegis said:
No way, as someone who plays almost exclusively rush, the maps feel too "tight" for Rush. Maybe 32 person rush, but then that feels too sparse for me. Perhaps Metro.
Click to expand...

Then the problem is with the maps being designed around a 24-player limit.


TwistedAegis said:
This. BF3 isn't perfect by any means; it seems to be missing the "it" factor that I can't quite put my finger on. But it's core shooting mechanics are just fine; in fact they're pretty great, IMO. I really have very little issue actually hitting people; and the few times that I do die behind cover, I realize that I was actually shot prior to actually getting behind it. It is frustrating, sure, but it happens fairly rarely and I understand what happened.
Click to expand...

The gunplay is why I keep coming back despite my significant and long-ranted-about frustrations with the game. No other game gives me the same satisfaction from its gunplay. The way the guns handle, the recoil, how they sound...all so good.


Blade-Runner said:
[hilarious pic]
Click to expand...

LMAO I love it!
 
illybang said:
And how often does dying behind cover actually happen? A couple of times every game you play? If you're running to cover last minute every time after a firefight, chances are you were going to die before you even reached it in the first place, even if there was what you consider "perfect hit registration". And the network smoothing factor setting fixes most of that for me anyways. Some animations are a bit choppier/glitchier, but I rarely get the dying behind a wall thing.
Click to expand...

It happened about 50% of the time I was running to cover and thought I made it. It literally made me unsure of simply running across an alleyway. It was absolutely game-breaking, and ultimately why I quit the damn game after less than two months. The Server-side hit-registration was less than perfect, but I was able to tolerate a combined total of about 5000 hours of gameplay from 2005-2011.

illybang said:
Sure, everyone wants perfect gameplay, but I don't think the hit registration is as bad as you are making it out to be. It's not bad enough to warrant calling the entire game a horrible experience for most people that play.
Click to expand...

It was tolerable at first (simply due to sheer numbers of instances), but yes it was game breaking... as confirmed by almost everyone I gamed with at the time that eventually quit playing for the same reason, and we even have a few people in the last couple of posts that agree.

But I suppose this isn't game-breaking??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV9loU7dbzM

illybang said:
And how is one or two hits not registering NOT game breaking? You're telling me hitting someone with a sniper rifle twice and those not even registering is perfectly acceptable? If anything, SHOOTING someone is the ULTIMATE core mechanic of an FPS, and you seem to just disregard that fact somehow.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMsRVi4IsS0

I don't disregard the server-side issues, but as I said (please READ before replying), firing 15 bullets at an opponent and maybe having 2 not register is not going to change the outcome of a firefight. Not only, that, but usually those missed hits were due to server latency... which was resolved by simply moving to a lower-latency server. I never heard of any major concerns with sniping and having the shot not register, but if the problem occurred it must have been rare.

illybang said:
BF2 wasn't a perfect game, BF3 isn't a perfect game, but they are neither horrible experiences.
Click to expand...

Bf3 was pretty terrible. It had a few advantages over its supposed predecessors, but none that made it better on the whole.
 
TwistedAegis said:
This. BF3 isn't perfect by any means; it seems to be missing the "it" factor that I can't quite put my finger on. But it's core shooting mechanics are just fine; in fact they're pretty great, IMO. I really have very little issue actually hitting people; and the few times that I do die behind cover, I realize that I was actually shot prior to actually getting behind it. It is frustrating, sure, but it happens fairly rarely and I understand what happened.
Click to expand...

Watch this whole video: http://youtu.be/Rc5o-b6zsYo

You're registering all your hits, because the server is using your client to determine the result. Its insane. Leaving out the ridiculous hacks that have come out, which allow an asshole to literally sit in the spawn area and shoot his pistol straight up to kill every one, it means when you get shot, you're experiencing the differential between your client sending positional data to the server, which then goes to the opponent, the opponent's client sends the hit data to the server, then the server tells your client that you've been shot. Watch the above video at 2:30 to see the real effect of this.

You won't recognize any of these problems in a clusterfuck tunnel battle though, which is what BF3 devolved into. "This isn't a tunnel game" - BF3 Developers (hahahaha)
 
Last edited:
They need TRUE LAN SUPPORT. This will help with esports, and LAN tournaments.
 
THUMPer1 said:
They need TRUE LAN SUPPORT. This will help with esports, and LAN tournaments.
Click to expand...

"Error. Does not comply with always-online, always-DRM EA policy. Error."

Seriously, the days of LAN support for EA games are over.
 
TwistedAegis said:
I still want a game, which Valve originally said they were doing in TF2, in which voice comms are modeled in the game environment, rather than some magical radio.
Click to expand...

Do you mean like voice comms are processed through a walkie-talkie type DSP effect so it sounds like everyone in the group is on radios? That might be kinda cool.. Though I suspect you'd feel like an incredible nerd within about 5min
 
Dethred said:
It happened about 50% of the time I was running to cover and thought I made it. It literally made me unsure of simply running across an alleyway. It was absolutely game-breaking, and ultimately why I quit the damn game after less than two months. The Server-side hit-registration was less than perfect, but I was able to tolerate a combined total of about 5000 hours of gameplay from 2005-2011.



It was tolerable at first (simply due to sheer numbers of instances), but yes it was game breaking... as confirmed by almost everyone I gamed with at the time that eventually quit playing for the same reason, and we even have a few people in the last couple of posts that agree.

But I suppose this isn't game-breaking??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV9loU7dbzM



Oh you mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMsRVi4IsS0

I don't disregard the server-side issues, but as I said (please READ before replying), firing 15 bullets at an opponent and maybe having 2 not register is not going to change the outcome of a firefight. Not only, that, but usually those missed hits were due to server latency... which was resolved by simply moving to a lower-latency server. I never heard of any major concerns with sniping and having the shot not register, but if the problem occurred it must have been rare.



Bf3 was pretty terrible. It had a few advantages over its supposed predecessors, but none that made it better on the whole.
Click to expand...

So, you bring hacking into the conversation to try to make some kind of valid point. Hackers ruin the game for everybody, no matter WHAT game you play, whether the hack is possible because of client-side or server-side hit detection. And if you were getting killed 50% of the time behind walls, you are playing wrong. That's all i've got to say.

I did read it, and that's why I typed my response. In a game where 2 shots could potentially equal a kill, yes, it IS a big deal. Your reasoning just doesn't make sense.

5,000 hours. Go play another 5,000 hours on your beloved BF2 and quit whining about a game you don't even play anymore.
 
Dethred said:
It happened about 50% of the time I was running to cover and thought I made it. It literally made me unsure of simply running across an alleyway. It was absolutely game-breaking, and ultimately why I quit the damn game after less than two months. The Server-side hit-registration was less than perfect, but I was able to tolerate a combined total of about 5000 hours of gameplay from 2005-2011.



It was tolerable at first (simply due to sheer numbers of instances), but yes it was game breaking... as confirmed by almost everyone I gamed with at the time that eventually quit playing for the same reason, and we even have a few people in the last couple of posts that agree.

But I suppose this isn't game-breaking??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV9loU7dbzM



Oh you mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMsRVi4IsS0

I don't disregard the server-side issues, but as I said (please READ before replying), firing 15 bullets at an opponent and maybe having 2 not register is not going to change the outcome of a firefight. Not only, that, but usually those missed hits were due to server latency... which was resolved by simply moving to a lower-latency server. I never heard of any major concerns with sniping and having the shot not register, but if the problem occurred it must have been rare.



Bf3 was pretty terrible. It had a few advantages over its supposed predecessors, but none that made it better on the whole.
Click to expand...

You and I played in very, very, VERY different servers.
 
Holy. That 30FPS bump made an honest to goodness difference to me. I'm really quite impressed with the graphics now. Much less muddy, much more real. That's sweet.
 
Maplehamwich said:
Holy. That 30FPS bump made an honest to goodness difference to me. I'm really quite impressed with the graphics now. Much less muddy, much more real. That's sweet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't stand sub 60-fps, that liquidy buttery smooth feel of 60+ is just so damn nice. That and motion blur to lowest or off, over the top motion blur pisses me off to no end. :(
 
Dethred said:
Watch this whole video: http://youtu.be/Rc5o-b6zsYo

You're registering all your hits, because the server is using your client to determine the result. Its insane. Leaving out the ridiculous hacks that have come out, which allow an asshole to literally sit in the spawn area and shoot his pistol straight up to kill every one, it means when you get shot, you're experiencing the differential between your client sending positional data to the server, which then goes to the opponent, the opponent's client sends the hit data to the server, then the server tells your client that you've been shot. Watch the above video at 2:30 to see the real effect of this.

You won't recognize any of these problems in a clusterfuck tunnel battle though, which is what BF3 devolved into. "This isn't a tunnel game" - BF3 Developers (hahahaha)
Click to expand...

You realize this is the defacto standard for FPSs now and has been since Valve's client-side registration netcode released something like 15 years ago, in beta 6 of Counter-Strike if I recall correctly? No, it's not ideal, I would love to have the Q1/Q2 style netcode of old. You're either wildly exaggerating about dying 50% of the time you make it to cover, or something is wrong with your own setup.
 
odditory said:
Do you mean like voice comms are processed through a walkie-talkie type DSP effect so it sounds like everyone in the group is on radios? That might be kinda cool.. Though I suspect you'd feel like an incredible nerd within about 5min
Click to expand...

No, I mean that if you're talking into your mic, your character is talking in the game. You can't be hiding in a bush screaming "NEED HELP" with an enemy nearby, with your voice magically silent and broadcast to your whole team. The enemy hears some idiot in the bush screaming "NEED HELP" and shoots the hell out of you.
 
TwistedAegis said:
No, I mean that if you're talking into your mic, your character is talking in the game. You can't be hiding in a bush screaming "NEED HELP" with an enemy nearby, with your voice magically silent and broadcast to your whole team. The enemy hears some idiot in the bush screaming "NEED HELP" and shoots the hell out of you.
Click to expand...

I've always thought VoIP should be broadcast in game around the player... Would make TK rates waaay higher... Also make consequences to being annoying and loud... :D
 
DeathPrincess said:
I've always thought VoIP should be broadcast in game around the player... Would make TK rates waaay higher... :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember a really early Valve interview about TF2; a sniper hits someone in the leg, so he starts yelling out for a medic, then starts taking out teammates who come to help. That's the kind of game I want to play!
 
DeathPrincess said:
I've always thought VoIP should be broadcast in game around the player... Would make TK rates waaay higher... Also make consequences to being annoying and loud... :D
Click to expand...

one of the glaring issue with this type of system is it would push people to use ingame VOIP LESS.

and push everyone to outside programs like TS, Vent, Mumble, skype ect.

and implementing support for those programs in game would force some people to use inferior voip solutions just so the enemy cant hear them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top