Any news on BattleField 4 ?

Brules said:
I played a ton, but have given up recently, endless chopper/plane rape sucks dick.
Click to expand...

If you are on Lg Conq maps.. It would help too have players who decent in the two AA guns you get on both sides.. But usually you get the ones who sit in the MAA and use lock ons and only shoot INF with it.

Also having jet support against heli crews helps..

Now on Rush maps with helis and End game maps with helis.. It can be rough if you have no real heli support to counter the other team.
 
Brules said:
I played a ton, but have given up recently, endless chopper/plane rape sucks dick.
Click to expand...

Why not just stick to the many infantry maps available? Easier to complain? Many maps don't even have aircraft.

There *is* a counter to everything, just takes time to learn and gain proficiency which means taking a break from CoD run and gun on the ground. A lot of players don't care about that - certainly a lot of the crossovers from other FPS's, don't appreciate that vehicular warfare plays a large part in Battlefield's legacy and will continue to..
 
Last edited:
In my experience of all BF games, the only counter to a "pro" jet player is another "pro" jet player. The high skill ones can absolutely rape an entire team with zero repercussions.
 
lilbabycat said:
In my experience of all BF games, the only counter to a "pro" jet player is another "pro" jet player. The high skill ones can absolutely rape an entire team with zero repercussions.
Click to expand...

In fairness, the jets - at least in BF3 - also have the highest learning curve in the game and they're the most difficult thing to master, from the standpoint of the nuances of dealing with other jets which then grants them access to making lionfood of everything else if they succeed. Before I put the time in I was one of the people that assumed they just went around in silly circles dogfighting, but there's far, far more. Its about maintaining perfect speed control for the tightest turns while looking for angles on the other guy that's doing the same. It takes hundreds of hours to really get good and be able to deal with the guys with 100 service stars and 10,000 kills. That's more than most people have time or interest for. Anyway it pays to gain some proficiency in them so you can at least defend yourself and tie the enemy jets up even if they're better.

That said, its too early to make any assumptions that BF4 will be the same -- I've seen enough tweaks to the jets in the hours of gamescom streams i watched to know they won't simply be cakewalking and wrecking everything again. As already mentioned the cannon spread has been increased so they can't mindlessly strafe infantry like in BF3. You actually saw people trying to strafe ground units - over and over - but couldn't hit shit and were just wasting their time. So much has changed in BF4 that its too early to tell what the thing will be that people are most screaming about being OP. My guess is it'll be the attack boats actually. Especially once people unlock TV missile and you've got three of those boats per team on maps like Paracel Storm.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
So much has changed in BF4 that its too early to tell what the thing will be that people are most screaming about being OP. My guess is it'll be the attack boats actually. Especially once people unlock TV missile and you've got three of those boats per team on maps like Paracel Storm.
Click to expand...

I can see people complaining about the weapon distribution. Engineers go from carbines to PDWs? They were already fairly limited at range and only useful as a class in large scale maps with vehicles, so reducing their potential attack range even further is pretty tough.

Naval warfare has expanded but it's hardly going to be in every single map, so I don't think complaining about attack boats will be universal.
 
Terpfen said:
I can see people complaining about the weapon distribution. Engineers go from carbines to PDWs? They were already fairly limited at range and only useful as a class in large scale maps with vehicles, so reducing their potential attack range even further is pretty tough.

Naval warfare has expanded but it's hardly going to be in every single map, so I don't think complaining about attack boats will be universal.
Click to expand...

True enough. The hunch about attack boats complaints was just a guess based on what I saw in gameplay footage. I think it has more weapons options than any other vehicle in the game - it literally has access to one of everything, and a fully crewed attack boat with a squad on comms will break some hearts. In reality people just scream and make threads about anything that kills them - at least going by the Battlelog forum which is, a teenage hangout to put it mildly. But some people are very good with those TV missiles in heli's, and so unless they limited the range on the boat-mounted ones, then I could see it being a problem if boat campers get in the habit of finding nice hiding spots to spam TV's all round.

What we've seen time and again is DICE's internal testing doesn't account for the 'troll' factor in the game - meaning their internal gameplay rounds are nice courteous rounds where they're not sitting and trying to blow up their own team's vehicles or infantry, camp tanks on the runway, C4 the tails of heli's, tip over own-team's Heli's with fixed AA, and all the other griefing behavior seen that it usually takes DICE a patch or three before seeing how the game breaks once the a-holes on pub servers get a hold of it and find the exploits. I suspect BF4 will have its own share of griefer magnets but I'll remain optimistic because honestly it looks awesome and I'm sure a lot of the rough edges that got ironed out in 2 years of BF3 tweaking have carried forward to benefit BF4.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
But some people are very good with those TV missiles in heli's, and so unless they limited the range on the boat-mounted ones, then I could see it being a problem if boat campers get in the habit of finding nice hiding spots to spam TV's all round.
Click to expand...

I could see this being solved by making SOFLAMs and Javelins able to lock on to boats, and making it so that boats cannot go out beyond the range of the map like aircraft can. This way they're always in range, so they can't camp out 2 miles away and fire off TV missiles all day.

What we've seen time and again is DICE's internal testing doesn't account for the 'troll' factor in the game - meaning their internal gameplay rounds are nice courteous rounds where they're not sitting and trying to blow up their own team's vehicles or infantry, camp tanks on the runway, C4 the tails of heli's, tip over own-team's Heli's with fixed AA, and all the other griefing behavior seen that it usually takes DICE a patch or three before seeing how the game breaks once the a-holes on pub servers get a hold of it and find the exploits. I suspect BF4 will have its own share of griefer magnets but I'll remain optimistic because honestly it looks awesome and I'm sure a lot of the rough edges that got ironed out in 2 years of BF3 tweaking have carried forward to benefit BF4.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They don't do a very good job of anticipating and testing for trolls, which is strange because they do have these public beta/demo periods before the game launches. They soak up the feedback about the weaponry but don't seem to check for trolling. Hopefully that changes this time.
 
lilbabycat said:
In my experience of all BF games, the only counter to a "pro" jet player is another "pro" jet player. The high skill ones can absolutely rape an entire team with zero repercussions.
Click to expand...

Play INF only maps, solves that.
or tank/inf ones.
Pretty much beyond me how dice design planes and aircraft, headshots with guns strafing slower than a lawnmover, seriously?
 
Supposedly BF4 jets will drop and crash if slowed down too much, so hopefully no more of that bullshit like BF3 jets where they could slow down to a crawl blasting away while suspended in mid air like hanging from a crane, then zoom off without a care.
 
Actually, the jets are blimps. They just got the animation wrong. That is why they can just float.
 
Tantrix said:
Yep...every 2 years you'll get 1 new grenade and 2 more rifles. Congrats.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this has to be a troll because nobody is this stupid...

Dice has added quite a bit of stuff for BF4, but I'm sure if you took time to research it instead of posting nonsense you could see for yourself.
 
I think he thought this was the cod thread :p
j/k i dont want to be in a cod/bf debate, have those with my lan buddies every week.lol Anyways. i want to play this damn game. Was thinking about picking it up for ps3 at release and then doing a $10 for ps4 when it comes out. it will be tough to wait those couple weeks while everyone is playing
 
Meh, Premium bullshit strikes again. $110 to get the entire game...
 
xIronCrossx said:
Meh, Premium bullshit strikes again. $110 to get the entire game...
Click to expand...

How is this different from any other game with DLC? Borderlands 2 has way more DLC, and the upcoming packs aren't covered by the $40 season pass.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Meh, Premium bullshit strikes again. $110 to get the entire game...
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, and making the assumption I'll play BF4 in the ballpark of my BF3 hours the last two years, then $110 divided 770h = $0.14 (cents) per hour

Compared with some of the other games I've played in the past year (according to my Steam)

Bioshock infinite $60 divided by 9h I played it = $8.57 /hr
Crysis 3 $40 divided by 8h I played it = $5 /hr
Tomb Raider $40 divided by 15h I played it = $2.66 /hr
Borderlands 2 $50 + $25 season pass divided by 252h I played it = $0.29 /hr

FWIW, Movie in theater = $17 divided by 2h = $8.50 /hr

So I guess it all depends on your perspective and whether you're just a core/casual FPS player and only plan to play it a few dozen hours (in which case why would you want or care about premium) or will put more time in, play with friends, maybe join a clan. Its an investment for two years of entertaining gameplay as I see it. I know I'll get more than enough value from it.
 
Last edited:
Liqq said:
I'm sure this has to be a troll because nobody is this stupid...
Click to expand...

Says the guy praising a game that hasn't even gone live...lmfao.



However...I'll elaborate.

Forums everywhere are chock full of people complaining about how (both) the BF and CoD series are recycled, then sold for a ridiculous price...and honestly...they're right. But...if people are willing to pay premium for few changes here and there, I say it's marketing genius.



Liqq said:
Dice has added quite a bit of stuff for BF4, but I'm sure if you took time to research it instead of posting nonsense you could see for yourself.
Click to expand...

Again...praising features of a game that's not out. Even for a fan-boy, that's ballsy.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
To play devil's advocate, and making the assumption I'll play BF4 in the ballpark of my BF3 hours the last two years, then $110 divided 770h = $0.14 (cents) per hour

Compared with some of the other games I've played in the past year (according to my Steam)

Bioshock infinite $60 divided by 9h I played it = $8.57 /hr
Crysis 3 $40 divided by 8h I played it = $5 /hr
Tomb Raider $40 divided by 15h I played it = $2.66 /hr
Borderlands 2 $50 + $25 season pass divided by 252h I played it = $0.29 /hr

FWIW, Movie in theater = $17 divided by 2h = $8.50 /hr

So I guess it all depends on your perspective and whether you're just a core/casual FPS player and only plan to play it a few dozen hours (in which case why would you want or care about premium) or will put more time in, play with friends, maybe join a clan. Its an investment for two years of entertaining gameplay as I see it. I know I'll get more than enough value from it.
Click to expand...

This, I agree with this too.
 
Completely disagree with any idea that you can just part out the hours instead of the actual quality of the experience so that it is somehow is a better investment. It simply doesn't work like that unless you enjoy everything in life equally.
 
Terpfen said:
How is this different from any other game with DLC? .
Click to expand...

Everyones doing it!


....is not a valid defense.

Call of duty 4/5 (waw) was $50, had free "map packs"

now every game is $60 and has premium seasonal edition DeLuxE to the MAxx thats another $60+.

I really don't think anyone should put up with it. I'll personally get this game when its $30 for the WHOLE package.
 
DF-1 said:
Everyones doing it!


....is not a valid defense.

Call of duty 4/5 (waw) was $50, had free "map packs"

now every game is $60 and has premium seasonal edition DeLuxE to the MAxx thats another $60+.

I really don't think anyone should put up with it. I'll personally get this game when its $30 for the WHOLE package.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending it. I'm asking why it's different from any other game—that is, why did Mr. xIronCrossx (people still do this xxxNamexxx format stuff?) specifically single out BF4 when it isn't even the most egregious offender? If you're committed enough to a game to anticipate getting all its expansion packs, why turn around and grind teeth over a game getting guaranteed new content post-release? Getting more official content for a game you enjoy should be a good thing.

The entire argument is a rehash of the "why should I pay a monthly subscription fee for an MMO?" debate from a decade ago. If people are willing to pay full retail plus 10 bucks a month into perpetuity to play the same core game without expansions (expansions costing extra, of course), why is it a crime to pay a one-time fee every couple of months for an optional expansion in another genre?

To be fair, the practice of planned paid DLC is indeed a way to squeeze a few bucks out of gamers to offset the multi-million dollar cost of game development. It's a crutch for a problem that should be fixed by making core game development cheaper—by not focusing on AAA titles as the only kinds of games worth making (thanks, Ubisoft). People like BBB and CCC titles too, especially if they don't cost full price. But you know what? We lost the "don't make us pay more than the price on the box" war when people gladly forked over thousands of dollars for what amounted to an ongoing monthly lease to play World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XI.

And at least we have season passes now. We're a long way from the days of horse armor.
 
yourgrandma said:
Completely disagree with any idea that you can just part out the hours instead of the actual quality of the experience so that it is somehow is a better investment. It simply doesn't work like that unless you enjoy everything in life equally.
Click to expand...

I somehow doubt you'd be hitting the multi-hundreds of hours in a game if it wasn't enjoyable.
 
yourgrandma said:
Completely disagree with any idea that you can just part out the hours instead of the actual quality of the experience so that it is somehow is a better investment. It simply doesn't work like that unless you enjoy everything in life equally.
Click to expand...

Heh, you gotta lighten up, I put forth one metric, one glass half full way of looking at videogame value for money, not life in general. It goes without saying that some games are like crack or near-religious experiences while others you can't wait for to be over and trudge through the second half of a campaign just for the sense of completion.

I'm just fine parting out the hours -- because its a reasonable assumption that people dont just keep playing games they dont enjoy. A game like Battlefield has infinite replay value, for some more than others, and $110 spread across two years isn't world-ending at least for me. And you dont need the $50 premium add-on, the vanilla maps are still the most played in BF3, and wouldn't be surprised if same happened with BF4 since the critical mass of map development happens for the base game, thats when they've got all cylinders firing before transferring talent to other projects.

To put it another way, don't make the mistake of looking at the $60 + optional $50 through the lens of the typical 7-hour singleplayer game.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Supposedly BF4 jets will drop and crash if slowed down too much, so hopefully no more of that bullshit like BF3 jets where they could slow down to a crawl blasting away while suspended in mid air like hanging from a crane, then zoom off without a care.
Click to expand...

HAHA! I used to wonder wtf was going on when I see a jet just "hangin" there
 
Terpfen said:
I'm not defending it. I'm asking why it's different from any other game—that is, why did Mr. xIronCrossx (people still do this xxxNamexxx format stuff?) specifically single out BF4 when it isn't even the most egregious offender? If you're committed enough to a game to anticipate getting all its expansion packs, why turn around and grind teeth over a game getting guaranteed new content post-release? Getting more official content for a game you enjoy should be a good thing.
And at least we have season passes now. We're a long way from the days of horse armor.
Click to expand...

First of all, really we are going to go about someone's username?

No the reason why I single BF4 out is because of this. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/241306/dice-well-never-charge-for-battlefield-maps/). And because they added stupid shit like prioritized loading and whatnot. They went from simple map packs to adding shit like guns and other things. Just because CoD does it, doesn't mean Battlefield has to, but it seems like everyone is OK with it now.

I bought BF3 before launch, I played in the Alpha and both the Betas(open and closed) and yes, I enjoyed it. Then came Premium, and at first it was still OK, but after a while it seemed like 90% of the servers were all rotating newer maps which didn't allow me to join. That's when I lost interest, and I didn't feel like paying $50 just to continue playing a game that wasn't going to get any better.
 
Okay. Coming from someone who didn't play BF3, but prolly put a thousand hours into BF2....which package should I buy? I don't see how I won't put a crap ton of hours into this - I already dusted off my Joystick to fly :D
 
aeonrevolution said:
Okay. Coming from someone who didn't play BF3, but prolly put a thousand hours into BF2....which package should I buy? I don't see how I won't put a crap ton of hours into this - I already dusted off my Joystick to fly :D
Click to expand...

The most expensive one? lol how are we going to give you useful advice if we don't know your income, address, SSN, date of birth, mother maiden name, and any other information that will be helpful.

I'm hoping a place pops up a promotion for BF4 preorder with the china rising pack and a gold package for like 44 dollars sometime soon.

I really want to order from Amazon because I know my information is safe, and I just like them overall in terms of digital delivery. I'll happily pay 59.99 for the game, but if I can save 15 dollars just by waiting another month, that's even better.

There was a promotion about a month or two ago where some place was offering it for around 45 if i recall correctly.

Really on the fence about that package I saw for 70 dollars that includes something like 3 gold briefcases. I don't mind another "premium" pack down the road for 50 bucks or something but even I will say it would get out of hand. I don't mind paying for (good) map packs but the idea of paying for unlockslike dog tags, camo, skins... PASS.
 
xIronCrossx said:
First of all, really we are going to go about someone's username?
Click to expand...

I asked if it's still a thing, I didn't pass judgment on you.

No the reason why I single BF4 out is because of this. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/241306/dice-well-never-charge-for-battlefield-maps/). And because they added stupid shit like prioritized loading and whatnot.
Click to expand...

What is "whatnot"? So far you've made insubstantial COD DLC comparisons—BF3 DLC is not COD-style map packs—complained about something that was in BF3, and made vague allusions to nonspecific features that annoy you. You've typed a lot of words, but conveyed no information and failed to clarify your position.

And you still treat BF3 like it's the first game to offer planned DLC. I don't understand that.

I bought BF3 before launch, I played in the Alpha and both the Betas(open and closed) and yes, I enjoyed it. Then came Premium, and at first it was still OK, but after a while it seemed like 90% of the servers were all rotating newer maps which didn't allow me to join. That's when I lost interest, and I didn't feel like paying $50 just to continue playing a game that wasn't going to get any better.
Click to expand...

Yes, when the DLC came out, servers ran those maps. That happens in every other game. You'll be glad to know that vanilla is in primary rotation on most servers and has been for quite a long time. Servers now add the DLC maps in their rotation for variety rather than making them the prime or sole rotation. The exact ratio of vanilla to DLC depends on server and game type. TDM skews more towards vanilla, Conquest is mixed, and Rush from what I've played skews a little toward the DLC packs. That actually bothers me a little bit, because I'd much rather play TDM in Aftermath maps than in Noshahr Canals or Kharg Island YET AGAIN. And let's not even begin on how there are still Operation Metro 24/7 servers.
 
Tantrix said:
Says the guy praising a game that hasn't even gone live...lmfao.



However...I'll elaborate.

Forums everywhere are chock full of people complaining about how (both) the BF and CoD series are recycled, then sold for a ridiculous price...and honestly...they're right. But...if people are willing to pay premium for few changes here and there, I say it's marketing genius.







Again...praising features of a game that's not out. Even for a fan-boy, that's ballsy.
Click to expand...


so ignorant...a great deal of the game has been shown already, as have countless new features.

In your same post here you have said I'm praising a game that hasn't gone live yet then you say its the same recycled game. Well I have 710 hours in BF3 so far, so if it is indeed recycled it will be worth EVERY fucking penny. Now go troll your stupid petty bullshit somewhere else.
 
Liqq said:
so ignorant...a great deal of the game has been shown already, as have countless new features.

In your same post here you have said I'm praising a game that hasn't gone live yet then you say its the same recycled game. Well I have 710 hours in BF3 so far, so if it is indeed recycled it will be worth EVERY fucking penny. Now go troll your stupid petty bullshit somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Key words here: "shown" and "countless". Alrighty then...lmfao.



Hey, if you're fine with recycled war games (by EA no less)...that's fine with me. But again, you're still praising a game you haven't even played yet.

(710 hours in BF3...well, that pretty much sums it up)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top