Any news on BattleField 4 ?

Last edited:
Am I the only person who really just can't get into this game?

BF3 was a big let down for me as it felt like a downgrade from BF2 in certain regards. I tried out the beta and the gameplay seems even more dumbed down now. Yes, the maps are big / larger then BF3. The same scope of gameplay that BF2 had just isn't there anymore though.
 
So...I know I'm probably the only one. But I'm actually looking forward to going through the new SP campaign. BF3's wasn't the best by any means, but there were definitely some pretty amazing sets (Russian paratroopers scene?!); hoping they improved upon it.

Also, any word on co-op? They were fun, they needed more - particularly the sniping mission, more of that too!
 
when BF3 launched i gave the SP a whirl and thought it was shit. then i tried it again months later and ended up loving it. i don't know if i was just the right amount of bored or what but i had a freaking blast. i'm with you TwistedAegis, looking forward to BF4's SP campaign. also the co-op missions were great. sniping mission and subway mission were awesome.
 
Porter_ said:
when BF3 launched i gave the SP a whirl and thought it was shit. then i tried it again months later and ended up loving it. i don't know if i was just the right amount of bored or what but i had a freaking blast. i'm with you TwistedAegis, looking forward to BF4's SP campaign. also the co-op missions were great. sniping mission and subway mission were awesome.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed BF3 single player mode quite a bit, and never had anything against it... Short, but fun... CO-OP on the other hand is an exercise in constraint to try NOT to throw MY PC out the fucking window... Why you ask? TOTAL LACK OF COMMUNICATION OPTIONS WITH YOUR CO-OP PARTNER!!!! Somebody at DICE had their head two feet deep up their ass NOT to even include a lousy chat box for co-op. WHAT DA FUCK!!!! :eek::mad:
They better not pull same shit with BF4.....:rolleyes:
 
Mchart said:
Am I the only person who really just can't get into this game?

BF3 was a big let down for me as it felt like a downgrade from BF2 in certain regards. I tried out the beta and the gameplay seems even more dumbed down now. Yes, the maps are big / larger then BF3. The same scope of gameplay that BF2 had just isn't there anymore though.
Click to expand...

Because consoles. The marketing, the bigger, younger target audience, the more broad appeal factor, everything has changed in the videogame industry since BF2 - it was a different time and DICE no longer has the luxury of making it a niche game. Once their corporate masters at EA decided it was going to compete with the annualized CoD copy/paste job moneygrab and cash in the builtup goodwill of past BF titles, the die was cast and they'd continue moving the needle away from Arma and toward CoD.

That said I'm staying glass half full on it. Some of the new maps are insanely large and JDAM bombs are back and the explosions look incredible. One example. I will take solace in the little things.
 
Last edited:
mzs_biteme said:
I enjoyed BF3 single player mode quite a bit, and never had anything against it... Short, but fun... CO-OP on the other hand is an exercise in constraint to try NOT to throw MY PC out the fucking window... Why you ask? TOTAL LACK OF COMMUNICATION OPTIONS WITH YOUR CO-OP PARTNER!!!! Somebody at DICE had their head two feet deep up their ass NOT to even include a lousy chat box for co-op. WHAT DA FUCK!!!! :eek::mad:
They better not pull same shit with BF4.....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

First off, you need to rethink that you are saying, the game did in fact have voip support via battlelog. I tried the build in VoIP out a couple of times and it worked (set up a party and set up your VoIP options) even in co-op. Second, most ppl supplied there own chat solutions (teamspeak, ventrilo, heck I even used skype to do co-op with a friend). Thirdly, VoIP is fully build into BF4 now so you don't need to mess with it through Battlelog.
 
RangerXML said:
First off, you need to rethink that you are saying, the game did in fact have voip support via battlelog. I tried the build in VoIP out a couple of times and it worked (set up a party and set up your VoIP options) even in co-op. Second, most ppl supplied there own chat solutions (teamspeak, ventrilo, heck I even used skype to do co-op with a friend). Thirdly, VoIP is fully build into BF4 now so you don't need to mess with it through Battlelog.
Click to expand...

I agree with the other guy. DICE did f up by not putting a simple chat window in co-op, that is beyond stupid in terms of development. We're not talking about ingame voip here, we're talking about text.

It's fine that you played coop with friends who you could use a 3rd party voip with, but for those joining a PUB co-op, it serves no purpose. I'm not going to backout to battlelog to add a friend so I can use battlelog voip, it's way more appropriate just to use the chatbox .. had there been one.
 
Mchart said:
Am I the only person who really just can't get into this game?

BF3 was a big let down for me as it felt like a downgrade from BF2 in certain regards. I tried out the beta and the gameplay seems even more dumbed down now. Yes, the maps are big / larger then BF3. The same scope of gameplay that BF2 had just isn't there anymore though.
Click to expand...

That is why I'm going the COD ghosts route next month =)
 
Comixbooks said:
That is why I'm going the COD ghosts route next month =)
Click to expand...

1tZ1lng.jpg
 
Last edited:
TwistedAegis said:
Long range sniping was 10x better in BC2 than BF3/BF4.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have great memories of spawning in BC2 and dying instantly of a sniper magnum round to the head. I enjoyed sniping in BF2, figuring out the bullet drop in that game was an art. In BF3 sometimes, even on highend machines you couldn't figure out the actual bullet drop because it would render the bullet flying even if it hit a wall. In BF4 thus far I'm not 100% there, but the trails help, even if they aren't 100% accurate (I haven't had a chance to mess with the "zeroing in" mechanic).
 
Eh, BF3/4 making sniping so much more difficult (and cumbersome/not fun, IMO), just makes those idiot snipers that will always sit there anyway that much more useless. At least in BC2 they'd kill the enemy; I don't think I ever, ever, in hundreds of hours of BF3 thought to myself, "That damn sniper, got me again!" They basically removed them from the game unless you went with a 4x scope and pushed forward.
 
Tangentially related heads up, but my CC just got hit with a bunch of fraudulent charges from EA online, according to the rep at the fraud center I was the 5th or 6th person in the last couple of hours to call in with those same charges so keep an eye out.

On topic - does anybody else think they need to re-balance the AK5C? Once I had it unlocked I pretty much used it on every class and so did everybody else. In fact if you didn't use it you seemed to be at a disadvantage in CQB.
 
[Paragon];1040310489 said:
On topic - does anybody else think they need to re-balance the AK5C?
Click to expand...

I think we need to see how it performs in the actual game, not the beta, before drawing conclusions about it. Same goes for everything else, including lock-ons and helicopters.
 
[Paragon];1040310489 said:
On topic - does anybody else think they need to re-balance the AK5C? Once I had it unlocked I pretty much used it on every class and so did everybody else. In fact if you didn't use it you seemed to be at a disadvantage in CQB.
Click to expand...

Eh. I wouldn't mind them saying "screw balance" in that regard. As long as everyone has access to the same weaponry, let the real world characteristics sort it out. If everyone is using the same weapon, so what.

They create way more work for themselves by trying to balance and counter-balance every little minuet detail.
 
Eh, it isn't fun as a game if you don't have true options to be able to swap guns around IMO. It isn't meant to be a sim.
 
Spidey329 said:
Eh. I wouldn't mind them saying "screw balance" in that regard. As long as everyone has access to the same weaponry, let the real world characteristics sort it out. If everyone is using the same weapon, so what.

They create way more work for themselves by trying to balance and counter-balance every little minuet detail.
Click to expand...

That's like saying chess should be dumbed down to checkers. If everyone ran around with the same thing then its just glorified space invaders. They've been making these Battlefield games a long time, they know what they're doing and what fits their vision of the game. Rock-paper-scissors is their approach to balancing because more interesting gameplay arises when that balance is achieved.
 
Spidey329 said:
Eh. I wouldn't mind them saying "screw balance" in that regard. As long as everyone has access to the same weaponry, let the real world characteristics sort it out. If everyone is using the same weapon, so what.

They create way more work for themselves by trying to balance and counter-balance every little minuet detail.
Click to expand...

Battlefield is worse when everyone is using the same or similar equipment. Let the one-gunners play competitively. The rest of us are trying to have fun. That means weapon variety.
 
Terpfen said:
Battlefield is worse when everyone is using the same or similar equipment. Let the one-gunners play competitively. The rest of us are trying to have fun. That means weapon variety.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Pre-spawn, they've gone to the length of giving us a camera feed of our squads as well as the available points to spawn into. That is the time to make situational decisions to better equip yourself for the situation you're entering - be it a different class, specific weapon, anti-air or anti-tank missiles, etc. The fact that it requires considerations like those and others are what make the game more interesting than just mindless running around chickenspraying from the hip.
 
Terpfen said:
Battlefield is worse when everyone is using the same or similar equipment. Let the one-gunners play competitively. The rest of us are trying to have fun. That means weapon variety.
Click to expand...

You can't have fun with a certain weapon? That's interesting. I never said you couldn't use another weapon, I was just saying don't expect an old POS gun to counter a modern state of the art weapon.

You'd still need to account for caliber, length of barrel, weight, and an assortment of other real world criteria. You obviously wouldn't bring a PDW to a long range engagement.

You can balance the weapons realistically and appropriately without making things up artificially because one gun is slightly better. That's what I'm saying. When you balance artificially, you are left constantly screwing with things between each patch, so consistency is hurt.
DPI said:
That's like saying chess should be dumbed down to checkers. If everyone ran around with the same thing then its just glorified space invaders. They've been making these Battlefield games a long time, they know what they're doing and what fits their vision of the game. Rock-paper-scissors is their approach to balancing because more interesting gameplay arises when that balance is achieved.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree. If people are constantly bitching about balance between weapons. It happens every patch. They'll bump one gun and nerf another. You'd still get your variety, but if one gun was slightly (in real life, it's more operator > tool) better then so what, they can put those development hours elsewhere.

TwistedAegis said:
Eh, it isn't fun as a game if you don't have true options to be able to swap guns around IMO. It isn't meant to be a sim.
Click to expand...

No one said make it a sim. You'd still have your eleventy guns, and your 10 rounds to kill. It just wouldn't be artificially balanced.

For example, a gun would be .. say M416:
- 5.56, so decent range but lacks punching power against superior armor, operator carries more mags than a higher caliber.
- Barrel length and weight effects time to settle, recoil, and handling.


Btw, BF42 and BFV did absolutely fine with one gun per class per team.
 
Last edited:
Spidey329 said:
Strongly disagree. If people are constantly bitching about balance between weapons. It happens every patch. They'll bump one gun and nerf another. You'd still get your variety, but if one gun was slightly (in real life, it's more operator > tool) better then so what, they can put those development hours elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the point is in relation to my previous comment. You're saying you don't want them to bother trying to balance weapons? Not gonna happen. And contrary to popular belief, they aren't swayed by the day to day moaning of teenagers on Battlelog forums. When Alan Kertz is doing gun tweaks he's looking at backend stats, his own testing, internal playtesting and a trusted little group of external playtesters plus feedback from co-developers. And the constant re-balancing has been there as long as there have been Battlefield titles.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys, just wanted to give a shoutout to all my fellow [H]'ers.

My clan just ordered a 70 slot server for BF4 through Fragnet, as the communists at EA haven't allowed End of Reality to host BF4 servers yet.

Battlefield: Chicago Knight Warriors
Clan: The Gank Squad

Name: =CKW= Titties and Blow (Subject to change when I am on my period)
Maps: Conquest Large (Maps that feel like BF2)
Settings: I might make it BF2-esque, no triangles, etc., depending on how they classify "normal" servers.

I figured I would let all of you know. Also, if any of you need people to play with we are always accepting new members. Click here for our website. Or, if you just want to play with us and not join, shoot me a PM and I will give you our TS3 information.

Also, 0 tolerance for admin abuse and hacking. A couple of us only will actually have admin, and no kiddies, 18+ in the clan.

Any questions, feel free to ask.

See ya on the battlefield!
 
I would love to find a hardcore server that still allows for full spawning on squad. Never did in BF3, so not even sure if that's a configurable setting. I just find, particularly in rush, without those extra spawn points or without a bunch of actually smart squad leaders, unless teams are very imbalanced defense usually wins decisively.
 
TwistedAegis said:
I would love to find a hardcore server that still allows for full spawning on squad. Never did in BF3, so not even sure if that's a configurable setting. I just find, particularly in rush, without those extra spawn points or without a bunch of actually smart squad leaders, unless teams are very imbalanced defense usually wins decisively.
Click to expand...

maybe i'm bat shit crazy, i've been playing nothing but hardcore in BF3 lately and i swear i can spawn on any of my squadmates.

guess i have no choice tonight but to drink beer and confirm my suspicion.
 
Spidey329 said:
Eh. I wouldn't mind them saying "screw balance" in that regard. As long as everyone has access to the same weaponry, let the real world characteristics sort it out. If everyone is using the same weapon, so what.

They create way more work for themselves by trying to balance and counter-balance every little minuet detail.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

DPI said:
That's like saying chess should be dumbed down to checkers. If everyone ran around with the same thing then its just glorified space invaders. They've been making these Battlefield games a long time, they know what they're doing and what fits their vision of the game. Rock-paper-scissors is their approach to balancing because more interesting gameplay arises when that balance is achieved.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I'll use BFBC2 as an example. Some of the SMGs were more accurate that rifles, and even some pistols were more accurate and powerful than rifles. This made all the weapons feel the same. There was little variation in weapon type as a weapon at random is chosen to be good. Or a bunch of weapons performed exactly the same. There was zero difference in play style between an SMG, assault rifle, or battle rifle.

Occasionally they would awkwardly balance out weapons randomly... which still more or less makes them play out exactly the same. They just artificially suck in some areas and are artificially good in other areas.

Battlefield 3 seemed to fix this issue a bit better. The belt fed machineguns were naturally better at a long range and naturally better at laying down lots of fire to keep enemies down. The machineguns actually require different employment and play styles compared to the other weapons.

In a game like BFBC2, all the weapon types essentially played the same and resulted in monotone gun play.

Balancing should be done via weapon properties over randomness (BFBC2, CoD ect.). For example, lets take the M16 and the MK18:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/M16a4lh6.jpg

http://www.bomanufacture.com/bibliotheque/photos-produits/ar02045-1-BD.jpg

Pros and cons to each. The M16 will be more accurate at a range, have a decreased muzzle flash and lower recoil. But bringing the sights on target or holding it still for long periods will be more difficult. Advantages and disadvantages.

Now lets compare the MK18 above with a SMG like an MP5:
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120222232137/callofjuarez/images/5/53/MP5A2.jpg

The MK18 will do more damage and be more accurate, yet the muzzle report and flash will be considerably higher as it uses a rifle caliber opposed to a pistol caliber. Putting a suppressor on it will still be loud, making that attachment not extremely useful. On the other hand, the MP5 can be made very quiet with a suppressor. So the MP5 will clearly reign supreme when you want to go for a stealthy approach.

More deadly or more stealthy? Your choice. No "best weapon"; merely two different choices for different play styles.

That is something I wish BF3 and 4 had done. As it is, there is really no difference in play styles between the rifles and SMGs which is a shame. Both are best used in full auto bursts, with no noise and recoil advantage of the SMGs over the rifles. If done properly the rifles would be used in semi 80-90% of the time and the SMGs used in full auto most of the time. It would make the different weapon types fell differentiated, IMO.
 
Porter_ said:
maybe i'm bat shit crazy, i've been playing nothing but hardcore in BF3 lately and i swear i can spawn on any of my squadmates.

guess i have no choice tonight but to drink beer and confirm my suspicion.
Click to expand...

If you are the squad leader, only you can spawn on your squadmates. The rest can only spawn on the SL.
 
Flogger23m said:
I disagree. I'll use BFBC2 as an example. Some of the SMGs were more accurate that rifles, and even some pistols were more accurate and powerful than rifles. This made all the weapons feel the same. There was little variation in weapon type as a weapon at random is chosen to be good. Or a bunch of weapons performed exactly the same. There was zero difference in play style between an SMG, assault rifle, or battle rifle.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll definitely agree with you there. But that makes for a better game in general. What your initial comment was, is if 1 gun is truly so much better IRL, it should stay that way in game even if that's what everyone uses 24/7. If anything, the statement you make here supports that you want more variety, with a modicum of realism to help provide it. I think we're both pretty much on the same page there, but I would tone down any weapon, or balance it differently somehow, if it was what game stats showed was all people used.
 
Mchart said:
Am I the only person who really just can't get into this game?
Click to expand...

I have said it in the past, but the things I like about the entire BF series aren't what makes the series popular.

For me the most popular maps of BF3 were from the Close Combat expansion. I love Ziba Tower and Donya Fortress. I don't like the huge maps with vehicles. I can definitely see why people love them, but it has never been a big deal for me. My only hope with BF4 with levolution we see more of this or at least portions of every map where it has more close combat style gameplay.

People in the past have said go play COD, but I don't love COD either. I prefer the BF4 unlocks and customization. I also prefer the shooting and speed of BF over COD. Also the treatment of the PC from COD isn't worth supporting.

I still have BF4 on preorder thanks to a gift of EA game cards so I am hoping I find some maps I love.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Ok, I'll definitely agree with you there. But that makes for a better game in general. What your initial comment was, is if 1 gun is truly so much better IRL, it should stay that way in game even if that's what everyone uses 24/7. If anything, the statement you make here supports that you want more variety, with a modicum of realism to help provide it. I think we're both pretty much on the same page there, but I would tone down any weapon, or balance it differently somehow, if it was what game stats showed was all people used.
Click to expand...

I'm just bored with all the weapons playing the same, with some weapons being better due to randomness or because it is cool or whatever. They have plenty of weapons in the game, but pretty much all the rifles and SMGs play out the same. Personally I wouldn't mind if they dropped a few and put more effort into what we have. I'd rather have 20 rifles of various calibers and SMGs that have different applications than 40 which all play the same. Your mileage may vary.


DPI said:
I would recommend you write that wall of text on a letter to Alan Kertz if you feel that strongly about it.
Click to expand...

Don't know who that is, but I won't waste my time. I'll just wish they released mod tools so modders could make have made the gunplay less monotone and repetitive. :p
 
brennok said:
I have said it in the past, but the things I like about the entire BF series aren't what makes the series popular.

For me the most popular maps of BF3 were from the Close Combat expansion. I love Ziba Tower and Donya Fortress. I don't like the huge maps with vehicles. I can definitely see why people love them, but it has never been a big deal for me. My only hope with BF4 with levolution we see more of this or at least portions of every map where it has more close combat style gameplay.

People in the past have said go play COD, but I don't love COD either. I prefer the BF4 unlocks and customization. I also prefer the shooting and speed of BF over COD. Also the treatment of the PC from COD isn't worth supporting.

I still have BF4 on preorder thanks to a gift of EA game cards so I am hoping I find some maps I love.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I like the smaller maps with 16/24/32 players. The giant maps where you need to use vehicles to get to the various flags kinda suck. People are complaining about the guns being the same but really it gets old when the same old tank rolls into a flag I'm defending and I'm stuck holding my defib. I still play mostly BFBC2. Conquest maps like Arica Harbor, Laguna Alta, Laguna Presa and Oasis are my favorites. Heavy Metal and even Harvest Day are a bit too big but at least Harvest Day has a couple fast moving vechicles at each flag to get you around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top