Battlefield 1

[Leadfoot530]

Decided to play some conquest this afternoon. Imediatly ranked up the Medic and the Scout class. I was looking forward to trying out a scoped M.95 and a new DMR...or whatever they're called in this game...

...then I realized that the unlocks that I was come with rank 2 of each class!

DICE, PLZ!

I'm really starting to get tired of seeing all the snipers on every ledge or window on the map, though. Hopefully they're a lot more maps with more cover to help with hiding from them, instead of being stuck in the middle of a desert being shot at from 360 degrees.

The first match of Conquest I played, I hopped in an armoured car with a random squad member. Boy, that thing was way funnier than I thought it would be. We kept roadkilling people, and every time we'd drive onto an objective, the driver would just lay on the horn...and then most of the time...immediately roadkill someone else!

The train was kind of neat. I drove it and shot a few of the canons on it, but other than that, I knew it was on the map because somebody just layed on the horn 24/7.... Like, bro...STAHP!

 

[Leadfoot530]

Sorry for the double post, but an update for the beta has come out.

-For those of you having issues ranking up classes, all weapons have been unlocked for everyone playing the beta; no rank ups required.

-Fog has been added to the 3rd set of telegraphs on Rush. Personally, I hate it, since every sniper can now sit back with the cover of fog, and take out anyone forced into the bottleneck to arm the bomb. Do not want.

 

[FoRiZon]

I just instantly knew that seeing how the environment goes, it'll be sniper friendly and now look at it now

 

[RYAN]

So after the beta I have to say im looking forward to the game even more, I enjoyed it alot despite a lot of issues. I'm dissapointed with the choice of map though. I feel as it caters so much to snipers and vehicles that it may have put people off the game completely.

The biggest thing for me is that they need to make it not such a pain to combat vehicles. Even if you have a Rocket Gun you still mess around with all the time before it finally will leave you shoot. I think making it so you can crouch and shoot it would be a good option. It may be the map though because even though tanks were strong on scar it didn't seem so difficult to take them out.


.

 

[dacc10]

If it was the old conquest scoring system with the bleeding of tickets I would agree to an extent, But sitting on a rooftop taking potshots isn't usefull and isn't helpful and doesn't constitute as defending. What is useful is getting on the burn and contesting the flag, Not camping so that you infuriate people enough they go to kill you instead.

So, taking down enemies heading to a flag, spoting and/or killing enemies flanking behind teammates, damaging vehicles, take down the horses and bring the focus of the enemy on you instead of the flag, does not help?
Oh, staying on top of a building near a flag, is camping, but camping in a corner with a smg (and sometimes Aim assist on) waiting for someone to get in the building, isn't? Oh, isn't camping because you are in the objective... "playing the objective".

You can't be annoyed at every sniper, since not every sniper plays the same way, neither has the same skill playing as one. Get annoyed when half your team uses that specific class, and a great part of them can't do anything. Get annoyed by the teams without a single Support soldier providing ammo. Get annoyed when a game is around one single flag, and no one attacks the rest, and you have to go alone, on foot, trying to conquest those flags in the desert, because 70% of your team is using Assault and can only fight properly in the village area. Those ruin the game as a team game, not that single guy that has his full potential explored while sniping.

A system like in Red Orchestra 2would be nice as well, in that game there's a limited number of slots in each team for the snipers and machine gunners etc.

On 64 players games in RO2 there's 2 snipers, 3 machine gunners per team and similair amount for the other specialist classes.

That could be a nice addition. That would also obligue people to vary their playstyle, so no more players using 100% of the time the same OP weapons/class, like in bf4. That could ballance the game a lot.

 

[RYAN]

So, taking down enemies heading to a flag, spoting and/or killing enemies flanking behind teammates, damaging vehicles, take down the horses and bring the focus of the enemy on you instead of the flag, does not help?
Oh, staying on top of a building near a flag, is camping, but camping in a corner with a smg (and sometimes Aim assist on) waiting for someone to get in the building, isn't? Oh, isn't camping because you are in the objective... "playing the objective".

You can't be annoyed at every sniper, since not every sniper plays the same way, neither has the same skill playing as one. Get annoyed when half your team uses that specific class, and a great part of them can't do anything. Get annoyed by the teams without a single Support soldier providing ammo. Get annoyed when a game is around one single flag, and no one attacks the rest, and you have to go alone, on foot, trying to conquest those flags in the desert, because 70% of your team is using Assault and can only fight properly in the village area. Those ruin the game as a team game, not that single guy that has his full potential explored while sniping.



That could be a nice addition. That would also obligue people to vary their playstyle, so no more players using 100% of the time the same OP weapons/class, like in bf4. That could ballance the game a lot.

You've got the wrong end of the stick, I don't get "annoyed" at every sniper. I just get annoyed when they are all farming kills and doing nothing. Like lying prone on top of the stone arch by G flag. The thing is snipers are so strong now that they could easily cap flags and help the team but still people will get to hung up on their old K/D ratio they would prefer to stay atop buildings and high cliffs. What you've come across teams that are 70% assault ? Your lucky my teams are nearly 90% useless snipers. I know what your saying snipers can be useful, Which in moderation can be. I just have an issue when a good portion of the team are doing it leaving few people to actually play the game and cap flags.

 

[dacc10]

You've got the wrong end of the stick, I don't get "annoyed" at every sniper. I just get annoyed when they are all farming kills and doing nothing. Like lying prone on top of the stone arch by G flag. The thing is snipers are so strong now that they could easily cap flags and help the team but still people will get to hung up on their old K/D ratio they would prefer to stay atop buildings and high cliffs. What you've come across teams that are 70% assault ? Your lucky my teams are nearly 90% useless snipers. I know what your saying snipers can be useful, Which in moderation can be. I just have an issue when a good portion of the team are doing it leaving few people to actually play the game and cap flags.

I just wanted you to get the point of not putting all the snipers in the same basket.
Sniper may be strong in a 1v1 at a distance, but on 1v2 ou 1v3 with the enemy using auto/semi-auto weapons it's not. Running around with a scoped bolt action sniper rifle is not easy either, if you go in places where it favors CQC, or you are constantly being shot in the back with auto weapons (because campers inside the buildings and enemy spawns behind our back) you stand no chance unless you get a good no scope or quick scope shot (and then pistol to finish if necessary).

At the end, I get your point, of the excessive number of snipers in this map. But it's the same with every class. Too much of the same it's not good for the team. In BF3 and 4 when 90% of the team were Assault, and there was a tank (or more) that needed to be destroyed, but no one could because there were almost no engineers.

I come across a lot of players using assault (assault in BF1 is the class with the SMGs and anti-tank weapons right?). No one reviving, no one resupplying ammo. Either scout or assault. And yet, most of the time they seem incapable of destroying any vehicles. People are not using the classes properly yet, that's the impression I got so far. There is always the lack of Support players, maybe because it's the weakest class, with weapons not as efficient as SMGs, as far as automatic weapons go, and can't really compete with the DMRs and Sniper rifles at long range.

 

[RYAN]

I just wanted you to get the point of not putting all the snipers in the same basket.
Sniper may be strong in a 1v1 at a distance, but on 1v2 ou 1v3 with the enemy using auto/semi-auto weapons it's not. Running around with a scoped bolt action sniper rifle is not easy either, if you go in places where it favors CQC, or you are constantly being shot in the back with auto weapons (because campers inside the buildings and enemy spawns behind our back) you stand no chance unless you get a good no scope or quick scope shot (and then pistol to finish if necessary).

At the end, I get your point, of the excessive number of snipers in this map. But it's the same with every class. Too much of the same it's not good for the team. In BF3 and 4 when 90% of the team were Assault, and there was a tank (or more) that needed to be destroyed, but no one could because there were almost no engineers.

I come across a lot of players using assault (assault in BF1 is the class with the SMGs and anti-tank weapons right?). No one reviving, no one resupplying ammo. Either scout or assault. And yet, most of the time they seem incapable of destroying any vehicles. People are not using the classes properly yet, that's the impression I got so far. There is always the lack of Support players, maybe because it's the weakest class, with weapons not as efficient as SMGs, as far as automatic weapons go, and can't really compete with the DMRs and Sniper rifles at long range.

You want me to "get your point" but for the life of me I can't see it. All I said was in a lot of games I was in a large portion of my team were useless camping snipers. I still stand by that. I don't have a vendetta against snipers like you seem to think, In fact I enjoyed the scout class myself in the alpha and beta. You may have had different experience to me but I feel the amount of useless camping snipers was a problem in the beta detracted from the experience that's my opinion.

 

[GTFan24]

EDIT: Someone on YT said that on 0:08 someone yells "Where's Harambe!" dear god......

 

[sems4arsenal]

Insane

 

[Peasantslayer]

Please be good, it looks like all it needs is a decent script to be one of the most memorable FPS campaigns in a while.

 

[catamount39]

Please be good, it looks like all it needs is a decent script to be one of the most memorable FPS campaigns in a while.

From one of the data mines a while back that revealed the storyline, we'll be experiencing Gallipoli as well. That is going to be a tear jerker. It's different chapters telling different storylines, looking forward to the Lawrence of Arabia one.

 

[88GTA]

Holy crap that trailer looks amazing.

 

[catamount39]

This campaign is intensely brutal.

 

[Lizard]

This campaign is intensely brutal.

I have a feeling this campaign is going to make me cry. Just that alone made me feel cold.

 

[catamount39]

I have a feeling this campaign is going to make me cry. Just that alone made me feel cold.

Gallipoli is going to be painful.

 

[GTFan24]

This campaign is intensely brutal.

That looks CRAZY

 

[Lizard]

Gallipoli is going to be painful.

I think a huge part of it is the bits where you die and it shows a name and dates lived. It just reminds you that real people went through this.

 

[catamount39]

I think a huge part of it is the bits where you die and it shows a name and dates lived. It just reminds you that real people went through this.

Agreed, combined with the scenes that the player is going through, its a rude reminder of what kinda hell war is, and the hellish conditions that were experienced on the front lines of WWI.

Minus the airship...I'm pretty sure airships never did that on the front...

 

[Lizard]

Agreed, combined with the scenes that the player is going through, its a rude reminder of what kinda hell war is, and the hellish conditions that were experienced on the front lines of WWI.


Minus the airship...I'm pretty sure airships never did that on the front...

Airships were never that low true. Some things have been made a bit fake for the purpose of making it a fun game.

For a good insight into WW1 (and a few vids comparing BF1 to reality) check out this channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUcyEsEjhPEDf69RRVhRh4A

 

[Jawehawk]

Wow. Call of Battlefield 1 sure is looking like every other generic shooter that has come out for years. Non existant AI in a game that is just BF3 with WW1 models. Were it not for the models, there'd be little indication that this game was set during the first Great War.

 

[JvM]

Well aren't you a cheery 🤬 .

 

[Jawehawk]

Well aren't you a cheery 🤬 .

I'll be happy once we get good and innovative shooters instead of copy paste games. You can of course like what you want, but it annoys me to no end that people are prasing this generic "WW1" shooter.

 

[JvM]

And what exactly should they do to make it 'good and innovative'?

 

[catamount39]

Wow. Call of Battlefield 1 sure is looking like every other generic shooter that has come out for years. Non existant AI in a game that is just BF3 with WW1 models. Were it not for the models, there'd be little indication that this game was set during the first Great War.

I'll be happy once we get good and innovative shooters instead of copy paste games. You can of course like what you want, but it annoys me to no end that people are prasing this generic "WW1" shooter.

1 - Storyline is actually good looking and semi-accurate, giving a real sense of the hell of war which is something nobody in a while has managed to do in years, heck a decade almost.

2 - Game modes can't exactly get much different, I think its impossible to come up with something "insanely different" at this point in time. Aside from "Historical Mode" being made...what the heck is there to do that's a new game mode? War Thunder/World of Warships/World of Tanks don't receive salt for only having conquest type game modes.

3 - CoD has zero place in this genre anymore, zero. ZERO. Its Halo now.

4 - You can't sit here and tell me that the AI is stupid when it seems like their's zero probability of living through that mission, minus the character switches. Plus conscript soldiers are not Spetsnaz, what are we supposed to be instant sharp shooters running around? We don't even know who was playing that/what difficulty it was.

5 - Those graphics and animations are insane. First off there's weathering of weapons and vehicles. Second, everything can be destroyed, even the ground. Third, the animations are improved upon (not sure how different they can be).

 

[Jawehawk]

1 - Storyline is actually good looking and semi-accurate, giving a real sense of the hell of war which is something nobody in a while has managed to do in years, heck a decade almost.

How so? Sure, it takes place in actual battles, but I doubt you'll see any real recreation of specific events or people. Instead, we get Hollywood Zeppelins flying over the battlefield, which never happened outside the earliest stages of the war, as It turns out flying a big and slow vessel filled with hydrogen over people who had guns was not a good idea. Instead of bolt action rifles being the norm, semi and fully automatic weapons seem to be widely available, and unlike most SMG's and LMG's of the period, they don't seem to be affected by dirt. And as a new thing in the franchise, every gun now has a name and time of birth and death. Nah, we don't need real character development for the gamer to establish an emotional connection to characters. We can just write a random name, and that'll be all the emotional connection they need.

If anything, by avoiding to make actual characters, they are adding to the dehumanization of the people who fought during the war. They weren't just names after all. They were people who had individual lives and thoughts. But instead of spending time with that, we just get random names tied to guns. I get that they are probably going for a statement about how many lives were lost, and that when we look at history, it's hard to think of all those lives as individuals, but it just comes of as a cheap way of creating an emotional response.

2 - Game modes can't exactly get much different, I think its impossible to come up with something "insanely different" at this point in time. Aside from "Historical Mode" being made...what the heck is there to do that's a new game mode? War Thunder/World of Warships/World of Tanks don't receive salt for only having conquest type game modes.

Sure they can. They just can't be bothered investing time and money in coming up with something new.

3 - CoD has zero place in this genre anymore, zero. ZERO. Its Halo now.

If you remove the textures, the gameplay is more or less the same. You go in, and outside of scripted events, you are a one man army. The AI enemies falls at your feet by the thousands, as does your allies.

4 - You can't sit here and tell me that the AI is stupid when it seems like their's zero probability of living through that mission, minus the character switches. Plus conscript soldiers are not Spetsnaz, what are we supposed to be instant sharp shooters running around? We don't even know who was playing that/what difficulty it was.

I want the AI to act like it wants to survive. I want AI that communicates with each other. I want a sense of unit cohesion. I want AI allies that are useful, so that it doesn't feel like I am all that matters. None of that is to be found in these generic shooters. Simply put, the AI isn't doing a good job in creating an authentic experience.

5 - Those graphics and animations are insane. First off there's weathering of weapons and vehicles. Second, everything can be destroyed, even the ground. Third, the animations are improved upon (not sure how different they can be).

Yeah, the graphics and animations are good. As is the sound. But there is more to games than that...

 

[Peasantslayer]

AI seems to be a criticism of every big game nowadays, I think some people are expecting sentient life or something on games built around weak console CPUs.

 

[Jawehawk]

AI seems to be a criticism of every big game nowadays, I think some people are expecting sentient life or something on games built around weak console CPUs.

It's not like no shooter has ever had good AI. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, for all its flaws, had really good AI. It wasn't really evident when they were following scripts, but if you went into the mission editor, made 30 something soldiers drive down a road in various vehicles, and waited to ambush them with your own men, the AI would do some truly amazing things. It was dynamic all on its own. They'd pop smoke and retreat if they were getting hammered, they'd regroup and establish fire superiority. It was damn amazing.

SOCOM US Navy Seals also had amazing squad AI that is still better than most AI in games today. These are fairly old games, yet few have gotten anywhere near their AI.

Yes, AI is difficult to make realistic. But that is no excuse for not trying at all. The AI in BF and CoD hasn't evolved at all for 5-10 years, and it's abysmal.

 

[catamount39]

How so? Sure, it takes place in actual battles, but I doubt you'll see any real recreation of specific events or people. Instead, we get Hollywood Zeppelins flying over the battlefield, which never happened outside the earliest stages of the war, as It turns out flying a big and slow vessel filled with hydrogen over people who had guns was not a good idea. Instead of bolt action rifles being the norm, semi and fully automatic weapons seem to be widely available, and unlike most SMG's and LMG's of the period, they don't seem to be affected by dirt. And as a new thing in the franchise, every gun now has a name and time of birth and death. Nah, we don't need real character development for the gamer to establish an emotional connection to characters. We can just write a random name, and that'll be all the emotional connection they need.

If anything, by avoiding to make actual characters, they are adding to the dehumanization of the people who fought during the war. They weren't just names after all. They were people who had individual lives and thoughts. But instead of spending time with that, we just get random names tied to guns. I get that they are probably going for a statement about how many lives were lost, and that when we look at history, it's hard to think of all those lives as individuals, but it just comes of as a cheap way of creating an emotional response.



Sure they can. They just can't be bothered investing time and money in coming up with something new.



If you remove the textures, the gameplay is more or less the same. You go in, and outside of scripted events, you are a one man army. The AI enemies falls at your feet by the thousands, as does your allies.



I want the AI to act like it wants to survive. I want AI that communicates with each other. I want a sense of unit cohesion. I want AI allies that are useful, so that it doesn't feel like I am all that matters. None of that is to be found in these generic shooters. Simply put, the AI isn't doing a good job in creating an authentic experience.



Yeah, the graphics and animations are good. As is the sound. But there is more to games than that...

To sum up a response: The exception of AI that you desire, is frankly, ridiculous. Consoles be dammed, to create AI like that is something almost no game has ever achieved. I've played many games, DICE has done a decent job here (for a game with a focus on PvP combat). Besides this is WWI, nobody has a radio, the most cohesive communication soldiers would have is shouting...sorry but it is essentially going to be charging drothes. Could they be smarter? Maybe. Also, explain the game mode you want then. Explain. Because the goals of warfare are for the most part: capturing the enemy positions, and or destroying convoys supplying enemy forces. WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO MATE. I want massive scale combat, and there's only so much to be done with it that's not ridiculous or cheesy.

 

[Jawehawk]

To sum up a response: The exception of AI that you desire, is frankly, ridiculous. Consoles be dammed, to create AI like that is something almost no game has ever achieved. I've played many games, DICE has done a decent job here (for a game with a focus on PvP combat). Besides this is WWI, nobody has a radio, the most cohesive communication soldiers would have is shouting...sorry but it is essentially going to be charging drothes. Could they be smarter? Maybe. Also, explain the game mode you want then. Explain. Because the goals of warfare are for the most part: capturing the enemy positions, and or destroying convoys supplying enemy forces. WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO MATE. I want massive scale combat, and there's only so much to be done with it that's not ridiculous or cheesy.

You do realise that even in modern day militaries, soldiers are taught communication methods beyond just chatting on a radio, right? From hand signals to specific phrases, communication has been the primary driver in succes on the battlefield for a very long time. It is something as simple as someone calling out enemy movements, to the section leaders telling their guys what to do.

I'm not expecting this AI to suddenly appear in games, but I certainly expect developers to work towards more sophisticated AI. Something neither Dice nor IW/Treyarch is doing, hence why their games continue to have some of the worst AI in the business. It completely fails at delivering an engrossing experience, because the AI is so far removed from reality. And read my response to Peasentslayer. SOCOM US Navy Seals is on the PS2, and it has better teammate AI than most games. Consoles aren't really the limiting factor.

I don't mind conquest per say, but to say that it is the only thing they can do is absurd. They could borrow some inspiration of the folks who made Frontlines: Fuel of War, and make an actual frontline system, rather than random flags spread about. They could also have different objectives on the map, such as destroying specific targets robbing the enemy team of an actual ressource, while at the same time trying to push a frontline forward.

And you mention convoys yourself. So how about a mode where one team has to transport a certain amount of logistics from A to B, while the other team has to deny them from achieving this goal.

You say you want massive scale battles, but the current 64 player limit was already too small for the bigger maps in BF3.
Of course these large scale battles also get kind of awful when the majority of players are using scoped bolt action rifles. Because scopes were totally something everyone had access to in WW1...