Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

yugas42

Moderator

(1,387)

Posts: 1,494

Date of registration
: Sep 1st 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

21

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 7:58am

Can we finally get 64 v 64?


And probably remove the cancer that is meat grinder maps.

Interestingly enough Battlefield sits in a genre that does not do super large scale conflict usually. That's one of the things that makes Battlefield unique in the first place, just how large 32v32 is. If you want to look for larger scale than that you're looking in the wrong place. MMO's have traditionally hosted super large scale PvP of all kinds, whether that content is instanced or open-world it usually had the same effect. Planetside 2 is a common example of large-scale PvP, it is probably the closest related to Battlefield out of any examples I can think of. Other popular examples are MMO titles like Guild Wars 2, Lineage 1 and 2, and Ragnarok Online. Almost all fantasy MMORPG games have some form of large scale PvP, it's an expected feature; the same cannot be said of first person shooters.

Posts: 941

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

22

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 8:20am

Side note, everywhere is filled with people saying "I hope the next bf is not futuristic because that would be shit", but no one saying "Futuristic is shit because ..."


Futuristic is shit because most of the time developers dont build the Sci-Fi Setting properly.

I can only think of 1 Sci-Fi Shooter I actually liked. It was Killzone 3. Why? Although some areas had a huge development progress (e.g. the "invisibility" of the Scout, or incredibly huge war machines), your usual encounter was still very classic, with a weapon, that shoots bullets (not lasers) and flying annoying things were less of a problem.

And one last point: The general public is more willing to pay for something, to which they can relate to or what they are somehow familiar with. Everyone can think of how weapons in WW1, WW2 and now work. The futuristic Call of Duty stuff wouldnt sell, if there wasnt printed "Call of Duty" on the box. Another reason, why Titanfall had it very difficult to compete with the CoD release.

Just a few reasons, why I doubt the game would become futuristic. Aside from making it even more difficult for Titanfall 2 to become profitable.

However, Iwo_Jima's point, with a WW2 spin-off DLC, would make perfect sense. Therefore I assume a Bad Company 3 with a WW2 DLC.
still playin' Motorstorm

yugas42

Moderator

(1,387)

Posts: 1,494

Date of registration
: Sep 1st 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

23

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 8:28am

Futuristic is shit because most of the time developers dont build the Sci-Fi Setting properly.

Considering that nobody has been to the future, I doubt game developers will ever nail down your specific opinion on what it will be like. That's the real problem with futuristic settings, everyone has a different expectation.

C0llis

Up and down. Bounce all around

(3,334)

Posts: 3,100

Date of registration
: Apr 15th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

24

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 1:00pm

Can we finally get 64 v 64?


And probably remove the cancer that is meat grinder maps.
Personally, I can do without 64v64. 32v32 already produces meatgrinders on maps that or otherwise decent (Hainan Hotel, Zavod C-D, Wave Breaker Cave Complex, Hammerhead Cave, etc.).

Sure, 64v64 could work if DICE made maps more uniform with respect to infantry combat areas, instead of the current paradigm where the flags are mini-TDM zones suspended in a wasteland, with one major TDM zone in the middle of the map where 60% of the players from both teams end up fighting over 1-3 flags.

Things people said

And reading Youtube comments still gives me Turbo Cancer.

It really is quite frustrating when Helen Keller sets up her LMG in the only doorway in/out of an area.

What kind of question is that? Since when is cheese ever a bad idea?

Hardline is a fun and sometimes silly Cops and Robbers sorta thing and I think that's great. Or it would be if it didn't suck.

Posts: 91

Date of registration
: Jun 23rd 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

25

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 4:37pm

I don't think 64 vs 64 will be a thing, mainly because I don't think the network would hold up very well, especially with all of the destructability and dynamic components in the maps. But I would like to see maybe 40 vs. 40 or 48 vs 48; that might be alright. The biggest problem is map design of course. If we do 96-player games, then the maps would have to be designed to fit 96 players comfortably in a non-meat-grinder setting. That would require that maps be very large and spread out so that everyone doesn't clump up in one area. But then what happens if the map is run is run with lower playercounts or there simply aren't enough players to fill a server? Then the map becomes way too large and it becomes really boring or a flag-cap merry-go-round. 8v8 Golmud Conquest Large isn't particularly fun. There needs to be a way to dynamically adjust the playable zone in response to the number of players currently in a server before larger player counts are viable.

I would like to see more destructability in man-made structures, but also more varied terrain so that 2000-ticket games won't became flat wastelands when everything is destroyed. However, I would also like to limit the terrain destructability to certain areas: grass/dirt/mud/snow should be easily deformable via explosives but roads should be resistant to that kind of terrain destruction. I don't like Zavod because driving becomes needlessly difficult after a certain point in the game. Limiting terrain deformability should make vehicles more viable, but also create more ways to anticipate them. Tanks would travel along roads more since roads don't have deformation, thus roadblocks and road-side ambushes will be more effective.

I guess I'm one of the few people who actually likes the idea of Levolution, especially in the Shanghai building collapse. Many of the Levolution events weren't particularly good or did not have a great impact on the map, but I liked the tower collapse and I think that idea could be expanded upon. I would like to see a hybrid between traditional building destruction (BC2 style) and tower collapse Levolution. So you can destroy lots of buildings, but the larger ones won't collapse in on themselves, like traditional buildings in BF, but instead topple over or create rubble piles around them. This goes back to BF3 with the facade destruction in Grand Bazaar and other maps, but those rubbles piles should be persistent. I think that would be a good cross between Levolution and traditional destruction, giving players more freedom for destruction but at the same time allowing destruction to affect maps in more complex ways.

Posts: 941

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

26

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 8:31pm

Futuristic is shit because most of the time developers dont build the Sci-Fi Setting properly.

Considering that nobody has been to the future, I doubt game developers will ever nail down your specific opinion on what it will be like. That's the real problem with futuristic settings, everyone has a different expectation.


Actually I wasnt talking about nailing down a specific opinion, its more about the lacking "reasonable" (or somehow explained) technological change. I just tend to call it "polished" Sci-Fi that could deliver a coherent setting.

Just a short example: I prefer the Witcher above all other fantasy games, because its a coherent universe, which lets the player dive into.

Most Sci-Fi Games dont do this properly. Maybe the Fallout Series manages that, but I havent played one so far, therefore I cannot say anything about it.

Maybe you now understand, what I was trying to squeeze into the above quoted sentence.
still playin' Motorstorm

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,156)

Posts: 7,231

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

27

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 8:44pm

I don't think lore quite matters in a series that historically has A) rather bad writing and B) focused more on player vs player
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 445

Date of registration
: Mar 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

28

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 9:10pm

I don't think lore quite matters in a series that historically has A) rather bad writing and B) focused more on player vs player

Do you think it will have a singleplayer?
RIP Sraw

Miffyli

Symthic Developer

(6,661)

Posts: 3,725

Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013

Platform: PC

Location: __main__, Finland

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

29

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 9:32pm

I don't think lore quite matters in a series that historically has A) rather bad writing and B) focused more on player vs player

Do you think it will have a singleplayer?

Don't see why not. Titanfall got negatives for "not having a proper single player", and so far BF has always had a campaign.
Links to users' thread list who have made analytical/statistical/mathematical/cool posts on Symthic:
  • 3VerstsNorth - Analysis of game mechanics in BF4 (tickrates, effects of tickrate, etc)
  • leptis - Analysis of shotguns, recoil, recoil control and air drag.
  • Veritable - Scoring of BF4/BF1 firearms in terms of usability, firing and other mechanics.
  • Miffyli - Random statistical analysis of BF4 battlereports/players and kill-distances. (list is cluttered with other threads).
Sorry if your name wasn't on the list, I honestly can't recall all names : ( . Nudge me if you want to be included

Mofixil

Sometimes I just get blinded by hate. And tears.

(377)

Posts: 1,414

Date of registration
: Jul 27th 2013

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

30

Monday, May 2nd 2016, 9:41pm

and so far BF has always had a campaign.

Except for any BF game released before 2008 or so. And besides Bad Company spinoffs, the campaign was a waste of time with some mediocre rewards shoehorned to it.
I'd pick bots over a campaign any day.

Whatever the setting is in the new BF game, DICE SE will surely manage to mess it up bad.

Similar threads