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

TheMightyVoice

The Pantless Messiah Returns

(1,830)

Posts: 786

Date of registration
: May 22nd 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Behind my M240B

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

31

Thursday, August 3rd 2017, 6:25am

25k players is nothing


Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that sentiment. 25k peak daily is really big. BF4's 15k are plenty still. As long as there's 1k+ concurrent in your region you shouldn't have a problem, and I'd assume that at least 30% of the game's population is North American with at least another 30% being European.

Yes, less played modes/sizes will not be quite as readily available as they were with 100k+, but it'll still be a decent selection. It was for BF4 last time I checked a month ago.
As I recall, BF4 was hitting 25-30k regularly post-Hardline on PC. Do remember there is a 3 year gap between BF1 and BF4. Over a year and a half into BF4's lifespan, it was still retaining player counts competitive with BF1's current player counts well beyond the final DLC's release. It'll be interesting to see how BF1's longevity in these terms compares given the extended release schedule of DLC. Whether it's hurt or helped by it will be interesting to find out.
Eat your heart out, Badger.

Spoiler Spoiler


<elementofprgress> yummm baby jesus
<elementofprgress> but i'd prefer jesus with ketchup

<cloon> women are allowed to play hockey?
<daddygreeenjeans> body checks are a fundamental part of women's suffrage

<Riesig> "... I'M GAY..."

steamboat28: the doctors at the ER found my nipples, too!
steamboat28: it just..y'know...took them a razor and two orderlies.

<Legion> And damn, now I really want some [redacted] penetrator measurements

<Rezal> peipin, why did you tell them you brought your phone?
<Pepin_the_Short> Because there’s like a one in five chance of getting searched on the way out
<Pepin_the_Short> And trying to sneak the fucker out is way worse than letting them look at Cloon’s dick pics.

17:52:08 <Rezal> Unfortunately, this video is not available in your country because it could contain music, for which we could not agree on conditions of use with GEMA.
17:52:15 <ToTheSun> lolgema
17:52:15 <TheMightyVoice> lolgema

<Legion> But I literally am Hitler right now
Somehow my bullets are magnetically attracted to popular Youtubers, but theirs rarely seem to hit me.

Posts: 477

Date of registration
: Dec 24th 2011

Platform: PS3

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

32

Thursday, August 3rd 2017, 12:12pm

I agree that the dumbing down of community features has really neutered Battlefield 1's longevity. While I know many PC players probably didn't like launching from it, killing off Battlelog was probably one of the worst things DICE did. It worked very well as a social hub where you could access official forums, check your stats, customize your characters/weapons/vehicles/emblems/dog tags, create/join platoons, personalize your profile, post status updates, share battle reports, text and voice chat (voice was eventually removed, I believe), group/platoon chats, BBlog, and a good bit more. Now these features are separated into two or three dumbed-down sites while other features are straight-up MIA.

Server rentals seem quite unappealing too. Especially when they cost 50% more for PC players than console players. Too many admin tools seem to have been removed or severely limited, and with the now-small playerbase, good luck populating any custom server.

One step DICE could, and should, take is to change some of the default server browser filters. Some of the filters for the more minor gameplay-altering features should be blank/undecided/either or/both/whatever-not-necessarily-on-and-not-necessarily-off-is-called. You should be able to disable Map Voting, disable Elites, enable Single-Action Rifles, and whatnot while keeping the server within the realms of the default filters.

Posts: 195

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

33

Thursday, August 3rd 2017, 2:33pm

Agreed with what is said about RSP. I do not know why clans keep renting when standard matching won't even match a player to that server if just one setting is different. Right now the populated CQ servers have the exact same settings, and mostly DICE official. The only rented server I know of that gets populated is AOD.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,560

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

34

Friday, August 4th 2017, 12:52am

Even if you play on a custom server and do like the round, for whatever reason, you would never find out, because you and 63 others joined through quickmatch. I can not even recall if the server name and a greeting message of the owner/clan is displayed in the loading screen, or if it is seen anywhere in-game. Honestly renting servers is just an additional cashgrab that will conveniently also enlarge the capabilities on peak times. Although you have to admit that there have always been enough official servers by DICE, I do not know if that was the case in BF4, where I excludively played on community servers.
With battlelog, like Dorian said, you had a browser page, that you will have open anyway when playing where you could find any information on the game itself, the round you play, yourself and others. Now everything is hidden either on third party sites (that do a great job), a horrible Menu and UI and the most horrible thing ever to be installed on my PC, Origin. Honestly, I could probably live with all the gameplay mechanics that do not suit me, if the social features BF3 and 4 had were back. Just something that acknowledges that I am playing with other people.

Posts: 1,819

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

35

Friday, August 4th 2017, 1:15am

Even if you play on a custom server and do like the round, for whatever reason, you would never find out, because you and 63 others joined through quickmatch. I can not even recall if the server name and a greeting message of the owner/clan is displayed in the loading screen, or if it is seen anywhere in-game. Honestly renting servers is just an additional cashgrab that will conveniently also enlarge the capabilities on peak times. Although you have to admit that there have always been enough official servers by DICE, I do not know if that was the case in BF4, where I excludively played on community servers.
With battlelog, like Dorian said, you had a browser page, that you will have open anyway when playing where you could find any information on the game itself, the round you play, yourself and others. Now everything is hidden either on third party sites (that do a great job), a horrible Menu and UI and the most horrible thing ever to be installed on my PC, Origin. Honestly, I could probably live with all the gameplay mechanics that do not suit me, if the social features BF3 and 4 had were back. Just something that acknowledges that I am playing with other people.


I have a completely different QM experience. It tends to dump me in some under populated server with a mediocre ping. I have much better luck looking for low ping, ~60 player servers manually.

The biggest issue for me is the complete lack of "all map" servers. There are a couple, but they always have like 8+ queues.

Posts: 80

Date of registration
: Mar 4th 2017

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

36

Monday, August 14th 2017, 6:30pm

As a total gaming noob, I have nothing to compare it to but feel vindicated in my complaints by some of MarbleDuck's commentaries.

This one from about 3:30-7:30 reflects my initial frustration as a guy who wanted to play support:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG1Tnc4NQc

Some other places we're in agreement:
I find conquest major boring. If Frontlines hadn't come along, I'd probably be done with it.

The combination of gunplay & map design (see video), IMO, causes too much reliance on gadgets, i.e. explosives. In too many objectives, it seems like whichever side spams the most explosives wins.

Being a shooting/mil-hist buff, the WWI setting drew me in and the challenge keeps me coming back. The uniqueness of the setting plus modern enough weaponry to make for interesting gunplay.

I'm eyeballing the upcoming COD WWII. No idea how it will compare.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,560

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

37

Yesterday, 1:00pm

As a total gaming noob, I have nothing to compare it to but feel vindicated in my complaints by some of MarbleDuck's commentaries.

This one from about 3:30-7:30 reflects my initial frustration as a guy who wanted to play support:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG1Tnc4NQc

Some other places we're in agreement:
I find conquest major boring. If Frontlines hadn't come along, I'd probably be done with it.

The combination of gunplay & map design (see video), IMO, causes too much reliance on gadgets, i.e. explosives. In too many objectives, it seems like whichever side spams the most explosives wins.

Being a shooting/mil-hist buff, the WWI setting drew me in and the challenge keeps me coming back. The uniqueness of the setting plus modern enough weaponry to make for interesting gunplay.

I'm eyeballing the upcoming COD WWII. No idea how it will compare.


Worse, it is much faster in multiplayer, with a much smaller scale than BF and a setting that never comes close to authenticity. Also, if you do not like the german sniper being black in BF1 (which I find is a huge stretch), wait until you see black female axis soldiers in the multiplayer. If you are into historic settings, authenticity and the sheer scope and scale of BF with all the gadgets, vehicles and weaponry, I guess you will not like CoD MP. The gunplay will likely be smoother, faster, and more inviting though, probably even more fun.

Posts: 670

Date of registration
: Sep 19th 2012

Platform: PS3

Location: Virginia, USA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

38

Yesterday, 7:10pm

Agreed... I'd just as soon go back to BF1943 than deal with the quicktwich merchants on CoD-style phonebooth-sized maps... I don't have the reflexes for that stuff anymore anyway. Besides, I saw how "authentic" their alternate Cold War history was in Black Ops....

Posts: 80

Date of registration
: Mar 4th 2017

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

39

Today, 12:30am

As a total gaming noob, I have nothing to compare it to but feel vindicated in my complaints by some of MarbleDuck's commentaries.

This one from about 3:30-7:30 reflects my initial frustration as a guy who wanted to play support:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG1Tnc4NQc

Some other places we're in agreement:
I find conquest major boring. If Frontlines hadn't come along, I'd probably be done with it.

The combination of gunplay & map design (see video), IMO, causes too much reliance on gadgets, i.e. explosives. In too many objectives, it seems like whichever side spams the most explosives wins.

Being a shooting/mil-hist buff, the WWI setting drew me in and the challenge keeps me coming back. The uniqueness of the setting plus modern enough weaponry to make for interesting gunplay.

I'm eyeballing the upcoming COD WWII. No idea how it will compare.


Worse, it is much faster in multiplayer, with a much smaller scale than BF and a setting that never comes close to authenticity. Also, if you do not like the german sniper being black in BF1 (which I find is a huge stretch), wait until you see black female axis soldiers in the multiplayer. If you are into historic settings, authenticity and the sheer scope and scale of BF with all the gadgets, vehicles and weaponry, I guess you will not like CoD MP. The gunplay will likely be smoother, faster, and more inviting though, probably even more fun.

As a total gaming noob, I have nothing to compare it to but feel vindicated in my complaints by some of MarbleDuck's commentaries.

This one from about 3:30-7:30 reflects my initial frustration as a guy who wanted to play support:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GAG1Tnc4NQc

Some other places we're in agreement:
I find conquest major boring. If Frontlines hadn't come along, I'd probably be done with it.

The combination of gunplay & map design (see video), IMO, causes too much reliance on gadgets, i.e. explosives. In too many objectives, it seems like whichever side spams the most explosives wins.

Being a shooting/mil-hist buff, the WWI setting drew me in and the challenge keeps me coming back. The uniqueness of the setting plus modern enough weaponry to make for interesting gunplay.

I'm eyeballing the upcoming COD WWII. No idea how it will compare.


Worse, it is much faster in multiplayer, with a much smaller scale than BF and a setting that never comes close to authenticity. Also, if you do not like the german sniper being black in BF1 (which I find is a huge stretch), wait until you see black female axis soldiers in the multiplayer. If you are into historic settings, authenticity and the sheer scope and scale of BF with all the gadgets, vehicles and weaponry, I guess you will not like CoD MP. The gunplay will likely be smoother, faster, and more inviting though, probably even more fun.


Thanks for the tip.

If I were a stickler for authenticity, BF1 would still be a major stretch:-)

I think my son might have BF4 somewhere. Modern settings just don't pique my interest, but I might give it a try.