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.

J0hn-Stuart-Mill

GW2 N00B... also old.

(1,952)

  • "J0hn-Stuart-Mill" started this thread

Posts: 1,145

Date of registration
: Apr 10th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

1

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 9:21am

The Future of the Battlefield Concept:

LevelCap also said that verticality was OP.

Reddit poked fun at this by saying LevelCap's dream map would be one where his team gets a vantage point while the other team gets nothing.

He further stated that open maps were bad. Here is J0hn's reply.


J0hn nailed it perfectly. Battlefields big open maps are what make battlefield what it is.

There's plenty of opportunities for tactical gameplay on any of the most open bf maps. You just have to orchestrate it yourself by communicating and coordinating with your squad, instead of letting map boundaries do it for you.

LOL! Just seeing this now! I had done a Google search for a specific post I had made (not this one) and this thread came up!

Hah, never saw this thread at the time, but I appreciate that it was enjoyed by so many. :)

-----------------------------------------

Sadly, Levelcap never retracted this video, nor ever stated that it was a "joke" video. I thought it must be a joke at the time, the only person who could ever think these things were true was someone who has no concept of what Battlefield is.

I don't understand how someone like Levelcap could be THIS out of touch with the game. I really do think he might never have understood the whole concept of Battlefield in the first place. If any of you would like, I'd invite you to watch that levelcap video, while keeping my rebuttal notes and timestamps handy, and you can see for yourself the true absurdity of this "Battlefield is bad because it's not CS" mindset.

J0hn-Stuart-Mill comments on Perfect Map by LvLCap

FPS Level Design - LevelCap Bashes BF4 Map Design - YouTube

===========================

The good news is that even a Battlefield community like Reddit saw this video heavily downvoted, (the video only got 138 up votes) with the top comment being a critique of how absurd the video itself is: Has bf4's map design been a let down? [Levelcap's take] : battlefield_4

And then within 12 hours, as Noctyrne mentioned, a thread mocking this video was submitted, and it got well over 500 up votes: J0hn-Stuart-Mill comments on Perfect Map by LvLCap

So Levecap can be wrong for all I care, I'm glad the pure Battlefield mindset is alive and well. Hallway shooters like COD and CS can exist that's fine, they are most people's first shooter experience, but Battlefield is here and IMO the Hallway shooter (small map, small playercount) concept should be left in the 90's, where it belongs.

---------------------------------------

At the end of the day, we need to remember what makes Battlefield, Battlefield. Big, open maps, with diverse vehicles, vegetation, water features, as well as spots that vehicles cannot go, basements, rooftops, buildings themselves, etc. The whole premise of "not being flankable = good game design" as Levelcap views the game is truly a foreign concept in Battlefield. Battlefield is about maps so big that everyone can be flanked all the time, and not just by "going around" but by going through walls, floors, and other destructible elements that dynamically change as the game flows.

I'm glad that this mindset is alive and well, and with projects like the CTE, I think Battlefield / Battlefront have a bright future.
My father used to say, We find our true friends on the Battlefield! - J0hn Snow

This post has been edited 8 times, last edit by "J0hn-Stuart-Mill" (Jan 22nd 2015, 9:41am)


Posts: 582

Date of registration
: Sep 3rd 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

2

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 9:36am

That's what's most puzzling about Levelcap: he makes a living off of Battlefield, he says he loves the game and yet all he mostly seems to care about is playing infantry on infantry game modes like TDM and Domination. I have a hard time believing he played any BF game before BF3.

I honestly don't get why he doesn't just play CoD or CS since it seems to be more up his (non-complicated, and properly pathed) alley.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,997)

Posts: 7,177

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

3

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 9:49am

John, what do you feel that future Battlefields should have?

I'm not talking about weapons, vehicles, or kits. I'm talking about game design concepts.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.


Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

J0hn-Stuart-Mill

GW2 N00B... also old.

(1,952)

  • "J0hn-Stuart-Mill" started this thread

Posts: 1,145

Date of registration
: Apr 10th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

4

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 10:07am

John, what do you feel that future Battlefields should have?


The most important thing for the future of the series is to have an ever ongoing CTE project for each Battlefield title. The CTE has and will fundamentally change how games are supported, and it's the only method of carefully ironing out bug after bug, as well as fine tuning features within the game to make them work as good as possible.

-----------

In the near future, I think map design is really important, Battlefield, Hardline, and Battlefront should look to make as many maps like the following as possible:

Markaz: The best map in Battlefield history. Perfect mix of infy/armor/light aircraft.
Talah Market: The best infantry only map in Battlefield history. Truly brilliant infantry play unlike anything else we've ever had.
Bandar Desert / Golmud / Dragon Valley / Karelia: The best armor heavy maps we've ever had

Kiasar Railroad (but add jets): The best hilly map in franchise history. The hills made the map feel bigger for armor, smaller for infantry, great design.
Azadi Palace: The best small armor heavy map in the series. Armor dominated, but every structure was swiss cheese for infantry. Infantry could tranverse the map easily, Armor was restricted to lanes.
Operation Mortar: The best water map in series history (suck it Wake Island!)

-----------

In the more distant future, I would like to see 96 and 128 player maps tried. Before you scoff, just imagine a Bandar Desert, doubled in size (15 flags!), with 64 players per team, 4 jets, 2 MAA's, 18 armor, 2 attack helis, 4 scout helis, etc etc) Think of how much more chaotic and fun that could be! 32v32 is an arbitrary size. There's no reason why maps twice as big couldn't be just as fun with 64vs64.

So yea, that's what I would like to see. :)
My father used to say, We find our true friends on the Battlefield! - J0hn Snow


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,997)

Posts: 7,177

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

5

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 10:46am

In the more distant future, I would like to see 96 and 128 player maps tried. Before you scoff, just imagine a Bandar Desert, doubled in size (15 flags!), with 64 players per team, 4 jets, 2 MAA's, 18 armor, 2 attack helis, 4 scout helis, etc etc) Think of how much more chaotic and fun that could be! 32v32 is an arbitrary size. There's no reason why maps twice as big couldn't be just as fun with 64vs64.

So yea, that's what I would like to see.


Me too.

The more the merrier.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.


Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 159

Date of registration
: May 18th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

6

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 11:05am

Indeed, eventually larger sizes is where I would like it to go.

Only thing I really want to see go from recent years is the overly "fluid" soldier movement.

To this day I think with all the light transport vehicles the stamina bar could make a return. If not, its not about how fast the soldiers run in a straight line, its how fast the strafe and change direction. The ADADADADADADAD while shooting meta is cancer.

Maps are up and down in every game, there is always some I like and don't like. The only thing I know for sure is, stop making maps that don't work for at least 32vs32. I'm looking at you metro/locker.

Though I would personally like to see some medium sized maps with a little armor for each side and a transport chopper. I want to see the transport shine... getting somewhat tired of the little bird spam on every other map.

I'm unsure about levolution, its an interesting concept and really works on some maps, but is just annoying on others. I like the shanghai choice between hold the roof or take the entire thing down. That is the way to go, a strategic choice. Not so much like tower on Caspian that is useless except as an annoying sniper nest that needs to die ASAP every game or locker where the stupid tower just dies in the first two seconds so the choice never exists. As far as weather goes, I would like to see wet conditions mean more (muddy roads anyone? :cursing: :thumbsup: :cursing: ) I really like the snow blind effects and the sandstorm is pretty aight too. And maybe a real night map... one day...

But ultimately one of my big concerns\interests is the setting. The further into the future the better for balance, but the past has something to offer as well. I think going back to the WWII setting would be good as a testing platform for larger games as back then not everyone had the firepower to mow down entire fields of people, which might help to keep the game from being silly chaotic while they figure out how to design maps around the concept. The way the settings are trending though its getting more and more like a pure game rather than having any real flavor, what with the full weapon customization and symmetrical all access equipment selection it doesn't so much feel like a battle as much as it does a wargame. C&C inspired BF would be best BF for sheer crazy fun.... >.>

Posts: 582

Date of registration
: Sep 3rd 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

7

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 11:42am

With regard to map design, I'd like to see a greater emphasis on objectives that offer meaningful and varied tactical advantages for holding them (that isn't just related to superior positioning).

For example, I like the dynamic on C flag on Paracel Storm, where you can call in the ship to serve as an automated AA gun. If the enemy team has a strong air game, capturing and holding that point becomes really important. As an idea, how about a stationary artillery piece that is shielded from direct attacks, but infantry can sneak in and blow it up.

I'd also like to see squad leader spawning and no 3D spotting being made the normal mode. The current spawning system means there is often no front line and every flag is constantly up for grabs. 3D spotting is a pretty weird noob crutch to include, and it removes a lot of the depth from the game. For instance, higher magnification scopes becomes useless when you can just aim at a dorito, and air vehicles can easily target infantry on the ground.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,282)

Posts: 2,689

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

8

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 12:58pm

J0hn made some good points, and I generally agree with him concerning maps and map elements he would like to see more. I've seen a video of lvlcap though, where he demonstrates flaws in map design, and I agree with them as well, though he oddly chose a Domination map (which are generally decently balanced out) to demonstrate his points.

What I would want so see is more of a focus an combined warfare instead of making every map appeal to some players more than others. Recently, and altogether in BF4, I find the focus to be too much on vehicles. And I am not talking about vehicular-infantry gameplay balance, but a balance of playercounts towards vehicle counts, and especially the room in which infantry moves.
I would also like to emphasize that bigger is not better, and that more players do not make the gameplay better either. In fact, I can not think of any map that works better with 64 players and worse with 32-48. Of course the more flags you have the more players you can have, but at some point, when the games get lopsided, it becomes cluttering at one or two flags, while it is hard to bypass the enemy hordes watching every meter. I would like more emphasis on maps that work on said player counts (32-48 ) and not maps that try to appeal to every count, but fail miserably in doing so.

Generally map design is horrible in BF4 for my liking. I can think of a couple that I like, but while in BF3 I generally liked everyone bar Endgame, here I find myself moaning a lot when a new map comes up. And the simple reason behind this is simply that they all play out totally the same, with minor deviations. High places, with huge advantages and vast places in between.

That brings me to cover. Horizontal it is as good as in any other Battlefield game but as soon as verticality comes in, which scale is ridiculous in BF4, cover becomes more and more meaningless. Roofs or structures with cover from, above, are scarce at best on most maps. Especially in between flags players are moving 200m or more without cover from above. This needs to change drastically. BF4 made a point of offering urban combat, yet this is not really the case if you could replace every multi-storey building and garage with a mountain and vast broad straight streets with plain grasslands.
Only on Propaganda the feeling of the aftermath maps has been captured, or well tried to capture a feeling of urban combat.

Flag distances are another thing correlating to cover, more than 150m to the next flag is intolerable to me, I find the fact that you have to drive 450m from base to home flag laughable on Final Stand. Yeah they keep adding shiny new transport vehicles like dirtbikes and snowmobiles but to these are death traps, leaving one close to a flag and people will know you are there because empty vehicles are shown on the map. Transport vehicles are easy to spot and to see and leave a bigger target naturally while offering no additional protection bar their speed. Do not get me wrong I would not want to walk from flag A to E on Lancang in 200m, but running from any flag A to B should be doable.

Added to that I would like to see less emphasis on vehicles spawning as flag assets, they create a lopsided game and when an opponent stacks up on armour it gets infinitely harder to shift the power back. On maps like Karelia where one side has no MAA but the other has two and maybe even two attack choppers, balance is askew. This ties in with the removal of the gunship that makes several maps unplaybale, i.e the naval strike maps. Mortar would be so good if there was no commander and Lost islands might be even playable. Then again, not every map needs three tanks, two LAVs, an MAA, every Chopper and jet. Often enough you have a vehicular overkill.

These are just a couple of things that annoy me in map design and it speaks a lot for itself, that I consider the SA maps the best of the whole BF, while I find only Propaganda, and Zavod appealing from the rest. I could also mention that optimisiation is bad, that you can not jump tree stumps, or that some ledges are hard to vault over, because they are too high at some places seemingly, or that some steps in terrain are too high to step over, albeit being only 5cm high. Then I could also say that on many maps the distances of firefights are seemingly either point blank, 50m or 140m which leaves a lot of room for improvement.

All in all I hope they have hired some new designers that put another feel to the maps in terms of design, BF4 leaves a lot to be desired.

That being said cosmetically, the maps are largely beautiful, try different things and themes and succeed in these terms. DICE gets praise from me for this.

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

9

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 1:16pm

@Jais

I don't agree about the game needing more flag based assets. I think the opposite is true: the game needs far less flag based assets.

Having a spawn point for the whole team, some light transport vehicles and being one step closer to the burn is enough of an advantage, all the shit with flag based MAAs, FACs, AHs, MBTs and other major vehicles need to stop. It rarely works out well, all it does is making the game more prone to spawn raping, especially when important vehicles like the ones I listed above only spawn one one flag but not in any one teams spawn (cough Hainan, Oman cough).

Something like a LAV or MBT on each teams' gimmie is often ok though, but more than that is pushing it.

DICE should also avoid giving one team a minor domination map as their gimmie (D on sunken dragon* and E on rogue transmission are the worst perpetrators here). It puts them at a major disadvantage since they will rarely be able to clear their gimme, instead forcing a portion of their team to stay back and play cat and mouse with what is usually just a small enemy squad.

*Granted, D isn't a proper gimme, but it is about as close to the US spawn as E.

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.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "C0llis" (Jan 22nd 2015, 1:30pm)


ToTheSun!

Be Creative.

(5,050)

Posts: 7,811

Date of registration
: Mar 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Portugal

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

10

Thursday, January 22nd 2015, 1:27pm

I honestly don't get why he doesn't just play CoD or CS

Because he'd never make it playing those games, let alone make a living out of commentating and/or streaming gameplay.

IMO, his capability for infantry gameplay on Battlefield 3/4 is already underwhelming. He gets by because this game doesn't cater as broadly to the competitive player, and this is reflected on pub population. Right off the bat, he looks better because there's lack of competition.

Put him in more popular and infantry oriented games like CS or CoD, and his very subjective appeal goes down the drain.