• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Battlefield 1 Early access,Road to Battlefield 1 streams (BF1 prior release thread)

TheContact

TheContact

Member
TimeEffect said:
I swore off BF4 because of the crazy dorito spotting and all the other ways you could get spotted.

In the beta, you NEEDED to be pinpoint accurate to mark enemies. This made it so that if you were some medic pointing in the distance, you couldnt just vaguely spot someone far off. You needed a scope to do that. That was an excellent design choice IMO.

People were under the impression that they should be rewarded with a spot simply for pressing the button.

If it's adjusted to be slightly easier, that's fine. But I really dont want it to be as easy as BF4. I seriously hated that game for feeling so damn automated. You were chasing around doritos and you couldnt as so much fire a gun without getting hounded by the enemies. This was a huge problem with long time players who were trained to rush an enemy when they fired their gun.

I love BF1 because when an enemy fires at a teammate, and when I hear screams, I get terrified and panic. I hit the ground or quickly turn a corner, or turn around trying to follow the sound. In BF4, you look at your radar, and pinpoint the enemy. Awful.

I loathed it. I guess spotting isnt a big issue as that, but I do hope it's not the case that Im shooting at dots

I really think the game has a ton of decent marking options (scout abilities, recon planes), and that spotting as a soldier should be limited in balance with that.

Generally, how does the spotting work? Is there a cooldown? How does the cooldown work? How long are you spotted for? How much bigger are the spot marks? The beta was a beautiful battlefield with minimalist pop ups. I hope it's not too bad
Click to expand...


Just play hardcore mode man. Non hardcore battlefields are boring as fk. No arrow spotting, no kill cams, more "realistic" bullet damage, less HUD. Just all around so much more fun
 
J

jim2point0

Banned
It's dangerous to go alone. Take a wrench!

29718802763_f6bc673daa_o.jpg
 
DaciaJC

DaciaJC

Gold Member
TesUsa said:
Just play hardcore mode man. Non hardcore battlefields are boring as fk. No arrow spotting, no kill cams, more "realistic" bullet damage, less HUD. Just all around so much more fun
Click to expand...

Hardcore mode is great except for the damage model, which is awful. Battlefield has never been about realistic combat or TTK. Call of Duty can kinda get away with HC because its main gamemode involves nothing more than getting kills and you generally die quickly anyway, but in Battlefield, the objective play rather suffers when you cut the player's health almost in half.
 
E

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I like the look of Endor's moon forest more. I prefer the lighting, and the texture quality is on average better (I think?) thanks to photogrammetry. The specular mapping in Battlefield 1 is unrealistically heavy in my opinion, noticeable on a lot of the foliage, where Battlefront is more subtle and believable in particular relevance to the lighting. The topography and foliage distribution also doesn't look as natural to me, but they probably put greater emphasis on actual playspace and strategy in Battlefield 1's map design over Battlefront's clusterfucks.

Still looks gorgeous though.
 
W

WillyFive

Member
Still so many bugs that I hope get fixed with a Day One patch:

- Joysticks currently don't work.
- Operations is not in the server browser.
- Operations usually does not even load a server with people in it.
- You can't customize vehicles unless you have clicked on them on the map.
- Which means you can't customize them at all until one spawns and you claim it.
- Chat box disappears during the ending screen and loading screen.
- The UI itself sometimes disappears from the loading screen and main menu, forcing you to restart.
- The main menu is a pain to navigate with a controller, as analog sticks can't easily move between buttons and the tabs on the sides of the screen.
- Friends list pops up from the right side of the screen at random times.
- Game doesn't boot when launched from Steam Big Picture mode or work with Steam controller, but Origin still thinks it's running.
- Horses gets stuck extremely easily in geometry, leading to seeing horses left behind in absurd locations simply because the player couldn't get it unstuck.
 
D

draughn101

Member
Is it just me, or did the auto-team balancing seem alot more aggressive in the beta? I keep getting stuck on teams that get blanked round after round and there's no adjustment whatsoever. Painful.

Also, I wish there was a way to chat directly to someone's screen. If you mute the chatbox you don't get any info from your team, which is a little ridiculous. Match after match with SL not setting objectives, and not responding or realizing that the team is trying to communicate to them.

**** Squad leaders**** set the objective!!! You get free points and the squad collects points with every action they perform towards that objective. A good squad can rack up an extra 1k-2k points through a game.
 
E

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
My ten hours are up. Definitely got withdrawals, but not gonna buy another access account (cheap as they are) since I'll play early access in a couple of days anyway. Random thoughts.

- Scar is easily my favourite map is it caters to what I love most about the Battlefield series. I actually don't mind Sinai for similar reasons, but the layout is much worse than Scar. Amiens is a strong urban map, but I'm not singing quite as high praise as others due to a lot of the conflict being centralised on the two bridge points. Fao is simply too open for my taste, catering heavily to long range sniper play which is boring to me. And Suez is too linear.
- As per the above, I'm not entirely confident I'll be happy with the final game map quality. Argonne is apparently even more linear than Suez. Ballroom is obviously infantry focused. That leaves Monte Grappa and Empire's Edge. It's just personal preference though. I can't realistically expect every map to be designed around my taste. Just hope those last two give similar vibes to Scar.
- Crazy gorgeous/sounding game, but I've really been spoiled by Battlefront, which I think does generally look a little bit better. If I had to nitpick I really hope DICE improve (patches or otherwise) Battlefield 1's LOD streaming, shader update lag, shader complexity, and texture streaming. There's a lot of wiggle room for high end PCs to push things further and it's disappointing that even ultra doesn't quite hit that mark.
- On the plus side, that would explain the great performance. I mean, running a cutting edge system obviously means I don't have issues, but being able to play on ultra at 1440p with 120% resolution scale and frequently be sitting 90+ fps is so, so, so fucking good.
- Loving the little changes made to classes. I recant my earlier complaints against medics; definitely a lot more healing and reviving. Support is still the only one that feels just that little bit redundant, but I do enjoy playing it regardless. I think the classes will feel better as time goes by, few balance tweaks, and the formula becomes more understandable to players. Class role nuances are a wee bit different here, in a good way.
- Not fussed about the tank nerf either, since it's not a bad nerf. I really liked how monstrous they were in the alpha, so I don't feel they needed to change it, but they haven't totally butchered them
- Flight still feels good. AA devastates aircraft, but otherwise they're very capable and can do a lot of damage. Carpet bombing infantry is so satisfying.
- I do get weird stuttering when flying though. Have the same issue in Battlefront, and nobody else seems to get it and/or DICE don't recognise it.
- mondragon forever
 
W

WillyFive

Member
EatChildren said:
- I do get weird stuttering when flying though. Have the same issue in Battlefront, and nobody else seems to get it and/or DICE don't recognise it.
Click to expand...

Happens to me all the time. Always seems like the server is having a hard time keeping track with how fast my plane is moving, so it will make 'fake turbulence' or even teleport my plane to a different position. Makes flying in low areas really dangerous, because you have no idea if the server will decide that you crashed 3 seconds ago.
 
D

Digital Savior

Member
I finished my 10 hours. Bought the Digital Deluxe. It's gonna be a fun week when it comes out.

Grinded out pistol kills in BF4 for the 1911 skin. I had to grind to unlock the 1911 and then get 100 kills with it. Was fun.
 
J

jim2point0

Banned
EatChildren said:
- Scar is easily my favourite map is it caters to what I love most about the Battlefield series. I actually don't mind Sinai for similar reasons, but the layout is much worse than Scar. Amiens is a strong urban map, but I'm not singing quite as high praise as others due to a lot of the conflict being centralised on the two bridge points. Fao is simply too open for my taste, catering heavily to long range sniper play which is boring to me. And Suez is too linear.

- As per the above, I'm not entirely confident I'll be happy with the final game map quality. Argonne is apparently even more linear than Suez. Ballroom is obviously infantry focused. That leaves Monte Grappa and Empire's Edge. It's just personal preference though. I can't realistically expect every map to be designed around my taste. Just hope those last two give similar vibes to Scar.
Click to expand...

Map design can make or break a Battlefield game for me. So far I feel about the same as you, which leaves me also very worried about the overall map selection in the final game. The linearity in Suez ruins it for me. I don't know why Dice likes to make these meat grinder maps. With no cover on the outskirts of the map, flanking becomes impossible so once you lose control of all 3 bases, you're put in a situation where it's damn near impossible to recover. The idea of a map even more linear than that is rather concerning, as that would make at least 2 maps that I'd avoid at all costs.

EatChildren said:
The specular mapping in Battlefield 1 is unrealistically heavy in my opinion, noticeable on a lot of the foliage, where Battlefront is more subtle and believable in particular relevance to the lighting.
Click to expand...

That's just par for the course in Frostbite games, really. Battlefront doesn't seem to avoid it either.

22713693759_f06e4cac65_o.png


29718802763_f6bc673daa_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Looks slightly worse in BF1, but it's mostly a problem when things are wet. Overall, I'd say that Battlefront does look a bit better. I suspect that game had a higher budget for the visuals being a Star Wars game. But it's like you said, hard to complain when the game looks this good and can easily maintain 60 FPS at 4K+ resolutions (at least on my hardware).
 
Stiler

Stiler

Member
draughn101 said:
I think you have to go that route, unless you find a way to keep people from running around with them.
Click to expand...

No you don't....

Make them great at a medium range when mounted/stationary.

Make them really inaccurate when hip firing.


As it stands they have an extremely stupid way of balancing them by making them more accurate as you fire longer, while at the same time having a cooldown mechanic to stop you from long sustain firing.

On top of this they have the lowest dmg of any classes weapons. SMG's hit for more dmg then an lmg.


They just need to u p their dmg and make them great at offering good medium-range stationary fire, whereas SMG's would be better close range/hip firing, lmg's should absolutely be the best when it comes to offering the most dmg at medium range in terms of automatic weapons.
 
D

draughn101

Member
Stiler said:
No you don't....

Make them great at a medium range when mounted/stationary.

Make them really inaccurate when hip firing.


As it stands they have an extremely stupid way of balancing them by making them more accurate as you fire longer, while at the same time having a cooldown mechanic to stop you from long sustain firing.

On top of this they have the lowest dmg of any classes weapons. SMG's hit for more dmg then an lmg.


They just need to u p their dmg and make them great at offering good medium-range stationary fire, whereas SMG's would be better close range/hip firing, lmg's should absolutely be the best when it comes to offering the most dmg at medium range in terms of automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

The only experience I have with/against them is on Amiens, and they absolutely own those alleyways as is. The hip fire inaccuracy is nothing in close quarters.

pizzacat said:
This game ran great on my PC with he beta

I heard it looks better now, will it make a difference in running?
Click to expand...

I'm getting about 20 extra fps on average. 100 -> 120 at 3440x1440.
 
G

GodParticle

Member
harz-marz said:
I didn't play the beta but in this version the fps seems dire...

Plays well in single player however.
Click to expand...

It ran terribly on big modes in the beta on ps4. I was really hoping they got it on the level of battlefront. I really don't want to have to buy a ps4pro just to get a decent frame rate =/
 
M

MagicWithEarvin

Member
Did I already tell you guys how awesome Operations is? It's like Conquest and Rush had a beautiful baby. I will say one thing, though: that airship that the British get is OP as hell when you're on the defending team. How the hell do you take it down?
 
DOWN

DOWN

Banned
EatChildren said:
I like the look of Endor's moon forest more. I prefer the lighting, and the texture quality is on average better (I think?) thanks to photogrammetry. The specular mapping in Battlefield 1 is unrealistically heavy in my opinion, noticeable on a lot of the foliage, where Battlefront is more subtle and believable in particular relevance to the lighting. The topography and foliage distribution also doesn't look as natural to me, but they probably put greater emphasis on actual playspace and strategy in Battlefield 1's map design over Battlefront's clusterfucks.

Still looks gorgeous though.
Click to expand...
Battlefield 1 uses photogrammetry too but I'm curious to see if I share your opinion on the differences
 
M

Mugenjin

Member
jim2point0 said:
Map design can make or break a Battlefield game for me. So far I feel about the same as you, which leaves me also very worried about the overall map selection in the final game. The linearity in Suez ruins it for me. I don't know why Dice likes to make these meat grinder maps. With no cover on the outskirts of the map, flanking becomes impossible so once you lose control of all 3 bases, you're put in a situation where it's damn near impossible to recover. The idea of a map even more linear than that is rather concerning, as that would make at least 2 maps that I'd avoid at all costs.
Click to expand...

Because a lot of people seem to like that kind of map. Just look how many locker and metro only servers there are. With some horses and a squad it's easily possible to get to the enemy's first flag and try to cap it. The problem is that capping takes a really long time even with a lot of players let alone a few so the other team has enough time to spawn to defend the flag.
 
D

DeadlyParasite

Member
First of all, I can't emphasize enough how amazing it is to not be playing a futuristic shooter.

Secondly, that singleplayer intro to the game was amazing,

Thirdly, they must have buffed the visuals for the XB1 big time since the beta because everything looks clearer and more detailed. Unfortunately this has caused some kind of random freezing or performance issues.

Played two multiplayer matches and everything was crazy, I love it. That EA Access trial popup is goddamn annoying though. At least set it for once an hour and not every 10 minutes.

Definite buy.
 
N

NippleViking

Banned
Beta almost murdered my hype, though this early access has brought it back stronger than ever. So good. And visuals are substantially better on Xbone, though IQ's still a bit messy.

jim2point0 said:
Looks slightly worse in BF1, but it's mostly a problem when things are wet. Overall, I'd say that Battlefront does look a bit better. I suspect that game had a higher budget for the visuals being a Star Wars game. But it's like you said, hard to complain when the game looks this good and can easily maintain 60 FPS at 4K+ resolutions (at least on my hardware).
Click to expand...

I'd say Battlefront looking slightly better is due to BF1 doing so much more, with higher player-counts (64vs40), more vehicles on map at a time, destructible set-pieces, and dynamic weather.
 
L

leng jai

Member
Yeah, can't really see any merit to complaining bout the graphics. The game can run at a locked 60fps on even moderate setups and already looks crazy. No need to change much really, it's got a fantastic balance between visuals and performance as is.
 
C

chronic_archaic

Member
Game is gorgeous but I still can't really get into Battlefield. It's either Titanfall 2 or IW/MWR this year. Gotta wait til next week to try the later though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Outlast Trials | Review Thread
Community Analysis Review
3
815
Bartski replied
The Making of Outlast Trials - dev documentary
Game Dev
3
471
Bartski replied
Ubisoft is discounting The Crew Motorfest less than a month after its release
News Business Cringe 2
55
4K
JohnnyFootball replied
Steam will stop issuing refunds if you play two hours of a game before launch day
News
12
1K
Spukc replied
Starting December 8 2023, Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield: Bad Company 1 & 2 will be removed from digital storefronts
News 2
62
5K
DeepEnigma replied
Top Bottom