• 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 finally feels like it's back... ONLY until December 19th

For those unaware, recently on Battlefield 2042, DICE has officially recognized a hardcore conquest mode that was created by a community member in Battlefield Portal. The original server in Portal is called "Afghan War Sim" and is filled with around 40 to 80 people out of 128 players on average. The unfortunate part about the original server is that it's only 2 maps, El Alamein and Arica Harbor. Bullets are lethal in this mode, one to three shots to the body at the max, the ticket count is over 8,000 per team and the match timer is set to an hour.

So DICE came in and tweaked the timer and tickets to 45 minute matches and 5,000 tickets as well as adding Orbital, Spearhead and Renewal to the map rotation. The official servers for this mode last until December 19th. The biggest issue with DICE's servers are for one, there are too many of them. Half of the time the servers for this mode aren't even full of players. A lot of the time it's around 10 players and the rest of the 128 players are bots until more people join. However, last night I did get into a full 128 player lobby on Arica Harbor and let me tell you, it's the most fun I've had playing Battlefield since BF4. The teamwork is incredible.

I even made a new reddit account just to write a post about it. Unfortunately I have to wait 7 days to post it in the Battlefield sub so I'm going to post it here for now.


Rapid Strike is the correct direction for the Battlefield Franchise


I just wanted to give some props to DICE for featuring this sort of gameplay in an official sense.

This is the correct direction that this franchise should be heading in. There is a large portion of the Battlefield player base that longs for a new game to take the best elements from Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3.

Elements such as large maps on an unprecedented scale but ones with focused gameplay and predictable elevation changes, i.e., El Alamein from Battlefield 1942.

Strategic movement, gunplay and squad cohesion i.e., Battlefield 2.

And authentic looking soldiers and best in class immersion, i.e., Battlefield 3.

This doesn't mean that we never want to see new types of gadgets. In my opinion, some gadgets from 2042 such as the grappling hook or the vehicle hacking wrist module aren't terrible ideas, especially if the game has a more futuristic theme. But things of that nature should be linked to classes, not to characters.

And the systems in place should work like Battlefield 3 or 4. Do you want to use the grappling hook to get on top of hard to reach places? Well if so, you have to replace your 40mm grenade launcher with it.

On the flip side, gadgets such as the wingsuit break the gameplay as players that use it can literally get anywhere on the map. Remember how much harder it was to get on a rooftop or on top of Lancang Dam in Battlefield 4? Yea, you had to either run there or take an obvious chopper flight, or bail from a jet and hope that no one else would saw you do it.


Here are somethings that Rapid Strike offers that would benefit the gameplay.


- Slower and more deliberate sprinting speed. Soldiers aren't as light as paper and shouldn't sprint as such. Feeling heavy adds to the immersion of an authentic war game and slower sprinting speed means that if you want to run across an open space, you either better make sure you're going to make it before getting shot or have a squad mate to lay suppressive fire with an LMG.

- Lethal bullet damage. Battlefield doesn't necessarily need a TTK as fast as this game mode. The best official TTK that they ever made in my opinion was the TTK in Battlefield 3. The original TTK in BFV also felt great. It needs to be approachable to new players, satisfying and lethal for veteran players, and authentic to the weaponry in hand. Bullets this lethal allow for the use of suppressive fire without the needs for fake suppression effects on the screen like Battlefield 3 had that distort you HUD and clarity of the game. Because of this, players will naturally become suppressed from incoming rounds because if they expose themselves into a wall of gun fire THEY WILL DIE.

- Large scale sandbox gameplay. Matches with an extended amount of tickets and long match timers allow for adventures with squamates and experimentation. Failed to push that hill 300m away? It was a great effort but we have to try again and that's possible because we still have 35-40 minutes left in the match. If we fail a second time, we'll flank with a chopper or assault with a Humvee.

There will always be people that come in here and attack more hardcore gameplay. I don't need the game to be full blown hardcore milsim. That's not what any of us want with Battlefield.

We want a strategic sandbox with satisfying weaponry that allows funny and silly things to happen while also looking like there is an authentic war going on around us.

The acknowledgement of this type of gameplay in an official sense is promising. I'm not going to get my hopes up but let's hope DICE, along with Vince Zampella at the helm of the Battlefield franchise, can deliver a brand new experience that bridges the gap between the core and hardcore player base.

I've been calling Rapid Strike - "Battlefield 2012" because I just wish this was the full game. Even when playing on the 2042 maps, this mode feels like how I imagined 2042 would be. Simply soldiers in the future, USA vs Russia.


Here are a bunch of videos below showing the bullet damage, teamwork, funny Battlefield moments, etc.


















 
Last edited:
In fact, I liked that there were girls in the game. I mean something else... on one occasion I was playing with the German team and I saw a colored German...
Oh yea well the mod removes them too. I wish I could have maps where black soldiers actually fought such as Sicily or be a part of the Tuskegee Airmen. That would make sense.

The women would be cool too if they were French Resistance, Polish Resistance or Soviet Snipers. But no, they just threw everyone in there without historical context.
 

A.Romero

Member
I'm glad you are enjoying it.

I'm a long time fan and I got over 200hrs of gameplay on 2042. It might be my most played BF and it's not because it's the best but because of other things. I also enjoy stuff like Squad and Hell Let Loose so when I want something more methodical I rather go and play that. I like the craziness of BF. I miss 128 player breakthrough for example.

Over the years everytime a BF thread pops up (either positive or negative) I have noticed that people expect different things from BF. Some people want more arcade gameplay, other people prefer it leaning towards the simulation a bit. I believe a lot of the mechanics serve the purpose of incentivizing team gameplay more but people still ignore them. I'm not saying DICE made the best decisions but their initial approach with the game was precisely to incentivize team work by highlighting point earning from various activities over just kills.

The game has had an interesting evolution and in general I'd say it's in good shape. People should try it before they phase it out.
 
I'm glad you are enjoying it.

I'm a long time fan and I got over 200hrs of gameplay on 2042. It might be my most played BF and it's not because it's the best but because of other things. I also enjoy stuff like Squad and Hell Let Loose so when I want something more methodical I rather go and play that. I like the craziness of BF. I miss 128 player breakthrough for example.

Over the years everytime a BF thread pops up (either positive or negative) I have noticed that people expect different things from BF. Some people want more arcade gameplay, other people prefer it leaning towards the simulation a bit. I believe a lot of the mechanics serve the purpose of incentivizing team gameplay more but people still ignore them. I'm not saying DICE made the best decisions but their initial approach with the game was precisely to incentivize team work by highlighting point earning from various activities over just kills.

The game has had an interesting evolution and in general I'd say it's in good shape. People should try it before they phase it out.
I've given 2042 a chance multiple times, and after trying the new map I'm done with playing the base game forever.

The guns absolutely suck and the player movement is way too fast for my liking. Plus there is a metric ton of grenade spam in CQB areas.

They need to find a middle ground. BF3 was perfect and I'll stand by it. For example, suppressive fire does absolutely nothing in 2042. Just spots people. Bullets should act as bullets.
 
I enjoyed just normal conquest 64 mode that I played recently with my cousin. I think 128 is just to many and it seems most people don't want to go to that mode. It's always filled with bots and I can't stand that. I have no idea what Respawns obsession is with bots in their MP games. I couldn't stand Titan fall because of the same thing.
 

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Battlefield at this particular moment is #2 to call of duty it’s a franchise that’s protected by its hardcore fan base and EA is a business they look at battlefield as a failing product and that drives them crazy. I don’t give a damn about portal, or Afghan war sim battlefield is different because it has box office attraction and plays different than call of duty or rainbow six, boy I hope Dice sees this post what the hell is wrong with them going from battlefield v to 2042?
 
I enjoyed just normal conquest 64 mode that I played recently with my cousin. I think 128 is just to many and it seems most people don't want to go to that mode. It's always filled with bots and I can't stand that. I have no idea what Respawns obsession is with bots in their MP games. I couldn't stand Titan fall because of the same thing.
You should never be totally against bots. Games with bots last forever.

But I agree that fighting bots isn't the greatest thing in the world. I think they worked a lot better in Titanfall because it looked like a CoD campaign. They had full animations and took cover, etc.

128 players isn't the problem. There are games with 200 to 300 players that play better than this game.

The problem is the lazy map design and guns that don't kill. 128 players feels like too much because the sprinting speed feels like you're getting attacked by a group of crackheads and you can only kill about two of them before you have to reload and get overwhelmed. With lethal guns that kill in 2 shots you can actually defend a point when you're out numbered, resulting in fair and balanced gameplay.
 
Battlefield at this particular moment is #2 to call of duty it’s a franchise that’s protected by its hardcore fan base and EA is a business they look at battlefield as a failing product and that drives them crazy. I don’t give a damn about portal, or Afghan war sim battlefield is different because it has box office attraction and plays different than call of duty or rainbow six, boy I hope Dice sees this post what the hell is wrong with them going from battlefield v to 2042?
I agree, the base mechanics in BFV blow 2042 out of the water in every aspect. I just hope Vince Zampella decides to give us a proper historically authentic WW2, Vietnam, or Cold War gone hot game. He actually cares about how a games theming and gameplay relates to it aesthetically.
 
Last edited:
You should never be totally against bots. Games with bots last forever.

But I agree that fighting bots isn't the greatest thing in the world. I think they worked a lot better in Titanfall because it looked like a CoD campaign. They had full animations and took cover, etc.

128 players isn't the problem. There are games with 200 to 300 players that play better than this game.

The problem is the lazy map design and guns that don't kill. 128 players feels like too much because the sprinting speed feels like you're getting attacked by a group of crackheads and you can only kill about two of them before you have to reload and get overwhelmed. With lethal guns that kill in 2 shots you can actually defend a point when you're out numbered, resulting in fair and balanced gameplay.

Nah man I can't stand bots I don't need a game to last forever. Before bots MP games lasted just fine if they were good. I just think they need to drop 128 mode. 64 was so much better it was the first time since 2042 release that I had fun. I'm sure the updates helped but I don't know because I never tried 64 mode back then. It wasn't until my cousin told me he had way more fun in that mode that I tried it and it was a blast.

Hardcore does seem fun though and I'm going to try it this weekend.
 
Nah man I can't stand bots I don't need a game to last forever. Before bots MP games lasted just fine if they were good. I just think they need to drop 128 mode. 64 was so much better it was the first time since 2042 release that I had fun. I'm sure the updates helped but I don't know because I never tried 64 mode back then. It wasn't until my cousin told me he had way more fun in that mode that I tried it and it was a blast.

Hardcore does seem fun though and I'm going to try it this weekend.
If it's a good game I want it to last even if there are no players. That's why Verdun is so great. It still has a very small player base but almost never a full server so the bots fill the gaps.

Again, it's not the player count that's problem it's the map design. They could make 1000 player battles and if the map was designed properly it would be unbelievable.

Just take MAG on PS3 for example, that game played so much better than 2042. Because the maps were designed for 256 players and the guns were were pretty lethal.
 
Last edited:

tr1p1ex

Member
I gave up on the franchise and sold off my gaming pc and haven't been back. It's probably 2 years now.

I got tired of both the player base and the developer and game.

Player base is more interested in doing their BF homework than playing as a member of a team/army. Player base cries too much over the small things like 35 SMGs aren't enough.

Too many poor balance situations and developer has never done anything of substance to address that. Got tired of the the release buggy unfinished game and patch for 2 years - rinse and repeat development cycle. Got tired of them catering too much to the loud minority on the internets.

The matches stopped being fun as someone that likes to play to win as a team. LIke actually defending territory and not running around in circles from flag to flag. Using your tank to kill the enemy tank.

And the poor balance was players always quitting if the teams weren't in their favor. Too many matches where the best players squad up together on one team.

If you've played Splatoon from Nintendo and probably some other games as well... well you might have realized how badly DICE handles the user experience in Battlefield. Because Splatoon handles the online experience top notch in my book in pretty much every way.
 
Last edited:
I gave up on the franchise and sold off my gaming pc and haven't been back. It's probably 2 years now.

I got tired of both the player base and the developer and game.

Player base is more interested in doing their BF homework than playing as a member of a team/army. Player base cries too much over the small things like 35 SMGs aren't enough.

Too many poor balance situations and developer has never done anything of substance to address that. Got tired of the the release buggy unfinished game and patch for 2 years - rinse and repeat development cycle. Got tired of them catering too much to the loud minority on the internets.

The matches stopped being fun as someone that likes to play to win as a team. LIke actually defending territory and not running around in circles from flag to flag. Using your tank to kill the enemy tank.

And the poor balance was players always quitting if the teams weren't in their favor. Too many matches where the best players squad up together on one team.

If you've played Splatoon from Nintendo and probably some other games as well... well you might have realized how badly DICE handles the user experience in Battlefield. Because Splatoon handles the online experience top notch in my book in pretty much every way.
I absolutely agree with you. Battlefield 1 was the downfall because it promoted and catered to casual players running in circles instead of actually trying to defend flags and win the game.

So much so that DICE actually had to implement an algorithm into conquest that artificially kept games closer. The result was actually good because in BFV comeback victories are not out of the question where as in BF1 if you start losing past 150 tickets you'll lose the match 99% of the time.

If the next game is anything like 2042 I'm not buying it, I refuse to buy CoD MW3 for the same reasons. I'm done with both franchises until I'm more than thoroughly impressed.
 

tr1p1ex

Member
I absolutely agree with you. Battlefield 1 was the downfall because it promoted and catered to casual players running in circles instead of actually trying to defend flags and win the game.

So much so that DICE actually had to implement an algorithm into conquest that artificially kept games closer. The result was actually good because in BFV comeback victories are not out of the question where as in BF1 if you start losing past 150 tickets you'll lose the match 99% of the time.

If the next game is anything like 2042 I'm not buying it, I refuse to buy CoD MW3 for the same reasons. I'm done with both franchises until I'm more than thoroughly impressed.
Oh yeah you had to remind me. Yeah BF1 had too much garbage time or as the developer who replied to me called it dead time.

I think part of that was because they backtracked on their initial conquest flag pt system in the beta which was different than past BF games. And they replaced it with hold majority flags. Initially I think you got points for holding any flag even if it was just one. But it's just another example of how initial outrage caused DICE to quickly reverse before we really got to test out a new change in the wild.

They should should have been willing to run with a change like that for the lifespan of the game. And then do a post op after and make changes the next game. I think this abrupt reversal contributed to too much dead time. Because I think in BF1 you couldn't really tell who had majority flags half the time. And the bleed and focus on the bleed was not enough. And I am little fuzzy on some details, but I don't think a team would be as far as behind in the score board and the comeback Behemoth system would have worked better if they had kept their initial Conquest scoring method.

They did further modify the the flag bleed within a year of release so there wasn't as much dead time. You bled the other team faster the greater the majority you owned.

But that reminds me of another design tweak they should have done. They should have ended every game right after the behemoth blows up if a team is still down too many points to possibly come back. But no. Let the matches drag on.

They should have made it so the enemy is knocked out if your team gets all the flags too. To me it should have been instant even. Not even a 1 minute timer or something. That would make it exciting. Can't have that.


The artificial BFV matches were even worse. IT's a classic example of the mentality of DICE/EA. They would rather just tell the player matches are close even if they aren't than actually doing anything about it that involved really thought and work. "These aren't the droids you're looking for" kind of mentality.

Overall I liked BF1 except for the lack of big maps, some questionable major changes to the game after the beta into year 2 and of course musical flags. Too many BF1 maps were too samey too. The expansion maps...had a few good ones, but half of those weren't needed. Too close to what we had and just drudgery.

I didn't get into BFV. IT was just too difficult to see the enemy. Led to really campy play. Because the advantage was way more in the camper's hands than in the mover's hands. And I just didn't feel like they had any spotting and communication systems in place to play that game with strangers on a pub. I just never really had fun playing it except when I was in the mood for creeping through the environment. Oh another big reason I didn't have fun was clearing flag zones wasn't very practical. Enemies blended in so much that it was such a chore to clear a flag zone. And way too easy to just move just out of the flag zone and hide and wait for everyone to go away. ...And the ammo...so much fun having the bs limited ammo and topping off all the time.

They used ammo and medic cabinets like BF1942 had but they used it for the wrong reasons for the wrong game. IN BF1942 you couldn't pass out ammo so ammo crates were a godsend. Flags were far apart so finding an ammo crate was like finding water in the desert. In BFV it was too repetitive. They dramatically reduced the ammo you could carry to force you to constantly top off. Too cookie cutter too because every flag had an ammo crate and every flag is close to another flag. And you have squad spawning anyway so if you died... you get all your ammo back anyway. There wasn't a thrill from staying alive to top off with ammo and continue the fight in comparison to BF42. In '42, the other solution was to pick up a kit from a dead soldier. One of the more fun gameplay mechanics that they tookaway for not well thought out reasons in BFV.

It's the same with the medic cabinets. It worked in bF1942 because you couldn't be revived and there was no auto health regen either. And the maps were big and open and flags weren't so close together. No squad spawning either. So finding a medical cabinet was a thrill. And you had to stand near the cabinets to get healed. The medical cabinets in BFV were just busy work.
 
Last edited:
For those unaware, recently on Battlefield 2042, DICE has officially recognized a hardcore conquest mode that was created by a community member in Battlefield Portal. The original server in Portal is called "Afghan War Sim" and is filled with around 40 to 80 people out of 128 players on average. The unfortunate part about the original server is that it's only 2 maps, El Alamein and Arica Harbor. Bullets are lethal in this mode, one to three shots to the body at the max, the ticket count is over 8,000 per team and the match timer is set to an hour.

So DICE came in and tweaked the timer and tickets to 45 minute matches and 5,000 tickets as well as adding Orbital, Spearhead and Renewal to the map rotation. The official servers for this mode last until December 19th. The biggest issue with DICE's servers are for one, there are too many of them. Half of the time the servers for this mode aren't even full of players. A lot of the time it's around 10 players and the rest of the 128 players are bots until more people join. However, last night I did get into a full 128 player lobby on Arica Harbor and let me tell you, it's the most fun I've had playing Battlefield since BF4. The teamwork is incredible.

I even made a new reddit account just to write a post about it. Unfortunately I have to wait 7 days to post it in the Battlefield sub so I'm going to post it here for now.


Rapid Strike is the correct direction for the Battlefield Franchise


I just wanted to give some props to DICE for featuring this sort of gameplay in an official sense.

This is the correct direction that this franchise should be heading in. There is a large portion of the Battlefield player base that longs for a new game to take the best elements from Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3.

Elements such as large maps on an unprecedented scale but ones with focused gameplay and predictable elevation changes, i.e., El Alamein from Battlefield 1942.

Strategic movement, gunplay and squad cohesion i.e., Battlefield 2.

And authentic looking soldiers and best in class immersion, i.e., Battlefield 3.

This doesn't mean that we never want to see new types of gadgets. In my opinion, some gadgets from 2042 such as the grappling hook or the vehicle hacking wrist module aren't terrible ideas, especially if the game has a more futuristic theme. But things of that nature should be linked to classes, not to characters.

And the systems in place should work like Battlefield 3 or 4. Do you want to use the grappling hook to get on top of hard to reach places? Well if so, you have to replace your 40mm grenade launcher with it.

On the flip side, gadgets such as the wingsuit break the gameplay as players that use it can literally get anywhere on the map. Remember how much harder it was to get on a rooftop or on top of Lancang Dam in Battlefield 4? Yea, you had to either run there or take an obvious chopper flight, or bail from a jet and hope that no one else would saw you do it.


Here are somethings that Rapid Strike offers that would benefit the gameplay.


- Slower and more deliberate sprinting speed. Soldiers aren't as light as paper and shouldn't sprint as such. Feeling heavy adds to the immersion of an authentic war game and slower sprinting speed means that if you want to run across an open space, you either better make sure you're going to make it before getting shot or have a squad mate to lay suppressive fire with an LMG.

- Lethal bullet damage. Battlefield doesn't necessarily need a TTK as fast as this game mode. The best official TTK that they ever made in my opinion was the TTK in Battlefield 3. The original TTK in BFV also felt great. It needs to be approachable to new players, satisfying and lethal for veteran players, and authentic to the weaponry in hand. Bullets this lethal allow for the use of suppressive fire without the needs for fake suppression effects on the screen like Battlefield 3 had that distort you HUD and clarity of the game. Because of this, players will naturally become suppressed from incoming rounds because if they expose themselves into a wall of gun fire THEY WILL DIE.

- Large scale sandbox gameplay. Matches with an extended amount of tickets and long match timers allow for adventures with squamates and experimentation. Failed to push that hill 300m away? It was a great effort but we have to try again and that's possible because we still have 35-40 minutes left in the match. If we fail a second time, we'll flank with a chopper or assault with a Humvee.

There will always be people that come in here and attack more hardcore gameplay. I don't need the game to be full blown hardcore milsim. That's not what any of us want with Battlefield.

We want a strategic sandbox with satisfying weaponry that allows funny and silly things to happen while also looking like there is an authentic war going on around us.

The acknowledgement of this type of gameplay in an official sense is promising. I'm not going to get my hopes up but let's hope DICE, along with Vince Zampella at the helm of the Battlefield franchise, can deliver a brand new experience that bridges the gap between the core and hardcore player base.

I've been calling Rapid Strike - "Battlefield 2012" because I just wish this was the full game. Even when playing on the 2042 maps, this mode feels like how I imagined 2042 would be. Simply soldiers in the future, USA vs Russia.


Here are a bunch of videos below showing the bullet damage, teamwork, funny Battlefield moments, etc.



















Cool and all - but snipers inevitably over dominate these hardcore maps.

When all bullets kill so quickly, range is king.
 
Cool and all - but snipers inevitably over dominate these hardcore maps.

When all bullets kill so quickly, range is king.
Yes and no. They are absolutely lethal in this. More so than even BF4 hardcore because there is so much less recoil in this game.

However, headshots are one shot kills and chest shots can be as well. So all you need is either an LMG with a scope or a rifle and boom you've killed the sniper at long range.
 

Phase

Member
Shilling for BF again I see.

Stop It Give Up GIF by CBS
 

RagnarokIV

Member
If I buy this game, am I going to be playing true Battlefield?

What I mean is, will I not have to deal with picking a 'hero' and the stupid jokes and costumes? I remember the backlash against this game was insane and saw some announcements about removing things and going back to normal. Did this ever happen?
 
Insane Ticket count
Limited to BF3 Portal setting
Hardcore Mode
I think they lowered the tickets even more. I'm not usually a fan of large ticket matches.

To make this mode optimal I would make it,

30 minute matches
And lower the tickets even more
Add nearly every map in the game

The hardcore is perfect though it balances every weapon.
 
If I buy this game, am I going to be playing true Battlefield?

What I mean is, will I not have to deal with picking a 'hero' and the stupid jokes and costumes? I remember the backlash against this game was insane and saw some announcements about removing things and going back to normal. Did this ever happen?
If you buy it, get a really good deal that you won't regret later.

Because no, they never removed anything, they only moved certain characters into certain classes like Assault, engineer, etc, and gave them class specific gadgets.

But this Rapid Strike mode is simply just Battlefield. You play as the soldier classes from BF3 with no extra horse shit added on top. And it's very refreshing and feels like Battlefield.
 
Top Bottom