Support NeoGAF

[McNei1y]

I can't wait for a Battlefield game to come out on 360 with 64 players + with the play and feel of 1943.

On pc, 1942, it WAS a rush with 32 players storming the beaches in loaded boats and such. Such action was amazing.

I can't wait to see 100v100 in warzones!! :lol


The thing is though, the maps are definitely scaled down and fit well for 12v12, but if the maps were alot larger it would still feel the same, at least I would think, with 32v32.

 

[genhoffmann]

+1 for wishing for an upped player count.

The lack of action really shows on Wake Island. In the games I've experienced, one team usually gets pushed down to one flag and then it becomes an almost comedic dance of the occupying team racing back and forth across the horseshoe to recapture the end points as the one or two boats dribble onto the island every few minutes.

I see that happen but its rare. All it takes is someone taking a plane and parachuting down to the middle flag and suddenly the game is open again.

 

[Asmodai]

+1 for wishing for an upped player count.

The lack of action really shows on Wake Island. In the games I've experienced, one team usually gets pushed down to one flag and then it becomes an almost comedic dance of the occupying team racing back and forth across the horseshoe to recapture the end points as the one or two boats dribble onto the island every few minutes.

I agree that more players could help, but hell, Wake Island was like that in Bf 1942 and Battlefield 2 tons of times. People don't coordinate or use teamwork anymore just because there are lots of them around, unfortunately.

One thing that is really good about the lower player count is that I can spawn at the main base and get a plane or tank or whatever whenever I want pretty much. Of the 5 hours or so I've played already, at least half of that has been in a plane, so much fun .

It's crazy to be able to play a Battlefield game without patching it first and optimizing and messing around with config files and stuff.

Still can't bomb decently, though. I bomb the flags and where I see people, but it never kills anyone. I shot a sniper directly with the machine guns though

 

[TiVo]

I'd like to see:

Two-seater planes.
Shotguns
Trip/Land Mines


Also questions:

Do the AA guns on land/boat respawn?
Can you repair destroyed bridges?
Are the raised platforms and certain flags/bases the only repair spots for tanks? And do they work on jeeps?
Are the DET packs glitchy or is it just me? Raise up to arch my throw and they look like they literally drop at my feet.

 

[genhoffmann]

I'd like to see:

Two-seater planes.
Shotguns
Trip/Land Mines


Also questions:

Do the AA guns on land/boat respawn?
Can you repair destroyed bridges?
Are the raised platforms and certain flags/bases the only repair spots for tanks? And do they work on jeeps?
Are the DET packs glitchy or is it just me? Raise up to arch my throw and they look like they literally drop at my feet.

Trip-Mines are just frustrating and I'm glad that they are not there. Vehicles are already weak enough...use C4 if you want to blow vehicles up.

Bridges cannot be repaired and AA guns do respawn.

 

[Raide]

I'd like to see:

Two-seater planes.
Shotguns
Trip/Land Mines

I thought about 2 seater planes but it would be so confusing being the gunner. With the amount of acrobatics you have to do to survive, being the gunner would be a sickening experience. :lol

I am not sure Shotguns really have their place in 1943. The 3 classes currently cover the long, medium and short range combat. A shotgun would force you to be very close to your enemy, which usually means swift death. :lol

Again, the 3 classes pretty much cover all of the bases. If you introduce Land Mines it would make one class so much better than the others. The Sniper already has the ability to destroy vehicles really quickly, adding another way would make it very annoying for other classes.

I personally think the classes are all very balanced. A few tweaks here and there for splash damage etc but they all play really well and you really can play with their strengths and weaknesses.

I just want more maps!!!! :lol

 

[PoweredBySoy]

I'd like to see:

Two-seater planes.
Shotguns
Trip/Land Mines

Nerfing of the red triangles
No jumping out of planes (too easy to cap rear flags)
Audible cue when your flag's getting capped

 

[Raide]

Nerfing of the red triangles
No jumping out of planes (too easy to cap rear flags)
Audible cue when your flag's getting capped

That would make the game too easy. :lol

 

[Future PhaZe]

Just noticed this is the same price as Bad Company (USED).

What the fuck...?!

My decision just became a lot harder.

 

[heinsmit]

Just noticed this is the same price as Bad Company (USED).

What the fuck...?!

My decision just became a lot harder.

actually, it's rather straight forward. if it's multiplayer that's stopping you from getting bad company, then just get '43. no one really plays bad company anymore.. and obviously if you want single player, the choice is straight forward.

 

[BeeDog]

actually, it's rather straight forward. if it's multiplayer that's stopping you from getting bad company, then just get '43. no one really plays bad company anymore.. and obviously if you want single player, the choice is straight forward.

wat? I'm pretty damn sure there's still a bunch of gamers playing Bad Company on both consoles.

 

[kamspy]

Just noticed this is the same price as Bad Company (USED).

What the fuck...?!

My decision just became a lot harder.

I came across the same decision. Went with BC. They community has shed most of the knuckle heads (they've moved onto COD5 and KZ2), and the online is a really fun and different for a console shooter.


Only problem with both games.......THE FOV IS A PILE OF STEAMING $*@)$#%

 

[heinsmit]

wat? I'm pretty damn sure there's still a bunch of gamers playing Bad Company on both consoles.

well i am known for exaggerating greatly...

but no, i mean if you are looking for a full multiplayer experience, the sheer magnitude of players on 1943 now far outweighs the user base of bad company

 

[Future PhaZe]

actually, it's rather straight forward. if it's multiplayer that's stopping you from getting bad company, then just get '43. no one really plays bad company anymore.. and obviously if you want single player, the choice is straight forward.

You are probably right but it's not like it's hard to find games on BC.

And we both know that 1943's userbase is going to dwindle considerably in the fall anyway.

Hmmm...

 

[_sgray]

Any sales data for this yet?

 

[elrechazado]

simple game design isn't bad game design. sure it wouldn't be fun to you, but others may enjoy grenade lobbing (hell Strike At Karkand is still the most popular BF2 map).

You should start designing games, straight away.

 

[genhoffmann]

Just noticed this is the same price as Bad Company (USED).

What the fuck...?!

My decision just became a lot harder.

Get both but if you can only afford one Bad Company is definitely the better value.

No problem to find full servers, 16 multiplayer maps, 2 game modes and tons of weapons/vehicles compared to 1943.

 

[JB1981]

I don't mind the player count at all. I like that I spend more time alive than dead and I'm not constantly being spammed by enemy gunfire. The game has a very consistent and involving pace that I find more in tune with my preferences as a gamer.

 

[genhoffmann]

I don't mind the player count at all. I like that I spend more time alive than dead and I'm not constantly being spammed by enemy gunfire. The game has a very consistent and involving pace that I find more in tune with my preferences as a gamer.

Exactly...and contrary to what people might tell you that pace is not much different from BF2's pace on a 64 player server. I actually think that BF2 is often slower paced and there are more "silence before the storm" moments (which I don't mind) because the maps are so much larger on average.

 

[Bob White]

when you knife people, do you get their dog tag like in bad company?

If yes, I may get this.

 

[Raide]

when you knife people, do you get their dog tag like in bad company?

If yes, I may get this.

Nope, you don't get tags.

 

[Bob White]

Bah! That honestly is the deal breaker.

 

[Ten-Song]

I don't mind the player count at all. I like that I spend more time alive than dead and I'm not constantly being spammed by enemy gunfire. The game has a very consistent and involving pace that I find more in tune with my preferences as a gamer.

*high five*

While more people in a map sounds good on paper, it requires so much fine tuning to keep it from being anything other than chaos spread over five capture points. There's a fine line between "large scale battle" and "a giant cluster fuck with no sense of direction." Also, the maps in 1943 feel perfectly tuned for the player count. If there's ever any down time for me, it's likely because I'm either defending a point, or slowly sneaking my way around the back of an enemy flag to cap it unnoticed.

Adding more players to this game wouldn't have magically made it better, it would just screw up the balance of the maps and make it harder to compete unless you were part of a squad.

 

[elrechazado]

I don't mind the player count at all. I like that I spend more time alive than dead and I'm not constantly being spammed by enemy gunfire. The game has a very consistent and involving pace that I find more in tune with my preferences as a gamer.

Totally agree. It's also pretty telling that some of the people complaining full stop about player count apparently had no idea that just because the maps have the same name as 1942 doesn't mean that it's actually the same map. The maps are smaller in 1943 people, it's not a giant empty wasteland. The last thing this game needs is ten more people per team spamming weapons all over.

 

[Beardz]

Bah! That honestly is the deal breaker.

Each time you kill someone with a katana, write it down on a piece of paper; you can show it off to us.

 

[The Librarian]

I don't mind the player count at all. I like that I spend more time alive than dead and I'm not constantly being spammed by enemy gunfire. The game has a very consistent and involving pace that I find more in tune with my preferences as a gamer.

From the demo, this is the feeling I got. I think I got thirteen kills without dying.

 

[NubCakes09]

*high five*

While more people in a map sounds good on paper, it requires so much fine tuning to keep it from being anything other than chaos spread over five capture points. There's a fine line between "large scale battle" and "a giant cluster fuck with no sense of direction." Also, the maps in 1943 feel perfectly tuned for the player count. If there's ever any down time for me, it's likely because I'm either defending a point, or slowly sneaking my way around the back of an enemy flag to cap it unnoticed.

Adding more players to this game wouldn't have magically made it better, it would just screw up the balance of the maps and make it harder to compete unless you were part of a squad.

My thoughts exactly. I think 24 players suits this game perfectly.

 

[Loxley]

Each time you kill someone with a katana, write it down on a piece of paper; you can show it off to us.

:lol

 

[Known Shippable]

Any sales data for this yet?

Does the server load problems count? I'm betting that it made more than the projection. Although that's pretty obvious I guess.

 

[ColR100]

Any particular reason Battlefield has become a trending topic on twitter? Just wondering like! :lol

 

[rnwd]

Each time you kill someone with a katana, write it down on a piece of paper; you can show it off to us.

I knifed a guy by jumping and jabbing through a window. Can I count that for two?

 

[Loxley]

Any sales data for this yet?

Nothing official yet, but Kotaku posted this shortly after the game's launch:

"The game has already been played by over 80,000 people in a single day, and that's just going off the Xbox Live leaderboards. With the game now rolling out on PlayStation 3, and a PC version to come, this could (surprisingly) be one of the biggest online games of the year.

For reference, Bionic Commando Rearmed was hailed as a downloadable megahit after moving 100,000 in a week."

 

[Rimshot]

Stupid question by me, but, what system should one get this to? ^^;

Not sure if I should get it on XBLA, PSN or just wait for the PC release. Is there any actual difference except the gamepad? Is servers better / less ping on any of the two consoles? Any difference in the content?

 

[Asmodai]

simple game design isn't bad game design. sure it wouldn't be fun to you, but others may enjoy grenade lobbing (hell Strike At Karkand is still the most popular BF2 map).

I played Battlefield 2 the other day. It isn't anything like the game it was when it first came out.

The top scorers on each team are guys who dolphin dive around with macros while chucking grenades everywhere. Only suckers actually use guns and try to shoot them. It really is pretty sad, DICE tried to balance it with a billion patches over years and only made it worse. Now it's a claymore grenade fest. When it first came out, the gunplay was pretty teamwork balanced.

 

[Brakara]

Any particular reason Battlefield has become a trending topic on twitter? Just wondering like! :lol

That's just Jordin Sparks fans spamming twitter with Battlefield hashtags. Apparently, her new album is called Battlefield.

 

[shintoki]

You know, all trying to win does is hurt my K/D ratio. Other players really do suck. Managed to gain about 13-15control points. Constantly reversed it on the other team. We were down to one point, now have 4. And some how my team could not hold more than a single one for more then 2minutes. 1 minute later, We're back down to 2, a minute and half later were back down to 1.

 

[elrechazado]

You know, all trying to win does is hurt my K/D ratio. Other players really do suck. Managed to gain about 13-15control points. Constantly reversed it on the other team. We were down to one point, now have 4. And some how my team could not hold more than a single one for more then 2minutes. 1 minute later, We're back down to 2, a minute and half later were back down to 1.

Well, too many people want to go fly planes, go find more people to shootlol....etc. Anything but defend flags.

 

[endlessflood]

You know, all trying to win does is hurt my K/D ratio. Other players really do suck. Managed to gain about 13-15control points. Constantly reversed it on the other team. We were down to one point, now have 4. And some how my team could not hold more than a single one for more then 2minutes. 1 minute later, We're back down to 2, a minute and half later were back down to 1.

That's why you shouldn't worry about your K/D ratio - and why Battlefield 1943 won't even tell you what it is on the stats or leaderboard pages in the game itself (something I'm quite happy about).

And let's be honest, sometimes you aren't able to defend a flag no matter how valiantly you try. Sometimes you spawn and are gunned down instantly, sometimes a tank rolls right up to your face, sometimes you're severely outnumbered... I think we all get the feeling that we're the only person on our team that is actually trying to capture/defend flags from time to time. Usually right after we've died (i.e. when we've failed ourselves) and are trying to pick a flag to spawn.

Actually the thing that really gets under my skin is when I'm owning in the tank, take down another tank in a tank-to-tank shootout, and then jump out to repair my tank... only to have some tool of a teammate hop into my suddenly vacant (and about to explode) tank and roar off as I'm furiously using my wrench on it. Ten seconds later they and the tank are both dead.

 

[DeadGzuz]

Just noticed this is the same price as Bad Company (USED).

What the fuck...?!

My decision just became a lot harder.

Get BC. Great SP and better MP.

 

[Asmodai]

You know, all trying to win does is hurt my K/D ratio. Other players really do suck. Managed to gain about 13-15control points. Constantly reversed it on the other team. We were down to one point, now have 4. And some how my team could not hold more than a single one for more then 2minutes. 1 minute later, We're back down to 2, a minute and half later were back down to 1.

To me, winning or losing means as little as my kill to death ratio. They're both meaningless to me. I don't play the game to win, I don't play it to get a kill to death ratio above "2.563:1" or some other arbitrary number.

I play the game to have fun with my friends. Simple as that. If it involves me and my friends flying around and shooting down anything that moves from a fixed wing fighter, so be it. The enemy team can take all of the flags and get their precious flag points for all we care.

If the other players suck, take advantage of it. Most people suck at flying, so I have an easier time hacking them from the sky. That's a good thing, isn't it?

 

[Daigoro]

That's why you shouldn't worry about your K/D ratio - and why Battlefield 1943 won't even tell you what it is on the stats or leaderboard pages in the game itself (something I'm quite happy about).

And let's be honest, sometimes you aren't able to defend a flag no matter how valiantly you try. Sometimes you spawn and are gunned down instantly, sometimes a tank rolls right up to your face, sometimes you're severely outnumbered... I think we all get the feeling that we're the only person on our team that is actually trying to capture/defend flags from time to time. Usually right after we've died (i.e. when we've failed ourselves) and are trying to pick a flag to spawn.

Actually the thing that really gets under my skin is when I'm owning in the tank, take down another tank in a tank-to-tank shootout, and then jump out to repair my tank... only to have some tool of a teammate hop into my suddenly vacant (and about to explode) tank and roar off as I'm furiously using my wrench on it. Ten seconds later they and the tank are both dead.

agreed with everything you said in this post. nice job!

and that is also my big pet peeve. i love repairing tanksfor myself and others, but it seems like most other people just dont get it and will just drive away when im helping them out, or worse, steal my tank.

 

[Asmodai]

Get BC. Great SP and better MP.

As you can probably tell from my posts throughout the topic, I'm a huge Battlefield fan.

But I have to disagree with you on BC being better than 1943 multiplayer. Battlefield Bad Company has very different multiplayer than 1943. The maps for Gold rush are much larger and generally less open ended, more linear for a progression from beginning to end.

Don't get me wrong, I've had great games playing Bad Company. But I just found the controls cumbersome, the amount of bullets it takes to kill someone ridiculous and unbalancing, and the film grain kills most of the visual appeal.

To me Battlefield 1943 has all of the good things that BC had and none of the drawbacks.

And the singleplayer campaign was just a few hours long of driving from checkpoint to checkpoint. A few decent attempts at humor and nothing more. Can't hold a candle to Modern Warfare's singleplayer campaign or anything like it.

 

[The Faceless Master]

HOW MAY SHOTS DOES IT TAKE TO KILL A TANK?

Can anyone break this down by class? How many direct rocket launcher shots, RPG shots, and c4 packages are needed to take out a new tank? Seems like theyre invincible sometimes....

quote

it takes a helluva lot more than that!

from the front/sides it takes
9 Grenades (they do about 12% damage)
9 Rifle Grenades (they do about 12% damage)
3 Rockets (they do about 35%)

if you aim at the turret and not the base, it takes
[obviously, i'm not gonna aim grenades at the turret]
8 Rifle Grenades (they do about 14% damage)
3 Rockets (they do about 40% damage)

if you shoot it from the back, it takes
4 Grenades (they do about 27% damage)
4 Rifle Grenades (they do about 27% damage)
2 Rockets (they do about 80% damage)

 

[StriKeVillain]

Wow, the game is extremely glitchy now.

I'm getting:
Sound cutting out from turrets or tanks almost every time I use them.
Really bad input lag, talking a second delay from when I hit the button on my remote.
Overall stuttering/bad lag on EVERY MAP AND EVERY GAME.
Artifacts every now and then when piloting tank or boat.

I love the game to death but this shit is damn near unplayable.

 

[Daigoro]

Wow, the game is extremely glitchy now.

I'm getting:
Sound cutting out from turrets or tanks almost every time I use them.
Really bad input lag, talking a second delay from when I hit the button on my remote.
Overall stuttering/bad lag on EVERY MAP AND EVERY GAME.
Artifacts every now and then when piloting tank or boat.

I love the game to death but this shit is damn near unplayable.

that sucks.

i havent played in a few days and was hoping to get a good several hours in tonight. hopefully its not as bad for me. :/

 

[Chris R]

Air superority is alright but it sucks when you get idiots from the other team camping you on your ship. Also, wtf is up with team balancing? Started 8-8 and lasted like that though one game, the second game ended up being 7-3. I'll play it every now and then, but seeing as 12v12 is the best time the game can have, I'll be sticking to my regular maps I guess.

Things I want to see in a patch/future DLC

- New Maps (maybe Africa/Italy???)
- 32 players total on the new maps
- Bombers/Other things to hop into (ranged artillery?)
- New modes including something like defensive missions (one team holds a very defensible position, other team attacks) or allow for all flags to be captured to make very quick victories possible.

Class balance is near perfect now I think, would maybe like to see grenades splash damage and radius increased, same with the bazooka and tank cannon, but other than that

 

[Brakara]

As you can probably tell from my posts throughout the topic, I'm a huge Battlefield fan.

But I have to disagree with you on BC being better than 1943 multiplayer. Battlefield Bad Company has very different multiplayer than 1943. The maps for Gold rush are much larger and generally less open ended, more linear for a progression from beginning to end.

Don't get me wrong, I've had great games playing Bad Company. But I just found the controls cumbersome, the amount of bullets it takes to kill someone ridiculous and unbalancing, and the film grain kills most of the visual appeal.

To me Battlefield 1943 has all of the good things that BC had and none of the drawbacks.

And the singleplayer campaign was just a few hours long of driving from checkpoint to checkpoint. A few decent attempts at humor and nothing more. Can't hold a candle to Modern Warfare's singleplayer campaign or anything like it.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except that I actually quite enjoyed the BC campaign (besides the annoying enemy AI). I also thought the film grain added to the visual look of the campaign (and was pretty good at hiding the lack of AA), but it's an absolute killer in multiplayer.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Can someone explain to me how your "score" is calculated on the leaderboards? It must not be a cumulative total, because a guy with the same score ranking as me has played for 7 hours at a score rate of 8 per minute while I have played for 10 with a score rate of 32 per minute. Shouldn't I have a far higher score than him? There must be score penalties or something, because I should have a score of 19,000 or so going by those numbers.

I also see a guy with a score of zero per minute. Huh?

if it's calculated anything like BF:BC, the score per minute is just for the last few games you played, not overall.

 

[TheContact]

Only thing I could ask for is more maps, give the Japanese historically appropriate weapons, and perhaps a new mode

 

[HoTHiTTeR]

Only thing I could ask for is more maps, give the Japanese historically appropriate weapons, and perhaps a new mode

Would you pay an additional $15 for that? Because, the amount of content you're asking for sounds equal to the amount of content we've already been handed.