Windows Battlefield 4 Discussion Thread

Define "better"?

Oh i agree there both completely different that's what I said in my last post. But you seem to have this opinion that conquest is just "better" vs the new Defuse mode. But how?

 

Rps is school kid tat, chess requires a dynamic strategy.

 

So your saying round-based game modes are too simple compared to a game mode like conquest?

 

Y

 

In this case, yes. They have their place, but I don't think they have a place in Battlefield. I think they're going all "343/Halo 4" with this game mode, trying to expand their player base by introducing modes and features from other games to try and lure in new players. Look where that got 343 Industries over the past 10 or so months - they've lost a massive number of Halo players from their new game because they simply didn't want to play "Halo: CoD Edition".

I was certain this was a troll post until I read further down the thread and realized that you were serious

 

Why is it trolling? Scope glint was supposed to deter campers, that's why the mechanic exists in the first place. In the end it just deters the use of zoom scopes and sniper rifles entirely, as far as I'm concerned this applies the idea of scope glint more effectively.

 

I thought about this for a bit..and round based games are just as dynamic as a ticket based/conquest game type. I'm saying that from a background of 5-6 years of competitive CS too. And years of playing the BF series. So I've got a concrete understanding of both game modes. Your comment stating round based games are like rock-paper-scissors is very naive tbh.

 

Wow, it's a subjective statement, no need to get a nose bleed.

 

Really? This is a good thing?

Really?

If you want a game based around tiny maps with no use for long guns, there are lots and lots of CoDs available.

 

It's more to level the playing field.

When you're playing a massive map (Bandaar Desert / Firestorm) and shots keep raining down on you from feck only knows where, the glint at least gives you a fighting chance.

You could spend the entire round hunting snipers (not even going to bother with the term campers) and ignoring the objective if you had no indication as to where they are.

Even Halo has it in terms of a vapour trail from the round fired (not comparing the two titles, merely highlighting a similar concept).

 

I love going anti camper for some trolls and lols.

I do that when I solo large maps. At.times it can be quite amusing.

 

Totally agree, BF is clearly not realistic, but takes borrows the best bits of realism.

The key goal is good gameplay, and IMO anything that stops camping is good. (Although camping to defend a point is fair game)

 

Reading, I think you need more practice.

 

BF3 seems to have this in place as well, but it's applied very inconsistently. Whether it's applied map by map or weapon by weapon I don't know, but a lot of the machine guns and sniper rifles leave a visible trail as well as the visible tracers that all bullets in BF seem to be. More than one sniper has come unstuck because of them.

 

It's usually if the weapon uses a suppressor, meaning that they are using sub-sonic rounds, so you can see the round travelling easier.

Then again, it could easily be a case of graphics settings too. I can't say that I can really remember ever seeing a vapour trail from anything other than a launched shot.

 

I just got trouser happy

 

I'd love to see some kind of co-op hoard mode in this game. Imagine a 4 or 8 player game with a group of friends fighting off ever-increasing waves of enemy tanks, jets, choppers and infantry. The class dynamics would really come into play, making every player really have to focus on teamwork and class dynamics.

And with the destruction and levelution you'd constantly have to keep moving and finding new places to fight from as the world crumbles around you.

 

I'm not happy with this, I was a *****, I'm sorry. While it stands though that there is a degree of subjectiveness to this, and that we may be biased to one thing or another. For the sake of clarity, it's CS has a focus of fps skill over strategy, whereas BF's CQ has a strong degree of fps skill but includes a greater demand on thinking. I've comp play of both, and in CS players can out shoot there way out of trouble, I don't see that happening in CQ.

 

I am really liking the look of what they've done with the scout choppers