Star Wars: Battlefront (III)

Users who are viewing this thread

Dice said they actively went with 40 players to keep the experience how they wanted, aka not a massive Battlefield spam fest, also weren't the previous games 32 player anyway. People love riding the train of nostalgia and Dice hate.

“It’s important to make the differentiation between Battlefield and Battlefront here,” Mcleod said. “Sixty four players worked really well for Battlefield, and we toyed with a lot of different numbers, and we found that for the experience that we wanted to give, and how we felt that the matches would play out, 40 players was actually the optimum number. Instead of putting 64 in there and just saying that for a number, and having it be too crowded and being a lesser experience, we’ve made it the most optimum number it can be.”

Which after playing Battlefield 4 in classic Conquest 40 man servers I say is a bloody good thing, the team work really ramps up in those lower numbers and allow for more "tactical" behaviour.

As for space battles I'd rather a new X-Wing. Campaign can go run off a cliff, perhaps if BF4 didn't have one the multiplayer might've gotten the time it needed, focus on the multi man shoots. Battlefront 2s campaign was a steaming pile of ****e anyhoo, go back and play it and say it ain't so.
 
Æthelwulf said:
Which after playing Battlefield 4 in classic Conquest 40 man servers I say is a bloody good thing, the team work really ramps up in those lower numbers and allow for more "tactical" behaviour.
Which could easily be achieved by offering game modes designed for and limited to 40 players, while still allowing people to host massive spam-fest orgies, no?
 
After watching the trailer and reading the thread, I think I'll stick with Star Wars Conquest for vanilla M&B, thank you very much.
Oh, and Bear Force 2 for Warband. Not that I play multiplayer  :meh:
 
As much as not having space battles sucks, reintegrating aerial combat with the ground forces is a good idea, it annoyed me that it was missing from Battlefront II. I enjoyed strafing enemies on Bespin in the first game, and on some maps you could get some fun aerial battles.

That being said, I'm fairly certain that the real reason space battles aren't announced for the release is so that they can justify building an expansion around them. I don't really care since I'm probably not getting this game anyways.
 
Æthelwulf said:
Dice said they actively went with 40 players to keep the experience how they wanted, aka not a massive Battlefield spam fest, also weren't the previous games 32 player anyway. People love riding the train of nostalgia and Dice hate.

“It’s important to make the differentiation between Battlefield and Battlefront here,” Mcleod said. “Sixty four players worked really well for Battlefield, and we toyed with a lot of different numbers, and we found that for the experience that we wanted to give, and how we felt that the matches would play out, 40 players was actually the optimum number. Instead of putting 64 in there and just saying that for a number, and having it be too crowded and being a lesser experience, we’ve made it the most optimum number it can be.”

Which after playing Battlefield 4 in classic Conquest 40 man servers I say is a bloody good thing, the team work really ramps up in those lower numbers and allow for more "tactical" behaviour.

As for space battles I'd rather a new X-Wing. Campaign can go run off a cliff, perhaps if BF4 didn't have one the multiplayer might've gotten the time it needed, focus on the multi man shoots. Battlefront 2s campaign was a steaming pile of ****e anyhoo, go back and play it and say it ain't so.


So now asking for 64 + player multiplayer games (which we all know is very much capable and definitelly BETTER) is nostalgia?  :lol:

Congratz on the brainwashing technique dice! Next thing we know people wont even remember that there even was multiplayer in your older games.


Most people that are bashing are those that hated Battlefield 3/4. And yes those 2 games are absolutely terrible mate.


Battlefield 4: tactical behaviour? There is no such thing.

Go play Project Reality with 100 players in a PUBLIC server and tell me where you get more team work and tactical gameplay. In it or in Battlefield 4 with 40 players such as you said.

Basically my point is, the player number does not affect how much tactical and teamwork you will have. Well, maybe it does, in **** games that is.
 
Man, I played PR since the hey days. Christ I played every iteration of Battlefield on release and still play the oldies, I used to play BF2 with former PCG writers, I even moderated their servers and helped test many of the first BF2 mods such as POE and then later Project Reality. It's just that I unlike most internet loud-mouths can reason and see that markets change man, that's not what Battlefield is anymore, move on. Firstly they ain't terrible, they are well mades games, they suffer in some regards but mostly they run like a dream and look fantastic. Yes 3d spotting and all those gimmicks ruin it but people like you forget/ignore about ye olde classic servers which have none of that. Recently DICE are actually making good ground with the CTE what with releasing more content, listening to community feedback and working on new maps with the community, but nah **** all that, lets ***** about em over a two minute snippet of in engine footage with nothing much else to go on because I'm your modern entitled gamer.

Also your not asking for it, your *****ing and making up **** for why you want it. It doesn't suit the style of game they are making, so they ain't doing it. Grow a pair. You have this nostalgia and entitlement for a game series you seem to forget details about, Battlefront, yes the first one, had no ****ing space battles. Woah, that's right. None at all, 2 did, now 3 doesn't, it's still Battlefront, in fact no space battles is now in the majority so it's more like Battlefront to have none.

Player number does indeed account for teamwork, BF3 and 4 suffered from consoletards and casuals making up the numbers and playing 64 player rounds on maps which were designed around 32 turning it into an explosive **** fest that was fun for the delusional. These games are designed for 3 different platforms and balanced accordingly, BF2 was for PC it was a different time and different market, if you want that again you ain't getting it from DICE. Ramping up players mean more work, more balance and more working of the maps to not only suit multiple game types but each respective player count. At the end of the day you ain't played the game or seen anything of it or it's design principles and your clearly a knob.

Duh said:
Æthelwulf said:
Which after playing Battlefield 4 in classic Conquest 40 man servers I say is a bloody good thing, the team work really ramps up in those lower numbers and allow for more "tactical" behaviour.
Which could easily be achieved by offering game modes designed for and limited to 40 players, while still allowing people to host massive spam-fest orgies, no?

They could yes, but then as with all nice things people ruin it, if they allowed people to host 64 player servers the majority would, because more is clearly better (see every Battlefield game ever). Thus it would become the norm and all the balance and design would be nullified and everyone will whine that the game sucks when they ain't playing it how it was intended. The wheel completes another revolution.

Look when it all comes down to it this is a reboot, it dropped the 3 from the title. It's doing it's own modern game thing now, it left home went to college and did some things, it's not the game you remember but it's Star Wars and you shoot stuff.

They have a clear design goal in recreating the magic you had as a kid playing with Star Wars toys and they are making that in shiny 3D man-shoots, I'm going to give it a chance and yes of course it will have stupid premium content it's a million dollar AAA title with ridiculously high graphics and an army of people working on it. What else did you expect?

Your all also probably unaware that in the gameplay footage shown on the floor that there will be a third person camera and no ADS in first person. Such Battlefeel.
 
No actually Battlefield 3 and 4 ARE terrible. Just a correction.


Oh and the reason people expected space battles is quite obvious.


Feature was not in Battlefront 1

Feature was introduced in Battlefront 2 and was superbly received

You expect the feature to be kept in Battlefront (3).


oh and no player count does not account for teamwork. "Casuals and consoletards" are created solely by how the gameplay works. If you got arcadey gameplay, all casuals will be casuals and do ****. If you got a realistic and highly supported ( or even better, enforced) teamwork most if not all players will engage it. PR is a great example, considering most people that got BF2 even how casual they were ended playing PR and of course, team working greatly.


And no, im just asking for it. Thats all im doing. You are the one overreacting, probably just the fanboy going over your head.


But i guess it doesnt suits the style they are making for sure. **** video game style, that is.


DICE stopped getting my money with 2142. And so it will continue if these crap "features" (actually lack of) are on the launch.

 
I weep for the real Battlefront 3 that was shut down, that actually had ground to space combat and had all the previous features.
The only way I even consider looking at this game again is if the 40 player cap doesn't include bots. Which it will.
O Bannerlord, save me from all these **** video games!
 
Splintert said:
Presence of AI implies that the engine is capable of handling more players and the only reason they don't is because of some silly design decision by EA?

Well, I assume there is going to be some form of AI included anyway, unless the single player missions are heavily scripted. Actually, I wouldn't bet against it.  :facepalm:

Anyway, the engine might be capable of handling more players, but that has nothing to do with bots. A server doesn't have to deal with connection and lag with the bots - it doesn't have to send data to the bots, and it doesn't have to receive data from the bots (I mean remotely - it'll still get data to and from them but it will all be locally) meaning they are much easier to handle than actual players - the server will just do all the calculations and then send the data to the players in the next packet.

Bots would just be used to increase the scale of the battle. My favourite times when I was younger was playing Battlefront and Nightfire, using bots as both offline singleplayer fodder and boosting online populations.

And on another note, bots should also be optional for the server host. Perhaps you have a full server, and its working at capacity and can't handle any more stress, you'd turn it off. But perhaps you have a server low on players, you could use bots to fill in the space. To boost the reinforcement count (assuming that's how the game is going to work).

I mean, they should most definitely have more than 40 players but if you can't have that, at least have optional bots to pad out a server.

TheFlyingFishy said:
Docm30 said:
Splintert said:
Presence of AI implies that the engine is capable of handling more players and the only reason they don't is because of some silly design decision by EA?

I hope that's not what he meant because it's quite wrong.

Then I'm quite wrong, I suppose. It was also to do with the fact that when I play multiplayer games, I generally do it to play against enemies that are smarter than AI, and having a bunch of bots running around getting in the way and lowering my ticket count when they get slaughtered by half decent players on the enemy team gets in the way of that.

I generally do it to play with friends, because I'm **** at shooting games anyway. I spent most of my time in the game playing singleplayer or splitscreen multiplayer. I never played online until I got the PC version, and when I did I just played it with friends. :party:

I never viewed Battlefront as a serious competitive game - I always viewed it as more of a fun game to have a laugh with, and I assumed most people viewed it as the same.
 
Some good reading: http://www.pcgamer.com/star-wars-battlefront-preview-it-looks-beautiful-but-will-it-be-fun/

Also, for Fishy: http://www.pcgamer.com/star-wars-battlefronts-max-player-count-tops-out-at-40/
The PS4 and Xbox One versions of Battlefront will allow for the missions to be played two-player splitscreen or online; Mcleod told me the splitscreen option will not be available in the PC version.
 
Wow, that video being labelled as gameplay has to be one of the most blatant lies I've seen the gaming industry try to pull over recently.

O Bannerlord, save me from all these **** video games!
Implying Bannerlord won't be just another **** game.
 
Back
Top Bottom