This is why fog mechanics in bf1 are bad

Comments

  • trip1ex
    5058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2019
    Fog makes every map the same.  It was horrible in BF1.   Night time also does the same thing.  

    These things ruin the experience more than anything.

    I wouldn't have minded too much if the fog rolled into a map once a week for a change of pace.  But in BF1 you could literally play 10 rounds and have 10 rounds of  fog.  And it got very old and make the gameplay one dimensional.

    I compare it to my experience as a kid visiting Mt Rushmore.  I was excited to see it but when we got there it was fogged over.  lol.     So I saw Mt.  Fog and not Mt.  Rushmore.

    That's the same experience I have in BF1 when fog rolls out.  I come there for the map and the scenery  and the dynamic gameplay only to end up staring at a white screen.

  • Titan_Awaken
    817 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB said:
    (Quote)
    It certainly would have made the game more interesting, dynamic and better but but leagues above everything else? Ehh, probably not.

    A lot of games, especially the good (open-world) ones, have been implementing day-night cycles and weather events for quite a while now. One could even argue that it's becoming common practice now.

    I was referring to this genre, not every game out there. Although personally, I can’t stand those boring open world, wandering around for hours doing very little, type games - but that’s just personal preference.

    In FPS it’s not common at all. But here’s hoping in the future it does become so.
    The problem with implementing dynamic day/night cycles in pure FPS games (ie. Battlefield/CoD and not looter shooters, open-world FPS etc), is that matches don't last enough to warrant one. 

    A typical Conquest game lasts around 25 minutes, that means that each minute in real time would have to equal several hours in in-game time to go from day to night. So it's entirely possible that one minute the Sun is shining at its brightest at midday and yet only a few minutes later, the Sun's completely disappeared and the Moon's already out. Yeah that's pretty cool and all but the novelty will wear out very quickly once you get used to it. 

    The only way I could imagine it being somewhat plausible is that before the start of each new match, the game has a 50% chance to determine if the next map is going to be set in the day or night and sticks with that time of day for the entire duration of the match. 

    Just a theory, not expecting anyone to take it seriously.
  • trip1ex
    5058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2019
    Also when people say you have to use different tactics, well you already have to do that.

    ON a map like Sinai, you get into close quarters battles in between C&D or long distance battles at the other flags, you hunt tanks or snipe from a roof or up on the ledge at B or you can go down to E and defend or attack plus you can tank or fly or get on a horse.  And then you have to defend against these things as well - and depending on what your team needs you need to change up tactics if you are at all a team player.  Nevermind when playing infantry you have the option of 1 of 4 classes as well. 

    So this argument that you have to change up tactics once in awhile already applied to the game.  Variety is what BF always had.  Plus you have maps that are more CQ than others.  OR more open and longer distance than others.  You're already changing up tactics just based on the map.

    Oh and  with nighttime people just crank their brightness and get rid most of the effects of the nighttime on maps like Neville Nights or Prise De Tahure anyway.    

    But as I said I wouldn't have minded it so much if it was a rare change.  But it got the point where every round was fog.  And for the life of me, I don't know why this wasn't fixed in a dramatic manner so it would be  more like a once every 30 rounds occurence.  

    They have to realize that fogging up a map makes it the same as any other map fogged up.  Thus if you repeat it for 10 rounds in a row it's like playing the same map 10 rounds in a row.  



    Post edited by trip1ex on
  • ssjsnoop
    304 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    DICE just get rid of the fog. There's not a single BF1 player that'll say they love fog.
  • disposalist
    8745 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited October 2019
    ssjsnoop said:
    DICE just get rid of the fog. There's not a single BF1 player that'll say they love fog.
    I love the variety it is part of.  I love that it annoys people who won't change class/weapon/tactics.
  • Titan_Awaken
    817 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    ssjsnoop said:
    DICE just get rid of the fog. There's not a single BF1 player that'll say they love fog.
    Well, people cried and DICE delivered. Fog is no where to be found in BFV so go play that (or an older BF title) if you want a fog-free experience.
  • trip1ex
    5058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    ssjsnoop said:
    DICE just get rid of the fog. There's not a single BF1 player that'll say they love fog.
    I love the variety it is part of.  I love that it annoys people who won't change class/weapon/tactics.
    There is no variety to it.  It's the opposite.  IT's a variety killer.  
  • disposalist
    8745 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited November 2019
    trip1ex said:
    ssjsnoop said:
    DICE just get rid of the fog. There's not a single BF1 player that'll say they love fog.
    I love the variety it is part of.  I love that it annoys people who won't change class/weapon/tactics.
    There is no variety to it.  It's the opposite.  IT's a variety killer.  
    Encouraging people to play in a different style for a few minutes isn't variety?

    It's only restrictive if you refuse to stop sniping or flying and can't cope with a bit of CQC for a change.

    CQC is not my favourite playstyle, but I enjoy it every now and again when Fort de Vaux comes up in rotation and, yes, when fog makes it necessary.
  • MarxistDictator
    5046 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    Yes fog is so restrictive to the heavy bomber when they can no longer be seen but still bomb the lobby with impunity, and scopes still increase the draw distance through fog while lowering it normally. Did you even play this game at one point.
  • Titan_Awaken
    817 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Yes fog is so restrictive to the heavy bomber when they can no longer be seen but still bomb the lobby with impunity, and scopes still increase the draw distance through fog while lowering it normally. Did you even play this game at one point.
    Yes.

    Blame the fog and everything else in the game except you and your team's inability to take out a giant flying hitbox coffin moving at a sloth's pace.

    If the bomber can kill you, you can kill the bomber. It's as simple as that. Any reason why you cannot destroy the bomber, be it fog or whatever else, is simply an excuse. 
  • trip1ex
    5058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    trip1ex said:
    ssjsnoop said:
    DICE just get rid of the fog. There's not a single BF1 player that'll say they love fog.
    I love the variety it is part of.  I love that it annoys people who won't change class/weapon/tactics.
    There is no variety to it.  It's the opposite.  IT's a variety killer.  
    Encouraging people to play in a different style for a few minutes isn't variety?

    It's only restrictive if you refuse to stop sniping or flying and can't cope with a bit of CQC for a change.

    CQC is not my favourite playstyle, but I enjoy it every now and again when Fort de Vaux comes up in rotation and, yes, when fog makes it necessary.
    Nonsense.   You're saying it's only restrictive if want to have a variety of tactics at your disposal.     That's the opposite of variety.  :)

    Worse is it makes every map the same.  So fog on one map plays (like) every other map with fog.  Thus an even further decrease in the variety offered by different maps. 
    Post edited by trip1ex on
  • trip1ex
    5058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Yes fog is so restrictive to the heavy bomber when they can no longer be seen but still bomb the lobby with impunity, and scopes still increase the draw distance through fog while lowering it normally. Did you even play this game at one point.
    Yep that's the other dumb thing about the fog.   It isn't consistent.
  • disposalist
    8745 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited November 2019
    trip1ex said:
    trip1ex said:
    ssjsnoop said:
    DICE just get rid of the fog. There's not a single BF1 player that'll say they love fog.
    I love the variety it is part of.  I love that it annoys people who won't change class/weapon/tactics.
    There is no variety to it.  It's the opposite.  IT's a variety killer.  
    Encouraging people to play in a different style for a few minutes isn't variety?

    It's only restrictive if you refuse to stop sniping or flying and can't cope with a bit of CQC for a change.

    CQC is not my favourite playstyle, but I enjoy it every now and again when Fort de Vaux comes up in rotation and, yes, when fog makes it necessary.
    Nonsense.   You're saying it's only restrictive if want to have a variety of tactics at your disposal.     That's the opposite of variety.  :)

    Worse is it makes every map the same.  So fog on one map plays (like) every other map with fog.  Thus an even further decrease in the variety offered by different maps. 
    Not nonsense and I'm saying it's only restrictive if you refuse to use the variety of tactics at your disposal.  When it's foggy it doesn't just restrict available tactics, it enables new ones.

    You use the tactics that are appropriate.  Many people do attempt to use a very restricted set of tactics for all situations - let's pick on snipers.  They would see fog as 'restrictive' because it's make the limited playstyle they favour more difficult.  This doesn't mean fog is 'restrictive' to everyone else.  It means they need to change their tactics and I have no sympathy if they won't.

    Also, it *does* add variety to maps, vehicles and weapons.  A dust storm on Sinai or fog on another large open map means players can move across open ground - it opens up totally different approaches to flags.  It means tanks can approach much closer to flags.  It means planes have to guess at where the enemy is and intuit from their own team's positions and/or comms not just look for red blobs - might actually lead to them supporting the front line instead of camping vehicle/plane spawn areas and they get used as paratrooper transport more because gunners can't see well to kill enemy.  It means boats can actually evade each other on open water.  Etc etc.  People need to change the way they use the map, vehicles, weapons, classes, ie. adds variety.

    Sure, small maps are less effected (though are still effected) and short range tactics/weapons are less effected, but it is still a change.

    I wouldn't want it all the time, sometimes it lasts too long and I'd like to see more rain/storm weather, but it most definitely causes a change in tactics to be necessary and is adding variety to the game.

    Unless you are a type that cannot change tactics.  That's your problem.

    A last thought: Take smoke grenades.  They add to your tactical choice.  They do that by restricting the tactical choices of others.  Fog is like smoke that neither side threw, so it may restrict the choice of some (but even then, because they know it will be there a while, they can change tactics to overcome it) and it may enhance the tactical choices of others when they choose to use it to their advantage, just like smoke they threw.

    You really see it as always restricting choice for everyone?  Really?  *shrug*  Even snipers that might find it harder to get kills could use it to relocate more easily.
  • disposalist
    8745 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Yes fog is so restrictive to the heavy bomber when they can no longer be seen but still bomb the lobby with impunity, and scopes still increase the draw distance through fog while lowering it normally. Did you even play this game at one point.
    Good lord - the heavy bomber again?  Did one of those kill your mum?  Yes, they can still drop bombs when it's foggy.  They have a much harder time, though.  About the same difficulty increase as with shooting them down, so, yeah, if they upset you before they are just as upsetting in fog.

    And scopes magically reduce fog effect.  Yes.  Somewhat.  It's not impossible to snipe in fog.  You've got to find people in the first place though (and spotting is very difficult in fog) and it does take a few moments for that effect to cut through the fog.  It does make target acquisition and tracking much more difficult.  Snipers do not like fog.

    Yes I have played 2000+ hours, as you well know, from beta to still-playing, and still am not particularly upset or haunted by the effectiveness of heavy bombers or snipers.  Even in fog.
  • WetFishDB
    2167 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB said:
    (Quote)
    It certainly would have made the game more interesting, dynamic and better but but leagues above everything else? Ehh, probably not.

    A lot of games, especially the good (open-world) ones, have been implementing day-night cycles and weather events for quite a while now. One could even argue that it's becoming common practice now.

    I was referring to this genre, not every game out there. Although personally, I can’t stand those boring open world, wandering around for hours doing very little, type games - but that’s just personal preference.

    In FPS it’s not common at all. But here’s hoping in the future it does become so.
    The problem with implementing dynamic day/night cycles in pure FPS games (ie. Battlefield/CoD and not looter shooters, open-world FPS etc), is that matches don't last enough to warrant one. 

    A typical Conquest game lasts around 25 minutes, that means that each minute in real time would have to equal several hours in in-game time to go from day to night. So it's entirely possible that one minute the Sun is shining at its brightest at midday and yet only a few minutes later, the Sun's completely disappeared and the Moon's already out. Yeah that's pretty cool and all but the novelty will wear out very quickly once you get used to it. 

    The only way I could imagine it being somewhat plausible is that before the start of each new match, the game has a 50% chance to determine if the next map is going to be set in the day or night and sticks with that time of day for the entire duration of the match. 

    Just a theory, not expecting anyone to take it seriously.
    I wasn’t suggesting the time of day changes during the match, more that the time of day is different in each match.  Some matches at sun rise, midday, sunset, evening etc - perhaps with different propensities for each etc.
  • MarxistDictator
    5046 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2019
    Right you listed how it changes up the gameplay because it nerfs planes and forces CQB and I just pointed out that the mechanics of other planes/fog makes that not true.

    Scopes have their biggest advantage in fog because the glint system breaks completely and you can literally see further. You do not see farther in normal gameplay. This was not thought out at all by the devs, kind of like the weather system in general which is still horribly buggy and inconsistent and that's why its hated by players. Every once in a while I'll gripe about fog and someone on voice comm with me will say 'what fog?' If they couldn't fix the synchronization bug with weather they should have completely removed it because some people having it others not ruins the experience completely. And it's not even uncommon either, I've seen lots of ridiculous antics that would only work with the no spot icon range limit in tact from no fog.
    (Quote)
    Yes.

    Blame the fog and everything else in the game except you and your team's inability to take out a giant flying hitbox coffin moving at a sloth's pace.

    If the bomber can kill you, you can kill the bomber. It's as simple as that. Any reason why you cannot destroy the bomber, be it fog or whatever else, is simply an excuse. 

    Ok heavy bomber, go back to mashing spawn in the deployment screen waiting for another plane.
  • trip1ex
    5058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    trip1ex said:
    ssjsnoop said:
    DICE just get rid of the fog. There's not a single BF1 player that'll say they love fog.
    I love the variety it is part of.  I love that it annoys people who won't change class/weapon/tactics.
    There is no variety to it.  It's the opposite.  IT's a variety killer.  
    Encouraging people to play in a different style for a few minutes isn't variety?

    It's only restrictive if you refuse to stop sniping or flying and can't cope with a bit of CQC for a change.

    CQC is not my favourite playstyle, but I enjoy it every now and again when Fort de Vaux comes up in rotation and, yes, when fog makes it necessary.
    Nonsense.   You're saying it's only restrictive if want to have a variety of tactics at your disposal.     That's the opposite of variety.  :)

    Worse is it makes every map the same.  So fog on one map plays (like) every other map with fog.  Thus an even further decrease in the variety offered by different maps. 
    Not nonsense and I'm saying it's only restrictive if you refuse to use the variety of tactics at your disposal.  When it's foggy it doesn't just restrict available tactics, it enables new ones.

    You use the tactics that are appropriate.  Many people do attempt to use a very restricted set of tactics for all situations - let's pick on snipers.  They would see fog as 'restrictive' because it's make the limited playstyle they favour more difficult.  This doesn't mean fog is 'restrictive' to everyone else.  It means they need to change their tactics and I have no sympathy if they won't.

    Also, it *does* add variety to maps, vehicles and weapons.  A dust storm on Sinai or fog on another large open map means players can move across open ground - it opens up totally different approaches to flags.  It means tanks can approach much closer to flags.  It means planes have to guess at where the enemy is and intuit from their own team's positions and/or comms not just look for red blobs - might actually lead to them supporting the front line instead of camping vehicle/plane spawn areas and they get used as paratrooper transport more because gunners can't see well to kill enemy.  It means boats can actually evade each other on open water.  Etc etc.  People need to change the way they use the map, vehicles, weapons, classes, ie. adds variety.

    Sure, small maps are less effected (though are still effected) and short range tactics/weapons are less effected, but it is still a change.

    I wouldn't want it all the time, sometimes it lasts too long and I'd like to see more rain/storm weather, but it most definitely causes a change in tactics to be necessary and is adding variety to the game.

    Unless you are a type that cannot change tactics.  That's your problem.

    A last thought: Take smoke grenades.  They add to your tactical choice.  They do that by restricting the tactical choices of others.  Fog is like smoke that neither side threw, so it may restrict the choice of some (but even then, because they know it will be there a while, they can change tactics to overcome it) and it may enhance the tactical choices of others when they choose to use it to their advantage, just like smoke they threw.

    You really see it as always restricting choice for everyone?  Really?  *shrug*  Even snipers that might find it harder to get kills could use it to relocate more easily.
     It doesn't enable new tactics.  It takes out  some tactics that are available and forces you to pick from a lesser variety of those tactics.  

    It doesn't add variety because every fogged map or map with a dust storm plays out the same.   So Sinai becomes Empire's becomes Fao becomes Giant's Shadow etc and these maps become like the CQ maps.   AS you alluded to,  you can pretty much go anywhere with fog etc.  That's why every map turns into the same experience when fogged over.   Maps already have plenty of CQ situations and some maps are almost entirely CQ already.   Many maps have no planes.    The effect of fog is to make all maps like these maps.  Thus reducing variety, reducing the amount of tactics available and increasing monotony.  

    The type of person who can change tactics  and likes to change tactics likes to have no fog.  Again it's the opposite of what you think.   With fog you can't change to as many tactics so it hurts the player who likes to switch up tactics and play different ways. 

    Smoke nades are an argument against fog.  Again the opposite of what you think.  And that's because if you can already smoke up a map (aka fog it up ) then you don't need the map to be fogged over to force others to not play how they want to play.  :) 

    Last, as I said, it would be fine if it was once every 30 rounds.  But when it's 10 rounds in a row?  Total variety and tactic killer.  When it's every other round and you already have a lots of maps  with no planes and lots of maps with close quarter areas where sniping doesn't come into play much at all along with maps where barely anybody ever snipes then it just adds monotony.  


  • Titan_Awaken
    817 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    Yes.

    Blame the fog and everything else in the game except you and your team's inability to take out a giant flying hitbox coffin moving at a sloth's pace.

    If the bomber can kill you, you can kill the bomber. It's as simple as that. Any reason why you cannot destroy the bomber, be it fog or whatever else, is simply an excuse. 

    Ok heavy bomber, go back to mashing spawn in the deployment screen waiting for another plane.
    Lol, the moment you start resorting to personal insults and low jabs you know you've lost.

    And for the record, I have spent a total of 1 hour, 16 minutes and 48 seconds out of my entire playtime in the Muromets bomber. There is literally no reason why I'd intentionally pick a flying coffin bomber when the Attack Plane and Fighter Plane exists. 

    Enjoy getting sent back to the spawn screen by a literal flying coffin.
  • Titan_Awaken
    817 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB said:
    WetFishDB said:
    (Quote)
    It certainly would have made the game more interesting, dynamic and better but but leagues above everything else? Ehh, probably not.

    A lot of games, especially the good (open-world) ones, have been implementing day-night cycles and weather events for quite a while now. One could even argue that it's becoming common practice now.

    I was referring to this genre, not every game out there. Although personally, I can’t stand those boring open world, wandering around for hours doing very little, type games - but that’s just personal preference.

    In FPS it’s not common at all. But here’s hoping in the future it does become so.
    The problem with implementing dynamic day/night cycles in pure FPS games (ie. Battlefield/CoD and not looter shooters, open-world FPS etc), is that matches don't last enough to warrant one. 

    A typical Conquest game lasts around 25 minutes, that means that each minute in real time would have to equal several hours in in-game time to go from day to night. So it's entirely possible that one minute the Sun is shining at its brightest at midday and yet only a few minutes later, the Sun's completely disappeared and the Moon's already out. Yeah that's pretty cool and all but the novelty will wear out very quickly once you get used to it. 

    The only way I could imagine it being somewhat plausible is that before the start of each new match, the game has a 50% chance to determine if the next map is going to be set in the day or night and sticks with that time of day for the entire duration of the match. 

    Just a theory, not expecting anyone to take it seriously.
    I wasn’t suggesting the time of day changes during the match, more that the time of day is different in each match.  Some matches at sun rise, midday, sunset, evening etc - perhaps with different propensities for each etc.
    WetFishDB said:
    WetFishDB said:
    (Quote)
    It certainly would have made the game more interesting, dynamic and better but but leagues above everything else? Ehh, probably not.

    A lot of games, especially the good (open-world) ones, have been implementing day-night cycles and weather events for quite a while now. One could even argue that it's becoming common practice now.

    I was referring to this genre, not every game out there. Although personally, I can’t stand those boring open world, wandering around for hours doing very little, type games - but that’s just personal preference.

    In FPS it’s not common at all. But here’s hoping in the future it does become so.
    The problem with implementing dynamic day/night cycles in pure FPS games (ie. Battlefield/CoD and not looter shooters, open-world FPS etc), is that matches don't last enough to warrant one. 

    A typical Conquest game lasts around 25 minutes, that means that each minute in real time would have to equal several hours in in-game time to go from day to night. So it's entirely possible that one minute the Sun is shining at its brightest at midday and yet only a few minutes later, the Sun's completely disappeared and the Moon's already out. Yeah that's pretty cool and all but the novelty will wear out very quickly once you get used to it. 

    The only way I could imagine it being somewhat plausible is that before the start of each new match, the game has a 50% chance to determine if the next map is going to be set in the day or night and sticks with that time of day for the entire duration of the match. 

    Just a theory, not expecting anyone to take it seriously.
    I wasn’t suggesting the time of day changes during the match, more that the time of day is different in each match.  Some matches at sun rise, midday, sunset, evening etc - perhaps with different propensities for each etc.
    Oh ok, my bad. 

    If the devs can pull that off, I'm all for it. It would be interesting to see an Argonne Forest at night. A little time of day change could spice up the gameplay. 

  • WetFishDB
    2167 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB said:
    WetFishDB said:
    (Quote)
    It certainly would have made the game more interesting, dynamic and better but but leagues above everything else? Ehh, probably not.

    A lot of games, especially the good (open-world) ones, have been implementing day-night cycles and weather events for quite a while now. One could even argue that it's becoming common practice now.

    I was referring to this genre, not every game out there. Although personally, I can’t stand those boring open world, wandering around for hours doing very little, type games - but that’s just personal preference.

    In FPS it’s not common at all. But here’s hoping in the future it does become so.
    The problem with implementing dynamic day/night cycles in pure FPS games (ie. Battlefield/CoD and not looter shooters, open-world FPS etc), is that matches don't last enough to warrant one. 

    A typical Conquest game lasts around 25 minutes, that means that each minute in real time would have to equal several hours in in-game time to go from day to night. So it's entirely possible that one minute the Sun is shining at its brightest at midday and yet only a few minutes later, the Sun's completely disappeared and the Moon's already out. Yeah that's pretty cool and all but the novelty will wear out very quickly once you get used to it. 

    The only way I could imagine it being somewhat plausible is that before the start of each new match, the game has a 50% chance to determine if the next map is going to be set in the day or night and sticks with that time of day for the entire duration of the match. 

    Just a theory, not expecting anyone to take it seriously.
    I wasn’t suggesting the time of day changes during the match, more that the time of day is different in each match.  Some matches at sun rise, midday, sunset, evening etc - perhaps with different propensities for each etc.
    WetFishDB said:
    WetFishDB said:
    (Quote)
    It certainly would have made the game more interesting, dynamic and better but but leagues above everything else? Ehh, probably not.

    A lot of games, especially the good (open-world) ones, have been implementing day-night cycles and weather events for quite a while now. One could even argue that it's becoming common practice now.

    I was referring to this genre, not every game out there. Although personally, I can’t stand those boring open world, wandering around for hours doing very little, type games - but that’s just personal preference.

    In FPS it’s not common at all. But here’s hoping in the future it does become so.
    The problem with implementing dynamic day/night cycles in pure FPS games (ie. Battlefield/CoD and not looter shooters, open-world FPS etc), is that matches don't last enough to warrant one. 

    A typical Conquest game lasts around 25 minutes, that means that each minute in real time would have to equal several hours in in-game time to go from day to night. So it's entirely possible that one minute the Sun is shining at its brightest at midday and yet only a few minutes later, the Sun's completely disappeared and the Moon's already out. Yeah that's pretty cool and all but the novelty will wear out very quickly once you get used to it. 

    The only way I could imagine it being somewhat plausible is that before the start of each new match, the game has a 50% chance to determine if the next map is going to be set in the day or night and sticks with that time of day for the entire duration of the match. 

    Just a theory, not expecting anyone to take it seriously.
    I wasn’t suggesting the time of day changes during the match, more that the time of day is different in each match.  Some matches at sun rise, midday, sunset, evening etc - perhaps with different propensities for each etc.
    Oh ok, my bad. 

    If the devs can pull that off, I'm all for it. It would be interesting to see an Argonne Forest at night. A little time of day change could spice up the gameplay. 

    Could you imagine that!  I know some people would hate it, but it would be nice to add to the variety.  Perhaps dusk rather than night time though - I know some people dislike Prise de Tahure because of how dark it can get.  With at least 3 different lighting conditions for each map it would massively increase the variety.

    But it won’t happen for this game unfortunately.  But holy cow would that be incredible for the next game (BFV is dead to me now, at least whilst BF1 continues to survive).
Sign In or Register to comment.