Things confirmed in the last hour or so:

Comments

  • BogMogg
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I have shares at EA so this is going to be great for me. I will make more weapon reviews on the look, sound and feel of the gun. I am epic. I am Mang
  • Cryphisss
    3110 postsMember, Developer DICE, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V
    @Brentlostak and @Jihad_Jockey let's avoid the discussion of moderation on these forums.

    You can review our forum rules here: https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/56/battlefield-forums-rules-of-conduct
  • swfc4eva1
    545 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited May 2016
    Post removed.
  • FF-Bulletsponge
    520 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2016
    Wow we can´t even say "idi ot" on this forum without it being censored?
  • Cryphisss
    3110 postsMember, Developer DICE, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V
    @FF-Bulletsponge words are censored for a reason. Also please avoid bashing other users. If you do not want to engage with them just ignore them.
  • FF-Bulletsponge
    520 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Cryphisss wrote: »
    @FF-Bulletsponge words are censored for a reason. Also please avoid bashing other users. If you do not want to engage with them just ignore them.

    But what is wrong with that word?
  • Crispy_Pinguin
    1598 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Cryphisss wrote: »
    @Brentlostak and @Jihad_Jockey let's avoid the discussion of moderation on these forums.

    You can review our forum rules here: https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/56/battlefield-forums-rules-of-conduct

    Check
  • swfc4eva1
    545 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Lordmang4 wrote: »
    Hahahahah have to say you surprised me there ;D

    I'm known for my creativity and pushing the envelope when it comes to gaming ideas. Of course, it rubbed some tryhard gamers the wrong way on the old Battlelog forums....

    You were known for your trolling and pushing the boundaries of the ToS. Perhaps you'd still be posting there if you weren't banned.

    Lordmang4 you were banned for life from battlelog forums, and now you're back. How long do you intend to be able to post here, are you going for the first one to be banned for life again on this new forum. i give you 2 weeks!

    I'm pretty sure he got banned from The Division forums as well.

    Yes he did and the swbf forums, he's a 1St grade troll, who just baites people constantly with his stupid cod threads!
  • 68Keif
    4628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    swfc4eva1 wrote: »
    Lordmang4 wrote: »
    Hahahahah have to say you surprised me there ;D

    I'm known for my creativity and pushing the envelope when it comes to gaming ideas. Of course, it rubbed some tryhard gamers the wrong way on the old Battlelog forums....

    You were known for your trolling and pushing the boundaries of the ToS. Perhaps you'd still be posting there if you weren't banned.

    Lordmang4 you were banned for life from battlelog forums, and now you're back. How long do you intend to be able to post here, are you going for the first one to be banned for life again on this new forum. i give you 2 weeks!

    I'm pretty sure he got banned from The Division forums as well.

    Yes he did and the swbf forums, he's a 1St grade troll, who just baites people constantly with his stupid cod threads!

    Low grade troll
  • swfc4eva1
    545 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Keif68 wrote: »
    swfc4eva1 wrote: »
    Lordmang4 wrote: »
    Hahahahah have to say you surprised me there ;D

    I'm known for my creativity and pushing the envelope when it comes to gaming ideas. Of course, it rubbed some tryhard gamers the wrong way on the old Battlelog forums....

    You were known for your trolling and pushing the boundaries of the ToS. Perhaps you'd still be posting there if you weren't banned.

    Lordmang4 you were banned for life from battlelog forums, and now you're back. How long do you intend to be able to post here, are you going for the first one to be banned for life again on this new forum. i give you 2 weeks!

    I'm pretty sure he got banned from The Division forums as well.

    Yes he did and the swbf forums, he's a 1St grade troll, who just baites people constantly with his stupid cod threads!

    Low grade troll

    My bad is "low grade" a word lol
  • 68Keif
    4628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    swfc4eva1 wrote: »
    Keif68 wrote: »
    swfc4eva1 wrote: »
    Lordmang4 wrote: »
    Hahahahah have to say you surprised me there ;D

    I'm known for my creativity and pushing the envelope when it comes to gaming ideas. Of course, it rubbed some tryhard gamers the wrong way on the old Battlelog forums....

    You were known for your trolling and pushing the boundaries of the ToS. Perhaps you'd still be posting there if you weren't banned.

    Lordmang4 you were banned for life from battlelog forums, and now you're back. How long do you intend to be able to post here, are you going for the first one to be banned for life again on this new forum. i give you 2 weeks!

    I'm pretty sure he got banned from The Division forums as well.

    Yes he did and the swbf forums, he's a 1St grade troll, who just baites people constantly with his stupid cod threads!

    Low grade troll

    My bad is "low grade" a word lol

    Yes sir :p
  • Sir-xer21
    1890 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    afnav130 wrote: »
    Peccath wrote: »
    There was a Q&A session on Twitter with a dev who confirmed this.

    Also, another tidbit was that certain stationary machine guns are going to be class weapons, so while not 100% authentic, they did it for fun and class balance

    What does that mean? There are stationary machine guns around the map and only certain class can "enter" them? How about stationary AAs?

    Sorry, I explained it badly. Essentially there were weapons that weren't carried in WW1, they were stationary only. However, in the realm of fun and making kits equal, they made them so they are essentially LMG's that a class gets.

    If this is true, it's hilarious. What a joke. Everything has to be balanced. Why? For the 12 year olds. So your gonna be hauling around at running speed stationary weapons? Brilliant. WW1 my a**.

    This game will be filled with 12 year olds. Good luck with that. If DICE goes this route, it will hurt. Many, many people are expecting near close to authentic WW1 as possible. When things like this start coming out, the interest will drop. It won't fail because of the setting, it will fail because of things like this.

    Do you understand how many MORE people would lose interest if there were no spam cannons to hide their lack of skill?

    probably scrubs like you.
  • Sir-xer21
    1890 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    afnav130 wrote: »
    afnav130 wrote: »
    Peccath wrote: »
    There was a Q&A session on Twitter with a dev who confirmed this.

    Also, another tidbit was that certain stationary machine guns are going to be class weapons, so while not 100% authentic, they did it for fun and class balance

    What does that mean? There are stationary machine guns around the map and only certain class can "enter" them? How about stationary AAs?

    Sorry, I explained it badly. Essentially there were weapons that weren't carried in WW1, they were stationary only. However, in the realm of fun and making kits equal, they made them so they are essentially LMG's that a class gets.

    If this is true, it's hilarious. What a joke. Everything has to be balanced. Why? For the 12 year olds. So your gonna be hauling around at running speed stationary weapons? Brilliant. WW1 my a**.

    This game will be filled with 12 year olds. Good luck with that. If DICE goes this route, it will hurt. Many, many people are expecting near close to authentic WW1 as possible. When things like this start coming out, the interest will drop. It won't fail because of the setting, it will fail because of things like this.

    Balance is an important part of any game. Even Counter-Strike tries to balances it's weapons, except it takes their purchase values into consideration. More powerful weapons are more expensive, and so there's a higher risk/reward there.

    The changes they made might not even be unbelievable to expect. The M1919 Browning was a medium machine gun, and in Call of Duty: World at War you could shoot that thing while standing. Treyarch actually went to a shooting range to see if this was possible, and it was.

    I don't have a single clue about history, but all I'm saying is... if they stretch reality, then it might not even be that much of a stretch. Just because a weapon wasn't used in a specific way in real life, doesn't mean it's impossible. Sometimes developers have to bend the rules to create an experience they believe is more enjoyable.

    If you have no idea about history then you have nothing to bring to the conversation about historical circumstances. Sorry, it's just true. I wouldn't be on a nuclear engineering board bringing my opinion because, well, I'm not a nuclear engineer. "Just because a weapon wasn't used in a specific way..." Really? You don't care for realism in any way? Cmon.

    Also, referencing Call of Duty in regards to any product from Dice is and should be blasphemy.

    If you're playing BF, you imply that you dont care that much about realism because BF has never even been close to reaslistic.

    also, the DICE blind fanboysim is atrocious. people who still fight about CoD vs BF remind me of this.
    PBF020-Skub.gif
  • Sir-xer21
    1890 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    The Authentic vs Realism parts have been confusing a lot of people. Yet, if the game went realistic and bolts were the only weapons the majority had to play with it would be ohk all the way and crying forever. Most would be barely out of spawn before dying.

    Gameplay is King!

    If everything was bolt action, 85% of the community would give up in frustration since most people playing this game cant aim properly.
  • FF-Bulletsponge
    520 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    That´s a bit lame that the mods don´t reply to my question about the apparent "bad" word
  • 68Keif
    4628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    That´s a bit lame that the mods don´t reply to my question about the apparent "bad" word

    They're busy keeping an eye on Mang
  • dan-theman674
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield Member
    afnav130 wrote: »

    I understand what he's trying to say, just it's really hard to accept flawed logic.

    Talking about flawed logic, shall we discuss the fact that someone wants to turn BF1 into a simulator and not an online FPS? How can the game work as a proper multiplayer experience if there are only two guns for each faction and no attachments? In real life everyone had standard issue rifles, people didn't have different attachments...how rubbish would BF1 be if there were no attachments or the like?

    All this authenticity and realism nonsense- everyone (you) treating it like it's either completely realistic or not at all: there has to be a middle ground. Yes, we want authentic weapons and vehicles (and that's what we're getting), but no, we don't need them to perform, be used as commonly, or handle exactly how they did.

    If that is what you want however, go enjoy your trench-camping-only-ironsights-rifle-sniping-no-gadgets-boring-war-simulator-4000. Yeah, what a fun game that is. Good day Sir.
  • NatsuTerran
    170 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited May 2016
    afnav130 wrote: »

    I understand what he's trying to say, just it's really hard to accept flawed logic.

    Talking about flawed logic, shall we discuss the fact that someone wants to turn BF1 into a simulator and not an online FPS? How can the game work as a proper multiplayer experience if there are only two guns for each faction and no attachments? In real life everyone had standard issue rifles, people didn't have different attachments...how rubbish would BF1 be if there were no attachments or the like?

    All this authenticity and realism nonsense- everyone (you) treating it like it's either completely realistic or not at all: there has to be a middle ground. Yes, we want authentic weapons and vehicles (and that's what we're getting), but no, we don't need them to perform, be used as commonly, or handle exactly how they did.

    If that is what you want however, go enjoy your trench-camping-only-ironsights-rifle-sniping-no-gadgets-boring-war-simulator-4000. Yeah, what a fun game that is. Good day Sir.

    I really don't understand this logic. I would like to think I am reaching for a middle ground, not a war simulator. I think a lot of people who throw around that term really don't understand how far off a simulator is from the Battlefield many of us are asking for. I don't understand how it's wrong to want extremely limited selections due to authenticity. Why must a "proper multiplayer experience" tick off a bunch of check boxes by having dozens of guns and attachments? Why are guns and attachments seen as implicitly "fun" to you? That is entirely subjective, and to me, the volume of tools in the game has absolutely no bearing on the fun factor, just the authenticity of those tools. Of course they don't have to behave completely realistically (simulator), but it should at least FEEL LIKE YOU ARE IN WW1. Picking and augmenting your class with a huge variety of experimental technology does not feel like that. Most oldschool BF players hated BF4 specifically because of how bloated it was. Why are gamers these days so concerned with ticking off check boxes for content that does not add value to the game?
  • TheBlackDog14
    14 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Member
    edited May 2016
    afnav130 wrote: »

    I understand what he's trying to say, just it's really hard to accept flawed logic.

    Talking about flawed logic, shall we discuss the fact that someone wants to turn BF1 into a simulator and not an online FPS? How can the game work as a proper multiplayer experience if there are only two guns for each faction and no attachments? In real life everyone had standard issue rifles, people didn't have different attachments...how rubbish would BF1 be if there were no attachments or the like?

    All this authenticity and realism nonsense- everyone (you) treating it like it's either completely realistic or not at all: there has to be a middle ground. Yes, we want authentic weapons and vehicles (and that's what we're getting), but no, we don't need them to perform, be used as commonly, or handle exactly how they did.

    If that is what you want however, go enjoy your trench-camping-only-ironsights-rifle-sniping-no-gadgets-boring-war-simulator-4000. Yeah, what a fun game that is. Good day Sir.

    I really don't understand this logic. I would like to think I am reaching for a middle ground, not a war simulator. I think a lot of people who throw around that term really don't understand how far off a simulator is from the Battlefield many of us are asking for. I don't understand how it's wrong to want extremely limited selections due to authenticity. Why must a "proper multiplayer experience" tick off a bunch of check boxes by having dozens of guns and attachments? Why are guns and attachments seen as implicitly "fun" to you? That is entirely subjective, and to me, the volume of tools in the game has absolutely no bearing on the fun factor, just the authenticity of those tools. Of course they don't have to behave completely realistically (simulator), but it should at least FEEL LIKE YOU ARE IN WW1. Picking and augmenting your class with a huge variety of experimental technology does not feel like that. Most oldschool BF players hated BF4 specifically because of how bloated it was. Why are gamers these days so concerned with ticking off check boxes for content that does not add value to the game?

    I also don't get the obsession with sights and attachments. I think what some people want is just the same old shooter experience a reskinned set of weapons still functioning as the M16 and everything else seen in modern shooters, and blaming any objection to that on a slavish devotion to realism. Battlefield has bullet drop and doesn't use hitscans, so why can't there be other concessions to authenticity for the sake of a little challenge? Challenge is a real source of fun in a game, and you can't have challenge without some kind of restriction, and authenticity, realism, or whatever can be a source of that.

    Side note: What did you think was bloated in BF3?
  • ShadowBeast005
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Server Browser
    Weapon attachments authentic to the era
    Dynamic vehicle damage model, which affects said vehicles for example destroying the wing of a plane
    Various Navy vessels

    if i can loose a chunk of my planes wing that is going to make me unbelievably happy, i know you could loose part of the hogs wing in bf4 but it dint really effect anything
Sign In or Register to comment.