Why battlefield would never work as an eSport

2

Comments

  • incapslap
    3513 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Neil_Enbob wrote: »
    It's not meant to be an eSport game. BF1 is a casual fun shooter, not taken seriously on the competitive tournament scene.

    Too bad that Fnatic, Epsilon, etc. all have Battlefield teams.

    If anything the vehicles and destructive nature of the game should make it better for esports. It is not the most popular esport but Battlefield has been a competitive game ever since BC2 at least.

    All competitive games are also casual games, and some of the best weren't nearly as popular as COD, LOL, or CS. Popular does not necessarily mean better as anyone who hears popular music should know. And the communication and teamwork required for BF arguably makes it a much better esport than any of the popular titles.

    If you are a casual player, fine. But why do you all feel the need to try and keep a game from being seen as competitive?
  • MajorDirt
    279 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    One thing you cannot have in competitive is unreliability and that's the definition of frostbite and general BF games due to it's scale. you cannot have a competitive game when extended collision won't let you shoot at a clear target! if you know what i mean...or not being able to vault over assets and so many more. that doesn;t mean you can't play it competitive though.
  • incapslap
    3513 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    dgeesio wrote: »
    I will work at the ESL level just like BF4 did. It will never become one of the big esport titles the game is simply just not designed with that in mind.

    it will work at ESL lvl there were like a handful of teams.it didnt work.just as bf3 didnt or any other bf game.you die to randomly.there are random bugs.you just cant afford to have that in big games for esports being watched by millions.makes your game look silly and the company who makes it.

    as pointed out the game needs to work floorless or 99 percent flawless. be fast enough and exciting enough to make a audience watch it.bf works for mp gaming on big scale.its not a 6v6 game. which is mainly esports type titles work.

    There's still lots of **** in CS, go watch the JackFrags video on it. Just as broken.
  • Visegrip117
    1346 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Back in the day BF had a mode called squad rush.

    A piece of the map was sectioned off. It had two crates/mcom/telegraph. And it was one squad vs another squad. I found it very competitive and fun

    BC2 style, not those pitiful maps in bf3
  • lucidstorm
    1738 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited November 2016
    you mean bf1 or battlefield in general, because battlefield was an e-sport and that is a fact (especially bf3, bf4 was called too random and problematic for many), 2vs2 heli cup, 1 vs 1 same, 8vs8 conquest large, 1vs1 infantry, 6vs6 same, 4 vs 4 same, 2 vs 2 tank battles, 12vs12 international cups and the list goes on.

    Conquest small played well for e-sport, also conquest large on some maps, DICE only needs to make conquest small live again and there will be e-sport

    I don't understand what are you trying to prove here, it is not exactly easy to beat CS - a long confirmed king of fps e-sport - but bf has something interesting and unique to offer.
  • DisfunkD86
    696 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    a games ability as an eSport is judged on its ability to make lots of money sponsorships and massive coverage at huge events. BF isn't that kinda game im talking about LAN events not online leagues
  • munkt0r
    3008 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BF1 is purely made for casuals unlike BF4

    I need a good laugh this morning, thanks for providing such.
  • incapslap
    3513 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    lucidstorm wrote: »
    you mean bf1 or battlefield in general, because battlefield was an e-sport and that is a fact (especially bf3, bf4 was called too random and problematic for many), 2vs2 heli cup, 1 vs 1 same, 8vs8 conquest large, 1vs1 infantry, 6vs6 same, 4 vs 4 same, 2 vs 2 tank battles, 12vs12 international cups and the list goes on.

    Conquest small played well for e-sport, also conquest large on some maps, DICE only needs to make conquest small live again and there will be e-sport

    I don't understand what are you trying to prove here, it is not exactly easy to beat CS - a long confirmed king of fps e-sport - but bf has something interesting and unique to offer.

    Yeah, the competitive scene did themselves no favours by making Domination in BF4 the standard. Was a bit of a joke considering the map design, netcode issues, and overall low quality of gunplay. And weren't many of the finals played by Epsilon and a Brazilian team? Nice 180-300 pings for great gameplay (they even do this in other games, like Overwatch, but it's not as big a deal as with infantry-only play).

    BF3 was an excellent comp game though.
  • psmsk8er
    428 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Literally any 5x5 mode
  • Austacker
    428 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    This game would never work as an esport because DICE can't balance guns and classes at all. They've proven it in every Battlefield they've ever made.

    Right now, Medics and scouts are stupidly OP.

    They'll keep rebalancing during the lifecycle of the game, but it's nothing new.

    Battlefield has *never* been truly balanced, so it'll *never* be a serious e-sport.

    Ever.
  • lucidstorm
    1738 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited November 2016
    incapslap wrote: »
    lucidstorm wrote: »
    you mean bf1 or battlefield in general, because battlefield was an e-sport and that is a fact (especially bf3, bf4 was called too random and problematic for many), 2vs2 heli cup, 1 vs 1 same, 8vs8 conquest large, 1vs1 infantry, 6vs6 same, 4 vs 4 same, 2 vs 2 tank battles, 12vs12 international cups and the list goes on.

    Conquest small played well for e-sport, also conquest large on some maps, DICE only needs to make conquest small live again and there will be e-sport

    I don't understand what are you trying to prove here, it is not exactly easy to beat CS - a long confirmed king of fps e-sport - but bf has something interesting and unique to offer.

    Yeah, the competitive scene did themselves no favours by making Domination in BF4 the standard. Was a bit of a joke considering the map design, netcode issues, and overall low quality of gunplay. And weren't many of the finals played by Epsilon and a Brazilian team? Nice 180-300 pings for great gameplay (they even do this in other games, like Overwatch, but it's not as big a deal as with infantry-only play).

    BF3 was an excellent comp game though.

    judging by what top europe team (badrespawn and fut were the best in bf3) said about BF4 esport, it was too random and not skill based ( i dunno why and what this means), many people would ctd too, nobody from badrespawn stayed (chudy, rixon, eman, pixy), only some fut guys like pyo or ceralno

    definitely vehicle mechanic was terrible for esport dudes as nobody from the esl skill ladder stayed, they were just gone forever, that again fut was an exeption (but less active than bf3), DICE made many mistakes (unrepairable that will probably alter esport scene for the series) with bf4 I am sure: judging by the fair amount of people that left: nobody I know of from bf3 has played bf4, from alot of friends; I got nobody all of sudden
  • TaktikzPS4
    324 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Back in the day BF had a mode called squad rush.

    A piece of the map was sectioned off. It had two crates/mcom/telegraph. And it was one squad vs another squad. I found it very competitive and fun

    BC2 style, not those pitiful maps in bf3

    Oh yeah I totally forget about that game mode, it was on BF3 weren't it.. that was actually pretty fun man, I'd welcome a return of that game mode...

    I also think Defuse is fun but the loading time between rounds took forever.. plus the rounds went on too long.
  • Shezoremet
    275 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Austacker wrote: »
    This game would never work as an esport because DICE can't balance guns and classes at all. They've proven it in every Battlefield they've ever made.

    Right now, Medics and scouts are stupidly OP.

    They'll keep rebalancing during the lifecycle of the game, but it's nothing new.

    Battlefield has *never* been truly balanced, so it'll *never* be a serious e-sport.

    Ever.

    Unfortunately this. They are no better at balancing classes than Blizzard.
  • G-Gnu
    1078 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2016
    Their servers are too bad. Or I'm sure they up spec it due to the publicity.

    Servers are fine, I usually have between 9-15 ping with no issues or latency.


    Yeah servers are just fine when there is a server icon blinking angry at you in orange and sometimes in red, too many servers hosting Conquest has this problem, it´s not the latency that is the issue with the servers you know.
    EA has gone cheap and uses wooden computers as servers.
  • Matty101yttam
    624 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It is less likely to be competitive because competition requires skill.
    After bf2 i can't remember who exactly it was but they were a senior member was asked "what do you think bf2's biggest problem/negative was?".
    They replied that it was mainly good players and clans ruining other peoples fun and it was something they were going to focus on in future titles.

    Now you think back to things that have been dropped and how bf has become it's clear that by making so much random chaos they have given the average player the best chance they can.
    Sure good players will still rise to the top but its never a completely controlled situation now and you can die at any moment purely to luck AKA dice reducing the skill gap.
  • 0SiGHT0
    419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I couldn't disagree more with your comment. I starting to express my full opinions on this that can be seen here: http://relativepulse.blogspot.com/
  • Josterrrrr
    85 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I miss the days of 8v8/10v10/12v12, conquest small and large, they really did **** up in making DOM the comp game mode after bf3, if BF3 and BC2 had spectator we could have witnessed some great BF, but nope they had to try and go to COD route and well DOM isn't BF, it failed to a large extent, most competitive vets in NA abondoned the game competitive wise after BF4 launch. IMO
  • RabNebula
    235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited November 2016
    DisfunkD86 wrote: »
    Hi guys,

    Ive been reading a lot of discussion related to the addition for competitive leagues and to bring Battlefield up to the Level of other great eSport titles such as CS GO LoL & CoD

    the reason why games like CoD suck sooooo bad is what makes them great game choices for eSports. if you take away all the children and are purely left with players who's ambition it is to be the best games like CoD & CS GO become a completely different beast. simplistic 5v5 match scenarios where the best players match up and use a variety of strategies to beat their opponent. the maps are small, fast moving and is fantastic as a spectator sport.

    now what makes Battlefield soooo fantastic is its open world war on a massive scale, now this is the reason why it will not work as an eSport. What makes battlefield stand out from the rest is its conquest & operations game mode. Unfortunately the logistics behind creating enough 20 man teams that can all play together at the same time each day is just horrific to think about, for me a Battlefield eSports would have to be conquest on a massive scale for it to stand out amongst the crows as a 5v5 TDM would just be laughable when you got games like CoD and CS GO out there.

    For those reasons, i just do not see major eSports brands backing Battlefield due to the complexity behind creating enough teams that can compete against each other

    You're right that what makes Battlefield stand out is the scale of warfare. Stand out being the key phrase. That does not mean it cannot be an eSport as the core gameplay all round from small to large is every bit as good as any of it's competitors and also many people like to watch Battlefield.
    The only thing stopping it from becoming the top eSports game is the lack of clan functionality. Look at games like Smite, Halo etc and they all have clan support that goes above and beyond and really supports the competitive side of their games. I feel at this point the reason that isn't implemented is because they want players to come into this game feeling like they are on a level footing at least at first. The way they have changed Rush though certainly leans a lot toward the direction of Battlefield becoming a more prominent eSport title with lots of potential there for highly competitive 12v12 matches.
  • TickTak77
    4695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Agreed with the OP.

    There's 2 main lines of thought here - first, can you get competitive large teams (20+, 32, etc) to be interested enough in competing competitively in Battlefield? I think the general prevailing thought is no.

    Secondly - can you make Battlefield interesting enough be a viewer-friendly competitive game? The reason why CoD, LoL, and CS work so well is because they are pretty viewer-friendly games, whereas Battlefield isn't. Even if you are playing in a round of conquest large, there's often things that go on in a round that you have no idea about; now imagine the casual person watching?

    Is that going to be interesting enough? I don't think it will be.


    lucidstorm wrote: »
    I stopped reading when I saw the word COD, I just can't

    He literally says nothing positive or negative about CoD - you should read instead of being a ****.
  • incapslap
    3513 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Austacker wrote: »
    This game would never work as an esport because DICE can't balance guns and classes at all. They've proven it in every Battlefield they've ever made.

    Right now, Medics and scouts are stupidly OP.

    They'll keep rebalancing during the lifecycle of the game, but it's nothing new.

    Battlefield has *never* been truly balanced, so it'll *never* be a serious e-sport.

    Ever.

    No games are truly balanced. CS isn't balanced. Esports players generally make changes based upon what works in competitive. In Left 4 Dead (because that's where I had the most experience) this meant no medkits were taken from the safe room and only starter weapons could be used (because Autoshotties mostly were extremely overpowered, plus the slowing effects of the sniper).

    A problem is that games have a casual meta and a competitive meta. One game that clearly demonstrated this was Evolve. They nerfed the monsters really hard because of casuals, and in the end monsters only had about a 30% win-rate, while in casual they still had around 65%. That is a huge difference.

    In Battlefield the meta difference is in the use of snipers and support. One of the biggest ironies of casual Battlefield is how people are always talking about the need for ammo, and these people generally have a k/d of 0.5-1.5. Why do you need so much ammo when you are only getting one kill at a time? In comp no one plays support or scout unless they are trolling in a scrim.

    For one of the big games today you can look at MOBA's or Overwatch. It's exactly the same thing, the overpowered characters in casual games, especially at low levels tend to be useless in comp.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!