Battlefield 2018

Comments

  • VindictiV_V
    1347 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Premium is a bad design choice simply because it segregates the basegame-only owners from the DLC owners. This is exactly why dice are giving away DLC stuff for free so that everybody can play together because the population is suffering. There's a reason DLC-only servers are ghost towns after a while and some are simply booted or quit when a DLC map comes on the server if they don't own the required DLC. Also, the later in a bf title's life cycle you are, the less DLCs/premium are purchased (unless there are MAJOR sales or if given for free but those are only band-aids on the issue).

    If DICE wants to do the right thing, they need to have a pay to play model for the base game and then sustain the "free" DLC development through ingame COSMETICS-only (and non-random/loot boxes-type) microtransactions. No "grind-skip" or "unlock everything instantly" bs either. And by cosmetics, I don't mean the current crap we have with recycled skins (all them gold and black legendary skins being essentially the same, to name one example) but authentical stuff where work has been invested in every skin and where each skin is actually different. Only then will players really (maybe) be interested in burning some money on cosmetics.

    TLDR: Best would be: Pay-to-play for base game + microtransation with only NON-RANDOM and AUTHENTICAL/UNIQUE/INTERESTING cosmetics to cover for the DLCs.
  • HawkeyeAM47
    1282 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Do you guys think this can make an intresting concept?
    And also, how do you think this could be done?
    Enjoy this real life documentary on PMC's/Mercenaries


    How do you think a game can center around this
  • Scruffy_McGuffy
    504 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited May 2018
    TLDR: Best would be: Pay-to-play for base game + microtransation with only NON-RANDOM and AUTHENTICAL/UNIQUE/INTERESTING cosmetics to cover for the DLCs.
    Solid post overall. I agree all the maps need to be free for the reasons you mentioned. In fact, I made a topic about exactly that a couple of weeks ago. However, I'm not sure if non-random cosmetics would be sufficient replacement revenue to justify the large amount of content Premium has. That means going from the current situation of a subset of all players paying for Premium, many of those spending $50 each, to some players paying $2 here and there. I'd be surprised if they do away completely with lootboxes for that reason. I also agree that more interesting skins would certainly encourage more people to buy. When I see some of the skins of high rarity currently, it's obvious some of them only took a few minutes of artist time to create.

    I wouldn't mind too much if such a model meant we only get half or two thirds the current amount of content. I'd just like to see it appear faster. It was way too slow with BF1, and only encouraged the problem of empty dlc servers so quickly.
  • VindictiV_V
    1347 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    TLDR: Best would be: Pay-to-play for base game + microtransation with only NON-RANDOM and AUTHENTICAL/UNIQUE/INTERESTING cosmetics to cover for the DLCs.
    Solid post overall. I agree all the maps need to be free for the reasons you mentioned. In fact, I made a topic about exactly that a couple of weeks ago. However, I'm not sure if non-random cosmetics would be sufficient replacement revenue to justify the large amount of content Premium has. That means going from the current situation of a subset of all players paying for Premium, many of those spending $50 each, to some players paying $2 here and there. I'd be surprised if they do away completely with lootboxes for that reason. I also agree that more interesting skins would certainly encourage more people to buy. When I see some of the skins of high rarity currently, it's obvious some of them only took a few minutes of artist time to create.

    I wouldn't mind too much if such a model meant we only get half or two thirds the current amount of content. I'd just like to see it appear faster. It was way too slow with BF1, and only encouraged the problem of empty dlc servers so quickly.

    Indeed.

    For the cosmetics maybe not being enough, if you do it intelligently (but not with unethical practices such as random loot-boxes kind) you can still "spice up" cosmetics with stuff like, from the top of my head:
    -"limited time only skins" (obviously, they would come back after a while so the artist work isn't wasted). Idem for vehicle skins.
    -rotating through sets of skins with new skins coming out regularly and maybe even having some fitting of the current season during which it's being released, etc.
    -packages containing skins of the same "theme" (but not copy-pastas like we have now) for different weapons. Idem for vehicle skins.
    -packages containing differently themed skins for a single weapon (maybe with different tiers of quality) of your choosing. Idem for vehicle skins.
    -voice packs for narrator (instead of the annoying voice we have in bf1 telling us "you're losing"). Something funny possibly or something more bad*****.
    -voice packs for your own soldier when using "prompts" ingame such as "need ammo" or "capture this objective". Would love some weird/funny accents. Imagine "RKO OUT OF NOWHERE" with john cena music when backstabbing/bayonetting somebody for example (though the theme song would be copy right infringement for sure sadly). Immersion breaking but would be hilarious.
    -soldier skins : would effect how your overall character looks but some (like the higher quality ones) could even affect how your class gadgets look or sound like (without going in the too farfetched or unrealistic... we don't want bf to become like TF2 lol). Just need to make sure no skin gives an actual advantage ingame (such as camouflage/Ghillie).

    Microtransactions, on the long run, will definitly bring in more money than premiums. There are so many ways it can be implemented to entice players to burn some money without the need of scummy practices such as random lootboxes (or the right term: Gambling). I believe I represent a lot of players by saying I will NEVER pay for cosmetics if I don't get to chose exactly what I'm getting and if I instead get something random.
  • BadCuzForumField
    8 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited May 2018
    Is it the 23rd, yet? I'm dying to know

  • herodes87
    1224 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    CoD Made it Mainstream and Bf took it clearly from CoD.
  • GRIZZ11283
    4839 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Keep premium, not bothered about cosmetics, I wouldn't spend a single penny on cosmetics.

    The good old split the playerbase crap, you only need 64 players for a server, and the fact that in EU there's plenty of servers to go at, makes the splitting the playerbase a moot point, as it clearly has made no difference finding populated servers in the EU.
  • azelenkin0306
    538 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I am also for the Premium.

    Someone has already suggested that maps and modes can be free for everyone, but other content (weapons, vehicles, skins and etc.) + some early access and CTE can be a part of Premium.

    Not sure, will it work or not. Because from all DLC content I really enjoy using only few weapons (Model 1900, Howell Automatic and LMG08/18) and one vehicle - St. Chammond. So paying 50$ only for this will be too much :)

    So for me still the biggest selling-point for Premium are maps and modes

  • Shadders_X
    415 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Shadders_X wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Shadders_X wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Shadders_X wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    "never be the same" means randomly generated maps

    But if the same map comes up again it will be

    lol. randomly generated as in the same map is never the same because certain aspects of it are randomly generated. imagine if the same map had randomized flag locations every time and select randomized building locations and bunkers or aa locations and terrain slopes. so a map is never the same.
    Hi,
    It is difficult enough to get people to play the objective, so random flag positions will just create every mode being team death kill. On capture the flag, there are many times when people approach it as team death kill, which really makes for a worse game in that mode
    Regards,
    Shadders_X.

    i don't see it. it could confuse players as far as where is the flag now goes etc. But I don't think it's going to turn players who paid attention to flags into players who don't.

    The reason to do this is to keep things fresh and not allow players to memorize maps and spots on the maps quite so easily.

    But realistically this would be a pretty big advancement in tech and I wouldn't bet that it would happen in BF2018. I just have posted about the idea before and when I saw the tweet that "The Battlefield will never be the same" I couldn't help but regurgitate the random map idea.
    Hi,
    With the flags in set locations every map, then the guard points are known. When these flag locations change, it will require a much greater team cohesion.
    BF4 game players significantly lack team cohesion, since they copied CoD and the influx of the newer players don't play like the older games players.If they don't guard the weak points to protect the flag now, there is no chance they will suddenly play like a team to protect the flag if it dynamically changes with dynamically changing weak points. In fact - it seems that they don't even care about the weak points in BF4.
    Regards,
    Shadders_X.

    No because it is canceled out by the same thing on the other side.

    And again it's not suddenly going to turn players who play flags now into not playing them so what you said doesn't hold water. Memorization of maps isn't what keeps players playing flags and doing teamwork. All random maps does is put more emphasis on thinking on your feet instead of memorizing spots.
    Hi,
    I disagree, given that there are too many people already playing capture the flag, who don't play the objective. I can see your argument where both sides are at an equal disadvantage in determining where the flag is and how to defend or attack it.

    If everyone was playing the objective, then yes, but many people play Locker only since they servers are full and play like team death match - there are swarms of players running about stuck on one flag in the middle of the map and the opposition has all others, and no attempt to secure flags from the spawn point to where they are located.

    If you examine the servers - you will see that all Lockers maps are permanently full - sometimes have double digits of people waiting. There are many threads complaining about that most people concentrate on Locker.

    If DICE/EA do implement dynamic flags, i think initially people will try to play the objective, but people will get bored with the extra strategic work which many just don't care about, and it will descend into team death match.

    Regards,
    Shadders_X.

    Are you trying to say that not enough people play objectives to bother with moving flags around? I can understand that pt of view.

    But you could have just come out and said that in the first place. Instead we got 10 posts and 30 paragraphs. :) (Ok to be fair English isn't your first language from the looks of it so I will cut your some slack.)


    However even if you don't play flags, the changing of flag positions will change the routes at which enemies take and where battles will happen and that keeps maps fresh and keeps players from just memorizing spots. Not to mention that moving flags around is only part of randomizing maps. And the pt of randomizing maps isn't to make players play objectives more.
    Hi,
    I am explaining my logic and evidence behind what i am stating - that is all, so that there is no ambiguity.

    Yes - despite there being people who do want to play the objective, there are too many people who will not play the objective, and the result is that one team is usually pinned to their spawn or the first flag outside their spawn.

    This will not change - DICE/EA have modified the gameplay, and people are playing it for a quick fix like CoD. So when people state they will have to be more strategic, think on their feet - the majority aren't thinking about capturing the flag, they just want to run and gun. The benefit of BF is big maps and vehicles.

    Regards,
    Shadders_X.
  • Shadders_X
    415 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited May 2018
    DrunkwoIf wrote: »
    V2Face wrote: »
    All I want from BF2018 is BF3 gunplay, BF4 vehicles and no bullet deviation from suppression. Oh, and working netcode.

    Will I get this? Probably not.

    You want vehicles that all have lockon systems and auto regen outside of combat. Yeah that’s what I want in my next game.
    I don't like lock-ons myself (look at my post history on the old forums for proof of that) but other than that I really liked the vehicle play in BF4.

    Still don't know why people get their knickers in a twist over auto-regen. If Infantry can do it why shouldn't vehicles be able to?

    auto-regen is something that has really hurt the team play in BF games. nothing should have magic healing thats what medics and mechanics are for.
    Hi,
    Yes - i very rarely see people giving out health packs - fed up jumping up and down in front of them for them to realise i need health.

    Teamplay in CoD, sorry, i mean BF, is dead. That's why i play support - guaranteed to get ammo.

    Regards,
    Shadders_X.
    Post edited by Shadders_X on
  • crabman169
    12841 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    "Let's compare the pair"

    Battlefield 1
    Titanfall 2

    "Same age"
    "Same publisher"
    "Same video game genre"
    "The difference? Battlefield's content is higher. Titanfall's content is lower"
    Context:

    ~

    For $50 you got Battlefield 1's premium pass that gave you 21 maps, 32 weapons, vehicles, game modes, dogtags, Battlepacks etc

    For $150 you can purchase every Titanfall 2 cosmetic including prime Titans, calling cards, emblems, universal camos that work for every weapons, pilot and Titan as well as Unique Weapon and Titan camos.

    Titanfall 2's free dlc included 6 maps with 5 being remastered from the previous title, two weapons that were from the first title too (and added nothing as the R101 was an exact copy statwise to the R201 and Wingman Elite just an actual usable version of the B3 Wingman and was originally a sidearm but is now a primary weapon) and one additional Titan added (ported from the campaign and using remaining assests from Titan's in the previous title).

    Support for the game ended 11 months from launch.

    ~

    Don't get me wrong I love both games but come on. It's plain as day what's the better one for both gamers and devs
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1667 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Would they not possibly try and mix the 2. Have a cheaper Premium pass that gives early access to DLCs, maybe the odd exclusive weapon or skin, and CTE access. Then have the cosmetic bits and bobs people can buy. Im OK with Premium. Like others have mentioned, you do get a lot of content, and at the end of the day it doesnt matter whether there are 20 full servers running a year or 2 out or just 3, as long as i can get in a game.
  • Jayremie570
    1606 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Another thing no one mentions is the $50 price. At least here in the state's games haven't had a hike from that point in quite some time.

    The quality generally has steadily improved while the entry point remains the same for most AAA titles. $15 for a decent DLC like we've received here is reasonable. If we go away from a paid DLC model it will be replaced solely by cosmetics. I don't know about half of you but I play for fun not for dress up.
  • DeputyDelta
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    These BR games are popular because they are free, it's just the latest trend but that doesn't mean it fits everywhere.

    preaching the truth there brother.
  • Ploodovic
    1640 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Another thing no one mentions is the $50 price. At least here in the state's games haven't had a hike from that point in quite some time.

    The quality generally has steadily improved while the entry point remains the same for most AAA titles. $15 for a decent DLC like we've received here is reasonable. If we go away from a paid DLC model it will be replaced solely by cosmetics. I don't know about half of you but I play for fun not for dress up.
    Yup, the base price not increasing is the problem all of these strategies are trying to solve. Raise the price of the base game.
  • crabman169
    12841 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Another thing no one mentions is the $50 price. At least here in the state's games haven't had a hike from that point in quite some time.

    The quality generally has steadily improved while the entry point remains the same for most AAA titles. $15 for a decent DLC like we've received here is reasonable. If we go away from a paid DLC model it will be replaced solely by cosmetics. I don't know about half of you but I play for fun not for dress up.

    Let's just say you get neither

    *cough SWBF2 cough*
  • DeputyDelta
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah well May 23rd is also world turtle day according to google so lets all sit around and circle jerk about battlefield turtles because correlation = causation.
    If you want WW2 go play the latest COD.
  • V2Face
    2643 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    V2Face wrote: »
    All I want from BF2018 is BF3 gunplay, BF4 vehicles and no bullet deviation from suppression. Oh, and working netcode.

    Will I get this? Probably not.

    You want vehicles that all have lockon systems and auto regen outside of combat. Yeah that’s what I want in my next game.
    I don't like lock-ons myself (look at my post history on the old forums for proof of that) but other than that I really liked the vehicle play in BF4.

    Still don't know why people get their knickers in a twist over auto-regen. If Infantry can do it why shouldn't vehicles be able to?

    Infantry players don’t have armor or immunity to weapon fire. Completely reasonable especially if no player wants to heal you for some reason. All good tankers will do in BF4 is hide and wait until they fully regenerate health then going back to getting kills making them pretty much untouchable. BF1 got tanking right, repair tool is it’s lifeline and there are no other ways to restore its health other then emergency repair.
  • ColdLattes
    43 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited May 2018
    Add cookies in first aid kits which gives you speed bonus.
  • trip1ex
    4504 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Shadders_X wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Shadders_X wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Shadders_X wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    Shadders_X wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    "never be the same" means randomly generated maps

    But if the same map comes up again it will be

    lol. randomly generated as in the same map is never the same because certain aspects of it are randomly generated. imagine if the same map had randomized flag locations every time and select randomized building locations and bunkers or aa locations and terrain slopes. so a map is never the same.
    Hi,
    It is difficult enough to get people to play the objective, so random flag positions will just create every mode being team death kill. On capture the flag, there are many times when people approach it as team death kill, which really makes for a worse game in that mode
    Regards,
    Shadders_X.

    i don't see it. it could confuse players as far as where is the flag now goes etc. But I don't think it's going to turn players who paid attention to flags into players who don't.

    The reason to do this is to keep things fresh and not allow players to memorize maps and spots on the maps quite so easily.

    But realistically this would be a pretty big advancement in tech and I wouldn't bet that it would happen in BF2018. I just have posted about the idea before and when I saw the tweet that "The Battlefield will never be the same" I couldn't help but regurgitate the random map idea.
    Hi,
    With the flags in set locations every map, then the guard points are known. When these flag locations change, it will require a much greater team cohesion.
    BF4 game players significantly lack team cohesion, since they copied CoD and the influx of the newer players don't play like the older games players.If they don't guard the weak points to protect the flag now, there is no chance they will suddenly play like a team to protect the flag if it dynamically changes with dynamically changing weak points. In fact - it seems that they don't even care about the weak points in BF4.
    Regards,
    Shadders_X.

    No because it is canceled out by the same thing on the other side.

    And again it's not suddenly going to turn players who play flags now into not playing them so what you said doesn't hold water. Memorization of maps isn't what keeps players playing flags and doing teamwork. All random maps does is put more emphasis on thinking on your feet instead of memorizing spots.
    Hi,
    I disagree, given that there are too many people already playing capture the flag, who don't play the objective. I can see your argument where both sides are at an equal disadvantage in determining where the flag is and how to defend or attack it.

    If everyone was playing the objective, then yes, but many people play Locker only since they servers are full and play like team death match - there are swarms of players running about stuck on one flag in the middle of the map and the opposition has all others, and no attempt to secure flags from the spawn point to where they are located.

    If you examine the servers - you will see that all Lockers maps are permanently full - sometimes have double digits of people waiting. There are many threads complaining about that most people concentrate on Locker.

    If DICE/EA do implement dynamic flags, i think initially people will try to play the objective, but people will get bored with the extra strategic work which many just don't care about, and it will descend into team death match.

    Regards,
    Shadders_X.

    Are you trying to say that not enough people play objectives to bother with moving flags around? I can understand that pt of view.

    But you could have just come out and said that in the first place. Instead we got 10 posts and 30 paragraphs. :) (Ok to be fair English isn't your first language from the looks of it so I will cut your some slack.)


    However even if you don't play flags, the changing of flag positions will change the routes at which enemies take and where battles will happen and that keeps maps fresh and keeps players from just memorizing spots. Not to mention that moving flags around is only part of randomizing maps. And the pt of randomizing maps isn't to make players play objectives more.
    Hi,
    I am explaining my logic and evidence behind what i am stating - that is all, so that there is no ambiguity.

    Yes - despite there being people who do want to play the objective, there are too many people who will not play the objective, and the result is that one team is usually pinned to their spawn or the first flag outside their spawn.

    This will not change - DICE/EA have modified the gameplay, and people are playing it for a quick fix like CoD. So when people state they will have to be more strategic, think on their feet - the majority aren't thinking about capturing the flag, they just want to run and gun. The benefit of BF is big maps and vehicles.

    Regards,
    Shadders_X.

    Even if you don't play flags, the changing of flag positions will change the routes at which enemies take and where battles will happen and that keeps maps fresh and keeps players from just memorizing spots. Not to mention that moving flags around is only part of randomizing maps. And the pt of randomizing maps isn't to make players play objectives more.
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

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