Another Quality Discussion from II The Salt - BF1 eSport Standards

2»

Comments

  • GerocK-
    691 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    TheSalt wrote: »
    TheSalt wrote: »
    Okay so BF still not in the eSports scene, thats fine they need to first define the standards

    MOST IMPORTANT THING ESPORT BF NEEDS IS AGREED STANDARDS

    - The player count. You need a balance between enough infy vs vehicles as well as enough squads to be effective on flags either attack or defending. With the main game being Conquest, on multi flag, scale maps DICE have to honour that gameplay in its eSports. 5v5 or 6v6 is not Battlefield. Therefore player count as STANDARD is essential.

    - 16 v 16 needs to be the minimum (7 in the vehicles, and 9 infy in 3 squads of 3) this is perfect mix between infy and vehicle play as well as obj play to def or attack flags.

    - maps must be 4 to 6 flags. No 3 flag BF maps

    - needs a matchmaking lobby so teams can enter make themselves avail & play 24/7

    DICE need to put bf1 in ARENA and start there tournaments as 16v16, promote LARGE ROSTERS, then try progress finals as 20v20s and so on, so that new teams can start at 16s but ideally make the big leagues 20 v 20 and 24 v 24 tourneys but the idea being to introduce teams then gradually grow the standard player counts to fit the scale. Like a prize fighter theres diff weights, and each season or tourney should grow the requirement by 2 to 4 players.

    I believe 10v10 or 12v12 (two inf squads and a vehicle squad) is the magic number for large scale team comps, 16v16 is a bit too hard to organize and strat for. However... the option for up to 64p competitive needs to be there too for larger events, but 64p comps without commanders are a chaotic clusterfluff.

    the game needs double header CQ(ALL spawn points cappable for cap outs), as well as a weapons lock with no unlockable weaps being used and a handful of gadgets too, such as wrench, at rockets, medpacks and health kits/syringe so that every one playing is on an identical playing field highlighting skill and not abl to use cheap tactics like mortars and assault having 3 grenades for vehicles and inf.

    certain vehicles need to be restricted too

    Nah played 10 v 10s, not enough players. Vehicles become more OP with less resources to take them out. Plus they have secondary support positions. Thats rubbish it becomes too hard to manage, its why you need large rosters and constantly engaging blooding new players if theyre good enough. You never really stop recruiting, its something you need to build towards constantly. If teams get matches and esport community engaged by regular scrims then larger teams are easy to run. Its not hard to strat at all. This is nonsense, lazy talk, good leaders take it in their stride. The team that plays together stays together.

    12 v 12s were played 10yr ago on 2 console generations ago. We have more scale now, you must adjust your standards so they are met, enforced and encouraged. The extra effort is worth it in terms of better experience for all and thats whats imperative to strive for to have a healthy bf esport

    Defeatist mindset (no offense but a few extra players is worth pursuing) settling for whats easy allows smaller teams to play etc but they then hold the larger teams to ransom and they strangle the community. Enforce the standard and work harder. Not appeasement

    I don't see it happening at all that there will be enough teams of 12-16 players to have some form of competitive scene.
    In order for 12v12 or 16v16 to work, you're going to need public lobbies. But if you start playing with so many random people, it won't be any different than a regular quick match game in Battlefield. Maybe if there's a ranking system involved, people will try to win harder. But then I can already predict a lot of toxicity. Just take a look at DotA, CS:GO or HoN. It's very accessible to find a ranked game, but if someone makes a mistake in the first minute of the game his teammates while shout at him, go afk or throw the match in any other way. It will be even worse when there's 12-16 people in a team instead of 5.
    -
    I just don't see a worthy difference between a common 64 player quick match or a 32 player competitive match.
  • fyifu
    70 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Lcamtuff wrote: »
    20vs20 & E-Sport is oxymoron. Only somebody without experience would suggest something like that. Sorry for being an as but thats a true. Gathering 20-40 to play a scrim at the same time not to mention playing leagues, tournaments or LAN cups on regular basics is just impossible. 8v8 or 5v5 would be more realistic however BF's design is not ment to be a competitive game. Maybe 8vs8 in Rush would be possible, that's the only chance I can see right now.

    good luck to you running more than 10 player teams and remaining highly competitive. I played 10v10 bf2 for around 5 years and the amount of organizing and strat making at high levels was insane, 3-4 hour practices most nights and 6hrs or more a day on weekends with 12 guys at peak of season while juggling real life and a business is quite the task.


    These. Anybody with any competitive experience in any game quickly realizes the logistical nightmare of getting even small numbers of players together consistently.
  • DofDk
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I would favor a max 8vs8 mode and smiliar to squad rush, which I played competitive in bad company 2.

    This time maybe with one spawnable tank for both sides. If it blew up, you can't spawn another. Attackers have x amount of tickets to respawn and x amount of objectives to be taken within X amount of time.

    Only one sniper is allowed per team to reduce spam of flares. Only one guy can carry gas grenades to lower spam of those. At least I would try this kind of mode out and work on some more limitations so gadgets will be used in a more tactical way and not brainless spammed.

    8 vs 8 would have the advantage of all platforms can manage communication without third party equipment/software. An one time spawnable tank will of course force both sides to play the tank in a more tactical manor and yes sometimes more campy way. But still manageable to take them out because it might be both sides first target.
  • ProLegion_exor
    3543 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    KakeHC wrote: »
    DofDk wrote: »
    Creasie wrote: »
    They first need to make a game that is polished and without a **** ton of bugs, lag and performance issues and annoying things like vaulting not working etc. How can you start a competitive scene on a game like this in which you so often die because you can't vault over a pebble? You need a game you can build on otherwise you are just wasting your time.

    What do you think they are working at? They know by them self that a well functional game is required for competitive gaming. And no one knows in which direction it will move since their hired eSports experienced people to consult and develop it. What you, me and all others can and should do it to influence what we want. We are part of the game and its further development. So instead of rage modus, we shall enable constructive modus and say what we would like to see and how

    I would start with removing all the ladders on domination to remove acces to rooftops.

    All ladders are banned to use with ESB rules, the ones every serious team follow.
  • KorpusDraige
    2388 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    KakeHC wrote: »
    Um, not sure where you've been but teams have been playing scrims on BF for a long time now and it'll never amount to anything but bragging rights. ESB and ESL held tournaments in the past and have been pretty active on BF1 as well.

    You don't need 16v16, we've been doing 12v12s and 14v14s a lot.

    Numbers of flags is an issue, due to no CQ small (thanks DICE :D). However, whenever we play scrims we make certain flags illegal to capture (usually the home flags).

    Matchmaking lobby for scrims? No thank you. We just set up private servers and get our teams in there.

    I checked some stream of 12v12 and it was so ****. .

    Yes the game needs a smaller conquest mode or something for things like this.

    If there are 100-200 guys that could be considered as comp players on consoles world wide and they have closed circles.

    Then how about guys like me who are looking for something else and more easily accessible "comp" games. I could believe there are tens of thousands of guys just like me looking for something more. While keeping it more easily mixed with real life.

    Matchmaking lobby for skrims for random players and groups while making somekinda ladder system what keeps people in around their own skill area groups and would encourage all to pto all they can would be perfect.

    It should only be able for people lvl80+

    Let me just go and say "people lvl80+" means nothing.

    No idea why DICE got rid of CQ small though.
    DofDk wrote: »
    Well everything above 8 will not properly work on consoles. Don't know about xbox, but ps4 is limited to 8 people I party chat. I also would like to play 12 vs 12, but that would require working on internal squad chat. I asked for that for ages, so did others. Chain squad voice so leaders can communicate ingame or let us create ingame chat rooms. Dust 514 did it very well.

    But only considering one type of mode will not attract enough people. The baseline should be to implement an entirely new way of ranking and servers. Similarly to CS maybe or to other games. Lobby's where you can rank up and get to the next bucket of players. The start screen of the game should already advertise ranks, leader boards, leagues and cups.

    Also it should be possible to quickly arrange a clan war. For example you go into any lobby, wait for an enemy, each team can decide a map and that's it. Of course it requires to decide game mode first, and also each game mode should have special rules. Otherwise I would run over all maps with squads filled with supports, snipers spamming flares etc. So limitations to some certain extend must be inside the game.

    As long as no special game mode can attract people to take the game more seriously and as long as they isn't a good build in clan support with advertising and ranking all over, it will never come far. But hey, I'm waiting for it and like to discuss it as I played games competitively for more than a decade.

    Ugh... You're completely wrong and made that up.

    Consoles have been doing 12v12s and up for a long time now with no problem getting into a party chat. Also teams can use Discord or other outside sources for communication, not just party chats (Xbox allows up to 16- but you don't need everyone in the same chat because as a jet/plane pilot, I don't need to hear infantry call outs, just a tanker for if he needs help and an infy leader for asking for help on objectives, along with communication with my wingman).

    Rules have always been in place, it's not a jumbled mess every player out for themselves lol...
  • DofDk
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    KakeHC wrote: »
    Um, not sure where you've been but teams have been playing scrims on BF for a long time now and it'll never amount to anything but bragging rights. ESB and ESL held tournaments in the past and have been pretty active on BF1 as well.

    You don't need 16v16, we've been doing 12v12s and 14v14s a lot.

    Numbers of flags is an issue, due to no CQ small (thanks DICE :D). However, whenever we play scrims we make certain flags illegal to capture (usually the home flags).

    Matchmaking lobby for scrims? No thank you. We just set up private servers and get our teams in there.

    I checked some stream of 12v12 and it was so ****. .

    Yes the game needs a smaller conquest mode or something for things like this.

    If there are 100-200 guys that could be considered as comp players on consoles world wide and they have closed circles.

    Then how about guys like me who are looking for something else and more easily accessible "comp" games. I could believe there are tens of thousands of guys just like me looking for something more. While keeping it more easily mixed with real life.

    Matchmaking lobby for skrims for random players and groups while making somekinda ladder system what keeps people in around their own skill area groups and would encourage all to pto all they can would be perfect.

    It should only be able for people lvl80+

    Let me just go and say "people lvl80+" means nothing.

    No idea why DICE got rid of CQ small though.
    DofDk wrote: »
    Well everything above 8 will not properly work on consoles. Don't know about xbox, but ps4 is limited to 8 people I party chat. I also would like to play 12 vs 12, but that would require working on internal squad chat. I asked for that for ages, so did others. Chain squad voice so leaders can communicate ingame or let us create ingame chat rooms. Dust 514 did it very well.

    But only considering one type of mode will not attract enough people. The baseline should be to implement an entirely new way of ranking and servers. Similarly to CS maybe or to other games. Lobby's where you can rank up and get to the next bucket of players. The start screen of the game should already advertise ranks, leader boards, leagues and cups.

    Also it should be possible to quickly arrange a clan war. For example you go into any lobby, wait for an enemy, each team can decide a map and that's it. Of course it requires to decide game mode first, and also each game mode should have special rules. Otherwise I would run over all maps with squads filled with supports, snipers spamming flares etc. So limitations to some certain extend must be inside the game.

    As long as no special game mode can attract people to take the game more seriously and as long as they isn't a good build in clan support with advertising and ranking all over, it will never come far. But hey, I'm waiting for it and like to discuss it as I played games competitively for more than a decade.

    Ugh... You're completely wrong and made that up.

    Consoles have been doing 12v12s and up for a long time now with no problem getting into a party chat. Also teams can use Discord or other outside sources for communication, not just party chats (Xbox allows up to 16- but you don't need everyone in the same chat because as a jet/plane pilot, I don't need to hear infantry call outs, just a tanker for if he needs help and an infy leader for asking for help on objectives, along with communication with my wingman).

    Rules have always been in place, it's not a jumbled mess every player out for themselves lol...

    If you want to attract bigger amounts of players you need to consider what's possible on each console. Also PS4 has the biggest player base, which of course doesn't mean that there must be more interested in comp games. Ps4 is sadly restricted to 8 players in a party. To get people used to third party equipment will automatically screw down the potential player base as a lot of people don't want to use discord or even put a laptop beside for teamspeak etc. So get me please right, I didn't say it's not possible, but if you want to get most out of it, you will be forced to get to the lowest common denominator.
  • M0istGamer
    794 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I wish i had time to get high and discuss hypothetical esports scenarios.

    THINGS ARE GONNA HAVE TO BE THIS WAY (goes on some ranting list)

    lmfao
  • Petedawg508
    1222 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    we've been looking into competitive sites for BF, seems there is nothing that exists for 32v32 conquest.
    Not only does it not exist from what I've heard/seen, but fielding 32 is going to be quite the challenge.
    I'd love to play competitively, but i'm not going to do it for anything less than 16v16 conquest and smaller conquest maps don't exist.
    The home flag rule sounds pretty useful as a way to shorten the maps.
  • KakeHC
    1217 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2017
    Quickmatch is canser. And watching that 12v12 stream on ballroom blits made my brains come out of my butthole.

    @KorpusDraige I know 80 is easily gained but atleast then you should be on the map. (Some map) might not be about bf but something close.
  • brunoqueiros
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I think the best approach is to take small steps and EA and DICE are smart companies with smart people, therefore the question is if EA want competitive game, ranked progression system in BF1. My opinion is before large tournaments, we need private servers with better quality, faster and stables to improve experience, a ranked progression system with matchmaker system based on player skill, a penalize system to player how quit the game or break the established rules. Baby steps is the key to implement a better experience and build a player base large enough to make the last step, tournaments at least professional tournaments. I think we misunderstand and mix different things, competitive game mode and competitive professional... what's your opinion?
  • brunoqueiros
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I think the best approach is to take small steps and EA and DICE are smart companies with smart people, therefore the question is if EA want competitive game, ranked progression system in BF1. My opinion is before large tournaments, we need private servers with better quality, faster and stables to improve experience, a ranked progression system with matchmaker system based on player skill, a penalize system to player how quit the game or break the established rules. Baby steps is the key to implement a better experience and build a player base large enough to make the last step, tournaments at least professional tournaments. I think we misunderstand and mix different things, competitive game mode and competitive professional... what's your opinion?

    Of course my opinion is like the rest of the people who have played competitive games, faster rounds and smaller maps, like domination. I think the actual domination mode is quite good, at least i really enjoy playing this mode always with a more competitive perspective. It's a faster game experience and with opportunity to use tactics. Don't agree?
  • DBAbyrdman
    64 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    If you any of you are on Xbox we have casual and competitive squads within our Clan we would love to get some scrimmages going and we're also looking for new members so please Feel free to check out our website we'd be happy to have you join. Add me on Xbox and play with some of our group hop in any parties were in any time. I'm leaving my gamertag and our website here. RK BYRDMAN www.tactgaming.net just click apply. If you have any questions just let me know. There's quite a few of us we just pretty much Squad up play as a team PTO and have a lot of fun and laughs on the BF we communicate through out the day on KIK Chat just bull crap and get to know each other we have a pretty great Community going I think you'd like being part of it .Hope to hear from you soon man.
  • TheSalt
    116 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 20
    fyifu said:
    Lcamtuff wrote: »
    20vs20 & E-Sport is oxymoron. Only somebody without experience would suggest something like that. Sorry for being an as but thats a true. Gathering 20-40 to play a scrim at the same time not to mention playing leagues, tournaments or LAN cups on regular basics is just impossible. 8v8 or 5v5 would be more realistic however BF's design is not ment to be a competitive game. Maybe 8vs8 in Rush would be possible, that's the only chance I can see right now.

    good luck to you running more than 10 player teams and remaining highly competitive. I played 10v10 bf2 for around 5 years and the amount of organizing and strat making at high levels was insane, 3-4 hour practices most nights and 6hrs or more a day on weekends with 12 guys at peak of season while juggling real life and a business is quite the task.


    These. Anybody with any competitive experience in any game quickly realizes the logistical nightmare of getting even small numbers of players together consistently.
    Actually its the opposite. I have a ton of experience. Battlefield on the og xbox and PS2 had in game clan support 15yrs ago and it was boss. When xbox360 came out it had BF2 Modern Combat with clan support at launch. Battlefield is a large scale roster affair. It has to be. 16 players arent hard to find and adjust. Once you start playing regularly, everyone want to play too. Soon you will have 25, then 30 and youll be turning people away. 

    When you are playing 1 game a week and you get a forfeit etc or once every two weeks. Or you build yourselves up to take on some team that think theyre shithot and you beat them once and never play them again so you can hold it over them is where Battlefield falls over. 

    With good leadership, it unites, you provide your blokes with activity, regularly, theres no need to worry about getting blokes to play, the problem becomes who to sit out? The moment you dont set and maintain your standards thats when the unexperienced start talking nonsense.

    If they get a loss they freak out, instead of working out what they need to do better or what other teams are doing.
    This is BF's problem. There is no framework structure. Teams dont know how to take a loss. Teams dont want to play. Its like they hold their breath the whole time they play. Just breath, relax, play the game the rest will follow. 

    Dont lower your standards, take risks, watch it build around you. Rather than **** about the result, triumph in the ability to build a decent team and have like minded leaders do so in kind.  

    Unfortunately, theres too many pretenders in BF. They start up these big 50 plus member public server clans and all jump in on the same side belting randoms and never challenging themselves, or playing an even fight. 

    Ive manager a 25+ roster and been on a 30 player roster and a 60 player roster. Ive played against teams from US, UK, Taiwan, Brazil, even hardcore teams to try keep my team active.

    The team that plays together stays together. 


    EA DICE have to give us the tools to support it. 

    Battlefield isnt an 8v8 or 10 v 10, they're ****. They dont represent the main public game modes. 

     It has vehicles, it has multiple objectives, you need squads, you need to be able to push flags, support or team take down vehicles. You need at least 16 to say otherwise, fine, dont play, but by all means jump in on a scrim/game of teams that are and tell me the difference.


    Post edited by TheSalt on
  • TheSalt
    116 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 20
    The notion that you wont get the players is nonsense. That its hard leadership. No its just leadership


    The problem is laziness. Inexperience not experience. If you'd played large scale BF you'd know its worth every ounce of effort. Do it properly. Any advice to the contrary is nonsense. Its easy as.

    Folks been stumbling through every title since they decided to build Frostbite. So I understand there's a lot of nonsense out there about what BF is good for. How hard to do, etc Ive done it, been a part and its nothing like it was. DICE never supported them, the buck stops with them.




    Post edited by TheSalt on
  • TheSalt
    116 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 20
    KakeHC wrote: »
    DofDk wrote: »
    Creasie wrote: »
    They first need to make a game that is polished and without a **** ton of bugs, lag and performance issues and annoying things like vaulting not working etc. How can you start a competitive scene on a game like this in which you so often die because you can't vault over a pebble? You need a game you can build on otherwise you are just wasting your time.

    What do you think they are working at? They know by them self that a well functional game is required for competitive gaming. And no one knows in which direction it will move since their hired eSports experienced people to consult and develop it. What you, me and all others can and should do it to influence what we want. We are part of the game and its further development. So instead of rage modus, we shall enable constructive modus and say what we would like to see and how

    I would start with removing all the ladders on domination to remove acces to rooftops.

    All ladders are banned to use with ESB rules, the ones every serious team follow.


    Domination??? no.....bloody Conquest and Devastation large scale 16 v 16 season 1, and by season 2 you gotta recruit fill out another squad of 4 for 20 v 20. 


    Your eSports game has to reflect your main public game modes. Your player counts need to be set. 

    If you cant do it, or refuse to let it damage your teams rep by actually going down to these guys etc as your main reasons motivations then youve already lost. Its so wrong yet so common. 


    DICE need to provide us the tools, the hype, the backing to do it on their own terms. IN game, new measurements and records such as winning streaks on maps, against platoons, nemisis players, community/season rankings for classes, objectives, influence. Win streaks, most wins on a map. Most maps with your clans name holding the champion crown. 

    That alone should help generate activity. Within game. 

    The serious work out the dickheads, and the leaders show future generations how its done, not how it cant be done.

    DICE just need to support them, and back them in, and their game. eSports has reached a point of saturated boredom as theyre all the same affairs. BF has had the goods under the hoods for 15yrs but failed to deliver the killing blow.

    Aussie Rules Footy has list of 40. Play 22 players a week. 18 on ground, vs 18 and each side has 4 bench players. 
    22 games a year. It has the 4th largest supporter based following. Its not like anything else. They have issues injuries and thats where large rosters come in. You wont always be able to play your best team. If your team is unreliable find blokes who are keen. Half the time you dont know how good they go until in the heat of battle. If they get alot out of their leadership and their vehicle. ginner, strat components then they will start playng better and get more out of it than apathy or hiding because they cbf. Let em go. 

    Should be all about learning, improving, playing, growing. You cant do that when you limit yourselves, and not hold others to the same high standards. BF takes effort. It needs support and foundation from the top. No excuses. Announce your findings, your objections, difficulties - and then ask whoever conducted the analysis for eSport to put their name to it. Ill find a dozen holes in the first 5mins that are blatant misstruths and misnomers, lazy **** concepts. 

    Post edited by TheSalt on
  • TheSalt
    116 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    # gunner not ginner
  • TheSalt
    116 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 20
    Battlefield, the next installment is taking extra developing time/ over 2yr lifecycle.

    The lack of launch BF worries me that the next gen is more of an extension, than a massive generational upgrade. They look nice. Its been 6 yrs with last gen. BF is not there this time? BF needs to be there.

    They need to make a presence.

    Like Halo HD Collection, you reinforce your complete BF map collection. 
    To get it you have to buy each season. 

    25 maps a season or something? $60 a season? 



    Then you have to completely revolutionize put in place all the functionality tools from which to allow Platoons to invite members as they see them in games. Request to join. To look for matches in lobby's.

    A whole series of well thought out nice to have measures.
    Different ladders, rankings based as a clan.
    Metrics.
     Graphs, %. 
    Role within Clan.
    Top Rankings within Clan. 
    Winning Success and Who you beat.


    This making a name for yourself, against other clans in even conditions and outcomes and your role rank in it will ensure engagement with the best players and their impact in the clan will mean something.

    It means nothing now its just pubstomping.

    If folks want casual sure. No worries... but with regionals for diff teams to go play in US Worlds BF Finals. 
    Knowing which country won BF each year will be as big as you can get.
    The amount of opportunity for Regions is fresh and ready to build into structured Clan of Clans Award. 

    Youve got the money, put some back into the players. Clans. Its not hard. It ensures your market.

    That carrot alone, and making it an event. Is something clans can get behind at a local level.
    How you go against the clans from the rest of the world depends on how well you play your own community.
    How developed it is will all help on the Worlds Stage, and will attract new teams wanting a bit each season.

    Teams will come. By the very definition, structure that teams have to get good, and their place within their regions is the path to Worlds. Top of the Clans.


    Its just functionality. Analytics, Statistics. Algorithms. The Old COD Black Ops on xbox 360 recorded 100 of your last games in cloud ffs. That was 11 yrs ago. It even had full studio edit, camera placement /views throughout that allowed you to adjust angles and slow mo's etc. It was highly rad, and always blew me away how it could hold the last 100 games full replay data.

    In 2005 and 2006. We had clan support.
    In 2010-2012 we had Battlelogs.
    IN 2021 we have the return of the Clans.

    Create the launch initiative as COMPLETE BF EXPERIENCE - The Clans! 

    Thats where your market was, clan activity, is, and DICE need to grab it back, with series of tough marketing statements. Not neglect and negative advice. Back yourselves in. Balls Deep FTW

     BF is meant to be tough. Reinforce it so.

    Multi player is clans. Its tribal.




    Post edited by TheSalt on
  • Titan_Awaken
    1344 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Why do I hear Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” playing in the backg-

    Oh, that’s why.

    /necro
  • TheSalt
    116 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why do I hear Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” playing in the backg-

    Oh, that’s why.

    /necro
    Hahah my name is Michael Jackson im in love with my hand just beat it.

    Yeah was rambling, just so passionate about it. I couldnt give a dead dingos **** about these so called eSports advisors about Battlefield. Ive since gone back and cut out a heap of me repeating myself
  • LOLGotYerTags
    14502 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @TheSalt
    Please do not necro old threads.

    This one being 3 years old..  BIG WOW!

    /Thread.
This discussion has been closed.