-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 1 |OT| Make War Great Again
- Thread starter iRAWRasaurus
- Start date
PintSizedSlasher
Member
Fucking PSN and it's ridiculously slow download speed :-(
Blast is one of the most boring modes in Battlefront. I'm afraid they're doomed.
Blast is one of the most boring modes in Battlefront. I'm afraid they're doomed.
You should have pre-loaded little boy! Mouahahah
PintSizedSlasher
Member
In hindsight I should've, but I only decided this morning to treat myself and get the E.I. edition.
Edit: first part is downloaded, so I guess I can play a bit of the intro.
Daffy Duck
Member
I expect it will be exactly the same!
http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/8/12846740/playstation-pro-won-t-buy-you-much-of-an-online-advantage
60 is the "targeted" framerate. They aren't going to artificially induce frame rate drops.
How will they do that? Simulate the same frame drops?
Netcode Shennanigans... again.... yeeash..
Very first attempt to go play MP. Kinda of a fluke, I guess, coz today was pretty smooth sailing in Amiens @ 4K/Ultra
Very first attempt to go play MP. Kinda of a fluke, I guess, coz today was pretty smooth sailing in Amiens @ 4K/Ultra
Daffy Duck
Member
They probably wont bother to code it to take advantage of the extra performance, much like a traditional PS4 game vs Standard game being coded to take advantage of PS4 Pro.
Maybe I am wrong and it will hold 60FPS, but who knows, I am really not sure.
TheApatheticOne
Member
I started preloading yesterday, and have solid 35 down internet, and only got about halfway through the full download. About 24gb to go, hopefully ready for me when I get home from work! Will be living in this thread today! Ha
I just want 1080p and more stable fps.
Daffy Duck
Member
That's what I am expecting to be honest, it will be 1080p with probably exactly the same (and it will be more jarring) frame rate variation.
This is also mentioned on the EGX hands on that they had with Infinite Warfare which said it was a more jarring experience on the Pro when it dropped frames.
The frame drops aren't coded in to happen, it is a result of the hardware not being able to push out the frames, if there is more headroom then the frames should render fine. Depends if there is then other cpu limitations.
One of the things they discuss with pro is more stable framerates, that is what applies here .
Played the beta on PS4. Early access trial on Xbox One. Now playing the retail game on PS4. Got in a few matches before work this morning. Sucks to have to start my progress over again for a third time.
Also, am I crazy, or does the xbox one version look better? (I played half asleep this morning on retail release PS4 so my memory could be VERY wrong.)
Also, am I crazy, or does the xbox one version look better? (I played half asleep this morning on retail release PS4 so my memory could be VERY wrong.)
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
So the game has thrown me on two maps. I expected the forest to be a wonderful big, lush conquest map. Instead it's a bottlenecked turd. Meanwhile I figured Ballroom Blitz would be nothing but infantry grind, and instead it's a surprisingly huge conquest blend of tanks, infantry, and aircraft.
Yeah sorry misread your post. I thought you were saying that it dips down to 20 fps but you meant it is dipping down 20 frames to around 40.
SpaceKauboi
Banned
Why would one comment make you worried? From someone's who's played 10 hours on half the maps no less.
ScherzoPrime
Member
I don't know what to expect of Argonne Forest personally; I've seen people gush about it but anyone who thinks "three lane design" intrinsicly makes for good MP gameplay is kind of suspect in my book.
I'm weird though because I thought Sinai was alright in the beta, but that was mainly because I liked the fightimg around the village. The large stretches of Sniper territory at the flanks I could do without.
SpaceKauboi
Banned
Hard to know until they release it with whatever options are available.
You'd expect if the main game was 60FPS capped and hitting it most of the time, then it's not against Sony's terms for them to just boost the performance on the Pro at 1080p, along with a separate down-sampling option.
I think what Sony don't want is online games capped at 30 suddenly becoming unlocked/60FPS.
Collateral22
Member
It won't get fps advantages in a game like say Destiny, which is 30fps target. It wouldn't be 60fps on the Pro. Targeted 60fps for BF1 would mean a better performance on better hardware, by how much I don't know.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The tide is turning for Xbox and Battlefiled. Check 24h peak players.
lol no.
Wait a week until everyone has used up their 10 hour EA Access trials.
Same exact thing could be seen the first couple days with Hardline and Battlefront.
PS4 will have 1.5-2x XBO numbers throughout the day in a week from now.
Well, that's what will make or break pro for me.
excaliburps
Press - MP1st.com
Played a few rounds of Operations, and man! I can't believe it looks this good on PS4! Sure, there's a few frame rate drops in CQ, but it definitely plays stellar.
Most of the issues with the beta has been addressed as well. I think I encountered mantling issues once so far. Medics review properly (since there's a skull icon now), Support has been given the repair tool and the charge to damage vehicles.
I think my only complaint now are the Behemoths. We were pushing the objectives in Operations and the enemy almost won a round just because of that damn train. Even so, having a lot of fun. When almost all of us (I think 5-6 friendlies) all ducked while the enemy train was shooting at us and there was debris flying everywhere, definitely an "Only in Battlefield" feeling.
Also, for those wondering, the explosions in Operations are real. I thought they were canned at first (the ones hitting the ground) until I actually died due to one.
Most of the issues with the beta has been addressed as well. I think I encountered mantling issues once so far. Medics review properly (since there's a skull icon now), Support has been given the repair tool and the charge to damage vehicles.
I think my only complaint now are the Behemoths. We were pushing the objectives in Operations and the enemy almost won a round just because of that damn train. Even so, having a lot of fun. When almost all of us (I think 5-6 friendlies) all ducked while the enemy train was shooting at us and there was debris flying everywhere, definitely an "Only in Battlefield" feeling.
Also, for those wondering, the explosions in Operations are real. I thought they were canned at first (the ones hitting the ground) until I actually died due to one.
Smooth Operator
Member
8 hours left on my trial until Friday... Gotta be strong.
GTR R35_Supra RZ
Banned
Is there any difference between EA early access trial and retail copy? Just curious.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Okay, I've given every map a solid whirl. Random thoughts on those and the game in general.
St. Quentin Scar: My favourite of the maps, as it embodies everything I love about Conquest Large. Just the right size, combing almost every gameplay element (vehicles / infantry) across interesting topography and diverse capture points. Feels like Battlefield at its best, where a million different things could happen at every point depending on how people play.
Monte Grappa: Manages to balance hugely open terrain without being a sniper wonderland thanks to a lot of rocky cover. Not quite as brilliant as Scar but on the right track in terms of size and capture point diversity. Gorgeous, too.
Amiens: Brilliant urban map, again utilising vehicles well so it's not too infantry focused. Definitely has its slaughter fields down streets but doesn't feel like a constant bottleneck thanks to balanced open areas and back alleys. Flows really well, the result being a crazy cinematic, destroyed city conquest match. Chaos, but intense and fair chaos.
Ballroom Blitz: I expected a infantry based interior map, what I got was a huge open conquest match that plays surprisingly well. Definitely a bit more spaced between points, so capturing one point doesn't organically lead to advantages/support for another, but still plays really well. The centralised building capture points is huge and completely avoids gross bottlenecks thanks to its layout, supporting multiple separated entanglements within.
Fao Fortress: It's.....okay, but pretty dull in my opinion, mainly because the edged fortress capture points feel disconnected from the rest of the map, and the huge openness and minimal cover makes it a sniper wonderland. It has its moments, classes/vehicles are viable, but I'm not getting that real zazz I get with better conquest maps. Feels like a one trick pony, if that makes sense.
Sinai Desert: Gonna be honest, the more I play (from the beta) the more I like it. I actually think it flows okay even if the layout could do with some spacing. Definitely feels pretty chaotic at times, but I also feel every class can play a role as long as they know what it is. Urban conflict feels completely different from the outer conflicts, and I think that encounter diversity is a sign of something working.
Empire's Edge: Fucking huge. It's okay, but it's definitely more about the slog between capture points than really tight movement between each one. The conditional effect of fog I think accentuates this, as it blankets the map and MASSIVELY reduces visibility. Assaulting a fortress in the fog is super immersive, but yeah. Lots of travelling, bit of a hike between some points on foot.
Suez: I don't like it. It avoids "bottlenecks" thanks to its open urban environment. But the linear flag layout means the ebb and flow, push of teams tends to always the same. It's just two walls clashing up against each other, outskirts trying to weasel around, and a whole lot of chaotic urban sniper battles. Not a fan, maybe better on different modes and small teams.
Argonne Forest: It's like making a dense forest map and then not making a dense forest map. Very blatantly bottle necked corridors via rock formations and impassable terrain. Chaotic shitfit with 64 players. I can see the appeal if you're a metro/locker fan or manage to break through, but yeah. It's just way, way too small, and too strict/corridor in layout. Pretty huge disappointment to me given the aesthetic. Battlefront's Endor honestly does a better job of interactive forest topography.
I'm actually super happy as a whole with the map quality. Not everything is DICE's conquest large A-game, but I also think some of that has to do with my own taste in type of map layout, and DICE obviously want to offer a bit of diversity in how conquest large maps flow. That being said, a majority of them I'm really happy to keep playing over and over in a server roster. And to DICE's credit none of them feel overly similar. There's a really good diversity here. Argonne and Suez are the only two maps I'd be happy to have scrubbed entirely from conquest large servers. Fao maybe too just because it's a bit boring, and I can see Empire's Edge rounds lasting quite a while (especially if you don't have the full 64 players).
What I'm most happy with for Battlefield 1 though is how well everything just...works. Which is depressing and speaks volumes on DICE's launch consistency, but fuck me Battlefield 4 (and unless I'm misremembering, Battlefield 3 to an extent too) was a clusterfuck at launch. Battlefield is going to have bugs, but I've managed to play through every single map on conquest large with not a single freeze or exit, no significant audio/visual bugs, all game systems functioning as well they should (minus the odd goofball thing here and there), nothing game breaking in the least, and every map played as a match in FULL from start to finish with complete satisfying. Almost everything about the game just comes together exceedingly well straight out of the gate, at least for Conquest 64. The only consistently weird thing I've noticed is obvious lag with flying sometimes, but it's not a major issue at this point and will hopefully be ironed out.
On a purely metagame level, what I'm stoked to see is DICE double down on the infantry aspect of the game as the, I dunno, bread-and-butter of the core game systems. I adore Battlefield 4, but it really feels almost MOBA-like in the huge selection of vehicles and roles, where even in a helicopter or tank you just kinda feel like another thing on the map that could be wiped out in seconds. That's cool, I had a lot of fun. But Battlefield 1 seems to be heavily about infantry being the core of how the game plays, so the gunplay feels really good and most of the maps are accomidating for multiple strategy and class play. The simplification of class gear and equipment means your role is really focused, which in squads and major battles results in everyone kinda working together seamlessly (okay, that's not perfect, and never will be, but you get what I mean). There's less fluff and bulk. And that plays into vehicles too, where their presence on the map is really felt and weighted with power. A tank rolling in or a skilled pilot doing bombing runs feels instrumental in shifting the tide of battle. And that's a really cool feeling that Battlefield 4 did a pretty poor job of creating.
And of course, the whole World War 1 setting works wonders. In reality it's a safe World War 1, encroaching on World War 2, but that's just a result of players knowing modern combat strategies in video games that were a mess during the WW1 period. You can't fully replicate that when the audience is inherently trained otherwise. But it works. The boots-on-ground philosophy is absolutely true here, and gives the game an instantly immersive, historic feel thanks to the aesthetic, settings, and equipment. The quality of effects, especially shifting map weather, leads to some crazy cinematic sequences, all unscripted and simply a result of player involvement. If you've ever watched WW1/WW2 movies you will get countless moments that perfectly replicate the stuff you see in these.
Fucking stoked so far. Everything works. Servers work. Games work. It feels fantastic to play. The maps are mostly favourable. The production values are brilliant. It's been simplified in all the right ways, less bloat. Vehicles have a proper presence and power. I can see myself pouring countless hours into this one.
St. Quentin Scar: My favourite of the maps, as it embodies everything I love about Conquest Large. Just the right size, combing almost every gameplay element (vehicles / infantry) across interesting topography and diverse capture points. Feels like Battlefield at its best, where a million different things could happen at every point depending on how people play.
Monte Grappa: Manages to balance hugely open terrain without being a sniper wonderland thanks to a lot of rocky cover. Not quite as brilliant as Scar but on the right track in terms of size and capture point diversity. Gorgeous, too.
Amiens: Brilliant urban map, again utilising vehicles well so it's not too infantry focused. Definitely has its slaughter fields down streets but doesn't feel like a constant bottleneck thanks to balanced open areas and back alleys. Flows really well, the result being a crazy cinematic, destroyed city conquest match. Chaos, but intense and fair chaos.
Ballroom Blitz: I expected a infantry based interior map, what I got was a huge open conquest match that plays surprisingly well. Definitely a bit more spaced between points, so capturing one point doesn't organically lead to advantages/support for another, but still plays really well. The centralised building capture points is huge and completely avoids gross bottlenecks thanks to its layout, supporting multiple separated entanglements within.
Fao Fortress: It's.....okay, but pretty dull in my opinion, mainly because the edged fortress capture points feel disconnected from the rest of the map, and the huge openness and minimal cover makes it a sniper wonderland. It has its moments, classes/vehicles are viable, but I'm not getting that real zazz I get with better conquest maps. Feels like a one trick pony, if that makes sense.
Sinai Desert: Gonna be honest, the more I play (from the beta) the more I like it. I actually think it flows okay even if the layout could do with some spacing. Definitely feels pretty chaotic at times, but I also feel every class can play a role as long as they know what it is. Urban conflict feels completely different from the outer conflicts, and I think that encounter diversity is a sign of something working.
Empire's Edge: Fucking huge. It's okay, but it's definitely more about the slog between capture points than really tight movement between each one. The conditional effect of fog I think accentuates this, as it blankets the map and MASSIVELY reduces visibility. Assaulting a fortress in the fog is super immersive, but yeah. Lots of travelling, bit of a hike between some points on foot.
Suez: I don't like it. It avoids "bottlenecks" thanks to its open urban environment. But the linear flag layout means the ebb and flow, push of teams tends to always the same. It's just two walls clashing up against each other, outskirts trying to weasel around, and a whole lot of chaotic urban sniper battles. Not a fan, maybe better on different modes and small teams.
Argonne Forest: It's like making a dense forest map and then not making a dense forest map. Very blatantly bottle necked corridors via rock formations and impassable terrain. Chaotic shitfit with 64 players. I can see the appeal if you're a metro/locker fan or manage to break through, but yeah. It's just way, way too small, and too strict/corridor in layout. Pretty huge disappointment to me given the aesthetic. Battlefront's Endor honestly does a better job of interactive forest topography.
I'm actually super happy as a whole with the map quality. Not everything is DICE's conquest large A-game, but I also think some of that has to do with my own taste in type of map layout, and DICE obviously want to offer a bit of diversity in how conquest large maps flow. That being said, a majority of them I'm really happy to keep playing over and over in a server roster. And to DICE's credit none of them feel overly similar. There's a really good diversity here. Argonne and Suez are the only two maps I'd be happy to have scrubbed entirely from conquest large servers. Fao maybe too just because it's a bit boring, and I can see Empire's Edge rounds lasting quite a while (especially if you don't have the full 64 players).
What I'm most happy with for Battlefield 1 though is how well everything just...works. Which is depressing and speaks volumes on DICE's launch consistency, but fuck me Battlefield 4 (and unless I'm misremembering, Battlefield 3 to an extent too) was a clusterfuck at launch. Battlefield is going to have bugs, but I've managed to play through every single map on conquest large with not a single freeze or exit, no significant audio/visual bugs, all game systems functioning as well they should (minus the odd goofball thing here and there), nothing game breaking in the least, and every map played as a match in FULL from start to finish with complete satisfying. Almost everything about the game just comes together exceedingly well straight out of the gate, at least for Conquest 64. The only consistently weird thing I've noticed is obvious lag with flying sometimes, but it's not a major issue at this point and will hopefully be ironed out.
On a purely metagame level, what I'm stoked to see is DICE double down on the infantry aspect of the game as the, I dunno, bread-and-butter of the core game systems. I adore Battlefield 4, but it really feels almost MOBA-like in the huge selection of vehicles and roles, where even in a helicopter or tank you just kinda feel like another thing on the map that could be wiped out in seconds. That's cool, I had a lot of fun. But Battlefield 1 seems to be heavily about infantry being the core of how the game plays, so the gunplay feels really good and most of the maps are accomidating for multiple strategy and class play. The simplification of class gear and equipment means your role is really focused, which in squads and major battles results in everyone kinda working together seamlessly (okay, that's not perfect, and never will be, but you get what I mean). There's less fluff and bulk. And that plays into vehicles too, where their presence on the map is really felt and weighted with power. A tank rolling in or a skilled pilot doing bombing runs feels instrumental in shifting the tide of battle. And that's a really cool feeling that Battlefield 4 did a pretty poor job of creating.
And of course, the whole World War 1 setting works wonders. In reality it's a safe World War 1, encroaching on World War 2, but that's just a result of players knowing modern combat strategies in video games that were a mess during the WW1 period. You can't fully replicate that when the audience is inherently trained otherwise. But it works. The boots-on-ground philosophy is absolutely true here, and gives the game an instantly immersive, historic feel thanks to the aesthetic, settings, and equipment. The quality of effects, especially shifting map weather, leads to some crazy cinematic sequences, all unscripted and simply a result of player involvement. If you've ever watched WW1/WW2 movies you will get countless moments that perfectly replicate the stuff you see in these.
Fucking stoked so far. Everything works. Servers work. Games work. It feels fantastic to play. The maps are mostly favourable. The production values are brilliant. It's been simplified in all the right ways, less bloat. Vehicles have a proper presence and power. I can see myself pouring countless hours into this one.
I just unlocked the Mondragon. Think it's pretty sweet though I cannot tell a real difference tbh. Is there a bolt-action rifle for the medic?
Performance: Never had any drops below 60fps running it ultra on a i5-6600k, 16gb, 1060 6gb. Pretty happy with it. It looks stunning.
postal chaos
Member
So I'm picking up the Xbox One S Battlefield 1 edition today. Will I have to re download the game again since I already downloaded the EA access trial on my external drive for my old Xbox?
Also, have Dice patched HDR into the game yet for Xbox One S?
Also, have Dice patched HDR into the game yet for Xbox One S?
No not yet sadly.
Impulsor
Member
I like the Mondragon but I'm currently using the Automatic 8 .25 extended. 16 bullets, fast firing rate, nice for close to mid range, not so good for long range.
I'm doing really great with it.
VE3TRO
Formerly Gizmowned
Oh boy just had a brilliant match on Monte Grappa. So funny locking the doors inside the bunkers and watching groups trying to get in. xD
I think some multiplayer maps are locked out and you can only play 2 of the 5 campaign stories.
No idea, can't see it anywhere.
I think some multiplayer maps are locked out and you can only play 2 of the 5 campaign stories.
No idea, can't see it anywhere.
banefirelord
Banned
EDIT: Derp, actually read the OP
jim2point0
Banned
I saw someone in one of these threads say it was one of the best multiplayer maps made in the last decade.
It's narrow as fuck. So many walls funneling you into chokepoints. Not at all what I hoped for from a big Battlefield forest map
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
Can anyone explain Operations mode? I don't get it. People were saying it's like a mix of rush and conquest that spans different maps but it always seems to be a dead game mode with nobody playing it and the one time I got a match it never swapped map, just did the exact same map 3 times. What am I missing?
You must be joking right?
Remember that one time I spawned in on you and totally saved you from the guy behind you?How can you ignore all the other posts?
Ahhh battlefield.
ElzarTheBam
Member
Operations MM isn't working well atm. Hopefully they fix it soon.
In terms of the mode itself, one side defends and one side attacks.
Each operation consists of two or more maps, with each map split into a number of areas.
The attackers have 3 (attacks) goes per operation to advance and ultimately win the game.
Every successful attack will push the attacking team forward and eventually on to a new map, until you have won.
Defenders obviously have to stop them. A successful defence usually mean that both the attackers and defenders will play the same map 3 times, and possibly even the same area 3 times.
Impulsor
Member
Each map has attackers vs defenders.
Attackers have to capture 2 or 3 points in a zone, and once all of the points are udner complete control of attackers, the zone is lost for the defenders, attackers then have to kill all remaining defenders in a zone to unlock the next zone and defenders hae to reposition.
Each map has 5 or 6 zones total, with 2 or 3 points each, Attackers have three chances to take all the zones of a map, each time they fail, they get reinforcements, such as a zeplin, boat or whatever.