criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Community Calendar

I lack imagination - how is the class system not going to ****?

2

Replies

  • To be fair, Star Wars is not a series known for snipers. If the sniper class was missing or very limited, I wouldn't mind.

    Not sure what you are referring to. There are snipers all over star wars content including the movies, ep 2. Battlefront 1 wasn't really know for it's snipers is the real statement. However with the new improvements to weapons and gun mechanics it looks promising.
  • Alvonator
    2510 posts Member
    classes promote team play? Lol as if as soon as someone sees an enemy they ditch the objective and will run to get the kill, star cards or classes I'm a lone wolf I don't do team play

    Well, truth be told, you don't do your team any favours, but that doesn't mean you are a bad player.

    And, classes do promote and encourage teamplay, but it doesn't 100% force everyone to do it.
  • bfloo
    16772 posts Member
    ImpactDis wrote: »
    To be fair, Star Wars is not a series known for snipers. If the sniper class was missing or very limited, I wouldn't mind.

    Not sure what you are referring to. There are snipers all over star wars content including the movies, ep 2. Battlefront 1 wasn't really know for it's snipers is the real statement. However with the new improvements to weapons and gun mechanics it looks promising.

    We don't want 15 snipers on a 20 person team.

    Think about how bad it would be to have pulse canon fire with the secondary fire cool down time when the TL-50 was released. Even worse, it might be faster.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • bfloo wrote: »
    ImpactDis wrote: »
    To be fair, Star Wars is not a series known for snipers. If the sniper class was missing or very limited, I wouldn't mind.

    Not sure what you are referring to. There are snipers all over star wars content including the movies, ep 2. Battlefront 1 wasn't really know for it's snipers is the real statement. However with the new improvements to weapons and gun mechanics it looks promising.

    We don't want 15 snipers on a 20 person team.

    Think about how bad it would be to have pulse canon fire with the secondary fire cool down time when the TL-50 was released. Even worse, it might be faster.

    I agree 100%. One of my questions for DICE is this point itself. Will there be limitations on the amount of classes involved? I highly doubt it honestly but then the question is can we choose different abilities during a game or is it locked once game begins? I think the latter but I wonder if they won't tweak it some allowing you to switch various gadgets but lock the chosen ability in place. You can already select what weapon you want whenever so. We'll see.
  • Agherosh
    1092 posts Member
    bfloo wrote: »
    ImpactDis wrote: »
    To be fair, Star Wars is not a series known for snipers. If the sniper class was missing or very limited, I wouldn't mind.

    Not sure what you are referring to. There are snipers all over star wars content including the movies, ep 2. Battlefront 1 wasn't really know for it's snipers is the real statement. However with the new improvements to weapons and gun mechanics it looks promising.

    We don't want 15 snipers on a 20 person team.

    Think about how bad it would be to have pulse canon fire with the secondary fire cool down time when the TL-50 was released. Even worse, it might be faster.

    If they balance the maps and classes it won't be as much of a problem. If some people want to play as a long range unit, they shouldn't be told they can't just because some people get angry over getting killed by them.

    Standard classes shouldn't be limited.
    #TipleeTiplarForBF2
  • aslong as maps are balanced, which in my opinion lacks in battlefield 1, i love playing assault or support, but i stopped playing that game since snipers kept killing me before i could be of any use with the weapons i preferred to use
  • bfloo
    16772 posts Member
    Agherosh wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    ImpactDis wrote: »
    To be fair, Star Wars is not a series known for snipers. If the sniper class was missing or very limited, I wouldn't mind.

    Not sure what you are referring to. There are snipers all over star wars content including the movies, ep 2. Battlefront 1 wasn't really know for it's snipers is the real statement. However with the new improvements to weapons and gun mechanics it looks promising.

    We don't want 15 snipers on a 20 person team.

    Think about how bad it would be to have pulse canon fire with the secondary fire cool down time when the TL-50 was released. Even worse, it might be faster.

    If they balance the maps and classes it won't be as much of a problem. If some people want to play as a long range unit, they shouldn't be told they can't just because some people get angry over getting killed by them.

    Standard classes shouldn't be limited.

    I don't mind snipers, just having the majority of the players sniping like in Battlefield or CoD.

    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • fmpauley wrote: »
    Let's just start with the obvious. Battlefield 1 is an unplayable snoozefest - as in TV and WORK are more interesting. Now . . . that is Battlefield 1, so I GUESS class systems by definition don't have to ruin a game (like they did BF1) . . . but how could they go about implementing such a system without destroying the fun?

    Seriously. Any ideas? Has anyone seen a class system that made the game more fun, or at least didn't reduce the fun? If so, what game and how did it improve the game play?


    And if DICE is monitoring please note, SWBF II cannot be a reskinned BF1 . . . cause I bought both and HAPPILY quit BF1 after 3 weeks and have never picked it up since . . . it is an well made piece of boring junk, that only demonstrates how little attention was given to SWBF 1. The ONLY thing I would ever want to see brought over from BF1 is the STABILITY, NO LAG, and SERVER BROWSER - the rest is useless junk.

    It's Star Wars mate, its gonna be good.
    Vroom Vroom!


  • I'm not a FPS guy, so I am a little apprehensive about the classes change. But I'll adapt and learn a new way. I'm just hoping that the classes are fun and have a lot of variety available.

  • ImpactDis wrote: »
    To be fair, Star Wars is not a series known for snipers. If the sniper class was missing or very limited, I wouldn't mind.

    Not sure what you are referring to. There are snipers all over star wars content including the movies, ep 2. Battlefront 1 wasn't really know for it's snipers is the real statement. However with the new improvements to weapons and gun mechanics it looks promising.

    Jango had a sniper rifle in Ep II, which is fine for a major hero/villain character. I don't recall any snipers in the frantic battle at the end.

    I recall no snipers in Ep I, III, IV, V, VI, or VII. Tusken raiders do have rifles, but I don't consider them snipers. Nor do I foresee a Tusken raider class in these games.

    Rebels and Clone Wars have snipers at times, but they aren't being featured in this game.

    I have no problems with snipers, but if they were not included as a class, I would be fine too.
  • bfloo
    16772 posts Member
    ImpactDis wrote: »
    To be fair, Star Wars is not a series known for snipers. If the sniper class was missing or very limited, I wouldn't mind.

    Not sure what you are referring to. There are snipers all over star wars content including the movies, ep 2. Battlefront 1 wasn't really know for it's snipers is the real statement. However with the new improvements to weapons and gun mechanics it looks promising.

    Jango had a sniper rifle in Ep II, which is fine for a major hero/villain character. I don't recall any snipers in the frantic battle at the end.

    I recall no snipers in Ep I, III, IV, V, VI, or VII. Tusken raiders do have rifles, but I don't consider them snipers. Nor do I foresee a Tusken raider class in these games.

    Rebels and Clone Wars have snipers at times, but they aren't being featured in this game.

    I have no problems with snipers, but if they were not included as a class, I would be fine too.

    A sniper took a few shots at Leia an RotJ.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • It would require a 5-way system with: 1 officer, 2-4 assault, 0-1 support, 0-1 specialist for balancing the parts
  • Rebels and Clone Wars have snipers at times, but they aren't being featured in this game.

    1nn5vx.jpg
    PSN: Bucman55 "The ability to speak does not make you intellegent."
    "[Cross-Era play] would essentially ruin the eras and turn them into nothing much more than the same thing and same experience but with a different skin. Which is contrary to the point in having eras in the first place." - ZmanGames
  • rollind24
    5969 posts Member
    DiscoverME wrote: »
    rollind24 wrote: »
    The problem with Battlefield I is that it's too casual... Battlefield 4 has a higher learning curve..

    Uh, no. The problem is not that Battlefield 1 is "too casual" or that Battlefield 4 has a steep learning curve. Battlefield 1 defined the classes much more strongly than in Battlefield 4, where the vast majority of players are assault-medics with close-medium-long-range AEK spam.

    The problem lies in how they drove the distinction between the four main classes. The RNG bullet-spread, while doing a good job at limiting the scope of weapon effectiveness for the classes, made the gunplay too restricted. As opposed to eventually learning a spread pattern or compensating for how a firearm drags, the current RNG system restricts weapons to distinct ranges. Neither the intent nor the effect is a "casual" game, but rather to emphasize the differences between classes in an extreme fashion (to avoid the terrible blending and general sameness of all Battlefield 4 classes, a point of contention for many players) and promote teamwork. The entire design philosophy and mantra behind Battlefield 1 is "teamwork," something that people pleaded for DICE to do, not the alleged "accessibility."

    Where did I say this? I've never even played Battlefield 4
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • WodiQuix
    4591 posts Member
    Lonnisity wrote: »
    fmpauley wrote: »
    Battlefield 1 is an unplayable snoozefest

    Lost interest in your argument with the second sentence. Battlefield 1 is a fantastic game.

    I also really enjoy Battlefield 1.
    Alvonator wrote: »
    There are big flaws with your argument:

    1) Classes didn't ruin Battlefield 1.
    2) Classes are neither limiting nor 'not fun.'
    3) Battlefield 1 population is quite healthy. Sauce: http://bf1stats.com

  • rollind24 wrote: »
    Where did I say this? I've never even played Battlefield 4

    Sorry, that was meant to quote Ryan_GoFett24.
  • Maybe it could work for a LARGE game format, but a 6v6 small game format? In a small game format like Cargo or Drop Zone you have 6v6, and that is not much room to spare if you have 4 classes. Now ask yourself how many Cargo games have you started that are only 4v4, 4v5 or 4v6, and how quickly do they turn into 3v5, when people start quitting the game. In a 4 class game, you can't afford a small group, let alone not have a class represented; that is assuming that people would even select diversified classes in the first place. You would have to increase the team sizes to something likely to have all classes represented 10v10 or 12v12.

    Small game formats require you to be fast, deadly, and self healing . . . and a single player must have all these abilities rolled up into themselves to be successful, especially when they are in a short staffed team. Class system will have to have some major changes to work in more competitive objective based game modes.

    Are there small format, objective based modes in other games with class systems that work?
  • Frix
    626 posts Member
    DiscoverME wrote: »
    rollind24 wrote: »
    The problem with Battlefield I is that it's too casual... Battlefield 4 has a higher learning curve..

    Uh, no. The problem is not that Battlefield 1 is "too casual" or that Battlefield 4 has a steep learning curve. Battlefield 1 defined the classes much more strongly than in Battlefield 4, where the vast majority of players are assault-medics with close-medium-long-range AEK spam.

    The problem lies in how they drove the distinction between the four main classes. The RNG bullet-spread, while doing a good job at limiting the scope of weapon effectiveness for the classes, made the gunplay too restricted. As opposed to eventually learning a spread pattern or compensating for how a firearm drags, the current RNG system restricts weapons to distinct ranges. Neither the intent nor the effect is a "casual" game, but rather to emphasize the differences between classes in an extreme fashion (to avoid the terrible blending and general sameness of all Battlefield 4 classes, a point of contention for many players) and promote teamwork. The entire design philosophy and mantra behind Battlefield 1 is "teamwork," something that people pleaded for DICE to do, not the alleged "accessibility."

    This is right on.
  • bfloo
    16772 posts Member
    No more 6v6, up it to 10v10.

    Cargo, Droid Run, & Drop Zone are all more fun and chaotic in the dlc's because of the higher player count.

    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • bfloo wrote: »
    No more 6v6, up it to 10v10.

    Cargo, Droid Run, & Drop Zone are all more fun and chaotic in the dlc's because of the higher player count.

    12v12 Fixed
  • bfloo
    16772 posts Member
    bfloo wrote: »
    No more 6v6, up it to 10v10.

    Cargo, Droid Run, & Drop Zone are all more fun and chaotic in the dlc's because of the higher player count.

    12v12 Fixed

    I'll raise you 1, 13v13! :)
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • DarthJ
    7079 posts Member
    The old battlefront games had classes which at times worked well. Battlefield 1 works well especially in a squad. Only issue like others have mentioned is if everyone picks the sniper class. Then it gets annoying.
  • bfloo wrote: »
    We don't want 15 snipers on a 20 person team. Think about how bad it would be to have pulse canon fire with the secondary fire cool down time when the TL-50 was released. Even worse, it might be faster.

    You could have 15 snipers on a 20 person team in Battlefront (2015). Classes won't change the game in that regard.
    ImpactDis wrote: »
    I agree 100%. One of my questions for DICE is this point itself.

    It is something that the majority of players complained about. The point is clear: promote teamwork.

  • Go play the original SWBF 2 and you'll see.
  • @CloneAssassin501 where you make your gif for you signature?
    Xbox One: Firewall17 - I Love Star Wars: Battlefront 2! No regrets buying it and never will! - Also on >The List<
  • Firewall17 wrote: »
    @CloneAssassin501 where you make your gif for you signature?

    I didn't make it, @dada_shift made it. I got it from the 41st Forums : http://41stforums.freeforums.net/thread/374/signatures
    PSN: Bucman55 "The ability to speak does not make you intellegent."
    "[Cross-Era play] would essentially ruin the eras and turn them into nothing much more than the same thing and same experience but with a different skin. Which is contrary to the point in having eras in the first place." - ZmanGames
  • Firewall17 wrote: »
    @CloneAssassin501 where you make your gif for you signature?

    I didn't make it, @dada_shift made it. I got it from the 41st Forums : http://41stforums.freeforums.net/thread/374/signatures

    Cool, thanks.
    Xbox One: Firewall17 - I Love Star Wars: Battlefront 2! No regrets buying it and never will! - Also on >The List<
  • fmpauley wrote: »
    Let's just start with the obvious. Battlefield 1 is an unplayable snoozefest - as in TV and WORK are more interesting.

    How is Battlefield 1 a "snoozefest"? Is it because of World War 1, a war that never got explored or mentioned at all in video games? The game is amazing. If you have no interest in games with old wars, then that's fine. Go back to Call of Duty: Futuristic Star Wars/ Halo/ Titanfall Ripoff.

    Anyway, I'm pretty sure classes won't ruin this game, and it didn't ruin Battlefield. A lot of people love the game, as well as the classes.
    fmpauley wrote: »
    Was editing and think I deleted my original post. Reposting

    BF1 did not have team work when I played it. What I did notice was that there was no way to know the outcome of the game, winning and losing seemed like a total surprise and was something there was very little control over. SWBF1 felt like one person could make a difference, and especially in Cargo. I can't imagine Cargo in BF1. I like the arcade feel, the 1v1 matchups. BF1 is just shot someone, get shot in the back, respawn; shot someone get shot from the side . . . you rarely ever see your attacker, and almost never get to square up on them.

    The class system in BF1 always left me feeling like I picked the wrong class. It was so rare that I thought, cool, I'm ready for this, I have just the right load out. In the end I could only choose Medic or Assault if I wanted to keep playing. And my teammates always seemed to be the wrong class too. A bunch of Medics versus a tank . . . what fun! It was the classes of BF1 that made me appreciate the star card system, and realize that SWBF1, for all its faults, was a superior game for having fun.

    As for team work . . . really. No one can believe that. That is NEVER going to happen. It's not even a possibility. EXCEPT for clans. Fortunately, I just joined up with some 'bad hombres" so I'll have fun abusing the 95% of the playerbase that will never ever ever ever work as a team. When was the last time a player you didn't know hung behind you while you were a hero and constantly healed you with bacta . . . stop kidding yourself there is no teamwork likely coming from classes.

    For the rest of this,

    1: You get killed wherever you go from whichever direction. That's how war is, especially in previous wars.

    2: Star Wars Battlefront is a beautiful game, succeeding in graphics and sound, as well as a decent multiplayer. But it felt like a mix of Battlefield and COD (excluding microtransactions) and we only got singleplayer updates in later months after release, including Skirmish, which is unpolished and totally unfinished with barely functioning AI that can't help a lot on objectives and don't push up in certain maps, left with no updates for it when 2017 started and only two game modes for it. Also, there were loadout customizations, yes, but it might've given too much freedom. This way, we don't have too many people using jetpacks all over the map, which is why, in one of my topics, I came up with the idea of a "boots on the ground" type mode. Anyway, Battlefront lacked so much content, including no singleplayer (campaign, galactic conquest), Clone Wars, and space battles. I'm not even sure if it's considered playable, especially with a lot of people wanting to get trickshots and jetpack all over the place and camp for hero pickups. And I can bet, with classes, an actual story, more eras, and land vehicles and space battles, this game will be much better than the first EA Battlefront, and yet to some, it'll still suck.

    3: If you're not getting any teamwork, you might need to actually stick with people. And find some actual good servers with good teams. I can say the same about Battlefront barely getting any teamwork, since people barely push up to objectives and it has to take like two to three people to push until the rest pay attention. Of course, there is healing, but still, people need to help in objectives. You want teamwork? Play Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Seige or Ghost Recon Wildlands, or tactical shooters like ArmA 3 and Project Reality (both PC games).

    And again, how is Battlefield 1 even boring? Just tell me that. You can include classes if you want. Just tell me whatever part that makes it boring.
  • Battlefield 1 is slow play that is what they are saying...and it's what I find too...why did you go around the houses with your stuff?
  • bfloo
    16772 posts Member
    Battlefield1 does have a slow pace, but it suits the game.

    Despite its flaws, Battlefront is more fun if I want to run and gun.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Slow pace suits Battlefield 1, but it's because it's a previous war. There should've been limits, but that's how the game works. Still better than COD, though, even though I like both.
  • Frix
    626 posts Member
    bfloo wrote: »
    Battlefield1 does have a slow pace, but it suits the game.

    Despite its flaws, Battlefront is more fun if I want to run and gun.

    Personally I prefer some strategy in my games. If the mechanics are set up that run and gun will always be better. Well it gets boring to me. Run and gun will be in any game no matter the skill curve built into it, just look at rainbow six siege. While run and gun is a viable option strategy is rewarded. I'm hoping we get like that.
  • bfloo wrote: »
    Battlefield1 does have a slow pace, but it suits the game.

    Despite its flaws, Battlefront is more fun if I want to run and gun.
    Slow pace suits Battlefield 1, but it's because it's a previous war. There should've been limits, but that's how the game works. Still better than COD, though, even though I like both.

    If it is a slow pace, it's not by much. Between the hastened bullet velocity, increased run speed, and shortened time limits, Battlefield 1 is one of the fastest titles in the series to date.
  • Sangth
    125 posts Member
    I think a lot of people are also overlooking the fact that Battlefield 1 was a bit strangled by its WW1 setting when it came to creating compelling gadgets and weapons and such for each class that were period-accurate and still fun to use, you could tell they were stretching.

    Now think of all the gadgets and weapons that already exist in a setting like Star Wars (EU or otherwise) and that threshold alone suddenly raises quite a bit for the possibilities each person may have for tackling a battle.

    The amount of weapons they can now implement, without having to abide to this class-less system of homogeneous automatic blasters that all generally handle the same (save for a few outliers, of course, most of which were added as DLC), is now raised pretty substantially. We'll actually get dedicated heavy weapons, long-range weapons, etc., with some amount of kit customization beyond cards we use every now and then.

    Then, team play will actually be acknowledged, encouraged and rewarded, and the rest is history.

    A class system sounds pretty good to me.
  • Shinjuku
    1760 posts Member
    Only time your gonna get consistant teamwork is in party's/clans or comp. I'm saying it now, it's nothing more than wishful thinking. Do you people realize how many under 15 will be playing this game?

    This worries me immensely. They need to neutralise all the massive advantage of playing in a party, not add more

    This is why having in-game voice chat is needed!! So if you're up against people who happen to be in a party chat/Clans and you're not this will help you talk to your teammates directly ensuring that the playing field is level. Check out my thread about the perks of having in-game voice chat and to anyone else reading my comment, links down below feel free to roll through and comment.

    https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/69492/in-game-voice-chat#latest
    MLtmeEi.png
    " If you're not with me, then you're my enemy."
  • Shinjuku
    1760 posts Member
    edited April 2017
    DiscoverME wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    Battlefield1 does have a slow pace, but it suits the game.

    Despite its flaws, Battlefront is more fun if I want to run and gun.
    Slow pace suits Battlefield 1, but it's because it's a previous war. There should've been limits, but that's how the game works. Still better than COD, though, even though I like both.

    If it is a slow pace, it's not by much. Between the hastened bullet velocity, increased run speed, and shortened time limits, Battlefield 1 is one of the fastest titles in the series to date.

    I would say Battlefield 4 has the fastest gameplay compared to the rest of the other Battlefield games without a shadow of doubt! Then I'd say Battlefield 3 then Battlefield Bad Company 2, then Bad Company. Hell even Battlefield 1943 is quicker! Everyone camps so hard on Battlefield 1 which really throws a wrench in the game play slowing it down considerably.
    MLtmeEi.png
    " If you're not with me, then you're my enemy."
  • Shinjuku wrote: »
    I would say Battlefield 4 has the fastest gameplay compared to the rest of the other Battlefield games without a shadow of doubt! Then I'd say Battlefield 3 then Battlefield Bad Company 2, then Bad Company. **** even Battlefield 1943 is quicker! Everyone camps so hard on Battlefield 1 which really throws a wrench in the game play slowing it down considerably.

    Battlefield 1 is objectively faster than most other Battlefield games, dude. This is not up for discussion.
  • Shinjuku wrote: »
    Only time your gonna get consistant teamwork is in party's/clans or comp. I'm saying it now, it's nothing more than wishful thinking. Do you people realize how many under 15 will be playing this game?

    This worries me immensely. They need to neutralise all the massive advantage of playing in a party, not add more

    This is why having in-game voice chat is needed!! So if you're up against people who happen to be in a party chat/Clans and you're not this will help you talk to your teammates directly ensuring that the playing field is level. Check out my thread about the perks of having in-game voice chat and to anyone else reading my comment, links down below feel free to roll through and comment.

    https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/69492/in-game-voice-chat#latest

    I agree that it would definitely help, but I think Disney is more concerned with the foul mouths and angry trolls that will inevitably pop up from time to time. I don't think that's a good enough reason to remove team chat(it's kind of an essential in games like this), but I guarantee that has something to do with why we didn't get it in the last game.
    #JustSayNoToReyLo

  • I agree that it would definitely help, but I think Disney is more concerned with the foul mouths and angry trolls that will inevitably pop up from time to time. I don't think that's a good enough reason to remove team chat(it's kind of an essential in games like this), but I guarantee that has something to do with why we didn't get it in the last game.

    +1

    SWBF is the first game I've played in 15+ years, and the first online multiplayer ever. I actually answered my first party invite somewhere around 600 hours of game play. What I got was an offensive drunk college player, on speaker phone with his friends all chatting. I chose not to speak, since I was just looking for some strategic conversation. My silence was interpreted as me being foreign, so they asked if I was a "zipper head." Of course there was lots of general cursing, etc. cause I guess the were having party. I never spoke and just left the party. Took me another 300 hours before I got a second party invite, and that time I was lucky and met a sold bunch of players.

    I gotta tell ya, from my limited experience, I would not want an open voice chat line with my team. I prefer a private party with similar players (similar as to attitude and respect).
  • fmpauley wrote: »
    I gotta tell ya, from my limited experience, I would not want an open voice chat line with my team. I prefer a private party with similar players (similar as to attitude and respect).

    So basically the Battlefield system.
  • How is Battlefield 1 a "snoozefest"? Is it because of World War 1, a war that never got explored or mentioned at all in video games? The game is amazing. If you have no interest in games with old wars, then that's fine. Go back to Call of Duty: Futuristic Star Wars/ Halo/ Titanfall Ripoff.

    For the rest of this,

    1: You get killed wherever you go from whichever direction. That's how war is, especially in previous wars.

    2: Star Wars Battlefront is a beautiful game, succeeding in graphics and sound, as well as a decent multiplayer. But it felt like a mix of Battlefield and COD (excluding microtransactions) and we only got singleplayer updates in later months after release, including Skirmish, which is unpolished and totally unfinished with barely functioning AI that can't help a lot on objectives and don't push up in certain maps, left with no updates for it when 2017 started and only two game modes for it. Also, there were loadout customizations, yes, but it might've given too much freedom. This way, we don't have too many people using jetpacks all over the map, which is why, in one of my topics, I came up with the idea of a "boots on the ground" type mode. Anyway, Battlefront lacked so much content, including no singleplayer (campaign, galactic conquest), Clone Wars, and space battles. I'm not even sure if it's considered playable, especially with a lot of people wanting to get trickshots and jetpack all over the place and camp for hero pickups. And I can bet, with classes, an actual story, more eras, and land vehicles and space battles, this game will be much better than the first EA Battlefront, and yet to some, it'll still suck.

    3: If you're not getting any teamwork, you might need to actually stick with people. And find some actual good servers with good teams. I can say the same about Battlefront barely getting any teamwork, since people barely push up to objectives and it has to take like two to three people to push until the rest pay attention. Of course, there is healing, but still, people need to help in objectives. You want teamwork? Play Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Seige or Ghost Recon Wildlands, or tactical shooters like ArmA 3 and Project Reality (both PC games).

    And again, how is Battlefield 1 even boring? Just tell me that. You can include classes if you want. Just tell me whatever part that makes it boring.

    When I started SWBF I didn't use jump packs or shields, etc. I was a very vanilla player, and prefer long to medium range combat. As time went on I came to prefer up CQC and blaster pistols. Speed and position became important, so I started jump packing, and survivability and objective activation required shields. I wasn't happy about it at the time, but I did it and started to like it, the game became more fun. The BF1 came out and I immediately discovered these items made SWBF orders of magnitude more fun then BF1. I mean, it's not even close, not even a little.

    I realized that the "content" everyone complained about missing from SWBF was really not doing BF1 any favors. It's interesting, but it doesn't make me come back. I played one content round and never played another, and never repeated the content round . . . playing the computer is just boring.

    And I totally get it, WWI just doesn't have the gadgets available to futuristic scifi; but it is clear that being stuck on the ground in real life mode is not FUN. The first person only mode made it much worse. What is left is a game where you rarely see your attacker before you're dead. Most kills are trades, where you kill someone who doesn't see you and someone you don't see kills you shortly afterward. Lots of spawning and running, killed from out of field of view and tons of snipers. It felt pointless. It occurred to me many times, that given the attention to detail and reality of the game that being a WWI soldier was a death sentence, but before you were killed, you would be bored to death. Walk, walk, walk, run, run, run, die; walk, walk, run, run, hide, run, crawl on the ground, die. It felt like a death simulator . . . and that just is NOT fun. Hence the snoozefest.

    We'll see what happens, maybe they will figure it out. But if they just reskin BF1, then it will suck to play. SW alone, should make it playable, but it may lack the intensity of SWBF and become a once in a while game . . . Let's hope they bring balance to the force.
  • Frix
    626 posts Member
    fmpauley wrote: »
    How is Battlefield 1 a "snoozefest"? Is it because of World War 1, a war that never got explored or mentioned at all in video games? The game is amazing. If you have no interest in games with old wars, then that's fine. Go back to Call of Duty: Futuristic Star Wars/ Halo/ Titanfall Ripoff.

    For the rest of this,

    1: You get killed wherever you go from whichever direction. That's how war is, especially in previous wars.

    2: Star Wars Battlefront is a beautiful game, succeeding in graphics and sound, as well as a decent multiplayer. But it felt like a mix of Battlefield and COD (excluding microtransactions) and we only got singleplayer updates in later months after release, including Skirmish, which is unpolished and totally unfinished with barely functioning AI that can't help a lot on objectives and don't push up in certain maps, left with no updates for it when 2017 started and only two game modes for it. Also, there were loadout customizations, yes, but it might've given too much freedom. This way, we don't have too many people using jetpacks all over the map, which is why, in one of my topics, I came up with the idea of a "boots on the ground" type mode. Anyway, Battlefront lacked so much content, including no singleplayer (campaign, galactic conquest), Clone Wars, and space battles. I'm not even sure if it's considered playable, especially with a lot of people wanting to get trickshots and jetpack all over the place and camp for hero pickups. And I can bet, with classes, an actual story, more eras, and land vehicles and space battles, this game will be much better than the first EA Battlefront, and yet to some, it'll still suck.

    3: If you're not getting any teamwork, you might need to actually stick with people. And find some actual good servers with good teams. I can say the same about Battlefront barely getting any teamwork, since people barely push up to objectives and it has to take like two to three people to push until the rest pay attention. Of course, there is healing, but still, people need to help in objectives. You want teamwork? Play Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Seige or Ghost Recon Wildlands, or tactical shooters like ArmA 3 and Project Reality (both PC games).

    And again, how is Battlefield 1 even boring? Just tell me that. You can include classes if you want. Just tell me whatever part that makes it boring.

    When I started SWBF I didn't use jump packs or shields, etc. I was a very vanilla player, and prefer long to medium range combat. As time went on I came to prefer up CQC and blaster pistols. Speed and position became important, so I started jump packing, and survivability and objective activation required shields. I wasn't happy about it at the time, but I did it and started to like it, the game became more fun. The BF1 came out and I immediately discovered these items made SWBF orders of magnitude more fun then BF1. I mean, it's not even close, not even a little.

    I realized that the "content" everyone complained about missing from SWBF was really not doing BF1 any favors. It's interesting, but it doesn't make me come back. I played one content round and never played another, and never repeated the content round . . . playing the computer is just boring.

    And I totally get it, WWI just doesn't have the gadgets available to futuristic scifi; but it is clear that being stuck on the ground in real life mode is not FUN. The first person only mode made it much worse. What is left is a game where you rarely see your attacker before you're dead. Most kills are trades, where you kill someone who doesn't see you and someone you don't see kills you shortly afterward. Lots of spawning and running, killed from out of field of view and tons of snipers. It felt pointless. It occurred to me many times, that given the attention to detail and reality of the game that being a WWI soldier was a death sentence, but before you were killed, you would be bored to death. Walk, walk, walk, run, run, run, die; walk, walk, run, run, hide, run, crawl on the ground, die. It felt like a death simulator . . . and that just is NOT fun. Hence the snoozefest.

    We'll see what happens, maybe they will figure it out. But if they just reskin BF1, then it will suck to play. SW alone, should make it playable, but it may lack the intensity of SWBF and become a once in a while game . . . Let's hope they bring balance to the force.

    In reguards to medium and long range combat it was non existent except through pulse canons. So that's probably why you liked close range.
  • "
    We'll see what happens, maybe they will figure it out. But if they just reskin BF1, then it will suck to play. SW alone, should make it playable, but it may lack the intensity of SWBF and become a once in a while game . . . Let's hope they bring balance to the force."

    I hope so too .Not much strategy in get shot by someone you don't see ,wait 5 min ,do the same to someone else = snoozefest
  • bfloo wrote: »
    ImpactDis wrote: »
    To be fair, Star Wars is not a series known for snipers. If the sniper class was missing or very limited, I wouldn't mind.

    Not sure what you are referring to. There are snipers all over star wars content including the movies, ep 2. Battlefront 1 wasn't really know for it's snipers is the real statement. However with the new improvements to weapons and gun mechanics it looks promising.

    We don't want 15 snipers on a 20 person team.

    Think about how bad it would be to have pulse canon fire with the secondary fire cool down time when the TL-50 was released. Even worse, it might be faster.

    I'm sure they balance the snipers well.
  • Rebels and Clone Wars have snipers at times, but they aren't being featured in this game.

    1nn5vx.jpg

  • bfloo wrote: »
    Battlefield1 does have a slow pace, but it suits the game.

    Despite its flaws, Battlefront is more fun if I want to run and gun.

    You can run and gun in battlefield, just pick up the automatico or a good hipfire smg and play on maps that favor CQC.
  • bfloo
    16772 posts Member
    bfloo wrote: »
    ImpactDis wrote: »
    To be fair, Star Wars is not a series known for snipers. If the sniper class was missing or very limited, I wouldn't mind.

    Not sure what you are referring to. There are snipers all over star wars content including the movies, ep 2. Battlefront 1 wasn't really know for it's snipers is the real statement. However with the new improvements to weapons and gun mechanics it looks promising.

    We don't want 15 snipers on a 20 person team.

    Think about how bad it would be to have pulse canon fire with the secondary fire cool down time when the TL-50 was released. Even worse, it might be faster.

    I'm sure they balance the snipers well.

    They would be the 1st to figure out how.

    CoD & Battlefield1 have more snipers than front line infantry.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • TheNextTron
    472 posts Member
    edited May 2017
    @fmpauley

    Classes encourage teamwork they don't create it. It's meant to be a way make players weaker yet allowing teammates work off each others weaknesses to be stronger. However like any other online shooter ever to exist there's always adults and young pubescent teens who try too hard to be the one on top the the leader board with the most kills, best kd, highest rank, all trophies unlocked, number 1 player in the world, who ultimately play to build their ego, win on their own, cheat or use loopholes if they have too, rather than winning or playing as a team and just playing to have fun.

    No perfectly built class system can always force people to play a certain way. Most people are just glad to have classes so it's more semi balanced (hopefully) and authentic to the films, because it's really silly seeing Bespin Wing Guards and SandTroopers on hoth.
  • I'm hopeful that the class system will give us fun gameplay. I've read time and again that this is better than the star card system, so I guess I'm just banking on other players' experience that it is so.
    My only fear is that there aren't enough proper options within a class to make it fun for multiple type of players. I just don't have any experience with other shooters to compare against.
    But I'll adapt and hopefully enjoy the new way even more. At least I won't be starting from scratch like I was when battlefront 1 launced.
Sign In or Register to comment.