Battlefield 6 HUGE mode idea concerns FULLY explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- There's been a lot of talk about Battlefield 6 and larger server sizes recently. 128 players in the large modes. A lot of that has been inspired by so called "leaks". Something I don't deal in without evidence. So today we're discussing the often unconsidered aspects of opening up Battlefield to much larger games, without speculation. Either way, let's hope BF6 ends up being a fantastic return to form for the series.
ENJOY THE VIDEO? - LIKE & SUBSCRIBE 😊
BECOME A MEMBER FOR PERKS! - / @getgoodguy
#Battlefield6 #BF6 #Battlefield
-----
TWITTER - / getgoodguyyt
💕 PATREON 💕 - / getgoodguy
OFFICIAL MERCH - teespring.com/...
DISCORD - / discord
TWITCH - / thegetgoodguy
INSTAGRAM - / getgoodguy
FACEBOOK - / getgoodguy
-----
The next game after Battlefield V, tentatively referred to as Battlefield 6, is an upcoming installment in the series set to release in late 2021 or early 2022. The game was confirmed by EA CEO Andrew Wilson in an investor call on October 29, 2019. Nothing else is currently known about the game except that it will be available on next-generation consoles and will be driven by live service offerings. Additionally, it will see major innovations in multiplayer, social, and competition aspects that are new to the franchise.
*EDIT - The part about 30Hz servers for large modes only applies on console. I'd either forgotten or didn't realise that PC has 60Hz for those modes. Fingers crossed this applies to all platforms come the next BF release.*
What do YOU think about 128 player servers? Let me know :)
SUBSCRIBE IF YOU ENJOYED :)
-----
BECOME A MEMBER FOR PERKS! - ua-cam.com/channels/id4fhX_n0QL2n8rI_hXLaQ.htmljoin
TWITTER - twitter.com/GetGoodGuyYT
💕 PATREON 💕 - www.patreon.com/getgoodguy
OFFICIAL MERCH - teespring.com/en-GB/stores/getgoodguy-store
DISCORD - discord.gg/6CWsH8M
TWITCH - www.twitch.tv/TheGetGoodGuy
INSTAGRAM - instagram.com/GetGoodGuy
FACEBOOK - facebook.com/Getgoodguy/
You were actually the first battlefield youtuber that showed concerns about this and i really was looking for someone to warn people about this, also in order to create bigger maps dice needs more development time for them so we will get maps at a slower rate than other battlefield titles.
I don't think BF6 should have 128 players for the reasons you stated, but you left out the amount of health/revives and ammo/gadgets medic and support players would have to give to 63 teammates. As a medic main, I don't want to do that. You already give out twice as much of these in BFV with attrition so I imagine with 128 players you'd be giving 4x the amount of health/revives and ammo/ gadgets as a good medic or support player does currently in BFV which would just slow these two classes down even more than they already are in BFV. I think BF6 should be 100 players (50 v 50 large modes; 25 v 25 small modes) with five man squads.
Bro, I don't know about the situation on console, but bf4 servers on pc go up to 120 hz for 64 players.
The servers suck now on every EA game, there is ZERO reason to think this will be a success. Additionally, they can't balance the teams now, it will only be worse with larger teams.
I don't think it will work. As it is now, team balancing in BF5 is terrible. I'd rather have more maps and better TTK.
All I can picture is the artillery truck getting even more kills from miles away. So instead of going 70 for 0 they could get 140 for 0.
And the bombers man, those things that got 98-110 kills in operations could now spend up all our tickets in one round, what a joy!
I can’t wait to get 50 kill streak in an A-10 warthog brrrrrrrrt 😁😂😁
Least bf6 will have heat seeking anti air weapons!
@@guritamarctiberiu1567 why wouldnt they increase the Ticketnumber that would be dumb
Was thinking the exact same thing... Sniper tanks taking you out across the map will have double the kills... I really hope they sort this out in the next game
128 vs 128 Operation Metro on project Venice is fun af, so I am optimistic. However my favourite gamemodes were rush, frontlines and 40v40 operations. BTW, on PC almost every server runs 60HZ, at least in BF1. Not to mention that last time I've tried counting full and
Man, DICE should watch this. You said it all.
I mean it’s not like it would change everything, they’re all ver half way done and it’s too late to make major changes
I really hope they dont. I dislike most of his views on battlefield gameplay and mechanics.
I agree. More players is a nice line for developers to throw around and showcase but it doesn't seem to substantially increase gameplay fun(it does but only up to a certain point). And you've outlined some good points here of some detrimental effects
My concern is when the player base dies and the lack of players sticks out
The 64 servers will be the standard
@@marcofearg9956 I hope you’re right
Break maps up into 4 sectors...32 v 32 each...do a knockout, top scoring in each sector go thru to the final 64 v 64 battle
Hey triple G! I’ve been here since 24k and I’m so glad to see your Chanel blowing up!!! Good luck on 70k!
Let's just hope it doesn't turn into a massive sniper fest.
I honestly wouldn’t mind if there were no scopes over 4x in bf6
@@everettdumolien2549 Stop playing fps games, thats the solution.
@@brienmaybe.4415 so u enjoy getting sniper from 500 meter away by a guy that didn’t even render for you with 10x scope?
@@everettdumolien2549the only game thats happened to me in nearly 4 decades was Warzone.
Crossplay will be important for the 128 players gamemodes!
To bad for ps4 and Xbox one players.
Big maps in bf4 or 3 where amazing. Hamada, al sudan and panzerstorm are shit maps. Don't use them as comparison. And a bigger map would only give more possibilities to play. The map being big doesn't mean the flags are all spread out across the map, without cover
Most of the people who made BF3 and BF4 aren’t with dice anymore, most of the people who made BFV are still at dice. So it’s pretty safe to assume the big maps would be closer to what we got in BFV
I’m more of a fan of BFV’s gunplay. I’d rather have guns with more recoil that are reliably accurate than guns that are easy to control but spray everywhere. I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing accuracy reduced in a BFV gunplay game, but I generally prefer the reliability.
I'd love to just get a gun master game mode back.
this is going to be so much of an improvement now I can go a 140 and 10 and still lose cuz the enemy team has 48 more players than we do
How many guys would like to see highlights of the streams, funny moments, wins, fails (death by planes compilations)
Just imagine Zavod from BF4. Only the BF4 map would be a small part of the map, There could be Wide forests around, and stuff and other hotspots.
Also I would like it if dice would grately increase the flag capture radius, so you would fight over areas instead of a few buildings (that are a deathzone after the first tanke came through because there is no cover left)
BF2 with improved movement. Battlefield should be a good mix between casual and hardcore
Wait someone else actually remembers how good Battlefield 2 was.
I think being next gen it should have more players. The sandbox of a real life war situation going on. The big maps you talked about panzer storm al sadun I think more player would have liked them but they were pourly made maps. Lack of vehicle on al sadun and the vertical lay out made it hard to drive with the ones you got. I belive alot more enjoy panzer and hamdi more due to more tanks more vehicle. If people didn't like them then I would look at the issue of tank sniping as players are tired of this. Timer needs to be made so tanks can't sit in spawn next to resupply box raining shells near flags for random kills. I don't think the supply boxes should be in the spawn at all. Once you walk out of spawn it should become a out of bounce area like the rest of the map. Maps need good lay out good cover for players and middle ground for vehicles. Conquest should be a mixture of that and front lines. Lay it out like I'm hell let loose. You can't advance across the map and you need to fight the frontline push enemy back to take points which would push the front line across the map. This way it would make players play objective points and engage in the battle then camp in the middle of no where waiting for some random player to walk by. I guess it could be conquest frontline and breakthrough all in one mode. To me best of all the worlds. Not worst the taking all flags just to run all the way back to your spawn to recap a point. Time you get back take it now the they took point by there spawn feel a whole lot of running back and forth you not engage at this point as your running length of the map just to keep enemy from taking points. Example have a map three point let's say a b c that's the frontline now if u took b let say a area around b would push forward as if your frontline was progressing. But ur line at a and c won't have moved as those points u didn't take. Make the points worth taking give tanks or allows random air strike to happen on the map. Maybe ones is radio tower cap it and now enemy's in a area around there will show up. I feel the points need more then oh if I take this I can spawn a tank. That way of capping points been used for ages and I feel is dull now. Just my idea to change it up but make it worth the fight for areas as well.
I'm scared this 100 plus game mode isn't going to be balanced. My main concern is weapon recoil and vehicle balance. Don't want them to copy the lack of recoil guns of Call of Duty. Also the main issue with vehicles in BF5 is how powerful/large the splash damage radius is particularly against infantry.
adressing the visibility/camping meta of BFV, especially in the example of Devastation I would even say, the maps are just to small. As I see it the best way to counter that playstyle is, making it boring, because less players are flooding the same chokepoint again and again.
What would also help, is to limit classes per squad or per team, so you dont runn into a full squad of mmgs around every corner. Or get rid of vehicle limits and let 64 people get their arty truck ;P
The bullet trails on BF1 and BF5 look so terrible. Slow and too much trace. In BF3 and BF4 the bullets seemed like they traveled so much faster and didn't feel like you were playing fucking Star Wars. FIX THIS. AND BRING BACK HARDCORE.
Instructions unclear:
I subscribed and became a cool kid
But seriously *I LOVE THE CONTENT*
Like i said on your strem just look at lcokers,fort de vaux and metro with 48-64 players that is plenty even on bigger maps also what about vehicles? more?? if 128 players
Could we please stop with the Spotting is needed. It was never needed, passive spotting ruined BF5. Active spotting should not be a thing.
Visibility was never a problem in BF5, people tend to just run blindly around. When rewatching old gameplay without the passive spotting. It looked so much better.
The only person the should have spotting should be Scout/Recon with binoculars. It should only be pinged on the minimap. 3D spotting does not belong in the game
Also the original TTK (gunplay) in BF5 was king in the franchise.
It’s totally cool to not like spotting. It’s an each to their own thing. Although to say it “doesn’t belong in Battlefield” is also totally an opinion and not fact. It’s up to you how you personally feel.
But to claim that BF5 didn’t have visibility issues is pretty out there as a statement. It’s extremely well documented that enemies could lie in, what should be, plain sight and not be seen.
It’s not about “running around blindly”. To classify the absolute swathes of players who felt they couldn’t see the enemy as playing in that way is an unreasonable reach.
Better / more appropriate art style and direction is needed if spotting isn’t going to feature. Passive players don’t generally have an issue with a lack of viable target acquisition outside of a player moving around in the open. But anyone that’s a movement focused player simply can’t deal with being shot from a multitude of random angles from players they can’t possibly pick out. It creates an extremely stationary game. Which gets boring for many. Also bringing about a frustrating gameplay loop.
Beyond that I feel most prefer a better experience from a mechanical and goal orientated standpoint, rather than whether it “looked so much better”. But again, that’s up to you.
Thanks for watching.
This video aged perfectly
What if BF6 had a a modding software that allows you to design your own maps in the same way that Venice Unleashed does?
Wait. There is recoil in BF-games? The last time I felt something like that remotely was in BF3. BF4, BF1 and BFV had simply no recoil. At all. As you said: Laserguns. If the Devs implement recoil again and add a bit more health to the players, we would have REAL gunfights (engaging, return fire, getting back and so on) again and not simply dying from bullshit. But players these days want their kills, not getting skills. So in most games these days you kill within 3 rounds without aiming too much. That is why games feel casual and (at least for me) not rewarding at all. There is no skill needed to kill, just a millisecond burst to kill. Not the best player wins firefights but those who see their enemy first. Make gunfights fun again! :)
Agree we need spotting from Bf1 back, without it in Bfv it was a shambles of campers at times.
I am for bigger maps, and more players, provided the servers can cope and at a fast hz, and if the game is built around actually getting the best out of the increase. If it is just a larger empty mess, then forget it, let's have 60hz, 64 player games and move on.
They better bring spotting back then... Tired of having to look at my deaths and compare then to bf4 and bf3,bc2 and realize that there was no way to avoid that death.
Battlefield 5 was just so random,no tactics. If they make it 128 they gotta do it the bf3 way with smart cover,smart map design and spotting.And bring back flowing maps dice so you can predict enemy's. And people are pushed in a direction. so the balance between vehicle and infantry is there automaticly by the map.
If they do I hope it’s only a recon thing coz spotting in bf4 is bs
@@chubbyturtle6268 How is it bs??? Can you read the map in bf V??? Nope record gameplay and look at your deaths most of them are random...People you could have not anticipated. enemy's that don't make sense when you look at the map and flags captured at that time... It's 64 players that run around like headless chickens doing pew pew...It's so random it's not Battlefield anymore.
BF V is just cod on flags. Instead of making the skill gap higher they lowered it by removing spotting. Because it's so random that anyone can do good in BF V. No skill required. If i look at my deaths in older batllefield games i can see exactly why i died,what i did wrong,when i pushed when i should not have.. All the info was there and the death was my fault. In bf V? nope and still my KD is higher instead of just being above 3.0 i sit now on 3.9. because it's so random it's way easier but the deaths you get are much less fair instead.
@@crux891 spotting in bf4 is total bs everybody spamming spot for the whole map to see isn’t skill bro spotting players through smoke, spots on players behind cover list goes on it’s basically a noob hack😂. If spotting comes back then it should be only for your team and air support to see not the whole 32 players imo. Doing it that way would make more sense for players to work together. You can read the map on bfv you can see the general direction were the enemies are shooting, red circles are spotted enemy larger red circles means they are above/below you. Anyways if they bring spotting back from bf4 then what’s the point in having suppressors in game if I’m just going to be spotted from the other side of the map by some scrub camping in his spawn with tanks and shit! Spotting is total bs! My opinion but the majority of the bf community would probably say similar things. Also you shouldn’t worry much about your KD in battlefield games you should look to interact with your team mates and work together taking flags and kicking ass, its always been the meta in any battlefield game.
@@chubbyturtle6268 you could not spot players true smoke,you could not spot from accros the map no idea how your battlefield knowledge is but euhm...
Also if your battlefield knowledge is so good,general position of where the enemy is is not good enough in battlefield as it's random the gameplay is fast,the maps are big and there are 64 players on there... the only way to make it work without spotting is to slow down the gameplay. Something they tried with bfV by doing the ammo limitations you see now?? they knew if they wanted to remove spotting they had to slow down the game and movement... Problem is that it did not work the chaos they wanted to avoid got created.. It didn't actualy change the game one bit.. You see what you seem to forget is that spotting got into the game to get rid of chaos and randomness this was said by a developer and that's what spotting did if you mix it with maps that flow from themself.
You are giving yourself a way to move around without random being shot as the gameplay is so fast and there are so many players.. So the player that knows the map,uses the minimap and has the best aim will win the gun fight.. And still with spotting 90 percent of players fall below a k/d of 1.6 in the older titles. Why? because it was balanced if it was noobish then why do people have a higher average k/d in bfv?? And the reason i brought up K/d already was because i knew you where gonna make the noob statement... what makes no sense with the factual evidence at all.. Nor does the skill thing you talk about as if you would look at your own deaths you would see that many you could not avoid why? because you did not have the information to calculate that player right there.... And i know what Battlefield is don't give me this it's not about k/d plz i got more then 8000 hours in in the last 17 year. I really don't need to be teached what Battlefield is.
GOT MY HOODIEEEEEE!!!! I’m gonna tweet you Pops😎
Looking forward to seeing it man
Bro don’t you know BF has had 64 player servers with 60hrz on pc for years? We’ve been capped at 30hrz in 64 player servers to reduce the work the console client would have to do, has nothing to do with their servers, it’s the last gen consoles.
I actually either didn't or forgot. A couple of other people have mentioned it also.
@@GetGoodGuy they definitely won’t have an excuse to keep the next gen consoles at 30hrz, so hopefully they bring em up to PCs level, but considering they said it’s going to be crossplay (at least I’m pretty sure I herd that) I’d say it’s definitely going to have 60hrz servers.
Yeah man, agreed. I’ve also added an edit to the pinned comment to reflect this info. Cheers.
I am definately 7% cooler now 😎. But all remarks aside, I am a huge fan of the Battlefield franchise. Bigger maps with more players would be fun, only downside is tons of snipers (more than before) and campers (grab a tent, some smores, and a folding chair).
The fact that you aren’t a EA game changer is a travesty...seriously! I know dice doesn’t really listen to them anyways but it’s the principle
Smoother experience
Have you played planetside 2? That game has 300 v 300 v 300 players and no one is complaining about server tick rates or "too big scale". That game still has its problems but player count isint the core problem for vast mijority of them.
Utterly totally different
@@GetGoodGuy You are wrong, they are extremely similar. There is a reason a big portion of planetside playerbase are fans of battlefield too. Both games are large scale FPS pseudo-war simulators. If youve played Planetside 2 on PC you would know that a 32v32 battle is relatively medium sized. One of the main reasons why Planetside 2 isint dead 8 years later are those 80+v80+ battles you cant get in battlefield.
I think you really underestimate the difference in scale between 64 and 128 player battles. And you forget that a bigger scale does make the game significantly more fun if implemented right. There is a reason why across all relevant battlefields the 64 player mode is by far the most popular. Yes, its possible DICE might fuck it up somehow but the risk is, without question, worth the potential reward.
@@GetGoodGuy You should look up the BF3 100+ player mods. People already enjoy it. The only problem is that it's extremely laggy for some. Pretty sure if they're going 128 then there shouldn't be too many issues with lag.
The current DICE roster of level designers have yet to prove they can make even a single map better than those games before BF1, with current 64 player count. So I struggle to see how they will manage to produce amazing maps and on top of it make them still great for massive player counts. tbh all these people asking for more players should be ignored. if player count meant more fun why isn't planetside one of the most popular FPS game of all time? You want meatgrinder gameplay? go play that and tell all about how fun it is. I think 16 vs 16 rush in BFBC2 was the best battlefield ever had to offer, tight gunplay with spread if you didn't burst. great level design with many memorable maps. and finally a reason to play medic even though you were stuck with LMGs. Yes kids medics didn't always have assault rifles.
how about an anticheat system
Thanks!
I never got to play bf4 (I’m call of duty mainly but I’ve been trying out battlefield) and if it has the levolution I’ve seen in that I think it will be awesome and if it has the bf1 or 4 gunplay I think it’ll be really good and with a large amount of vehicles and weapons with good customisation it’ll be great
Levolution is the kind of thing that sounds cool but quickly grows old. And there are only really two maps where it changes Gameplay
@@stanalbatross8615 well that's a shame but with larger maps they might make it larger and more map changing and it'll still look awesome
b...bu...but...
I WANT 128 PLAYERS METRO DAMNIT
I've been streaming Battlefield daily if anyone is interested!
Subbed
It gets pretty hectic with 64 players 😅 can imagine 120 + players being a blood bath 😂
I will play BF6 only if BR mode is good. Other modes I just dont care about, I would be more interested in classic MP if it would be like Rainbow Six, Insurgency kind of tactical shooter. BF you want is old concept it have to be very very good made for even you to play it. This one gonna disappoint a lot of you.
Itse not like that! Just example think big fish schools... When there lot of fish/players... U are hiden moore better If u are there just whit your only friend.. Then u really die on sniper bullet 😂 not then when u have 100 friends
A school of 100 fish doesn't also have 100 predators hunting it at the same time in a set environment.
@@GetGoodGuy but but u have also guns... Like that enemy ☺️ Your team have 20 snipers or something.. same as enemy... Its 50/50.
Anyway i dont think there is no problem about that 128 player maps... I what it 🤗
And keep making good BF vids.
Greetings from Finland
Why is my man using a macro
I play on console bro
@@GetGoodGuy i was kidding😂
If you want to complain about getting shot from a million angles with no way of scanning them all why are you talking about bf5 when bf1 was far worse for that. On most of its open maps like fao fortress and Sinai you can be shot from almost anywhere by a sniper and there is nothing you can do about it. Awful map design compared with 5
I completely disagree. Each to their own.
Weapon design plays a huge role in that also, which I coveted in the video.
I legit don't think Dice has adequately balanced shit around the current player counts let alone doubling that player count or more. Sounds like a shit show waiting to happen if you ask me :/
I have returned tihi
It will fail just as cod warzone is and bfv did due to cheaters. Until snti cheat and much tougher actions against cheating is taken NO pvp game on pc is worth playing. No matter how good a hame is as l start to get killed by aim assisters, aimbotters and wall hackers l do t enjoy it. Ea and dice did nothing to resolve cheating in bfv so they will be rewarded by my buy button doing nothing just like their report cheater button which is only anti cheat they seem to have.
crossplay should only be between consoles.
More reasons to buy the Xbox One Series X
128 player servers just think of all the spawn kills 😂😂😂
I agree!
Imagine operation metro with 128 players lmao xd
I guess the benefit is you always know where the enemies are coming from. Also BF 3 already has 100+ player mods so you can witness that firsthand if you want. It's all over UA-cam
Dude where did this guy’s 600k subs go
@@LeftysRage i swear he used to have 600k subs
I can see why they might try this, it would get a lot of hype. I'm not convinced it makes the game better though, very easy to get people hiding all over the map or a 50 player zerg.
Imagine if it doesn't work and the casual players stop playing after a few weeks again.
50 player zerg.....lmao. that is gaming fun bottleneck......
Man, I cannot wait to run over the first hill, or turn around the first corner.. and witness 50sniper glimmers 😂
I mean, as long as it avoids BFV’s gameplay, I’ll give it a crack.
That's all I can see turning a corner and ten guys just chilling there
Imagine 60 LMG sweats when you turn a corner at a choke point
👁️👄👁️
@@johnoneill3654 or worse
Mmg campers
128 nice!!!😍......just please return to the large scale kill at any range battles, and not the call of Dookie small azz map crap in bf5 were everyone has to use the same gun to be competitive👍
+1
@Buxton
_>spawn_
_>400m away_
Exactly, maps are too smol
Imagine the kills certain bombing runs/straifing could rack up?
Bf1 weapons sucked ass. I always felt like I was shooting marshmallows at other players. It took way to long to kill players in that game. Bf1 has better maps and shitty weapons. Bf5 has better gun play and shittier maps.
BTK (bullets to kill) in BF1 is actually pretty similar in a lot of ways to BF5. The damage they’re doing is essentially what you’d imagine they should be.
What you’re experiencing is reduced hit rate. This is because the guns have specific mechanics which need to be adhered to. But the game doesn’t really provide a lot of that information. Hence why people think the guns are bad. They aren’t. Many players just don’t know how to use them correctly, through no fault of their own.
DICE should have had this info in the game but, alas, it’s not there really.
DICE should honestly consult you on so many aspects of the new game before they push it out. GGG has always been impartial and totally deserving of being made a DICE friend and they need someone that has the best interests of the game in mind and who won't kiss butts
most servers on pc are 64 players and 60Hz so that's not any different. Tbh they should've made larger modes from BF2 onwards. Map design will be key like you said.
Yeah I didn't realise until earlier that console players were getting screwed over for Hz compared to PC. Shame.
to be honest when BF went to console it screwed the game as the older consoles were gimped and couldnt cope with 64 players. if it wasnt for consoles BF would have become a much bigger war. glad they finally caught up
Yeah 128 players couldnt be a good thing if maps are not well designed. If players remember bf3 64 players on metro Express, players just gets stuck in 1 area most of the time. I thing 128 players only gonna be for battle royale
Guns in bf1 really don't have any kind of skill gap to them... My little sister who doesn't really play games can reach a ratio of 2 in bf1 while she can't seem to kill anyone on bf4 ... I think the skill gap of the gunplay is too casual to truly be enjoyable, kinda like in fortnite, but it might be what you look for in a game, to start without being punished like in bf4 for example (AEK-971 kobra stubby suppressor green laser tryhards i'm looking at you lmao).
Note that these thoughts come from a pc player... so console gameplay might be different ^^
I just can’t relate to that at all. I do play on console. But I never understand how the guns in BF1 can be called casual when they have such specific mechanics that need to be adhered to. BF5, BF4, BF3 etc by comparison are essentially point and click or just micro burst simulators.
But each to their own. Thanks for watching.
@@GetGoodGuy I think the difference happens in recoil management... I can't even count the number of times in bf1 not being able to hit someone at range consistently because the gun would jump right or left in a completely random way, while in older games my muscle memory would basically anticipate recoil and keep my gun on the enemy.
Also most guns have quite decent hipfire in the game, which makes them very usable in a way that doesn't require precise adjustments to the article's position (mp18 for example is just get the guy in your crosshair and shoot you'll get him at short to mid range without any struggles)
But idk, I'll be happy as long as the game is enjoyable :)
It felt like they dumbed down shooting with bf1 IMO with the over the top aim assist, but the lock on aim assist for snipers was pretty fun though!
I don't think that 128 players would be that much of an issue. Big maps will be full of health and engagements, small maps will be more crazy... And if you want to get good stats, just get in domination
Edit: about gunplay and recoil: get BFV gunplay, give weapons a fair amount of recoil an a little bit of randomness, and you're done
Odds are console players will be playing with PC players meaning, welcome to cheaterville. Imagine how many cheaters will be in a 128 player server. Good times....
You guys never learn.... They don't have the thech for that!
My hopes for the next battlefield,
1. Don't be a buggy mess and only come out when it's ready.
2. Have cross play, this will keep modes populated way better.
3. Run at least 60fps on console.
I still won't be preordering it and will watch various reviews before I purchase it.
Cross platform would be terrible idea for us console plebs. Mouse and keyboard are way more accurate with easy recoil control also PC HACKERS 🤮🤮🤮
@@chubbyturtle6268 I think cross play even between Consoles has to be standard going forward being honest it will give more longevity to games keep lobby's populated.
It always has to be opt in though, but in regards to cheaters thats down to the developers to make sure they cut that out the game. Look at bungie and respawn for instance who are taking tough actions on cheating.
I think 64 is already a good number, 128 is too much imo
Yeah
They're laughing Planetside
You just explained what war is...
Kind of simplistic way of looking at it when we’re discussing video game crafting.
It’s a video game...not war. With that logic this game should have 1,000+ players
I dont see sense in whining about my dislikes in game.... ill probably love the next bf like I do most of the others. Im excited
GGG: "A lot of things need to go well..."
DICE are chasing revenue, they want to be on Activision's level
I'm expecting a rushed copy of COD, or a release riddled with bugs for 6 months before we can actually enjoy the title
How can a studio fail to deliver on what they promised with BFV and just move onto another title? Reaching out into our pockets again after disappointment - greed. People say it was the right move, but what makes us think they won't do the same for BF6?
I'll wait for the discounts and sales, definitely not going to get it on release
It really frustrates me sometimes playing BFV knowing how much better it could have been. They owe us a DLC with the rest in it, I don't care when it comes, we all basically paid for half a game, we deserve the other
Rant over 😁
DICE can learn a lot about map design for huge player counts from Hell Let Loose. The maps are huge but provide plenty of cover. Also scaling up map designs similar to those from BF3, BF4, and BF1 wouldn't be a bad idea.
New modes can be hit or miss, I'd prefer if they just stuck to their guns and design maps around conquest and specifically rush. I think a great rush map also makes a good conquest map but it doesn't always work in reverse.
Something you didn't touch on is vehicle balance, and as much as people thought the vehicles in BF3/4 were OP, they at least would help you cap objectives because of their mechanics in those games. Timed re-arm instead of having to go to supply stations, no clunky enter/exit vehicle animation - you know, gameplay focused instead of aesthetics.
Another point related to functionality that needs to be addressed is the UI/UX. It's done nothing but regress from BF4, getting worse each game. Vehicle balance can really only be done by limiting what type and how many vehicles can be used on any given map. BF5's decision to allow players to choose any vehicle on any map breaks the game and allows shameless players to exploit the system for personal gain. Think taking a mobile AA into Rotterdam while the enemy team has a Tiger. The AA can't damage the Tiger so the heavy tank has a free open range while the AA hides from it and farms infantry. Players can't be trusted to balance the game themselves.
The gun play for BF5 is the only bright spot for the game - or at least it was until they borked the TTK. I honestly totally hate the BF1 gunplay. If they revert back to that I won't even buy the game.
Also, less important because it isn't gameplay related but it bothers me either way, DICE has to cut it out with the censorship. Niccaman is censored from BF chat. That is egregious and unacceptable. DICE is turning into the CCP. It needs to be like War Thunder, regarding chat censoring. You need a toggle, and in my opinion the toggle is only useful for UA-camrs/streamers so you can keep profanity out of your content. It's an M-rated game, so we're all adults here. Nanny DICE doesn't need to keep my fragile little eyes from seeing the word shit. Hopefully they've sacked the control freaks over there, censorship is unacceptable.
I agree if they are going to 128 players from the current 64 it needs to be done right and it will be hard to do. Think about it, most battlefield maps have an uneven number of flags ABC or ABCDE, etc where that center flag is the hot spot, imagine 100 people out of 128 at that flag in conquest and the other 28 trying to back cap the other team or dead waiting to respawn. I look at how blackout from blackops 4 had 100 players and warzone went to 150 and even that was a huge change, most streamers that had 1000 solo blackout wins only have dozens or maybe a couple of hundred warzone wins because sometimes you just get killed randomly when there are 33% more players. Imagine 100% more players and how random things would be. Not to mention the balancing aspect, balancing is almost impossible to do based on "skill" metrics because a guy with a high skill number might just be sniping most rounds and not really playing the objective and just going 10-0 and at the bottom of the leaderboard while you'll find some guys going 4-10 and at the top of the leaderboards because they are always playing with their squad but can't shoot his way out of a wet paper bag. I don't think dice can quantify the value of players like that yet and so balancing will likely stay crap in BF6. I like how BF1 did it, where you could switch to the other team if you knew what you were doing, bf5 you cannot switch teams and I've gotten separately from friends permanently because of this, not fun. IMO they'll probably ruin it just like with BF5 but since it'll be new all the streamers will tell us how great it is until the next "warzone" comes out for them to jump on.
Easy fix for maps, have one part be city/town and other parts be open
That's literally Provance conquest in BFV
@@jrod9570 which is a very good map btw
@@danielescribanoromero8414 it's my favorite conquest map because it gives infantry and vehicles their own areas to play in, unlike Al Sundan and Panzerstorm. But I would say have hard cover in the open areas for infantry too.
@@jrod9570 The best way to make a map is combining some sort of "close quarters" or "urban" with big, open ground for vehicles. That's the way
(Of course, there should be maps where tanks and planes get the upper hand, and others where infantry does the same)
Spotting needs to come back in a improved form, like only you can see the markers of the players you spotted... Also 32 player rush is where it's at, battlefield is at is finest when you and your squad can have an impact on the outcome of the round... Rush is just the best game mode imo... RIP BFBC2
I think the worst part of maps like Hamada, Al Sundan, and Panzerstorm is simply the system of getting into vehicles. It's way too complicated to get into vehicles now compared to BF4. Maps those size were fun on BF4 because you can spawn into vehicles at any moment in time if available. In BF5 you had to run and find a car to enter or you have to get lucky to get a tank/plane due to the shit system of getting them. Also spawn menu campers need to be punished against vehicle spawns if they're just camping there. Maybe a delay for them to get that helicopter they're camping for.
The reason there’s so much clutter on BFV maps, and this has been stated by devs, is because of the Lazerbeam weapons such as the .50 cal, mg42 and mg38. They made the gimmick to where they can only be used while laying down or setting up, but if you could lay down literally everywhere it would be stupid broken. So they made the terrain super bumpy and cluttered so, even when an enemy is in your view, you can’t just lay down and laser them because there may be clutter 1 inch clutter poking up from the ground that may block your sights if prone
This actually gets annoying a lot, as a support player, constantly being in perfect sight for a multi kill just to lay down and be blocked by a small rock that’s in my way
I actually still prefer sticking to 64players. Quantity isn't always the answer but quality. The game can be very chaotic as is and I'm pretty excited to try out 128 but I'm slightly also worried. Map design as you pointed out too
You make a lot of very good points here and aside from having twice the number of players, the abysmal server quality EA is known for could very well be the biggest weak point. A future announcement from EA/DICE - "Coming in BF6, 30Hz Servers!" 🤣
Amazing how accurate GGG was with his points in this video. Almost like he was calling out DICE before they messed up.
I couldn't have said it better myself 128 players if not balanced will be a flop 100% having motars helis and jets and camping mmg people every where it will be mental and I may play for an hour or so then just be like I hate this shit it sucks then play it after I cool down repeating cycle non stop that was bf5 cause it sucks but thats just me
Just wanna say on bf5 spotting: I was once in an m8 greyhound and was surrounded by 3 tanks, a half track and a whole lot of infrantry. All thought I was a wreck apart from a few infrantrymen who put dynamite on me, I had to take the damage but the tanks noticed so the game was up. It was hilarious.
Also i'm a little bit afraid how dice would manage the use of vehicles like tanks and planes since they are a huge headache in large game modes (if not check @getgoodguy suffering from them on streams). Make enemies more visible, it is a huge frustration being killed by someone who was just by your side the entire time. as mentioned in the video, i think dice would need to nail the gun-play experience for all the rest to be enjoyable.
I am not exited at all. The failure that bf v is ruined it all. They are done i haven't touch a bf game for god knows how long. They fucked up shitted on everyone, it is best the game and the studio 'die' in silence for the peasants they are.
larger modes can barely accomdate 64 players anything larger seems like a disaster. Game play looks like you are playing against bots lol
i think a lot of BF maps could handle 128 people anyway. they are so big and open a lot of the time anyway. but can we limit the snipers? haha.
I just wish that it’s not going to be a cross gen and take a hit on the graphics so i have to wait longer for some next gen hardware upgrades
3rd time lucky
BF3 was ahead of its time.
got back to bf 1. what mode is that your playing?
Nice video
Hi
I think 128 players will work because Dice has Vince Zampella work for them. He worked on call of duty modern warfare 2, he knows how to make a game.
Oh shit I'm hype. It may not be the game we want ,but it may be a good game.
Add a ultra realism mode with friendly fire, real bullet damage and women put back in their most successful role....stationed behind the sink (fancy kitchen units available as dlc to keep em happy, along with different patterned smocks)
If you want a realistic bullet damage and teamkilling, you should look Into Hell let loose. It's a 50v50 ww2 shooter with maps created based on real aerial pictures of that time. It's super immersive and fun
Such sexist remakes would get you jail time these days! 🙃🙃🙃
Play Planetside 2... you will understand that bf is a joke
press x to doubt
Presses x
Planetside LMFOA games ultimate trash
@@plugaru8443 x
128 combined arms games. Yeah, I'd like for those to be brought back.
Top 3 games of all time: Halo 3, BF1, Skyrim.
In that order. I dont want an eso/76 tragedy again, and I dont want a generic halo br, or mcc/h4/h5 all over again because 343 sucks. So I'm reliant on dice to provide this massive scale gametype, and fulfill my gaming needs. 128 player conquest would be incredible. I dont think the maps need to change that much either tbh. It'll just be more chaotic. As long as its next gen & pc only, and fully cross platform, it'll be fine.
Mcc is good now. It’s the best way to play Halo
BF2142 was their best game. shame so many people never played it. was set slightly in the future so some cool gadgets and stuff but really good gunplay too
big game modes mean open maps where infantry are ants.