BF4 Bullshit

[Gwynzer]

arma can easily be modded and made to fit our game mode needs. I doubt it would be widely accepted by the whole of the community. the engine doesn't allow simple things like jumping, and the mechanics to get onto rocks/boxes often leaves you glitched into the rock/box with no way out other than to respawn. Not to mention that unless you tell the game to do it, the engine won't recognize if you have more than 2 cores or 4 GB of RAM.

Not to say we couldn't make it work, because we could definitely make it work. It would just be a large change from BF and community work would have to be done to make that change.

We definately have peeople in the community here would could get something passable going with existing ARMA assets within a pretty short time frame. Hell, thinking about what I know about ARMA2, we could quite possibly do a huge amount of it server side.

[Hitman47]

I am happy to see that there is such an interest in Arma, imo Arma would suit our needs much better than BF3 or BF4 as it allows for actual strategy, especially with this 60 MB mod that we play here at GC: viewtopic.php?f=343&t=23631 This mod basically turns arma into a better Battlefield, with 3 modes search and destroy, attack and defend, attack and secure (<- this mode is a linear conquest mode, cap flag A to be able to cap flag B). We wouldn't have to mod anything ourselves or make lots of rules with it as the mod itself controls everything, we would just have to play it.

So anybody who is interested in arma I would suggest try it out yourself and join us when you see us playing it on TS.

We totally hijacked your thread Necro, so sorry!

Nice video, it's magic!

[Jokerle]

Arma III is nice and tactical and fun and , but it is also arma: It is slow, difficult to learn, not newbie friendly.
I personally dont mind that much, but many will do.

It is sad that DICE needs to spent so much time bug fixing and does not have time for balancing patches...

[Gwynzer]

Arma III *can* be slow, difficult to learn and not newbie friendly. With some light work, this doesn't have to be the case. A class system could be brought in similar to BF4, though the UI for dealing with them won't be as nice, but we can make it not-horrible. Inventory is in many ways the most awkward thing about ARMA3, but we could also probably work out ways to get around that too.

We *can* get ARMA simplified down to a level which requires movement and shoot button. For most things in ARMA that's actually all you ahve to do, but you have all these other options in your face that you don't really need. As for slow paced, the paintball mod for ARMA2 is anything but slowpaced. It just happens that most people who get into the ARMA series like the slow paced fights, but the engine itself doesn't prohibit fast paced battles either.

[Hitman47]

The TacBF mod for arma III already has a kit selection like Battlefield, so like I said we wouldn't have to mod anything ourselves. So far everybody at GC who tried the mod liked it and came back for more.

Arma III itself, without the TacBF mod is a different story.

In this thread people are talking about arma II, arma III, arma III:TacBF and arma as a genre. So there is a lot of very general statements which aren't necessarily true to any of the listed above. What I'm trying to say is: to the people interested in trying out arma III:TacBF, don't take anybody's word for it, not even mine, try it and see for yourself.

[Gonzo]

I don't even think Arma is that hard to get into, at least not the movement. Arma 3 was my first title in the series since I played maybe 10 hours of Operation Flashpoint when that came out and Flummi was able to show me the ropes of Arma in maybe 20 minutes. Getting rid of the run-and-gun mentality took a bit longer, but that too is gonna vanish after the third time you get shot without seeing anyone.

I don't have any hopes of us as a community changing games, but if everyone that showed interest in Arma in this thread were to play together, we could have tons of fun I think.

[Hgx]

I don't have any hopes of us as a community changing games, but if everyone that showed interest in Arma in this thread were to play together, we could have tons of fun I think.

lel

[Necromancer]

changing games is simple.
you just announce that the next campaign will be played in <game name here>.


just like it was with BF3->BF4.
and just like it some souls will be lost due to the transition but some new ones will be found due to the same exact reason.

[Necromancer]

changing games is simple.
you just announce that the next campaign will be played in <game name here>.


just like it was with BF3->BF4.
and just like it some souls will be lost due to the transition but some new ones will be found due to the same exact reason.

theres nothing more to it.
as long as you think 'it'll never happen', it will never happen.

[Wi1D_K4rD]

I guess I just don't see the hate for BF4. Other than netcode, which was an issue in BF3 as well maybe not as bad by the end but still there due to the lameness that is client side hit detection, I honestly feel its more balanced than BF3 ever was.

When I play pub or otherwise I actually see more than just assaults with M16s running around. Recon is playable now for those who aren't #yoloswag 360 noscope. LMGs seem more reliable rather than magically missing 75% of the time. I still actually see more of a variety among the weapons being used. Regardless of which weapon is used once I get the feel for it it's just as deadly as the next gun, except maybe the ACE weapons but even then just barely.

The maps actually feel right for a battlefield game with lots of spread out objectives instead of "Hey guys we made this huge map but we are only going to utilize barely 50% of it by putting all the flags in the middle really close together so that the console kiddies don't have to run as far." *cough*Firestorm*cough*

It's true I am a vehicle whore most of the time but vehicles aren't nearly the OP devastating god machines they were in BF3. In my opinion that is a very good thing. Gives infantry a fighting chance where before short of the entire squad switching to engineer, which no one ever initially was cause why would you when you had the easy mode M16, you had to hope friendly armour was nearby. The way it is now i think it really emphasizes the need for a combined arms force. As the only time you can really stay up against competent players is to have good infantry support.

Basically what I am saying is... if we were to go back to BF3 I'm personally not coming with you guys. I know.. my not being there would be devastating to so many of you jk. The only real issues seem to be netcode which for me at least has been getting better over time. Just like BF3 did. Not excusing DICE for releasing a game with the same launch problems as the previous iteration but they should fix it in time so whatever. Hopefully all the bad rep will convince them when they release BF5 to actually make sure they don't repeat the mistake again.

On a side note I'm curious what some people's definition of balance is cause I've heard several times that BF3 was more "balanced." How a game where if you weren't a specific class using a specific weapon with a specific loadout you were at a disadvantage is balanced is beyond me. Though the very people I usually hear it from were the biggest proponents of said class/weapon loadout.

As far as ARMA III... I'd probably like it with a large organized group but I can't justify buying it just for this. I got ARMA II and found it incredibly boring to play not to mention the overly awkward controls. I only played Day Z for any amount of real time and quit that once we had our guns taken away but still had food so the griefers would kill you in spawn and claim it was for their survival cause they needed your food. I just can't justify spending 60 on a game that will just sit in my steam library.

[Róka]

I'm agreeing with wi1dk4rd here.
If anything, we could have two campaigns running: one in battlefield and another in arma. Or the guys who run most of the arma operations nowadays just form your own campaign and get people into playing it just like the BF campaign.
The thread is basically already up: http://global-conflict.org/viewtopic.php?f=343&t=23631

[Necromancer]

On a side note I'm curious what some people's definition of balance is cause I've heard several times that BF3 was more "balanced."

shitty netcode where some foes are invincible and others insta-kill you ARE the issues of the game as 95% of the game is infantry play. nerfing revive nerfed the team-play heavily. you want to prevent revive trains? if the guy that gets killed shortly after being revived dies forever -> addressing exactly that. no need to further nerf it by low amount of health and short revive window. bodies that can't be revived or flicker/disappear ... wtf..
hardly being revived anymore. and thats maybe the most important and significant feature of team play.
next
choppers
next
active protection is blocking projectiles based on its mood. sometimes it blocks incoming TVs, sometimes it doesnt.
sometime it blocks everything but lets the TOW pass right trough. just BS. MBT LAW has a free pass too.
balance you say? ok, so the weapons are more balanced now, but where BF3 only gave vehicles to a specific team (for example caspian A/antenna flag would only spawn a tank for the US) BF4 spawns armor regardless. strong team gets more vehicles and more commander assets to baserape the weak team. now its even more one-sided then before, but at least we get to be killed by a variety of weapons and armor while we are at it! right?!
so whats more important for a good balanced round? balanced assets, or the balance between weapons in the same class? and thats true only for infantry as it seems for the vehicles its mostly the same loadout for everyone.
Quake, ET, CS? all the great shooters had one single loadout per class (and mostly the same weapon across classes as well) and mostly one dominating class, and there were little complaints. but when you have 10 guns and everyone using the same one suddenly that what breaks the game?! probably not.
next
the FOV and depth issue forces you to either constantly get insta-killed from the sides and back, or get killed because you have a disadvantage when aiming to due to high FOV. sh!t either way. and on top of that the damage feedback and the almost insta-kills allows no time for response. got shot? you're already dead. in BF3 you had time to react. BF4 insta-kills. thats the worst. skill is where the more skilled player wins the fight, not the one that (the server weirdly decided) pressed the fire button first.
Skill? HOW CAN YOU GET BETTER IN A GAME LIKE THIS? only by buying a house closer to the server maybe.

i don't mind the small (and likely easy fixable bugs) like getting stuck in the revive screen, being shot up into the air or into a wall spontaneously, driving a jeep and hitting the tiniest stake killing everyone, invisible walls blocking bullets or solid walls that can be shot through, incendiary grenades that burn through walls, useless attack choppers, off axis crosshair for the RU tank, animation problems like players shooting you while reloading, or taking damage from players not shooting you (or so it appears), jumping over obstacles takes 10 attempts or doesn't work at all and much more. with these i can live with until its gets fixed, if ever. but there are f* up core mechanics that just break game. its not fun to play. BF3 had bugs, but not core mechanics bugs as severe as those. yes, tank could take a back shot from the front. it was frustrating, but you could play more carefully and not speed up and reduce the effect. its still totally broken, i agree, but thats not nearly as game breaking and frustrating as being insta-killed or bullshit-killed over and over again with nothing to do about it. no way to reduce that BS.

ground vehicles suffer the least in BF4. if you only drive vehicles then maybe thats why you don't notice all the GAME BREAKING BUGS AND THE FRUSTRATION they cause. but don't forget that 95% of the players are not driving vehicles because armored kill DLC wan't released yet and only few vehicles are available per map.

hope i answered some of your questions.

[Bock]

BF4 brought quite a few nice concepts: 5 man squads, the new perk system, new gadgets and all-kit carbines to make other classes more appealing, multiple jet types on a single map etc... but most of these concepts were poorly executed, and many other things were introduced that I think have no business in a game of skill and tactics, such as AR missiles, the UCAV, and the MBT LAW/staff shell in their current state. Infantry class balance and gun balance aren't that important to me. Vehicle and map balance are, though. Currently, vehicle vs infantry and vehicle vs vehicle is totally out of balance. Even if they were capable of tweaking game mechanics, countermeasures, reload times, and damage outputs to create a balanced game, it would take a year for them to get it right. And that's a very big if. Plus, the current implementation of the commander mode and vehicle spawns just gives the stronger team more goodies to pwn the weaker team with.

But balance isn't even the biggest problem right now. Even if we lived in some magic world where BF4 was well-balanced, it still fails to execute the core gameplay mechanics that make an FPS game an FPS game. The hit-boxes don't line up with the player models. The player models don't line up with where the server says they are. The server only updates the client at 10 Hz. How can a developer think that 10 Hz is an acceptable tick rate, when even the least picky players don't like playing with less than 30 fps? Until the "netcode" and basic movement, gun mechanics, and hit detection are fixed, this game will really only be fun to me when I'm rolling with a squad of friends derping around or pooping on Xmas noobs. I like playing Battlefield in a serious way. That's why I play at GC. But in BF4, there are just so many instances where you die when you've done nothing wrong, the game mechanics just don't work, that it isn't fun to take seriously.

Oh and by the way, the "fixes" they've done to certain elements of the netcode have just been hacks to make the problems less noticeable. To make you notice dying behind cover less, they changed the height of the camera when crouched. To reduce the number of "trades" you experience, they changed the time window that a bullet can cause damage.

[o1oo1]

OMG im famous

[InsanityRocks]

...But in BF4, there are just so many instances where you die when you've done nothing wrong, the game mechanics just don't work, that it isn't fun to take seriously.

...and here I thought my skill level hasn't improved since BF3... because I die All The Time.

I should go back and play some BF3.