@Stew360
Isnt it why portal was created in the first place ?
————————————————————-
Yes and no. In my opinion, the portal only works if we can pay to have servers that do not shut down. Both free and rental servers.
@SirBobdk
Well to be honest i despise players owned servers with lots of abuse etc..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9_1hwXeww
As you can see here ... I got banned left and right non stop because i took whatever vehicles the admin friend wanted or i kept killing them etc.. and this happen recently as well while going back to BF4 lol so yeah
Still i think portal has democratised the process and allow anyones to host a servers
can't believe no one posted this:
@X-Sunslayer-X wrote:
@Stew360but isn't that anecdotal evidence?
one badmin does not mean the entire RSP is a horrible idea....
and by what can be seen you either screwed with the owner in some way because i doubt he just randomly calls you out by name in global chat just to ban you....
Pff ... I got multiple bans in BF4 because of:
- not using the allowed loadout per the class that I picked to play with
- for picking the recon class
- for playing with the tank or heli and dominating
- for being a good player and having high KDA + Score
Me personally, I hate the 'custom' BF experience and I don't want to be part of this and maybe that's why I will not play Portal ever - because of previous bad experiences with BF4's custom servers / badmins.
@Stew360 wrote:
@SirBobdk Yes it could . Base game should remain as envisioned and as planned while portal modification tools could be made to accomodate 2042 specialists to be place in the 4 categories with legacy classes limitation in gadjet usage weapons etc..
But AllOutWarfare should remain the experience it was envisioned to be and expanded uppon ..
Portal was made for legacy stuff if they desperatly want it they can have it there and wont be to much work for dice ..
I totally agree with what Stew360 mentioned here, this is what I'm also discussing with the rest of the community via other BF official channels like Twitter & Discord.
The devs should stick with their vision and expand it - I'm speaking about 'All Out Warfare' mode. I don't want the base game (=AoW) to be altered by the community.
Portal game mode should be that 'custom' / legacy experience that the vocal part of the community wants.
@VME23
I don't want the base game (=AoW) to be altered by the community.
Portal game mode should be that 'custom' / legacy experience that the vocal part of the community wants.
————————————————————————-
The size of the player base determines the future of BF2042 and what Dice chooses to do and right now its seems going fast in the wrong direction. Something needs to be changed and I'm glad I'm not DICE.
I hope they solve it.
@X-Sunslayer-Xhttps://youtu.be/9Zu-Yku9I8U oh look ... isnt this man familiar to you ?
@X-Sunslayer-X wrote:
@VME23Pff ... I got multiple bans in BF4 because of:
- not using the allowed loadout per the class that I picked to play with
- for picking the recon class
- for playing with the tank or heli and dominating
- for being a good player and having high KDA + Score
"Me personally, I hate the 'custom' BF experience and I don't want to be part of this and maybe that's why I will not play Portal ever - because of previous bad experiences with BF4's custom servers / badmins"
but why go in a rented server with clear rule-set and then break said rules and not expect consequence? that is like going to someones house and behaving like an arse and then be suprised if oyu get kicked out.....
if i go and play BF4 i would either look for a server with a ruleset i can/will abide by or exactly what want.. do i want 24/7 TDM norsha-canals no questions asked? i can go find it
do i want a sweaty lobby of high skill players i can look for that...
but breaking a servers rules and then playing the victim card is somewhat strange to me....
There are no other choices (official DICE servers) left since the release of BF1, unfortunately.
What I find curious is that there are no 'high level player' servers in EU region and even if they exist, they are not populated.
Most of the lvl 140 players are joining 'Noob friendly' servers and most of these tryharders are also premade groups who are joining one side (team) - imagine how good the balancing is.
The custom / community servers are a joke right now. I understand their purpose but I prefer to move on and to enjoy what I've paid for - an official experience made by the devs not by the community - if it's not in in this game, then I'll switch to the next one and so on.
I'm not playing the victim, I enjoyed BF4 while it was still supported but I don't like the 'custom' experience - It's like comparing War3 skirmish with the first DOTA mod created in War3 engine - yes, they are built on the same engine, you had the same interface, same buttons, same gameplay at some degree but the experiences are totally different.
And to make myself clear - BF4 is dead to me since the devs dropped the support for official servers. The same thing will happen with BF1, BF5, BF2042 and any BF titles. You cannot convince me otherwise.
@X-Sunslayer-X
I have installed BF1 again and my favorite clan server was still active.
I even get to play with some of the same players. This is what BF is about and not this direction towards anonymous servers and anonymous players. Server browser and rental servers was just a better solution than this MM
@X-Sunslayer-X wrote:
@VME23i never disputed that but in both BF1 and BFV you will still find offical servers with no admin control whatsoever. same would apply to 2042 if there were a server browser. i don't understand the point then... like our esteemed guru said many times don't like it don't play it then...
please point to me how a server browser with an option to create rented servers that stay up as long as someone pays for them and the offical DICE servers like BF1 and BFV have in the same browser would make the experience worse for you? heck you can still press quickplay in the emnue if you find ti too much of a hassle to go to a serverbrowser.
but i see this is getting nowhere i guess in this game we all just loose to a degree
I didn't say that a server browser option (in any BF title) will make my experience worse. Same thing applies for any 'official' experience or ruleset hosted by a 3rd party - I have no objections. What I dislike is the custom / altered / modified version of the official ruleset and that's pretty much it.
If you're giving the options, tools and power to any admin - they will bend the rules / alter them by what he or a small group thinks the game works better - this is why you won't find any official experience in any custom server hosted by a 3rd party.
@X-Sunslayer-X wrote:
@VME23so basically since a few abused it now everyone must loose the option? why can't these two things co-exists next to eachother in 2042 for example. so you can see offical servers run by DICE trough their servers and rented servers with special rulesets (just like in BF1or BF4 while it was still supported) how is that not a win win for everyone and if someone abuses their power implement a report function or avoid those people...
My dude, who said that it shouldn't coexist one with each other? If I don't care about this option for AoW game mode that doesn't mean I'm against it. I don't care about it, it's pretty simple.
If tomorrow DICE would implement it, again, I wouldn't care.
What I do care is new content to be dropped as soon as possible - that should be DICE's main focus - of course, if they want to keep the current player base alive.
Prioritizing bringing back legacy features like scoreboard or server browser over new content won't keep anyone engaged into the current title.
From a Game Design standpoint, Specialists are not a good feature for this style of game where teamplay is essential. You actually have to look a lot closer than just weapons being linked to classes to understand why the system does not work. So here's how it works:
Specialists are a good game idea, but not for this game. Funny enough, it would be perfect for a Battle Royale mode where each player knows team work is essential to survival which strikes a great balance of providing more differentiation in terms of abilities for each team (This works where only your squad are team mates, not your squad and another 16 squads..)
The specialists provide incentives to play alone and allow you to customise your "soldier" for how YOU want to play. This is not bad design in itself, but when you integrate it into a team play focused environment, the rest of the game suffers. For example, a wingsuit or a grapple hook. It completely detaches people from using team work to actual 'team up' and work their way out of a tricky situation. It completely ruins the flow of gameplay.
The idea of being able to use a gun with any class is a good idea, because you can formulate your squad exactly how you want. That's actually all this game needed. We don't need this specialist nonsense to ruin it. I'm sure with a bit of creativity, we could also have a more diverse and extended set of gadgets. The development time spend working on a Specialist system could have been used here.
The Specialist system (and other systems and bad map design) also prohibits the following scenarios from being effective:
- Repairing vehicles is rather pointless because you can be attacked from any flank
- Helping out any team mate is now less likely because you can just escape or throw in a 'counter ability' to help yourself
- Laying mines is far less effective because there are so many routes to 1 location. Why throw mines down when I can run around with a Rocket Launcher and guarantee a hit? Also note that we only get 3 Mines max, where in previous titles, we could have 6 - and on smaller maps.
There are also other issues with the game including horrific map design and the lack of 'Flow'. Also, systems such as the "Field Upgrades" which were fantastic and rewarded everyone for not just being a good team player, but a good 'squad' player. There is also a complete lack of a score system which makes the game less fun.
I make games and I know what constitutes a good one. The amount of holes in 2042 is both glaring and chronic.
@LeMairyHuff wrote:The specialists provide incentives to play alone and allow you to customise your "soldier" for how YOU want to play. This is not bad design in itself, but when you integrate it into a team play focused environment, the rest of the game suffers. For example, a wingsuit or a grapple hook. It completely detaches people from using team work to actual 'team up' and work their way out of a tricky situation. It completely ruins the flow of gameplay.
The idea of being able to use a gun with any class is a good idea, because you can formulate your squad exactly how you want. That's actually all this game needed. We don't need this specialist nonsense to ruin it. I'm sure with a bit of creativity, we could also have a more diverse and extended set of gadgets. The development time spend working on a Specialist system could have been used here.
The Specialist system (and other systems and bad map design) also prohibits the following scenarios from being effective:
- Repairing vehicles is rather pointless because you can be attacked from any flank
- Helping out any team mate is now less likely because you can just escape or throw in a 'counter ability' to help yourself
- Laying mines is far less effective because there are so many routes to 1 location. Why throw mines down when I can run around with a Rocket Launcher and guarantee a hit? Also note that we only get 3 Mines max, where in previous titles, we could have 6 - and on smaller maps.
I make games and I know what constitutes a good one.
________________________________________________________
Who expects a Rainbow Six Siege, CS:GO, Overwatch or any MOBA type of teamplay into a Battlefield game?! Come on, let's be serious - BF never had this level of team play scaled at the entire friendly team (32 players or 64 players in BF2042). Battlefield was focused on the squad level of team play - 4, 5, 7 player squads. Battlefield never was a MilSim like some of you think it was in the past.
Anyway, speaking about wingsuits and grappling hooks - I can give you a ton of examples how Sundance and/or Mackay can carry an entire team by defending a single capture point. The meta with Sundance or Mackay is pretty simple - to have insertion beacon equipped, to solo rush to the capture point, deploy the beacon somewhere where other specialist cannot reach and the rest of the squad to use it for an almost infinite no. of respawns. After that point is captured, let other squads from your team to spawn on that point and they should do the same thing - place insertion beacons on some unreachable areas. How is this not considered team play, where I find this tactic to be one of the most offensive one from a gameplay perspective?!
And not to mention how Sundance can very easily get into the backline in any flanking position, waiting for the squad to deploy on her and use that advantage to destroy the enemy team?!
Saying that Sundance or Mackay doesn't add any value to the team play means you don't have imagination or experience of playing with these two specialists.
Your opinion regarding the unlocked loadout and specialist system confuses me. So you think that unlocking the weapons for all specialists / classes it's a good idea but you think the specialist system is a bad idea?! That's the reason why the vocal part of this community is raging so hard - because there isn't the legacy class system in place with a locked out loadout per each class.
Repairing vehicles is rather pointless because you can be attacked from any flank
Lol. There's no difference between BF2042 and other BF titles when it's about repairing vehicles. The vehicle driver needs to be smart enough to know when he can push a point and when to keep distance from the enemy team.
Helping out any team mate is now less likely because you can just escape or throw in a 'counter ability' to help yourself
Let me give you a hint, if you're trying to revive a team mate - use smoke first. It's the same 'tactic' that was used by any good medics in past BF tittles.
Laying mines is far less effective because there are so many routes to 1 location.
Lay the mines on capture points, near the flags - that's where the majority of vehicle drivers will stop to capture a point. I've killed a dozen of tanks, bolts, LATV4, hovercrafts by using this 'great' tactic. There's no difference between BF2042 maps and other ones from past BF titles in terms of what path a vehicle can take to reach a specific capture point - BF maps are not designed like in a MOBA game where you have 3 main lanes and some additional paths through a jungle where everyone can gank.
In BF5 you had 2 x mines with additional one picked from a Ammo station, in BF1 you had 3 x mines and in BF4 with the right specialization you had 6 x mines where only 3 could be deployed once - practically 2 charges of 3 mines per charge.
My opinion, as a gamer - a person who's actually playing video games - not as a game dev, is you should start playing more, to have a better understanding about what constitutes a good game (not talking about BF2042) and a bad one. Don't fall into the same trap like how DICE did with BF2042.
