Battlefield 1 - Charging Tanks on Horses Since 1914

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
If you are one of the players (and there are a lot of them) who sits on a rock ten miles away from any objective in operations, finishes 15-2 and out of the top 20 in overall points than you are absolutely worthless compared with someone running medic who is constantly on the objective, finishes 6-20, helps cap a million flags, revives teammates, generally keeps his team pushing forward and finishes in the top 5 in overall score. Not calling you out specifically since you said you need to be near the objective but saying "kills are the single most important thing in any game mode" seems to ignore those types of players who spend their entire operations careers racking up amazing K-D's by sniping and have never went near an objective.

Kills away from the objective as an attacker on operations mean next to nothing as the defenders have no ticket count. I love when I'm on the objective in operations and some guy who is 15-0 as an attacker snipes me from 20 miles away. Oh - cool, I'll just respawn on my squadmate who is in the same vicinity as where I just was and be back on the objective in 5 seconds, killing all your teammates who are actually trying to cap the objective. Good job, enjoy your K-D and your loss.

Bingo! Couldn't have said it any better.

I often have a sub 1 KDR (overall I am barely above 1... I want to say like 1.1) but I am ALWAYS top half of my team in points. Same thing. I see guys at the bottom on my team who are 20-4 and I am 6-10 but have twice as many points.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
I was going to say I don't think releasing a "Revolution" (or Game of the Year style) edition a year after initial release for "full AAA" price is really that uncommon, but the fact that they are doing it before the DLC is out is stupid.


Also, season passes are stupid. Don't buy DLC content before you know what you are getting....unless maybe it's a CD Projekt Red game. Some games have excellent DLC, but there are far more turds than gems.



Also, Titanfall 2 is great.
Agree. Basically buying season passes / DLC just tells developers you don't care if they don't release the game 100% of the way it's planned, you will pay more to get the "complete" game.

I remember back in the day when a game would release, there were no plans for DLC or expansions. If a game was popular, dev teams would come back, probably take another year or so and put together something truly fantastic and a REAL expansion. I remember when the Diablo II expansion with Baal was announced then came out. That was epic! Worth the money too.

Games like PvZ: Garden Warfare (the first one), Overwatch and Rocket League that constantly update, add maps, characters... etc. for free are amazing. That is how games should be.

Planned DLC should not be able to charge people for. I don't know how you could regulate that.
 

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,592
609
Martinaise, Revachol
EA/Origin Access added this at the same time as Titanfall 2 and I made the mistake of picking this instead of Titanfall. It's not bad per se, but it's not all that fun, and it really feels like a WW2 Battlefield with a WW1 skin on it. I get the need for fun and fast gameplay, but it just never felt right.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
Something about this game is really off. It just doesn't reward skill the way previous titles did. The decision to remove things like tap firing along with the awkward TTK of the weapons, plus questionable map design once again, makes for a game that's not super fun.

It's still got that Battlefield chaos, like hunkering down with your squad and having a desperate fight for a flag, but those moments are few and far between.

Shame the game got dicked over by premium once again, this one really needed a solid community.
 
Sep 19, 2008
372,092
23,948
Something about this game is really off. It just doesn't reward skill the way previous titles did. The decision to remove things like tap firing along with the awkward TTK of the weapons, plus questionable map design once again, makes for a game that's not super fun.

It's still got that Battlefield chaos, like hunkering down with your squad and having a desperate fight for a flag, but those moments are few and far between.

Shame the game got dicked over by premium once again, this one really needed a solid community.

Nothing's off gameplay wise. You get what is expected of in the era. Inaccurate guns with high recoil. It's a good solid game. The only issue is servers constantly empty out. For instance I don't think anyone is playing TSNP dedicated servers anymore because ITNOTT (the new Russian expansion) is out. That's one thing I WILL agree with you about. Premium messed things up

Re: Map design...no one is complaining about it in TSNP as well as Nivelle Nights and Prise de Tahure. In fact the map design is being commended.
 

Commander Clueless

Hiya, hiya. Pleased to meetcha.
Sep 10, 2008
15,237
2,922
You get what is expected of in the era. Inaccurate guns with high recoil.

Unless this has changed drastically since I played (which is entirely possible...there have been two expansions after all), this is absolutely not the case. In fact, it's the opposite of what I remember....of course what I remember most is losing constantly as half my team sat on cliffs with sniper rifles. :laugh:

If they've made it more period appropriate, good on them.



I personally have to agree with XX on this one. This game feels...off, somehow, when compared to previous Battlefield titles. Also, I don't find it fun like those others.

And yeah, premium is bull.
 
Last edited:

SolidSnakeUS

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 13, 2009
48,847
12,317
Baldwinsville, NY
BF1 has always felt off from day 1. The shooting and the just the overall feel of the game feels off. I'd rather play BF4 10 times out of 10 over BF1.
 
Sep 19, 2008
372,092
23,948
Unless this has changed drastically since I played (which is entirely possible...there have been two expansions after all), this is absolutely not the case. In fact, it's the opposite of what I remember....of course what I remember most is losing constantly as half my team sat on cliffs with sniper rifles. :laugh:

If they've made it more period appropriate, good on them.



I personally have to agree with XX on this one. This game feels...off, somehow, when compared to previous Battlefield titles. Also, I don't find it fun like those others.

And yeah, premium is bull.

Play tsnp.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
EA/Origin Access added this at the same time as Titanfall 2 and I made the mistake of picking this instead of Titanfall. It's not bad per se, but it's not all that fun, and it really feels like a WW2 Battlefield with a WW1 skin on it. I get the need for fun and fast gameplay, but it just never felt right.

I am just being nit-picky but Titanfall 2 came out on Origin access a few days ahead of BF1.

Why did you have to pick if you have OA? You can play both for free.
 

Chaels Arms

Formerly Lias Andersson
Aug 26, 2010
7,297
6,875
New York City
I got roped into playing Conquest the past couple of days since my friends wanted to switch up away from Operations. I will say that some of the Conquest maps seemed to be absolutely terribly designed. Far too large. I felt like I spent more time transitioning from point to point than actually fighting. Whenever I decided to hunker down and defend a point half the time I would sit there for 5-10 minutes before another enemy showed up.

It seems like the maps encourage "trading" points constantly where the teams end up just circling each other as opposed to the map design in BF4 where you generally had two points closer to each spawn and a central point (usually "C") which was the swing point where a lot of action was focused. I also think that placing seven capture points on a conquest map is generally a bad idea.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
I got roped into playing Conquest the past couple of days since my friends wanted to switch up away from Operations. I will say that some of the Conquest maps seemed to be absolutely terribly designed. Far too large. I felt like I spent more time transitioning from point to point than actually fighting. Whenever I decided to hunker down and defend a point half the time I would sit there for 5-10 minutes before another enemy showed up.

It seems like the maps encourage "trading" points constantly where the teams end up just circling each other as opposed to the map design in BF4 where you generally had two points closer to each spawn and a central point (usually "C") which was the swing point where a lot of action was focused. I also think that placing seven capture points on a conquest map is generally a bad idea.
I love conquest and the size of the maps. The game really rewards you for not just getting kills - something I like because it deters people from being snipers. There is nothing worse than seeing Sn1per69420 on your team just sit at spawn and try to pick people off and do nothing for the objectives.

Though it's great when guys like that are on the other team.

The maps / HUD show you what's being attacked and what isn't. If you were hunkered down defending for 5-10 mins without seeing anybody, no offense but I don't think you were playing the game as intended. There are always battles going on and part of the gameplay is how to get to that battle and what weapon / vehicle you bring to it, from what direction will you come... etc. I can't tell you how many times I have to make a strategic decision to either spawn on my squad-mates that are about to cap a point or spawn at base, grab a horse and ride to an open point that has very little enemies.

The game isn't run and gun and I think that's what some people expect. Battlefield has always had a ton more strategy involved with the battles.
 

Chaels Arms

Formerly Lias Andersson
Aug 26, 2010
7,297
6,875
New York City
I love conquest and the size of the maps. The game really rewards you for not just getting kills - something I like because it deters people from being snipers. There is nothing worse than seeing Sn1per69420 on your team just sit at spawn and try to pick people off and do nothing for the objectives.

Though it's great when guys like that are on the other team.

The maps / HUD show you what's being attacked and what isn't. If you were hunkered down defending for 5-10 mins without seeing anybody, no offense but I don't think you were playing the game as intended. There are always battles going on and part of the gameplay is how to get to that battle and what weapon / vehicle you bring to it, from what direction will you come... etc. I can't tell you how many times I have to make a strategic decision to either spawn on my squad-mates that are about to cap a point or spawn at base, grab a horse and ride to an open point that has very little enemies.

The game isn't run and gun and I think that's what some people expect. Battlefield has always had a ton more strategy involved with the battles.

I understand exactly what your saying and what the maps and HUD do. My point is that in BF4 you were encouraged to occasionally stay and defend points with your team instead of just running from point to point constantly. In the matches I played it was literally "cap a, run to b, cap b, run to c, cap c, run to d, cap d (OH NO WE'RE LOSING A - screw it), run to e, (OH NO WE'RE LOSING B, screw it), run to f, cap f, start from a, go around circle again. That's not strategy, that's point trading. I still finished in the top 2 in the server almost every single map but that's not enjoyable to me. Yeah, sure, once in a while I'll grab a horse and loop around to the furthest flag and cap it but all that does is result in the map turning where everyone on my team now spawns on that point and the circling gets reversed in the other direction.

Maybe people like the constant running from point to point and battling scattered groups of enemies. I just prefer BF4's style of having the initial points very close to spawn (so that flank capping actually requires more than one guy on a horse and you can easily swat away lone wolves trying to stealth cap your points) and having the majority of players attempting to sway the game at the middle C point. It's more fun to me having that middle point constantly changing hands with 75-80% of the server concentrated there. The BF1 maps spread everybody out more. It's just not my preference for Conquest.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
I understand exactly what your saying and what the maps and HUD do. My point is that in BF4 you were encouraged to occasionally stay and defend points with your team instead of just running from point to point constantly. In the matches I played it was literally "cap a, run to b, cap b, run to c, cap c, run to d, cap d (OH NO WE'RE LOSING A - screw it), run to e, (OH NO WE'RE LOSING B, screw it), run to f, cap f, start from a, go around circle again. That's not strategy, that's point trading. I still finished in the top 2 in the server almost every single map but that's not enjoyable to me. Yeah, sure, once in a while I'll grab a horse and loop around to the furthest flag and cap it but all that does is result in the map turning where everyone on my team now spawns on that point and the circling gets reversed in the other direction.

Maybe people like the constant running from point to point and battling scattered groups of enemies. I just prefer BF4's style of having the initial points very close to spawn (so that flank capping actually requires more than one guy on a horse and you can easily swat away lone wolves trying to stealth cap your points) and having the majority of players attempting to sway the game at the middle C point. It's more fun to me having that middle point constantly changing hands with 75-80% of the server concentrated there. The BF1 maps spread everybody out more. It's just not my preference for Conquest.
I understand that's how it feels and I don't disagree. But you get into games where you are losing by a ton of tickets then you get either the huge boat / blimp or train and the tides can change. I get it, where it's not for everyone but each battle definitely plays out differently. Especially the maps. Theres that one in the forest where there are no vehicles except for the train the losing team may get.

But the very open ones in fields and the desert its pretty close to how you describe it if the other team is attentive enough to actually attack points that don't have many baddies. You will get into ones where the middle one is the focus point too. I guess its a good thing there are many game types too. I personally am more of a Rush fan.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
I love conquest and the size of the maps. The game really rewards you for not just getting kills - something I like because it deters people from being snipers. There is nothing worse than seeing Sn1per69420 on your team just sit at spawn and try to pick people off and do nothing for the objectives.

What game are you playing? Recon heroes are as bad as they've ever been. Play Suez sometime.

The maps / HUD show you what's being attacked and what isn't. If you were hunkered down defending for 5-10 mins without seeing anybody, no offense but I don't think you were playing the game as intended. There are always battles going on and part of the gameplay is how to get to that battle and what weapon / vehicle you bring to it, from what direction will you come... etc. I can't tell you how many times I have to make a strategic decision to either spawn on my squad-mates that are about to cap a point or spawn at base, grab a horse and ride to an open point that has very little enemies.

Traversing the awfully designed and paced maps generally involves either going down an alley of death or being in the complete open, a feast for the aforementioned snipers or the various OP vehicles in the game. DICE left places in maps like the idiotic 'Dune Outpost' on Sinai Desert, despite it playing like absolute **** in the beta, because they either don't understand how to make quality conquest maps anymore or they don't care because it's pretty.

The game isn't run and gun and I think that's what some people expect. Battlefield has always had a ton more strategy involved with the battles.

This is the most run and gun that BF1 has ever been, unfortunately. Because of the low ammo count and high TTK of most weapons, along with poor accuracy, bum rushing is the name of the game. It's very hard to hold ground due to explosives spam, spam from vehicles, and the inability to down multiple opponents reliably. They should have made guns more lethal, more oriented towards rewarding skill (tap firing LMGs, for example), and turned up the various sim aspects like suppression.

Instead, we got this really bad feeling arcadey-ass game with a thin veneer of WW1 slapped on it. For every sin of BF4 fixed, they managed to create two more. BF1 has the worst maps of any Battlefield title and the worst gun balance as well, especially when you consider the interplay between classes. You either take an automatico to the face, have to run through nonstop grenade spam, or you get picked off by a sniper running between flags.

In BF3, you can see on maps that a lot of times every piece of cover was carefully placed in accordance with a grand plan. The first stage on rush Metro is actually laid out like a football field, with cover every ten yards, including some really dominant places for defenders and attackers. The same love and care was never applied to BF1 and that's why it will be dropped with a quickness when the next Battlefield title comes out. Premium map shenanigans sealed its fate.

BF1 failed to capture my Battlefield heart, as someone that has been playing since 1942 first came out on PC. I say that as someone who was thirsty as hell for a game set in an older time period as well. At least the game sold well for EA.
 

Chaels Arms

Formerly Lias Andersson
Aug 26, 2010
7,297
6,875
New York City
I understand that's how it feels and I don't disagree. But you get into games where you are losing by a ton of tickets then you get either the huge boat / blimp or train and the tides can change. I get it, where it's not for everyone but each battle definitely plays out differently. Especially the maps. Theres that one in the forest where there are no vehicles except for the train the losing team may get.

But the very open ones in fields and the desert its pretty close to how you describe it if the other team is attentive enough to actually attack points that don't have many baddies. You will get into ones where the middle one is the focus point too. I guess its a good thing there are many game types too. I personally am more of a Rush fan.

Yeah, I mean just to clarify... take Zavod for Conquest large in BF4, that's what I consider the ideal conquest map design. Symmetrical with two points close to one team's spawn and a central "C" point. Having the first two points close to spawn encourages dead players to respawn and take down anyone trying to flank cap those two points before proceeding to the action in the center. That makes flanking an actual high risk/high reward approach as opposed to BF1 where I can loop around the map on a horse and solo cap the furthest point without any opposition most of the time. I don't like that. I mean, just look at a diagram of Sinai Desert compared with Zavod or even Shanghai on BF4. It's chaos.

I have over 3 days on the game so I'm getting value out of it just because I'm a Battlefield loyalist but I do hope they return to the simpler, symmetrical maps of the previous games.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
What game are you playing? Recon heroes are as bad as they've ever been. Play Suez sometime.

Traversing the awfully designed and paced maps generally involves either going down an alley of death or being in the complete open, a feast for the aforementioned snipers or the various OP vehicles in the game. DICE left places in maps like the idiotic 'Dune Outpost' on Sinai Desert, despite it playing like absolute **** in the beta, because they either don't understand how to make quality conquest maps anymore or they don't care because it's pretty.

This is the most run and gun that BF1 has ever been, unfortunately. Because of the low ammo count and high TTK of most weapons, along with poor accuracy, bum rushing is the name of the game. It's very hard to hold ground due to explosives spam, spam from vehicles, and the inability to down multiple opponents reliably. They should have made guns more lethal, more oriented towards rewarding skill (tap firing LMGs, for example), and turned up the various sim aspects like suppression.

Instead, we got this really bad feeling arcadey-ass game with a thin veneer of WW1 slapped on it. For every sin of BF4 fixed, they managed to create two more. BF1 has the worst maps of any Battlefield title and the worst gun balance as well, especially when you consider the interplay between classes. You either take an automatico to the face, have to run through nonstop grenade spam, or you get picked off by a sniper running between flags.

In BF3, you can see on maps that a lot of times every piece of cover was carefully placed in accordance with a grand plan. The first stage on rush Metro is actually laid out like a football field, with cover every ten yards, including some really dominant places for defenders and attackers. The same love and care was never applied to BF1 and that's why it will be dropped with a quickness when the next Battlefield title comes out. Premium map shenanigans sealed its fate.

BF1 failed to capture my Battlefield heart, as someone that has been playing since 1942 first came out on PC. I say that as someone who was thirsty as hell for a game set in an older time period as well. At least the game sold well for EA.

I disagree with a lot of what you say. So I will just say, we can each have our own opinion and neither of us are wrong.

Yeah, I mean just to clarify... take Zavod for Conquest large in BF4, that's what I consider the ideal conquest map design. Symmetrical with two points close to one team's spawn and a central "C" point. Having the first two points close to spawn encourages dead players to respawn and take down anyone trying to flank cap those two points before proceeding to the action in the center. That makes flanking an actual high risk/high reward approach as opposed to BF1 where I can loop around the map on a horse and solo cap the furthest point without any opposition most of the time. I don't like that. I mean, just look at a diagram of Sinai Desert compared with Zavod or even Shanghai on BF4. It's chaos.

I have over 3 days on the game so I'm getting value out of it just because I'm a Battlefield loyalist but I do hope they return to the simpler, symmetrical maps of the previous games.
It was so hard to get those first points though. Putting points spread out far or even not putting A&D not super close to the other teams base makes it more meaningful to capture because the enemy has a better chance at capping.

Answer honestly, how many times can you ride a horse around and solo-cap points? In the beginning, yeah maybe you can get a couple points in your first life but after that, I have never seen anyone able to do that more than once or maybe twice right off the bat. So for about the first maybe 20-50 tickets you move pretty freely but once people start dying and get to pick their spawn points, Conquest gets a lot more interesting.
 

Chaels Arms

Formerly Lias Andersson
Aug 26, 2010
7,297
6,875
New York City
It was so hard to get those first points though. Putting points spread out far or even not putting A&D not super close to the other teams base makes it more meaningful to capture because the enemy has a better chance at capping.

Answer honestly, how many times can you ride a horse around and solo-cap points? In the beginning, yeah maybe you can get a couple points in your first life but after that, I have never seen anyone able to do that more than once or maybe twice right off the bat. So for about the first maybe 20-50 tickets you move pretty freely but once people start dying and get to pick their spawn points, Conquest gets a lot more interesting.

TBH, all the time. Once in a while I'll have to take down a lone straggler who spawns there once he sees me capping which is normally extremely easy seeing as how the spawn points are generally far away from the flag and out in the open.
If I'm running with my squad I'll usually take the horse over there, jump off, have two or three of my squadmates spawn on me and than it's a complete lock. It's really far too easy.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
TBH, all the time. Once in a while I'll have to take down a lone straggler who spawns there once he sees me capping which is normally extremely easy seeing as how the spawn points are generally far away from the flag and out in the open.
If I'm running with my squad I'll usually take the horse over there, jump off, have two or three of my squadmates spawn on me and than it's a complete lock. It's really far too easy.

So not just in the beginning but all game, every game? Sorry that's a little hard for me to believe. You play on PC, PS4 or Xbox? PS4 or Xbox may be a little bit more believable but I have been a BF1 player since Day 1 and Conquest is always competitive. This insanely easy strategy you seem to perform no problem all the time and nobody seems to figure it out? Come on now. I never see people play like that and consistently be able to do it. Like I said, once or twice right off the bat in a map, sure - ok. But play with that same group a few more maps in a row? Won't happen again.

I see guys single-cap points every once in a while but with how big the battles are there is almost always 3 or 4 guys spawning at any given time and on PC there is TONS more / better communication and if a point is being taken, dead guys will go spawn there and heavy's will move out if they aren't deep in battle defending a point.

Anytime someone starts to take a point its a huge alarm goes off on everyone's screen saying they are taking it. You must consistently play with 60+ other people in game that just ignore that?
 

Chaels Arms

Formerly Lias Andersson
Aug 26, 2010
7,297
6,875
New York City
So not just in the beginning but all game, every game? Sorry that's a little hard for me to believe. You play on PC, PS4 or Xbox? PS4 or Xbox may be a little bit more believable but I have been a BF1 player since Day 1 and Conquest is always competitive. This insanely easy strategy you seem to perform no problem all the time and nobody seems to figure it out? Come on now. I never see people play like that and consistently be able to do it. Like I said, once or twice right off the bat in a map, sure - ok. But play with that same group a few more maps in a row? Won't happen again.

I see guys single-cap points every once in a while but with how big the battles are there is almost always 3 or 4 guys spawning at any given time and on PC there is TONS more / better communication and if a point is being taken, dead guys will go spawn there and heavy's will move out if they aren't deep in battle defending a point.

Anytime someone starts to take a point its a huge alarm goes off on everyone's screen saying they are taking it. You must consistently play with 60+ other people in game that just ignore that?

I'm on PS4. I don't understand it either and that's one of the reasons I'm on here complaining about it. I think it's because given the size and layout of the maps a lot of people figure it's not worth it to spawn on a rear point just to get one kill and than have to spend two to three minutes just getting back to where the majority of the players are. Again, Conquest in BF1 discourages anyone from hanging out around the rear flags to actually defend them. It's better to just spawn wherever your team and squadmates happen to be in the circular dance of trading flags as there's just more volume there allowing for more kills, heals, resupplies, revives + affirmative flag captures.

Take Quentin Scar for example. If I'm solo capping your flag F and you spawn there and kill me you just did a major solid for your team. But now what are you going to do? You're not going to wait there. So now you've got to hope something is going on at E and waste time just getting over there. You're probably going to get sniped on your way over there. Maybe your team has solid control of E and the closest action for you is C which is an even longer run over an even more ridiculously long stretch of open land where you'll probably get sniped or killed by a cavalry sword. Why would you do that when you likely have squadmates or teammates affirmatively capturing other flags with more traffic and more opportunities to rack up points? I literally have guys I roll with who will spawn on a rear flag, kill the lone wolf trying to cap and than just say screw it and kill themselves to redeploy somewhere else rather than footing it to another flag. TBH, given that you're guaranteed to jump right back into the action as opposed to spending an inordinate amount of time traversing open ground you probably score more points that way, which, again, is ridiculous.

This type of thing was countered in BF4 with AT mines which you could scatter around near the rear points and easily wipe out anybody trying to flank cap you with a jeep + the fact that there was just less dead space on the edges of the maps making it harder to even get around the sides without being spotted or killed.
Flanking in BF4 and even more so in BF2 had a legitimately low chance of success and was really more of a diversionary tactic than anything else. In BF2 I never assumed I could solo cap a rear point. The main purpose to even attempt it was in the hope the other team overreacted and brought too many players back to counter thereby lessening the pressure near the central points and maybe letting your teammates advance. There's so much dead space on the sides of the BF1 maps that it's both incredibly easy to flank and incredibly easy to lay down on a hill somewhere and just snipe people. Neither of those things are positive IMO.

Again, if BF1 is your first Battlefield game I wouldn't really expect you to notice the difference and I hate being "that guy" to wax nostalgic about older versions of the game but I do agree with XX that the map design is generally poor and the game favors a run and gun approach.
 
Sep 19, 2008
372,092
23,948
What game are you playing? Recon heroes are as bad as they've ever been. Play Suez sometime.



Traversing the awfully designed and paced maps generally involves either going down an alley of death or being in the complete open, a feast for the aforementioned snipers or the various OP vehicles in the game. DICE left places in maps like the idiotic 'Dune Outpost' on Sinai Desert, despite it playing like absolute **** in the beta, because they either don't understand how to make quality conquest maps anymore or they don't care because it's pretty.



This is the most run and gun that BF1 has ever been, unfortunately. Because of the low ammo count and high TTK of most weapons, along with poor accuracy, bum rushing is the name of the game. It's very hard to hold ground due to explosives spam, spam from vehicles, and the inability to down multiple opponents reliably. They should have made guns more lethal, more oriented towards rewarding skill (tap firing LMGs, for example), and turned up the various sim aspects like suppression.

Instead, we got this really bad feeling arcadey-ass game with a thin veneer of WW1 slapped on it. For every sin of BF4 fixed, they managed to create two more. BF1 has the worst maps of any Battlefield title and the worst gun balance as well, especially when you consider the interplay between classes. You either take an automatico to the face, have to run through nonstop grenade spam, or you get picked off by a sniper running between flags.

In BF3, you can see on maps that a lot of times every piece of cover was carefully placed in accordance with a grand plan. The first stage on rush Metro is actually laid out like a football field, with cover every ten yards, including some really dominant places for defenders and attackers. The same love and care was never applied to BF1 and that's why it will be dropped with a quickness when the next Battlefield title comes out. Premium map shenanigans sealed its fate.

BF1 failed to capture my Battlefield heart, as someone that has been playing since 1942 first came out on PC. I say that as someone who was thirsty as hell for a game set in an older time period as well. At least the game sold well for EA.

I have also played since 1942 on PC, and I also was not excited at first, I didn't think they needed to retread history and do this. I didn't like the notion of using old weapons instead of newer weapons with sights like BF4.

After I started watching streams from someone on HFBoards I realized I probably should upgrade my video card and give this game a try. That was back in like March or something. And I have no regrets at all.

Most of your complaints are about the base game. There are few good base game maps such as Amiens. But again, I keep telling you people, the expansions are where the money is at. The base game is okay but once I laid 15 dollars down for the expansion I could not end up going back to the base game.

There are significant improvements in the UI over Battlefield 4, so much so that you can't even go back. Seeing nearby medics is good. The hero classes are kind of weird and are reminiscent of something out of COD ("I'm prestiging here" :rolleyes:) but they can be reasonably removed with a bayonet charge. Behemoths help make lopsided slaughter fests somewhat more interesting.

The expansion in my honest opinion is absolutely out of this world fun. All 4 maps (even Verdun Heights which has gotten eviscerated by the "redditsphere") are pretty good, especially Fort De Vaux. As for the two extra maps, Nivelle Nights is a great trench map in the dark and as I've said countless times over and over again, Prise de Tahure is so much fun that I pretty much only play that map now (dark city map in France, why wouldn't you want to play that?)

I don't know what reception is on the new Tsar map so I will reserve judgement on that, but I can tell you without a doubt that the expansion is really worth the 15 dollars. If you have any problems at all with the game, play that expansion. It's awesome.
 
Sep 19, 2008
372,092
23,948
I may have to boot it up again, although I admit I'm reluctant to put more money down on this game.

Once you pay that money you'll never go back to the base game. It's not the same. The maps are so good. Biggest complaint is that "Verdun Heights is imbalanced and favors the Germans" yet I've seen the French win on that map...
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
I'm on PS4. I don't understand it either and that's one of the reasons I'm on here complaining about it. I think it's because given the size and layout of the maps a lot of people figure it's not worth it to spawn on a rear point just to get one kill and than have to spend two to three minutes just getting back to where the majority of the players are. Again, Conquest in BF1 discourages anyone from hanging out around the rear flags to actually defend them. It's better to just spawn wherever your team and squadmates happen to be in the circular dance of trading flags as there's just more volume there allowing for more kills, heals, resupplies, revives + affirmative flag captures.

Take Quentin Scar for example. If I'm solo capping your flag F and you spawn there and kill me you just did a major solid for your team. But now what are you going to do? You're not going to wait there. So now you've got to hope something is going on at E and waste time just getting over there. You're probably going to get sniped on your way over there. Maybe your team has solid control of E and the closest action for you is C which is an even longer run over an even more ridiculously long stretch of open land where you'll probably get sniped or killed by a cavalry sword. Why would you do that when you likely have squadmates or teammates affirmatively capturing other flags with more traffic and more opportunities to rack up points? I literally have guys I roll with who will spawn on a rear flag, kill the lone wolf trying to cap and than just say screw it and kill themselves to redeploy somewhere else rather than footing it to another flag. TBH, given that you're guaranteed to jump right back into the action as opposed to spending an inordinate amount of time traversing open ground you probably score more points that way, which, again, is ridiculous.

This type of thing was countered in BF4 with AT mines which you could scatter around near the rear points and easily wipe out anybody trying to flank cap you with a jeep + the fact that there was just less dead space on the edges of the maps making it harder to even get around the sides without being spotted or killed.
Flanking in BF4 and even more so in BF2 had a legitimately low chance of success and was really more of a diversionary tactic than anything else. In BF2 I never assumed I could solo cap a rear point. The main purpose to even attempt it was in the hope the other team overreacted and brought too many players back to counter thereby lessening the pressure near the central points and maybe letting your teammates advance. There's so much dead space on the sides of the BF1 maps that it's both incredibly easy to flank and incredibly easy to lay down on a hill somewhere and just snipe people. Neither of those things are positive IMO.

Again, if BF1 is your first Battlefield game I wouldn't really expect you to notice the difference and I hate being "that guy" to wax nostalgic about older versions of the game but I do agree with XX that the map design is generally poor and the game favors a run and gun approach.

I fully admitted it happens / can happen / does happen. My point was it's not a winning strategy. If it were so easy to just ride around in a horse capping points everyone would do it. And maybe on PS4 everyone just spawns at the furthest point from base but on PC that's not what happens at all. I don't see how anyone can ignore points behind them just because they are behind them. Again, the HUD, map, announcer and music make it VERY clear which points are active and stale and with 64 people in a match more than one person will notice / spawn / attack active points.

I played on Xbox One too and A LOT of console games in many FPS games only care about KDR so maybe that's why you have that experience of people just spawning where everyone else is at. They care more about if they go 20-2 than going 10-15 with 4X as many points and XP from playing the objectives. Same crap happens in Overwatch too. This game isn't for those people. This makes it not a run and gun game... At all. Run and gun would be something like the new DOOM. It's only seen as run and gun for people who care about KDR because they think its an FPS so it must only be about KDR so run and run!

By definition, objective based games are not run and gun.

I have played every single battlefield game except for the free to play games / mobile & handheld games. My favorite was Bad Company 2. I am not saying BF1 is amazing or perfect. I think its a fun game and this strategy of being on a horse capping points all over the place and nobody showing up to do anything about it is just total BS. Even on console. Nobody can get away with that an entire match. Never seen it happen for an entire match and I have played multiple Hundreds of conquest matches.

I feel like some people here are just exaggerating to drive a point home about how they want to complain about the game. That's fine, you are allowed your opinion but saying this is an easy thing to do and you just own points left and right is a total farce. If it were that easy to cap, everyone would do it or they would somehow update the game to prevent such a simple strategy from being so effective.
 
Sep 19, 2008
372,092
23,948
I agree. I'm kind of surprised that everyone is complaining about the game. Your standards are set too high. Take it from me who was very wary of this game and tried it and actually liked it. They made a lot of improvements (the nearby medic alerts, as well as UI improvements to mark out where you need to go).
If you're getting blown out, the behemoths make the game somewhat interesting. You make a good point about the tense music as the tickets approach 1000 which bring a lot of tension to a match.

The only complaint I have is that the guns are inaccurate but again those are the weapons you are forced to use in that era. The Rate of Fire for medic guns is terrible compared to Assault. You take one shot, then there's like a 5 second pause before you can fire the next one

Most of Battlefield is largely played moving from one point to another in a battle for point control. Is there a lack of defense, and are squad leaders preoccupied with moving points? Yes. This "run and gun" tactic has been going on before Battlefield 1 on PC, it dates back to as far back as 2. People always converge on popular spots in "pubs" and then move on to the next one, even if someone in the chat is yelling "STAY BEHIND AND DEFEND YOU MORONS" :laugh:

To address the guy on the horse capping points, that's not possible in TSNP (imagine the horse running all over the fort trying to cap the courtyard or the barracks) and even in maps where horses exist, it doesn't happen. You might be running to the trenches in Soissons and get stabbed by some guy riding by in a horse, but one guy riding one can't go around capping points.

This game is a pretty damn solid effort, but the community has been highly volatile about Battlefield for some time. There was a huge uproar about how bad 4 was, when in reality it wasn't that bad a game. Then 1 received nearly universal acclaim and people are loving it, yet there's always going to be this faction that has these complaints.

Edit: I saw the comment about all the snipers in the game, that's not true. What system are you playing on? Most of the people I see are trying to PTFO. Being a sniper does nothing to address that. All the snipers...that reminds me of TF2. That and being stabbed in the back by a spy :laugh:
 
Last edited:

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
By definition, objective based games are not run and gun.

The gunplay and map design determines how the game turns out, not the presence of flags or objectives. A Battlefield veteran would be very well aware of that, especially considering BC2 is your favorite; the BF with the tightest map design and overall balance ever.

It's easy to back cap in BF1 because there's no mobility for the other team unless they find one of the few vehicles. You can spawn bomb any point easily. With the lack of armor, it's pretty easy to push any straggling defenders off the point. Most of the conquest maps in BF1 are simply too large or too open between capture points for them to play well.

Sinai Desert, for example, has two playable points, and one of those is still an awful wide open cluster**** (train side of the city). Don't even get me started on crap like Amiens or Ballroom Blitz.

DICE has forgotten how to make truly great maps. They've mastered making pretty maps that play bad.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->