Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2016
- Posts
- 460
Its a shame they dont look at MAG and build on that approach.
3 teams fighting on the same map.
3 teams fighting on the same map.
Thankfully I never bought BF 5 and I held of on BF 1 for over a year till they got it some enjoyable/good. My days of pre-ordering are gone.
If only more of the "game changers/ronku whores" were like xfactor, he called out all the BS straight away and even before the game released unlike jack, level etc. who say whatever EA want them to say.... Always amuses me them though, they're so "hyped" and "loving" the game, then come to the end of their partnership deal, you start to see **** all videos of the game being uploaded and videos like "where battlefield xxx went wrong?", "battlefield xxx is dead to me", "battlefield xxx mistakes" etc., then come next game, rinse and repeat.....
I agree. 64 players needs to change. Maybe even an option for 3 teams.
I want big battles planetside 2 style.
More mmo style but fps obviously.
Its a shame they dont look at MAG and build on that approach.
3 teams fighting on the same map.
Planetside, but with battlefield. A persistent map with 40 players across three factions, all vying to ‘win’ with rewards for doing so. You could stop playing at 11:30pm on a Friday and log on the next morning to the same server with a drastically different frontline, but still no winner. I’d love that. Would require proper co-ordination and a huge map with actual airfields for jets and even fuel limits so jets need to refuel which should reduce their dominance as has happened in most battlefield games.
In BF4 i always preferred up to around 10 v 10 games, so over 64 player probably be wasted on me. Maybe some huge maps coming in BF6 to accommodate 128 player? lol.
100 players = more vehicles = more rage from the shortbus brigade who seem to think that vehicles are a cheap way to get kills and shouldn't be in the game. It's amazing how many people complain about vehicles in the game like it should just be yet another COD clone. Usually from noobs who have only been playing since BF4 or BF1.
Planetside, but with battlefield. A persistent map with 40 players across three factions, all vying to ‘win’ with rewards for doing so. You could stop playing at 11:30pm on a Friday and log on the next morning to the same server with a drastically different frontline, but still no winner. I’d love that. Would require proper co-ordination and a huge map with actual airfields for jets and even fuel limits so jets need to refuel which should reduce their dominance as has happened in most battlefield games.
100 players = more vehicles = more rage from the shortbus brigade who seem to think that vehicles are a cheap way to get kills and shouldn't be in the game. It's amazing how many people complain about vehicles in the game like it should just be yet another COD clone. Usually from noobs who have only been playing since BF4 or BF1.
Must be getting close to something, all the shills are back pumping out sponsored videos on yt again about how great BFV is...
Must be getting close to something, all the shills are back pumping out sponsored videos on yt again about how great BFV is...
Must be getting close to something, all the shills are back pumping out sponsored videos on yt again about how great BFV is...
Have to keep tongueing in the EA Taint so they get invited to play the game early.
Not really got any high hopes for this. BF2 was epic, BF3 was decent, BF4 didn't grab me and haven't bothered since. Would love this to take off and get the following that BF2 (and I guess earlier titles?) had.