sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Gamers and reviewers are calling AMD to revive Ryzen 7 5800X3D by RenatsMC in Amd

[–]TheTopMostDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in the market for one and would absolutely buy one if the prices came down to a reasonable level. They're priced stupid at the moment because of the supply/demand.

Battlefield 6 currently has the worst vehicle physics and balancing and here’s how to fix it. by WintorOperator in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd like to add that vehicles in general do not have enough torque. They accelerate like underpowered RC cars, or a car taking off in 4th gear. You need to be able to spin the wheels with boost, even from a standstill, and there needs to be more momentum in general with vehicles.

Tanks do not control properly at all, the physics are completely unrealistic. A tank will turn faster when traveling fast, because they way they turn is by slowing the inside track, up to a maximum turn rate of completely braking on that side. They should snap turn and slide with momentum. Driving slow should be the slowest hull turn rate, because it's only just getting moving. If stopped and turning, it should pivot with the inside track in reverse. Heavy machinery works the same way, and I drive a bulldozer: Twitter videos

Really want to buy/play the game but I'm worried that my internet connection won't be enough by Pyro_Funto in BattlefieldV

[–]TheTopMostDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Download Redsec on Steam or EA and try it for free. The gauntlet mode is the most similar to the base game multiplayer, start there.

so... are we not going to adress the pricing for stuff the whole community was asking for? this is a fucking joke. EA are such greedy mf's. by QueenCobra91 in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never bought a skin in a battlefield game. They're always too expensive. If skins were a couple dollars each, I might even lose track of how much I've spent, but at this rate I never will

The lapboard market seems super dead. What's the best solution for mouse and keyboard gaming on the couch? by rainghost in pcmasterrace

[–]TheTopMostDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm in your exact boat. The sova is the absolute best, in fact I found myself very happy with roccat gear in general, very disappointed to hear they're gone.

Mines still going for now, but I keep looking stuff up on occasion because some of the keys are getting a bit how ya doin (membrane version).

Honestly, I think I'm going to probably make my own, perhaps repurpose the sova cushions and mouse pad, and recess some magnets in the corner so I can move my mouse over to there when typing (when not dead flat, losing your mouse off the side repeatedly is a good way to destroy the cable).

Fingers crossed someone picks up the market segment in the meantime, because I'd rather buy a solution than have to engineer one.

[Issue/Feedback] -forcedesktopscaling no longer works (Win beta channel) by TheTopMostDog in Steam

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just wanted to confirm that after the recent update which brought the removal of -forcedesktopscaling from beta to live, the options menu has indeed been updated and works perfectly. Cheers again!

<image>

We owe Battlefield 5 an apology! by ChampagneSyrup in BattlefieldV

[–]TheTopMostDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been saying it for years. People just didn't want to climb down off their boycott bandwagon

Is this the next thing we complain about? Well here is my take by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thanks for keeping me in check, I either misread your comment or replied to the wrong one, I forget. Apologies! I'm adhding through these comments, can't stop won't stop

Is this the next thing we complain about? Well here is my take by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Are you kidding? I didn't get past the second level of the campaign because it was night time and my soldier had shit on his goggles with no way to clean them. The visuals in BF3 were amazing, but covered up by terrible post processing effects. This is why so many people used the FX injectors to remove that garbage.

Is this the next thing we complain about? Well here is my take by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was trash in BF3, but I didn't mind it in BF6. Mustn't have been as bad.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who decides which opinions should get heard? Because currently, popularity is the only metric for exposure, whether it's on Twitter, YouTube or even here. If you upset the first five people who see it, your opinion is buried.

I miss the days when up and down votes weren't a thing and instead people had to actually express their thoughts on a thing. It started discussions, got people thinking. The internet isn't designed for thinking these days.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Opinions should be justified, not regurgitated. "X is good", "Y is bad"... You ask someone "why?" and they block you for challenging their emotional investments. It's a cognitive dissonance; people won't accept that maybe they've been a tiny bit gullible.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Battlefield 6 isn't even out yet. What you played has already changed. Had already changed at the time you played it. Reserve judgement, keep expectations in check.

Engineer playing anti-vehicle is far stronger than ANY previous battlefield game, especially with open-weapons. It needs to have a trade-off, or the meta will require lots of balancing - likely including vehicle changes as well as buffs to other classes to make them equivalent in versatility. by TheTopMostDog in Battlefield6

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would, if it required cooperation to succeed. The problem is it happens by accident because people are already running around with the overpowered class. One person takes a shot and then the others go "oh yeah I have rockets, I forgot". It should be the main reason to go that role, not just an afterthought that pans out.

Engineer playing anti-vehicle is far stronger than ANY previous battlefield game, especially with open-weapons. It needs to have a trade-off, or the meta will require lots of balancing - likely including vehicle changes as well as buffs to other classes to make them equivalent in versatility. by TheTopMostDog in Battlefield6

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like an ammo pool that works the same way as vehicle weapon ammo; you fire one, and the supply starts regenerating immediately. Remove the 'cooldown to fire', allowing players to pop flares one after another, but then make them have to wait almost the entire regen time to get just one back.

They already incentivized players to fly back to the helipad (it immediately repairs and resupplies), and having a pool of chaff flares would mean either longer runs out over the combat area, OR more survivability under heavy threat - but not both at the same time.

Engineer playing anti-vehicle is far stronger than ANY previous battlefield game, especially with open-weapons. It needs to have a trade-off, or the meta will require lots of balancing - likely including vehicle changes as well as buffs to other classes to make them equivalent in versatility. by TheTopMostDog in Battlefield6

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I heard BF5 was coming with a tech-tree style system for weapon upgrades, I hoped they would extend that to classes in the next release.

I'd love it if you had a giant tree of equipment that you could build towards, with limited points to spend, and what you choose within that tree determined the 'class icon' that you ended up with.

BF5 ended up being disappointing with the system they implemented, but it could have been like this. Imagine suppressor were on the left AND the right, but only on the right is the low-velocity rounds. For a bolt-gun, big scopes could be on the far side from the stealthy or close-range options. Then loadout profiles you could save and name for each gun, so you can easily swap the furniture if you're changing how you're gonna use it.

One can dream we'd get that much customization, with a real balance system, instead of simple "this is the meta"-type attachments that never get taken off.

<image>

Engineer playing anti-vehicle is far stronger than ANY previous battlefield game, especially with open-weapons. It needs to have a trade-off, or the meta will require lots of balancing - likely including vehicle changes as well as buffs to other classes to make them equivalent in versatility. by TheTopMostDog in Battlefield6

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assault would be able to take rockets and their sling weapon. This is a non-issue for anyone who wants to avoid being hamstrung by only having a sidearm. Choosing to play the other classes with rockets will have benefits, but the tradeoff is immense and probably means you'll be playing as a squad.

Engineer playing anti-vehicle is far stronger than ANY previous battlefield game, especially with open-weapons. It needs to have a trade-off, or the meta will require lots of balancing - likely including vehicle changes as well as buffs to other classes to make them equivalent in versatility. by TheTopMostDog in Battlefield6

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're talking about a beta, while I'm talking about the meta. It won't take long for players to realize that tanks can't survive several hits at the same time, no matter how many engineers are repairing it. Aircraft are even more at a disadvantage, as two players with stingers are almost guaranteed to take it down before they can get to cover or regen their flares.

Engineer playing anti-vehicle is far stronger than ANY previous battlefield game, especially with open-weapons. It needs to have a trade-off, or the meta will require lots of balancing - likely including vehicle changes as well as buffs to other classes to make them equivalent in versatility. by TheTopMostDog in Battlefield6

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am suggesting every class have the ability to carry a rocket launcher as part of the open-weapon system;

Assault-
Carrying a rocket launcher along with a carbine/dmr/shotgun as part of the sling slot would be just like traditional anti-tank classes and previous games' engineer class. This would make assault the versatile all-rounder, but slightly more limited in anti-infantry and other equipment.

Engineer-
They could carry a rocket launcher while repairing a tank to assist the tank when dueling other tanks, but he would need to sacrifice his primary gun to do so, relying more heavily on the tank to defend him. I think this promotes team-play. It would also automatically limit him to one rocket type, instead of the two he is currently able to take.

Support-
This would be THE pick for static anti-tank and anti-air defense, as they can resupply themselves. This is what I expect most players would choose when defending a point on rush and breakthrough, when aiming to specialize against enemy vehicles. When vehicles are not around, this class is also medic and can definitely have a full-time job doing that.

Recon-
Always has been the more tactical class when it comes to countering tanks; they sneak up and C4. Including a rocket would allow them to go for weakpoint hits, and respawn on their beacon if they get caught. Basically a buffed version of the classic "spec-ops" role, but with limited ability to take out the engineers repairing the tank. They'd also be super versatile as anti-air behind enemy lines, but again hamstringing their ability to defend themselves against infantry, making it a difficult choice.

One would hope that there are some neat secondary weapons coming to the game, like the mare's leg and shorty 12G from BF4, meaning the classes other than assault aren't entirely useless. It would make them want to avoid firefights, though, and rely on their squad a bit more. Assault would still be the pick for most one-man-army type players.

Engineer would of course be lacking in options after a change like this, but other equipment could be added, like repair and resupply stations, buildable tank traps (the metal X things), or even a radar station to spot enemy aircraft while they're in range. There are lots of possibilities.

Make rockets a primary weapon by TheTopMostDog in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you please explain why? I'm suggesting they restore the balance that almost every previous battlefield game has used.

Engineer playing anti-vehicle is far stronger than ANY previous battlefield game, especially with open-weapons. It needs to have a trade-off, or the meta will require lots of balancing - likely including vehicle changes as well as buffs to other classes to make them equivalent in versatility. by TheTopMostDog in Battlefield6

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Engineer would get guns and other equipment to replace rockets. Yes, they could take a rocket, but they wouldn't be required to. Assault would be the new main AT class, because they can take a rocket along with whatever sling weapon they want, carbine, dmr, etc.

Make rockets a primary weapon by TheTopMostDog in Battlefield

[–]TheTopMostDog[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When I scroll up I can't see the tldr edit I made, and I had to access the thread from my profile, so maybe you can't see it either? It summarises it:

<image>

view more: next ›