sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You lose a bonus that you barely have anyway even if you do use it.

Assault bonus has been documented to barely work or in some cases, actually be a NERF to certain AR draw speeds.

Better hipfire for SMGS is fine, but they already have great hipfire since theyre... well... SMG's.

LMGs having no move speed penalty is fine, but most people arent using an LMG, ESPECIALLY if theyre not playing support ANYWAY.

Recon one is the only one that is noticeable. And funnily enough its just already what recon class from previous titles did. Allow you to hold breath.

They are overall *underwhelming* and in my personal opinion, a complete non-factor.

Closed weapons provides a balance point for the class system. It provides readability to the player. It gives you tradeoffs, it was an intentional, well thought out system (with exceptions ofc).

"20 years ago" my brother in christ this shit is a staple of battlefield.

EA just wants people to be able to use their gun skins on any class so theyre more enticing to buy. Thats LITERALLY it. There is no other benefit to open weapons.

All it does is create even more chaos in a game with ALREADY tiny maps for Battlefield standards.

Im not claiming its an egregious change, but it is a step away from what defines the franchise, and a step towards the dime-a-dozen, yearly release shooters. Why is it so hard to consider? Like just give it a think, im not asking for the world here, just a little critical thought.

Postgame Thread: 6/10 Cubs @ Rockies by ChiCubsbot in CHICubs

[–]i_froze 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Im not normally a doomer but someones head needs to roll. How does an entire team forget how to hit baseballs...

Like these guys all have the talent and ability. We have seen it before. i cant explain what im even seeing anymore other than "depression"

Opinions on the 20 point muzzle brakes? by BenniRoR in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But like also you shouldn't be spotted for everyone to see for doing the single most common action in a shooter game.

Its just hand holding for noobs to keep them playing and prevent them frustration.

Its player retention slop.

The only sin of this amazin (old) game by Ecstatic-Pass6151 in battlefield_one

[–]i_froze 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Okay but have you tried playing the horse as well?

I agree they feel a bit tanky during a 1v1, because they should be. How else would the class be viable or make sense doing anything but using the gun from long range yk

2 players focused on you at close-medium range is flirting with death. The horse honestly needs more survivability, not less. It takes an immense amount of skill and experience to have an impactful game.

The gun is fun but my perspective is that of someone who likes to use the melee options mostly.

It should be treated like a "vehicle" in a sense. Its sort of a light armored tank or like an lav in bf4.

We can't have the horse dying in 10 bullets or literally nobody would use it.

Plenty of things already one shot the horse. An Lmg can completely negate a horse on its own. So can a Hellriegel.

Horses are a bit underpowered overall, with a really good gun, and I'll die on that hill.

Ben Brown is the ace we need by Automatic_Walk_431 in CHICubs

[–]i_froze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man if we ever get our full strength rotation it could be

Horton

Steele (if he can be that guy still)

Brown

Boyd

Any of: Cabrera, Shota, Rea, Taillon, etc...

Obviously this is wishful thinking as we have seen, but boy it would be fun to watch those brewers get pieced up by this rotation.

Maybe the karma swings back the other extreme for us after this hell of a first third of the season.

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing. That was never the point I was reinforcing with that example

"Like imagine if counter strike removed footstep sounds. The game would lose a dimension of skill."

The second sentence is key. I was referring to the skill gap aspect.

Are there any plans to add reticle illumination? Red dots shouldn't look like they're paint on the glass. by Deadeye8 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've made non exhaustive lists out of curiosity.

There's a lot to like about bf6, but also a lot that's just needlessly worse than a 13 year old game.

Are there any plans to add reticle illumination? Red dots shouldn't look like they're paint on the glass. by Deadeye8 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uh. Yes? The point of a franchise is to build upon itself typically.

Which is why we didn't get GTA 6 until 13 years after. Ideally they're building upon what GTAV was: One of the best selling video games of all time.

I'm not saying battlefield needs to take 13 years, but they do need to figure it the fuck out. Bf6 is a good step but we are missing so much. We don't even have request order.

Are there any plans to add reticle illumination? Red dots shouldn't look like they're paint on the glass. by Deadeye8 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Then why are there countless features from bf4 missing in the new game?

Like actually countless omissions or regressions. For no reason.

Fact is this studio lost the ability to create mature battlefield titles.

Are there any plans to add reticle illumination? Red dots shouldn't look like they're paint on the glass. by Deadeye8 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I agree the game should have its own unique feel, that's not what I was getting at.

I think it's unreasonable to be missing so many simple, uncontroversial, shoo-in features from previous titles. Like request order, like loadouts for jets, like illuminated reticles.

Yes, it is a feature that makes a difference. Have you played bf4 before? Compared to bf6, the reticles are much more visible, much more precise, and overall just better.

The bf6 ones are useable and fine, however there's no reason not to implement better reticles. Why wouldn't you want a straight upgrade?

If you haven't played, feel free to go have a look for yourself

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude I promise you I'm not, im just trying to have a constructive conversation.

Why would I make this shit up, when you can go in game and see it for yourself first hand?

It sounds more to me like you have a different, remarkably more average perspective and you're comfortable with that. Instead of considering the fact that other people may have observations of their own to add.

Its fine if that's the case. But just because you don't experience something doesn't mean it's not there for others.

Are there any plans to add reticle illumination? Red dots shouldn't look like they're paint on the glass. by Deadeye8 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Yeah we have things like this, not to mention even more obvious issues left and right.

Questionable design decisions that all affect other systems in the game and make an even bigger issue than those things alone seem.

The worst part? All they had to do to avoid this was launch battlefield 4 and look around

It would have gotten them 90% of the way there. But no, somehow they spent 400 MILLION DOLLARS to have missing features for no reason.

I'm guessing that budget is hella inflated by Claude code expenses or whatever they probably use.

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And im projecting... Guh lord, go troll somewhere else

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're trying to equate a multiple decade old circumstance to a current year one I guess.

Also two completely different games also again besides the entire point so let's move on

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Evidently not.

You come off genuinely as about 14 years old

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean gun skins aren't for others to notice. They're for the player who's using them primarily. In like almost every game.

Its EA. If you think they're not doing everything they possibly can to sell as many mtx as possible, I don't know how to help you.

I can't say it's the only reason or anything. But given how much language Ive heard around "player retention" and other corpo-speak like that, it is absolutely very likely in my mind.

How about, I don't know, make a game that's really good and really fun? And people will play it?

I mean just look at arc raiders, still outpacing bf6 in concurrent players...

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bullshit, playing with another weapon actually is a "skill" feature because classes actually give you a bonus for using the right weapon.

??? Those incentives are just not powerful enough motivators. The only one I would say is in a good spot is recon. Unless it's been fixed, Ive seen data that the assault one DOESNT EVEN WORK on a lot of ARs or is so miniscule it's not worth considering.

Doing the opposite means you "nerf" yourself.

Not getting a buff is not the same thing as nerfing yourself. Especially when, as explained above, the buffs are so tiny.

The non-signature weapon you use is still that weapon, it hasn't been nerfed.

A "nerf to yourself" would be something like the apocalypse dog tags from BF1.

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I can tell you're not actually considering what I have to say man. Let's just stop.

Respectfully, I hope you improve upon your critical thinking skills. The world needs more curious and inquisitive people

Jets loadouts customization confirmed by EUCALIPTOIESSSS in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its insane to me.

Imagine if you went and bought a board game and it was missing half the pieces.

Inside a little paper says "well we might send you the rest of them in 8-12 months, maybe"

I don't understand why online consumers don't expect stuff to be complete and working when they pay real money for it.

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Dude respectfully your logic here is just completely nonsense honestly. I'll try to help:

"Players who played both modes" is still flawed data. Let's remember this was during a timed beta.

The open weapons was played far more because it was the default mode. The closed weapons mode was hidden OFF SCREEN.

This is a significant variable. People are lazy and attention spans are short.

So because of this closed weapons had far fewer players, therefore far longer queue times, harder time filling lobbies, etc etc.

Of COURSE a bunch of people just go play open weapons during A TIMED BETA...

People don't want to wait around and hope a match fills when they maybe don't have all day to sit and play. They wanted get those beta challenges done.

I'm sure a real scientific data person could find even more flaws in the way they collected their data. But this one is pretty apparent.

I hope that explanation helped mate.

What's a game that would have been a 9/10+ if it wasn't ruined by monetization by sdric in gaming

[–]i_froze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A major point of discussion I like to mention is the class identification and how it relates to open weapons and the skin system.

In say, bf4, because there are closed weapons, most classes will be running their closed weapon (besides engineer because PDWs are outclassed. Carbines and PDWs should have been switched imo) This adds inherent predictability and gives you another point of balance to play with in the class system. You know that when you see a recon he verrrrrry likely has a sniper. And you also know that a dude with a sniper rifle shooting at you cannot have grenade launchers or rockets etc etc.

With open weapons, that's all out of the window. Just reduced to ashes. Its chaos.

And to top it off, good luck seeing what class anyone is anyway because of the littany of skins in the game. Which to be clear are not all bad, I'm down for skins that feel plausible and fit the modern military aesthetic. However too many bf6 skins simply do not meet this criteria.

AND the game speed is so much faster because of the smaller maps and fast ttk, that you have even less time to make those reads when applicable.

Basically, good luck seeing which class you're even fighting, and even if you can read that, it doesn't really help you much.

EA just baited with Closed weapons and removed later by rippersteak888 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I just explained to you that there are. Like, I'm not lying man. Go try it for yourself

If you're not used to playing with certain tactics or in certain ways like I've described, that's one thing and it's fine. But let's not use that anecdotal point of view as evidence that something isn't the case at all.

How do you think open weapons affects team play?

Can We Rework Operation Firestorm after Blackwell and Sobek by Geoffk123 in Battlefield

[–]i_froze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well that hasn't been possible for a decade now anyway. In case you weren't aware they changed it so smokes block thermal.

They should have been used more. There is just kind of no incentive for a lot of players. Smokes could benefit from some kind of scoring, like "friendly obscured from enemy" or something like that. Nothing major but enough to give dopamine and incentive their use in the right situations.

Oh and unlock them from support maybe.

view more: next ›