Jump to content

WAR-gamerDJ's Battlefield 4 review and analysis (Long)

Battlefield 4 Review Long Detailed Gameplay analysis mechanic suggestions Very long WAR-gamerDJ reviews Send help

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1
Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*

Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*
  • Forum Guest

Overview and review:

 

“Battlefield 4 is a 2013 first-person shooter video game developed by Swedish video game developer EA Digital Illusions CE (DICE) and published by Electronic Arts. It is a sequel to 2011's Battlefield 3 also developed by DICE and published by Electronic Arts.

Battlefield 4 for the most part builds upon the gameplay systems and mechanics that are found within BF4, with a few occasional new 'innovations', the forefront of these additions being DICE's levolution concept. Levolution comes in two different forms, mirco-levolution and macro-levolution.

 

Macro-levolution events are large set-piece event's either triggered by player interaction such as players destroying some support pillars to collapse a large skyscraper (with an in-game objective on the top floor) in the center of the map (kicking up a massive dust cloud throughout the map and bringing the objective closer to ground level). Or timed weather events that through their interactions with the player cause dynamic changes to their gameplay, one example of this being the storm on Paracel storm, that whips up the waves making it harder for boats to gain (and keep) line of sight to each other.

 

Where as micro-levolution includes effects such as shooting a fire extinguisher to fill the room with obscuring clouds, car alarms going off when stepped on, metal detectors going off once passed through, or cutting the power in a room to reduce others' visibility.”

All of what I've written above is basically the sales pitch that EA and DICE created for this game, which in practice makes the game sound like a great addition to the Battlefield franchise, where in really it's more of a diluted clone designed to appeal to the widest possible ordinance without once asserting itself or it's core values. It feels like a political candidate that is popular due to them not having an opinion on anything, that then just go's with what's popular at that moment in time. Basically it's having a identity crisis, does it want to be this years ego shooter or a team based tactical game, sometimes I'm not even sure the developers themselves know.

Due to this Battlefield 4 is plagued with a host of problems (some small others glaring) that even over two years later still remain. These range from it's pretty yet poorly designed maps, it's complex and somewhat confusing attachments system and the host of poor or pointless gadgets that seem to have been added into the game just to be used as a advertising figure. Such as the issues with 'net-code' that can still be a issue now in 2015, with a possible solution being tested as I write this review.

 

Then we have the usual subscription service that divides not only opinion but the player base, Battlefield premium. I could say a whole essay of things on this topic alone but suffice to say it one the surface is one of the better subscription/premium systems I have seen (in terms of pure volume of content). Yet the quality of this content as with the overall game is definitely lacking, with most of the new maps only lasting in rotation for a week or two, while the new game modes where never carried to the later DLC maps. Which is sad as both Carrier assault and Chain-link are both some of the more innovative game-modes Battlefield has seen since Rush was introduced. This is not to say the whole DLC package is without merit, as the weapons that accompany the maps are not overpowered in most cases (stopping a pay-to-win situation from being created) though sadly several fan favourites where sectioned off into DLC. Dragons teeth also stands out as extraordinary compared to the other DLC's and the core game, in terms of both the maps themselves and the game-modes included with it.

Overall this game pains me... It feels like the death-knell for a series I have loved for around ten years now. It feels like it's given up it's core beliefs and allowed 'EPIC MOMENTS' to be popularised within it's advertising and game mechanics over the old tactical team play of old Battlefield titles, which produced these epic moments via the virtue of that focused gameplay. I want to love this game, I really do but in the end it just frustrates me and upsets me to see something you love die a slow painful death. This isn't a bad game by any standards.. It's just not a good Battlefield game. Basically this game is one that can be fun but it won't ever be that Battlefield experience that the EA & DICE claim it is.

This concludes my overview of Battlefield 4 and my review, below I will break down some of the issues (if not all) I listed above, while creating suggestions and alternative answers to them. If you have any comments to make on the points I made above or the one's I'll make below feel free to do so, I will try to respond to any question (or response) as quickly as I can.

 

 

In-depth discussion and proposed alterations:

 

 

Spoiler


I think eleven pages of word text is more than enough for people to work on for now. If you have any question, critiques or suggestions feel free to leave them down below and I'll get back to you as soon as humanly possible.

 

Many regards.
WAR-gamerDJ



#2
ClashOfTime

ClashOfTime

    Community Member + MC

  • Community Member
  • 216 posts
  • Timezone:MST
  • Country:Canada

One thing I would change. Instead of increasing the amount of points for an MCOM destroy, give everyone on the team some points for the destroy. That way the team as a whole has more of a reason for the MCOM to go off. Giving the person who arms it more points turns it into even more of a battle with your own team to get the arm. Same thing with MCOM disarms.

Your idea for helicopter flares is interesting. It certainly seems like a better idea than just decreasing the cooldown timer. I really like the idea of replacing the outer transport heli seats with interior ones.

I will admit I like the idea of a WoT/Warthunder type tank armour system, but I honestly don't know if that really has a place in Battlefield. I think the current system already does enough to get the idea of different armour thicknesses across without getting extremely complicated. Even if the pace of the game was somehow cut in half I don't think being able to destroy the tracks of a tank would play well. Killing mobility is already annoying enough given how fast the game around you is going.

I don't agree with giving recon C4 instead of support. That still gives every class a way to damage vehicles, taking away from the need to rely on your teammates to handle it while you play your role. 

I don't think multiplying the points of the winning team really helps. It just encourages mindlessly stomping the other team or leaving if you're losing severely. I think the point multiplier should apply to everyone, and be based on how close to balanced the tickets are at the end of the round. If you have a really close round with a 5 ticket difference give both teams a 2x bonus. If one team stomps the other then cut the points for both teams in half. That way you have a reason to want hard fought rounds. Switching to balance the teams half way though would actually be beneficial to both you and the server.


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#3
Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*

Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*
  • Forum Guest

One thing I would change. Instead of increasing the amount of points for an MCOM destroy, give everyone on the team some points for the destroy. That way the team as a whole has more of a reason for the MCOM to go off. Giving the person who arms it more points turns it into even more of a battle with your own team to get the arm. Same thing with MCOM disarms.

 

 

A lot of my suggestions were building off the current BF4 system so a few of them clash occasionally. In regards to the M-COM point values it is something I struggle with, as it needs to be a strong incentive to push the to the objective, while also not destroying the outlying game play that the revolves around that 'core'. I think maybe a compromise between the two maybe? Increase the points but then also give a smaller 'bonus' scored to players who were within 50m of the objective when it was armed and needed to be defended. It would have to be something equivalent or less than a kill (50pts) or it could possibly unbalance the risk/reward ratio making people want to sit near the bomb and not plant it.... something to be thoroughly investigated though.     

 

 

 

Your idea for helicopter flares is interesting. It certainly seems like a better idea than just decreasing the cooldown timer. I really like the idea of replacing the outer transport heli seats with interior ones.

 

Thank you, it just felt they need a extra little something to avoid being taken down so quickly. It doesn't stop a dedicated AA team dropping them but reduces the lone soldiers ability to kill so many people with one shot. In regards to the seating, I felt like those two seats on the exterior are next to pointless and can sometimes create a situation where either the transport is defenceless or a squad cannot fit within it. This greatly reduces it's effectiveness, making it the ideal ditch vehicle, hopefully these suggestions could stop it from being treated as such.

 

 

 

I will admit I like the idea of a WoT/Warthunder type tank armour system, but I honestly don't know if that really has a place in Battlefield. I think the current system already does enough to get the idea of different armour thicknesses across without getting extremely complicated. Even if the pace of the game was somehow cut in half I don't think being able to destroy the tracks of a tank would play well. Killing mobility is already annoying enough given how fast the game around you is going.

  

I think it's a great system, probably the best for representing vehicle combat and I too pondered whether it was needed within battlefield. I came to the conclusion to add it to this review and analysis due to the fact that I feel one of the issues right now is how fast paced it has become. A lot of the changes I have suggested have been for bringing down the average speed of the gameplay while still allowing for those ultra intense moments to still exist. I feel a reworking of the WoT/Warthunder armour system (with maybe a few simplifications) would be the best way to evolve the tank on infantry and tank on tank combat of Battlefield. I am sadly not too sure on what I could do to improve it for it's purpose for Battlefield or just simply improve the current combat that exists in Battlefield 4.

 

I will have to come back to you with a better counter argument and improved suggestion. 

 

 

 

I don't agree with giving recon C4 instead of support. That still gives every class a way to damage vehicles, taking away from the need to rely on your teammates to handle it while you play your role. 

Sorry I might be being a little stupid here but if the C4 is removed from the support class, how can the support deal with armour? The C4 would almost only be used to immobilize tanks meaning you'd have to then rely on engineers to take them out, but the C4 would greatly assist with this due to making the tank stationary. I also feel the grenade launcher isn't really worth mentioning as an anti-armour weapon, it currently does 8? damage to armoured targets and in my proposed new armour system it would be unable to penetrate the armour completely (same for the airburst). 

In regards to the points about C4 a lot if not all of them were written at 3 o'clock this morning so probably are a little sloppy compared to the rest and I will see if they need touching up accordingly. 

 

 

 

I don't think multiplying the points of the winning team really helps. It just encourages mindlessly stomping the other team and leaving if you're losing severely. I think the point multiplier should apply to everyone, and be based on how close to balanced the tickets are at the end of the round. If you have a really close round with a 5 ticket difference give both teams a 2x bonus. If one team stomps the other then cut the points for both teams in half. That way you have a reason to want hard fought rounds. Switching to balance the teams half way though would actually be beneficial to both you and the server.

 This was me adapting an idea suggested by one of the DICE LA developers. Which I felt was solid in premise yet lacked a way to deal with late joiners and team switchers. It is by no means a perfect system but I do feel the winning team needs that larger bonus to spur players on to motivate the to PTO. 

How's this work? Keep everything the same for the winning team but depending on the how close the game is the defenders also get a multiplier. Say something like 1-2.0 times, in gradients of 0.25x. For example: 

A team loses a game by over 50% (The enemy team lost less than 50% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.0 multiplier. 

 

A team loses a game by over 25% (The enemy team lost less than 75% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.25 multiplier.

 

A team  loses a game by over 10% (The enemy team lost less than 90% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.5 multiplier.

 

A team  loses a game by over 5% (The enemy team lost less than 95% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.75 multiplier.

 

A team  loses a game by over 1% (The enemy team lost less than 99% of their tickets) this gains them a 2.0 multiplier.

Your thoughts? 

WAR-gamerDJ



#4
ClashOfTime

ClashOfTime

    Community Member + MC

  • Community Member
  • 216 posts
  • Timezone:MST
  • Country:Canada

 

A lot of my suggestions were building off the current BF4 system so a few of them clash occasionally. In regards to the M-COM point values it is something I struggle with, as it needs to be a strong incentive to push the to the objective, while also not destroying the outlying game play that the revolves around that 'core'. I think maybe a compromise between the two maybe? Increase the points but then also give a smaller 'bonus' scored to players who were within 50m of the objective when it was armed and needed to be defended. It would have to be something equivalent or less than a kill (50pts) or it could possibly unbalance the risk/reward ratio making people want to sit near the bomb and not plant it.... something to be thoroughly investigated though.     

Yeah, it would probably work better with a set radius.
 

 

 

Sorry I might be being a little stupid here but if the C4 is removed from the support class, how can the support deal with armour? The C4 would almost only be used to immobilize tanks meaning you'd have to then rely on engineers to take them out, but the C4 would greatly assist with this due to making the tank stationary. I also feel the grenade launcher isn't really worth mentioning as an anti-armour weapon, it currently does 8? damage to armoured targets and in my proposed new armour system it would be unable to penetrate the armour completely (same for the airburst). 

Well tanks aren't the only vehicles in the game. You still have things like MRAPS. Those are fairly squishy compared to tanks and I would say the grenade launcher would be somewhat viable. Support also has gadgets other than C4 like the mortar, which I do still think has a place in the game (although I strongly disagree with the Idea of it being remote controlled).
 

 

 

 This was me adapting an idea suggested by one of the DICE LA developers. Which I felt was solid in premise yet lacked a way to deal with late joiners and team switchers. It is by no means a perfect system but I do feel the winning team needs that larger bonus to spur players on to motivate the to PTO. 

How's this work? Keep everything the same for the winning team but depending on the how close the game is the defenders also get a multiplier. Say something like 1-2.0 times, in gradients of 0.25x. For example: 

A team loses a game by over 50% (The enemy team lost less than 50% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.0 multiplier. 

 

A team loses a game by over 25% (The enemy team lost less than 75% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.25 multiplier.

 

A team  loses a game by over 10% (The enemy team lost less than 90% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.5 multiplier.

 

A team  loses a game by over 5% (The enemy team lost less than 95% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.75 multiplier.

 

A team  loses a game by over 1% (The enemy team lost less than 99% of their tickets) this gains them a 2.0 multiplier.

Yeah, that sounds good. I still feel like the winning team multiplier should be scaled a bit though. Maybe it starts at 1.5 and scales up to 2?


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#5
Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*

Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*
  • Forum Guest

 

 

Yeah, it would probably work better with a set radius.

Something like 600pts for the destroy and then 25pts for any friendly who was ever within 25m radius of the M-COM while it was armed? I doubt there would ever me many more than 8-10 people in that sort of radius keeping the points value roughly equal overall.

 

 

 

 

Well tanks aren't the only vehicles in the game. You still have things like MRAPS. Those are fairly squishy compared to tanks and I would say the grenade launcher would be somewhat viable. Support also has gadgets other than C4 like the mortar, which I do still think has a place in the game (although I strongly disagree with the Idea of it being remote controlled).

On the vehicles apart from IFV's & MBT's, not much here would change from the current meta. As C4 and anti-armour missiles would still KO them in two hits most likely. And in regards to the grenade launcher only if you got a direct hit in the right place, preferably the join between the bonnet and windscreen, they really don't have that bigger punch in real life. In the game they do slightly more damage than they would IRL but that's fine but they'd have no chance in hell against a IFV or MBT. Which I think if fine as we don't want all classes being able to beat some of the scariest unit in the game, whereas all units can take do or disable the lighter land vehicles, as well as some of the air vehicles.

I think I'll give a more detailed explanation of my proposed changes for this at a later date. As i've realised I haven't made it very clear. 

 

In regards to the mortar I don't like the standing emplacement that we had in BF3 as it took a player out the game and all they did was place down annoying grenade spam or somewhat useful smoke cover. The BF4 system is better but it is still cumbersome and allows you personally to hide way out of the action. That was why I suggested removing the actual mortar and instead adopting the tablet with a blind map system. That was it doesn't take a player out the game manning it, it doesn't require the cumbersome set up and due to the fact the map only allows you to fire in a area around you and it doesn't give you enemy positions it forces you to be stuck in on the objective while also not rendering it overpowered. Which is why I also suggested to increase the number of rounds it fires in a barrage as well as it's spread making it a poten area denial weapon and a mediocre anti-personal weapon that had it's advantages and drawbacks. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that sounds good. I still feel like the winning team multiplier should be scaled a bit though. Maybe it starts at 1.5 and scales up to 2?

 

Something like this? 

 

A team wins a game by over 25% (They have lost less than 75% of their tickets) this gains them a 2.0 multiplier. 

 

A team wins a game by over 50% (They have lost less than 50% of their tickets) this gains them a 2.25 multiplier.

 

A team wins a game by over 75% (They have lost less than 25% of their tickets) this gains them a 2.5 multiplier.

 

 

A team loses a game by over 50% (The enemy team lost less than 50% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.25 multiplier. 

 

A team loses a game by over 25% (The enemy team lost less than 75% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.5 multiplier.

 

A team  loses a game by over 10% (The enemy team lost less than 90% of their tickets) this gains them a 1.75 multiplier.

 

A team  loses a game by over 5% (The enemy team lost less than 95% of their tickets) this gains them a 2.00 multiplier.

 

 

​So in a game of 1000 tickets let's look at what this would give us for a few examples:
 

 

-Team A wins with 750 tickets remaining (Rare)

 

.Team A gets a 2.5 multiplier

.Team B gets a 1.25 multiplier

 

-Team A wins with 500 tickets remaining (Uncommon)

 

.Team A gets a 2.25 multiplier

.Team B gets a 1.25 multiplier

 

-Team A wins with 250 tickets remaining (Common)

 

.Team A gets a 2.0 multiplier

 

.Team B gets a 1.5 multiplier

 

-Team A wins with 100 tickets remaining (Common)

 

.Team A gets a 2.0 multiplier

.Team B gets a 1.75 multiplier

 

-Team A wins with 50 tickets remaining (Rare but ideal)

 

.Team A gets a 2.0 multiplier

.Team B gets a 2.0 multiplier

Thoughts?



#6
ClashOfTime

ClashOfTime

    Community Member + MC

  • Community Member
  • 216 posts
  • Timezone:MST
  • Country:Canada

Well being overly specific with numbers doesn't really get us very far at this point. I would more worry about refining a general concept before spewing numbers. 

I think you sorta misunderstood what I meant by scaling the winning teams multiplier. I want to punish the winning team for mindlessly stomping the other team, and both teams should be rewarded equally for a close round. What I had in mind was scaling the winning teams multiplier so that a complete steamroll only gives them a 1.5x bonus, where a really close round would give them a 2x. That way switching teams half way through a steamroll is the more attractive idea than mindless stomping. I also don't like your proposed numbers for the losing side. I think they should only get a 1x bonus until they bring the enemy down to 50% of their tickets. Like I said though, no point in getting specific with numbers.

You made your proposed changes for vehicles perfectly clear. I just don't think it makes sense to go quite that far, and I'm still thinking in terms of current mechanics. If all vehicles were invincible to every kit except engineer that would just disrupt the class distribution even further (and probably make the game miserable). Yeah, it makes sense to restrict the ability to destroy a tank to engineers, other tanks, and possibly mortars. It just sounds ridiculous to have to rely on engis for absolutely everything vehicle related. If we wanted to go all out, MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) are designed to hold up against RPGs and mines. How fun would that be? It also means C4 wouldn't even scratch any somewhat armoured vehicles since it's a percussive charge, not a shaped charge, meaning it just goes boom. It doesn't actually cut through armour. Please excuse this one terribly thought out paragraph. I just find it's kinda hard to discuss vehicle balance when you're proposing a system that you yourself don't seem to fully understand the consequences of.

As far as mortars go, I just absolutely hate the idea of the guy not being physically on it. If I track down a mortar I want the kill. As far as teamplay goes, they're kinda like snipers. Yeah, they can be used in absolutely stupid ways, but they also have plenty of viable uses from a teamplay standpoint. You need to remember there's a whole lot more to "playing the objective" than just zerging the flags (btw, google zerg rush. it's fucking hilarious). Every class has it's role, and that role defines the way that class handles the objective. I think the best option would be to force the guy to sit on the mortar and take the doritos off the mortar computer so communication is required of you want to be effective. Remember, it also slows down the game if people are putting their focus into things other than zerging. 


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#7
Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*

Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*
  • Forum Guest

Well being overly specific with numbers doesn't really get us very far at this point. I would more worry about refining a general concept before spewing numbers. 

I think you sorta misunderstood what I meant by scaling the winning teams multiplier. I want to punish the winning team for mindlessly stomping the other team, and both teams should be rewarded equally for a close round. What I had in mind was scaling the winning teams multiplier so that a complete steamroll only gives them a 1.5x bonus, where a really close round would give them a 2x. That way switching teams half way through a steamroll is the more attractive idea than mindless stomping. I also don't like your proposed numbers for the losing side. I think they should only get a 1x bonus until they bring the enemy down to 50% of their tickets. Like I said though, no point in getting specific with numbers.

 

I realise now that you are completely correct on this, no point getting detailed values with such a rough concept.

The problem is that no matter how much I agree with the idea that a steamroll shouldn't be rewarded, I find that it would be a very hard argument to make to most people. As even I can understand the logic that if you win by a large margin they would expect a larger reward from it. I think this is something I'm going to have to dedicate a lot of time into for figuring out a solution.  

 

 

 

You made your proposed changes for vehicles perfectly clear. I just don't think it makes sense to go quite that far, and I'm still thinking in terms of current mechanics. If all vehicles were invincible to every kit except engineer that would just disrupt the class distribution even further (and probably make the game miserable). Yeah, it makes sense to restrict the ability to destroy a tank to engineers, other tanks, and possibly mortars. It just sounds ridiculous to have to rely on engis for absolutely everything vehicle related. If we wanted to go all out, MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) are designed to hold up against RPGs and mines. How fun would that be? It also means C4 wouldn't even scratch any somewhat armoured vehicles since it's a percussive charge, not a shaped charge, meaning it just goes boom. It doesn't actually cut through armour. Please excuse this one terribly thought out paragraph. I just find it's kinda hard to discuss vehicle balance when you're proposing a system that you yourself don't seem to fully understand the consequences of.

This 'terribly thought out paragraph' as you put it I think reflects how poorly I tried to explain myself (which in turn has made it so that the actual idea of what I was saying was lost. I by no means want the engineer to be the only option to deal with all vehicles, only the heaviest of them. In my head IFV's could still be destroyed by C4, while all the lighter armoured vehicles like the MRAP would still take on average the same amount of damage they do from mortars and grenade launchers at they do now, it would just be worked out in a different way.)

 

 

 

As far as mortars go, I just absolutely hate the idea of the guy not being physically on it. If I track down a mortar I want the kill. As far as teamplay goes, they're kinda like snipers. Yeah, they can be used in absolutely stupid ways, but they also have plenty of viable uses from a teamplay standpoint. You need to remember there's a whole lot more to "playing the objective" than just zerging the flags (btw, google zerg rush. it's fucking hilarious). Every class has it's role, and that role defines the way that class handles the objective. I think the best option would be to force the guy to sit on the mortar and take the doritos off the mortar computer so communication is required of you want to be effective. Remember, it also slows down the game if people are putting their focus into things other than zerging. 

  

Again this is a issue I'm torn upon, on one hand I agree with your sentiment and on the other I also agree with annoyance people felt when there would be four people sitting on mortars the whole game, doing absolutely nothing to assist their team. 

Zerg rush is hilarious, gotta love starcraft!

With my whole thinking the support class is a class that should be at medium distance providing cover fire and allowing the more CQB classes to close the distance. Which was why i suggested the idea of them having to be within 50-100m to aim at the target they were after. I just felt that the whole image of them playing down fire support, spotting an enemy position, before opening this tablet and having to remember where to call the rounds in seemed to fit the image and position of the role better. I by no means wanted to make it a gadget that conflicted with the classes designed role. 

P.s I hope I don't seem dismissive of your thoughts and ideas as to be honest this has been a great experience for me in regards to refining my thoughts and ideas. For which I am very thankful! 



#8
Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*

Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*
  • Forum Guest

As I'd felt as I hadn't articulated my thoughts on the subject very well at all I went away and spent the last five or six hours upon the next section of work and I hope it confers my thoughts in an accurate manner. I also think I'll make this my last attempt to express my true intentions when it comes to the vehicle system I proposed. This will be broken down into several sections detailing the specifics of each vehicle, the weapons against them, and the resulting interactions between the two.

First let's look at these new systems that I am talking about.

-Hull: this functions in a similar manner to the current vehicle health system with the following alterations.

 

--The hull can be penetrated allowing interior systems to be damaged, with different areas of the hull with have different thickness's, requiring weapons with higher penetration values to punch through it. Each anti-tank or explosive weapon will also have a representative damage rating that reflects the overall damage that it does to the hull, if the hull is destroyed the vehicle is then wrecked, destroying it without killing the crew within. When the vehicle became wrecked the crew would bail from the vehicle using the top hatch, forced animation (lasting 2-3 seconds of which you would only be visible for less than two thirds of it) before regaining control of your foot soldier.

 

--In addition to rounds being able to penetrate to deal additional system damage, damage to all facings would be the same (there would be no rear end shot damage bonus as if the shot penetrates the round will get that bonus due to the armour being either thinner or the systems located there, I.e the engine and fuel tanks).

 

--The hull as well as all the following systems can be repaired as per the current system using the repair tool. With the hulls health being represented as it is currently, arranged around it will be a second meter broken into sections. Each one of these section will represent a interior system, these will be repaired one at a time at the same time as the hull, though their rate of repair will need to be balanced accordingly. It is my desire to make sure that repair times only increase slightly with a upper limit of 15% time increase, though this may require me to go away and create a specific scheme for this new repair system.

-Primary weapon loader: This is one of the interior systems that can be damaged if a attack penetrates the hull of the vehicle. When damaged it increases the time it takes for your primary weapon to resupply its ammunition. Some vehicles may have multiples of this.

-Secondary weapon loader: This is one of the interior systems that can be damaged if a attack penetrates the hull of the vehicle. When damaged it either increases the time it takes for your secondary weapon to resupply its ammunition or decreases the time it takes before your weapon overheats (in the case of the co-axil HMG's and LMG's). Some vehicles may have multiple of this.

-Defensive weapon loader: This is one of the interior systems that can be damaged if a attack penetrates the hull of the vehicle. When damaged it decreases the time it takes before your secondry gunner seats' weapon overheats.

-Engine and transmission: This is the largest of the interior systems and with all the rest of the interior systems it can be damaged if an attack penetrates the hull of the vehicle. Depending on the level of damage it sustained different effects will occur. If one of the systems is damaged the vehicle is stuck in low power mode, dropping it's movement speed by 25% . If both systems are damaged the vehicle will become immobilised for 2-4 seconds before regaining it's mobility, due to the damage the vehicle's movement speed will be reduced by 50%.

 

-Fuel tank: A internal system that if damaged will cause a secondary detonation that will destroy the vehicle, killing the crew within as well as anybody being transported within.

 

-Ammunition rack: This armoured ammunition rack sits within the interior of the vehicle and can be damaged as with all the other systems. When damaged it cause a secondary detonation that will destroy the vehicle, killing the crew within.

 

-Transport compartment: Due to the nature of the vehicle any round that penetrates the vehicle can damage the occupants of the vehicle. This can cause (with a lucky shot or even a well placed one) the vehicle to be neutralised without wrecking or destroying it.

 

Now let's look at a quick selection of which vehicle gets which interior system (this is a small sample group to give you a rough idea of what it would be like).

-Main battle tank:

.Primary weapon loader

.Secondary weapon loader

.Defensive weapon loader

.Engine and Transmission

.Fuel tank

.Ammo rack

 

Infantry fighting vehicle:

.Primary weapon loader

.Secondary weapon loader

.Defensive weapon loader

.Engine and Transmission

.Fuel tank

.Ammo rack

 

MRAP

.Defensive weapon loader

.Engine and Transmission

.Fuel tank

.Transport compartment

 

Above I've given my brief overview of three different vehicle types and below I will hope to give a overview of a few different types of anti-tank weapons and explosives.

First of all let's look at the RPG a anti-tank weapon, a weapon designed to penetrate through the armour of a tank. In my proposed situation this weapon would have a high penetration statistic but would cause a lower level of damage to the hull of the vehicle. When the round penetrate the hull it would then send out a cone of shrapnel dealing damage to the systems within. For the RPG due to it's nature it's cone would be greatly restricted in terms of breadth but in return would throw shrapnel deeper into the interior of the vehicle. This means that if a accurate shot lands, penetrating the armour it will be more likely to either destroy it or deal serious damage to it. Making it the ideal anti-tank weapon to take out tanks (though it does require knowledge of the vehicle you are targeting to land a killer blow).

 

Secondly let's look at C4 which is probably the most effective anti-tank weapon currently. This weapon in real life would most likely be able to punch through the armour of even a IFV, this does not mean I will necessarily carry this oven into my proposed system.

For me I feel C4 is the saboteurs weapon, used to lay traps, destroying lighter vehicles or wrecking the heavier armed vehicles. Due to this nature C4 will be one of the more flexible ways to take down a vehicle. When detonated it will cause a sphere of 'shrapnel' around it that can damaged the interior systems, though different thickness's of armour will reduce reduce the depth that it can breech into the vehicle's interior. In addition it will do a large amount of damage to the vehicles hull. Making it a great all round tool for dealing with vehicles without allowing it to take out some of the heaviest vehicles instantly (while requiring less knowledge of the vehicle to deal this damage).

Thirdly let's look at the anti-tank mine, a place and forget low risk weapon. Now currently I'm not sure how these are detonated, whether it's set off by the wheels or tracks or if it's just by the vehicle passing above the mine. In my new proposed version the mine would only detonate when a wheel or track passed on top of it.

When detonated the mine would do massive damage to the hull while also having a high penetration value as well as two shrapnel cones. One would be low level penetration with a shorter wider nature while the other would be of higher level penetration with a longer thinner nature. Though due to how this would be detonated the likely hood of hitting the interior systems on the heavier armoured vehicles would be greatly reduced. Still if a tank did manage to drive over it, detonating it towards the centre of the tank there would be a higher percentage chance of it managing to destroy the vehicle. And against light armoured targets the lower penetration cone would deal enough damage to kill the occupants anyway.

Lastly let us look at the grenade launcher class of weapon, which is primarily designed to deal with infantry. Against vehicles it would have both a poor penetration value as well as a low hull damage value. It would also have a decent fragmentation radius allowing it to deal major damage to the interior if it could penetrate the armour of the vehicle.

Now let's look at how these proposed changes would (roughly) effect the vehicle game play in relation to each other.

 

For lighter vehicles such as the MRAP there would be little change except for very rare cases where the vehicle wasn't destroyed, when it previously would have been or a weapon such as a grenade launcher may kill more occupants then before. This may lead to a few occasions where the crew is forced to bail from the wrecked vehicle due to damaged from a high penetration weapon that has a small AOE cone of interior damage. Most players I expect would adjust relatively quickly to make sure to make their shot landed in a position to mitigate this. In regards to the grenade launcher the values would have to be properly adjusted to retain a fair and balanced detonation pattern.

For the Infantry fighting vehicles they would likely garner some extra protection from instantly dying to a row of anti-tank mines. C4 would be more likely to wreck the vehicle instead of destroying it, though well placed C4 traps could destroy the vehicle by punching through it's thinner underbelly and possibly causing either the fuel tanks or ammunition racks to detonate. This would also apply to C4 placed in positions on the exterior near to these 'weaknesses'. RPG's and higher penetration weapons would still be the most effective weapons against these vehicles allowing highly skilled players to have the possibility of one shot-ing the vehicle.

 

For the Main battle tanks they will also likely garner some extra protection from instantly dying to a row of anti-tank mines. C4 would be more likely to wreck the vehicle instead of destroying it, though well placed C4 traps could on rare occasions destroy the vehicle by punching through it's thinner underbelly and possibly causing either the fuel tanks or ammunition racks to detonate. RPG's and higher penetration weapons would still be the most effective weapons against these vehicles allowing highly skilled players to have the possibility of one shot-ing the vehicle.

 

Lastly I'd like to say that all figures used are only there as a very rough representative of these proposed alterations and changes. With none of them being a figure to rely on as accurate. I will hopefully be trying to make a mock up of the different types of weapons and 'shrapnel' cones to give a better idea of how this would work in practice.   

 

I also hope that this has conferred the thoughts behind this system. One where skill and accuracy are rewarded while also reinforcing vehicles against the multitude of ways they can be attacked. Allowing for skilled drivers to minimise the damage sustained due to alterations of facing and speed and allowing skilled infantrymen to use their equipment in a way that will be the most effective.
 

(Anyway I need to go and play the end of Witcher 3's NG+ so I can start my review on that so I think this will be my last post on the topic unless someone asks me any further questions) 

 

Many regards.
WAR-gamerDJ

 



#9
ClashOfTime

ClashOfTime

    Community Member + MC

  • Community Member
  • 216 posts
  • Timezone:MST
  • Country:Canada

I think I'm just doing a terrible job of explaining myself. For the most part I just disagree with the more realistic approach given the nature of the game. Your idea just doesn't quite seem right for the game. A lot of other things would have to change as well. This seems more like the kind of thing a more serious game like Squad would have. Battlefield is naturally a more simplistic, arcady type game, and it makes sense to keep things more simplistic. Maybe they could make the system a bit more complicated, but going this far just leads to confusion and hurts the flow of the game. Also the hitboxes and netcode are still so messed up that there wouldn't be a way to get this to reliably work. On top of that, I think you sorta misunderstand the way certain weapons actually function.

I honestly just don't know though. In the end I personally consider BF as a franchise a lost cause. I just don't know what people are playing for... Is it for kills? Half the players have a terrible K/D, so I doubt it. Do they play for position on the scoreboard? Again, I doubt it. They always play like shit, and there's always a huge difference in score between the top few and the rest. What do they actually play for? This is a question that I proposed a year ago on the CTE forum and I still haven't really got an answer. The community just doesn't have a set drive that you can attempt to influence anymore. People just run around like little derplings without direction. I just think it's hopeless...

Also I did actually want you to google zerg rush. Google has a hilarious mini game that plays when you do.

This has certainly been an interesting conversation though. Certainly does bring me back to a time when I could have intelligent gameplay discussions with random people online without someone being an asshole. I really appreciate it. I used to spend hours discussing game mechanics on various forums...


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#10
Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*

Guest_WAR-gamerDJ_*
  • Forum Guest

I think I'm just doing a terrible job of explaining myself. For the most part I just disagree with the more realistic approach given the nature of the game. Your idea just doesn't quite seem right for the game. A lot of other things would have to change as well. This seems more like the kind of thing a more serious game like Squad would have. Battlefield is naturally a more simplistic, arcady type game, and it makes sense to keep things more simplistic. Maybe they could make the system a bit more complicated, but going this far just leads to confusion and hurts the flow of the game. Also the hitboxes and netcode are still so messed up that there wouldn't be a way to get this to reliably work. On top of that, I think you sorta misunderstand the way certain weapons actually function.

I honestly just don't know though. In the end I personally consider BF as a franchise a lost cause. I just don't know what people are playing for... Is it for kills? Half the players have a terrible K/D, so I doubt it. Do they play for position on the scoreboard? Again, I doubt it. They always play like shit, and there's always a huge difference in score between the top few and the rest. What do they actually play for? This is a question that I proposed a year ago on the CTE forum and I still haven't really got an answer. The community just doesn't have a set drive that you can attempt to influence anymore. People just run around like little derplings without direction. I just think it's hopeless...

Also I did actually want you to google zerg rush. Google has a hilarious mini game that plays when you do.

This has certainly been an interesting conversation though. Certainly does bring me back to a time when I could have intelligent gameplay discussions with random people online without someone being an asshole. I really appreciate it. I used to spend hours discussing game mechanics on various forums...

No worries I wasn't doing much better. 

I understand what you mean, it is a arcady game or at least has become inclined to be, I just feel that with some of these changes to push it back towards a milsim through more realistic mechanics could reduce the effects of the vocal (negative) fringe elements that have become more mainstream over the last few iterations of the series. I agree the game would need a serious overhaul and a lot (if not most) of these suggestions would be for future Battlefield titles.

It does seem like a hopeless (and thankless) battle yet I still have a little fight left in me and I want this game to be AAA in name and in spirit, delivering gameplay that makes others strive to be it.   

I'll google that now!

My pleasure. Feel free to comment on any of my reviews you have thoughts on or just start up threads and put my name as a tag I'll make sure I try and give my best opinion on the subject. 

Many regards. 
WAR-gamerDJ







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Battlefield 4, Review, Long, Detailed, Gameplay analysis, mechanic suggestions, Very long, WAR-gamerDJ reviews, Send help