Battlefield 1

What is the attractiveness of Conquest? IMO, just far too much is happening in those modes. I love the feel of BF1 (and prior to that BF4), but have mostly only played TDM modes. Now started playing exclusively hardcore TDM lately which is even better.

Conquest is a battlefield. Its what the game is about, a large scale war with vehicles and everything else. The best part is the openness of the objectives and the gamemode. You can use your brains and tactics against anything the enemy comes up with. Its the perfect feeling of when to flee ad when to fight, how to fight, its pure brilliance ! There are no complaints! That mode makes even randoms play together and everyone can pitch in, whether good at shooting or not!

TDM makes no sense in BF in fact, a few years back there were discussions if TDM should be even there in BF game as it doesn't belong there. Its infantry only thing which could e in any game. Of course, its subjective not deriding your fun or anything, just that playing TDM in BF feels like not playing what makes the game special in the first place. Especially now, when there is hardly much realism in the weapons, bullet drops etc.
 
I guess you're right. I play TDM only for the skill element - aim, shoot, kill. And the strategic element (for me) comes in as you move yourself on the map to gain that little advantage vs. your enemy. Everything of this is even more intense in Hardcore given you die quicker. I play a lot as a Scout, so Hardcore has an advantage in that you don't see from where you were shot. This is crucial, as it just makes the whole game quite a bit more fun.

I'm sure Conquest is grander, but the short moments I've played it, my average TTL (Time-to-live) was quite a bit lower, as I was either mowed down by someone flying around with a plane or I was sniped from afar. And the maps are just huge. I just never quite felt as involved or crucial to the overall objective. And then the game is also quite a bit more choppy (not playing on a Pro obviously)...
 
I'm sure Conquest is grander, but the short moments I've played it, my average TTL (Time-to-live) was quite a bit lower, as I was either mowed down by someone flying around with a plane or I was sniped from afar. And the maps are just huge. I just never quite felt as involved or crucial to the overall objective. And then the game is also quite a bit more choppy (not playing on a Pro obviously)...

My feeling is Exactly the opposite ! One good squad can turn the tide of the whole war and thats whats thrilling! It isn't about how many i killed, its about points and capturing in the most cunning way in the particular situation.
Also , i get that Davud vs Giliath boss battle feeling when i take down tanks or flush out squads from the objective with my gas grenades ! Its actually my particular role that i can carve out on my own in each match that excites me ! The role always gets decided on the go , each match feels unique !
As for your time to live, it will increase only if u read and enemy and retalliate accordingly. Rushing in wont work. You playing as scout it shouldn't be that different as scouts always hold back, i guess.

As for hardcore, yea its tension is always fun. Havent tried it in bf1 but bf3 and 4 were fun to dive into hardcore servers occassonally. :)

I would say give a full match of conquest a try. Change ur goals as the situation demands and u will find a mode where u can have fun no matter what the situation.

Sent from my SM-N920G using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Okay, so I have started playing Conquest.

Note to self: Play the objective, don't concentrate on kills, play the objective.

If you don't and you play Conquest as a TDM game, it ain't fun.

In the process of playing Conquest though, I have come across something quite disturbing though. If you find a game through custom games or server browser, you see that all the games are set to 30Hz. However, if you load the game through Quick-Match -> Conquest, it seems quite a bit more fluid. So my question... are Conquest games capped to 30fps?

PS: I am perfectly aware that the 64 player matches suffer from quite an inconsistent framerate (relative to the smaller TDM games), but from what I have seen in videos (Digital Foundry), I was still lead to believe that the framerate isn't capped and fluctuates quite a bit between 40 and 60 (on a PS4pro closer to 60, a PS4 closer to 40). Can anyone clear this up?
 
Okay, so I have started playing Conquest.

Note to self: Play the objective, don't concentrate on kills, play the objective.

If you don't and you play Conquest as a TDM game, it ain't fun.

In the process of playing Conquest though, I have come across something quite disturbing though. If you find a game through custom games or server browser, you see that all the games are set to 30Hz. However, if you load the game through Quick-Match -> Conquest, it seems quite a bit more fluid. So my question... are Conquest games capped to 30fps?

PS: I am perfectly aware that the 64 player matches suffer from quite an inconsistent framerate (relative to the smaller TDM games), but from what I have seen in videos (Digital Foundry), I was still lead to believe that the framerate isn't capped and fluctuates quite a bit between 40 and 60 (on a PS4pro closer to 60, a PS4 closer to 40). Can anyone clear this up?

Are you sure this is not the server tick rate? this is the rate the server processes movement and hit registration and not the frame rate of the actual game.
 
OMG. That must be it. Thanks.

I was seriously baffled last night, as the first game I loaded seemed to run extremely sluggish (like 30fps like), especially when rotating the camera/gun movement to the point i was convinced I was playing a 30fps game. To be fair, there was a lot going on on-screen and I left the game soon after. Thanks for clearing that up.

While I am at it; Can anyone explain the point behind Operations? We played a few yesterday, but I somehow failed to understand the mission. What I got is that you can select either 40 player or 64 player matches. And the objective is to attack and secure both flags. I also somehow got that each team has 200 lives (or in other words, when 200 kills are registered, the round is finished). What I didn't quite get is why and how the map opens up. Does it open up if you are able to secure both flags, but not before?

And why did I keep playing this game on the Ballroom Blitz map? Is this the only one? (I couldn't select any other Operations from the main-menu).
 
I don't own the game, but from what I understand it's like Rush in that if the attackers win both points it moves on to the next stage.
 
I don't own the game, but from what I understand it's like Rush in that if the attackers win both points it moves on to the next stage.
Pretty much. It's dressed up in more of a storyline than classic rush. Attackers get X lives. If the defenders get them to 0, they get 'reinforcements' (another X lives), plus an airship. If the defenders get them to 0 again, the attackers get another X lives and another airship.

The attackers need to claim the objectives, then the next area opens up. They need to work through 3 - 4 areas before they completely run out of reinforcements and lives to win.
 
Ok. You guys are right, I am wrong.

Conquest is awesome.

But more than that, Operations is even better. So, since my last post in here, I have pretty much played both Conquest and Operations exclusively. Wow. Right now, it's hard to go back to a Team-Deathmatch mode since it just seems shallow in comparison. Back to Conquest and Operations, both have their pluses. I like Conquest because the game is more spread out, you can chose your flags. As such, the map sometimes can feel a little large and overwhelming. And IMO the biggest plus; You can play it in Hardcore mode. Operations... Operations is simply mayhem. I like how you can play a 64 player match and you have all of them attacking/defending a single flag. Unbelievable. And I like how it really gives you the sense of being part of a full scale invasion.

In these two modes, but more so in Operations, the ability to use your classes well really becomes a huge factor. I've played games where we've been completely run over and I've been in games where we as attackers fought in an equally matched up game, gaining bit, falling a bit. The most epic moments I think have been overall in Monte Grapa, as you progress to the last sector and as attackers fought our way up the underground tunnel into the bunker. 3 locked doors, dynamite, grenades and eventually up the stairs into the first halls. Our medics and suppliers made the difference in the end, support supplying us with ammo for more grenades, our medics reviving us as we died. Our numbers kept falling, our Zeppelin came burning down and as the counter reached zero, somehow, we reached the flag and miraculously conquered it. Simply epic.

Which brings me to an important point; Operations (and Conquest) are only as good as they are when the players you play use their classes well. What I think is some of the best gaming moments I've had in a first-person-shooter have also brought some of the worst. I've been playing a lot as medic and I've stopped counting the number of times I died attempting to save my fallen team-members only to see them press the x to respawn just as I got there. In a game where every life counts (Operations/Attackers) it's frustrating. Similarly, I've died a couple of times next to a flag and I know there is a medic right next to me, yet he didn't save me. Similarly, support classes who fail to supply us with ammo. And then there are simply far too many who play as scout. They might help in sniping the occasional enemy off the distance but in the end, you can rarely capture a flag if you're by yourself. Scout is my most played class too, but Operations, I've started playing exclusively as medic (Selbstlader-Optic for the win) because it's better and more effective for the team.

Also, I've also played in Operation matches in Monte Grapa where we've been overrun. I thought I was being smart for once when we were on the 2nd last sector, I gave up on defending the flags and fell back to the underground tunnels at our base/bunker and started closing doors and locking them. Sure enough, 2 minutes later, the sector was closed and the enemy attackers were already knocking on our doors. Guess what - I was the only guy down there trying to hold the line. Our team of 32 players - no idea where they were or what they were doing. Probably taking up positions on the mountain side sniping or something. Trying to defend the impossible, I got run over and the 20 attackers marched straight over my corpse to the flag and the battle was lost in seconds.

I guess this is where it might be fun to play part of a larger team, a larger party of people who know what they are doing. Which brings me to my question: Anyone still playing BF1 on the PS4?

:D
 
On the PS4? Does anyone still play it? Ever since starting playing Conquest in BF1, I have wondered what I missed back in the days of BF4 awesomeness (yes, I only played TDM there too = total fail). I definitely would love to go back to a bit of BF4, I definitely prefer the "modern setting" and the modern weapons, but after investing so much of time in BF1, I don't think I can remember ever having such a great online experience.

Hate or love the WW1 setting, I can definitely appreciate the advantage they bring in that the weapons seem to be overall closer and more balanced. I also think the maps are some of the best, if not the best, I have played in any online shooter. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adored playing BF4, but IMO BF1 just tops it in all areas other than the time both games take place in.
 
There were some updates last night. 4.35GB I think. And we have ribbons again. Not exactly sure for what, but I think they give a bit more points and help upleveling. And I think they removed spectator mode?
 
After I tested Mass Effect: Andromeda and the soon announcement of STAR WARS Battlefront 2 I wanted to look once again at the tech of Battlefield 1. What I have to say:

I am disgusted be the use of the Frostbite engine in Battlefield 1. They use a negative texture LOD in Battlefield 1 which looks horrible. The lower the resolution the worse it becomes. In 1620p (how I played it with 100fps) it is not as terrible but in FullHD it is a nightmare.

Without a high resolution or SSAA this negative texture LOD is a trick to get more details and a higher AF degree out of the textures but it produces a disgusting flickering and moiré effect. This reminds me of earlier video game days in which games often had no mipmaps, whereby the game shimmered then. The aggressive sharpening also aggravates the situation by a lot.

If the TAA is deactivated all the artifacts become even clearer. Many effects flicker etc. STAR WARS Battlefront and ME: A are quite different. Visually STAR WARS Battlefront is way better than Battlefield 1. I hope Battlefront 2 does not get such an eye cancer artefact rich graphics.

I will post it in both threads.

Sharpening comparison PC vs. PlayStation 4: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/189259
 
Last edited:
OK, hold on. I just heard something that seems very strange.

So, Battlefield 1 has only had 1 DLC released so far? And people who got the Season Pass with the game last year for 100 USD get 4 DLCs included, right?

But now Battlefield 1 Revolution Complete Edition will be available with all DLC for 60 USD?

So the people that bought it last year for 100 USD basically got boned out of 40 USD? It's one thing if they'd been playing with all 4 DLC by now, but only 1 so far?

Have I gotten this correct or is there some wrinkle that I'm missing? Because otherwise it seems like EA are just F-ing over people who bought the 100 USD version last year. Even Activision has never boned over someone so badly with COD.

Regards,
SB
 
So the people that bought it last year for 100 USD basically got boned out of 40 USD? It's one thing if they'd been playing with all 4 DLC by now, but only 1 so far?
That's essentially correct yes. The 2nd DLC is about to be released.
 
I am shocked as well (oh DICE, what happened to you) and hope gamers will finally learn a thing or two (which they don't).

Game development is rly the easiest way in the world to make a ton of money imo, as customers (me included) are stupid addicts...easy to milk, easy to feed the same ol shit.
 
Well I'm sure the decision for creating this new pack was from EA, not DICE. Ultimately the higher ups decide how much development time and resources are allocated for making the DLC and how quick they come out. This just further highlights the stupidity of season passes.
 
From what I understand, Battlefront 2 may not have paid maps or a season pass. They've realized that fracturing the community based on which maps they own is not a good thing. Going to be interesting to see what they do in terms of dlc to make up for income they'll miss out on maps. Cosmetics seem to be very popular, as well as early unlocks.

My hope is that Battlefield will go the same route in the future.
 
Well I'm sure the decision for creating this new pack was from EA, not DICE. Ultimately the higher ups decide how much development time and resources are allocated for making the DLC and how quick they come out. This just further highlights the stupidity of season passes.
It is always easy for a dev to hide behind the big shoulders of some unknown suits...you sign the contract with the devil, hence you know what will happen next...I only blame the devs, they are responsible for everything their name is on.
 
Back
Top