What do you want to see next!

[3B|Sg Versus]

Watched some vid's of BF1 the other day, seems pretty decent for our setup.
I won't be sure until I've played it though...

Dunno if I'm going to wait or buy it straight away.
Where did you guys buy it and how much did you pay for it? (+ which "version" is it?)

[1AB|Pvt. Wilhelm]

I have an i7 920, 6 gigs of RAM, and a gtx 950 and BF1 runs pretty well. The only downside I have seen is a lot slower loading times, but once ingame it runs good.

[ADRIFTER]

Interesting it still lets you open the game with something below minimum specs. If I recall BF2 just locked you out completely.

Versus, I got the pseudo hard copy from a store. Ironically the only thing in the box is the product key, you still have to download all 50gigs of it. It cost $60.

[2WD/|Mister_Flanders]

Bought BF1 on Origin before release, but I must say it is a blast!
Running it on a i7-4790K with 8 gig RAM and a GeForce GTX 970

I think especially the Operations mode would be nice for a community like ours, since it is almost all about teamwork and coordination!
One offensive side got x numbers of tickets in 3 rounds of assault, and must push the defenders back from different sets of flags, categorized as "sectors", pushing the frontline forwards (or backwards if your team does not understand that the defenders may capture your newly acquired flags).

If the offensive side fails, they will begin for a 2nd run from the positions they gained, often supported by a behemoth (aka. Zeppelin, Dreadnought or armored train), and continues to push the defenders.
When (or if) the attackers capture the final set of flags, they win this round, and the match procedes to another map in the same theatre (Italian theatre: Mountain fighting -> Coastal fighting), but the attackers only got as many runs (or assaults) as they had when they won.

I'll try to summarize below:

Mountain fighting
1st Assault:
Attackers capture 3 of 6 sectors. (2 assaults left)

2nd Assault:
Attackers gets Behemoth
Attackers capture 5 of 6 sectors. (1 Assault left)

3rd Assault:
Attacker gets Behemoth (again, even if it was destroyed last match)
Attackers capture last sector.

Map moves to coast:
1st assault:
Attackers capture 4 of 6 sectors, but since they did not have "reserves" left from the previous battle, they are exhausted and lose the overall match.

However, should the attackers capture all sectors on the first map during the first assault, they get 3 assaults on the last map, as all of their "battalions" survived the first engagement.
I think atleast one of the operations got 3 maps instead of two, located in the Middle East.

Other than that, the good ol' Conquest is also nice, with dedicated tank kits and pilot kits (should be easy to "restrict" those if we get our own servers running someday, also applies on Operations mode)

Haven't tried Arma, but I am interested, and I think I will buy it later on (especially if that is where this tournament is heading).

[Bailing_Out]

War is Boring reviewed BF1
https://warisboring.com/battlefield-...df8#.za6ok4ubh

Seems he only did single player campaign.

[ADRIFTER]

War is Boring reviewed BF1
https://warisboring.com/battlefield-...df8#.za6ok4ubh

Seems he only did single player campaign.

Who reviews a battlefield game and leaves out the multiplayer? That's like ordering a Guinness and only drinking the foam.

[Bailing_Out]

Who reviews a battlefield game and leaves out the multiplayer? That's like ordering a Guinness and only drinking the foam.

No its like paying a hore full price and only getting a handy

[Ayrton]

And.....the reviews I've read give the multiplayer higher marks than the single player campaign. Almost all like it. Plus, positive customer reviews of the game far and away outnumber any occasional negative review.

.... I must say it is a blast!

I got it recently and I agree.

A lot of intense action. A lot of full servers. Active players. Lots and lots of interesting weapons. The designers have added visual flourishes such as uniforms with capes, multiple types of headgear plus varied equipment. It's interesting, too, because upon recalling and checking some history, the designers got a lot of it right. It appears the items they put in there are historically accurate.

Because WWI was 100 years + ago and this is the centennial of those years - with a lot of books and videos out due to that, I really like what they've done.

As to play, a player can often drop in right where the action is and get involved in a flag contest right then and there. Or choose a rear area. If you get "killed", a medic can almost instantly put you right back in the fight. Gameplay is usually very fast as well.

The controls, movement mechanics, weapons physics are familiar. Not exactly the same, but similar; more and better, maybe. Keyboard actions were very very familiar. Personally, I found it easy to enjoy in those respects.

All this with lush, gorgeous graphics and destructible terrain features. Visually, very immersive. A downside is the more modern gaming approach with the EA controlled unlocks and promotions systems with attendant restrictions.

A semi-downside is the enemy vs friendly color ID marks. Blue or green marked players are friendly, enemy players are unmarked or sometimes red. It's helpful for learning to play - and for infantry combat challenged noobs like me - and to sort out the swirling nature of the player movements, but for us here, that feature might not be hard core enough for tournament play. I don't know if it can be disabled or not.

I didn't get to drive a tank, but did get to be a gunner in one. It was great. Shooting vehicle cannon and mg was much like riding a bike for me. In one map, we did well and took a lot of flags and came from behind to win the match. Killed a bunch of enemy myself. So...yeah! That tank was much like a navy ship in FH2 with multiple positions or seats. Fun.

I bought the standard version from Origin directly for $59.95. Started the download right away from them. No waiting for a key or something like that. Took 1 1/2 hrs or so to finish the download. Had problems with my EA ID parameters, (I think because my old account was on record but inactive or something; ended up with a new account) but got it all finished.

I have a 3 year old mid level system:

Core i7-3770
16 gig ram
GTX 650 Ti Boost SuperClocked 2 GB (roughly the same as a GTX 660 due to overclocking; but technically not the minimum requirement)

Zero problems running BF1 so far. I can play it and enjoy it.

[ADRIFTER]

the designers got a lot of it right. It appears the items they put in there are historically accurate.

I saw a review of it where almost everyone had automatic weapons. Seemed a little too common. Is that the case, or does it favor rifles with the occasional automatic weapon thrown in similar to the balance we are used to with FH2, RO2, etc?

A semi-downside is the enemy vs friendly color ID marks. Blue or green marked players are friendly, enemy players are unmarked or sometimes red. It's helpful for learning to play - and for infantry combat challenged noobs like me - and to sort out the swirling nature of the player movements, but for us here, that feature might not be hard core enough for tournament play. I don't know if it can be disabled or not.

I wonder if that can be disabled server side, since that was the case in FH2 and even FH1 if I remember correctly.


I still haven't had a chance to try the game yet myself thanks to Raid array issues with my new PC build. I keep having one drive drop off the array and requiring a 10 hour rebuild. I think I've finally solved the problem though...

[Ayrton]

It did seem like there are many semi auto and automatic weapons available but I believe that the items themselves are accurate. How common the game makes them may not be. I only played late war maps though. I'm sure many players want the quick firing stuff and the game designers know that.

Other aspects aren't necessarily spot on. My German soldier could only have a colt 1911 .45 as my handgun for example. It was 1917 or 1918, it could be a captured weapon, sure, but still.

I'm still sorting out the class selection and squad building/joining as it's a bit different.

[Audie Murphy]

everyone of every faction can use all of the guns available. there are no faction specific weapons, about the only thing in the game that is faction specific is the armored car

[1AB|Pvt. Wilhelm]

everyone of every faction can use all of the guns available. there are no faction specific weapons, about the only thing in the game that is faction specific is the armored car

And there are a ton of automatic and semi-auto weapons. Overall, most of the weaponry is itself or has some further element to it that was 'experimental' during the war. Basically, an equivalent example would be like giving the Germans in a WW2 game a ton of Maus tanks. It is no historical simulator, but it is fun.

[2WD~~~|Lardagus]

The point of us going to BF1 would not be for anything permanent, but to swell the player base back up. I see it as that RO2 tournament we tried not too long ago, it was fun, and we had a few new people, but the retention rate was pretty much 10%, if that.

If we can get a large swath of people to join and get a hang of what we do, then suggest more relevant games like PR, ARMA, or even FH2, we could kick-start this engine back into overdrive like it was years ago.


But all that depends on if we make it fun for those involved. Because if it isn't fun, no one is going to play.

[ADRIFTER]

Just played it for the first time last night. The new operations gameplay mode is cool. The game also looks amazing.

I wasn't super excited about how they modeled the infantry gameplay though. Takes too many bullets to actually kill anyone. Perhaps worse than the original BF1942. 2 shots from a scoped sniper rifle or seemingly 30 from an SMG. It creates a pace of play too quick of people running around in spray and pray mode like rambo. After getting to used to RO2 not being able to manually lean around corners is also annoying. I wish they would take the infantry gameplay from RO2 and put in BF1...then you'd have an awesome game.

Maybe I'll warm up to it after unlocking better weapons, but ironically the single player is better than the multiplayer at first glance...which was surprising to say the least.

[Audie Murphy]

well to be completely honest the pacing of the infantry combat is very similar to 1942. In bf4 people died in a low amount of hits and the combat was still stupid fast paced where with this you can play it fast paced or you can take your time with things and both are rewarding. Archie and I have been playing this every night with some of us from WaW and a few people that we've met in game and invited into TS and I can very confidently say that when playing with and communicating with the people in your squad there's a lot of good moments for teamwork. I wouldn't at all be opposed to doing a campaign in Battlefield 1 because after playing it for a few weeks I can confidently say that DICE finally made a good ****ing battlefield game for PC, something they haven't done since Battlefield 2142; however, you all seem so quick to jump on the BF1 train that you're forgetting the fact that custom and private servers aren't even out yet and when they are you'll have to rent them from DICE which we don't know how expensive it will be. you people seem so eager to jump on the first thing that isn't a modern/futuristic game that you forget the logistics of the situation. Don't forget we have other options with Arma 3, BF2142, RO2, and others.

[2WD~~~|Lardagus]

"You people". Audie, you should know better. =/

But I do agree, while BF1 is something of a flavor of the month right now, how long will this hype stay together? Will we even get modding tools (my estimates are about 0%) or private servers?
I would actually be more inclined to play something like ARMA or RO2 if it means we have more control over what we want to do, in terms of being both historical and playable. Hell, I was thinking we could do ARMA with various mods to allow us to literally play "though the timeline" rather than just select points in history. I think that would be fun and engaging.

[Fancypants]

I'd be down for a vanilla Arma 3 campaign myself. I love WW2, but I also love a complete game with lots of capabilities and features.

[Audie Murphy]

Like I said. I am not at all opposed to doing something in BF1. I think itt's a really good game, let's just all make sure that we're taking everything into consideration before we all just jump on to the same bandwagon. Also Arma III does have a WWII mod that we could use too.

[Ronid]

Yeah, I know. EA sucks and there won't be any servers and mods. But the idea is to get new people to join WaW. Like Audie did, inviting these guys to TS. Maybe campaign in BF1 is not possible for now, but there is a huge chance to get people to know about us even by just playing with them.
If not campaign, why not creating some clan or team? Get more people. That should be the priority.

[Distant]

one of the worst decisions EA/DICE has made since BF2, removing the ability to modify their game. The secret to longevity of BF42 and BF2 were the facts you could mod them, which is why you still see people play BF2 but no one plays BF3 anymore. I do agree that ARMA is great though for objective play and such, but it bogs down a system with just 10~ people playing if you don't have a high end rig... I've not played with ya'll in years and I came back seeking for the feelings about doing BF1, since I'm going to get it in the next month or so. BF1 will bring back more former players also imo. Those that used to play BF42/2/FH1/FH2 will see a BFEWaW server and might just recollect past glories and join

[Audie Murphy]

expecting to bring back a bunch of former players is a pipe dream, if they haven't come back by now then they've moved on and so should we.

[Ayrton]

For those of you that want to set up specific conditions for your multiplayer games, November will also see EA rolling out the Rent-a-Server Program for Battlefield 1 much as it did for Battlefield 4. You'll be able to rent these through the in-game store, but they're definitely not cheap. If you're playing on PC they will set you back $2.99 for a single day, $11.99 for a week, $42.99 for 30 days, $99.99 for 90 days or a steep $149.99 for 180 days. Prices on PS4 and Xbox One are a little more reasonable, with a single day being $1.99, $7.99 for a week, $26.99 for 30 days, $64.99 for 90 and $99.99 for 180. With your own server, you'll be able to tweak ticket counts, bullet damage, weapon selections, modes and map rotation.

Beyond this, DICE hasn't confirmed when it will roll out its own "hardcore servers" ? essentially the studio's own custom-game-conditions setup ? yet, simply stating that it will be "soon." Battlefield 4's hardcore mode was definitely something for elite players only: it removed crosshairs, lowered everyone's health and enabled friendly fire (among other tweaks) so it's safe to assume that we'll see something similar for Battlefield 1.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...-month-w448550

Some of the same basic info is in the BF1 news section. I suppose we'll see if that comes to be.

[ADRIFTER]

"A steep 149.99 for 180 days?"

Lol, someone has an interesting perspective of cost. Sounds like it was written by a 13 year old. If I'm not mistaken isn't that ($300/yr) approximately 1/4 the price of your average dedicated server? I'm pretty sure I pay more than that for web-hosting for my company site.

Seams reasonable if we can have the type of control we need to make it work.

[Bailing_Out]

I do agree that ARMA is great though for objective play and such, but it bogs down a system with just 10~ people playing if you don't have a high end rig... )

I can't believe that you are going to be able to play BF1 if ARMA3 bogs you down. I play ARMA 3 with this 5 year old PC on the king of the hill servers with 120 people on it. The only thing that ever bogged me down was my old internet connection. My old cable internet and my old 1.5 mb on the phone line connection wouldn't cut it. The cables problem was because its shared in a way with the neighborhood I live in. I had to go to the phone companies 10mb plan.

[3B|Sg Versus]

I bought BF1 last day. Played it yesterday some time and am already lvl 5. (Played it with a mate too, because he asked me to buy it because he thought it was great).

Tbh. I'm sold for doing a BF1 campaign and get some more ppl in, although we would have some work done first, how are we going to do it..., what are the limitations? (talking more like weapon and vehicle wise...), which gamemode etc...
We should also figure out how the party system handles for our tourneyplay.(It could be a handy tool tbh)

I have an I5 6600K CPU, 16GB DDR4 and a AMD R9 270X GPU, I can run everything smoothly on Low (with a fps boost script) on 1280x720px (720p) with an average of 130 fps on my benq 144hz monitor.

[Distant]

I can't believe that you are going to be able to play BF1 if ARMA3 bogs you down. I play ARMA 3 with this 5 year old PC on the king of the hill servers with 120 people on it. The only thing that ever bogged me down was my old internet connection. My old cable internet and my old 1.5 mb on the phone line connection wouldn't cut it. The cables problem was because its shared in a way with the neighborhood I live in. I had to go to the phone companies 10mb plan.

I think it bogs down due to the map/server I play on, there are a ton of spawned bots that it uses as enemies.

[Bailing_Out]

I think it bogs down due to the map/server I play on, there are a ton of spawned bots that it uses as enemies.

Another reason to play PvP with no bots/AI