Bf4 clans

XtraFalcon

Hitmansixfour wrote: »

Hi guys. Just to add to what mule said, we have it set up on classic maps just to try get some traffic onto the server but if anyone wants anything in particular like a certain map/mode we would be happy to accommodate them if at all possible. Thanks

Seems interesting, we were actually discussing about a week or so ago in a party chat about jumping onto a Hardcore server to do a test run to see how we get on.

Just asking about the rotation as usually most conquest servers these days are running Naval Strike maps which coupled with Hardcore would be devastating to an infantry player.

Hitmansixfour

XtraFalcon wrote: »

Seems interesting, we were actually discussing about a week or so ago in a party chat about jumping onto a Hardcore server to do a test run to see how we get on.

Just asking about the rotation as usually most conquest servers these days are running Naval Strike maps which coupled with Hardcore would be devastating to an infantry player.

I see your point indeed. We tend to stick to the original and smaller maps as they provide a better balance between infantry and vehicles. Rules out the sniperfests and spending all day running to points and dying immediately when you get there from an unseen sniper 2 miles away.

If you want to try out any kind of server set up or game mode give me a message here and we will be more than happy to try and sort something out for you.

Cheers

XtraFalcon

Why the hell did they keep spawning there?

paul_booth_fan

XtraFalcon wrote: »

Why the hell did they keep spawning there?

Cos they're idiots. Typical fu King rooftop campers, delighted for them.

psnKOB79LFC

Disappointed with the One gameplay:

"Why can no one be honest and agree that the player movement speed is stupidly fast and should be more suited to arena shooters that BF.

Yes I get it, it is not a simulator, but that doesn't excuse going even more chaotic. To me it is more Hardline 2 than BF4 successor "

cobraeire

psnKOB79LFC wrote: »

Disappointed with the One gameplay:

"Why can no one be honest and agree that the player movement speed is stupidly fast and should be more suited to arena shooters that BF.

Yes I get it, it is not a simulator, but that doesn't excuse going even more chaotic. To me it is more Hardline 2 than BF4 successor "

I thought it looked great can't see the hardliners similarity between them if it's to slow paced then people giving out about it then just like bf4 they'll be patching the ****e out of it if a game comes out just leave the way it is what I seen from it impressed me ,take my money dice

keithc83

In the main i enjoyed the gameplay footage, and if anything it looked more Battlefront than Hardline. There are obviously still a few issues to sort out (reload glitch for one) and i'm not sure yet about the vehicles but we'll no doubt see more details and improvements before the release later this year. Like Alan said overall i'm very impressed and really looking forward to this. Especially getting to play as a squad, it'll be fun!

XtraFalcon

psnKOB79LFC wrote: »

Disappointed with the One gameplay:

"Why can no one be honest and agree that the player movement speed is stupidly fast and should be more suited to arena shooters that BF.

Yes I get it, it is not a simulator, but that doesn't excuse going even more chaotic. To me it is more Hardline 2 than BF4 successor "

I really have no idea what you mean by mentioning player speed, it's not fast in my eyes at all and Hardline is the only arena-like (if even that) shooter in the Battlefield series.

If simulators are your thing, you can go play Arma and get killed by a stray bullet after crawling around the raider-like squads for about 7 hours.

In my eyes it looks brilliant, an actual jump forward. Watching some of the footage of people in the rubble of the buildings is a throwback to the Western Europe Style of 1942 maps while some of the untouched landscape and scenery of the maps ready to become desolate is the link to Bad Company 1 and 2 (Not so much BF3)

The vehicles don't look to be over-used despite Stone-Mountain's squad attempting to taxi an armoured car.

As I said I think it looks brilliant, BF4 looked amazing in the previews and when it was released it was only half a game due to the sheer amount of problems with it, time will tell but I can't see DICE making the same mistake this time around.

I think it's going to be one of the best if all that's promised is delivered as long as it sticks to the core of the map design - Dynamic and Destructible.

keithc83

Actually speaking of highly anticipated upcoming titles, Alan you must be eagerly awaiting this one:

I've got a brand new Combine Harvester...

:pac:

cobraeire

keithc83 wrote: »

Actually speaking of highly anticipated upcoming titles, Alan you must be eagerly awaiting this one:

I've got a brand new Combine Harvester...

:pac:

OMG fook battlefield I'm going milk me some cows...****ing A

paul_booth_fan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7h2ExZ3qzM

Considering I was extremely hesitant after the initial reveal, I'm definitely on board now. The HUGE difference in points between taking an objective and getting a kill essentially forces you to get on flags just to be competitive. Love it.
Just my thoughts on the speed of the game, I'm ok with it. Remember that soldiers in WW1 carried very little gear, nothing like modern day. So a slight increase in speed fits with the timeline. Maybe it's just me, but with the increased FOV on PC, gameplay always appears quicker than it plays compared to console footage.

*EDIT* I know it goes without sounding, but the sounds are amazing. The slight tinny echo from other soldiers when you're in the tank is such a good little detail.


Really looking forward to this now, and with Ghost Recon next year as well it looks like we've a decent selection of team based grants coming up

SharpCoder

It takes long enough to run from one side of a conquest map to another as it is, why would i want them to make it so it takes a lot longer?

paul_booth_fan

That spawn in, zooming down motion is just sexy.
Making it so that only the dedicated mechanic (who has to Spawn as the driver in the vehicle) can repair the tanks and jeeps is a nice little touch. Makes it highly unlikely the enemy will steal your tank when some idiot bails out at half health. Beta can't come soon enough.

XtraFalcon

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

That spawn in, zooming down motion is just sexy.
Making it so that only the dedicated mechanic (who has to Spawn as the driver in the vehicle) can repair the tanks and jeeps is a nice little touch. Makes it highly unlikely the enemy will steal your tank when some idiot bails out at half health. Beta can't come soon enough.

Also the tank will become a total powerhouse depending on how many gunners spawn on you. With a communicating crew you could rip a team apart.

paul_booth_fan

XtraFalcon wrote: »

Also the tank will become a total powerhouse depending on how many gunners spawn on you. With a communicating crew you could rip a team apart.

Tanks should instil fear in infantry though. They should make you scatter for cover. The flip side, is with every soldier now capable of damaging armour, with a communicating crew....and Cobra......you could rip a tank apart :pac:[/quote]

cobraeire

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

Tanks should instil fear in infantry though. They should make you scatter for cover. The flip side, is with every soldier now capable of damaging armour, with a communicating crew....and Cobra......you could rip a tank apart :pac:

[/quote]
No jeep stuff

paul_booth_fan

cobraeire wrote: »

No jeep stuff

As far as I know, every class has the option to equip an anti-tank grenade. Assault class have the anti-material rifle as well I think and didn't they say something about dynamite? Pretty sure I heard it mentioned.

psnKOB79LFC

SharpCoder wrote: »

It takes long enough to run from one side of a conquest map to another as it is, why would i want them to make it so it takes a lot longer?

Your comment here is exactly the problem (in general terms). Why shouldn't there be a distance to cover to get from one side of the map to another... maybe walking to the other side of the map isn't a good idea so, perhaps use transport or take a closer flag?

Having a value on a life actually gives the game more suspense other than it being a spawn, kill, die, spawn, kill, die mini-game.

I mentioned above that I thought it was too fast and while I think it is a touch COD like with the speed a lot of this was down to the fact that I was referring to PC gameplay (more twitchy) and in respect to good players (faster reflexes).

Essentially so I will wait and see...certainly not a game changer.

Paul_booth_fan, I agree that it is great that objective play seems to be rewarded better but did anyone notice that one team lost despite having way more flag captures. Okay it didn't say how long those flags were captured and that is a crucial stat too but I wonder is the ticket bleed off or something?

psnKOB79LFC

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

As far as I know, every class has the option to equip an anti-tank grenade. Assault class have the anti-material rifle as well I think and didn't they say something about dynamite? Pretty sure I heard it mentioned.

"Recon" definately have dynamite alright.

SharpCoder

psnKOB79LFC wrote: »

Your comment here is exactly the problem (in general terms). Why shouldn't there be a distance to cover to get from one side of the map to another... maybe walking to the other side of the map isn't a good idea so, perhaps use transport or take a closer flag?

Having a value on a life actually gives the game more suspense other than it being a spawn, kill, die, spawn, kill, die mini-game.

I mentioned above that I thought it was too fast and while I think it is a touch COD like with the speed a lot of this was down to the fact that I was referring to PC gameplay (more twitchy) and in respect to good players (faster reflexes).

Essentially so I will wait and see...certainly not a game changer.

Paul_booth_fan, I agree that it is great that objective play seems to be rewarded better but did anyone notice that one team lost despite having way more flag captures. Okay it didn't say how long those flags were captured and that is a crucial stat too but I wonder is the ticket bleed off or something?

Well i think it boils down to game length and not holding up official game servers, it's bad enough to find a game server on BF4 as it is that's not full, could you imagine a wait for hours at a time to get in a game?

Games like arma that offer this type of long ass game is ok because they're not official game servers 95% of the time, and on PC, consoles don't have this luxury in most cases.

it's ok to be a lil faster than normal slow, just as long as we don't end up running along walls, sending dogs to take down the blimp and jumping into spaceships...:pac:

SharpCoder

Sony's new patent...

paul_booth_fan

SharpCoder wrote: »

Sony's new patent...

I swear I drew something just like that about a year ago. First LvlCap steals my weapons tips and now this?!?

paul_booth_fan

Get outta my damn skies....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk0wWVwDA0s

XtraFalcon

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

Get outta my damn skies....

Since we're already Atlas Squad, we might as well do the MAA's job on the fly.(No pun intended)

XtraFalcon

paul_booth_fan

Just came up against 2 Brazilians (on a European server, obviously) and both were invisible for the whole round. Coincidentally, they both went offline when I confronted them about it. Of course Battlelog isn't a thing anymore so I can't even flag up the round and report it.

psnKOB79LFC

Haven't played BF in a long time...biggest gap in 4 to 5 years now.

Loving Rainbow Six so much that BF1 isn't even exciting me. Just seems too fast, too fictious and am hating the change in conquest scoring and rush changing to 24 players. Sad times

paul_booth_fan

And so boys and girls, it has come to this.....




We've had some great rounds but the last year has seen this clan turn into cliques, with subtle bickering replacing comminication. Membership has increased while the number of active players has actually decreased, 63 members and something like only 10 of us that bother playing. So after almost 1200hrs, now is as good a time as any to remove myself. I take some personal pride in 60 weapon Mastery Tags, 94 Assignments completed, and somehow a SPM of over 825.........despite........."running about trying to unlock crap instead of sacred PTFO" and "just looking after our own assignment agenda, not the teams"..........how selfish of me, ha.

Peace out bitches

SharpCoder

paul_booth_fan wrote: »

And so boys and girls, it has come to this.....




We've had some great rounds but the last year has seen this clan turn into cliques, with subtle bickering replacing comminication. Membership has increased while the number of active players has actually decreased, 63 members and something like only 10 of us that bother playing. So after almost 1200hrs, now is as good a time as any to remove myself. I take some personal pride in 60 weapon Mastery Tags, 94 Assignments completed, and somehow a SPM of over 825.........despite........."running about trying to unlock crap instead of sacred PTFO" and "just looking after our own assignment agenda, not the teams"..........how selfish of me, ha.

Peace out bitches

took your time pops lol

psnKOB79LFC

What prompted the resignation.

Re people not playing, difficult to join in when others are so familiar with each other.

Anyway conquest doesn't need teamwork, it is a small bonus bit anyone saying it is tactical is deludes. Rush does and no one feckin plays it!!!! I long for my BFBC2 days with real intra clan battles.

Dem were the days