• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

StarWars Battlefront gameplay debut April 17th

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
balloonshark said:
As long as I can play single missions with bots I'm fine with that. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Yep, I believe I played it back in 2003 or 2004 and had a blast. Was always fun flying the landing shuttles and watching everyone get slammed against the back due to the speed if they weren't seated. The space battles were always funny since everyone went engineer to repair your ship/control the turrets.

Battlefield dropped the battleship control after 1942 so I doubt anything like that will come back. If they just remade Battlefield 1942: Galactic Conquest with up to date graphics I'd definitely be in to buy...but people like me are not the target demo anymore 🙁
 
Wait let me understand this
AT-AT's cannot be driven
No squads....2 man teams
Mostly 3rd person(?)
Use points to summon Vader and such are they bots?
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Wait let me understand this
AT-AT's cannot be driven
No squads....2 man teams
Mostly 3rd person(?)
Use points to summon Vader and such are they bots?
Click to expand...

Vader/Luke aren't bots, but not only can AT-ATs not be driven, snowspeeders are nearly automated at the moment of tow cabling (you keep an icon in the middle of a bar).
 
Battlefield 4 had squads, vehicles, large maps, etc I don't get what consoles have to do with the decision of the way this game was designed.
 
sze5003 said:
Battlefield 4 had squads, vehicles, large maps, etc I don't get what consoles have to do with the decision of the way this game was designed.
Click to expand...

I think it's more along the lines of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Consoles tend to be cheaper than gaming PCs and their wants/needs tend to drive the gaming market. We as PC gamers are mostly an afterthought and get to sometimes experience bad ports and strange developer choices that make no sense to us.

Dev: "Since consoles only have 32 players per server, we really don't need anymore than 4 players per squad"
PC Gamers "Why do we have 32 players now instead of the 64 we had in the previous games?"
 
BlitzPuppet said:
I think it's more along the lines of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Consoles tend to be cheaper than gaming PCs and their wants/needs tend to drive the gaming market. We as PC gamers are mostly an afterthought and get to sometimes experience bad ports and strange developer choices that make no sense to us.

Dev: "Since consoles only have 32 players per server, we really don't need anymore than 4 players per squad"
PC Gamers "Why do we have 32 players now instead of the 64 we had in the previous games?"
Click to expand...

DICE has long claimed that 40 is the "sweet spot", and it should come as no surprise that they are doing 40 in Battlefront.

Thing is, sweet spot for who/what? Their testing of more than 64 players was done internally and probably they don't want to deal with map design and netcode moreso than it's the sweet spot for US.

Never did understand why they couldn't just make ONE 96 player map for who want large maps, and let the rest of them have their 16/32 and now 40 player maps. Current gen consoles CPU/GPU can handle more than 32 players can't they?
 
maniacalpha1-1 said:
DICE has long claimed that 40 is the "sweet spot", and it should come as no surprise that they are doing 40 in Battlefront.

Thing is, sweet spot for who/what? Their testing of more than 64 players was done internally and probably they don't want to deal with map design and netcode moreso than it's the sweet spot for US.

Never did understand why they couldn't just make ONE 96 player map for who want large maps, and let the rest of them have their 16/32 and now 40 player maps. Current gen consoles CPU/GPU can handle more than 32 players can't they?
Click to expand...

It definitely is for sake of time/money. For every different game size/mode you either make an entirely new map, or you adjust the boundaries/cap zones/spawn points of a map and adjust it for size. I assume they believe this is time and money better spent elsewhere.

I remember playing Battlefield 2 and hearing the rumors that came up about "Battlefield 3" on how it'd have MMO type character creation, 128 (!!) player servers, and numerous other things I don't remember. Then BC2 came out and it was limited to 32 people, then BF3 went back to 64 (Yay! Progress I guess?).

Granted having 128 people would definitely be extremely busy and chaotic as well as introducing server pop issues after the numbers dwindled..but I'd still like to experience it in a Combined Arms game outside of Arma.
 
BlitzPuppet said:
It definitely is for sake of time/money. For every different game size/mode you either make an entirely new map, or you adjust the boundaries/cap zones/spawn points of a map and adjust it for size. I assume they believe this is time and money better spent elsewhere.

I remember playing Battlefield 2 and hearing the rumors that came up about "Battlefield 3" on how it'd have MMO type character creation, 128 (!!) player servers, and numerous other things I don't remember. Then BC2 came out and it was limited to 32 people, then BF3 went back to 64 (Yay! Progress I guess?).

Granted having 128 people would definitely be extremely busy and chaotic as well as introducing server pop issues after the numbers dwindled..but I'd still like to experience it in a Combined Arms game outside of Arma.
Click to expand...

Well, of course it's time and money! But the reason I mention it is because DICE has implied that it is the sweet spot for fun, i.e. they are trying to convince us that they are making the decision solely or primarily for it being what all the players want. And then they pull out their "telemetry" stuff too, going back to Battlefield 2 and players preferring maps like Karkand, but they're never willing to admit that BF2 had randumb deviation, which prevented most people from being able to get kills at medium and longer range, thus of course everyone flocked to maps where the buildings and cover allowed you to get closer to the enemy.

I don't think 128 players would be too chaotic at all, except to players who expect to be able to influence every single other player on the entire battlefield. Planetside 2 taught us that it doesn't have to be that way (even though it is sometimes in that game, it definitely doesn't have to be); it's a question of map design and putting thought and energy into objectives. Those are the things DICE is unwilling to do. Now that I think about it, consoles might be able to handle 96 players, but the maps would have to be at least 50% bigger than even the typical "large" maps, and consoles might not be able to handle that part, I suppose.

In any event, the time spent designing the map and the objectives, and likely having something a little more complex that gamepads won't fly with, hurts the case.

I do think it sucks that in order to get this experience you have to go to a realism simulator like ArmA, and that we can't have it Battlefield-style.
 
To be fair, 64 man rush didn't work well in BF. If the maps are more in line with that than conquest I could see the need for fewer players. I'm guessing though 64 player plus bot might be too taxing so they dropped the player count. It does matter that much to me since even on big maps, the players are spread out that it was almost never more than 30 people at a point. They better have a first prosper option though, 3rd person is no good for me for a shooter.
 
Question for the group: Does anyone think the game is going to push graphics requirements beyond BF4/BFH levels?

I'm on a 3440x1440 monitor and trying to work out the best card(s) to maintain a solid 60 in the game without giving up too much on the textures and such. Am I going to require more than one 980ti? If that's true, I might just go with a pair of 290x's w8gb for way cheaper. Or just ride with my 7990 and see what I have to turn down...
 
Emails went out asking if you want to apply for the closed alpha. Get those applications in! I put mine in and was accepted instantly and have the alpha in my account now. Goes live July 2nd!
 
"SORRY BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE STAR WARS™ BATTLEFRONT™ CLOSED ALPHA"

I just liked the stern nature of it.
 
That sucks :/ Thought it would work for everyone because the link is not tailored with a garbled string or anything, seemed universal.

edit: there was an nda after all, can't show anything 🙁
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top