10 replies to this topic

[Axe99]

To encourage decision making in BF4 - should also help give us a decent chance at victory if we've got a couple of organised squads.  Outlaw being in the side wouldn't hurt either .  What times/days suit peeps?

[Jykel]

I'll be romping round bf4 on ps3 for a hour or two tues/wed night.   Generally running around with some old VVV players but anyone is welcome to join.  

On PS3, the easiest way to squad up is to hit a 0/24 aussie server and everyone join in, they fill up pretty quick.

[p1nkm15t]

Yeah, the lack of pre-game squadding is a pain in the ass. Apparently they took it out to "Enhance the Battlefield experience"...

I've yet to be able to join on a friend.

[Axe99]

p1nkm15t, on 11 January 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:

I've yet to be able to join on a friend.

I spent 15 minutes trying to join on you a couple of nights ago, ended up giving up, just soooo painful.  Jyks idea is a good one - if we all get on at a certain time and target a specific empty server, but the issue will be that as soon as it starts to fill, we'll get matchmaking people dumped in with us.  It will be even better when we've got custom servers - I'd probably wait until we can password protect something for community nights, and make room for others when just pubbing it up.

[Jykel]

We managed to squad up ok yesterday with a full squad of 5 (me, Hasan, Whitey, MattyGameFreak and KingNothing.)

Its a problem in 2 parts.  All getting on the same server, then all getting in the same squad.

We were all in a a party chat, but just used the old one person join a server with at least 10 spare slots, the others follow.  All in game.

Then its just a matter of getting on the same team, which may even take a round (or did for Matty).   Once we were all in (Rush) it worked well, preserved the squad (and squad perk level!!) between rounds.  

Then you can switch to Game chat if anyone is having issues with Party Chat Nat Type.

If DICE think it was meant to enhance the experience by not having this type of support I think they got it wrong.  I understand having a squad of 5 join a server might unbalance it a little, but it will balance out over time.  That and they preserve the squad anyway and the perk level.   So then all the 'unbalance' carries over anyway, they just make it difficult to setup     

For us it wasnt too unbalanced, another mate of mine Lech joined and got put on the opposite side, and some of his AUF mates joined on him, so we had quite a few good rounds of Rush against good competition.

[Axe99]

Jykel, on 13 January 2014 - 04:50 AM, said:

If DICE think it was meant to enhance the experience by not having this type of support I think they got it wrong.

After playing BFBC, BFBC2, BF3 and BF4 online, I'm of the view that DICE don't actually understand what people appreciate most about the Battlefield experience - it seems they're too hard making it easy for people to blow in and out like in CoD, but that's not what their game is, and it brings the experience down a decent notch, particularly in the larger games.  Oddly enough, the game they're clearly trying to draw closer to (even with the movement and aiming, which feels more like CoD in BF4 than ever before, although it's still distinct enough) allows people to join as parties....

[Jykel]

Yeah its really an odd choice for DICE on next-gen, where the server numbers are much larger, until I stop thinking about conquest and rush only

For a squad of 5 to join a server, it would in theory need 10 slots free so all could join on one side. So might not work as well for the smaller number game modes, hence making it trickier to implement.   So maybe it the price we pay for the variety of game modes . . .

[Axe99]

Jykel, on 13 January 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

For a squad of 5 to join a server, it would in theory need 10 slots free so all could join on one side. So might not work as well for the smaller number game modes, hence making it trickier to implement.   So maybe it the price we pay for the variety of game modes . . .

It's a fair argument, but it worked reasonably enough in every CoD to date, KZ3/SF, SOCOM:SF, the earlier Battlefields, and almost every other online game with team sizes like that I've ever had experience with.  Would be even less of an issue in BF where the matchmaking system completely fills every game - which is where I think the issue comes in, there are a so few games with enough available slots that parties either sit around for ages or get split (as per older BFs) - and that comes back to DICE's approach to filling every game up completely, instead of leaving some 'wiggle room' at the top.

[Jykel]

hehe my attempt to play devils advocate really didnt work but I had to try   

I guess DICE/EA didn't want to produce a game that encouraged squad game play and playing with friends.  Oh hang on, they changed individual perks to squad perks, show detail about squad members classes, high light squad leaders, showing Warning on spawning on spotted or in combat squad members, showing dead squad members, reward squads for following squad leader orders, ok I better stop there ;P

DICE/EA gave us 2 games in one.  Not only do you get BF4, you get the try and join a mate's session/squad game

[Dragonmyballs]

Don't worry guys I'll just be here going it solo on PS3

[Axe99]

Hang in there Drags .

Jykel, on 14 January 2014 - 12:20 AM, said:

I guess DICE/EA didn't want to produce a game that encouraged squad game play and playing with friends.  Oh hang on, they changed individual perks to squad perks, show detail about squad members classes, high light squad leaders, showing Warning on spawning on spotted or in combat squad members, showing dead squad members, reward squads for following squad leader orders, ok I better stop there ;P

Aye, there are some good things in there, it's just that they got the basics so wrong!  They'll get there, and when they do I might play it a bit more .