• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sorbicol

  1. Does anyone have any tips for this game, 'cause man, I am bad at it. Like 0.2 K/D bad. How do you "git gud" at Battlefield?

    Ha there's a question. The element of chaos in battlefield has always been there so don't really expect to be alive too long. Learning stuff like bullet drop, recoil and quite how each weapon works takes time - I know how this sounds but, mechanically, it shares its DNA with Counter-Strike, not something like Doom or CoD.

    The primary advice I would give is try to find a good squad and stick with them. If they are all camping snipers, leave and find a different squad. Go as a medic or support and spam health or ammo drops as much as you can. If you trying to capture a point, then make sure you are in the capture radius. Spot as much as you can (I don't know if you are playing console or PC but the default spot key for PC is Q) and generally make yourself useful. Oddly enough, your KDR in battlefield doesn't necessarily speak much to your contribution to your team. You can get a perfectly good score with an abysmal KDR.

    As for your weapons, know what their strengths and weaknesses are. Automatic guns are for close quarters ( you can get away with 'spraying and preying' with the assault class and firing from the hip) while the support class requires engagement with iron sights and a little distance to be really effective. Don't forget your keys for lobbing grenades and meelee attacks. Meelee attacks in BF1 are very difficult to avoid, especially a good bayonet charge.

    Use cover - stay in buildings, follow ridge lines, stay off anywhere that gives you a silhouette against an horizon. If you are heading to a exposed point, try to get there in a vehicle, don't walk or run.

    Lastly, NEVER STAND STILL. well unless you are firing from range, but even then you should be crouched or prone. Standing still in BF is just an invitation that says 'please headshot me' to any sniper on the map.

    I've only ever had a KDR approaching 1 in one BF game, and that was BFBC2 (which some people will tell you isn't a true BF game) however I have been top point scorer many times. Some times you find a class and weapon that just clicks for you and you can just play that class and weapon. It can very topsy-turvy too. One game I can get a load of points and a very positive KDR, the next match I've scored nothing and I'm 0-17 on the kill/death score. You sort of have to roll with it. It's Battlefield.

    Vehicles and planes are another kettle of fish. Tanks at the moment feel very OP, planes are a skill unto themselves. I can fly a plane, I can't hit a cow's backside at five paces in one :-/ Start with tanks and go from there.

    That's about it. I don't snipe a lot in BF games, hence limited advice for sniping. That said I've had some success sniping in BF1, which feels a bit weird to be honest.

  2. Didn't know you could reconfigure the planes. Right now the only class I've been able to unlock more than the standard weapons for is the Assualt class. No amount of playing support last night got it to level up within the class. I think progression is bugged for a lot of people.

  3. I played a fair bit last night. Like you say it did feel like battlefront in style, but battlefield in gameplay mechanics. I actually found vehicles to be quite prevalent in the games I played - too much so in some cases as the weaponry to take out the larger tanks mostly wasn't there for the infantry. I struggled to find an anti-tank cannon I would fire before someone took me out and I thought their LoS cones were quite restricted.

    All in all I did enjoy it but it quite buggy for me - I was lagging and warping and hanging like nobodies business. Frequent invisible buildings too.

  4. Cheers chaps. Much appreciated! Alas I forgot I had signed up for the Battlefield 1 beta so I'm playing that now. The discovery of the alien craft though - I think I need to learn to drive with a game pad.

    Have the idiots left Möbius yet or are they still spoiling it for the people who don't want to play the game their way?

  5. With all the updates I'm looking to get back into this game, mostly to break my addition of playing XCOM 2 to oblivion. However my very ancient Microsoft Sindwinder 2 joystick appears to have finally departed this mortal coil (although that might just be Windows 10) so my questions is: Does the game handle ok with a 360 gamepad? Internet searching seems to indicate that it's a viable option, I just wonders if anyone here does so and what it's like. Also, are their any decent setup configurations to download for the game pad? I can get the horizons season pass but I can't really stretch to a new joystick. If the gamepad is an option I'll take it.

  6. You could also try Expeditons: Conquistador. It's a game of two halves - an exploration phase and a combat phase - but it draws them together quite well. Essentially you are managing a Spanish expedition to the New World and have to balance the desires and expectations of your expedition members, while keeping everyone alive. It's pretty good, if a little repetitive but the combat works well and there are plenty of decisions to be made along the way.

    The other game is called Silent Storm although it's a bit old now. Still, even though it rolls dice to determine if you hit someone or not it's not as random as XCOM can be at times and you train up your team to almost guarantee hits as you go along. I played it insessently for about a year when it was released. Might not hold up to nostalgia though.

  7. Hem hem.

    Rob, are we ever going to get that Endless Legend revisit we all voted for a couple of months ago? This isn't a complaint as such, just a query! I would love everyone's take on where that game is now, and also with Endless Space 2's early access lumbering up on the horizon I get the impression many of that game's cues are coming from EL.

    I know you are busy, have just moved from one side of America to the other but you know, I thought I'd ask :D

  8. Huh, I'm not so happy with my first game. I basically just stumbled forward while nothing much happened. I did bring two atomic era civs to the stars and then I had those guys in my other planets as well eventually. I liked that. Then one of the old empires just ate me and I couldn't do anything.

    So nothing for fourteen hours and then sudden death.

    You need to be in an alliance. I had a much more powerful neighbour who could easily have defeated me by myself. However he couldn't take both me and my two allies on, and when he tried I vassalised him in petty short order. However it is taking me 215 years in game to integrate into my empire......

  9. Dewar, when I did it just said "you cannot control ships produced by your sector." I'll try it again when I play tonight, maybe I didn't try to force it hard enough.

    I have an observation post over a planet of primatives in one of my sectors that I can't do anything with because it's apparently not under my control- despite me building it and putting it there. So it seems like something the game is doing that needs fixing - which judging from yesterday's development diary post they are looking into addressing.

    One of my sectors has 20k+ of minerals I can't access too. Considering I got my butt handed to me in an earlier war I could really use those minerals to rebuild my fleet. Does anyone know if it's doable, other than dissolving the sector, using the minerals and then reforming the sector? Because that's going to cost me more influence than I can afford.

  10. You're arguing against a position I don't hold. It's obviously a little too nuanced to fully grasp.

    OK I'm trying not be rude here and I realise that in engaging with you I've walked that line a little close, for which I apologise. However, posting that clearly demonstrates that you don't even understand what it is you were objecting to in your original post.

    Let me put it more simply - what you think you are arguing, and what you are actually arguing are two completely different things. Go back and read what you posted again, then read what Bruce has posted above (because he's articulating the same argument as me, only much more eloquently) and see if you can see through the logic of what you've actually posted.

    You are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion of Rowan, his review and your objection to it. But at least understand what it is your arguing against. People disagreeing with you is no reason to be rude and offensive.

  11. You've clearly not read my comment properly at all. As I said, I can understand his individual criticisms of a game (even though his experience of the game seems to have been unique). However, when a reviewer is writing for an outlet, they should have some awareness of the scoring system they are being asked to employ. It's all very well for you to say "well if only IGN didn't use this, etc..." but the reality is that they do use it and he knew this before submitting the review. This was not it is IGN and if he knowingly gives a score using their scale that is practically the lowest for a strategy game for several years it doesn't take a genius to realise that this will be perceived very poorly if the game is obviously one of the best (if flawed) strategy games of the past few years.


    No I read your comment properly, I'm just calling it for the completely ridiculous statement that it is. 


    You're basically arguing that Rowan should have rated the game much higher just because some people might not like the score he's given the game. So you believe that Rowan should compromise the integrity of the review he's given on the basis of scores that other people have left, using the same scoring system from the same website. "This is an 8/10 game but it's a steaming pile of shit" basically. what's the point of giving a game a score if every game ends up 8/10? People will just start bitching that "this games sucks but you said it was 8/10" rather doing the hard graft and actually, you know, reading the review. And understanding why Rowan reached the score that he did


    Disagree with Rowan's opinions all you want, but don't be arguing that reviewers should go around censoring themselves just because you don't like the score they give.

  12. If you listened to the episode, Rowan went into a lot of detail about his criticisms of the game. Having played it for about 10 hours now, I can certainly see where he is coming from, while at the same wondering if he somehow managed to play a game where nothing terribly exciting happened - which strikes me as something the engine is quite capable of doing, certainly combined with some of the ways it is possible to play the game.

    Now I also disagree with Rowan (I think Stellaris is a very good game, and once some DLC has dropped I expect it'll be an excellent one) but he is more than within his rights to review and game and give it a score he feels it deserves. Quite why that makes a review 'absurd' I completely fail to see. You have also compared review scores for games that were reviewed by different people. That's so illogical it genuinely is absurd! To be blunt, if IGN didn't use the 'score out of ten' system I seriously doubt that Rowan would have received anything like the vitriol (let's call it what it is) he has. I read some of those comments, I seriously doubt many of the commenters actually bothered to read the review.

    Arguments about 'reputable' designers or development studios are utterly pointless. Any studio can release a stinker. Just because you have a good track record doesn't mean you should get a pass.

    The sense of fanboy entitlement and misplaced loyalty in reaction to his review stinks of everything that is worst about The PC game playing community. Something I thought these forums were wonderfully free from. What a shame I appear to be wrong.

  13. Yes. By agreeing to a war that one of your allies is declaring, you are basically saying in advance that you are fine with whatever they decide, even if it involves giving away all of your lands if the other side wishes, should your alliance lose. There's no way to preview what war goals an empire might choose in a given conflict, no way to alter war goals once the conflict is underway, and no way to choose any peace options when ending a war besides all, some, or none of one or the other side's predetermined war goals. There's not even a system in place for exiting an alliance mid-war or making a separate peace!


    It's a very stiff and fragile system, especially since the only war goals that currently exist are cede world, liberate world, and make vassal. I understand that Paradox will probably build out the options (like they did at certain points in Crusader Kings 2's post-release development) but it's a very spare list for a game that's supposedly been a fixture of office multiplayer sessions for months. Where are the war goals to dismantle stations, to force ethoi, to change governments, to deport alien pops? I guess we've learned that Paradox employees like to fight and conquer each other and don't pay much attention at all to internal empire management? Maybe they should get other people to test their games, in that case...

    Well I've just been pummeled by another empire who while they might not be as advanced as me have massively bigger fleets. I've lost my fleets and quite a few of my space stations, but they can't win because my allies are fighting a long war a attrition with them that basically a stalemate.


    I'm slowly rebuilding my fleet (fingers crossed I get left unmolested,   but it's a long war that#s going to go nowhere. Plus the AI is being stupid. it should be targetting my other 2 space stations in the region, but it's ignoring them.


    Damned if this is going to end well, but neither do they want peace. They can f*ck off if they think I'm giving them half my planets too......