Today I learned me about dinosaurs in Battlefield: Hardline. Thanks TheRussianBadger Still not gonna get it lol okay maybe if it's on super sale
A Weltanschauung of Joie de vivre. "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough." - Frédéric Bastiat Always looking for le mot juste.
I doubt competitive Battlefield will ever work for several reasons:
-Connection issues as discussed. I won't go into depth on it because most people on this forum probably know how connection works more than I do.
-I believe this is the most important one; no ranking system. The developers can't design their game around the highest level of play because every public BF4 lobby consists of a giant mixbag of players from all kinds of skill levels. As a result we keep getting maps that don't work very well; new but never really improved.
-Ease of access. If players have to go to some obscure site out there to play in comp there won't have much of a competitive playerbase to begin with. Of course it hasn't stopped several games from sprouting into the eSports scene, but it sure helps.
-Developer Support. A lot of popular eSports today actually took time to fine-tune their game and after its release. By the time a BF game gets to smooth out its bugs and balance problems there's another game on the horizon. eSports have always had to deal with a rapidly changing landscape, and releasing a game annually does not help with that.
-Gametypes. Something original would be nice; CS:S already had a hostage gametype not unlike BF:HL's. People didn't like it, and I'm not sure if it was because the hostage AI was a little off at times. Either way mimicking game modes from other popular eSports is pretty counter-intuitive. I think the bigger grievance in this area is the consistency. BF4 had 64 players slogging it out in pub matches. Comp BF4 was the same slogfest but with only 10 people on some tiny map where even the casters try desperately to make it seem like there's something worth analyzing in the game.
-Spectators. Modern Military FPS in particular can be very difficult to spectate; engagements can be over in a second and there's a lot more the cameraman can miss. Furthermore many popular eSports tend to build up to several pertinent engagements that make or break the match. Battlefield does so poorly because the game types are this long, boring slogfest without any highs or lows.
I'm not saying BF will never be a popular eSport, but these are the trends other popular eSports have in common to make its eSports scene work. I'm also not insinuating that Battlefield needs to be a competitive game to begin with; frankly it's doing pretty well for itself as is.
Last Edit: Feb 17, 2015 21:00:06 GMT -5 by Deleted
I dont think it would ever be competitive for the same reasons id give cod. Hell, Cod itself only has a comp community as a result of their sheer playerbase size and fuck all else. The best hope BF has is the limbo of a community-run competitive scene, but even then its inteface barely supports that.
It seems like battlefield could facilitate a competitive system well... Why doesn't it? I am bad at it, somewhat due to being bad with kb+m, but there's a lot more strategy in it (objective modes) than in cod. 32/64p clans? Why not
In case anyone's curious and have 45 minutes to kill, a competitive 32v32 game of BF4 (Obliteration Mode)beehive soccer will look something like this:
There's no need to watch the whole thing; I quit about 10 minutes in. You'll notice another problem with large swathes of players; momentum is a lot harder to gain back if it's lost. Lopsided matches are seldom interesting.