Battlefield 2042 I'm Invisible?

[@Jamdouglass]

lmao you walking that tank off the cliff was so funny

[@Arvyn992]

I can hear that screaming as Ravic chased him, thinking that he had C5 explosives

[@cripwalklover8380]

i heard the cartoon “gulp” sound when he fell off lol

[@SamFisher69420]

really glad i'm not alone in that i get distracted by the ludicrous amounts of debris just whizzing around. the amount of times i've scoped in on some cloth or a bag because it looks like a sundance in the distance is astronomical

[@Ravic]

It's a weird obsession for some DICE devs that started back during BF3. They must have floating trash, debris, plants, crap, whatever at all times. Whether that is because they feel it fills the empty void or something else it doesn't really matter because the end result is it distracts a player's eyes frequently making it harder for them to notice enemy players which in turn means they have to put in more spotting and other dumb mechanics related to that.

[@Slenderneer]

@@Ravic 'Immersion' I assume is the reasoning, even if it's one of the dumbest excuses for something that harms gameplay.

[@SirKebbo]

@@Ravic so obsessed with flying stuff that sometimes even dead bodies fly away lol

[@voxelemur]

I've always thought that too many game modes was a mistake in the long run. Too many iterative titles are warped into incompetently structured messes these days, and a lot of people just want a game that works without deferring basic functionality and fixes to a major update a year after release, and with a reasonable amount of content out of the box (no live-service drip-feed).

[@Nick-hm9rh]

Honestly 2042 only having like 5 game modes is good cause it already cant fill servers with them. Adding more options would just make it worse

[@EvanG529]

4:55 I'd love to think that glance upwards was an instinctual reaction to the V-1 rocket noise

[@dashiejinxx100]

I feel like part of the divide in the playerbase could be addressed by having a global server browser. I think Portal is a great tool, and I love playing a mix of Portal and Vanilla modes, but DICE should consider condensing it all into one browser. This will give people a server browser for Official servers and will put everyone in one place while looking for a match, rather than dividing them immediately at the main menu. In regards to official gamemodes, you make a solid point. I remember struggling to find a gamemode of chainlink in Battlefield 4 to unlock a weapon (I don't remember which). It actually took me longer than doing the Phantom assignment because I didn't want to waste money renting a server just to get a gun. I'd rather have 3/4/5 official modes that are a blast to play and have occasionally featured playlists, such as meatgrinder playlists (For the Operation Locker fans). Having too many that are of a medium quality HUGELY detracts from the overall enjoyment, and really divides the playerbase, as they get to choose between like 8 shitty modes that no one particularly asked for.

[@Ravic]

I was trying to keep server browser and things related to it as the next topic in the next video as there is more to go in with that one. Main point being related to the topic in this video description though is even if there was a server browser, it would show that the majority of players late at night were playing Conquest ( as it has since Battlefield 2 at least on PC ). That also doesn't mean the server browser helped and in some cases it may have persuaded some to stop playing for the night when they saw only three active servers up in their region ( happened a lot in NA region for BF1 or BFV ).

[@dashiejinxx100]

@@Ravic While I agree that it definitely can deter people from playing when there's only 3 or 4 servers up, I would also say that I've tried other gamemodes as a result of this. There have been times on BF4 where I've looked for a server, seen that there's a few online with huge queues and wound up playing a different mode. I doubt that this is the case for the majority of people, though, else we would see more conventionally unpopular servers being more full at non-peak hours. Looking forward to the next video though. Curious to see what you say on the matter.

[@sgtbeercanyt]

@@Ravic Id rather have the option to put myself into a nearly full server with 80 ping than to be forced into a 30 ping empty server in the games attempt to populate my region tbh. The only reason this game doesnt have a server browser for aow is because the servers arent persistent and likely never will be

[@Ravic]

I can't officially claim the servers aren't "persistent". As far as I can tell there are a certain number of servers spun up in each region depending on the population and they follow the same map rotations ( which is a different problem that could be resolved with a simple RNG seed ). Yes you are booted back to the spawn main menu after a round is complete but that doesn't mean the server isn't still running and starting up the next map in the rotation. I believe that is why you get instances where you end up playing the same map over and over again because you leave one server playing a map and get queued into another server that just started that same map because it was behind in the rotation or wasn't the first server to be populated in the region. The ping and empty server thing I'll leave for the next video as that is kind of a separate topic which again really doesn't require or rely on the existence of a server browser.

[@sgtbeercanyt]

@@Ravic I just dont see any harm in allowing people to play what map theyd like to play , when theyd like to play it in aow the same way you can in portal. If people are avoiding a map intentionally then let it show in the player data , thatd be the best feedback possible for developers. I miss being able to view the oncoming map rotation and knowing what servers to avoid because i didnt want to get stuck on operation underground etc. Now as you said i get stuck playing the same map several times or have to que into another lobby instead.

[@YUNOBF3]

6:08 I love this target acquisition and tracking.

[@jcaashby3]

2042 has some of the best footstep audio, it is very precise to pinpoint enemies coming towards you.

[@WalrusHal]

That bit where the driver backs his tank off the cliff while trying put distance between himself and Ravic is just hilarious.

[@xTGRxREAPER]

Him running the tank off the cliff reminded me of a tank running away from my friend with a riot shield. Thing was hilarious.

[@irish924]

Making the tank back up and off the cliff was genius

[@macdaddy0683]

lol that was me that took that nightbird @1:35, I'm sorry. that's funny cuz I remember taking it and I looked to see if you were in the match but didn't see you. as I flew away I thought to myself "damn I definitely just stole someone's Heli"

[@Racer_RL]

That return fire at 10:00 was just downright disrespectful, just one round and back to what you were doing XD

[@mraycgz]

Disgusting shot too.

[@33up24]

I think portal should be a signature of the franchise. The idea of giving the community the freedom to do whatever they want it's mostly a plus. I think plenty of options only becomes an issue when there's not enough content to back it up. Even tho in BF4 nowdays people mostly play the same maps and game modes, that game had plenty of other games modes I used to play when it was on its peak. Not to mention the amount of content. While I get that it is difficult to allocate resources to both giving players freedom and enough content to keep them coming back i do believe, maybe naively, that it is possible specially for a huge company like EA. Of course, it all comes down to willingness tho.

[@oquendo0021]

The tank 😂 even I back off when I see the enemy running towards. Then you said byyee

[@katiethurgar6047]

I could argue both sides but ultmiately I think less game modes is better. I think a conquest mode, a breakthrough mode and a rotating special mode every week. That's it. Pump everything into that.

[@RestlessTexan00]

Honestly, I want a Battlefield with all the core modes it has created thus far. Rush, Conquest, and even Operations. Nothing more. Nothing less. Each game mode having maps SOLELY designed for that mode to be fun and engaging no matter what you play. It's the best balance of quality/quantity.

[@lilbroomstick6171]

Whenever I watch ravic, he influences me to play battlefield

[@walldo64]

Tru! Then the game crashes and I no longer want to play it

[@daylightdies7194]

Or I have one balance game and then it just goes to shit when I just cannot get a break

[@jakethreesixty]

The chat at 17:08 😆 - brb - HOLD ON EVERYONE WAIT UNTIL HE GETS BACK

[@mikeham7975]

I lol'd at the tank going for a dive.

[@ChopperMeir]

I'd have to agree that fewer modes allowing them to concentrate on those modes is the better option. If they want to use throwaway modes then 2042's method of having a revolving door of mad little modes for the weekend works well. It stops players getting burnt out and doesn't hurt the matchmaking too much. I play on console and still don't understand the obsession for TDM modes, BF without all arms combat just doesn't feel like BF to me, although for the next game they really need to concentrate a lot more on balancing the rock, paper, scissors dynamic between vehicles and infantry. Oh and no frigging stealth Helis.

[@daylightdies7194]

Bring back lockers and metro in portal as conquest and rush oh and tdm just leave them as permanent official dice servers and people will come back

[@bakedmomo5693]

zain with crate? so gameplay before the recent class system rework??

[@courtneytasby9393]

Umm wtf her got to 1:05 tell me if you see something Wong with his gameplay eplay 🤔 Specifically the gun

[@Mark-vt9pd]

2:34 the guy that stole the nightbird left it in spawn xD

[@samborambo5634]

The way game modes appear and disappear really pisses me off lmao. Inf only conquest is so good if you're in the mood but has gone now which is just annoying

[@bojangles1117]

Dice should ask the community on all platforms which modes other than the base game they like the best, i.e rush, grind, domination, ctf. Then Dice can add one or 2 modes per season. Instead of 3 or 4 like 2042 that only stay for a week or 2.

[@troypowers750]

I can see why you ask that question considering the franchise's meager post launch numbers, but we haven't had a meaningful new mode in ages. Operations don't count since it's just Rush with flags. I'd love to have a new good mode like a revamped commander system that's more like BF2 or revamped Carrier Assault that adds more to Naval combat, but that's not happening if this is what DICE is capable of right now. I guess focusing on a few fleshed out modes long term would serve the community better, but I honestly do have a soft spot for the idea of squad deathmatch. Also, Portal should've been its own game or f2p platform and not part of 2042. It stretched the development time so thin that it's no wonder 2042 released the way it did.

[@Ravic]

Carrier Assault was a cheap knock off Titan mode from BF2142 and it was also one of those throwaway game modes I mentioned from BF4's DLC. The question wasn't if we need new game modes but does a Battlefield game need a ton of different game modes all being used on the same maps and does Portal really help the game or hurt it. Or does having few game modes that have more focus put on them with regards to the entire game make the overall experience better. Squad Deathmatch? Just curious but do you originally come from console platform with regards to the Battlefield franchise?

[@troypowers750]

@@Ravic yeah. I understand those modes were throwaway. I also have seen how mediocre the numbers for some games can get over time. I'm saying that we need quality over quantity, but I'm getting tired of the same modes over and over.

[@Slenderneer]

Wasn't Portal developed by Ripple Effect (formerly called DICE LA)? That's a different studio to DICE Stockholm, so it would have been unlikely to greatly impact the development of 2042 proper. 2042 releasing the way it did is because that is just how DICE release BF titles. It still had a better launch than BF3 and 4 after all, and I personally had less issues within the first 2-3 weeks of 2042 than I did for the first month of BFV.

[@troypowers750]

@Slenderneer fine, but it still doesn't change how messy development was on all fronts. The release may not be as bad as 4, but there was so many QOL and social features missing that pretty much angered everyone.

[@Ravic]

@@Slenderneer Yes but keep in mind BF4 is now touted as the greatest Battlefield game of all time and DICE LA is "responsible" for that so having them work on Portal instead of fixing BF2042 after launch is clearly the issue.

[@TheMancunianCandidate]

I know I’m in the minority but all I need is conquest and rush and I’m happy with Battlefield. Keep it simple. But they won’t because todays gamers / game industry need constant DLC, skins, modes, weapons, etc, etc. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn’t float my boat. I played mainly vanilla BF2 (+ loads of Spec Ops) then vanilla BC2 for about a year after BF3 launched. Then got into BF3 with Armoured Kill but ended up playing on for years purely on vanilla servers. It was a golden era for BF titles imo that I doubt they ever reach again.

[@ClayAlmighty]

I've personally been liking the halfway system 2042 has of 2-3 main gamemodes and then a revolving door of limited time modes to keep the playerbase from getting bored. But overall I don't think DICE should continue doing Portal. It's obvious it couldn't get the same care and attention as the main game (the inferior game models and animations being the biggest point of content) I'd much rather they used that time and energy to fill out the games actual content and use that as a launch board for offering smaller modes.

[@tylerjordan6089]

I just want them to add infantry only breakthrough as a permanent option having the choice of no overpowered tanks and helicopters is nice

[@Ravic]

Do you think that is a game mode issue or a game balance issue that has still never been addressed for the entire game itself ( overpowered tanks and helicopters )? I'm not entirely against it but it feels silly to me to play a Battlefield game with no vehicles, I might as well play CS if I want to play infantry only. I'd rather the real issue you mentioned be addressed instead of making a separate game mode to hide the problems.

[@kianamini2180]

soon there will be sayings about ravic like them about chuck norris. tanks dont push ravic over the cliff, ravic makes the tanks fall over the cliff.

[@testdrivefan1]

too many gamemodes is the reason i can't get all the weapons in BF4, cuz mf MPX is unlockable by playing the dead mode called Chain Link, or the UCAV

[@Freiss07]

DICE will ends up introducing new game modes on the next title just for the sake of it. Change what doesn't need to be changed, don't change what needs to be changed.

[@amitmou2009]

I dismissed this weapon as a gimic but Ravic has shown me its potential...rail gun sniping will be more fun next time...

[@rainiernqc]

While I understand why people don't like to play against AI, i also understand why people like it. In the last 2 years, I'm fine having to deal with AI. But to your main question, I don't really like when you have so many game modes. And it is specially worse when a game has a lower population. Because like COD you can find a lot people playing the 954 different game modes but on Battlefield, some game modes are very niche and has a specific target audience that is not the majority. But they have to spend resources anyways otherwise people will complain. For the next Battlefield i think it should have 2 main game modes: Conquest and an infantry focused one. And that is it. Maybe they could bring a different, funny game mode into rotation in a weekend like those funny things that we had on BF4 CTE just to play differently, bunch of skid loaders on the roof of a huge building. But with their own official servers with the server browser maybe? Would be cool to have a list of servers again so we can choose. But again, Conquest and an infantry modes only. They could bring back portal later with templates of different game modes like Domination, Rush, Conquest Assault, TDM that people could choose to host and have it there. If I'm not mistaken this is how it works now right? But you can also modify almost everything with the editor. Split a player base is never good and so far it didn't worked with the Portal for 2042.

[@oddworld9454]

Haha when I finally get a game, because I'm in Australia it's like i have a target on my back.

[@USA92]

That gun in the beginning of your video sounds so horrible lol. The video is awesome as usual though

[@amitmou2009]

One pistol has wrecked an entire team.. Wow....

[@FakeFailsafe]

I do think that a smaller gamemode pool works better, unless it's something more arcadey, like Halo. I do like some of the gimmick gamemodes BF has had in the past, but they die out fast, and probably aren't worth, in the long run. I do wanna know if Battlebit has been at all on your radar, and if you have any thoughts about it, if you're familiar. Marco. :)

[@imtrippedout]

You are right. I do enjoy Friday night battlefield, Last week they had throwing knives only. I personally had fun with that.

[@Acheron.426]

The way the franchise is going we'll be lucky to get two game modes next release. It's bad enough we've lost server browsers, ability to team switch, all chat, squad management options, rental servers, multiple maps per season, etc. Hell, we didn't even get TDM matchmaking until a couple of months ago. TDM has been a staple since at least BC2 (with squad death match). And when you first played hardcore mode in Portal after the game launched, everyone was running around with a healing icon above their avatar because the base health is 60 (and game thought they were low on health even though they were at max health) and the devs were too lazy code out that notification until months later.

[@Ravic]

BF1 is when DICE dropped support or the feature of rental servers and many of the reasons they gave were because of BF3 and BF4. I have never seen TDM as a staple on game mode of Battlefield at least not on PC. At the end of the day from BC2 to BFV late at night the only game mode that would really be populated was Conquest. I'm guessing that is a recent console thing where TDM was easier for casuals to grasp similar in how "Hardcore" mode was easier for them as well. It was introduced in BC2 in an attempt to pull some of the COD audience over.

[@Acheron.426]

Well maybe my choice of word was not the best. Instead of 'staple' replace that with 'present'. I liked that mode for pretty chill gameplay as I'm not a vehicle player, and would gravitate towards it after I've had enough of conquest for the night as I also play solo. I have many fond memories playing on smaller TDM servers stalking around and using sounds to my advantage on the noticeably quieter servers.

[@drgreenthumnb]

@@Acheron.426 yeah i was a huge fan of BC2 squad modes. the huge player counts can get annoying and it can be fun to have more of an impact in a match.

[@Ravic]

@@Acheron.426 I understand the playing solo aspect but I don't think TDM was the reason that was possible at least not in previous games. I played a lot of nights solo in BC2 and BF3 ( Rush and Conquest ) because those games whether intentional or accidental were designed to support it. On the subject of sound I'm curious if you would attribute some aspects of solo play being better in smaller game modes because there was less ambient sound, less background white noise. Because I recall it being quieter in general with older Frostbite Battlefield games, now you have rockets going off, fake battle sounds off on the edge of the map, a stupid amount of bird sounds on an active battlefield, etc. filling the audio queue instead of what is around the player.

[@Acheron.426]

You know I really think just with fewer players in infantry only modes I find I have more fun and I'm more in control of my engagements. Guess I don't like the full on chaos of the larger game modes. And when things are quieter, you can generally hear footsteps around you.

[@SPELLINSANITY]

That bird pooped its pants

[@angelchavez3226]

I like ur clips but how do u have ammo box and sensor balls with assault

[@dougt4652]

How do you switch/toggle out of thermal on the xm370a?

[@make_me_twiiz9638]

How do you get the ammo crate and prox sensor on zain?

[@ghostarmy26]

Man i just want a normal Serverbrowser in 2042. I had so many momemts where i just waited 10 minutes to Join an empty server.( Could also be that EU servers are trash). Even Portal would be so much better If you could choose the server you want to play on

[@James-hu9nz]

When the glock is a primary weapon xD

[@vaulthunterfromterra4053]

Anyone wanna talk about how Ravic just chased a tank off a cliff while on foot?

[@joshrivet6225]

they sensed the immense power of Ravic behind the 6 inches of steel, I’d run away too

[@tim1994112]

Dont know whats going on but the last couple of days my lobbies became sweaty af feels like im playing against 32 ravic's all the time

[@KG-th3cr]

You're not invisible to me, bro.

[@BiosNovaa]

How are you using prox sensor with assault?

[@PROFESSOR_TV]

some players do be invisible, it happened on many occasions, they spawn out f thin air 2 second after the death cam lmao

[@Chris-mx4jb]

recoil on the glock seems a bit OP

[@Ghost_P]

2:58 lmfao

[@fr0stw0lves49]

What do you think of the Rorsch shadow nerf against heavy vehicles? It can no longer damage MAVs or tanks. Granted it only did a whole one point of damage, it interrupted repairs, so it was useful.

[@Ravic]

Oh did they? I haven't played since the update this week I'll have to check it out. The main reason I'd pick at armor even after the previous nerf is because of that damn self-heal the tank/armor drivers get, tagging it with the Rorsch will stop that heal from fully completing.

[@fr0stw0lves49]

@@Ravic I think that was the reason it was most likely removed. It really didn't do anything meaningful in terms of damage after the first nerf, so that couldn't be it. DICE was adamant that the weapon should be the thing that "assists" in taking out vehicles and I see no bigger assist than preventing those vehicles from repairing themselves. They really need to find a way to promote the use of the repair tool and Engineer when playing in vehicles, too many people overlook it because of the auto-repair.

[@Slenderneer]

@@fr0stw0lves49 TBF the fewer people using the rep-tool the better. It's really, really strong if you have someone repairing a tank / MAV / Hind / Condor. I think making it a 'free' gadget for the anti-vehicle class was a grave mistake on DICE and the community's part, considering the self-repair ability and APS on tanks.

[@fr0stw0lves49]

@@Slenderneer I mean it may have It’s quirks, and be a bit broken with things like the Condor/Hind, but for tanks it requires tankers to break contact and get out to repair. It opens them up for snipers and other vehicles since splash damage is abysmally good. Which I do agree to a point that the repair tool shouldn’t be a free gadget, It’s also what that class is supposed to do and I genuinely have no idea what would be a good replacement for the engineer’s class gadget. Also, let’s be real, most of the nerfs in the last patches have been because something was “too good” or an too much of an annoyance for vehicle players to deal with. If it’s actually good for vehicle players to have and doesn’t have any detriments, It’s not going away. If they can cry to remove stuff from the game and DICE keels to it, they can cry to keep stuff in the game and DICE will still get on their knees.

[@Ravic]

@@fr0stw0lves49 The problem is it's not balanced when both options are available. With how many seats are available in tanks/armor and air transports in BF2042 they can have multiple infantry reps at all times and they still have their self-heal. If armor didn't have that many seats or the self-heal didn't exist it would be another thing entirely but because self-heal and the ability to repair from inside or outside with infantry is available it becomes broken or unbalanced. DICE kept balancing early on with mindset of worse case scenario, like every infantry player running around with explosives or a rocket launcher. The problem is they kept nerfing various aspects related to those but never addressed the other side of things which weren't being utilized very much early on after the game's launch. When you have a full squad running around in a tank or air transport they can become unkillable, that was something not being shown or explained early on so people didn't pick up on it until later at which point DICE had been balancing around the idea of having only one or two players in a tank, not 4-5. You can never "disable" them like you could in previous Battlefield games so they can almost always get away especially at the speeds available to them in this game. That self-heal crap came from BF1 so I'd love to see it go. If infantry and vehicles have health regen there is no reason for vehicles to still have the self-heal.

[@caanT]

Are the new gen maps different to the old gen maps ....on expose, my map doesn't look like this

[@Ravic]

I believe the size or playable area is reduced on old gen consoles. Reduced player count and reduced size.

[@Dovahscale]

I want to know what mouse this man uses

[@PROFESSOR_TV]

i read the description, i don't think adding portal did any good to battlefield, throw away gamemodes were always a gimmick and some people never moved out of them, battlefield should have 3 game modes max (conquest, rush, domination, and absolutly no tdm). if a player doesn't like any of them they should play something else... we never see them on offical servers anyways

[@Ravic]

Would you consider Conquest in various sizes instead of Domination? Since Domination is basically a mini-version of Conquest except in some instances it had RNG spawning. Just thinking of BF2 where it had various sizes of Conquest for each map and how the smaller versions were used for competition, etc..

[@PROFESSOR_TV]

@@Ravic the bf2 way is good yes. What do you think about : conquest small (48players), conquest (64) and conquest large (128 if dice really wants to keep that) ? Every mode would have a different map layout, and for conquest small they could even rotate between 3 layout

[@Ravic]

@@PROFESSOR_TV Sure something like that. I'd still be concerned about having too many sizes though. Conquest Large for 64 and Conquest Small for 16/32 would leave it as an option for competitive or custom game purposes. My concern would still be about having too many playlists to queue into. That is why I agree with the idea of focusing on something like Conquest and Rush as the core game modes to focus the game and map design on but having multiple playlists of Conquest available at the main menu ( Conquest large, medium, small, etc. ) still results in the problem we run into today with too many game modes or Portal

[@MBOmnis]

Wait... what gun is the "bingus"? lmao

[@FTZero95]

Wait, what is your keyboard layout / controls? Your grenades are on „W“? With which keys do you walk? 😅

[@Ravic]

ESDF.

[@FTZero95]

@@Ravic Okay cool. And why?

[@Ravic]

@@FTZero95 Something I switched to back during BF2/WoW days to get more keybinds on the left side. I wouldn't recommend it.

[@FTZero95]

@@Ravic Haha 😂. Okay, nice to know! Even the struggle of switching it around in all my games would be too much for me.

[@EvanG529]

See, we were right all along, he's clearly invisibility hacking!!

[@kieranholt3950]

I’ve been called a hacker a total of 11 times using the rail gun 😂 shooting helis down is always fun

[@christopherverbeck7469]

So yeah I suck. I saw one of his other videos and thought. I am going to try this. So for like 6 hours on every map I ended up with 2 helo snipes and I couldn't land a head shot at those distances to save my life....because I died like 1000 times. I love the gun for you professional players but old guys like me have to stick with 100 rounded firearms. More down range the better. Keep up the good work and hey stop killing the one guy in the edge of the map with the LMG. He is 53 and arthritic and refuses to put his glasses on in bed. Lol

[@mozzie__au]

You need to chance your name to Ravwick

[@CaolanSuibhne]

When I play BF I think I'm somewhat okay but watching Ravic's video's tells me I'm actually trash. 🤣

[@dylanduff9645]

Invisible? I'd say more like invincible!! 🤣🤘

[@Shankums]

Ravic has more headshots than body shots

[@luvlol1]

Is the game running good now? I kinda wanna play it now...

[@SassyGoodnessReal]

Depends on your specs, I'm running an I5 8400 with an RTX 3060 and have a superb time at all low with a config, 100+ fps. But this was with an annoying amount of tweaking and even then I'm still getting stutters every now and then with brief drops down to 40 fps, for a second or two

[@dekotahhall355]

Man i wish I could get matched with people like this, the people I play on PS4 are like aiming machine gods. These people are out here looking like new born babies with no thumbs lol

[@GMHSVE]

Hardcore4lyf.

[@Lobothomie]

Only in Battlefield...

[@imtrippedout]

Does the rail gun still do damage to vehicles????

[@Leach-ez7dq]

Yes. But little. It got reduced quite a bit

[@imtrippedout]

@@Leach-ez7dq I was thinking that maybe it got removed because I no longer get hit markers.

[@Ravic]

I think the size of the hitmarkers for damaging vehicles and equipment got smaller or harder to see but also hitreg in general got worse so both of those things happening are what you've been experiencing.

[@thetrav2100]

dude that sniper is so versatile.. can kill vehicles.. and players..

[@Tee_B]

Not too good at either now.

[@thetrav2100]

@@Tee_B seems decent to me, did it nerfed or smth?

[@Tee_B]

@@thetrav2100 Heavily nerfed damage to vehicles, and the single shot takes so long to charge that most people can outsnipe you if they're good. All it has going for it is velocity, range, and dropoff.

[@thetrav2100]

@@Tee_B nice, so you gotta have rlly good prediction and tracking to make it work well

[@Slenderneer]

@@thetrav2100 Or, you can just use a bolt-action like the DXR-1 which is a far better sniper. The Rorsch is over-rated in it's capabilities of sniping, as was the complaints that it was dealing too much damage to vehicles (which is a case of people over-using the new shiny toy the first week or two of the content being released and not the power behind the weapon).

[@pauloliver1842]

i remember wen we had on decent players now only gods

[@slavasharko5152]

[@reynaldo_santos]

Raviccc and muzicccc 🤐🤫

[@thinker1417]

Same but in high school

[@jamming1823]

I see 😅

[@SR-September]

gj bro

[@diee123]

yay

[@santiagocardonabeltran3308]

Why is nobody even aware of ur position lol, i shoot my pistol and have 3 dudes on me

[@MADMAX-rj3uw]

this is better with hacks.

[@RealCadde]

Yeah, make one game mode. Hardcore. No spotting except on the minimap by commander assets like BF2. No excessive hud or flashy shit, just you and your weapon or turret and the enemy down range. Good mechanics, no narrow corridors one has to push through to get to the objective(s). Some time they really need to figure out 64 v 64 players or more too so more players can exist on the same server and end up in a major clusterduck and then spread out again over larger maps. Ultimately, it would be so cool to have really large number of players playing on the same server like 128 v 128 or why not 10,000 v 10,000 in the future. The map would be MASSIVE but if people wanted to they could all converge in one area and cause a tidal wave of blood. I've never played normal Battlefield modes more than occasionally a few minutes and BF2's only mode before mods fixed the FEW issues with vanilla BF2. BF2 was the best balance between hard mode and casual mode. And that's probably why they invented the different modes for later titles... Because they dumbed down the casual modes so much that people started screaming for GOOD gameplay so they created hardcore, the way it was meant to be played.

[@Ravic]

I'd have to disagree with your reasoning for creating "hardcore" mode. BF2 didn't have 3D spotting in any form that we currently experience in the Frostbite engine of Battlefield games but it did have a mini-map and normal damage. Hardcore mode was introduced in BC2 to try and pull some of COD's console audience/playerbase over, it has a separate and way easier damage model suited for casuals or control aim and it still had a large map that would show spotted player locations so removing the mini-map wasn't really an attempt to make things "harder".

[@RealCadde]

@@Ravic I don't think you read or was able to follow what i wrote. I never said BF2 had 3D spotting. I want BF2 back, with slightly more damage to everything. Hardcore should be the default mode, if anyone wants to take 10 bullets to the chest they should play a separate non-default mode called googoo gaga mode. Hardcore was not introduced to pull COD players, COD was less hardcore than vanilla BC2. I want the minimap only and spotting should be on minimap only and false spots (no enemy, but some player still reports it) should be a thing. Spamming it should of course mute the spamming player for exponentially longer times. The scope glint that was introduced in BC2 was also a huge mistake. Sure, there were plenty of sniper wanna-be's in BF2 but server's managed that by restricting the number of players that could choose the class. So did many other servers in latter games, despite the scope glint. Anyways, try and rest your eyes before reading and respond to what i say instead of what you misconstrued.

[@Ravic]

@@RealCadde You said they created Hardcore because the game modes were dumbed down in the more recent Battlefield games. That is the opposite of what Hardcode mode does. It pulls you even further away from Battlefield 2. Battlefield 2 had Conquest and Conquest Assault, they were not complex or difficult to understand and were quite fun, but it was the entire game itself that was difficult or overwhelming for most casuals to pick up. Way more specialized and limited classes, gun mechanics that would make most people these days lose it, a slow TTK, vehicles with high skill ceiling control and physics in-game which resulted in being heavily punishing to casuals or new players that haven't spent much time in them, uncap main bases that were not out of bounds or off limits, countless other things. Seriously there was so much to Battlefield 2 that made it what it was so when you say they created Hardcore mode because it was how it was meant to be played like BF2 where you said it was "the best balance between hard mode and casual mode", it makes me think you've never played BF1942, BF2 or BF2142. Because the Hardcode mode introduced in BC2 takes you further away from Battlefield 2, a lower and easier TTK ( because lower player health ) that was never balanced in any way, it took away the mini-map which was something that did exist in BF2, it took away a ammo pool and other HUD elements which did exist in BF2, the only thing it shared in common with BF2 was no kill/death cam and friendly fire but most active 64 player BF2 servers turned off friendly fire for multiple reasons. In BF2 you took way more "bullets to the chest" than you did in BC2's Hardcore more. Hardcore mode in BC2 was DICE's attempt at a knock off realism mode like the one that COD had at the time and in previous COD games at the time, that mode in COD was also called...Hardcore, where you had reduced health and limited HUD elements. It was something they introduced to try and pull in the COD console audience they desperately wanted at the time, BF2 didn't have reduced health or limited HUD elements by default. If you think I've misconstrued I apologize but a lot of what you said doesn't make sense when you say so many things that are incorrect or wrong. Among the other things you got wrong, scope glint was not introduced in BC2, it came later in BF3. Really though you should probably rest your eyes as what I said in the video description referred to Battlefield games having too many game modes. BF2 just had Conquest/Conquest Assault while BF4 had Conquest, Obliteration, Domination, Rush, Squad Deathmatch, TDM, Defuse, Air Superiority, Capture the Flag, Carrier Assault, Chain Link, Squad Obliteration ( I think that is all of them ). The topic in the video description is also talking about a game designed around few game modes vs a game designed around way too many game modes. There was so much more to BF2 because there were fewer game modes, even with the bugs it still had far more features and game mechanics than any Battlefield game on the Frostbite engine. That also leads into map design where fewer game modes means the maps can be designed around specific game modes instead of a single game mode that works kind of well on it while all those other game modes are terrible on it.

[@RealCadde]

​@@Ravic Ok dude, i was following along with your points until half way in that unparagraphed rant. Yes, BF2 had a lot of good features that other titles didn't have. Which is why they made hardcore for those titles to not lose the actual players like you or me that have skills. Bad Company was still such a massive step away and in the wrong direction (not because of COD) that i when i purchased BC2 i played it for about 2 weeks and then i was bored and done with it. BF3 was good, not as good as BF2 but good enough to play it long term. BF4 was worse, still playable but just worse. Gave up with playing BF games after that. I played DICE games when you still had your thumb in your mouth. And the predecessor to all BF titles, Codename Eagle. Don't try it with me bud. Do you even remember the day Pinball Dreams dropped? Those were the days. BF1942 was fun BTW. But it was too clunky and not really with the times. In that sense, Codename Eagle was easier to play, looked better and had hella more fun physics. Of and BTW, it was because of mods in BF1942 that BF2 became so good as they hired a select few modders to consult and provide resources for the development of BF2. When DICE (or actually largely EA) decided to throw all that in the trash, they destroyed the title. It was only in BF3 that they got back to making a good game again, which did NOT affect their sales negatively. BF3 sold more than BC2 did. Despite the higher skill ceiling.

[@Ravic]

@@RealCadde Again they didn't add in Hardcore to make the game like BF2. They added it in to be like COD's version of Hardcore mode which as I explained before and you seem to refuse to read is a mode in which the players have less health and HUD elements are removed ( those aren't BF2 traits ). It's kind of the norm for DICE to pull features and mechanics from COD and I'm surprised you didn't notice with all your gaming resume "claims". They copy things from COD all the time to try and pull players over to the Battlefield franchise, they've done it in big ways ( Hardcore mode ) and smaller ways ( melee takedown animations ) throughout the recent Battlefield games. They did not add in Hardcore mode for people like me with skill, they put it in for people without skill, people that can't aim. Because if you can aim and have decent gamesense Hardcore mode just makes the game ez-mode. You behave much like the people in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4LJm4OeppqKb8U BF3 was sold by DICE as a "sequel" to BF2. When the devs were confronted with how this was a straight lie on their own forums they responded by saying they weren't making the game the community wanted to play ( the BF2/BF2142 community ), they were making the game they ( the devs ) wanted to play. That was why BF3 was an insult to the franchise or for those that played the pre-Frostbite engine Battlefield titles. BF3's sales came mostly from the graphics fidelity leap made at the time ( by the Frostbite 2 engine ) because graphically it looked years ahead better than anything else on the market at the time. Did it maintain those numbers? Not really. BF3 took away a lot of the skill ceiling. It's when they introduced the RNG suppression mechanic that the active population hated. It's also when they took away skillful weapons like the AT4 and made everything ez-mode lock-on weapons, stringer, javelin. At the very least BC2 required you to sacrifice something for that ease of use ( tracer dart / your secondary slot ), BF3 you sacrificed nothing and the skill was taken away. Also it sounds like you are one of those people who only focus on graphics or immersion if you think BF3 was DICE making a good game again. That awful "Art Direction" they pulled to make it look like Hollywood action movies is the opposite direction from BF2. BF3 was a decent FPS game but not a very good Battlefield game. Yes they hired some of the developers of the mod Desert Combat, they were basically DICE Montreal. When EA was consolidating those same developers chose to move on and eventually make HomeFront ( which was amazingly bad, we had high hopes for it because it was the DC devs ) instead of being consolidated into DICE Sweden or DICE LA.

[@ahmedelkarimy2681]

By the way , you could play team death match , as what i've seen , al you do is sniping in none sense from a hill , not even giving shit about the objectives and your team... so yea in my poor opinion sometimes when there is more than 5 to 10 players llaying the same way the hole teams loses because of them 😁

[@markmatter5747]

E ry freakin weapons except for the op g 57 needa taking out thw game they are awful i hate thos guns it makes me not want to play

[@dinxsy8069]

Server name 'hard of hearing - partial sight' servers i get have super humans Dice should have dumped everything into all out warfare and other modes, HC etc. Never done portal, definitely not done hazard zone. Personally what i'd like to see is 1 Battlefield title that's built on over the years (basically what they've done with 2042), not some rushed out the door 2 year title each time. Also if they feel the need to give us a "storyline" in online give us better content that adds to the experience not some weak half baked stuff like 2042 got, Nordvik.... yeah so why we fighting over that territory