4 days to 2143
1944 fags please insert your tears into my drinking cup
Honestly I'm ok with either one, I just really hope it's not another modern/near future setting.
It's not like 1944 was gonna have Battleships, Aircraft Carriers, and Submarines anyway.
>>336285575
Lets see if they fuck it up like BF4. Last BF game I bought was 3.
>>336285575
i'd like 2143 for sure, alt history cold war gone hot would be cool, 1944 would be alright i guess
Ideally I think it'd be cool if they did a "battlefields through the ages" sort of thing, where they release like 6 maps piecemeal for different eras
World war 2
Vietnam
i guess gulf war
Modern day usa vs russia with near future tech
2143
30 maps total, it'd probably be too much work though
>>336285575
Yeah man I cant wait for more overpriced EA garbage.
Base game - $70
Premium - $110
The complete BF5 experience with some shitty low budget statue - $200.
>>336286053
BF4 was recently improved upon. Higher tickrates and even some free maps. Some other division of DICE took over managing the game and they kind of actually give a shit.
>>336286223
epic
>>336286215
That's what I hoped they were going to do with BF4.
>Release base game as a modern era shooter
>Create expansions like BC2 Vietnam for the game
>Each one isn't just maps but takes the game to a new era
You'd have one game that covers everything, at that point you could just make maps and everyone wins.
>>336285575
I really hope this is it.
So we'll know if this is true or not.
>>336286349
This. BF4 for the first two years ranged from awful to ok; BF4 a few months after being offloaded on the other DICE team became pretty good with significant balance changes bug fixes and free content packs.
>>336286349
>>336286624
Nah, they started off by fixing some of it but ended up going mad with power. They started going crazy with balance adjustements and totally fucked up DMRs, then Shotguns, then re-enabled suppression, and finally nerfed RPGs into the ground all while buffing vehicles constantly.
At this point the game really isn't playable unless you like using vehicles only.
>>336286427
Yep, it's the only way i can really see them satisfying everyone
Just drop the garbage meme ass singleplayer and devote resources to the different eras
shit would be cash
>>336286939
>t. Baby who thinks infantry should 1v1 tanks
>>336287183
Infantry should be able to fight back against tanks, 3 classes are free kills while the one lone class designed to counter them had all his tools nerfed because tank babies cried.
>SLAMs nerfed because god forbid you have to watch where you drive
>RPG splash damage nerfed because infantry don't want to have to think
>RPG reload time nerfed because it wasn't already hard enough to find ammo boxes
>>336287465
It's bad enough that when I'm relying on a friendly tank to kill their LAV's and a support comes up and sneezes on it with C4 to kill it
But yeah AT mines should be more effective
