Battlefield 1 multiplayer is horrible

the mp is just bad what's up with the weird shooting mechanics, How come the shooting is not as smooth as titanfall and cod.. Everytime i get into a firefight with a few people the screen goes crazy and it feels like the game slows down.. The campaign is good but the mp feels like shit..

Right right.

Nice try with the trolling.

"How come the shooting is not as smooth as titanfall and cod"

Oh, thank God. I was kind of worried it would be like CoD and Titanfall. Thank you, sir, for making me very happy and very excited for Battlefield 1

It's set 100 years ago the guns are not gonna shoot smoothly like in futuristic games like cod and titanfall .

That's a good thing full stop . Look how smooth the shooting was in bf4 compared to bf3. I liked how there was a lot more recoil and sway in bf3 felt really good when you got better at controlling it . First time I played bf4 the shooting was so smooth it kind of reminded me of modern warfare 2.

But BF1 runs the same engine as Battlefront which IS a lot smoother than BF4 so BF1 is actually running much smoother than BF4 so what are you talking about exactly? Lol.

Also BF3 is superior to BF4 in every aspect.

@hxce:

I'm talking about the fact that the game uses very old weapons that obviously were nowhere near as good as the modern weapons seen in bf3 and 4 so they are obviously not gonna feel super easy to shoot and kill people with .

I javnt played battle front but my comparision between bf3 and 4 is because its almost entirely the same weapons in the two games and shooting is much easier in bf4. It took more skill in 3 and I feel like bf1 is somewhere in between .

In cod there is practically no recoil or anything when you shoot so it is super easy to just line up a shot and kill. I assume that is what the OP means by smooth shooting? If not then sorry .

And is the screen going crazy the suppression effect or is he actually saying the game is broken.

@ningyupowadat:

All right I see what you mean now. But I think OP meant performance wise or general "feel" of the game as he mentioned the screen was going crazy and that the game slows down.

But if it's just the weapons differences then of course you are right.

Better give Verdun a try instead.

"Why doesnt a world war 1 shooter feel as smooth as titanfall"

U being serious?

I haven't tried BF1, but I love BF3 since it was better than COD for me personally. BF4 kinda more like COD, which is why I didn't get any of their DLC. I haven't any curiosity toward BF1 until u created this thread.

U might say that the guns were not that smooth, this enough to convince me to get this game already. LOL

@ningyupowadat: yeah the weapons take A LOT of skill to use, and I love it that way. Every weapon is deadly in the right hands, it's not just a matter of Gun A > Gun B. It's also about what gun is best for you; close-quarters machine gun, medium range semi-auto rifle, heavy machine gun...you get the idea.

The game isn't melee-centric either--no "glory kills" or anything like that here--but you find yourself in close quarters using your knives, shovels, and clubs a lot more often than you did in previous Battlefield games.

Vehicles can also, in general, seat more people (some variations of the "land ship" can seat five people! It makes for some great teamwork! while bombers can seat three) and there seem to be a lot more stationary emplacements like cannons, AA guns, and machine guns.

It's really, really fun! It feels, I don't know...a little more hardcore? But still really approachable at the same time. It's funny though because you can tell the ubercasuals are getting a little frustrated because they actually have to work a little bit at their game. It's a very rich experience, I can barely play for more than an hour because it is so intense, I need a break to relax. I Really can't say enough good things about it. And that's just the multiplayer!

The singleplayer is amazing, nice to see them put effort into it. It plays like a collections of really well crafted short stories, which is fine by me; short, sweet, to the point; you get to know the characters and then it's over before they ruin them (unlike most TV shows!).

I know it's early, but CoD and Titanfall have their work cut out for them, that's for damn sure. I think we definitely have "multiplayer FPS of the year" winner already. Still hopeful for those games being good, though!

For those worried about the technical aspects, it is nothing like BF4's release; thus far my experience is very very smooth, and the only issue I've encountered was in the singleplayer game when a horse clipped a bit through a tank. Otherwise, smooth as butter.

Nerf the sniper rifle, though! Pretty sure that thing one-shot me in the torso, that's lame.

where is parkour/wall-run? lol

LOL ;D

I think it actually feels a lot smoother than Overwatch for example. I don't remember how CoD feels. Haven't played it since CoD4.

yeah I agree.

I Really really wanted to like Overwatch, but I just felt that behind every action there was a dice roll or some weird thing going on, because nothing ever really occurred as you thought it should have, nothing felt organic.

@mrbojangles25:

Absolutely man if only put about 4 hours into the multiplayer so far, havnt had much time to play but within 20 minutes or so I had already come to the conclusion that it's the best battlefield yet .

I do t think titanfall or cod even at there best can touch this.

About the sniper rifles though . Each one has an optimum range at which they can kill you with a body shot . I'm pretty crap at sniping in general but the way it is now I took up a position in one game and got 8 kills with mainly body shots. The most I'd manage in bf3 or 4 would be 2 or 3 kills max . It was a lot of fun for me , but as a below average sniper I can t even imagine the damage good snipers are gonna do in this game .

@mrbojangles25: Haha i know, i had my heart set being able to double boost jump out of a trench lol

@ningyupowadat: yeah, I'm finding range is a much larger factor than in previous titles as well. That 1911 pistol is deadly within 20 yards, but any further and it's almost pointless. Likewise, you get in close with a semi-auto rifle and try hip firing, you are toast. You really need to be smart with your weapons, and your class: I'm favoring medic right now, I generally try to find a big group of friends to spawn with, stay in the back and toss med packs, then run up and revive when it's safe. I just unlocked a semi-auto rifle with a scope and bipod (most weapons have a "sniper" variant), so it makes sitting in the back a lot better.

On a separate note, I just played my first Operations game. HOLEEEEEEYYY SHIT! Intense! And long! But entertaining!

I really don't care if I come off as a fanboy but DICE has just made one of the most memorable and amazing games in recent memory.

Teamwork is occurring organically and often. And I don't know how they're doing it, but every match has been insanely close; every win feels hard-fought, and every loss does not feel shameful. This has got to be one of the most gratifying, rewarding games to come along in many, many years.

@mrbojangles25: How is dying from one sniper shot to the torso lame? That's realistic. I hate when I shoot an enemy with a sniper and he doesn't die. Like WTF?

it kind of crosses that line where realism meets frustration. It's a game based on realistic stuff; that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be realistic, like a sim.

The reason the sniper rifle does so much damage in most video games is because A.) it is difficult to use, and B.) that damage peak is only reached by getting a head shot. In other words, it is conditional: "hey, here is this really awesome high damage rifle that can instakill, BUT it will only do that instakill IF you get a headshot, capiche?" Granted, a torso shot should do like 80-90 damage so a follow up is lethal, but the torso is a very very large target in video games and if you can single shot someone to to the torso, it's frustrating and unfair.

After all, many of the weapons in BF1 either have the same or similar size caliber of the sniper rifles and by logic (if this were a realistic game) all weapons would be instant kills to the torso, but then you'd have a game only a very very few people would want to play.

That's why BF is so awesome, great blend of realistic portrayals without realistic mechanics.

Sure , but now we are talking BF one not BF4

@Jacanuk: Well he mentioned "how smooth" BF4 was compared to BF3 which I dont agree with because the netcode in BF4 was broken in comparison.

Let me start over folks... I'm not trying to say battlefield should play like titanfall and cod, I'm simply saying the game lacks smooth proper gameplay.. Even compared to medal of honer and other shooters battlefield just feels like a slow clogged up mess.. Everytime i get into a firefight the game feels like it slows down like the matrix movie.. I know a ww1 game is not gonna be as fast paced as other shooters but why is it so slow compared to other multiplayer.. The campaign is perfect fast pace and runs smooth.. I believe BF 4 had the same problem smooth campaign but just overall bad multiplayer gameplay.. The battlefield mp is broken both gameplay and mechanic wise..

Ahh ya he did. BF 4 was a broken game and was horrible compared to 3 and earlier

OP is trolling for 2 major reasons. Maybe 3:

-BF1 is running the highest tick-rate of any previous BF games.
-BF1 ballistics are actually almost twice as fast as the previous 2 BF games
-OP is playing on console. Of which neither major console can hold stable 60FPS. Ever. DICE is useless here.