EPTI'm sure this is to balance since there's no tracers, but goddamn.
also echo the comments for more massive maps in the 42 style of play. I loved those big air war maps that had a sizable ground element. And I love love looooved bomber planes.
Battlefield 3 - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
I'm sure this is to balance since there's no tracers, but goddamn. also echo the comments for more massive maps in the 42 style of play. I loved those big air war maps that had a sizable ground element. And I love love looooved bomber planes. | ||
|
Bondator
Finland120 Posts
On January 07 2011 07:17 CreditM wrote: - It's gonna feel like it was designed for console kids who think it should just be a run and gun type game. That is an idea I see a lot when talking about BF3, but do people actually expect something else? I have loved Battlefields since 1942, but they are all definetly easy run and gun games. I'm not saying that serious or competetive gaming isn't possible with BFs, just that videos like this actually depict quite accurately how I remember BF2 and 42: + Show Spoiler [The Pwn3d Life] +  | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On January 07 2011 08:13 Bondator wrote: That is an idea I see a lot when talking about BF3, but do people actually expect something else? I have loved Battlefields since 1942, but they are all definetly easy run and gun games. I'm not saying that serious or competetive gaming isn't possible with BFs, just that videos like this actually depict quite accurately how I remember BF2 and 42: + Show Spoiler [The Pwn3d Life] + I particularly remember the planes being like they were in the videos... x.x | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
As awesome as the modern theater of war is, I think it's going to be hard for Dice to deviate from what they've already done with BC2, which already was a great example of "modern warfare." IMO, the modern theater is being overdone, and I think Dice really needs to surprise us with either an epic improvement over BC2 or a completely overhauled BF1942. | ||
|
SamGamgee
79 Posts
I didnt like how in bf2 if you couldnt bring down a jet or helicopter you would just get raped all game. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
1) Implement squads and platoons as MAG had done. I know that BF and BC already has squads, but other than spawning in on them, they're kind of useless. Each squad should have it's own objective. It worked pretty well in MAG. 2) Killstreaks should be rewarded by giving command points to the commander that can be used on UAV, artillery, supply drops, etc. 3) Jets and Helicopters. They need to be fluid to fly, and they need to be balanced. If this can be achieved, then it would be a great addition to the game. 4) Don't make snipers overpowered like they were in medal of honor and BC2. | ||
|
DarkGeneral
Canada328 Posts
BF1: 1942 BF2: 2002ish BF3: 2142 | ||
|
LazyMacro
976 Posts
It's inconsistent, I know. Edit: So, it goes: 2002: Battlefield 1942 (expansions: The Road to Rome, Secret Weapons of WWII) 2004: Battlefield Vietnam 2005: Battlefield 2 (expansion: Special Forces; boosters: Armored Fury, Euro Force) 2006: Battlefield 2142 2010: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (expansion: Vietnam) Note: I only included PC games on the list. It looks like there isn't really a "Battlefield 1," exactly. I always thought BF2 was a slight misnomer, but meh. Source. | ||
|
Torenhire
United States11681 Posts
Not only that but it was a pretty ground-breaking game. :D I'll still play BF3 though, anyways. The battlefield games are always great. | ||
|
Taku
Canada2036 Posts
On January 07 2011 08:54 RoosterSamurai wrote: I can think of a couple things that might make BF3 a fun tactical shooter to play. 1) Implement squads and platoons as MAG had done. I know that BF and BC already has squads, but other than spawning in on them, they're kind of useless. Each squad should have it's own objective. It worked pretty well in MAG. 2) Killstreaks should be rewarded by giving command points to the commander that can be used on UAV, artillery, supply drops, etc. 3) Jets and Helicopters. They need to be fluid to fly, and they need to be balanced. If this can be achieved, then it would be a great addition to the game. 4) Don't make snipers overpowered like they were in medal of honor and BC2. Disagree. Well, it seems like you haven't played a lot of Battlefield. 1) Battlefield is based around control points and combat, with some CTF every now and then or objective maps like Battle of Britain or Coral Sea. Adding CoD/BC-type aspects would be a mistake imo. 2) Kill streaks, another cancer that is killing FPS, yet another thing BF has and can do without. 3) I see no problem with the Jets/Choppers in BF2, although I'd prefer Desert Combat-style controls instead  4) Were Snipers ever overpowered in the Battlefield series? =\ | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On January 07 2011 11:27 Taku wrote: Disagree. Well, it seems like you haven't played a lot of Battlefield. 1) Battlefield is based around control points and combat, with some CTF every now and then or objective maps like Battle of Britain or Coral Sea. Adding CoD/BC-type aspects would be a mistake imo. 2) Kill streaks, another cancer that is killing FPS, yet another thing BF has and can do without. 3) I see no problem with the Jets/Choppers in BF2, although I'd prefer Desert Combat-style controls instead 4) Were Snipers ever overpowered in the Battlefield series? =\ 1) It's going to have to be more than a capture the point type of game or it's just going to get overshadowed by MW3. You just have to be honest with yourself on that one. You can't say more players per match = better game. MAG had 256 players per match and it failed because of it's lacking graphics. 2) You need to go back and read my previous post. Killstreaks happen. But I never said that kill streaks should result in a nuke or a napalm strike. In Battlefield 2 the commander was able to call in artillery, UAV, etc. I think that these should be awarded only by the merit of the players in the game, not by a timer. Killstreaks should add tickets that a commander can use for support. 3) Nothing wrong with the choppers, but the jets were impossible to shoot down in the hands of a skilled pilot. 4) Battlefield 3 is an EA project as well as a DICE project, and yes snipers ruined medal of honor, and in my opinion, are pretty overpowered in Bad Company 2. The ability to not only 1 hit kill an enemy all the way across the map and STILL be able to call in a mortar strike is just too much power for a unit that only stays on the sideline out of danger, for the most part. | ||
|
Taku
Canada2036 Posts
2) Kill streaks reward the individual, not the team. Another reason why Battlefield has lasted so long was emphasis on team-play, which fits perfectly with the PC gamer crowd. BF3, by all indications, will be a PC-centric title, as opposed to the awesomeness of a port that BC2 for the PC was. If EA/Dice decide to go the other way with the franchise then it can't be helped I suppose, but if they are building on what's worked so far I'd assume kill-streaks are a no-no. 3) Ditto on the jets, that's what skill does. 4) As I said earlier, BC2 is a more individual-focus game imo. I doubt imbalanced stuff like that will make it into BF3. I have faith in Dice not to mess this up but I things could go anyway they want I guess *coughstarcraft2cough* | ||
|
Momomelo
Canada35 Posts
"In Battlefield 2 the commander was able to call in artillery, UAV, etc. I think that these should be awarded only by the merit of the players in the game, not by a timer. Killstreaks should add tickets that a commander can use for support." ^So what your essentially saying is to reward the team which is dominating with more strength such as artillery strikes. That's a terrible idea, and you know that. The timer was completely fair game. Also, so be it people go to this hypothetical "Modern Warfare Three" rather than Battlefield 3., Battlefield will always be Battlefield. There is a sustained community which will transition with the game, it has been there ever since 1942. Battlefield has always been about massive battles on massive land masses with air, land, and (previously) sea. It will stay this way simply because people enjoy these aspects. CoD people can enjoy their fast paced FPS, Us battlefield players will go enjoy our large battlefield. Also, snipers were never overpowered. If you find yourself being fraged by snipers often, that's not because they are simply overpowered. It's dependent on how you play. | ||
|
Phelix
1931 Posts
One thing that detracted me from the Call of Duty series was the fact that the rewards for killstreaks benefit only the player. I guess this is why CoD is so popular, as it rewards individualism over teamwork. However, DICE really needs to step up with their hitboxes and coding; I feel that this is one of the major flaws of their games. | ||
|
Gheist
United States30 Posts
So,l any info on the state of aircraft in BF3? | ||
|
Tralan
United Kingdom24 Posts
We wont see killstreaks in the game because killstreaks belong to modern warfare which is a terrible and yet unassailable game which you cannot beat at its own game. The commander should be able to spot, give orders, and call down UAV/Smoke and that is it. I would like to see the 2142 system of having a dedicated leader class with the spawning beacon etc. Perhaps they can unlock additional options like being able to call down smoke or a vehicle or emplaced weapon for a squad. I think 64 players should be the maximum or at least the number that the game is balanced around. Any more and you have to sacrafice graphics, latency, and in my opinion gameplay. On jets most people suck in them so those that are skillful should be almost invulnerable. They dont affect the ground combat too much anyway. Imagine you are the Germans in 1944 BF3 should be its own awesome game, it doesnt have to compete with modern warfare. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On January 07 2011 12:22 Momomelo wrote: @RoosterSamurai "In Battlefield 2 the commander was able to call in artillery, UAV, etc. I think that these should be awarded only by the merit of the players in the game, not by a timer. Killstreaks should add tickets that a commander can use for support." ^So what your essentially saying is to reward the team which is dominating with more strength such as artillery strikes. That's a terrible idea, and you know that. The timer was completely fair game. Also, so be it people go to this hypothetical "Modern Warfare Three" rather than Battlefield 3., Battlefield will always be Battlefield. There is a sustained community which will transition with the game, it has been there ever since 1942. Battlefield has always been about massive battles on massive land masses with air, land, and (previously) sea. It will stay this way simply because people enjoy these aspects. CoD people can enjoy their fast paced FPS, Us battlefield players will go enjoy our large battlefield. Also, snipers were never overpowered. If you find yourself being fraged by snipers often, that's not because they are simply overpowered. It's dependent on how you play. I definitely don't agree with your assessment on snipers being dependent on how you play. When you spawn in and die instantly because a sniper is watching your spawn point, there is a problem, and it has nothing to do with how your playing. | ||
|
Raeleigh
Canada902 Posts
My life is Complete. | ||
|
Momomelo
Canada35 Posts
On January 07 2011 12:59 RoosterSamurai wrote: I definitely don't agree with your assessment on snipers being dependent on how you play. When you spawn in and die instantly because a sniper is watching your spawn point, there is a problem, and it has nothing to do with how your playing. But that's honestly in EVERY FPS. Coutnerstrike gungame, you spawn in an unfortunate location, you get killed. That's a shame. Sniper spawn-camping is applicable to every multiplayer/multiple spawn location FPS. Battlefield is the same thing. You do get invisibility frames. If you stand there like a turkey for a few seconds after you spawn, that is your fault. You should be able to pull off sprint before a sniper locks onto your head. And you know what? If snipers are constantly looking for spawn points, they are far less of a credit to their team than anyone else. They get one frag, and need to wait another 16 seconds for re-spawn. The team with that sniper looses one squad member who has potential to cap a flag. Spawn camping isn't an effective way to play battlefield. (Unless we're talking 1942) The spawn locations are so widespread that if a sniper gets you, it's total luck. By the time they have time to sprint, prone, aim, and shoot, you should already have cover. If they are watching a single location for spawning, they are not a credit to the overall team. | ||
|
Black[CAT]
Malaysia2589 Posts
| ||
| ||
