Last edited by colonelioan (2006-12-01 20:58:27)
I play a WWIIOL MMO that isn't great with the eye candy (Basically 1999-2000 graphics), and a limit on the weapons you can use, but it's extremely fun to play.Towelly wrote:
Give me my god damn BF:MMO (with a little bit of RPG thrown in)
Imagine total global conflict with wars stretching all over the world with factions fighting on every front.
If anyone fails to grasp the basics concepts of this or raises any of the normal sceptical stuff I'll be more than happy to run them through why they are wrong and why it would kick ass.
i agree with everything except point 7 have a +1CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
Permission to come aboard - this is my first post.
My friends and i were debating what would be cool for a BF3 kind of game and here are some of our thoughts:
1) concept of NPCs or neutral parties (civilians). These are bots but don't initially carry weapons. They can be men/women/children. if you kill them by accident, you lose fixed number of points (almost like a TK). if your team kills too many, the NPCs turn into an enemy to you and any of them can pick up arms against you. in the case that you kill them while they are armed, you do not lose points. we can argue about how you can win back their respect by perhaps healing them or something (which doesn't give you points for healing but gets them to be friendly again). Either way you don't earn points by killing them. they just act like a thorn in your side (somebody else that wants to kill you).
2) fully (or at least much more) destructible environment. A tank should be able to blow up small buildings or at least punch holes in walls. if you put 4985794578498 c4 packs on the hotel in Jalalabad, it would be cool to see the 30 story building implode. this is extreme but hopefully you can see where i'm going.
3) on the stats front, i think that they should allow multiple medals/awards in some more cases like expert medas for example - should be able to get multiple instances of these. we all know how hard it is to get 20 repair points in a round - why not be rewarded each time you get that. some people probably think it's easy - however i don't.
4) definitely opening the conflict to more than just 2 armies at a time (as was mentioned previously in this thread) would be an interesting dynamic. I guess my first point flows from this as well. you might have the opportunity to form alliances against an enemy.
5) think of ways to improve quality of squad and commander play to make it more enticing to play WITH the team instead of as lone-wolf.
6) maybe a subscription service that would pump out new maps once per month or something.
7) thinking outside the box (and yet probably was also mentioned) we could expand the map to link-up to other maps. maybe if we drove off the edge of karkand, it would connect to another server playing jalalabad or something. this way, we might be able to have a road-sign approach to selecting servers for battle. you could initially start the game in the middle of nowhere with some roadsigns that point to different maps/servers and then either walk/run/drive or fly there - then it connects to that server. following this idea, you could drive off the map and appear back in the middle-of-nowhere with the road-signs to pick another server. might make sense to have this ability only in certain areas of the edge of the map - like roads. it would suck flying off the edge of the map by accident when you didn't mean to, etc.
i don't know, just some ideas we were thinking about. what do you think?
I cannot agree with you enough! Stats were a cool gimmick at the start, but they turned into a fucking quagmire. BF1942 has significantly more lastability for me because it dosn't have the dicks playing only to up their stats.r2zoo wrote:
Ea/Dice didnt ruin the game, stats did. There where alot less whining pussies in BFV and 1942, why? Becasue no one really gave a shit about their stats. Now you want a perfect game so you can further your e-penis via stats. Honestly, alot less problems where found in previous game, mostly becasue people played to play not to get the highest score possible. Look at stat padding, never happened before stats, becasue no one gave a damn. If you bitches would shut up and play what you have there would be no problems.
nice.Towelly wrote:
Give me my god damn BF:MMO (with a little bit of RPG thrown in)
Imagine total global conflict with wars stretching all over the world with factions fighting on every front.
If anyone fails to grasp the basics concepts of this or raises any of the normal sceptical stuff I'll be more than happy to run them through why they are wrong and why it would kick ass.
Fuck consolJT_001 wrote:
Battlefield: Bad Company
Looks f*cking awesome.
EDIT: Screenshots: http://media.ps3.gamespy.com/media/713/ … mgs_1.html
Quite, oh and it's a shame they're using weapons which the US Military discontinued development of...psycokiller05 wrote:
Fuck consolJT_001 wrote:
Battlefield: Bad Company
Looks f*cking awesome.
EDIT: Screenshots: http://media.ps3.gamespy.com/media/713/ … mgs_1.html
It isn't BF3. It has the same engine as BF2. That's why BF:Vietnam wasn't considered BF2, because Vietnam had the same engine as BF1942 making it more of a mod than a completely different game. That's why everybody calls it a mod. It shouldn't be called BF 2 1/2 because that's just plain old stupid, how many games do you know have half sequels? How about we just leave at BF2142 and the fans of that game just admit that it's a mod?p3lvicthrust wrote:
2142?killer21 wrote:
What about BF3?
but its just a "mod" right? everyones whining ass says so.
lets call it BF: 2 1/2
Ive always wanted an FPS game for the regular soldiers, but the commander would be able to command the troops, get resources and other important assets like a RTS. I dont have much time so I cant elaborate, but I will when I get back.CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
Permission to come aboard - this is my first post.
My friends and i were debating what would be cool for a BF3 kind of game and here are some of our thoughts:
1) concept of NPCs or neutral parties (civilians). These are bots but don't initially carry weapons. They can be men/women/children. if you kill them by accident, you lose fixed number of points (almost like a TK). if your team kills too many, the NPCs turn into an enemy to you and any of them can pick up arms against you. in the case that you kill them while they are armed, you do not lose points. we can argue about how you can win back their respect by perhaps healing them or something (which doesn't give you points for healing but gets them to be friendly again). Either way you don't earn points by killing them. they just act like a thorn in your side (somebody else that wants to kill you).
2) fully (or at least much more) destructible environment. A tank should be able to blow up small buildings or at least punch holes in walls. if you put 4985794578498 c4 packs on the hotel in Jalalabad, it would be cool to see the 30 story building implode. this is extreme but hopefully you can see where i'm going.
3) on the stats front, i think that they should allow multiple medals/awards in some more cases like expert medas for example - should be able to get multiple instances of these. we all know how hard it is to get 20 repair points in a round - why not be rewarded each time you get that. some people probably think it's easy - however i don't.
4) definitely opening the conflict to more than just 2 armies at a time (as was mentioned previously in this thread) would be an interesting dynamic. I guess my first point flows from this as well. you might have the opportunity to form alliances against an enemy.
5) think of ways to improve quality of squad and commander play to make it more enticing to play WITH the team instead of as lone-wolf.
6) maybe a subscription service that would pump out new maps once per month or something.
7) thinking outside the box (and yet probably was also mentioned) we could expand the map to link-up to other maps. maybe if we drove off the edge of karkand, it would connect to another server playing jalalabad or something. this way, we might be able to have a road-sign approach to selecting servers for battle. you could initially start the game in the middle of nowhere with some roadsigns that point to different maps/servers and then either walk/run/drive or fly there - then it connects to that server. following this idea, you could drive off the map and appear back in the middle-of-nowhere with the road-signs to pick another server. might make sense to have this ability only in certain areas of the edge of the map - like roads. it would suck flying off the edge of the map by accident when you didn't mean to, etc.
i don't know, just some ideas we were thinking about. what do you think?
Every party needs a pooper that why we invited you! Party pooper! Party pooper!alien-DSW-Gen wrote:
a new bf? probably not, thanks anyways. I think 2142 was the last battlefield series game I will ever purchase.
I wanna be the Secretary-General !!!!!CameronPoe wrote:
Battlefield 3: UN Diplomacy Edition!
Battle it out in the UN General Assembly against the rest of the online community using witty riposts, security council resolutions, seconded motions, delay tactics and veto wielding! Play as France/Russia/China or USA/UK. Good clean wholesome fun for all the family...