Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 12

 

Poll

What should Battlefield 3 be more like?

Battlefield 293%93% - 93
Bad Company 27%7% - 7
Total: 100
2011-02-10 12:40:10
-CARNIFEX-[LOC]
Da Blooze
+111|6869

Mekstizzle wrote:

Without linear map design the whole thing turns to a mess because there's never enough organisation going on. It's better when there are front lines and stuff (dictated by the map). Still room to flank and do all sorts of manoeuvres, but not so stupid that you've capped all the flags and are fighting for the last one, only for someone to cap the first flag right at the back. It's a good tactic to do that, but it's lame for the gameplay.

The best is if maps have sets of flags/capture points. You have a set of three flags. You can take them in any order, then you move up to the next set once you control all three. Or something like that. Gives enough room to move around and not have the entire battle choked on one area, and do good things, whilst not being overly lame/sparse/confusing like alot of BF2 games on the big spread out maps used to be like.

It would be like a merry go round in BF2, cap a flag here. Enemy caps flag there. You go there. Enemy goes elsewhere. Everyone just running around capping flags. Whilst the vehicles just get raped by the aircraft as they try to move along. And the snipers set up camp shooting at any infantry. There wasn't much gameplay in the wide open maps in BF2.
Yeah, true, but I feel like that has to be something that quality map design can overcome.  There has to be a happy medium between maps designed like Daqing Oilfields, compared to maps laid out like Atacama Desert.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg
2011-02-10 14:36:39
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5252|Massachusetts, USA
There was absolutely nothing wrong with bf2, besides the crash bugs, and shit servers run by shit people.

If I didn't like how the game was being played in a specific server, I just left. No harm done, no pissy feeling. Just move on to the next server.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-02-10 15:06:13
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6897|Disaster Free Zone

Mekstizzle wrote:

Without linear map design the whole thing turns to a mess because there's never enough organisation going on. It's better when there are front lines and stuff (dictated by the map). Still room to flank and do all sorts of manoeuvres, but not so stupid that you've capped all the flags and are fighting for the last one, only for someone to cap the first flag right at the back. It's a good tactic to do that, but it's lame for the gameplay.

The best is if maps have sets of flags/capture points. You have a set of three flags. You can take them in any order, then you move up to the next set once you control all three. Or something like that. Gives enough room to move around and not have the entire battle choked on one area, and do good things, whilst not being overly lame/sparse/confusing like alot of BF2 games on the big spread out maps used to be like.

It would be like a merry go round in BF2, cap a flag here. Enemy caps flag there. You go there. Enemy goes elsewhere. Everyone just running around capping flags. Whilst the vehicles just get raped by the aircraft as they try to move along. And the snipers set up camp shooting at any infantry. There wasn't much gameplay in the wide open maps in BF2.
Omg, fuck no... worst Idea yet.
2011-02-10 15:48:07
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5689|Ventura, California

Jaekus wrote:

Pretty much ^^

I'd rather they make all the guns made from rainbows and unicorn taints and get the game right than worry about insignificant detail like gun ejection ports and have shit hitreg.
Well the thing is that they put the same amount of effort into modeling it incorrectly than if they modeled it correctly. So why not do a good job and make things right from the start? What I'm asking for isn't huge, BF2 modeled the weapons properly. In fact, they put more work into their models when they put the ejection port on the wrong side. They make the port cover swing, and the bolt slide forward and back whilst casings eject and clutter our screen.

Floppy, asking for authentic weapons, good movement, and no silly XP rewards (Which actually don't promote teamplay you silly boy) does not mean I want a MilSim. I want BF2 with better graphics, a new engine, more content and a few gameplay tweaks.

Oh and in case you silly folks didn't notice this is Battlefield 3, not Call of Duty 3, and not Call of Duty Bad Company 3.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2011-02-10 16:40:37
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6716|so randum
one shot headshot from something automatic is a fucking retarded idea. if you want durrrr realism go play something else, battlefield has never been realistic.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2011-02-10 16:50:41
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6368|what

I gotta admit I fucking hate in BC2 when you destroy the M-Comms and then more of the map becomes available.

If we had 64 player servers we wouldn't need to shuffle along like that.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2011-02-10 16:52:51
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6716|so randum
i dont mind that, keeps derps from wandering off and being useless. if the map boundaries were more like BF2 (ie jets can go further out then anyone) so helos wouldn't be so predictable (first stage of oasis is a bitch) it would be nice.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2011-02-10 17:50:44
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5689|Ventura, California

FatherTed wrote:

one shot headshot from something automatic is a fucking retarded idea. if you want durrrr realism go play something else, battlefield has never been realistic.
I'm not asking for realism. I think it would be a great gameplay feature to allow most weapons up until certain ranges to be instant headshot kills.


AussieReaper wrote:

I gotta admit I fucking hate in BC2 when you destroy the M-Comms and then more of the map becomes available.

If we had 64 player servers we wouldn't need to shuffle along like that.
This is 100% due to games being designed for consoles, then ported onto PCs. Instead of the more advantageous PC version minus certain features preventing good console performance, ported onto consoles. We pay more for our PCs, we should get more for that. EA and all those companies will still survive with a little more time put into making a quality game.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2011-02-10 17:55:20
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6684
I'm not voting and I do not wish to see the results.

I want BF3 to be its own thing, and I want it to have learned from previous games what works and what does not. BF2 was not necessarily the pinnacle of Battlefield. And you guys spent hours complaining about it for years, so don't suddenly put on these nostalgia googles and pretend that everything about it was perfect.

That said, I'm actually fairly excited about the return of the scout-choppers. They were the only aircraft from BF2 that weren't insanely over or under powered.
2011-02-10 17:56:14
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6501|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

one shot headshot from something automatic is a fucking retarded idea. if you want durrrr realism go play something else, battlefield has never been realistic.
I'm not asking for realism. I think it would be a great gameplay feature to allow most weapons up until certain ranges to be instant headshot kills.
I think it would be a broken as fuck gameplay feature...
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-02-10 18:09:36
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5689|Ventura, California

FloppY_ wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

one shot headshot from something automatic is a fucking retarded idea. if you want durrrr realism go play something else, battlefield has never been realistic.
I'm not asking for realism. I think it would be a great gameplay feature to allow most weapons up until certain ranges to be instant headshot kills.
I think it would be a broken as fuck gameplay feature...
If I shoot somebody in the head with an assault rifle, I want them to die. Shotguns, pistols, and SMGs should be the only weapons that aren't instant headshot kills.

Those who say automatic weapons would make this too easy are basing this on the current trend games are taking. They're almost completely removing recoil. Call of Duty 4 did it ok, but I still think there should be more x-axis deviation.

I don't know your [bf2s members'] preferences, but I don't like laser guns that shoot cotton balls. Don't think COD4 hardcore where one bullet kills you to the chest. I think one should be able to withstand at least 2 heavy caliber (7.62) bullets to the chest and 3 lighter (5.56) bullets to the same area.

I think the biggest gameplay killer is regenerating health. It's a lot of fun in games like Call of Duty where you can go on massive killing rampages. Battlefield isn't suited for this though.

What do you folks think of this, not just Floppy?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2011-02-10 18:10:21
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5917|College Park, MD
The pump shotguns in BF2 were already one hit kills at close range.

I liked how BF2 handled recoil. More realistic would mean something like America's Army which... eh.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-02-10 18:10:47)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-02-10 18:23:44
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5689|Ventura, California

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

The pump shotguns in BF2 were already one hit kills at close range.

I liked how BF2 handled recoil. More realistic would mean something like America's Army which... eh.
Yeah I enjoyed BF2 very much. I think that recoil is perfect for an arcade game. The LMGs required burst fire to hit anything beyond a few dozen feet. You couldn't fire any of the weapons fully automatically without severely dropping accuracy.

In the current generation of video games the weapon will jump up a little on the y-axis and stay there, so you simply aim slightly lower than you want to hit and keep the trigger down for laser accuracy. Look at the M4, AK47, G36C, etc. in CoD4 and just about all the weapons in BC2. If they don't remain at a certain height than they simply climb slowly enough to compensate with the mouse.

I don't want a milsim.

I don't want lasers.

I want a good middle-ground for proper gameplay.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2011-02-10 18:30:59
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6897|Disaster Free Zone

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:


I'm not asking for realism. I think it would be a great gameplay feature to allow most weapons up until certain ranges to be instant headshot kills.
I think it would be a broken as fuck gameplay feature...
If I shoot somebody in the head with an assault rifle, I want them to die. Shotguns, pistols, and SMGs should be the only weapons that aren't instant headshot kills.

Those who say automatic weapons would make this too easy are basing this on the current trend games are taking. They're almost completely removing recoil. Call of Duty 4 did it ok, but I still think there should be more x-axis deviation.

I don't know your [bf2s members'] preferences, but I don't like laser guns that shoot cotton balls. Don't think COD4 hardcore where one bullet kills you to the chest. I think one should be able to withstand at least 2 heavy caliber (7.62) bullets to the chest and 3 lighter (5.56) bullets to the same area.

I think the biggest gameplay killer is regenerating health. It's a lot of fun in games like Call of Duty where you can go on massive killing rampages. Battlefield isn't suited for this though.

What do you folks think of this, not just Floppy?
Pointless. Head shots already triple the dmg dealt and as most assault rifles did 30+ dmg, it was basically a kill shot without you potentially dying from some random 300m away who's spraying into the fog.
2011-02-10 21:52:18
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6716|so randum

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

one shot headshot from something automatic is a fucking retarded idea. if you want durrrr realism go play something else, battlefield has never been realistic.
I'm not asking for realism. I think it would be a great gameplay feature to allow most weapons up until certain ranges to be instant headshot kills.


AussieReaper wrote:

I gotta admit I fucking hate in BC2 when you destroy the M-Comms and then more of the map becomes available.

If we had 64 player servers we wouldn't need to shuffle along like that.
This is 100% due to games being designed for consoles, then ported onto PCs. Instead of the more advantageous PC version minus certain features preventing good console performance, ported onto consoles. We pay more for our PCs, we should get more for that. EA and all those companies will still survive with a little more time put into making a quality game.
why would you ever choose anything other than the highest ROF weapon if its an instakill with anything

and EA dont make the game you fucking retard
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2011-02-10 21:59:38
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6501|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

FatherTed wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

one shot headshot from something automatic is a fucking retarded idea. if you want durrrr realism go play something else, battlefield has never been realistic.
I'm not asking for realism. I think it would be a great gameplay feature to allow most weapons up until certain ranges to be instant headshot kills.


AussieReaper wrote:

I gotta admit I fucking hate in BC2 when you destroy the M-Comms and then more of the map becomes available.

If we had 64 player servers we wouldn't need to shuffle along like that.
This is 100% due to games being designed for consoles, then ported onto PCs. Instead of the more advantageous PC version minus certain features preventing good console performance, ported onto consoles. We pay more for our PCs, we should get more for that. EA and all those companies will still survive with a little more time put into making a quality game.
why would you ever choose anything other than the highest ROF weapon if its an instakill with anything

and EA dont make the game you fucking retard
I think it's kinda funny how so many people think EA develop games when in fact, very few games are actually developed by EA... they're just publishers...
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-02-10 22:02:59
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6368|what

FloppY_ wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

one shot headshot from something automatic is a fucking retarded idea. if you want durrrr realism go play something else, battlefield has never been realistic.
I'm not asking for realism. I think it would be a great gameplay feature to allow most weapons up until certain ranges to be instant headshot kills.



This is 100% due to games being designed for consoles, then ported onto PCs. Instead of the more advantageous PC version minus certain features preventing good console performance, ported onto consoles. We pay more for our PCs, we should get more for that. EA and all those companies will still survive with a little more time put into making a quality game.
why would you ever choose anything other than the highest ROF weapon if its an instakill with anything

and EA dont make the game you fucking retard
I think it's kinda funny how so many people think EA develop games when in fact, very few games are actually developed by EA... they're just publishers...
Many people make the mistake, as floppy points out. Lay off shifty guys.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2011-02-10 22:04:28
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6501|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

AussieReaper wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


why would you ever choose anything other than the highest ROF weapon if its an instakill with anything

and EA dont make the game you fucking retard
I think it's kinda funny how so many people think EA develop games when in fact, very few games are actually developed by EA... they're just publishers...
Many people make the mistake, as floppy points out. Lay off shifty guys.
Ye it's not shifty as a person...

but it's like saying Sony Music Entertainment develop all the songs under their label...
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-02-10 22:05:16
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6368|what

There was no need for FatherTed to say:
and EA dont make the game you fucking retard
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2011-02-10 22:07:31
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6501|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

AussieReaper wrote:

There was no need for FatherTed to say:
and EA dont make the game you fucking retard
Correct.. I was just making a seperate point
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-02-10 22:40:09
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5689|Ventura, California
Ok here's a general question, I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything.

How do you feel when you pull off a nice headshot and the guy walks away from it?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2011-02-10 23:00:30
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6987|PNW

Non-linear maps are perfectly playable in Battlefield 2, mainly because you have more players on one server and the benefit of an in-game team communication system that EA/DICE doesn't seem to be interested in continuing. Even linear maps like Karkand often had one or more approaches to specific objectives.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Ok here's a general question, I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything.

How do you feel when you pull off a nice headshot and the guy walks away from it?
I feel like I should fire again until he's dead. Not that I want the headshot system of STALKER, where everyone's skulls were protected by adamantium coatings.
2011-02-10 23:06:37
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6501|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Ok here's a general question, I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything.

How do you feel when you pull off a nice headshot and the guy walks away from it?
In battlefield?

Indifferent, you can't tell it was a headshot anyway
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-02-10 23:08:20
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6501|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Non-linear maps are perfectly playable in Battlefield 2, mainly because you have more players on one server and the benefit of an in-game team communication system that EA/DICE doesn't seem to be interested in continuing. Even linear maps like Karkand often had one or more approaches to specific objectives.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Ok here's a general question, I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything.

How do you feel when you pull off a nice headshot and the guy walks away from it?
I feel like I should fire again until he's dead. Not that I want the headshot system of STALKER, where everyone's skulls were protected by adamantium coatings.
Considering commander is a writeoff... I hope they let squad leaders able to set orders (not only on flags) but move, defend, mine etc. wherever they like... kinda giving the team an idea about what our job is...

Maybe even let each squad see the other squads orders.
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-02-10 23:30:58
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6987|PNW

I don't see why the cooperation levels can't be improved between squads while retaining the commander position in the game itself. I always liked having attentive eyes overhead, or being them myself, and it's awesome to see the macro-coordination come to life. It could very well be improved, though.

- Commanders: back-and-forth VOIP/private text communication capabilities with specific squad leaders or globally to all squad leaders
- Squad leaders: orders for other squads visible, but marked with a different color; rate of losses visible on tactical HUD similar to commander's
- Squad leaders & squad members: back and forth VOIP/private text communication capabilities within each squad
- Lone wolves: go fuck off on a hill top with a sniper rifle

e:

- global team and global all text chat still available

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard