I miss the commander and squad leader roles. I hate how all games are being dumbed down on the teamwork level.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Poll
What should Battlefield 3 be more like?
| Battlefield 2 | 93% | 93% - 93 | ||||
| Bad Company 2 | 7% | 7% - 7 | ||||
| Total: 100 | ||||||
Just remove the "lone wolf" option all together... if you are not in a squad you are most likely beeing useless on a hill sticking your sidearm up your anusunnamednewbie13 wrote:
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
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
You can't force teamwork you bellend. Honestly if they let any of your ideas come to life bf3 would be the worst game ever. It's amazing how you can be wrong so much, it really is.FloppY_ wrote:
Just remove the "lone wolf" option all together... if you are not in a squad you are most likely beeing useless on a hill sticking your sidearm up your anusunnamednewbie13 wrote:
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
I'm not trying to force them playing as a team... but if they are forced in a squad, at least I can use their tent for spawningjord wrote:
You can't force teamwork you bellend. Honestly if they let any of your ideas come to life bf3 would be the worst game ever. It's amazing how you can be wrong so much, it really is.FloppY_ wrote:
Just remove the "lone wolf" option all together... if you are not in a squad you are most likely beeing useless on a hill sticking your sidearm up your anusunnamednewbie13 wrote:
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
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
BC2 Engine with Bf2 gameplay. tons of vehicles, classes etc. I think there were WAY too many weapons in BC2, but they should give weapons attachments like BC2.
There should be a "mumble" in BF3 kinda like PR, but you use a button if you want to talk to people near you.
Keep the Squad/Command system of BF2 and let people be lonewolves if they want and reward "squad actions" like BC2.
and i want weapons firing mode like in BF2, fuck that cod and bc2 shite.
There should be a "mumble" in BF3 kinda like PR, but you use a button if you want to talk to people near you.
Keep the Squad/Command system of BF2 and let people be lonewolves if they want and reward "squad actions" like BC2.
and i want weapons firing mode like in BF2, fuck that cod and bc2 shite.
Are you high?Cybargs wrote:
there were WAY too many weapons in BC2
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
I'm with jord on this one. If someone wants to go off and do their own thing, I'm fine with that because chances are, they wouldn't help just because their name's green instead of blue.
I don't want people in my squad camped halfway across the map, leaving us a man short. Also, with forced squadding-up, it would be a real pain in the ass to form one out of people you actually want in-game.
I don't want people in my squad camped halfway across the map, leaving us a man short. Also, with forced squadding-up, it would be a real pain in the ass to form one out of people you actually want in-game.
If it's at range, due to random deviation then I have no idea if it hit or not so I don't give a shit. Unless I'm using a sniper rifle in which case I rage cause hitreg is broken again. If it's CQ then I just fire again, and again and again cause I have my gun on full auto with the trigger held down.-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?
BF2 map sizes are better and have decent space for aircrafts to maneuver. BC2 map sizes are compacted, maybe ideal for the limitation of console's specs.
AussieReaper wrote:
There was no need for FatherTed to say:
and EA dont make the game you fucking retard
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I give as much shit for a hd remake of bf2 as a 3d remake of a movie I love, nothing. I'd hardly qualify the commander slot to be what RTS lovers like about being commander, quite frankly the commander was a complete joke as oh look you can fight like regular infantry and only can order units and call arty strikes, uavs, and that bullshit. Stuff a squad leader could fill, may as well give commander view to squad leaders although they can't spot targets in commander view as that was utterly retarded, limitation is they must have a squad member or 2 to access certain commander abilities. And BC2 does have squad VOIP, problem is, it is rare for anyone to even speak on the mic. Lately in all the console and pc games I play, I hardly hear people speak, annoys the fuck out of me.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Oh come on, if there was a HD remake of BF2, I bet you'd buy it anyway. Anyway, there's 'more like' and then there's 'same game as.' One's not necessarily the other. There's more cool stuff to bring in from 1942 - 2 than there is from BC2, except for destructible cover, great audio and good (by recent standards) graphics.
In this respect, I think BF2's model is the superior one. Large games, vehicle oriented (unless disabled) teamplay with working VOIP, individual squads and a commander slot for the RTS lovers. Anything you can tack onto it, like new maps, new gear, new engine, graphics, audio, physics...all of that is just icing on a cake dried out by BC/BC2's attempts to cater specifically to the console crowd.
Last edited by War Man (2011-02-11 08:09:31)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
bf3 needs a titan
And drop pods.jsnipy wrote:
bf3 needs a titan
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
It needs a RATE OF FIRE selector. I'm freaking tiered of automatic! I want semi auto!
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
^Ya that has annoyed me especially with the burst guns.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
It's not going to happen, but I would be pleased if they brought back indirect fire artillery ala BF1942. I loved being a gunner on that; it was so satisfying to actually hit your target in a fire mission and it usually took skill. If people couldn't use it, that's their problem. A skilled artillery person was a great asset to the team.
WAAAAGH!!War Man wrote:
And drop pods.jsnipy wrote:
bf3 needs a titan
I preferred the player-operated arty of 1942 and Vietnam. It was constant if the guy was camped by a box, but at least it wasn't overwhelming saturation on maps without battleships.DesertFox- wrote:
It's not going to happen, but I would be pleased if they brought back indirect fire artillery ala BF1942. I loved being a gunner on that; it was so satisfying to actually hit your target in a fire mission and it usually took skill. If people couldn't use it, that's their problem. A skilled artillery person was a great asset to the team.
Fine, but I still like the commander slot. True, it isn't really a true RTS position. You can't really build units unless you count cars, gather resources or construct buildings. But what you can do is make executive decisions on where and when to place/operate your team's assets. Giving squad leaders immediate self-operated assets would be just another kind of people-standing-on-the-helipad-waiting-for-the-chopper nonsense.War Man wrote:
I give as much shit for a hd remake of bf2 as a 3d remake of a movie I love, nothing. I'd hardly qualify the commander slot to be what RTS lovers like about being commander, quite frankly the commander was a complete joke as oh look you can fight like regular infantry and only can order units and call arty strikes, uavs, and that bullshit. Stuff a squad leader could fill, may as well give commander view to squad leaders although they can't spot targets in commander view as that was utterly retarded, limitation is they must have a squad member or 2 to access certain commander abilities. And BC2 does have squad VOIP, problem is, it is rare for anyone to even speak on the mic. Lately in all the console and pc games I play, I hardly hear people speak, annoys the fuck out of me.
Instead, what they could allow the commander to do is set squad autonomy, privileging one particularly useful squad with instant access to certain fully-charged assets. Alternatively, it could operate via kill-streak/frequency or by cumulative flags taken, giving such squads access to secondary assets like (in no particular order):
1. off-map mortar strike
2. precision (vs saturation) artillery strike; one shot per piece
3. target painting for friendly tanks, choppers and/or jets within and beyond their field of vision
4. finite supply box (x# magazine distribution ammunition; no non-rocket explosives; x# hitpoints of healing; may be moved once dropped)
The commander slot is only unfun in servers where nobody pays attention to team play. Otherwise, it lends a great dimension to BF2's gameplay, and would have been awesome in BF1942/VN.
Squad leader slot could replace the commander slot, after all more people can be commanders on a team and it'll make it fun if there is teamwork. Plus no lameass "enemy infantry spotted" bullshit I hate with the commander position. And no mutiny problems because if you don't your squad leader you can leave a make a new squad.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
The dynamic, like others, worked when it wasn't abused. As I recall, other people could spam almost as easily as the commander. Most servers I play on just kick/ban spammy commanders and get ones who do their job.
Still, I'd say having squad leaders replacing commanders(with some limitations to prevent commander abilities being used every second). Having more people being able to act as a commander will be fun and will make people happy. Coordination and cooperation between squad leaders and the squad would be better as it'd everyone feel more equal among eachother, don't have to be pissy if your 1 commander is a total retard and you can't mutiny him.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Don't fix what isn't broken.
Bf2 minus bad hit-boxes, instant health/ammo = fine game
What was great about BF2 and 2142 is that you've got the commander, that pleases RTS gamers; the squad leaders add that extra responsibility and leadership that appeals to other players; squad members that are those who CBA to lead but want to play as a team and win, and lone wolves who like to solo.
I can't think of a better system than that.
Bf2 minus bad hit-boxes, instant health/ammo = fine game
What was great about BF2 and 2142 is that you've got the commander, that pleases RTS gamers; the squad leaders add that extra responsibility and leadership that appeals to other players; squad members that are those who CBA to lead but want to play as a team and win, and lone wolves who like to solo.
I can't think of a better system than that.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
That's fair, but the commander could still be useful. Give him the ability to distribute assets beyond the minor ones squad leaders can come up with and still coordinate squads as usual. I don't think squad leaders instant access to the entire set is a good idea, because you'd have everybody making locked squads with themselves in charge just to abuse the power.War Man wrote:
Still, I'd say having squad leaders replacing commanders(with some limitations to prevent commander abilities being used every second). Having more people being able to act as a commander will be fun and will make people happy. Coordination and cooperation between squad leaders and the squad would be better as it'd everyone feel more equal among eachother, don't have to be pissy if your 1 commander is a total retard and you can't mutiny him.
At the moment anything BF3 related will get a site more internet hits.FloppY_ wrote:
Obvious news incoming:
Battlefield 3 to have dedicated servers on PC
Seriously GamesRadar?
I said in another post in this thread that you need a certain amount of members in a squad to do so. I can even further the idea where the squad with the most members becomes the command squad, unless 2 squads have equal numbers.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's fair, but the commander could still be useful. Give him the ability to distribute assets beyond the minor ones squad leaders can come up with and still coordinate squads as usual. I don't think squad leaders instant access to the entire set is a good idea, because you'd have everybody making locked squads with themselves in charge just to abuse the power.War Man wrote:
Still, I'd say having squad leaders replacing commanders(with some limitations to prevent commander abilities being used every second). Having more people being able to act as a commander will be fun and will make people happy. Coordination and cooperation between squad leaders and the squad would be better as it'd everyone feel more equal among eachother, don't have to be pissy if your 1 commander is a total retard and you can't mutiny him.
It is not a true RTS feel, therefore it doesn't quite please RTS gamers. Not every fucking game needs to be fucking realistic shifty.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Don't fix what isn't broken.
Bf2 minus bad hit-boxes, instant health/ammo = fine game
What was great about BF2 and 2142 is that you've got the commander, that pleases RTS gamers; the squad leaders add that extra responsibility and leadership that appeals to other players; squad members that are those who CBA to lead but want to play as a team and win, and lone wolves who like to solo.
I can't think of a better system than that.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Fuck everybody who thinks authenticity is a game killer. I'm just asking for Battlefield 3, not Call of Duty. I'm so fucking tiered of every game copying COD. Ever since MW2 every game that comes out from a major company is a copy-paste with different graphics.
Battlefield
not call of fucking duty
Battlefield
not call of fucking duty
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.