Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What BF3 needs to be liked:

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What BF3 needs to be liked:

    Command Structure

    - Commanders
    - Real Squad Leaders to spawn on, not everyone in the Squad
    - As tool for that working VOIP




    Everything else really are just details and flavours. If Dice gets the above perfect, most people won´t care if you have Guns that shoot Dung Beetles or something.

  • #2
    Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

    Everyone has their own opinions about this. Personally, I don't feel entitled that the devs owe me anything. If I don't like the game, I simply won't buy it.

    That being said, I don't necessarily have any interest in the ability to mod, but I do understand the clamor behind the possible lack of it. I've always been fine with the vanilla BF titles.

    What I want in BF3 is essentially BC2, with:
    • dedicated servers (can't believe I actually have to ask for that)
    • larger maps
    • more players
    • better kit/weapon balance
    • command structure (having no commander is ok, I guess, but SL is a must)
    • and of course, a working voip system.


    It'd also be nice to have something new and innovative. I would be happy with an upgraded BF2, but it'd be nice to be able to understand why they created an entirely new game.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:
      • 64 players(128 would be nice)
      • 6 man squads with an actual SL to spawn on and give orders. (ability to lock squad if you want less SMs)
      • The ability for SL to use map markers in places other than objectives
      • Commander (not looking good from what I've read in other threads)
      • VOIP
      • Commo Rose
      • Large Maps
      • infantry only/no vehicle server option

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

        I think the Commander was the most annoying thing in BF2v.

        ENEMY SPOTTED

        ENEMY SPOTTED

        ENEMY SPOTTED

        ENEMY SPOTTED

        ENEMY SPOTTED

        ENEMY SPOTTED

        ENEMY SPOTTED


        So damn annoying. I wont miss it in BF3. Unless of course modtools are released.

        I just want a solid game that doesnt remind me of COD,BC2,MOH,BF2 etc.
        -oG.WarrioR-


        |?|

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

          Originally posted by Lyramion View Post
          Command Structure

          - Commanders
          - Real Squad Leaders to spawn on, not everyone in the Squad
          - As tool for that working VOIP




          Everything else really are just details and flavours. If Dice gets the above perfect, most people won´t care if you have Guns that shoot Dung Beetles or something.
          I could not agree more

          Those three are my wish list too

          Unfortunately DICE have hinted very heavily that commander is off the list, hopefully spawn on SL and squad voip are in
          DICE marketing is saying its BF3 and not BC3, if they have everyone in the squad then its BC3 IMO
          Fingers still crossed, looking forward to the March 1st reveal

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

            yup.

            Although, I'd trade CO for a separate, dedicated, SL-to-SL VOIP channel. In fact, I think I might prefer that ;)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

              Originally posted by Harlequin View Post
              • 64 players(128 would be nice)
              • 6 man squads with an actual SL to spawn on and give orders. (ability to lock squad if you want less SMs)
              • The ability for SL to use map markers in places other than objectives
              • Commander (not looking good from what I've read in other threads)
              • VOIP
              • Commo Rose
              • Large Maps
              • infantry only/no vehicle server option
              I'm with Harley. I could survive with no Commander if it is limited to 32 players, but with 64+, CO is almost a must. Squads ARE a must.
              I got yer Dancing With the F**&ing Stars right here!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

                2142 in a modern day setting. :)
                Proud to have been an Irregular!

                2142: Medic4Hire - BF4/Origin: MedicNL

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

                  Originally posted by whiskeysix View Post
                  yup.

                  Although, i'd trade co for a separate, dedicated, sl-to-sl voip channel. In fact, i think i might prefer that ;)
                  Nubhar

                  - In the process, I have discovered that I can make iron bolts with my butt****.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

                    yup.

                    Although, i'd trade co for a separate, dedicated, sl-to-sl voip channel. In fact, i think i might prefer that

                    Doesnt even live up to the awesome stuff a CO can do with a team and a tactical overview. SL to SL rly is just to compensate for average COing

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      But it's way better than an empty CO chair which is the norm.

                      I deserve a ribbon for Mortar Specialist

                      Artillery conquers and infantry occupies.
                      J.F.C. Fuller

                      Proud to have been a member of the 5th, 71st and my beloved 19th

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

                        I think DICE's argument against a CO compelling and reasonable. We really do feel the pain of it here at TG but your average server probably doesn't give a damn about it (and thus BF titles aren't just made to cater to our little niche here). Personally I choose to believe that DICE has something to replace it but we don't know what yet; it could be good it could be bad. We'll see.

                        For me I want:
                        * Something a bit more advanced than "modern day" (I won't get it though). I'm tired of rehashing the same equipment and landscapes and thought 2142 was cool for it's tank shields, walkers, recon cloaks, titans and other stuffs.
                        * A strong focus on team work based play. Something akin to melding the BF2/2142 squad system with BC2s squad point whoring.
                        * More realistic gun usage. I don't want pure realism but you shouldn't be able to run around with a machine gun chopping down everybody nor shooting a sniper rifle from the hip.
                        * More team based "commander" assets. The UAV worked well here but needs a bit of tweaking like having it only open to squad members or having squads dedicated to using assets well.
                        * A smarter balance between stealth and head-butting forces. 2142 managed this even with IDS most of the time.
                        * Bigger maps than BC2
                        * Decent amounts of armor
                        * Armor I can actually use (seriously, why doesn't the Abrams have a range ladder?)
                        * VOIP

                        I guess that's it for the "must haves" for me.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

                          Originally posted by KnyghtMare View Post
                          I think DICE's argument against a CO compelling and reasonable. We really do feel the pain of it here at TG but your average server probably doesn't give a damn about it (and thus BF titles aren't just made to cater to our little niche here). Personally I choose to believe that DICE has something to replace it but we don't know what yet; it could be good it could be bad. We'll see.
                          It's good to see that while we here at TG strive for the ideal, you recognize the reality is that most players don't exactly play like we do.

                          What would be ideal, but doubtful, is to have a server-side option to have a CO. If on, CO tools are obviously handed to him. If off, they're shared among SLs.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

                            But it's way better than an empty CO chair which is the norm.
                            Never had a prob with that in my time

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What BF3 needs to be liked:

                              Originally posted by Pvt Brokeback View Post
                              (having no commander is ok, I guess, but SL is a must)
                              So, you realize that having a squad without leadership is less effective, but a team without leadership is OK?

                              The CO is a feature that is as often used correctly as the squad leader. The very vast majority of squads in BF2 and BF2142 are free for all deathmatches with one spawn point.
                              What would BF be like without proper squads? How is it any different from COD team deathmatch?

                              The simple truth is that people who play the game seriously do things that are effective. I don't have a hardon for the CO role -- it simply makes my team win easier when there is one person to perform logistics and leadership.
                              I don't have a hardon for the SL role either, but BF2142 squads are _SIGNIFICANTLY_ more effective than BC2 squads can ever hope to be by that simple virtue -- there isn't a need for consent. What one person calls, happens, and it makes the squad significantly more effective.

                              That's what it comes down to, really. I like winning. The CO makes winning easier. The team's SLs make winning easier.

                              The military forces around the world didn't evolve a command structure just for kicks. It's there because it's effective and efficient.

                              My point is that by removing the CO role from BF3, DICE is removing depth from the game. They're removing teamwork possibilities, and that's uncool in my books.
                              This is the same story though that we saw with BC2 armor. It wasn't "fair" or "balanced" -- it was just plain sad. And that removed depth from the BF experience. Taking away overpowered tanks isn't a big deal, but taking away depth from the game is a big deal to me.

                              This, I guess, is my primary argument against BC2 in general -- a lack of depth. BF2142 had interesting features and depth to be found, mastered, and had fun with for a long time. BC2 was flat out done in 6 months.

                              This is what I'm afraid of in BF3. I don't really care about the CO role, or SL role, or whatever they make the game finally. What I do want is a game full of depth that I can sink my teeth int for a long time. The teamwork possibilities with the SL and CO roles is a ridiculous amount of depth, and I enjoyed that. That's why I want the CO role in BF3.

                              You have to keep in mind that 90% of the people who played BF2 and BF2142 never scratched the surface of depth of squad mechanics. The way TG squads were ran is an exception, not the norm.
                              Further still, the depth and team effectiveness of having just ONE SL working with just one smart CO is something seen by even fewer people.

                              But that's what makes it so important, and so interesting in my books. If you really tried, and got a bunch of smart people together, you could make something awesome happen. The game catered to people who wanted to excel at it -- who wanted to excel at teamwork.

                              That's why taking away COs in BF3 is so disapointing to me. DICE is catering to people who don't want depth -- they're catering to people who can feel at ease dropping 50 bucks for yet another shooter. That's uncool.
                              I don't want to waste my time on yet another shooter. I want something I can excel at. That's what the CO role was in a lot of respects -- you can excel at the game by being a great CO who is working with great SLs.

                              Briefly:

                              1. I want depth in BF3. Removing the CO role removes depth.
                              2. I want the game to cater to people who want to excel at it, not people who will play it for two months.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X