That looks like it's just an old promo image with some text written on it in paint then printed, either it's fake or whoever does graphic design for EA got extremely lazy
One can only dream of a new good Battlefield game.
Battleside 4?
I hope it has six-man squads, a better squad gui for squads and FUCKING SQUAD VOIP GODDAMN
Doesn't Black Ops 2 have something like this? It's called Multi-Team.
Last I checked that wasn't very popular.
Squad orders, improved commo rose would be nice too.
[editline]17th April 2013[/editline]
Also that text looks very faked.
[QUOTE]It also mentions the return of "Commander Mode," which gives players an RTS-like view and the ability to order teammates.[/QUOTE]
Millions of times developers tried this. Millions of times the player went to its own, and didnt listen to any command at all.
[QUOTE=ashxu;40302876]Doesn't Black Ops 2 have something like this? It's called Multi-Team.
Last I checked that wasn't very popular.[/QUOTE]
Multi-team is small and pseudo-competitive. It's not the gametype's fault.
[QUOTE=Lefter;40302901]Millions of times developers tried this. Millions of times the player went to its own, and didnt listen to any command at all.[/QUOTE]
With the proper teams it worked amazingly in BF2
And I guess with the point reward system BF3 has it could also persuade players into playing the objectives, and the commander listening to the players' needs
I want to believe, but at the same time....I don't
[QUOTE=TehMentos;40302815]Battleside 4?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lefter;40302901]Millions of times developers tried this. Millions of times the player went to its own, and didnt listen to any command at all.[/QUOTE]
It's like people don't remember Battefield 2 and 2142, which had an extremely well implemented commander mode and squads and were amazing games partially because of that.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
even in pubs where most players didn't follow orders, it was that well designed.
Commander mode worked amazingly well in BF2 a lot of the time. I recently picked the game up again and tried it, and it's actually pretty easy to get some good collaborative play going on public servers if the commander uses VoIP and shows interest in the squads.
[QUOTE=ashxu;40302876]Doesn't Black Ops 2 have something like this? It's called Multi-Team.
Last I checked that wasn't very popular.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't specify that all three factions fight at once. It could work like earlier BF games where it is just two factions chosen by the map (so we don't have Russians in China and the middle east every time for whatever reason).
Three way team battles in smaller shooters just don't tend to work out as well as they do in things like Planetside.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40303001]Commander mode worked amazingly well in BF2 a lot of the time. I recently picked the game up again and tried it, and it's actually pretty easy to get some good collaborative play going on public servers if the commander uses VoIP and shows interest in the squads.[/QUOTE]
The majority of the time, commander mode was always taken by someone who was using it to either drop shit on themselves, UAV their area, or just nothing at all. It could be interesting if people actually played together and listened to their commanding players, but they don't tend to.
Also fuck servers with the "no commander fighting" rule, if the enemy commander is fighting, they can die. If they die that gives the enemy a temporary advantage. Why stop them fighting.
[QUOTE=ashxu;40302876]Doesn't Black Ops 2 have something like this? It's called Multi-Team.
Last I checked that wasn't very popular.[/QUOTE]
I'd assume it's a call-back to the BF2 scenario (etc) where the game overall featured 3 different factions factions (and thus 3 sets standard weapons, vehicles and equipment as well as map themes), but only two factions battled each other on each map.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;40303034]It doesn't specify that all three factions fight at once. It could work like earlier BF games where it is just two factions chosen by the map (so we don't have Russians in China and the middle east every time for whatever reason).
Three way team battles in smaller shooters just don't tend to work out as well as they do in things like Planetside.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
The majority of the time, commander mode was always taken by someone who was using it to either drop shit on themselves, UAV their area, or just nothing at all. It could be interesting if people actually played together and listened to their commanding players, but they don't tend to.
Also fuck servers with the "no commander fighting" rule, if the enemy commander is fighting, they can die. If they die that gives the enemy a temporary advantage. Why stop them fighting.[/QUOTE]
I think that's rather a question of commander playing styles. A proactive commander that engages at the front lines is a well-documented and potentially very effective strategy (if the commander player is skilled enough), as he/she can use the commander tools for a massive tactical advantage on-scene. What a lot of people are missing however is the communications bit, leaving other players frustrated. I think the "No fighting commander"-servers are attempting to discourage this playing style, perhaps because not enough players can pull it off effectively.
But yes, I remember the commander role not always working out well. I'd accept that over not having the commander feature at all however.
Bad grammar, spelling and punctuation, and using fucking [i]times new roman[/i] as the font. These are fake as shit.
I just want destructible environments to be an actual improvement from BC2.
TF2 was gonna have a mode VERY early in development where one dude was a Commander and directed and spawned stuff for peoples.
Naturally, this proved to be BORING for the Commander so they scrapped it.
Natural Selection made it work.
I think it'd be a beneficial implementation if they can avoid the first-come-first-serve method of getting the job. seniority and score history would help weed out the kind of dinks who rush to get the helicopter first, only to flip straight forward and crash
[QUOTE=daijitsu;40304333]I think it'd be a beneficial implementation if they can avoid the first-come-first-serve method of getting the job. seniority and score history would help weed out the kind of dinks who rush to get the helicopter first, only to flip straight forward and crash[/QUOTE]
They sort-of did that in BF2, as the applicant with the highest rank would be given the commander position.
Same kind of rumours surrounded BF3 right until it's release and even past that, a lot of people speculated "commander mode DLC", "new faction DLC" etc.
I'm gonna make a fake ad using comic sans saying it's always on and kinect is required
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;40302837]I hope it has six-man squads, a better squad gui for squads and FUCKING SQUAD VOIP GODDAMN[/QUOTE]
8 is better.
I don't think this is enough to win me back.
BF3 is riddled with problems and Dice really don't seem to care anymore.
Just waiting for some other dev to make a similar game. Crytek seemed promising, but then, crysis2 and 3 happened. :(
oh jeez
imagine how cool a 1 vs 1 vs 1 mode would be for battlefield, coupled with the commander shit.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Nitro836;40303568]TF2 was gonna have a mode VERY early in development where one dude was a Commander and directed and spawned stuff for peoples.
Naturally, this proved to be BORING for the Commander so they scrapped it.
Natural Selection made it work.[/quote]
tf2 doesn't pride itself in having gigantic 64 player maps, "real" weaponry, land and airvehicles, so no duh it would be mad boring to have a commander
NS2, and possibly BF4, benefit from commander mode because the gameplay requires a bit more strategy than TF2.
Commander mode has got to be the most pointless thing ever implemented. People are too stubborn to listen to any commands given by any players. A three sided war might not work well for a game like Battlefield
[QUOTE=BCell;40313626]Commander mode has got to be the most pointless thing ever implemented. People are too stubborn to listen to any commands given by any players. A three sided war might not work well for a game like Battlefield[/QUOTE]
Commander mode is the greatest thing ever whenever there are at least a few players who have any capacity for cooperation. While it's true a lot of people are too stubborn to work together, not every single player has to comply with the commander for it to have a positive impact on the game.
If any future Battlefield game were to feature a commander mode it'd ideally be implemented as a server option.
[QUOTE=BCell;40313626]Commander mode has got to be the most pointless thing ever implemented. People are too stubborn to listen to any commands given by any players. A three sided war might not work well for a game like Battlefield[/QUOTE]
I strongly disagree. Because even if one squad follows Commander, it's already not "pointless". If no one does, then it doesn't hurt. And there always were a lot of servers that made following orders obligatory.
These features are of very good kind. They don't hurt anybody. Those who do not want it, they can ignore it. On the other hand, people who want to use it are granted the possibility. That's kinda more "play it your way" than BF3 was.
