I never really had an issue with health regen in BC2; I still was always looking for a medic because it takes a while to regen, I suppose a bit slower wouldn't hurt. Moreover in BF2 it was annoying to run around looking for a damn medic just because you fell two feet and cut your leg. As for after a certain point health regen stopping I couldn't care either way; I wonder if they will limit what a medic can revive (like headshots or pointblank shotgun to the chest).
[QUOTE=marlkarxv3;27937331]You're complaining about it. Congrats, you've just been trolled. You gave him what he wanted, you criticized him.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between attempting to lash back at a trolls argument and criticizing the performance troll itself.
[editline]8th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=evilweazel;27937561]I'd want it to only heal to like 40% make it so you need to find a medic.[/QUOTE]
I would agree. Medics should be nothing short of essential to a team. It's worrying me a bit that they choose to scale down the class selection; even though specialization was somewhat annoying at times (since it made you more reliant on other players) it just made it so much more rewarding when co-operation (or just the illusion of such) worked. I'm not gonna say I know what I'm talking about though because I never played Bad Company.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;27937659]There's a difference between attempting to lash back at a trolls argument and criticizing the performance troll itself.
[editline]8th February 2011[/editline]
I would agree. Medics should be nothing short of essential to a team. It's worrying me a bit that they choose to scale down the class selection; even though specialization was somewhat annoying at times (since it made you more reliant on other players) it just made it so much more rewarding when co-operation (or just the illusion of such) worked. I'm not gonna say I know what I'm talking about though because I never played Bad Company.[/QUOTE]
Preferably I'd want it to not heal at all, making medics truly essential, not just a machine gun class with lunchboxes that heal like it was in BC2. But I doubt it will be like that, or worse, I'll have to go into some awful hardcore mode for it.
These magazine scans are great, but the singleplayer has me worried. It sounds almost exactly like Black Ops, with the whole interrogation and switching views thing. And quick time events in a Battlefield game?
[QUOTE=Redskins1234;27938009]These magazine scans are great, but the singleplayer has me worried. It sounds almost exactly like Black Ops, with the whole interrogation and switching views thing. And quick time events in a Battlefield game?[/QUOTE]
It's DICE making a battlefield game, they know what we want, relax.
[QUOTE=Redskins1234;27938009]These magazine scans are great, but the singleplayer has me worried. It sounds almost exactly like Black Ops, with the whole interrogation and switching views thing. And quick time events in a Battlefield game?[/QUOTE]
People only care about multiplayer these days and so do reviewers. Are you buying it for the multiplayer or the singleplayer?
Single player is a nice addition [B]as long as it's not at the cost of multiplayer quality.[/B]
-snip-
[QUOTE=Fussy!;27935850]Some full body awareness would be awesome in this, you can see your legs and some parts of your upper body, your hand going away from your foregrip/whatever to check your mag pouches.
Damn, that would be awesome.[/QUOTE]
For a massive blockbuster game that will redefine the market again, they better give me fucking legs.
[quote]16vs16 or more, or BF3 is the first BF that is not going in my BF collection... DICE pay attention to one of kind of platforms and forget the other... [/quote]Lololol. Not fun when the opposite happens now is it?
This game is going to be so awesome.
I hope they bring us all sorts of gamemodes. Conquest, sure, but maybe also attack lines and stuff.
They need to have some kind of Titan mode in BF3
[QUOTE=elitehakor v2;27939243]They need to have some kind of Titan mode in BF3[/QUOTE]
Maybe like two HQ's, and the teams need to infiltrate and fight their way down to the basements to blow up a control panel?
I could live with that.
Imagine a proper classic capture the flag gamemode on something like Battlefield, I know it may seem weird and hard to make but just imagine it.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;27937659]There's a difference between attempting to lash back at a trolls argument and criticizing the performance troll itself.
[/QUOTE]
Except negativity is still what he wants, and what he got.
[QUOTE=Melon_Mapper;27939361]Imagine a proper classic capture the flag gamemode on something like Battlefield, I know it may seem weird and hard to make but just imagine it.[/QUOTE]
Didn't 1942 have CTF?
[QUOTE=marlkarxv3;27939514]Except negativity is still what he wants, and what he got.
Didn't 1942 have CTF?[/QUOTE]
I don't recall it, but it's been a while since I've played it.
[QUOTE=Melon_Mapper;27939554]I don't recall it, but it's been a while since I've played it.[/QUOTE]
Looked it up, it did. It also had TDM.
I'm kinda glad that they are thinking about cutting the commander. They seriously didn't work in pubbie matches. You'd either have no one wanting to be commander (like 90% of the time) completely wasting assets like artillery and UAVs, or you'd have an incompetent person that was too busy dropping supply crates on his tank to actually give orders and be helpful.
The very rare occasions you had a good commander the game would be awesome. The problem with this is that when only 1 team had a competent commander the entire battle got one sided.
The commander is great if you have teams that communicate with each other, but it's the death of pubbie games.
I still think there should be a way for people to give orders with more depth then BC2, the squad leader system from BF2 would be perfect for these things. Maybe add a reward system, the more points the squad scores, be it kills or team actions, the squad leader gets to drop supply crates, arty, UAV etc.
It'd still suffer from the incompetent leader problem, but it would be less of one as the the team won't be in a single squad.
I remember that, you'd drop someone from the big bomber plane, and when he had the flag you'd fly like 2 feet aboven the ground so the guy with the flag could enter your bomber in mid air. Then you flew back and voila.
But yeah, there should be some variation to conquest mode. I see titan mode work as a mode where there are 2 HQ's, For each kill or ''documents'' you capture from the other HQ, maybe a armored prototype vehicle parked in the other base what you could transport to your own... or flags you capture on the battlefield ( And whatever else ) you'll get money to buy stuff like tanks and base defenses. And after collecting enough money/kills you can call in a fuel air bomb or something like that to blow up the other HQ.
The entire get more points call in stuff sounds a bit like CoD to me; and it rewards the winning team, which doesn't help. I would rather see something that gives a little boost to the loosing team to try and help them get back on their feet.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;27939264]Maybe like two HQ's, and the teams need to infiltrate and fight their way down to the basements to blow up a control panel?
I could live with that.[/QUOTE]
Or Aircraft carrier sinking
[QUOTE=DaMastez;27940003]The entire get more points call in stuff sounds a bit like CoD to me; and it rewards the winning team, which doesn't help. I would rather see something that gives a little boost to the loosing team to try and help them get back on their feet.[/QUOTE]
The reward system might be a bad idea, I just threw it out there as a suggestion. Maybe just have the things on a timer like in bf2.
[QUOTE=clanratc;27939849]I'm kinda glad that they are thinking about cutting the commander. They seriously didn't work in pubbie matches. You'd either have no one wanting to be commander (like 90% of the time) completely wasting assets like artillery and UAVs, or you'd have an incompetent person that was too busy dropping supply crates on his tank to actually give orders and be helpful.
The very rare occasions you had a good commander the game would be awesome. The problem with this is that when only 1 team had a competent commander the entire battle got one sided.
The commander is great if you have teams that communicate with each other, but it's the death of pubbie games.
I still think there should be a way for people to give orders with more depth then BC2, the squad leader system from BF2 would be perfect for these things. Maybe add a reward system, the more points the squad scores, be it kills or team actions, the squad leader gets to drop supply crates, arty, UAV etc.
It'd still suffer from the incompetent leader problem, but it would be less of one as the the team won't be in a single squad.[/QUOTE]
I actually always ran into good commanders, and if nobody was commander I would try my best. Usually the commanders I ran into listened to the squad leaders. I asked our leader to request a supply drop, seconds later, supply drop right on us. We needed a UAV? Ok, fine. Artillery? Ehh...not so lucky most times. Though I think our squad was the only one communicating properly myself, and we were using text.
I want to be able to slam a Harrier into the side of a blackhawk in rage.
Godamnit, everything is all fucking destaurated like it's a Call of Duty game.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27940221]Godamnit, everything is all fucking destaurated like it's a Call of Duty game.[/QUOTE]
Godamnit we have barely seen any real information other than the small bits GameInformer released.
Hopefully they won't have those booster packs. I only got the Spec Ops one which was kinda dodgy enough
Oh boy, I hope my ATI Radeon 4670 can run this :ohdear:
It can run Moh 2010 (I played the beta) at highest setting so I hope so.
[quote]Godamnit we have barely seen any real information other than the small bits GameInformer released. [/quote]Sorry, I just had to politely sit and wait through 6 years of DICE games that weren't Battlefield 3. I mean there was only a three year wait between BF1942 and BF2.
I'm just not particularly impressed by the incredibly vague and contentless teaser, Modern Warfare 2-esqu cover art, and desaturated color palette of the in-game screenshots. I was kind of hoping I would be blown out of the water when Battlefield 3 was announced, but really this is too little, too late. All of this would have been amazing if it were announced 3 years ago when the whole "modern warfare" genre wasn't in overused shambles, and the frostbite engine wasn't looking simply "acceptable" or "conventional," it was looking bloody amazing.
I just hope the engine will be optimized.
But then again, since DICE is primarily developing on the PC, they'll spend more time optimizing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
