Battlefront3.net

I like the award weapons you get in BFII, I think they should keep those in BFIII.

makethree wrote:I think this would work as an 'Invasion' mode similar to Gears of War's 'Horde' mode and Halo's 'Firefight' mode.

Not that's it's your fault but I hate when people refer to those games and those modes as if they invented them. Arena shooters have had a survival mode for a very long time and yet GoW and Halo get the credit. Anyway, survival mode is really fun in a shooter (Uncharted 2 and CoD WaW for example) and would be cool in BFIII.

You know what else would be cool? More weapons, awards, and different GCs like in the original Battlefront.

,No,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no awards, I hate them.
I hate them 100 Percent

Awards is what gave you better weapons.

Slayer1 wrote:no awards, I hate them.
I hate them 100

I agree with Slayer. I mean sure, the game can have them, just have a way to turn them off, please.

You could still use

Darth Vader wrote:better weapons.

Darth Vader wrote:You could still use

Darth Vader wrote:better weapons.

I enjoy truly competitive games, and what I mean by that is this: games that truly measure the skills and tactics of the player.

Having "better weapons" is the exact opposite of that. I don't care if there are many weapons as long as the legitimate reason to use each one depending on scenario, style of the player, etc. Having sequentially better weapons detracts from the use of skill because everyone'll use the "best" weapon for each class. It's pointless for an fps, in which the player is supposed to have equal equipment to everyone else on the battlefield. That's the one thing I loved about the battlefront series. With some weapons "better" than others, it becomes more like an RPG. Completing the next objective, just to get the next weapon, switch to the better weapon, to get the next objective, to get...

What I'm trying to say is that there a thousands of games out there that work that way, thousands. That's what made Battlefront unique in my eyes. I'd rather not see it become " oh yeah you get the E-11 in the beginning of the game, but you'll never use it." That's what I didn't like about awards, once you had legendary in something you became overpowered. Better weapons is pretty much just a mirrror of it in a different form.

I hated Legendary frenzy because I was stuck with the Frenzy Rifle which was way to overpowered. If you don't switch weapons you can keep the normal blaster but I usually do a quick switch during reload to a pistol to kill Droidekas. I agree, at least a way to turn them off. CoD has the "better weapon/RPG" system and it sucks in certain situations. You may have shot him first and for longer but his gun has better penetration so it kills you in one shot. Not cool...

Arosenivai wrote:

Darth Vader wrote:You could still use

Darth Vader wrote:better weapons.

I enjoy truly competitive games, and what I mean by that is this: games that truly measure the skills and tactics of the player.

Having "better weapons" is the exact opposite of that. I don't care if there are many weapons as long as the legitimate reason to use each one depending on scenario, style of the player, etc. Having sequentially better weapons detracts from the use of skill because everyone'll use the "best" weapon for each class. It's pointless for an fps, in which the player is supposed to have equal equipment to everyone else on the battlefield. That's the one thing I loved about the battlefront series. With some weapons "better" than others, it becomes more like an RPG. Completing the next objective, just to get the next weapon, switch to the better weapon, to get the next objective, to get...

What I'm trying to say is that there a thousands of games out there that work that way, thousands. That's what made Battlefront unique in my eyes. I'd rather not see it become " oh yeah you get the E-11 in the beginning of the game, but you'll never use it." That's what I didn't like about awards, once you had legendary in something you became overpowered. Better weapons is pretty much just a mirrror of it in a different form.

Scott wrote:I hated Legendary frenzy because I was stuck with the Frenzy Rifle which was way to overpowered. If you don't switch weapons you can keep the normal blaster but I usually do a quick switch during reload to a pistol to kill Droidekas. I agree, at least a way to turn them off. CoD has the "better weapon/RPG" system and it sucks in certain situations. You may have shot him first and for longer but his gun has better penetration so it kills you in one shot. Not cool...

All right, I think I see where this is going now. We were just talking about weapons. What about other bonuses such as Technician, Endurance, Guardian, or War Hero? Everyone else has the same chance of getting those.

I never really felt any more powerful when receiving those awards. If they actually did something then it would be more interesting. New weapons are a no. It's either class-based or customizable. It can't be both. That's just my opinion of course...

EDIT: This is an idea thread and I got a cool idea. What if you had the ability to have 3 units follow you giving you the possibility to command them with the four simple command from Republic Commando? Taking cover should be automatic though. I think it would be cool since the last two iterations had sub-par and pointless commands.

I know, all you could do in BFII is command 4 people to follow you. None of the commands worked for me.

Scott wrote:I never really felt any more powerful when receiving those awards. If they actually did something then it would be more interesting. New weapons are a no.

Actually honestly, I can say they did do something. I have two accounts on BF2 one which I saved, and the other which just had my control set on. I average around 9 kills per life on the bonus-less one and around 16 on the other (just played a little yesterday). It is only a little, but it's certainly helps boost you through those moments when you're thinking "Holy crap, I'm overwhelmed!". I worry if they did do more, it would make human elements too much of a force compared to the AI. I mean the AI shouldn't be overly powerful, but also shouldn't be able to be herded like nerfs.

Scott wrote: It's either class-based or customizable. It can't be both. That's just my opinion of course...

I believe there's a way to do tactical customizations on classes, but of course, in the name of balance, that would take significantly more developing time. if you want examples of tactical weapon choices, I'll come up with some.

Arosenivai wrote:if you want examples of tactical weapon choices, I'll come up with some.

Please.

I know a few of these examples are very rudimentary:

Missile launchers:
1. ballistic missile launcher: This weapon fires a slow and heavy missle, [similar to BF2] and has a wide blast radius. Mainly used against tanks, and fortifications, it lacks the speed or the tracking systems to take down star fighters.

2. Anti-Aerial missile launcher: This weapon, as it's name demonstrates, is a useful weapon to take down fighters. Capable of tracking, only the most evasive fighters can escape the blast. The missiles used do not have flight stability without constant correction given by a set target, so missiles have a tendency to swerve off course if not locked on. They also lack the damage potential of the ballistic missile launcher.


Blaster Rifles:
1. The standard blaster rifle, not as accurate as some of the semi-automatic rifles available to marksmen, but enough to allow for kills at 100+ yards. Issued for use in open/semi-open terrain, this rifle boasts a good aiming sight, allow firing rate is something to be desired.

2. A (heavy rifle or carbine) has high damage, and fast rate of fire, but the high kick and inaccuracy due to the focusing array allow for limited use at range. Still a lethal combination and extremely deadly in close-quarter combat. It can prove useful in fighting in capital ships.

I know these ideas are very embryonic to say the least, but eh, if I come up with better ideas, I'll place them here.