- reviving (either remove it, reduce it to once per spawn or once per minute, have it more like repairs so 10 points in life is 10 points etc)
- spawn trapping (sick of playing CQ games 200% + where we are just trapped or being the trapper. It is boring as hell. In that case the trapped team should be able to quit or better yet they should automatically regain two bases at a cost of say 50 tickets (something like that). There are loads of options here; maybe they acquire more vehicles, etc etc
Break up the 2 team set up into 3 team v 3 team set up and recognise that armour and jets are completely separate to infantry, thus every 64 player server would now divide 32 per side 24 of each side would be infantry 4 would be armour and 4 would be air support. The most basic fundamental changes should be to the spawning mechanics, remove all ability to spawn on captured points, now players can either spawn on their squad leader, a squad radio beacon or in vehicles which have open slots, so apc/blackhawk vehicles become a core backbone of any match as they will keep players in the fight, no apc like vehicle and players are forced to respawn back at the homebase forcing them to make their way back to the points. Vehicles can spawn at specific capture points but not all of them, much like the ac130 cap point. I also think some shake up on the capture system would be interesting, so for example there is always one cap point that is the airspace over a certain distance in the centre of the map at a specific height that is called the air control point, which goes to the team that had their aircraft in that space last, so when playing air that would be a key objective, but playing infantry/armour it would only be an icon telling you if your side controls the air or not, it should affect the tickets like the other points, but also works in easily communicating to the rest of the team how the opposing teams airforce is made up off. Also if there is going to be a AC-130 like artillery unit it would be tied to that point as in needing to hold it with your air force for a specific length of time to spawn one. Treat most vehicles like you treat classes/weapons with a large variety that get unlocked as you progress with a class in each area. Humvees etc would remain as they currently are. So in armour it would be MBT, IFV, Support. and in air it would be Air Superiority, CAS, Support. It would require huge tweaks both to how vehicles work firstly. MBT's (which will include tank destroyers) would get a major nerf against infantry and would be encouraged more to engage at long ranges and in high speed, their role would be to knock out other vehicles. IFV would be the best vehicle to counter enemy infantry and support your own infantry, because they will be able to carry AOE abilities like the medics heal or supports ammo, they also can act as spawn locations, which is important in the changing of things. Support would be artillery and AA. For Air Air Superiority would be aircraft designed to take down other aircraft, I think in this version, these will have the speed boosted and their ability to d*ck on land targets toned down greatly Close Air Support would be aircraft designed to hit vehicles and would include a number of helicopters in here Support would be the scout helicopters and transport helicopters, maybe even UAV and the AC130 (acting as a heavy fortified moving spawn point rather then the air atillery it is atm) The basic premise is that you will always have 8 vehicles, 4 land and 4 air in the game and they can be changed up as needed in the battle, have a strong jet player on the opposing side, have 2 players go AA and lock him out of key areas. You can also go MBT heavy which would give you a lot of punch, but every player who dies is forced to respawn back at their homebase (cant spawn in MBTS) so it means you hit hard but you wont be able to keep up the pressure. Of course some balancing would need to be teethed out, most obviously the gunships, but I think if you give the option for the other team to play stronger more dangerous jets it might keep gunships in check. You could even tone it down to a competitive level with 8v8 games and having 2 players on each team being able to choose their vehicle of choice, again the choice of one going a spawn vehicle to help the team and the other a heavy hitter would be the balanced choice. Of course there'll be issues, people skulking around in battlelog looking for a server with a free jet or tank slot. Infantry would need to be rebalanced to deal with larger armour presence (I think every class should have at least 1 AT solution of sorts, which they do at the moment except for assault, so I'd be tempted to move AT mines to Assault and see how that works) Maps would need to be scaled larger to consider the longer range for MBTs and the heavier vehicle presence, I dont think we need more cap points, in facting having less but spreading them out gives greater focus on keeping spawn routes open for other teams. I also think the 3 roles should be almost treated like completely different games, with their own scoreboards, objective icons and colour scheme (Red for armour, green for infantry, blue for air?)
mozattack wrote: » How can you get more points from reviving that killing someone? It just breads the assault whore who continually play the same maps and do the same thing to get a high SPM... pathetic.]
I've played so many games on Epicentre where the opposing team were 11/12 assault... came pointless in the end killing them cos they would just be revived = quit rage.
ktulu123 wrote: » If a team gets spawn trapped, it is their own fault. But more importantly it is bad map design on DICE's part that allows that to happen
MajesticDonkey wrote: » Because Battlefield is a TEAM-BASED game. Reviving people helps your team. This is exactly how to win a game. Revive-train. Why do you think all the pro teams use the assault class? So they can revive each other and hence reduce their ticket loss. Your example of this is a bad example anyway, there are so many possible situations. Why not rush them while they are reviving and kill the players doing the reviving? As far as I know you can't shoot and revive at the same time. Judging from your post it appears you are also one of these people that give out about people using the M16/AEK etc...would I be right in that?
mozattack wrote: » I know the pro-gamers use assault and the noob guns all the time and that adds to my point in that no class should be overly dominant and force 24 out of 24 players to have the same class and adopt a childish system of revive trains.
dreamers75 wrote: » its your own fault, its happens in all BF games. its just mean you suck and god is punishing you. Bf3 actually alleviates it more than previous games.
ktulu123 wrote: » 2142 was amazing! Would love to see a sequal to it. A world war 2 one would be epic but I think i think I remember reading that it was going to be set in modern times also. Cant remember where I saw it. I'm hoping for bad company 3, that story line was great!
MajesticDonkey wrote: » I'm trying to figure out why you think it's childish. Like I already mentioned, reviving teammates is how you win a game, especially in Rush maps. It's the same for both teams. It's not the players' fault that a certain gun outperforms every other gun. I use the M16 or AEK most of the time I play. Why? Because so many people use those weapons and there are no other guns that outperform them. I could either use the M16/AEK to have a chance of killing him or I could use some other "uncommon" weapon and never kill him. I also use them because I play on maps (Seine, Bazaar, other city maps) where they are the best situational gun available. If you're using a weapon with 550-600 RPM on a city map you might as well sit in your deployment. I do agree however that no one class should be dominant and the assault class is dominant, but I wouldn't agree with changing the reviving mechanics at all. Buff the other classes, give more points for throwing ammo boxes etc. Engineers are perfect the way they are IMO. There isn't much place for engineers on city maps, and I always play either engineer or support on larger maps because that's where the class is suited best.
mozattack wrote: » Sorry to say this but this type of player is EXACTLY who I want removed from BF4... the M16/AEK noob who cant use any other weapon.
GottaGetGatt wrote: » lol, you've never being in a 12v12 lvl 100 server on metro, i take it.Every one uses those weapons because there the best for aggressive play.Especially at the very first encounter on the B flag.Why would you use a lesser powered weapon against a team who are all using those 2 weapons.Your just gonna lose every battle. Same situation if you got into a fight with a guy in the street.He pulls out a machette, and gives you the choice to pick a machette or knife.What do you pick?Same analogy applies to Battlefield. I used to always use those two weapons in competitive matches, but i've since switched to the AN-94.
mozattack wrote: » Comparing overusing the same weapon on BF3 to a fight IRL is a little insane no? I hardly need to mention that one is real life and the other is a game? I think you essentially admitted to the problem at hand in that you have to roll with OP guns to compete with others who similarly use OP guns - thats my point. For me I aim to master all guns (e.g. I have 30,000 kills but no more than 550 with any gun) and not be reliant on using the same gun, same class and same maps like a good percentage of BF3 players who are basically limited in intelligence and the type who probably order "well done steak" in a restaurant. My analogy for you is that the AEK/M16 brigade are who make the likes of FIFA etc unplayable online as 99 times out of a 100 you will end up playing Barcelona... some people have no imagination or desire to actually diversify
