First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply The Perfect BattleField
3119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/3/15 , edited 7/11/15
After the release of Battlefield 3, Dice/EA have continued to release worse Battlefield titles, to the point where we are no longer playing Battlefield but another generic shooter. I don't ever see Battlefield returning to what it once was, but I do love to think about what the franchise could be. So today I thought I would try and create what I believe to be the perfect Battlefield title.
This is only my opinion, and I am no veteran to the series as my first BF game was Bad Company 2. BF3 was my favorite FPS to date, so my perfect Battlefield will take the foundation of BF3 and add/subtract whatever I believe would make the game better.

First I'll start with vehicles as that's what Battlefield is most known for.
Vehicles:
-All lock on missiles for vehicles would be removed. Imo heatseekers often ruined air to air combat in BF3, as your average player would only spam them until they could kill you. Yes flying low prevented this, but flying low often leads to a tank shell, rpg, or the fact that you are now useless. They were also extremely annoying due to the constant beeping from a potential enemy lock on. Infantry keep their lock ons just because some anti-air is needed.
-IFVs take a slight nerf to their AP shells against MBTs. IFV's AP shells did too much damage in too little time to tanks, and they already boast considerably better speed and agility against MBTs. BF3's IFVs were nearly invincible if you knew what you were doing, and it didn't take much to know what you were doing.
-RPGs and tank shells are 1 shot kills against all vehicles except the transport chopper. I think they are already but something tells me they aren't against jets. Oh well.
-Both RU and US conquest jets should be equal jets. The only difference should be the looks.

Infantry:
BF3's infantry combat was imo the best out of any game to date. Weapons had actual recoil and even the best weapons took some skill to master. That being said, weapon balancing was a huge issue in BF3 due to over 100 weapons and little to distinguish them.
-Weapons receive new damage models, different from most weapons. BF3 weapons generally did 25 damage per bullet, and the only thing that changed between weapons was reload time, rate of fire, and recoil. That sounds great, but with so many weapons, this isn't enough.
For example, the best weapons in the assault class were the AEK, M16, and maybe the AN94. They all did the same damage but differed in RoF, recoil, and reload. That leaves 9 other assault rifles that were inferior to these 3, although I would say the AN94 was also inferior but it's so cool it doesn't matter. This problem exists for every class in the game. The solution to this is have different damage models for the other weapons to give me a reason to use them over my AEK, or remove about half the weapons.
-Suppression would be removed, period. It's a gimmicky feature that only adds randomness to the game and rewards you for missing. It has no place in a tactical shooter.
-Automatic shotguns are removed as well, just because I hate them and think they're nearly useless. They are nearly impossible to balance without making them worthless, so might as well not even have them. This would leave 2 shotguns which is more than enough.
-The only ammo types for shotguns would be buckshot and slugs. Frags are either too OP or useless, but never in between. Flechette has literally never been a viable choice in the entire BF3 lifespan so throw it out.
-Defibrillators would have a short cooldown between charges. You should not be able to revive 6 people in 6 seconds, period. The cooldown should be doubled.
-Recon gets C4 back.
-Repair tool gets a nerf in damage against enemy vehicles.
-Infantry cannot replenish grenades or any of the grenade launcher variants. This will help with the explosive spamming on Metro and Bazaar.

Map Changes:
-US carrier span on Noshahr Canals is moved up closer. And maybe add another carrier near it to help prevent the most ridiculous spawn trap in history.
-Tanks and IFVs spawn outside of enemy view on Tehran for both sides, but specifically RU side.


That's all for now. I don't expect anybody to actually read this as I just wanted to put my ideas about my favorite shooter down somewhere. But if you did read, feel free to add or debate any of my ideas.
Posted 7/3/15
l2p lmao
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 7/4/15
BF2 was way more strategic then the other BF games but nade spams where way better (where PR mod was fixing most of these problems)
The newer DICE games looks so awfull
3119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/4/15

Freddy96NO wrote:

BF2 was way more strategic then the other BF games but nade spams where way better (where PR mod was fixing most of these problems)
The newer DICE games looks so awfull


Everything after BF3 is awful. Sadly, I learned about Battlefield just before BF3, so I never played anything before BFBC2. I've heard great things about BF2, which makes me sad that I never got to play it.
6885 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / life
Offline
Posted 7/4/15
I love that game
3119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/4/15

ps4jstan wrote:

I love that game


Me too
11251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / PH3NF1X
Offline
Posted 7/4/15
Battlefield 2 on xbox - the original xbox

was great
93794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 7/6/15
Bad Company 2 was pretty fun.
9285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/7/15
I absolutely loved BF2. I spend over 800 hours and played for like 4 years i think, my clan played it on ladders and etc
BF has never been as good since.
But it has improved in some ways. Obviously the graphics have improved a great deal, the hit reg has gotten much much better, the introduction of destructible environment has made it IMO far superior to any other shooters (such as COD), and leveloution.
They have added many more game mode also which is good even though compared to good old conquest, they all suck.

The problem since BF2 is that they made the maps smaller(many maps not suitable/big for 64 players and who the hell wants to play with less than 64 players??), made the game a little bit more like COD, made the ceiling lower(bad for pilots and map ballance), they took away the commander(re introduced it in BF4, some would consider this good i guess..), They dumbed the game down and by that i mean that you used to only be able to spawn on your squaud leader(now any squad member) and it used to be game over once one team capped all of the flags and killed the last enemy. Now i understand that those changes are not all bad but it takes away alot of the team work aspects and the intensity.
In BC2 many maps were designed so shit. Choke points and teams stuck in their spwan unable to get out and getting rapped.

Bf3 was better then BC2. Bf4 is good but for alot of BF players it was the last straw. Iam have no intrest in hard line, cant speak on it really but dose not appeal to me at all.

I dont really agree with OP's thoughts. With the vehicles it would make airforce way too superior and land vehicles useless.
3119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/11/15

MrAnimeSK wrote:

I absolutely loved BF2. I spend over 800 hours and played for like 4 years i think, my clan played it on ladders and etc
BF has never been as good since.
But it has improved in some ways. Obviously the graphics have improved a great deal, the hit reg has gotten much much better, the introduction of destructible environment has made it IMO far superior to any other shooters (such as COD), and leveloution.
They have added many more game mode also which is good even though compared to good old conquest, they all suck.

The problem since BF2 is that they made the maps smaller(many maps not suitable/big for 64 players and who the hell wants to play with less than 64 players??), made the game a little bit more like COD, made the ceiling lower(bad for pilots and map ballance), they took away the commander(re introduced it in BF4, some would consider this good i guess..), They dumbed the game down and by that i mean that you used to only be able to spawn on your squaud leader(now any squad member) and it used to be game over once one team capped all of the flags and killed the last enemy. Now i understand that those changes are not all bad but it takes away alot of the team work aspects and the intensity.
In BC2 many maps were designed so shit. Choke points and teams stuck in their spwan unable to get out and getting rapped.

Bf3 was better then BC2. Bf4 is good but for alot of BF players it was the last straw. Iam have no intrest in hard line, cant speak on it really but dose not appeal to me at all.

I dont really agree with OP's thoughts. With the vehicles it would make airforce way too superior and land vehicles useless.


I think the map size is just fine for me. I generally don't like maps that are too big but I played BF3 on the PS3 so it was 12v12 so I can't really comment on that. But I don't know if I would blame DICE for that but rather the fans who constantly scream for better graphics. BF3 was sold on the fact that the graphics were good, and I think that hinders games. Because even though PC lets you create bigger maps and bigger graphics, DICE/EA are still accounting for the ones who run mid to low tier PCs, and when you ask for better graphics and 64 players, something has to give.

I disagree with squad leader spawning. I don't think it takes away from teamwork, and you can't control who's your squad leader in public matches so you could get screwed if he/she is an idiot. Yes you can switch squads but sometimes squads are full and you're stuck with staying in your squad or making one by yourself which would be meaningless.

BC2 maps were fun imo. I didn't play BF2 but just from a gamer's opinion, they played well. BF3 maps were 1000000x worse for spawn traps, especially Noshahr Canals or Metro.

BF4 was definitely a last straw for a lot of people. Before BF4 released, I told all my BF3 friends that it looked garbage and to not waste their money, but they did. Almost none of them are playing anymore.

And regarding vehicles, that's almost the point. Air vehicles should be superior imo. If you can't beat my jet with the main gun, you don't deserve a free kill with lock ons. At the least, it should take teamwork with lock ons from the infy to have a chance, not just one single player using a stigla. Tanks are deadlier in BF games than air vehicles, but it still takes teamwork from more than 1 RPG to take down 1 tank driver. So it should be the same for air vehicles, especially when they take more skill to use effectively than land vehicles.

9285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/11/15 , edited 7/11/15

Stay_Night wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:

I absolutely loved BF2. I spend over 800 hours and played for like 4 years i think, my clan played it on ladders and etc
BF has never been as good since.
But it has improved in some ways. Obviously the graphics have improved a great deal, the hit reg has gotten much much better, the introduction of destructible environment has made it IMO far superior to any other shooters (such as COD), and leveloution.
They have added many more game mode also which is good even though compared to good old conquest, they all suck.

The problem since BF2 is that they made the maps smaller(many maps not suitable/big for 64 players and who the hell wants to play with less than 64 players??), made the game a little bit more like COD, made the ceiling lower(bad for pilots and map ballance), they took away the commander(re introduced it in BF4, some would consider this good i guess..), They dumbed the game down and by that i mean that you used to only be able to spawn on your squaud leader(now any squad member) and it used to be game over once one team capped all of the flags and killed the last enemy. Now i understand that those changes are not all bad but it takes away alot of the team work aspects and the intensity.
In BC2 many maps were designed so shit. Choke points and teams stuck in their spwan unable to get out and getting rapped.

Bf3 was better then BC2. Bf4 is good but for alot of BF players it was the last straw. Iam have no intrest in hard line, cant speak on it really but dose not appeal to me at all.

I dont really agree with OP's thoughts. With the vehicles it would make airforce way too superior and land vehicles useless.


I think the map size is just fine for me. I generally don't like maps that are too big but I played BF3 on the PS3 so it was 12v12 so I can't really comment on that. But I don't know if I would blame DICE for that but rather the fans who constantly scream for better graphics. BF3 was sold on the fact that the graphics were good, and I think that hinders games. Because even though PC lets you create bigger maps and bigger graphics, DICE/EA are still accounting for the ones who run mid to low tier PCs, and when you ask for better graphics and 64 players, something has to give.

I disagree with squad leader spawning. I don't think it takes away from teamwork, and you can't control who's your squad leader in public matches so you could get screwed if he/she is an idiot. Yes you can switch squads but sometimes squads are full and you're stuck with staying in your squad or making one by yourself which would be meaningless.

BC2 maps were fun imo. I didn't play BF2 but just from a gamer's opinion, they played well. BF3 maps were 1000000x worse for spawn traps, especially Noshahr Canals or Metro.

BF4 was definitely a last straw for a lot of people. Before BF4 released, I told all my BF3 friends that it looked garbage and to not waste their money, but they did. Almost none of them are playing anymore.

And regarding vehicles, that's almost the point. Air vehicles should be superior imo. If you can't beat my jet with the main gun, you don't deserve a free kill with lock ons. At the least, it should take teamwork with lock ons from the infy to have a chance, not just one single player using a stigla. Tanks are deadlier in BF games than air vehicles, but it still takes teamwork from more than 1 RPG to take down 1 tank driver. So it should be the same for air vehicles, especially when they take more skill to use effectively than land vehicles.



12 v 12? LOL!?
wow you haven't really experienced battlefield if you haven't played 32 v32.
Yeah your right, i dont like for ALL the maps to be huge. Its good to have some that are smaller and more infantry friendly. You dont want ALL maps being all about choppers and jets or just armour.
You need mixture and ballance for sure. Bf2 was like that, you had huge maps but some were smaller but in general they were bigger.
Thats what makes it battlefield, vehicles and bigger maps, more players.

Yeah the squad leader thing, the change is one of those things thats good and bad at the same time. And yeah lol even now having a retard squad leader can screw you up big time. Even just last night we had a squad leader (playing with randoms) and he just WOULD NOT give orders.
SO FRUSTRATING! it makes the team not stick together, harder to take flags, and you dont get the bonus points for following orders.
We we constantly useing the in game "requesting orders" and even saying through the mic "mark the order mate" being polite. But nope...
Its amazing how common this is!?
When iam squad leader i always give orders and if my squad follows them i get mad points, funny when you give orders and no one follows them, you look on your map and every squad member is on a different part of the map, noobs! lol..

Yeah well you probably just mentioned the worst BF maps of all time! throw in operation locker....

I still play BF4, i've actually played it more than i played BF3. But not many of my clan members play it anymore.

If air force is too suprior it makes people rage lol. Back in the BF2 days we had one of the best attack chopper pilots in the world. So if one team has good pilots and the other dose not then its just pure pawnage.
Jets are very hard to take down in BF4 (maybe not for other jets). stingers and iglas are useless against them, even with the AA jets are hard to take down unless the jet just hovers or tries to kamikaze you.
Even attack choppers and transport choppers, stingers and iglas are useless unless there are multiple soldiers shooting at them with them at the same time.
The AA rips choppers up, as it should.
Iam more likely to take out a chopper with a tank or an rpg than with anything that locks on(not including the AA).
I disagree with what you said about tanks. Maybe with less players but with 64 players you can die in the tank quicker than on foot. If a squad is rolling together and all have rpg's you get smashed, tanks are sitting ducks for attack heli's and jets.
Theres mines to look out for and c4 if you drive in tight spots or the dam jihad bikes.
To last long in a tank you need a good gunner to watch your back, to tell you of danger, spot mines, take out infantry, shoot at choppers and to REPAIR!
Without this in a tank to wont last long at all(especially if you opposition tank has a repairer and you dont).

3119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/11/15

MrAnimeSK wrote:


Stay_Night wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:

I absolutely loved BF2. I spend over 800 hours and played for like 4 years i think, my clan played it on ladders and etc
BF has never been as good since.
But it has improved in some ways. Obviously the graphics have improved a great deal, the hit reg has gotten much much better, the introduction of destructible environment has made it IMO far superior to any other shooters (such as COD), and leveloution.
They have added many more game mode also which is good even though compared to good old conquest, they all suck.

The problem since BF2 is that they made the maps smaller(many maps not suitable/big for 64 players and who the hell wants to play with less than 64 players??), made the game a little bit more like COD, made the ceiling lower(bad for pilots and map ballance), they took away the commander(re introduced it in BF4, some would consider this good i guess..), They dumbed the game down and by that i mean that you used to only be able to spawn on your squaud leader(now any squad member) and it used to be game over once one team capped all of the flags and killed the last enemy. Now i understand that those changes are not all bad but it takes away alot of the team work aspects and the intensity.
In BC2 many maps were designed so shit. Choke points and teams stuck in their spwan unable to get out and getting rapped.

Bf3 was better then BC2. Bf4 is good but for alot of BF players it was the last straw. Iam have no intrest in hard line, cant speak on it really but dose not appeal to me at all.

I dont really agree with OP's thoughts. With the vehicles it would make airforce way too superior and land vehicles useless.


I think the map size is just fine for me. I generally don't like maps that are too big but I played BF3 on the PS3 so it was 12v12 so I can't really comment on that. But I don't know if I would blame DICE for that but rather the fans who constantly scream for better graphics. BF3 was sold on the fact that the graphics were good, and I think that hinders games. Because even though PC lets you create bigger maps and bigger graphics, DICE/EA are still accounting for the ones who run mid to low tier PCs, and when you ask for better graphics and 64 players, something has to give.

I disagree with squad leader spawning. I don't think it takes away from teamwork, and you can't control who's your squad leader in public matches so you could get screwed if he/she is an idiot. Yes you can switch squads but sometimes squads are full and you're stuck with staying in your squad or making one by yourself which would be meaningless.

BC2 maps were fun imo. I didn't play BF2 but just from a gamer's opinion, they played well. BF3 maps were 1000000x worse for spawn traps, especially Noshahr Canals or Metro.

BF4 was definitely a last straw for a lot of people. Before BF4 released, I told all my BF3 friends that it looked garbage and to not waste their money, but they did. Almost none of them are playing anymore.

And regarding vehicles, that's almost the point. Air vehicles should be superior imo. If you can't beat my jet with the main gun, you don't deserve a free kill with lock ons. At the least, it should take teamwork with lock ons from the infy to have a chance, not just one single player using a stigla. Tanks are deadlier in BF games than air vehicles, but it still takes teamwork from more than 1 RPG to take down 1 tank driver. So it should be the same for air vehicles, especially when they take more skill to use effectively than land vehicles.



12 v 12? LOL!?
wow you haven't really experienced battlefield if you haven't played 32 v32.
Yeah your right, i dont like for ALL the maps to be huge. Its good to have some that are smaller and more infantry friendly. You dont want ALL maps being all about choppers and jets or just armour.
You need mixture and ballance for sure. Bf2 was like that, you had huge maps but some were smaller but in general they were bigger.
Thats what makes it battlefield, vehicles and bigger maps, more players.

Yeah the squad leader thing, the change is one of those things thats good and bad at the same time. And yeah lol even now having a retard squad leader can screw you up big time. Even just last night we had a squad leader (playing with randoms) and he just WOULD NOT give orders.
SO FRUSTRATING! it makes the team not stick together, harder to take flags, and you dont get the bonus points for following orders.
We we constantly useing the in game "requesting orders" and even saying through the mic "mark the order mate" being polite. But nope...
Its amazing how common this is!?
When iam squad leader i always give orders and if my squad follows them i get mad points, funny when you give orders and no one follows them, you look on your map and every squad member is on a different part of the map, noobs! lol..

Yeah well you probably just mentioned the worst BF maps of all time! throw in operation locker....

I still play BF4, i've actually played it more than i played BF3. But not many of my clan members play it anymore.

If air force is too suprior it makes people rage lol. Back in the BF2 days we had one of the best attack chopper pilots in the world. So if one team has good pilots and the other dose not then its just pure pawnage.
Jets are very hard to take down in BF4 (maybe not for other jets). stingers and iglas are useless against them, even with the AA jets are hard to take down unless the jet just hovers or tries to kamikaze you.
Even attack choppers and transport choppers, stingers and iglas are useless unless there are multiple soldiers shooting at them with them at the same time.
The AA rips choppers up, as it should.
Iam more likely to take out a chopper with a tank or an rpg than with anything that locks on(not including the AA).
I disagree with what you said about tanks. Maybe with less players but with 64 players you can die in the tank quicker than on foot. If a squad is rolling together and all have rpg's you get smashed, tanks are sitting ducks for attack heli's and jets.
Theres mines to look out for and c4 if you drive in tight spots or the dam jihad bikes.
To last long in a tank you need a good gunner to watch your back, to tell you of danger, spot mines, take out infantry, shoot at choppers and to REPAIR!
Without this in a tank to wont last long at all(especially if you opposition tank has a repairer and you dont).


I'd much rather prefer 12v12. Especially for scheduling a clan battle because getting 11 other players to play at a certain time is hard enough. I really only care about clan battles anyways so 12v12 is perfect for me.

There is even less teamwork on console. Being squad leader means almost nothing for most players. But it never really bothered me because when I played BF3 I usually didn't play solo.

And lol I liked Operation Metro a lot. For clan battles, it was by far the most competitive map in the game. It was like playing Counterstrike but as a respawn game. It took tactics on the US side to get on B and it took good communication and teamwork to defend as RU side. I think the explosive spamming could often ruin the experience, but that's why I think explosives were a problem in BF3. But it was definitely by far my favorite map to play in a clan battle. Operation Lockers is awful though. Lockers is probably the worst Battlefield map I've ever played.

I've put barely any time in BF4. I got the game for free, hated it, but played it for a little bit because as a Battlefield fan, I felt like I should. I eventually got so annoyed that I quit.

Regarding air vehicles, I don't mind air superiority at all. I don't think it would be that bad if air vehicles lost their lock ons anyways. Without them, it would require teamwork from both pilot and gunner to beat the other pilot. And your chopper pilot wouldn't matter to me, because I would simply get into a jet and make his life hell, if it were BF3. Of course for random pub players who don't have teamwork, they'll get rekt, but that will either teach them to use teamwork or go play Metro/Bazaar/Tehran/Seine and all the other maps that are air vehicle free.

And as a tank player I disagree with what you said about tanks. If I were playing 32v32, I would simply not be so aggressive. When I played BF3, I was the best LAV driver in the world, and I would say I was near the top for MBTs on big maps like Caspian and etc. The trick was to position yourself so that you simply can't get hit by rpgs. So even though I didn't play 64 man servers, it would matter because I position myself where it's damn hard to hit me with rpgs or tank shells. I think my playstyle would better suit 32v32 because I was a passive tanker.
And I rarely ever had a gunner to repair for me. I absolutely never relied on a gunner to spot mines and C4. And I don't like my gunner, if I have one, to shoot at choppers because in BF3 the damage wasn't that good and it usually only got us spotted. The only time I lost tank fights was if the other tanker was really good as well and had a repair man. That's what I think made me a really good tanker though, because I learned to not have to rely on anybody.
3119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7/11/15
To be a little more fair though, I'll concede and say infantry can keep their 1 shot disable lock ons.
9285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/11/15 , edited 7/11/15
Yeah i hear ya and to each their own. The clan matches that i used to play in were 16 v 16. It was great but it wasn't always easy to get the full 16.
32 v 32 would be unrealistic for a clan match. But in pubs its great!
Yeah i think most people just play for KDR, i mean we are all at least a little guilty of this but some people thats all it is, they couldn't care less about winning or loosing let alone helping the team.
But at the same time theres assigments to consider, cant balme peopel for doing their own thing trying to acheive that.

Yeah maps like metro and operation locker are just constant nade/rocket/noob tube spam.

Bf4 has some really cool maps. Its good that they bought the commander back. If you get BF4 with all the expansions there alot of maps.

In the BF2 days, in the clan matches, the air forces basically had their own battle going on in the skies whilst everyone else fought it out on the ground. But in public servers air rapes ground, much like real combat i suppose.
I dont mind it either, i dont fly myself though, but i gun in the attack chopper and with my mate as a good pilot we kill alot of jets.

Yeah your right, if you just drive a tank right in you die. It needs to be used defensively and used long range. But at times if you just sit back and never move forward your not helping the team much.
Yeah there are times that shooting at the chooper(attack chopper) is the worst thing that you could do, its good to shoot at it if its already attacking(passanger) but your an idiot if you give your position away becasue its likely to come rape you.

Again, to each their own. When i play with randoms i dont rely on them, but playing with your mates having a guy spot and repair makes a world of difference.
Like say its a one on one tank battle, passanger gets out and crouches safely behind the tank reparing whilst i shoot and if the other tank has no repairer then he is fucked.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 7/11/15
Whats fun with big scaled fights is,
- Less put inside of messy run and gun anything close (mostly spawn in a calm area to plan ahead, or just being reinforcements)
- Got space to plan and see if there is a huge groupe in this area and if are able to sneak attack or flank (meaning you got enough space without being spotted and etc to make that flank, sneak attack successful)
- You can do most things solo/lone wolf as for stealthy capture, planting or stealing cars. :P
- more?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.