Eh, I'm A-OK with the lowered player counts; 64-player battles are universally a slog through a meatgrinder where you never get to feel like you contribute much. I had way more fun with Bad Company's lower player counts than I ever did with BF3/BF4's 64-player games; when I blew the shit out of group of folks in BC2, it was actually worth something, instead of there being another fifteen guys running up behind the six I just killed and now I haven't accomplished anything. Maps can be made so, so much better when they don't have to be designed with an absurd number of players in mind.
I'd also be completely okay with space fighters being used for strikes and not for player use. With fighters, either the maps end up absurdly small for flying anything besides chopper-esque craft, or they're so huge that getting anywhere as a soldier is a giant pain in the ass. I'd be fine with stuff like people getting to fly troop transports and whatnot, but I've never seen the appeal of flying jet craft in BF games.
I'd rather have well-designed focus on ground combat a thousand times more than have time wasted on trying to turn the fighter combat into something that isn't either very shallow or a matter of constantly doing 180s every 15-20 seconds as you reach the edge of the map. The original trilogy always had the ground and fighter combat as separate things, and I really think that will make for better gameplay than trying to shove fighters into the game just because it's Star Wars and Star Wars has space fighters.
Word. BFBC2 was an outstanding game in every degree, even when your team was full of braindead idiots who wouldn't defend the objectives. Even had a great single-player campaign.
If you guys don't think Space Battles will come as a DLC expansion you are insane.
I'm not even saying that to hate on DLC, this is just what they're going to do.
I never got the expacks for BF4, but maybe this will be the first time I actually spend above $120 to have the complete game. Again, I don't hate too much on DICE's DLC, because each pack does offer new guns, new maps, and sometimes new objectives/gameplay, which is fairly hearty. As oppsed to, say, CoD and Respawn w/ Titanfall. 15 dollars for three maps trollololol suck my dick. Oh, yay, CoD would sometimes have one new gun. Whoopee. A zombie map if you were lucky, and double lucky if you actually cared.
Also, if heroes were an occasional NPC on a map it wouldn't really upset me. The question is, with like 48 players, 24 to a side, how do you decide who gets to be the hero? The person in first place? Problems ahoy. I agree, wouldn't miss them.
+1
Options
Ov3rchargeR.I.P. Mass EffectYou were dead to me for yearsRegistered Userregular
So with only 40 players and custom load outs I don't feel very confident in this game. I also heard that there's only 4 planets. And it's EA and I know they're going to charge out the ass with DLC. I wish Pandemic was still alive.
So with only 40 players and custom load outs I don't feel very confident in this game. I also heard that there's only 4 planets. And it's EA and I know they're going to charge out the ass with DLC. I wish Pandemic was still alive.
Your complaints are what make me excited for the game. They can make maps that are polished and refined in this case.
Depends on what 4 planet means. Is it 4 maps only or more like 4 tileset? I don't remember much about the battlefront games. Were all the maps recreations of fights from the movies?
So with only 40 players and custom load outs I don't feel very confident in this game. I also heard that there's only 4 planets. And it's EA and I know they're going to charge out the ass with DLC. I wish Pandemic was still alive.
Your complaints are what make me excited for the game. They can make maps that are polished and refined in this case.
Still not preordering though.
Yeah I can understand how that could make a game better, but it does nothing to assuage my fears about this being a reskinned Battlefield.
I don't want Battlefield: Star Wars edition. I want Battlefront 3.
So with only 40 players and custom load outs I don't feel very confident in this game. I also heard that there's only 4 planets. And it's EA and I know they're going to charge out the ass with DLC. I wish Pandemic was still alive.
Your complaints are what make me excited for the game. They can make maps that are polished and refined in this case.
Still not preordering though.
Yeah I can understand how that could make a game better, but it does nothing to assuage my fears about this being a reskinned Battlefield.
I don't want Battlefield: Star Wars edition. I want Battlefront 3.
Really hope the weapons aren't just assault rifles with blaster bolt effects to mollify the kiddies coming from CoD and Battlefield who expect to be able to twitch-shoot and kill anybody with a half-second full-auto burst. Weapons in the Star Wars movies are usually depicted as having a much lower rate of fire than the weapons in most shooter games, and when Star Wars games get that wrong then the Star Wars feel starts to go out the window. (Republic Commando was notably guilty of this, and then seemingly tried to compensate by making enemies ridiculous bullet sponges, so you had the worst of both worlds.)
So with only 40 players and custom load outs I don't feel very confident in this game. I also heard that there's only 4 planets. And it's EA and I know they're going to charge out the ass with DLC. I wish Pandemic was still alive.
Your complaints are what make me excited for the game. They can make maps that are polished and refined in this case.
Still not preordering though.
Yeah I can understand how that could make a game better, but it does nothing to assuage my fears about this being a reskinned Battlefield.
I don't want Battlefield: Star Wars edition. I want Battlefront 3.
Hate to break it to you but this game is being made by DICE with the frostbite engine as a multiplayer FPS. It's going to be a really pretty star war game. That is going to feel very similar to battlefield 3/4.
0
Options
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
edited April 2015
Because the first words that come to mind when I watch STAR WARS movie combat are "pinpoint accuracy".
So with only 40 players and custom load outs I don't feel very confident in this game. I also heard that there's only 4 planets. And it's EA and I know they're going to charge out the ass with DLC. I wish Pandemic was still alive.
Your complaints are what make me excited for the game. They can make maps that are polished and refined in this case.
Still not preordering though.
Yeah I can understand how that could make a game better, but it does nothing to assuage my fears about this being a reskinned Battlefield.
I don't want Battlefield: Star Wars edition. I want Battlefront 3.
Hate to break it to you but this game is being made by DICE with the frostbite engine as a multiplayer FPS. It's going to be a really pretty star war game. That is going to feel very similar to battlefield 3/4.
Which is why I'm nervous, at this point I'm hoping that there's no regenerating health.
Because the first words that come to mind when I watch STAR WARS movie combat are "pinpoint accuracy".
Exactly. I'm afraid they'll make all the weapons fire 800 rpm with almost no spread because they think the people coming from CoD and BF3/4 won't accept anything else, and it will end up feeling more like a Star Wars graphical mod slapped on top of a modern-day real-world shooter than anything else.
Eh, I think with them retaining third person we have a chance that wont be the case.
But frankly I think that is exactly what we will see. I can get past that I think. It sucks, but I think the game at large will be worth it. Plus, I haven't played BF4 in forever and haven't touched CoD in a long, long time. Titanfall was the last competitive FPS I put any time in, and that was a while ago too.
At least the cutscenes have your typical blaster fire. I just think DICE will go with what they know, lore dissonance be damned.
If you guys don't think Space Battles will come as a DLC expansion you are insane.
I'm not even saying that to hate on DLC, this is just what they're going to do.
I never got the expacks for BF4, but maybe this will be the first time I actually spend above $120 to have the complete game. Again, I don't hate too much on DICE's DLC, because each pack does offer new guns, new maps, and sometimes new objectives/gameplay, which is fairly hearty. As oppsed to, say, CoD and Respawn w/ Titanfall. 15 dollars for three maps trollololol suck my dick. Oh, yay, CoD would sometimes have one new gun. Whoopee. A zombie map if you were lucky, and double lucky if you actually cared.
Also, if heroes were an occasional NPC on a map it wouldn't really upset me. The question is, with like 48 players, 24 to a side, how do you decide who gets to be the hero? The person in first place? Problems ahoy. I agree, wouldn't miss them.
If I remember the second Battlefront game (only one I've played) correctly, you had to earn the hero character by capturing victory points and kills streaks. You play well long enough, stay alive long enough and you eventually get to respawn as a hero.
The heroes weren't invincible either. In terms of combat effectiveness, they were somewhere between regular units and vehicles. In a bot match, being a hero meant that you could wreck shit for a few minutes. In a human pvp match, they basically serve as a massive bullseye for the opposing force for the handful of seconds between the hero spawning and getting shot by everyone on the map.
For the assault rifle weapons, I'm expecting lower ROF, slower projectiles, and SUBSTANTIALLY more damage per shot than most BF games. ~3 shots to kill or something.
edit:
About heroes:
The people going on huge kill streaks are the LAST people who need a power boost by going hero mode. IMO keep that shit to single player campaigns and bot matches where it belongs.
If you guys don't think Space Battles will come as a DLC expansion you are insane.
I'm not even saying that to hate on DLC, this is just what they're going to do.
I never got the expacks for BF4, but maybe this will be the first time I actually spend above $120 to have the complete game. Again, I don't hate too much on DICE's DLC, because each pack does offer new guns, new maps, and sometimes new objectives/gameplay, which is fairly hearty. As oppsed to, say, CoD and Respawn w/ Titanfall. 15 dollars for three maps trollololol suck my dick. Oh, yay, CoD would sometimes have one new gun. Whoopee. A zombie map if you were lucky, and double lucky if you actually cared.
Also, if heroes were an occasional NPC on a map it wouldn't really upset me. The question is, with like 48 players, 24 to a side, how do you decide who gets to be the hero? The person in first place? Problems ahoy. I agree, wouldn't miss them.
To be fair, Titanfall made all the map DLC free. I don't give a fuck what they charge if they end up giving it to me for free.
Aren't the games part of canon these days? If so, DICE's hands will probably be tied regarding weapon performance.
the only "canon" right now are the movies, the Clone Wars cartoon, and the Rebels cartoon. Everything else will be selected or discarded based on the direction they choose to go.
edit: and future novels (forgot that part of the article) that directly pertain to the movies and such. I think there are going to be close to 30 "books" coming out within the next year. I put books in quotes as that number includes childrens' coloring books and other such non-story driven publications.
Aren't the games part of canon these days? If so, DICE's hands will probably be tied regarding weapon performance.
the only "canon" right now are the movies, the Clone Wars cartoon, and the Rebels cartoon. Everything else will be selected or discarded based on the direction they choose to go.
Yeah, but the movies are more than enough to establish that blasters have fire rates much closer to what we could consider "semi auto" than to machine guns.
Aren't the games part of canon these days? If so, DICE's hands will probably be tied regarding weapon performance.
the only "canon" right now are the movies, the Clone Wars cartoon, and the Rebels cartoon. Everything else will be selected or discarded based on the direction they choose to go.
Yeah, but the movies are more than enough to establish that blasters have fire rates much closer to what we could consider "semi auto" than to machine guns.
just depends on where they pull it from. In the cartoons the blasters are fast as hell, while the "large" weapons travel relatively slowly. In the movies, however, the speeds are a bit all over the place as AT-ATs fire pretty quickly but ground-based weaponry fired slowly. To be honest, I think DICE will have a bit more room to balance in a game like battlefront vs. battlefield as the weapons are completely made up and do not have to in any way resemble what would happen in the "real world."
Don't forget, the star wars universe still contains conventional slug throwers and shotguns that are far more closely related to real life firearms than blasters.
To be honest I don't have a problem with lacking space battles. The original Battlefront didn't have them, and even in Battlefront 2, they were fun but not particularly fitted to the rest of the game. Better that Battlefront 3 plays to its strengths and has more content for on-planet gameplay. Same goes for prequel/new trilogy characters and vehicles; churn out original trilogy stuff, add those later through DLC.
I do dearly hope that we get a confirmation of map count soon. Online FPSs as of late seem to have gotten into the habit of releasing with woefully small map counts, which leads to quick burnout from repetitiveness.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited April 2015
Space battles would be fine, the game will just need to make sure to handle space and ground battles differently. Ground battles should be about ground combat with some flying elements like jetpacks and slow fliers, while space battles should be about big open spaces that prominently feature starfighters which enable the boarding actions from ship to ship.
Keeping the two types of battle separate would definitely be the smart way to go, as it would mean both could play to their strengths instead of one or the other being hobbled to shoehorn it into a gameplay setting where it just doesn't mesh well.
To be honest I don't have a problem with lacking space battles. The original Battlefront didn't have them, and even in Battlefront 2, they were fun but not particularly fitted to the rest of the game. Better that Battlefront 3 plays to its strengths and has more content for on-planet gameplay. Same goes for prequel/new trilogy characters and vehicles; churn out original trilogy stuff, add those later through DLC.
I do dearly hope that we get a confirmation of map count soon. Online FPSs as of late seem to have gotten into the habit of releasing with woefully small map counts, which leads to quick burnout from repetitiveness.
I think this is where DLC can really play to its strength. If a DLC pack comes out that focuses directly on space combat then that could greatly benefit that pack and the game without taking away from the launch and any other DLC releases. Being able to focus on the balances of a specific set of maps and gameplay modes without having to work it into a larger selection (as launch maps usually outnumber DLC packs) is a much better option and allows them to better tailor those maps for what they/the community wants.
Aren't the games part of canon these days? If so, DICE's hands will probably be tied regarding weapon performance.
the only "canon" right now are the movies, the Clone Wars cartoon, and the Rebels cartoon. Everything else will be selected or discarded based on the direction they choose to go.
edit: and future novels (forgot that part of the article) that directly pertain to the movies and such. I think there are going to be close to 30 "books" coming out within the next year. I put books in quotes as that number includes childrens' coloring books and other such non-story driven publications.
I misworded that. I meant post-EU wipe games which basically just means BaFro at this point. If BaFro has to adhere to new canon then that'll put a check against what they can do. Now, that doesn't mean they can't get the ok to make up new weapons but if the new era of games have to adhere to established new canon then we shouldn't see any known weapons doing anything too crazy.
The trailer features a Sullustan jetpacking his way out of a portable shield bubble to fire a rocket launcher into an AT-ST during the Battle of Endor. I think DICE has some license to mix things up a bit. I doubt that Walt Disney's frozen head is going to start yelling if the E-11 rifle shoots a bit faster than it should.
+2
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
Eh, I'm A-OK with the lowered player counts; 64-player battles are universally a slog through a meatgrinder where you never get to feel like you contribute much. I had way more fun with Bad Company's lower player counts than I ever did with BF3/BF4's 64-player games; when I blew the shit out of group of folks in BC2, it was actually worth something, instead of there being another fifteen guys running up behind the six I just killed and now I haven't accomplished anything. Maps can be made so, so much better when they don't have to be designed with an absurd number of players in mind.
I'd also be completely okay with space fighters being used for strikes and not for player use. With fighters, either the maps end up absurdly small for flying anything besides chopper-esque craft, or they're so huge that getting anywhere as a soldier is a giant pain in the ass. I'd be fine with stuff like people getting to fly troop transports and whatnot, but I've never seen the appeal of flying jet craft in BF games.
I'd rather have well-designed focus on ground combat a thousand times more than have time wasted on trying to turn the fighter combat into something that isn't either very shallow or a matter of constantly doing 180s every 15-20 seconds as you reach the edge of the map. The original trilogy always had the ground and fighter combat as separate things, and I really think that will make for better gameplay than trying to shove fighters into the game just because it's Star Wars and Star Wars has space fighters.
Word. BFBC2 was an outstanding game in every degree, even when your team was full of braindead idiots who wouldn't defend the objectives. Even had a great single-player campaign.
As long as they don't default the game to 'conquest' style maps.
The reason why the lowered playercount worked so well in Bad Company is that instead of 64 players wondering around the map to capture flags and occasionally fight, instead there was the new gameplay mode that force 32 players into individual chokepoints with one side trying to do something and the other side trying to stop them.
It made for more focused, energetic games with less people. I'd totally dig BaFro doing that rather than a few points on a map to capture.
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Yeah, I definitely prefer the mode of moving battlelines around than attacking disconnected points on a map. BC2 could lean too heavily towards chokepoints, but having defined situations for offense and defense lets me have so much more fun than a bizarre mass of people running across the battlefield to take flags from each other.
I mean, which sounds more fun: a map where the Empire is assaulting a Rebel base and sequentially has to push through the forward defenses, blast the shield generators, and raid the base before the Rebels can escape, or a map with flags at a base, in the trenches, and at a shield generator, but none of those spots do anything but take tickets away from the enemy.
I'm sure there are plenty of folks who like Conquest stuff and I'm not saying they're wrong for liking it, I just feel like battles constructed like battles make for a lot better design than battles based on whacky unrelated flag caps and ticket systems.
From the trailer, it seems we will be seeing asymmetrical warfare, and with the inclusion of heroes, I think that's enough to say that this isn't just a re-skin of a Battlefield game.
I also believe that the DLC for BF3 and BF4 was good and adequately priced.
The problem I had with bad company's maps is that many of them felt like a short string of flags in a straight line connected by a series of artificial meat grinders. Very few offered alternative avenues of attack. Usually you'd go out of bounds if you had the audacity to want to circumvent the meat grinder.
They didn't feel like battlefields, they felt like the set of a Michael Bay film with grenades exploding every 3 seconds.
I much prefered the more open maps found in bf2 and 2142.
The trick with Conquest is that it relies a lot on map design. One of the reasons 2142 was my favourite in the series was the by and large superb maps that organically lead to frontlines forming, but still with the possibility of flanking manouvers if a team got careless. BF3's maps never seemed to quite do the same.
When people talk about space battle maps, do you mean just an empty map in space (maybe with some large ships or asteroids) and everyone plays exclusively in TIE Fighters or X-Wings (or other ships, etc) ?
I figured people were talking about some sort of map set in space where a large ship or asteroid or space station was the "ground", where soldiers were fighting, with X-wings and the like zipping around outside. I could totally see a map where the "ground" is a Star Destroyer being boarded by rebels. Have your infantry cake and eat it too - plus, jetpacks for everyone!
I thought Bad Company 2 had some really good Conquest maps. I still consider that to be my favorite in the series in terms of raw fun value. I liked BC2 way more than I liked 3/4 in the core series.
The people going on huge kill streaks are the LAST people who need a power boost by going hero mode. IMO keep that shit to single player campaigns and bot matches where it belongs.
But I deserve to be Darth Vader, not some lowly scrub who doesn't know jack about anything.
That's one of my pet peeves in BF Hardline. As a lone wolf, to hit reputation tier 4, I need insane circumstances to manage it organically. Like I'm on a 20+ killstreak, have just dropped a ammobox next to 10 camping snipers netting me thousands of points in a matter of seconds, and that's enough to get rep 4 just moments before a very balanced round ends - circumstances like that happen once in a blue moon. All the while scrubs with friends just get their freebie hacker rep boosts. That's some old bullshit.
I think if I am playing a round worthy of a God of War, it is only right that I get to be a God of War like Darth Vader, rather than some random scrub. Just sayin', because the whole scrub boosting nonesense that's so prevalent in BF:H makes me salty.
BranniganSepp on
0
Options
jefe414"My Other Drill Hole is a Teleporter"Mechagodzilla is Best GodzillaRegistered Userregular
Depends on what 4 planet means. Is it 4 maps only or more like 4 tileset? I don't remember much about the battlefront games. Were all the maps recreations of fights from the movies?
It won't be a Battlefront without some sort of space battles. Some of the best fun of that game was boarding an enemy ship and taking out its shield generators from the inside while bombers close in and take out everything else.
By this line of reasoning, Star Wars: Battlefront isn't a Battlefront...
I accept it for what it is by way of the standards of the time. But space battles(whether you liked them or not) are established as such an iconic part of Battlefront with 2's release(see: the backlash at DICE's announcement) that I'm only vaguely interested in a new Battlefront that won't even have it. I'm already skittish enough with DICE as it is over whether they'll just turn this into Battlefield with Stormtroopers; they better do something with the gameplay that will really get my attention at this point.
Posts
Word. BFBC2 was an outstanding game in every degree, even when your team was full of braindead idiots who wouldn't defend the objectives. Even had a great single-player campaign.
I'm not even saying that to hate on DLC, this is just what they're going to do.
I never got the expacks for BF4, but maybe this will be the first time I actually spend above $120 to have the complete game. Again, I don't hate too much on DICE's DLC, because each pack does offer new guns, new maps, and sometimes new objectives/gameplay, which is fairly hearty. As oppsed to, say, CoD and Respawn w/ Titanfall. 15 dollars for three maps trollololol suck my dick. Oh, yay, CoD would sometimes have one new gun. Whoopee. A zombie map if you were lucky, and double lucky if you actually cared.
Also, if heroes were an occasional NPC on a map it wouldn't really upset me. The question is, with like 48 players, 24 to a side, how do you decide who gets to be the hero? The person in first place? Problems ahoy. I agree, wouldn't miss them.
Your complaints are what make me excited for the game. They can make maps that are polished and refined in this case.
Still not preordering though.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Yeah I can understand how that could make a game better, but it does nothing to assuage my fears about this being a reskinned Battlefield.
I don't want Battlefield: Star Wars edition. I want Battlefront 3.
Seems kind of a silly thing to say. I find insanity from people focused on space battles in Star Wars games far more likely.
Although, the X-wing vs Tie fighter community is very friendly.
Really hope the weapons aren't just assault rifles with blaster bolt effects to mollify the kiddies coming from CoD and Battlefield who expect to be able to twitch-shoot and kill anybody with a half-second full-auto burst. Weapons in the Star Wars movies are usually depicted as having a much lower rate of fire than the weapons in most shooter games, and when Star Wars games get that wrong then the Star Wars feel starts to go out the window. (Republic Commando was notably guilty of this, and then seemingly tried to compensate by making enemies ridiculous bullet sponges, so you had the worst of both worlds.)
Hate to break it to you but this game is being made by DICE with the frostbite engine as a multiplayer FPS. It's going to be a really pretty star war game. That is going to feel very similar to battlefield 3/4.
Which is why I'm nervous, at this point I'm hoping that there's no regenerating health.
Exactly. I'm afraid they'll make all the weapons fire 800 rpm with almost no spread because they think the people coming from CoD and BF3/4 won't accept anything else, and it will end up feeling more like a Star Wars graphical mod slapped on top of a modern-day real-world shooter than anything else.
But frankly I think that is exactly what we will see. I can get past that I think. It sucks, but I think the game at large will be worth it. Plus, I haven't played BF4 in forever and haven't touched CoD in a long, long time. Titanfall was the last competitive FPS I put any time in, and that was a while ago too.
At least the cutscenes have your typical blaster fire. I just think DICE will go with what they know, lore dissonance be damned.
If I remember the second Battlefront game (only one I've played) correctly, you had to earn the hero character by capturing victory points and kills streaks. You play well long enough, stay alive long enough and you eventually get to respawn as a hero.
The heroes weren't invincible either. In terms of combat effectiveness, they were somewhere between regular units and vehicles. In a bot match, being a hero meant that you could wreck shit for a few minutes. In a human pvp match, they basically serve as a massive bullseye for the opposing force for the handful of seconds between the hero spawning and getting shot by everyone on the map.
edit:
About heroes:
The people going on huge kill streaks are the LAST people who need a power boost by going hero mode. IMO keep that shit to single player campaigns and bot matches where it belongs.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
the only "canon" right now are the movies, the Clone Wars cartoon, and the Rebels cartoon. Everything else will be selected or discarded based on the direction they choose to go.
edit: and future novels (forgot that part of the article) that directly pertain to the movies and such. I think there are going to be close to 30 "books" coming out within the next year. I put books in quotes as that number includes childrens' coloring books and other such non-story driven publications.
Yeah, but the movies are more than enough to establish that blasters have fire rates much closer to what we could consider "semi auto" than to machine guns.
just depends on where they pull it from. In the cartoons the blasters are fast as hell, while the "large" weapons travel relatively slowly. In the movies, however, the speeds are a bit all over the place as AT-ATs fire pretty quickly but ground-based weaponry fired slowly. To be honest, I think DICE will have a bit more room to balance in a game like battlefront vs. battlefield as the weapons are completely made up and do not have to in any way resemble what would happen in the "real world."
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
I do dearly hope that we get a confirmation of map count soon. Online FPSs as of late seem to have gotten into the habit of releasing with woefully small map counts, which leads to quick burnout from repetitiveness.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Keeping the two types of battle separate would definitely be the smart way to go, as it would mean both could play to their strengths instead of one or the other being hobbled to shoehorn it into a gameplay setting where it just doesn't mesh well.
I think this is where DLC can really play to its strength. If a DLC pack comes out that focuses directly on space combat then that could greatly benefit that pack and the game without taking away from the launch and any other DLC releases. Being able to focus on the balances of a specific set of maps and gameplay modes without having to work it into a larger selection (as launch maps usually outnumber DLC packs) is a much better option and allows them to better tailor those maps for what they/the community wants.
I mean I know their the heart and soul of the movies but I think air battles in atmosphere with some ground terrain is more interesting for gameplay.
I misworded that. I meant post-EU wipe games which basically just means BaFro at this point. If BaFro has to adhere to new canon then that'll put a check against what they can do. Now, that doesn't mean they can't get the ok to make up new weapons but if the new era of games have to adhere to established new canon then we shouldn't see any known weapons doing anything too crazy.
As long as they don't default the game to 'conquest' style maps.
The reason why the lowered playercount worked so well in Bad Company is that instead of 64 players wondering around the map to capture flags and occasionally fight, instead there was the new gameplay mode that force 32 players into individual chokepoints with one side trying to do something and the other side trying to stop them.
It made for more focused, energetic games with less people. I'd totally dig BaFro doing that rather than a few points on a map to capture.
I mean, which sounds more fun: a map where the Empire is assaulting a Rebel base and sequentially has to push through the forward defenses, blast the shield generators, and raid the base before the Rebels can escape, or a map with flags at a base, in the trenches, and at a shield generator, but none of those spots do anything but take tickets away from the enemy.
I'm sure there are plenty of folks who like Conquest stuff and I'm not saying they're wrong for liking it, I just feel like battles constructed like battles make for a lot better design than battles based on whacky unrelated flag caps and ticket systems.
I also believe that the DLC for BF3 and BF4 was good and adequately priced.
They didn't feel like battlefields, they felt like the set of a Michael Bay film with grenades exploding every 3 seconds.
I much prefered the more open maps found in bf2 and 2142.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I figured people were talking about some sort of map set in space where a large ship or asteroid or space station was the "ground", where soldiers were fighting, with X-wings and the like zipping around outside. I could totally see a map where the "ground" is a Star Destroyer being boarded by rebels. Have your infantry cake and eat it too - plus, jetpacks for everyone!
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
But I deserve to be Darth Vader, not some lowly scrub who doesn't know jack about anything.
That's one of my pet peeves in BF Hardline. As a lone wolf, to hit reputation tier 4, I need insane circumstances to manage it organically. Like I'm on a 20+ killstreak, have just dropped a ammobox next to 10 camping snipers netting me thousands of points in a matter of seconds, and that's enough to get rep 4 just moments before a very balanced round ends - circumstances like that happen once in a blue moon. All the while scrubs with friends just get their freebie hacker rep boosts. That's some old bullshit.
I think if I am playing a round worthy of a God of War, it is only right that I get to be a God of War like Darth Vader, rather than some random scrub. Just sayin', because the whole scrub boosting nonesense that's so prevalent in BF:H makes me salty.
Someone at DICE tweeted
There will be more than 8 maps and more than 2 per planet
I accept it for what it is by way of the standards of the time. But space battles(whether you liked them or not) are established as such an iconic part of Battlefront with 2's release(see: the backlash at DICE's announcement) that I'm only vaguely interested in a new Battlefront that won't even have it. I'm already skittish enough with DICE as it is over whether they'll just turn this into Battlefield with Stormtroopers; they better do something with the gameplay that will really get my attention at this point.