Just that. Can we not have British, the US and the MEC on the same map. So the British are helping out the Americans fighting aginst the MEC.
-
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
Can't, BF2 is too limited.
Well, DICE can, because they don't have hardcode limits, but they won't do it, they just simply....won't. -
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
somone will end up modding it for 3 or 4 teams.
that would be sweet.Comment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
US and Brits on the same side? Hm.. they'd need to create a "friendly fire" functionality to make things more authentic :laugh:
In all seriousness, this is something that BF2 is not. It's hard enough keeping track of balance and gameplay (not to mention GUI elements like the scoreboard) with 2 sides ... can't imagine what it would be like with 3 or more sides.
It would be nice to have some sort of cohesion in the game. Would be cool to have progressive maps. For instance, a single "zone" would have 4 different maps. If your team wins, they move up one map. If they lose, they move down one map. Sort of a way to give you an overall objective of winning the round. Then, you could sink in things like having US on the first part of the map, and the Brits on the second. Think of it as 4 sectors of Karkand and progressing (and retreating) through each sector.Comment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
I like that idea... A fight at Mastuur, and if the American attack wins, they get to assault Karkand - but if they lose, they have to fight Gulf of Oman, and if they lose that, they get pushed back to their carrier for some Iron Gator action.... yeah... sweet.
Lmao at the "friendly fire" joke!Comment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
With the red tag bug this would be a nightmare!Originally posted by BF2Freak
Comment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
Best soloution ive seen is whats going on in iraq now americans to the north and brits to the south hundreds & hundreds of miles apart safest soloution ever lol.Originally posted by [MyIS]Spetsnaz
Nice suggestion maybe in BF3 if they could ever get it to work properly.Originally posted by [MyIS]SpetsnazComment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
Yeah living battlefield. I've thought of that for a long time. One battle means something and leads to another. If you loose to much arty on one map, then you don't get it on another.Originally posted by GavComment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
more skins = more confused nubs = more tk's no thanks lol
Comment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
it would fry your graphics card...Comment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
i thas an awesome idea.....i had the same idea too, some maps should be three teams, i don see any reason to have two different teams if they are going to work together, i think the three teams should play against eachother, when one team is wiped off the map, the players should get switched to the two remaining teams....this might require more players, and bigger maps.....two things that would kick major ass, but be too resource-demanding for my pc....definately something to hope for in the next battlefield installment (2142 doesnt count)Comment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
What ive always wished for was a game like planetside except that it would take place now and not the future. That would be nice.Comment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
three uncappables fighting over one control point....
how you say....ehhhh frag-festComment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
Progressive map is a good idea. But I think 3 teams fighting against each other is more fun.Comment
-
Re: Why only 2 sides every single time?
Same reason they won;t add 3rd tier unlocks...it would raise the RAM requirements to have to load more than 2 army's skins of guns/uniforms/vecsComment
Comment