My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

['oUtL@w']

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

I like the idea of a mix of crysis and bf2. Infantry should have exoskeleton suits to bump up speed and strength. And you should be able to customise weapons on the fly, like adding a scope or silencer if you wish. Now that would be cool.

[scrat15]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

Nice input guys but I feel many of you do not understand the reasoning behind my choice of vehicles and setting.
Battlefield games create a lot of chaotic, target-of-opportunity oriented altercations; situations which are no place for huge supersonic F35's and Fulcrums.

The aircraft I mention are naturally suited to what you do in Battlefield i.e. flying around at low level at fairly low speeds and dogfighting very traditionally (which is fun).

Please read my description fully - the factions are not "rebels". But even rebels would be able to operate such aircraft as they are available on the market and are cheap to maintain and operate.

The jets I mention are not weak adversaries to the huge primary fighters used by major air arms. They have low IR signatures, can manouevre in far smaller airspaces and are not limited to major airbases. The L39 Albatros, for example, can operate from grass!

They just PERFECTLY suit the type of gameplay you see in Battlefield while being believable, you see what I mean?

And as I mentioned, aircraft will not be able to dominate all the time like in BF2 unless the pilot REALLY does well while keeping himself safe, and has targets indicated frequently enough by allies on the ground.

Kula, I too love the Black shark helo but if that was in the game it would need to be countered by one or two Apache's on the other team and that would just totally detract from the tilt of the game.

Ghost, that is true about the election to fly planes. But the final version would have some sort of system which does not mean only high-rank players can fly. It will still have issues, but will be a lot better either way, than the way it currently is with forced-TKs and everyone bundling to get in first.
Also consider that with the increased challenge of flying, fewer people would go for the machine in the first place. Just look at 2142! It worked a treat.

Colony, you really understand my reasoning.

[Ghost_Stkr]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

you should be able to customise weapons on the fly, like adding a scope or silencer if you wish. Now that would be cool.

Unlocks for weapon customization is a great idea. Like the TOS-301 (M4) in STALKER. I love that gun simply because I can break it into all variations. Having other side arm unlocks or player attributes is cool too. Kinda give it an RPG edge and make your character more you.

[scrat15]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

I like the idea of a mix of crysis and bf2. Infantry should have exoskeleton suits to bump up speed and strength. And you should be able to customise weapons on the fly, like adding a scope or silencer if you wish. Now that would be cool.

Hmn yeh in my BF3 you can customise weapons like that (although not on the fly).

I push the opposite design direction of things like exoskeletons and stuff though. The infantry design ethos for my BF3 would be "Cotton clothes and traditional kit, but well implemented".

Crysis will be great though. And seeing as it will have a game mode that is just like Battlefield, it looks like it will be right up your street : )

I think everyone agrees on the RPG element then. It would give the player the ability to be really unique.
I like the idea also.

[Mo0by]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

I like the "rediculous" side of bf2, thats why I still play it! I also like the large amounts of players, thats what attracted me in the first place.

[Nicfurious29]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

I think the ability of pilots to see spotted infantry on the minimap should be axed. Large vehicles being the exception. Squad leaders and snipers should be the only ones given the ability to call in for air support. Meaning only the objects spotted by either should be displayed on the pilots minimap.

[scrat15]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

That would work, Nicfurious.

[camper.]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

I'm an arcade person myself. Elements of tactical shooters are always good - free aim and stuff. But PR style all-out restriction on everything just isn't fun as QW style hop-everywhere-spam-nades.

What we need is a BF2 style game on the Source engine. We could have an LCAC without half the people on board dying, for starters.

[ain-est]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

I have put a lot of thought into this and have come up with quite a comprehensive overall picture of what the game would be like. I would be interested to see what everyone thinks of it and whether or not I am alone in thinking such changes to the BF2 frame would improve the experience and refresh it.
I include links to images of vehicles.
Enjoy the read and tell me if you would consider this a good step forward for Battlefield, or off-putting.

Scenario

The battling factions are little-known forces with relatively small-scale agendas (yet with contemporary and reasonable amounts of kit) such as a mixture of mercenary and government-contracted paramilitary forces in Venezuela fighting off a private corporate-contracted force trying to seize natural resources.

Every scenario and battle would be the sort of thing that would float under the world media radar.
This is no inter-continental skirmish like BF2 and would make the average 20 vs 20 player counts in matches feel realistic.

Maps

Unusual locales aplenty here. Expect to see rolling hills and varied terrain in Thailand and Malaysia, to dusty Mexico and Africa, to snow in the Czech Republic.

Very nearly all maps will have aircraft in, and the average size will be about 150% that of the land area of Gulf of Oman.

Large built-up areas will be present in many maps, reminiscent of one early BF2 promotion vid that showed infantry action amongst buildings with jets up in the air above, patrolling the open areas.
Weather will play a role, with rain and snow present in some maps.
A night time setting would be used in one or two cases.

All maps would have an uncap base per side, and that base would have a bot-controlled randomly-located pair of anti-air positions to very nearly negate any chance of baserape from the air.

Overall we would be looking at around 18 large maps, with no copy + paste used in their design.

Weapons

The unlock system will remain in full force, with customization options along the lines of those found in 2142. Expect to adjust your loadout with attachments and altered munition-counts, all with effect on your weight and thus mobility, a concept drawn from Joint Operations.
In terms of standard weapons you'd be looking at Galils, AK74s, Uzis, Steyr AUG's and TMP's. Lots of variation and few weapons used by major governments.

There will be no portable guided munitions. RPG's and export LAW weapons will require a lot of steadying time to fire but will certainly wreck what they hit.

Sniper rifles will require holding of breath for accurate fire. The crosshair will move about if you move much, making it hard to fire - but if you can point it where you need to, the bullet will go where the hairs are lined. Range will be high but mobility / accuracy will be distanced a lot more than in BF2.
Claymores will remain but will require manual detonation like they do for real (when hastily deployed anyway).

Vehicles

A signifcant leap in a different direction will be made with vehicles. Due to the smaller scale and profile of the conflicts, large armoured vehicles will be a rarity, with the occasional Russian surplus BMP tracked vehicle posing one of the largest threats on the battlefield.

Hastily-rigged technicals with single .50 or multiple 7.62 gun positions will be genuinely viable options as a potent combat vehicle. Gunners will be able to fire with confidence from the back of these vehicles without having to worry so much about being sniped instantly because snipers cannot insta-shoot like in BF2.

The .50 cal will truly be an effective weapon, penetrating walls and downing people in one shot 90% of the time.

Boats will be integral to the game and there will be about 4 types, from 7.62-armed dinghy to Fast Patrol Boat with 20mm cannons and stinger position.

Quadbikes and snowmobiles will be a regular sight.

All jets in the game will be non-afterburning, subsonic light attack planes that can operate in close-air support in very localised zones. They will thus suit the "Battlefield" style very well. The turn radius of aircraft would be slightly larger than that of the BF2 jets (a realistic representation of these light attack aircraft. BF2 plane physics were rediculous, BF3 physics will be real. But because these aircraft are slower and maneuver in smaller spaces, they will fit realistically into the fairly compact battlespaces of Battlefield).

Expect a completely different experience with aviation. Fly slowly and aircraft will stall. You will need to survey targets on the ground with naked eye and cues from allies, as there will be no magic boxes on the HUD illuminating vehicles for you.
With realistic physics you cannot take height for granted. Lose height and it will take time to regain it. Pull too much G and you will black out. Push the nose down into a bunt and your head will practically explode.

The main jet weapon will be the underbelly or underwing 7.62/ 23 / 30 mm cannon. Firing these one / two barrelled beasts will be satisfying but will require moderation. I do not envisage infrared missiles. The aircraft will be light attack in the close support role, and the only real weapon for air-to-air will be the cannon (although unguided rockets can be used if you catch an aircraft unawares, to insta-gib effect).

Loadout will be changeable on the landing strip, with a choice of 250 KG bombs, unguided rocket pods, drop tanks or extra gun / ammunition stores.

A full landing will be required to rearm and repair and fuel levels will be limited (though real, thus not hampering flight much unless the round goes on for more than an hour).
Weapon stores weight will affect performance.

Without further ado, let me present the line-up of jets in the game!

Aermacchi MB-339

L-39 Albatros


AMX


BAE Hawk


Cessna Dragonfly


Tucano


Yak-130


Alphajet


Helicopters will make a large presence also. They will of course be realistic and so will be fast but will suffer damage if made to do silly moves like rolls and half-loops. There will be no technology like Maverick missiles but stingers can be mounted (maximum of two) to offer some protection against the might of the jet's cannon.
Like jets, exterior stores weight will affect flight performance.

Transport heli's will be a force to be reckoned with, as the door-mounted guns will pack the same realistic punch as those found on the jeeps.

Here are the attack helo's:

MD-500


Gazelle


Transports will be the Bell 212 Huey and Mi-2 Hoplite.

General Realism

Movement for infantry will not allow repetitive bunny-hopping, insta-proning or popping up and down behind cover. Sprint will last a lot longer than in BF2.
The amount of damage taken by players will be a little bit (one bullet, approx) less than in BF2.

One will be able to shoot while in the air and fall damage will be of little concern unless the drop is more than 7 feet.

One will not be able to self-heal instantly and bad damage will need to be seen to before it becomes fatal.

Infinate nade-spamming would not happen.

Miscellaneous details

Extra points will be awarded for kills which involve the destruction of a valuable asset such as a BMP or Jet.

Offline training available for all technical skills like flying, boat handling and spotting.

One will apply for the role as pilot like one does for commander. If accepted, kit is allocated with only a pistol and knife as armament. This will stop people using the plane to launch themselves into enemy base, and will put people off bailing out as they will not be much use on the ground fighting.

It will take time to enter a vehicle and you can be shot in the process.

One map would have a makeshift airstrip inside a huge cave in the side of a mountain.

Summary

The main slant with my take on this vision of BF3 is the removal of the "Rediculous" side of Battlefield while retaining the trademark accessibility. This is why the vehicle palette and general map sizing is so radically different. The same gameplay will be there, but in a form which is believable.

Battlefield is about guerilla tactics and chaos, so BF3's content and setting suits it. People whizzing around in there air engaging targets of opportunity at close quarters? Thats not the job of an F35, thats the job of an L39.
The way the game plays out is refined. There would be more to helicopter fighting than just a TV stand-off, and being in a good position against an enemy would help you win, not leaping into the air and diving to a headshot.

Squabbling over vehicles would be almost phased out; not only because of the system to apply for positions sensibly, but also because the aircraft would simply not dominate anymore - they would need to use weapons strategically through need to re-arm properly, and targets would need to be visually seen to be engaged.

To put it into perspective - with the right skills and the right communication, a modified toyota pickup crew could win the battle easier than the Littlebird helicopter or armoured vehicle.

Flying would be extremely engaging and interesting but would require genuine cunning and concentration to be up at the top of the table.

Due to the uncapable and slightly auto-protected nature of the bases, there would be more of a "safe haven" feel to the base and would give a "frontline" element to the true battlefield.



So what do you think, everyone? Would that be the kind of BF sequel that makes you pre-order as soon as you hear the first details of it? Or would you just stick to BF2 as long as possible, discarding my take on a new Battlefield like many did with Vietnam?
If so, why? Perhaps you liked the infantry side of Battlefield and would prefer to see the series evolve in that direction, or perhaps you liked the crazy, bizarre madness of how BF2 plays just the way it is? Do tell.

Just another note; I understand that a lot of the issues with BF2 are technical and to do with EA's dealing with the community. For the sake of simplicity, leave that out of this discussion and just assume that all the changes in BF3 are gameplay and content, as I list in my post above.

Yep visions are great, but if a game like that is to be made , one way or another , its gonna be messed up , 100 % insurance, but i would like to see bf2 like more in an American Army view, simulation , one hell of a pain in the butt about map size is that , if theres not gonna be as many vehicles as players , someone gonna walk , and that someone gonna be pissed, n

[thawheezer]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

were the hell did u pull these planes out of? those are complete ****.

we want something that has actualy been used to KILL other planes. we dont want a ramfest do we?



BTW it was too long. i didnt een read a word of wat u said. but just by looking at the pics im already saying no


EDIT* skimmed a little after i first posted and came across this

Offline training available for all technical skills like flying, boat handling and spotting.

lol

BOAT HANDLING

yeah, damn things are impossible to drive. u see everyone crashin into the ...beach... all the time. its insae.

ur right, boat handling training is imperative

[flippy199]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

i like most of what you said.

just two things i dont like:

you said 20v20 player games... thats the wrong direction, a game with huge maps and hundreds of players on each team would be more fun. with a real higherarchy of commanders and subcommanders and squad leaders.

the other is bullets doing less damage to players, you said the 50 cal should kill in one shot most of the time, thats good, but then why would you want hand-held weapons to do less damage? 2-4 shots should kill almost all the time. less health gives an advantage to tactics (sneaking up and getting the first shot) rather than waiting til you hear gunfire and spinning around to get a lucky headshot.

i also liked your idea of ofline training. advantages in aplications to a possition could be given to players who scored higher in training missions. and to the previous poster... in reality, boats arent all that easy to drive, i dont know if you need a training mission for them, but if the game is going to be realistic, then ramming a rock with a boat will be a big problem. boats drift when you cut the engines and often float into docks and stuff. if you are controling a large boat then you have to be good to be able to know where the boat is exactly and avoid obstacles or shallow water. there is no outside view in the real world.

[scrat15]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

were the hell did u pull these planes out of? those are complete ****.

we want something that has actualy been used to KILL other planes. we dont want a ramfest do we?

You know nothing about aviation.
Sorry.

[ToddMassive1]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

I still like my idea best.Different regions, different weapons.Bosnia,North Korea,Somalia,Panama and South America(Colombia)(the war on drugs).Think about it,jungle warfare with squads,updated weapons,commanders with artillary on druglords compounds.Sounds like fun to me.New weopons,supply snipers with laser targeting so the can paint objects so fighter jets can drop laser guided ariel bombs on targets,better camo for snipers to hide on the hills of the jungle or the mountains of bosnia or panama.You know different camo and weoponsfor each of those terrains.Please give me some feedback on that.

[thawheezer]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

You know nothing about aviation.
Sorry.

enlighten me

[colony]

Re: My design for a Battlefield 3. Would you move on from BF2 to this?

enlighten me

Different aircraft have different roles. The top of the line stealth aircraft cost a ton of money to acquire and maintain. Some of them are for tactical bombing and getting the hell out of dodge fast and hopefully unseen. Other aircraft are for CAS, close air support that support troops in close proximity to enemy armor and infantry.

These aircraft have to fly at relatively low speeds that supersonic jets are not able to do or else they will stall and fall to the ground like a rock. Flying low also helps evade anti-aircraft missile defenses.

I remember in some conflict, the apache helos were sent in, and they got tore up pretty bad from ground and small arms fire. In the same conflict, A10 aircraft were sent in and cleaned up.

Different situations call for different aircraft.

COIN counter insurgency is a big thing right now with Iraq. These aircraft like the Beechcraft AT-6 are perfect for the mission.

This is from wiki:
"Since the 1960s, a specialized form of close air support has been developed for counter-insurgency operations. This covers a wide range of operations, from ground attack and observation to light transport and casualty evacuation. An aircraft used for counter-insurgency should ideally be able to perform all these roles. Such an aircraft should have low loitering speed, long endurance, simplicity in maintenance, and the capability to make short take-offs and landings from rough frontline airstrips."

Some links:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/004850.html

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003479.html