this sounds good

[Yoster]

Re: this sounds good

No, they said a select maps will have the option. Just like in BF2, you cant play Dalian IO. April 30, cant be any farther now.

Re: this sounds good

New maps - awesome
Infantry only - not so awesome...I have a feeling that a majority of the servers will switch to this option, especially for small conquest maps like cerbere and camp G, which would change the gameplay. As for FoB infantry-only, I'll admit that I like it there - personally the armor there, especially the APC, seemed a bit overpowered for the clustering of infantry at Crossroads...APC could just sit back and lob mortars the whole round and get 20+ kills. FoB infantry-only will be fun. But I disagree with cerbere and camp G infantry-only - FAVs are a core part of the map, removing it would suck.

I hope DICE doesn't even intend on making infantry-only verdun or minsk or the other large vehicle maps...those would SUCK (Infantry-only shuhia anyone?)

Re: this sounds good

ya- 64 camp g rarely makes it past harbor. we just get in one giant firefight at harbor. you would think a walker would help, but nothing doing.
the annoying thing about those servers is that if u go and kill a bunch of people, you are thinkning "great! this is the breakthrough my team needs to push to toll station!" but a second later you die and the fighting at harbor continues, till the end of the match, or if an FAV makes it past 32 blazing guns to reach toll station or something.
ya, it sux.

Re: this sounds good

What this agme really needs is some kind of "custom" map function that allows admins to make preset options like: choosing which and if vehicles spawn. A few console shooters...namely halo, allow you o pick which vehicles spawn in to avoid having tanks raping 3v3 matches...

Re: this sounds good

jee i don't know what kind of servers you guys play on but i usually play 64 player servers and i've seen numerous times where the PAC failed to get harbor. i find it hard to believe that you have never seen PAC fail at getting harbor because frankly it happens a lot. if the teams are unequal, the EU totally pwns and nobody gets through the front line. combine that with EU getting down to PAC's uncap and PAC has a hard enough time even avoiding getting spawn killed.

Yeah, that's all true, but I've seen all the opposites of that as well. I've been both the sad and happy witness (depending on which side I'm on) to the PAC forces *****-slapping and steamrolling right through the EU. Unequal teams happen. Sometimes it's EU that's strong, sometimes it's PAC that's strong. I don't think Gibraltar is particularly unbalanced, even minus vehicles. With teams of equal skill, I'll grant you the PAC side is going to have a harder time assaulting, but it can be done.

Except... maybe you're right on a 64 player server. I tend to try and avoid those where Gibraltar is concerned. I like spurts of crazy firefights and blazing mayhem, but with 64 people crammed into that map, it gets to be that way from start to finish, and that I don't enjoy so much.

Re: this sounds good

groan

Yes children, all these things are being worked on, or already exist to some degree, and we've all seen the videos of the shield detonating the incoming round, the camo jacket, the robots, drones, etc etc.

My point, which evidently can only be understood by those less inclined to show how snyde or clever they think they are, is that realism has never been a concern of the Battlefield series; 2142 least of all.

I'm an earnest fan of the saying "Science Fiction is simply Science Fact waiting to happen.", but a modicum of sense, please. 2142 is hands-down my favorite of the BF games, but saying that navigable pods launched from an aerial transport are somehow less realistic than ballistic pods is farcical on the face of it, considering the the game as a whole.

[imported_Field]

Re: this sounds good

LMFAO how do you define realistic in a game with giant walking robots, vehicles that have energy shields, guys who can go invisible or have robots floating above their heads, bolts of lightning can be summoned down from the sky on command, and aircraft carriers fly?

Pods out of a transport should make a constant fall towards the ground, but between your altitude at launch and the ground, you should have at least as much control as a pod from the titan or APC. I'll be glad to get that back.

see the thing is..you need people with imagination to concieve of these things in the first place. You would not make a good inventor.:laugh:

Re: this sounds good

Drones: CHECK. While not actually being used by the military, we do have drones that hover 4-6 feet off the ground. Right now they are too noisy and aren't strong enough to contain any type of payload though, so they are currently little more than toys.

ever heard of the Predator?
btw, i watched on the military channel 2 nights ago that the USAF are making a new drone that will fly in squadrons and will be able to attack targets by themselves, as well as do surveillance and spying.
its coming within 5-7 years, they say. maybe sooner.

[Fingulfin]

Re: this sounds good

LMFAO how do you define realistic in a game with giant walking robots, vehicles that have energy shields, guys who can go invisible or have robots floating above their heads, bolts of lightning can be summoned down from the sky on command, and aircraft carriers fly?

Pods out of a transport should make a constant fall towards the ground, but between your altitude at launch and the ground, you should have at least as much control as a pod from the titan or APC. I'll be glad to get that back.

Gian Walking Robots: Currently being researched, etc. by various military(s) across the globe... I haven't seen anyone deny that that is quite possibly where war will end up in the future. Think of them like tanks with greater maneuverability...
Energy Shields: CHECK. An Israeli weapons contractor has designed an "Active Defense" that makes incoming missiles detonate several feet before hitting the vehicle that is equipped with it. It doesn't stop bullets, but hey, neither do the 2142 shields.
Active Camouflage: CHECK. Its done by equipping tiny cameras and screens all over ones body/vehicle. The British have an invisible tank right now...
Drones: CHECK. While not actually being used by the military, we do have drones that hover 4-6 feet off the ground. Right now they are too noisy and aren't strong enough to contain any type of payload though, so they are currently little more than toys.
Orbital Strike: Its every governments worst nightmare, and yet everyone is trying to make one.
Titans: This one is a little fantastic, but now that non-government companies can make spaceships who is to say that in 100 years we won't have Titans?

All in all, 2142 is VERY realistic. Honestly, I doubt it will take 100 years to achieve all those things when we already have prototypes of most of them.

[Minmaster]

Re: this sounds good

jee i don't know what kind of servers you guys play on but i usually play 64 player servers and i've seen numerous times where the PAC failed to get harbor. i find it hard to believe that you have never seen PAC fail at getting harbor because frankly it happens a lot. if the teams are unequal, the EU totally pwns and nobody gets through the front line. combine that with EU getting down to PAC's uncap and PAC has a hard enough time even avoiding getting spawn killed.

Re: this sounds good

I think having no movement in from transport pods was really nice... make it more realistic

LMFAO how do you define realistic in a game with giant walking robots, vehicles that have energy shields, guys who can go invisible or have robots floating above their heads, bolts of lightning can be summoned down from the sky on command, and aircraft carriers fly?

Pods out of a transport should make a constant fall towards the ground, but between your altitude at launch and the ground, you should have at least as much control as a pod from the titan or APC. I'll be glad to get that back.

Re: this sounds good

I think having no movement in from transport pods was really nice... make it more realistic

Re: this sounds good

i don't think so. the FAV is a very crucial vehicle to have on maps like cerebere and camp-g and taking those out would totally screw the PAC side and would severely handicap their uphill fight. the only time i really see PAC win on those maps is by taking back bases swiftly with the FAVs. perhaps they should just restrict armors, but not all vehicles.

Well, I don't think I agree with that assessment myself, but for the sake of discussion let's say your right and PAC is hopelessly disadvantaged without the FAVs. That being our theoretical case, hopefully DICE saw that themselves and in order to make it a more viable IO map, they reworked the starting ownership on the flags to even it up some.

Re: this sounds good

i don't think so. the FAV is a very crucial vehicle to have on maps like cerebere and camp-g and taking those out would totally screw the PAC side and would severely handicap their uphill fight. the only time i really see PAC win on those maps is by taking back bases swiftly with the FAVs. perhaps they should just restrict armors, but not all vehicles.

I've logged a ton of hours in the past few weeks and each time I played that map, the buggy was destroyed by motion mines or never made it to any flag for another reason. Through coordinated teamwork, it's easy to get up that hill. I've never played a round where the PAC utterly failed to get at least Harbor.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: this sounds good

That has to do with collision detection / lag / packet loss. =[

It does it single player as well. It did it after my hefty new system upgrade. If I set up my old system, no problems.

My player actually feels like he has a limp and doesnt run in a straight line.

Crunch