Features shooters desperately need.

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
Jacco said:
Mr.K. said:
Well the one second death is a big part of MMS, making sure everyone just dies when sprayed down for the ultimate casual effect.
If you don't want insta-death then you are barking up the wrong genre tree.
I dont have a problem with the "one second death" so much as the way it's implemented. If Battlefield had a way to move suddenly and quickly in random direction but still kept the rest of its mechanics, I'd be fine. My annoyance comes in when someone gets the jump on you and you are in the open or something where there is nowhere to go. A dodge function there would be nice because it gives you at least a chance.
The issue with this is that sniping becomes pointless. If the second you shoot someone they just start dodging around and being unable to get hit, why would you snipe?
What Battlefield needs isn't necessarily a dodge mechanic, but better map layout so that you don't have to dodge. Maps in BF3 come in two categories; A few bases spread out with large, open areas between them, or a few bases clustered together with large open areas from the spawn points to them. If you filled those large open areas with something, you wouldn't be out in the open and easy sniper fodder so much.

Kopikatsu said:
Well...BO2 has a dodge button, kinda. If you try to go prone while sprinting, you'll dive instead. Usually buys you enough time to gun down the other gun if you're using an SMG or handgun.
You can do this in Battlefield too. The problem is you are then lying prone in the middle of a large open area with a sniper 200m away with a direct sight to your head. If you're in cover it helps. In close quarters it helps against slow firing weapons, but since you can't shoot on your way down if you're up against a semi-auto, burst fire or full auto weapon, you're screwed. The main purpose of diving in BF3 seems to be to jump on grenades thrown at your squad so that you take the majority of the damage, dying to save the rest of your squad, whereby your squad medic will instantly revive you.

Squilookle said:
Mother-flippin' BOTS.

Every shooter should have bots. Bar none. No excuses. Even if the online multiplayer never takes off, or dies in 6 months... if your game has bots then your multiplayer/instant action/challenge modes will never go to waste, and can live forever.
Soooo much this. Loved this in all the other Battlefields. Come Battlefield 3 I no longer play it because online is shit and there are no bots. Bots will keep me playing your game. I would have bought your expansion packs had there been bots. There weren't. I've moved on to better games.

We already have four buttons for dodge: W, A, S, and D. Besides, you can't dodge a sniper bullet if you don't know it's coming.
Agreed, though in Battlefield you can dodge sniper bullets. No weapon is a 1-hit kill, except for on a headshot - and even then not even some snipers are 1 hit kills, and headshots at long ranges are very hard to get. This means that the first shot will hit you, you dodge, and the second shot that would kill you misses.
 

Wintermoot

New member
Aug 20, 2009
6,563
0
0
valium said:
Shooters need to go back to the retro feel, no more "realistic" garbage we are constantly being subjected to. I still go back to my UT 2003 and 4, these are the epitome of fun FPS, just hard to get a MP game going.
this
90's run&gun like Quake and HL1 should make a return
 

frobalt

New member
Jan 2, 2012
347
0
0
WaitWHAT said:
valium said:
Shooters need to go back to the retro feel, no more "realistic" garbage we are constantly being subjected to. I still go back to my UT 2003 and 4, these are the epitome of fun FPS, just hard to get a MP game going.
True dat. Who wants realism in their entertainment? The real world is harsh, cruel and no fun at all. If you want a 'realistic' shooter so much, why are you playing a video game instead of joining the army?
I'm gonna pretend that question isn't rhetorical:

For a start, when you die in combat in the army, you die. When you die in combat in an FPS, you respawn.

Also, not everyone is fit enough to join the army, or actually wants to kill people for real.


Anyway, I definitely agree that shooters are too fast paced these days. While getting the jump on someone should give you an advantage, it shouldn't automatically give you a victory.
 

Jacco

New member
May 1, 2011
1,738
0
0
Joccaren said:
The issue with this is that sniping becomes pointless. If the second you shoot someone they just start dodging around and being unable to get hit, why would you snipe?
What Battlefield needs isn't necessarily a dodge mechanic, but better map layout so that you don't have to dodge. Maps in BF3 come in two categories; A few bases spread out with large, open areas between them, or a few bases clustered together with large open areas from the spawn points to them. If you filled those large open areas with something, you wouldn't be out in the open and easy sniper fodder so much.
I wouldn't necessarily be against getting rid of snipers all together. There are few things more aggravating than continually getting sniped by the same person who is just camping and not being able to do anything about it.
As for your Idea about the bases I agree. They are--while not unbalanced--are not conducive to some of the types of games.
 

F'Angus

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,102
0
0
Real rewards for objectives. Ghost Recon FS gives the team enemy positions, or EMPs the enemy if you take an objective. They could do with putting something like this in CoD or Battlefield so that players actually have a reason to work together towards objectives.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
Personally I think shooters need to change their health system.

I think shooters should have a part regen, part health pack, system where your HP was divided into 4ths, and you could regen in that 4th, but you needed a health pack to get above that 4th.

The problem with a fully health pack based system is that it makes multiplayer something dominated by only those who memorize when, and where, health packs respawn, excluding anyone but the most devoted players from being able to play.

While on the other hand, a fully regen system takes out all risk, and thus strategy, and reward, from combat, making to where ANYONE can play without any real knowledge of the game mechanics.

A combined system lets people make mistakes, thus keeping it open to casual people, while at the same time it rewards players who play well by not getting shot, in that they actually have a significant chunk of HP more then other people who do get shot.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
Squilookle said:
Mother-flippin' BOTS.

Every shooter should have bots. Bar none. No excuses. Even if the online multiplayer never takes off, or dies in 6 months... if your game has bots then your multiplayer/instant action/challenge modes will never go to waste, and can live forever.
BOTS and SPLIT-SCREEN! D:<

I hate not being able to play with my buddy and it's even more fun to play with your buddy with bots to frustrate you both!

OT: Be fucking creative for a change? Less modern/post-modern 'murica fuck yeah gun wank?

Yeah. Creativity I'll go with.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
SajuukKhar said:
Personally I think shooters need to change their health system.

I think shooters should have a part regen, part health pack, system where your HP was divided into 4ths, and you could regen in that 4th, but you needed a health pack to get above that 4th..
YOu pretty much want the health system from Resistance: Fall of Man then? Good health system imo, 4 bits of health, you regen up to the nearest quarter but then need a med pack.

More shooters need to be as good as Resistance: Fall of Man...
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
Jacco said:
Joccaren said:
The issue with this is that sniping becomes pointless. If the second you shoot someone they just start dodging around and being unable to get hit, why would you snipe?
What Battlefield needs isn't necessarily a dodge mechanic, but better map layout so that you don't have to dodge. Maps in BF3 come in two categories; A few bases spread out with large, open areas between them, or a few bases clustered together with large open areas from the spawn points to them. If you filled those large open areas with something, you wouldn't be out in the open and easy sniper fodder so much.
I wouldn't necessarily be against getting rid of snipers all together. There are few things more aggravating than continually getting sniped by the same person who is just camping and not being able to do anything about it.
As for your Idea about the bases I agree. They are--while not unbalanced--are not conducive to some of the types of games.
I think BC2 handled snipers well, the maps were the right size that a good player could usually pick them off with an assault rifle, or you could easily get around, flank and stab the prick. Or blow his building up/run him down with a tank/jetski/quadbike/tuk-tuk.

BUt they did have thatf ucking awful automatic-spotter scope which ruins the game all too often.

BF3 is a ***** for being sniper-friendly though, it's too common for whole teams to just snipe.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
SkarKrow said:
YOu pretty much want the health system from Resistance: Fall of Man then? Good health system imo, 4 bits of health, you regen up to the nearest quarter but then need a med pack.

More shooters need to be as good as Resistance: Fall of Man...
Never played resistance, but from what you said yeah, like that.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
SajuukKhar said:
SkarKrow said:
YOu pretty much want the health system from Resistance: Fall of Man then? Good health system imo, 4 bits of health, you regen up to the nearest quarter but then need a med pack.

More shooters need to be as good as Resistance: Fall of Man...
Never played resistance, but from what you said yeah, like that.
If you have a PS3 (since it's a platform exclusive) I highly recommend it. Good health system.

Hard as fucking nails too.
 

TheYellowCellPhone

New member
Sep 26, 2009
8,618
0
0
I want a shooter game with climbing that isn't limited to jumping and hoping your feet land on a platform two feet off the ground, and momentum plays a role in melee attacks and movement speeds.

Pretty much, Mirror's Edge. Why can't more games move toward Mirror's Edge for realism? The gunplay in Mirror's Edge, I loved it! The guns felt heavy and powerful and accurate, I wish more games had that style of gunplay.
 

Ashhearth

New member
May 26, 2009
278
0
0
OniaPL said:
Just make more Vanquish.

The world needs more Vanquish.
Or at least something else up the ally of Vanquish. That game was seriously underrated and was a ton of fun.
 

regalphantom

New member
Feb 10, 2011
211
0
0
For single player, I agree that we need more games without regeneration health. While it works in some games like Halo, it seems to be tacked on in a lot of cases. Even something like Deus Ex: Human Revolutions system, where you can only regenerate health up to 50% without a healthpack, would be an improvement.

For multiplayer, I would like to see more games with the following features:
Bots for non-matchmaking play.
Interactive battlefields (ie, switches you can throw to raise/lower barriers or traps)
Non-Regenerating health in some cases (particularly class based games with some sort of 'medic' option)
Vehicles
 

Fractral

Tentacle God
Feb 28, 2012
1,243
0
0
I'd like to see games where you don't die so fast. I liked it in halo reach, where even if the other guy started shooting first you could turn it around with some fancy play, but in Planetside 2 my Light Assault takes like 4 shots from a Heavy and he's dead. More tactical, where its not just who fires first that wins.
If a game is going to be that way, then at least make it faster paced, like Tribes: Ascend. That game was good cause it took some serious skill and luck to get a kill when the other person is running away from you at 150 mph. Even the one hit KO guns, like the spinfusor, take real skill to use because getting a direct hit on a moving, flying target is extremely hard.
Oh, and take out or re-balance snipers. I hate sniper rifles- especially the ones in CoD like the intervention where they're 1HKO anywhere on the body.
 

Mullac

New member
Oct 6, 2012
199
0
0
I'm not a big fan of realism. For me, gameplay should always come first and when a game tries to be realistic it takes out a load of features that would otherwise be great.

Stuff like COD, I know they aren't massively realistic, which reduce your heatlthbar so you can only take a minuscule amount of hits, are extremely boring for me because it becomes a test of reaction times. That's why I love TF2!
 

The Sanctifier

New member
Nov 26, 2012
99
0
0
Something That I think would be really cool is a first person shooter which also lets you build your own base of operations.

IT could be a little like Minecraft where you place down blocks and such to make your own fortifications, and while you'd get points for shooting the enemy, you'd get even more for coming up with elaborate traps to kill them.