MORE VEHICLES AND BETTER GRAPHICS (duh)

darkjedimonkey · 12-21-2007, 08:36 PM

Vehicles

I feel limited on vehicles on both single and multiplayer....
I want more than 7 snowspeeders on Hoth. 17 would be more like it.
More than just two Republic Gunships and AT-TE's on Genoisis.
bigger hangars on spaceships
more at at more at st more at te more at ta etc etc

Graphics
In BF1 they managed to get plants on Theed etc
but on other maps there was barely any realness to the whole thing
more than just a painted sky please.
sort of like Halo graphics only better

deathclone · 12-24-2007, 01:05 AM

in other words for this to happen there gonna need WAY bugger maps

darkjedimonkey · 12-24-2007, 10:18 AM

not exactly
more vehicles would not mean bigger maps
graphics would though....

GeneralPloKoon · 12-27-2007, 03:49 PM

How would graphics mean bigger maps??? More vehicles would equal bigger maps, imagine Hoth exactly the same with 17 snowspeeders, woah! I can't see anything in the sky!!!

darkjedimonkey · 12-27-2007, 09:16 PM

hahahahahahahaha
i think 17 snowspeeders would be sweet along with the actual number of at ats.
of course more vehicles would turn the tide of battle with just 200 per army
so more units would have to be involved to equalize that battle

dr.w · 01-06-2008, 08:20 PM

starfighters should be re-added to bf3 like in bf1. it isn't as cool with just hoth as the only place with flying vehicles. and they should have larger maps and more troops on each side (with certain advantages for each side like the empire having better weapons but the rebels having better soldiers)

TKT101 · 01-15-2008, 08:32 PM

Yes I agree with more vehicles for certian maps.

Bs|Rogue52 · 01-15-2008, 08:57 PM

yes but for that many tanks/vehicles you might as well forget any soldier type, games have been succsesfull without so many vehicles, maybe expand on space, but i like the current number, anymore would be obnoxious and i would avoid servers with those maps, id rather they put there effort into better hit registry and realsitic enviroment.

darkjedimonkey · 01-17-2008, 03:54 PM

NL_Sudentor · 02-01-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bs|Rogue52

yes but for that many tanks/vehicles you might as well forget any soldier type, games have been succsesfull without so many vehicles, maybe expand on space, but i like the current number, anymore would be obnoxious and i would avoid servers with those maps, id rather they put there effort into better hit registry and realsitic enviroment.

Yes you are right, but maybe they can make vehicles optional. And the numbers too.

Stormtrooper117 · 04-05-2008, 07:02 PM

I think that they should include vehicles but MAKE THEM ACTUALLY DESTROYABLE!!! It takes too long to destroy the jeep-like vehicles with a rocketlauncher. Small vehicles should only need one hit

NL_Sudentor · 04-06-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormtrooper117

I think that they should include vehicles but MAKE THEM ACTUALLY DESTROYABLE!!! It takes too long to destroy the jeep-like vehicles with a rocketlauncher. Small vehicles should only need one hit

There aren't jeep like vehicles in the games!!!
They all have armor

Micahc · 04-28-2008, 07:32 PM

I think it does only take 1 rocket to destroy a speeder....

littleman794 · 04-29-2008, 04:07 PM

ya, speeders cant have that much armor or else they wouldn't be so speedy...

NL_Sudentor · 05-01-2008, 02:54 PM

Yeah but speeder isn't a jeep like vehicle

littleman794 · 05-05-2008, 11:11 AM

no, it is more like a dirt bike type vehicle....except faster with guns....

darkjedimonkey · 06-16-2008, 04:20 PM

ok. more vehicles.

DeathKnight23 · 06-17-2008, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkjedimonkey

ok. more vehicles.

yeah we get the point

darkjedimonkey · 07-19-2008, 05:19 PM

yeah but.... more vehicles means all kinds of vehicles. even gigantic battleships. god. i hope bf3 doesnt suck

Gemini_Thunder · 07-20-2008, 06:03 AM

More vehicles would have to equal larger maps. You wouldn't want a bunch of vehicles on a tiny map would you?

darkjedimonkey · 07-21-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneralPloKoon

How would graphics mean bigger maps??? More vehicles would equal bigger maps, imagine Hoth exactly the same with 17 snowspeeders, woah! I can't see anything in the sky!!!

actually some one already talked about that problem.

RC-1183 · 07-27-2008, 11:32 PM

ya i say more vehicles but not to many like depending on the map size would determine the amount of vehicles same with troops think about it if u had a HUGE map and only 200 troops it would be too easy to get killed cuz they r spread out to far but more troops would be cool and make it more realistic but wat if they added a RTS type thing too were u could buy more troops if u felt u had insuffeciat numbers but there would have to a limit say 2000??? but u have to remember if they added all this it would take a lot longer for the game to come out

jawathehutt · 07-28-2008, 03:15 PM

this is not an rts, or rts hybrid game, from now on, lets just ban rts related ideas.

Bs|Rogue52 · 07-28-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawathehutt

this is not an rts, or rts hybrid game, from now on, lets just ban rts related ideas.

I agree, please go to the EAW forums for those ideas.

GeneralPloKoon · 07-30-2008, 04:26 PM

Indeed.

shukkoku · 08-02-2008, 11:05 PM

I think that they will have to WORK to meet our expectations with graphics, but it can be done. If they have mediocre graphics the fans will tare them apart so they are really put on the spot.
and I'm just going say this now. I think that the vehicles are too powerful. half the time I'm getting mowed down by a tank, so that being said I think they should have more vehicles but make them weaker.
Also I think they're should be a mode with No vehicles what so ever.

Bs|Rogue52 · 08-03-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shukkoku

I think they're should be a mode with No vehicles what so ever.

I agree.

However good gameplay > good graphics.

GeneralPloKoon · 08-03-2008, 04:40 PM

Or an option to turn off vehicles. Custom settings!

NL_Sudentor · 08-05-2008, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shukkoku

I think that they will have to WORK to meet our expectations with graphics, but it can be done. If they have mediocre graphics the fans will tare them apart so they are really put on the spot.
and I'm just going say this now. I think that the vehicles are too powerful. half the time I'm getting mowed down by a tank, so that being said I think they should have more vehicles but make them weaker.
Also I think they're should be a mode with No vehicles what so ever.

Indeed, but that is the meaning of an tank he.

They should ban the boost option with tanks and they alson need to make them slower.

Or AT missiles need to be stronger and maybe (like the battlefield 2 concept)
place some bazooka stations so u don't have to be only rocket unit

GeneralPloKoon · 08-05-2008, 03:02 PM

Rocket Turrets! Thats what we need!

Bokken · 08-05-2008, 04:17 PM

They'd just go boom after AT-AT missiles hit them...

jawathehutt · 08-05-2008, 05:21 PM

so dont put atats on every map then

GeneralPloKoon · 08-06-2008, 05:52 PM

A AT-AT on Endor would be funny they would get caught on a tree and explode!

Bokken · 08-06-2008, 07:37 PM

I didn't only mean AT-ATs, that was a mis-type. Most tank missiles destroy turrets of any type by the second missile launch.

GeneralPloKoon · 08-06-2008, 09:55 PM

But it would be funny....to blow the turrets up!

jawathehutt · 08-06-2008, 10:39 PM

But if the tanks health was lowered, then a good ambush could destroy the tank before it knew what hit it

RC-1183 · 08-09-2008, 10:48 AM

exactly just like tht but he has a point wat if they put at ats on a map where they couldnt opperate all that well but they could still use their turrets but if they moved they blew up

NL_Sudentor · 08-10-2008, 09:48 AM

And I don't know if its difficult to make but why don't make the vehicles on a way that every part on it could be destroyed!!

For example: If u shoot rocket on the gun turret that it can't be used any longer because it is destroyed but the tank stil go's on and is less effective in battle

GeneralPloKoon · 08-10-2008, 04:40 PM

Very good idea.

RC-1183 · 08-12-2008, 02:38 PM

ya exactly why not or if u shot on of the 6 legs on a at-te then it couldnt move but it could shoot