Battlegrounds

[InsaneRussian]

Originally Posted by eclipsedmind

yes it's also very realistic it'll prevent the other army from retreating from battle unless you log out

Damn i knew somebody wouldn't understand my idea in the right diraction. Look here, a energi field can be formed in anyway possible which means that the entrence and exit are not sealed since the energi shield begins from above of that lvl.

Originally Posted by Bhoginator

Another viable and realistic option is minefields, but I still prefer the warning.
But then again anything is better than the invisible wall :P

Mine idea concluded aircraft too, you can't penetrate the shields you would simply ran into them like into an invisible wall just this would be visable wall. From far distance you almost can't see it the closer you come to the wall the more intense it shines, pretty much like any light.

[baddb0y93]

yea i like the halo 3 idea with the turrets and iff u go past the turrents and out of the map u get blow to pieces

[Grind]

I'm not a fan of the big invisible wall. even if it's a laser wall lol. It works just fine I guess, but I'd let them to get a little more creative. It's those little things that make the game better (even if you don't notice them, that means there's nothing wrong with it).

It'll be a pretty new kind of game so maybe they'll come up with a new way of handling it.

I'd rather at least have a big mountain or building that I can't cross instead of just a big wall.

[baddb0y93]

that is a realy good idea im sure they will come up whith something just gata wait and see

[InsaneRussian]

Originally Posted by Grind

I'm not a fan of the big invisible wall. even if it's a laser wall lol. It works just fine I guess, but I'd let them to get a little more creative. It's those little things that make the game better (even if you don't notice them, that means there's nothing wrong with it).

It'll be a pretty new kind of game so maybe they'll come up with a new way of handling it.

I'd rather at least have a big mountain or building that I can't cross instead of just a big wall.

Lol you say you better have big building instead of a wall? Isnt that the same thing?
FOr me i hate having building or walls that i cant clibe and i know thats because it's end of the level. I rather have invisible wall. But energi shield as i said which you can see and try to avoid hitting it if you fly makes it better. Cause they cant build that kid of builds that prevent aircraft from crossing, that's why i think energi shield idea is most fitting in this case. Unless there will be like those energi shields and if you hit them with aircreaft they simply push you back in the same diraction with same speed as you came towards the shield. That also would be nice.

[baddb0y93]

i think it shud be like in BF2142 were u go out of the boundries it wud give u about 10 secs to get bak in the fight or its just teleport u bak to the map after 10 seconds

[Bhoginator]

yep i'm still sticking with the "you have 10 seconds to get bacK" message or else death, I agree with russian too, I hate there being buildings and mountains I can't get into/climb, even worse than invisible wall.

[Guyver]

Originally Posted by baddb0y93

i think it shud be like in BF2142 were u go out of the boundries it wud give u about 10 secs to get bak in the fight or its just teleport u bak to the map after 10 seconds

I think it would be better, if they die. I don't know why, but it sounds fair. What if the enemy found a weak point in your forces and the only way to exploit it would be to go out of the boundaries? What I just said sounds like an unfair advantage, and it is. Ofcourse, if there was no consequence, by all means, do it.

The point is, boundaries are taken too lightly and need to be taken seriously. A boundary is like an unwritten rule. You just have to respect it, and being teleported back to safety won't teach a lesson.

[Bhoginator]

yeah...but the death from crossing the boundary line is unrealistic...they could transport you WAY back to beginnning of map and there could be a penalty for 5 minutes, like you can't get into vehicles...that'd be enough for me, worse than death :P

[eclipsedmind]

i reckon a timer is good if you dont you get a penalty death for 30 or so secs

[Samurai Ed]

I agree with the 10 second teleport idea, but I don't think this is the thing we should be wondering about. I personally am wondering how Battlegrounds will end, like will there be an NPC boss if you fight them back far enough with a hell lotta health and does a lot of damage or will it be a kill count? Possibly different game types?

[InsaneRussian]

Ahmm... We were discussing PvP battle grounds i believe. Where there will be only 3 ends, Sapiens wins - Alternative wins - Draw. Would be very weird if you PvP then suddenly huge boss comes, alternatives and sapiens dunno who to shot the boss or or players.

[baddb0y93]

pvp is player versus player not pve-player versus environment so in pvp u fight players not boses

[Guyver]

Originally Posted by baddb0y93

pvp is player versus player not pve-player versus environment so in pvp u fight players not boses

Well I think it would be awesome to have PvPvE. It would really bring a sense of danger and excitement.

[baddb0y93]

yea mabe the to races and the hybrid had to work together to kill a huge boss at the end of a pvp battle .. the big boss wud destroy both the races.. the only way to kill it is to work together and kill it

[InsaneRussian]

Originally Posted by Guyver

Well I think it would be awesome to have PvPvE. It would really bring a sense of danger and excitement.

Would be simple bloodfest where the only result would be something like Alterac Valley in WoW only that the boss attacks everybody, i mean both sides.
I mena in a FPS this would be too much of a mess, snipers would be having fun since nobody really cares about them cause there are too many players.
In BF2142 i player on maps of max size 32 or 48 (32 = 16vs16 and 48 = 24vs24) Cause 62 is way too much, i mean there is simple slaughter which isnt fun, i like to be both tactical and leathal but when it's way too many enemies you wont get far since somebody will end you soon enough which makes it no fun for me, unless there will be bunch of noobs jumping firing rocket launchers. TOo much of a mess me no like that.

[Bhoginator]

I definetely don't think that 100v100 will be too much, because in BF2 32v32, which, while I know is a big difference, on the large maps is not crowded at all. And I think that huxley will have way bigger battlegrounds so, it will be awesome.

[baddb0y93]

Originally Posted by Bhoginator

I definetely don't think that 100v100 will be too much, because in BF2 32v32, which, while I know is a big difference, on the large maps is not crowded at all. And I think that huxley will have way bigger battlegrounds so, it will be awesome.

yes took the words outa my head... u think the maps in 2142 are huge 32v32 amagine 100v100 i mean they gata be much bigger i mean bigger