Jump to content

AiRJacobs

Closed Test
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Private

About AiRJacobs

  • Rank
    Private First Class
  • Birthday 06/16/1996

Recent Profile Visitors

132 profile views
  1. I already addressed the realism point, but no matter what, someone will always complain that it's either too realistic, or not realistic enough. So I take it then you'd prefer a Battlefield-like revive system? Or perhaps, make it so that enemies cannot double-tap. Simple fix. As for your "scenario" it has many flaws in it that were not part of my point. You will most definitely be able to revive your teammate in less time than it will take for the enemy to get back to your position, and in less time than it would take for your teammate to otherwise respawn and also have to make it back to your position. You say this would slow down gameplay, how? If anything, it would decrease the time players have to spend running back to the place they died and increase the pace of the game. Also, what "unskippable quicktime event" are you referring to? I never mentioned any animations. I agree those would be a liability. Regardless, this isn't suppose to be a "fast-paced, intensive" game anyway. It's a tactical shooter (basically, 1 level away from a mil-sim). The optimal scenario is "Friendly down>kill enemy>check to see if area is clear(throw smoke if you have to>patch up teammate(stop at any point if you must)>continue fighting with an extra hand. You never know how long it will take reinforcements to arrive and this will keep up the pace of the game, rather than you having to wait for your teammates to show up again, and possibly get killed along the way. I use this strategy in many FPS's that have a medic/revive system, and IT WORKS. FYI: If you get shot reviving a teammate, that's on you, dumbass. Anyone with common sense knows to make sure the area is clear before attempting to revive a downed man. That's not the game's nor the mechanic's fault. If the area is not clear, anyone with a functioning brain would either not go through the revive, or clear the area again. Simple concept.
  2. Yup. This game's core play style is large open maps, lots of players, lots of weapons, vehicles, and tactical combat. Little of that is in CS.
  3. World War 3 sorely needs a revive system, but NOT something like the Battlefield revive system. Of course it is ridiculous to bring someone back to life after they've been blasted by a tank, with nothing more than a shock from a defibrillator. Think the revive system from America's Army. Here is the scenario: If the soldier was shot in the head, run over by a vehicle, or blown up by any explosive, they will not be treatable. To say that a revive system would not work and be unrealistic is entirely ignorant to how real world military;s operate. When a fellow soldier is shot and incapacitated, they aren't just left to bleed out. Soldiers have basic first aid training to stop bleeding of wounds, and bandage then up. While we're on the topic of realism, World War 3's medical system already isn't realistic. In the real world, you don't go to a medical crate and magically heal your bullet wounds, broken bones, and extract shrapnel from your body by looking at the crate, or by getting poked with a syringe. I think the implementation of a system like this would be entirely fitting of the game's play style and setting. It would increase immersion, while not hindering any other mechanics, but rather offering players more choices in game. This will also increase teammate cooperation and coordination. Change my mind.
  4. Yeah, because making vehicles slightly easier to obtain is turning World War 3 into a shooter that hardly ever has vehicles at all. All I'm suggesting is making armored vehicles either stronger, or cheaper. I couldn't care less about everything else that you call "streaks".
  5. I don't have an issue with how tanks are used currently (speed, firepower). It's just that they are very weak and easy to take out, as well as expensive. They just aren't of good value. Strikes and drones are far more useful.
  6. Armored Vehicles in this game are terrible in most aspects. They are expensive as hell to purchase. You wait a whole round saving up for a tank. Once you get one, everyone and their mother has an RPG ready to stick up your ass. Nearly every other item you can purchase is of a better value (UAV, Strikes,...) BP cost to spawn vehicles needs to be much cheaper than it is now, and countermeasures/armor on the vehicles need to be stronger (or RPGs need a significant nerf).
  7. Please, no. Tanks are already extremely weak and vulnerable, yet expensive to purchase. This would be one more reason to avoid armored vehicles, as if the game needed another reason.
  8. Why is no one talking about this? Seeing an armored vehicle like a tank on the battlefield in this game is like witnessing a UFO. Pretty much every other item you can buy with battlepoints that are cheaper than the armored vehicles honestly end up being a better value. From my experience, I have waited entire rounds to save up for a tank (5000BP). I purchase the tank, get in it, I drive around for ~30 seconds looking for enemies to shoot. I don't see anyone, then I get hit with two RPGs from out of nowhere within 5 seconds and die. I could have spent those BPs on several UAVs and some Artillery strikes, which would have been far more useful. I really want to get to use some vehicles in this game, but they are both a rarity and of low value, yet high cost. In Battlefield 4, I have gone on kill streaks of 60 in LAVs, but in this game, LAVs are just big metal coffins on wheels. There is zero incentive to purchase armored vehicles in World War 3. Solution: In the next update, the BP cost to spawn armored vehicles should be dropped, and a second set of armored vehicles should be deployed at each team's base midway through the round (totaling 4 armored vehicles per team for the entire round. 2 at the start, and 2 at mid-game).
×
×
  • Create New...