They also want Metro apparently. If only more people were into realism we’d be getting better games. Parachutes won’t be as big of a deal I’am guessing. Maps won’t be as vertical as they were in BF4.
I know. It’s pathetic.
No parachutes should be allowed. You all wanted WWI well now you have to die with your plane. Maybe next time you’ll want a better setting for a game.
You are close to sounding like afnav above you…
He must be brilliant then.
No not brilliant. Just more in tune with reality than most here. Including a mod apparently.
You’re asking for to realistic of a game. That’s not good for the community as a whole. I do agree no one should get parachutes. But seeing your posts on another thread I feel like you’re taking it a bit far. Too realistic wouldn’t be fun for anyone.
S1ngular1ty, you’re just whining because the new game isn’t 2143.
You couldn’t handle a full on realistic and authentic ww1 game, nor any other historic or modern game. You couldn’t handle bf4 realistic and authentic. I also don’t hear you chiming away about parachutes and realism in the bl forums.
2143 will happen just not this year. I do hope though when it comes you’re still adamant about realism and authenticity.
If we’re going with information based off of the actual tells of WWI then no, parachutes would not be a thing. And should not be. It makes being a pilot a very risky job to take up in the game. And all the more proving of their skill if they can manage to actually escape their plane when it goes down.
Keep them out, and especially don’t give them to basic infantry. You fall out of the zeppelin, you’re dead. It sucks but you’ll respawn in 10 seconds anyways so no harm done but -10 points to your score for being clumsy.
You can bail out of the plane but just don’t bail on the match! Quit percentage is going to be in BF1 stats, too. Stat padders will be easy to spot. :3
I figured out why you and others like WW1. You like it because it is “simple.”
I think people don’t like futuristic games because they lack imagination and can’t handle learning new things.
Really? I love every aspect and era of FPS, ww1 through modern. I’m currently mapping levels on the UE4 engine for Unreal Tournament 4. How much more futuristic do you want? I’ve mapped and modded for just about every AAA title that’s worth a shart and then some. I play UT4 instagib and default League level, IGN Gamespy hosted. Played ever BF PC title except BF:CSS. I play CSS, CSS:GO, HL, HL2, and a tons of others. Pick your game! Light it up!
Every franchise needs to change it up here and there. BF happens to be one after 10 years of the same old same old. The markets changing. Get with it or get left behind.
We haven’t had a futuristic BF in a while since BF2142. So your entire point is moot.
I don’t like futuristic games because they themselves seem to lack imagination. It’s nothing new, nothing exciting. It’s taking advantage of 0-G and sci-fi tech suits. Halo did it, Dead Space did it. They won’t be adding anything “new” or “imaginative” it’s Call of Duty. Most people will probably buy it solely so they can play Modern Warfare.
This game is exciting because it’s a step back from all that. Yes, simpler is a word one could use. But it’s still new. It’s something we don’t get to see. Everyone and their grandmother can do modern warfare. And everyone and that one uncle can do Futuristic.
Yet you still disregard publishing and marketing from a “business” standpoint as a “moot” failsafe. SWBF and Titanfall 2. Case, point and done.
I’d be happy with 2143, Vietnam ( My personal choice), WW2, Korea, Cold War, hell 1982 (Chris’s idea) just the same. Same level of hype and fervor. In all honesty I did want a pre-modern title first just to really introduce a bit of teamwork to the new gen BF player. You know like a guide to actually what BF is at the core about. I have a feeling you don’t really know what that is. Squad up man. Invite is right there.
But hell being 42 and having over 20 solid years of multiplayer FPS experience doesn’t mean anything.
If you think it was simple you are out of your mind. I don’t know how old you are, but go take a trip to Ypres or Verdun. Learn something then come back and say fighting with that type of weaponry was easy.
You just invalidated yourself for the final time with that statement. Simple.
Wow.
I hope there are no parachutes then the scrubs won’t be able to plane taxi their way over to their favourite hill!
The pilot class already takes care of that problem.
Well… Parachutes were non existent for plane pilots for most of the war.. There were only few cases of parachuting at the end of the war and many of these still ended tragically.
And only central powers “used” parachutes on planes. Allies had none. They said that chutes were too heavy for the plane to carry and that pilot has to try everything to save the plane, not just bail out like a coward…
Only balloon observers used parachutes on regular basis for most of the war.
So I say - NO PARACHUTES… Not even for pilots. This would limit the plane use, so people would think twice before they take off, because they would be almost dead already.
BUT, I would make planes more sturdy and able to crash land even with some damage and with pilot surviving - because that happened quite a lot
Parachutes should be issued to the pilot class, but the soldier should still take like say 50 damage if he bails with a parachute because they werent very safe during WW1. So that if he already took some damage he would die, or if he was healthy he would be easier to finish off. So it would be a rare thing to use. And instead safely crash landing would maybe award points, more points depending on if the plane is in “good” condition when crash landing, and it would maybe reduce the planes respawn time a little bit. I think that might be a good mechanic. And crash landing/landing in your base would fully repair the plane in a few seconds or something, depending on balance.