Someone made a petition to include Commander in PC BF3. sign it !

  • 76 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
#2 Posted by DeeGee (2140 posts) -

Internet petitions, so cute.

#3 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@DeeGee said:
" Internet petitions, so cute. "
we do what we can.
#4 Posted by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -

I do not care about the commander position in BF3 so I wont be signing it. Some of the comments by the people who did sign are just silly, if DICE wanted they could have easily put the commander role in Bad Company 2, its being removed because its more fun to have those abilities in the hands of the soldiers and the commander did not work that well in BF2 or BF2142. As long as squads are in the game and they have a better framework for creating and join them in BF3 than BC2 then everything will be fine.

#5 Posted by Dedodido (235 posts) -
@DeeGee said:
" Internet petitions, so cute. "
For "real world" stuff internet petitions do sweet FA. However, when it comes to computer games, it's in the developer's own interest to listen to what the fans want. Adding the commander isn't a big ask, if enough people sign it they might actually listen.
#6 Posted by Zapbrader (176 posts) -

You know, we really should wait until GDC before going to drastic measures. I'm not against having Commanders, I think their a neat idea, but I've also been convinced they probably need to be modified a little bit for BF3 as opposed to just removing them. For all we know, they could be doing things with Squads that will remedy the absence of Commanders.

#7 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -
@DeeGee said:
" Internet petitions, so cute. "
I don't know why people always say this, considering they work all the time. Boycotts you can maybe criticize (because it's hardcore fans who always buy the game anyway), but petitions, not really.
#8 Posted by SomeJerk (3304 posts) -

Iwata: *laughs*

#9 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@ShaneDev said:
"  if DICE wanted they could have easily put the commander role in Bad Company 2, its being removed because its more fun to have those abilities in the hands of the soldiers  "
You have your fun, we'll have the true Battlefield experience 
thank you !
#10 Posted by EpicSteve (6492 posts) -

That's an entire mechanic they wouldn't just add in. 

#11 Edited by Dedodido (235 posts) -
@ShaneDev:  Think of it this way:
 
The commander is hugely important in clan matches because they see things no-one else does, and can relay that information to the whole team, that's his dedicated purpose, and a good commander is needed for victory. Without the commander mode clan players won't take BF3 seriously and will just carry on playing BF2 instead. It's the clan players who are the hardcore players and keep the game alive after people have stopped playing, buying the DLC and keeping dedicated servers running. DICE could even have the commander as an option you can turn off for the people who don't like the feature, but they need to put it in there in some capacity for the game to be a real success.
#12 Edited by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @ShaneDev said:

"  if DICE wanted they could have easily put the commander role in Bad Company 2, its being removed because its more fun to have those abilities in the hands of the soldiers  "
You have your fun, we'll have the true Battlefield experience thank you ! "
I will have fun but like I said I do not care if its in or not. What your after isn't the true Battlefield experience its just BF2 experience over again with pretty graphics and that would be disappointing to me.  
#13 Posted by Valkyr (668 posts) -

I find the consoles 24 players cap more silly than this, if maps will be so huge to hold 64 dudes how 24 is going to feel right?, I give a shit about dynamic lighting and awesome graphics, if I choose to be a console gamer I knew from the start that multiplatform games were going to look worse but this restrictions are just stupid, I'm sure that it has nothing to do with graphics, 64 dudes won't be shooting each other at the same time so consoles won't have to render 64 character models at once, if you want my money invest it in dedicated servers and console optimization instead of developing another crappy game like MOH

#14 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@ShaneDev said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @ShaneDev said:

"  if DICE wanted they could have easily put the commander role in Bad Company 2, its being removed because its more fun to have those abilities in the hands of the soldiers  "
You have your fun, we'll have the true Battlefield experience thank you ! "
I will have fun but like I said I do not care if its in or not. What your after isn't the true Battlefield experience its just BF2 experience over again with pretty graphics and that would be disappointing to me.   "
Actually, what i want here is Battlefield 3. let me explain to you what that is : 
 
that would be the sequel to Battlefield 2.  
What is a sequel ? a sequel is a game that takes the core concepts and gameplay mechanics from its predecessor and expands them, adds new things to them, innovates upon them, and looks better graphically  
 
I dont want Battlefield 2 with new graphics, that would be pointless. im not gonna purchase the game day 1 and spend a couple thousand dollars upgrading my PC for a goodlooking BF2, im better off playing the BF2 i own. 
  
 
What i want is a Battlefield 2 sequel. that means a game that is TRUE to its predecessor, not leaving out any key assets of it, which are things like 6-man squads, squad leaders, commander, atleast 6 kits, big maps that feel infinite, prone, jets, and ofcourse the command wheel 
 You wanna change things around a bit? im all for it. you want to bring new things to the table? cant wait to see them. you want to remove things that defined the predecessor, and still somehow call it a sequel? thats not very nice.
#16 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
" @ShaneDev said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @ShaneDev said:

"  if DICE wanted they could have easily put the commander role in Bad Company 2, its being removed because its more fun to have those abilities in the hands of the soldiers  "
You have your fun, we'll have the true Battlefield experience thank you ! "
I will have fun but like I said I do not care if its in or not. What your after isn't the true Battlefield experience its just BF2 experience over again with pretty graphics and that would be disappointing to me.   "
Actually, what i want here is Battlefield 3. let me explain to you what that is :  that would be the sequel to Battlefield 2.  What is a sequel ? a sequel is a game that takes the core concepts and gameplay mechanics from its predecessor and expands them, adds new things to them, innovates upon them, and looks better graphically   I dont want Battlefield 2 with new graphics, that would be pointless. im not gonna purchase the game day 1 and spend a couple thousand dollars upgrading my PC for a goodlooking BF2, im better off playing the BF2 i own.    What i want is a Battlefield 2 sequel. that means a game that is TRUE to its predecessor, not leaving out any key assets of it, which are things like 6-man squads, squad leaders, commander, atleast 6 kits, big maps that feel infinite, prone, jets, and ofcourse the command wheel  You wanna change things around a bit? im all for it. you want to bring new things to the table? cant wait to see them. you want to remove things that defined the predecessor, and still somehow call it a sequel? thats not very nice. "

A sequel also fixes stuff that didn't work with its predecessor - and in my opinion the commander simply didn't work. If removing it is the right answer I don't know, but neither am I a game designer.

For gods sake, we haven't even seen the multilayer yet - and people bitch already!

And don't be silly, the commander nowhere near DEFINED Battlefield 2....... 

#17 Edited by PhatSeeJay (3322 posts) -
@drag said:

" Shame it's not in there but I'm not signing anything about it.  Out of interest is there gonna be a constant stream of these threads before during and after the game's launch or you think you might ease up a bit at some point?  "

It'll ease up once DICE reveals more constructive information about what they'll actually HAVE in BF3 Multiplayer. So far they've only talked about lowered thresholds and why this and this and that is not working.
It naturally worries the PC player base that have been eagerly awaiting the true sequel to one of the biggest FPS-games on the PC. 
People will naturally rage afterwards we know everything no matter, but right now it's mainly the speculations going on overload.
 
 @easthill said:

" @Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @ShaneDev said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @ShaneDev said:

"  if DICE wanted they could have easily put the commander role in Bad Company 2, its being removed because its more fun to have those abilities in the hands of the soldiers  "
You have your fun, we'll have the true Battlefield experience thank you ! "
I will have fun but like I said I do not care if its in or not. What your after isn't the true Battlefield experience its just BF2 experience over again with pretty graphics and that would be disappointing to me.   "
Actually, what i want here is Battlefield 3. let me explain to you what that is :  that would be the sequel to Battlefield 2.  What is a sequel ? a sequel is a game that takes the core concepts and gameplay mechanics from its predecessor and expands them, adds new things to them, innovates upon them, and looks better graphically   I dont want Battlefield 2 with new graphics, that would be pointless. im not gonna purchase the game day 1 and spend a couple thousand dollars upgrading my PC for a goodlooking BF2, im better off playing the BF2 i own.    What i want is a Battlefield 2 sequel. that means a game that is TRUE to its predecessor, not leaving out any key assets of it, which are things like 6-man squads, squad leaders, commander, atleast 6 kits, big maps that feel infinite, prone, jets, and ofcourse the command wheel  You wanna change things around a bit? im all for it. you want to bring new things to the table? cant wait to see them. you want to remove things that defined the predecessor, and still somehow call it a sequel? thats not very nice. "

A sequel also fixes stuff that didn't work with its predecessor - and in my opinion the commander simply didn't work. If removing it is the right answer I don't know, but neither am I a game designer.

For gods sake, we haven't even seen the multilayer yet - and people bitch already!

And don't be silly, the commander nowhere near DEFINED Battlefield 2....... 

"
 I doubt anyone is saying that the commander position worked flawlessly unless it was controlled by clans and so on.
But I still don't think removing it is the answer, because it did define BF2 as a game where the soldiers were important cogs turning a big clock. No one had big roles but everyone had something important that the team needed to get the job done.
There's plenty of ways to make a hierarchy system a very profitable one even for point farmers and lone wolves. Even a sniper team could get great points by laying on a hill and spotting mortar strike points for the commander to launch, giving both team based points.
The commander could see on his map that friendlies are too close and warn them about incoming fire and so on. You just don't see that in Bad Company 2. 
 
I'm not in any means saying the Commander role is perfect. But it, together with the hierarchy system, created a new leap in the main Battlefield series and could become even grander if the unlock and reward system were to be taken into greater affect with it.
Just saying that there are always means to make even such a small role a winning concept if you just dare to stick with what you've rolled out in previous itterations.
#18 Posted by Valkyr (668 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic: If being able to destroy every building your enemy could use as a tactical position is not enough innovation, what do you want? it's modern combat, you want super tactical stuff that teens and noobs won't use, they just want to shoot and blow up stuff, I know, it's sad but DICE like every other developer wants to sell a lot of copies, we have succumbed to a mainstream market, deal with it.
#19 Posted by Zapbrader (176 posts) -

Obviously the fact that this petition exists speaks as to how integral Commanders were to BF2, and probably should be for BF3. People don't make these without good reason. We can all band together and show DICE exactly how many people want this feature, but in the end their still free to do whatever they want.  
 
I'm sorry if going multi-platform has changed this game too much from what the dedicated fan-base actually want.

#20 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@easthill said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:
" @ShaneDev said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @ShaneDev said:

"  if DICE wanted they could have easily put the commander role in Bad Company 2, its being removed because its more fun to have those abilities in the hands of the soldiers  "
You have your fun, we'll have the true Battlefield experience thank you ! "
I will have fun but like I said I do not care if its in or not. What your after isn't the true Battlefield experience its just BF2 experience over again with pretty graphics and that would be disappointing to me.   "
Actually, what i want here is Battlefield 3. let me explain to you what that is :  that would be the sequel to Battlefield 2.  What is a sequel ? a sequel is a game that takes the core concepts and gameplay mechanics from its predecessor and expands them, adds new things to them, innovates upon them, and looks better graphically   I dont want Battlefield 2 with new graphics, that would be pointless. im not gonna purchase the game day 1 and spend a couple thousand dollars upgrading my PC for a goodlooking BF2, im better off playing the BF2 i own.    What i want is a Battlefield 2 sequel. that means a game that is TRUE to its predecessor, not leaving out any key assets of it, which are things like 6-man squads, squad leaders, commander, atleast 6 kits, big maps that feel infinite, prone, jets, and ofcourse the command wheel  You wanna change things around a bit? im all for it. you want to bring new things to the table? cant wait to see them. you want to remove things that defined the predecessor, and still somehow call it a sequel? thats not very nice. "

A sequel also fixes stuff that didn't work with its predecessor - and in my opinion the commander simply didn't work. If removing it is the right answer I don't know, but neither am I a game designer.

For gods sake, we haven't even seen the multilayer yet - and people bitch already!

And don't be silly, the commander nowhere near DEFINED Battlefield 2....... 

"
to each his own, then. there's an army of BF junkies who think that it worked well and defined a true 64-man multiplayer match. you disagree ? then we agree to disagree (: 
 
 
@Valkyr said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic: If being able to destroy every building your enemy could use as a tactical position is not enough innovation, what do you want? it's modern combat, you want super tactical stuff that teens and noobs won't use, they just want to shoot and blow up stuff, I know, it's sad but DICE like every other developer wants to sell a lot of copies, we have succumbed to a mainstream market, deal with it. "
i wouldnt be doing this if it was any other game or developer, but from what i understand, Bad Company 2 sold better on PC than consoles, and the PC community is the only community DICE mention as their true fans in interviews, so i beg to differ.. 
 
if this was Infinity Ward or Rockstar, i'd agree wholeheartedly that trying to stop the games from being consolized and streamlined is a lost cause. but with DICE, the PC crowds are the ones keeping the company truly successful and eager to innovate. correct me if im wrong, but im pretty sure i read in the GameInformer review scans that the dude they interviewed said something about the PC players being the real deal.. so im sure they care about what we have to say !
#21 Posted by Dedodido (235 posts) -
@Valkyr said:
" I find the consoles 24 players cap more silly than this, if maps will be so huge to hold 64 dudes how 24 is going to feel right?, I give a shit about dynamic lighting and awesome graphics, if I choose to be a console gamer I knew from the start that multiplatform games were going to look worse but this restrictions are just stupid, I'm sure that it has nothing to do with graphics, 64 dudes won't be shooting each other at the same time so consoles won't have to render 64 character models at once, if you want my money invest it in dedicated servers and console optimization instead of developing another crappy game like MOH "
That's what you get for playing it on a console, it comes with the territory. The issue is memory and memory bandwidth, it needs to have the whole level in memory at once, and the current gen consoles simply can't do that. So they have to make the maps smaller on consoles, and with that comes a smaller player cap. Nothing they can do about that, blame microsoft and sony if you want to blame anyone.
#22 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@PhatSeeJay:  /followed  
 
 
@Zapbrader said:
" Obviously the fact that this petition exists speaks as to how integral Commanders were to BF2, and probably should be for BF3. People don't make these without good reason. We can all band together and show DICE exactly how many people want this feature,"
thats the fucking spirit :D 
 
 

" I'm sorry if going multi-platform has changed this game too much from what the dedicated fan-base actually want. "
it really hurts.. i mean ive never cared enough about a game to get all butthurt about it, and never imagined i'd go there either, but here i am going batshit insane about a bad BF3 
in the past few days ive realized how much i worship BF2
#23 Edited by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic: In making a sequel though a developer refined what worked and changes or removes what didn't and to DICE the commander didn't work as well as it should have and they felt that by giving everyone the powers of the commander it would make the game more fun and in my experience it did for both of the Bad Company games. The same could be said for the other big complaint about this game so far which is the number of kits. Why must the game have at least six kits? Why is that a key asset? BF2142 had only four and it worked and again so did both Bad Company games. Everything else you listed is going to be in BF3 which will no doubt play better than ever with the added benefit of destructible environments. People shouldn't fly off the handle before any real info on this game as even come out.
#24 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@Dedodido said:
" That's what you get for playing it on a console, it comes with the territory. The issue is memory and memory bandwidth, it needs to have the whole level in memory at once, and the current gen consoles simply can't do that. So they have to make the maps smaller on consoles, and with that comes a smaller player cap. Nothing they can do about that, blame microsoft and sony if you want to blame anyone. "
...they could cut the graphics down.  Let's be honest here, a good percentage of PC gamers will be playing this game on Low-Mid...and if Low-Mid looks like an early PS3/360 game, they could do that.  Graphics aren't everything, unless you're Crytek or Square Enix.
#25 Posted by Marz (5658 posts) -

Kinda surprising that even MAG has a commander like system for a console game(squad leaders can call in airstrikes and UAVs) and BF3 will exclude it.

#26 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@ShaneDev said:

"  In making a sequel though a developer refined what worked and changes or removes what didn't and to DICE the commander didn't work as well as it should have"

which is fucking mind boggling to me... 
 
 

"  and they felt that by giving everyone the powers of the commander it would make the game more fun and in my experience it did for both of the Bad Company games. "


"  Why must the game have at least six kits? Why is that a key asset? BF2142 had only four and it worked and again so did both Bad Company games. "

 
i dont know how to explain this without sounding like a BF/PC elitist who despises Consoles/CoD, something i certainly am not :  

listen, friend. the way i see it, there's two definitions of 'fun' in shooters : the fun you get from running around relatively small maps harvesting kills with all kinds of god-like abilities at your disposal, portrayed best in Call of Duty games, and the other kind of fun : the one that wants you to work more. the one that forbids you from being rambo and having fun on the short run, but makes you vulnerable and 
  1.  in need of team work  to take on big threats 
  2. having limited to no access to things like UAV because you're a soldier on the battlefield, not a commander in the headquarters (what i like to call 'the eye in the sky') and therefore it's not your JOB
  3. having one specific purpose to serve based on the kit you chose. rather than several tasks all tied to one kit, which minimizes diversity and distorts the feel of specialty 
Which is what Battlefield 2 perfected. explosive and ever-lasting memorable fun on the long run
  

I understand that you enjoy the former definition. you're free to enjoy it, it's up to you. but there are literally thousands of players out there who cant cum until they get the real Battlefield fix, which is the second definition of fun. we dont enjoy being spoiled by the game, everything loses its uniqueness that way.. 
 
Now the question is, will DICE submit to the new age of gamers who want the first kind of fun, the one that doesnt require much work and patience and gives you a big dick, or will they stay genuine and true to the predecessor of the game they're making. 
 
As i said, if it were any other developer, i wouldnt try to change their minds because everyone is automatically dumbing shit down year after year and pleasing the impatient unsophisticated gamer. however, this is DICE, and their true fans who help them push forward are the second type of gamers i described, and therefore there's still a fighting chance.
#27 Posted by Dedodido (235 posts) -
@KaosAngel:  The way I understand it that isn't really doable. Consoles, as is, will already be performing at the bare minimum of what the engine can do. PCs are far far ahead now, and the engine is being developed to take that into account. Even a low-mid range PC these days has four times the memory of the xbox 360, and they'll be running the game on very low settings.
#28 Posted by AuthenticM (3761 posts) -

I'm glad there are no more commanders. They did not serve any purpose.

#29 Posted by AlphaCentauri (183 posts) -

All of the Battlefield games after 2142 have sucked.

#30 Posted by gamb1t (965 posts) -
@DeeGee said:
" Internet petitions, so cute. "
You dont get laid.
#31 Posted by DeeGee (2140 posts) -
@gamb1t:  Of course not, I'm too busy on the internet bitching about gameplay in a game not released yet and making little petitions because I'm such a pussy.
 
Oh wait
#32 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@DeeGee said:
" @gamb1t:  Of course not, I'm too busy on the internet bitching about gameplay in a game not released yet and making little petitions because I'm such a pussy.  Oh wait "
...this is coming from a guy with the worst starter Pokemon.  :| 
 
We paying for the games, not them.  They are servants to us, not the other way around.
#33 Posted by DeeGee (2140 posts) -
@KaosAngel:  Hit me where it hurts, my pokemon. Ouch, man. You cut me deep. D:
#34 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@gamb1t: @KaosAngel: @DeeGee:  you wanna bicker, take it elsewhere. i got someone else's thread locked because of bickering, and im not gonna repeat that mistake or make anyone else do it.. next hate post will be flagged.
#35 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
" @easthill said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:
" @ShaneDev said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @ShaneDev said:

"  if DICE wanted they could have easily put the commander role in Bad Company 2, its being removed because its more fun to have those abilities in the hands of the soldiers  "
You have your fun, we'll have the true Battlefield experience thank you ! "
I will have fun but like I said I do not care if its in or not. What your after isn't the true Battlefield experience its just BF2 experience over again with pretty graphics and that would be disappointing to me.   "
Actually, what i want here is Battlefield 3. let me explain to you what that is :  that would be the sequel to Battlefield 2.  What is a sequel ? a sequel is a game that takes the core concepts and gameplay mechanics from its predecessor and expands them, adds new things to them, innovates upon them, and looks better graphically   I dont want Battlefield 2 with new graphics, that would be pointless. im not gonna purchase the game day 1 and spend a couple thousand dollars upgrading my PC for a goodlooking BF2, im better off playing the BF2 i own.    What i want is a Battlefield 2 sequel. that means a game that is TRUE to its predecessor, not leaving out any key assets of it, which are things like 6-man squads, squad leaders, commander, atleast 6 kits, big maps that feel infinite, prone, jets, and ofcourse the command wheel  You wanna change things around a bit? im all for it. you want to bring new things to the table? cant wait to see them. you want to remove things that defined the predecessor, and still somehow call it a sequel? thats not very nice. "

A sequel also fixes stuff that didn't work with its predecessor - and in my opinion the commander simply didn't work. If removing it is the right answer I don't know, but neither am I a game designer.

For gods sake, we haven't even seen the multilayer yet - and people bitch already!

And don't be silly, the commander nowhere near DEFINED Battlefield 2....... 

"
to each his own, then. there's an army of BF junkies who think that it worked well and defined a true 64-man multiplayer match. you disagree ? then we agree to disagree (: 
Seeing as we had Battlefield before 2, we'll just have to disagree then. :)
#36 Posted by DelroyLindo (387 posts) -

No

#37 Posted by MikkaQ (10317 posts) -
@Dedodido said:
" @DeeGee said:
" Internet petitions, so cute. "
For "real world" stuff internet petitions do sweet FA. However, when it comes to computer games, it's in the developer's own interest to listen to what the fans want. Adding the commander isn't a big ask, if enough people sign it they might actually listen. "
I'm pretty sure they work more often in real life then with video game developers. Because if half a million people tell their government they don't want something, they'll definitely hear about it. Like how a half million canadians told the govt we don't want to be charged 2$/Gb if we go over 25gb in a month. And it worked, literally every party in our country is against the issue, so I severely doubt it'll pass. These petitions work because they're set up to email your representatives and such with each signing, so someone is notified about the petition. I bet 90% of video game petitions don't even reach the developer or publisher.  
 
Though I doubt they'll add commander back in here, unless people make a HUGE stink. But all the BFBC2 players probably don't care. 
#38 Posted by fwylo (3556 posts) -

Holy this escalated quickly.

#39 Posted by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic: Your not even arguing the merits of the commander mode any more your trying to turn this into some kind of console vs PC debate which it certainly is not.  
 
The thing about your  definitions of fun is that the first kind is what every player  in BF2 is now just a guy with a gun or a slightly different type of gun trying to dolphin  dive his way to victory, spamming  grenades and occasionally  reviving people. The commander does the cool work but work which is made pointless if the guys on the ground do not do the shooting. When it works its great team work but the link between both is tenuous  and if it doesn't  work well, you, the guy on the ground miss out and the commander sits bored while not really effecting the outcome. What the second kind of fun is every Battlefield game after BF2 its one where you can  contribute more to your team than just your skill with a gun where you can use your gadgets like motion trackers and artillery  strikes to change the outcome there and than not wait for some guy sitting in the back who might not even answer you or no one at all since some servers didn't  even have commanders. A well balanced  squad of dudes in BC2 has the same ability  to effect the outcome of a match as squad in BF2 looking for help from a commander. Your both types so fun are exactly the same in a Battlefield game but just implemented differently and I have no idea why you are bringing Call of Duty into this when no one even mentioned it.

And finally your assumption that I don't appreciate, play or enjoy team work in games especially Battlefield games which I have been playing for a long time is insulting. I have no problem with your petition but I sincerely hope DICE never notices or listens to you.
#40 Posted by Gizmo (5389 posts) -

Can't believe people have managed to find so much to moan about, if they hate change so much they can always just play BF2, there are still servers up.

#41 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -

Games have evolved since BF2. You seem to want none of that. This is a NEW game, DICE has the right to make changes to try to make it more fun/interesting. BF2 had a lot of changes from 1942, and look at how that turned out. I can't believe people are flipping their shit over something so trivial.

#42 Posted by Gizmo (5389 posts) -
@President_Barackbar said:
" Games have evolved since BF2. You seem to want none of that. This is a NEW game, DICE has the right to make changes to try to make it more fun/interesting. BF2 had a lot of changes from 1942, and look at how that turned out. I can't believe people are flipping their shit over something so trivial. "
Exactly, this is a case of the fans thinking that they know best. 
#43 Posted by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -
@President_Barackbar said:
" Games have evolved since BF2. You seem to want none of that. This is a NEW game, DICE has the right to make changes to try to make it more fun/interesting. BF2 had a lot of changes from 1942, and look at how that turned out. I can't believe people are flipping their shit over something so trivial. "
Well put.
#44 Posted by Skald (4369 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said: 
Actually, what i want here is Battlefield 3.
Let me explain what I think that is: 
 
That is the game that DICE is making. They have made the conscious decision to excise the commander role from the game. If you can't trust them to make judgements like this, can you really hope for them to make a game that you'll enjoy as much as Battlefield 2?
#45 Posted by ch13696 (4582 posts) -

Done and done.

#46 Edited by Zapbrader (176 posts) -
@ShaneDev said:

 The commander does the cool work but work which is made pointless if the guys on the ground do not do the shooting. When it works its great team work but the link between both is tenuous  and if it doesn't  work well, you, the guy on the ground miss out and the commander sits bored while not really effecting the outcome. What the second kind of fun is every Battlefield game after BF2 its one where you can  contribute more to your team than just your skill with a gun where you can use your gadgets like motion trackers and artillery  strikes to change the outcome there and than not wait for some guy sitting in the back who might not even answer you or no one at all since some servers didn't  even have commanders. A well balanced  squad of dudes in BC2 has the same ability  to effect the outcome of a match as squad in BF2 looking for help from a commander.

I don't know if this necessarily works in a Battlefield Proper experience. BC2 maps have lots of choke-point thresholds, vantage points and straight arrow designs that it doesn't take too much coordination to take every objective. BF2 maps sound like they are wide open and expansive, with gun fights occurring at every capture point at once. 
 
I won't argue that a coordinated team of clan mates with diverse and powerful kits can still bring a powerful presence that can equal a Commander. But the Commander can still look at the entire map and know the location of every enemy, something they wouldn't give a simple soldier for BF3. Therefore, a Commander role still offers just a little bit more to the table. 
 
Also, making people work together is the biggest key. If one person's job is to give orders, it makes it that much easier for people to follow them. If BF3 is to have no Commander, hopefully they have found better ways for every squad to communicate with each other.
 

@XII_Sniper

said:

" @Dedodido said:

" @DeeGee said:

" Internet petitions, so cute. "
For "real world" stuff internet petitions do sweet FA. However, when it comes to computer games, it's in the developer's own interest to listen to what the fans want. Adding the commander isn't a big ask, if enough people sign it they might actually listen. "
I'm pretty sure they work more often in real life then with video game developers. Because if half a million people tell their government they don't want something, they'll definitely hear about it. Like how a half million canadians told the govt we don't want to be charged 2$/Gb if we go over 25gb in a month. And it worked, literally every party in our country is against the issue, so I severely doubt it'll pass. These petitions work because they're set up to email your representatives and such with each signing, so someone is notified about the petition. I bet 90% of video game petitions don't even reach the developer or publisher.   Though I doubt they'll add commander back in here, unless people make a HUGE stink. But all the BFBC2 players probably don't care.  "
 

There's that, but even more so in politics when people in office/running for election have to worry about the people that vote for them. Nothing is legally binding people and/or companies to abide to petitions that have acquired 2 million signatures or more, they can just as easily ignore them, under normal circumstances.
#47 Posted by MikkaQ (10317 posts) -
@Zapbrader:  
 
Exactly right. 
#48 Posted by bartok (2543 posts) -

Has an online petition ever worked?  I am still waiting for Veronica Mars to not be canceled.

#49 Posted by Jimbo (9869 posts) -

They already have a franchise which is just Battlefield with less kits, no command structure and a campaign - it's called Bad Company.  The way this is going they might as well have just called it BC3.

#50 Posted by salad10203 (654 posts) -

Its probably to late in the dev cycle to include it now.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.