Forum Discussion

Anonymous

4 years ago

Honestly Though, Who Really Thought Battlefield Needs Natural Disasters?

Tornadoes, Tsunamis, Dust Storms, And whatever else it brings. Why? Like really, if the rumors are true, why push for this? Like who in the world thinks BATTLEFIELD at DICE and says "MORE WEATHER"......

discussion

x--Fusi--x

Seasoned Ace

4 years ago

If it's true then it sure comes because they say.
We do it because we can and not because we need it!
The weather is nice, but I don't have to be killed by lightning or a tornado. The enemies with their weapons and tanks are enough for me.

CyberDyme
4 years ago
Agreed @x--Fusi--x ,
I think the 'natural disasters' should more work as game/map changing events. As it was in aka Paracel Storm, as when that kicked in, then helis and the attack boats suddenly lost much of their influence on the gameplay. And the strategy turned more into infantry-based guerilla warfare, fighting from one island to the next on foot !
So epic change to the game dynamics, weapon loadouts and team tactics to win the battle!
- x--Fusi--x
  Seasoned Ace
  4 years ago
  @CyberDyme I can already imagine that at the beginning of the round we would fight for a flag on land, then there could be a tidal wave and you need boats to get to the flag. But please no fatal natural events as a behemoth (train) BF1 replacement.
  - Trokey66
    Seasoned Ace
    4 years ago
    Didn't BF3's Aftermath DLC have earthquakes?
    Weather events etc add another layer to the game as long as they are server side though. Nowt worse being the only player on Sinai with the sandstorm......