XRobinson

Member
  • Content count

    2,011
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About XRobinson

  • Rank
    Battalion Staff
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nevada USA
  • Interests
    Designing games, playing FPS games from BF 1942 days
    To BF BadCompany2, also like single player open world games like
    Fallout 3.

Recent Profile Visitors

853 profile views
  1. LoL... Lugnut...Benny Hill at start duno...
  2. I figure starting a game that has no flags at the start means both teams must plant their first flags in the first territory they occupy then move to next one, this means enemy team can not rush the opposing teams first flag because they do not even know where it is going to be planted! This is not a good idea? Let's give this a beta test. Another what if: each team could only plant one flag, then only way to win is hold your flag while taking out enemy flag? You do not know where flag is at all it must be searched and recon is very, very, important, first recon to locate could mean the win. There is a lot of ways this could be made to play out. Go recon!
  3. Sounds good. What if you could place flags on territory you capture? Then that becomes a capture point for enemy? And each team has a limit on how many flags it can place on map, and placing the max flags on map wins game maybe? Terrain could also be so mixed that there is no one way always to control it....Not always one tactic that works every time, so randomization is not needed on this type of map. What wins is out doing the enemy and not just using terrain as your main control tactic.
  4. Monkey wrench in the soup.....how about no flags at all and main bases are off the map or outside the map zone you need to capture? to win you need to capture 90 percent of area of map? This means rushing has no meaning unless your strategy is to rush to the main points on the map you think you can defend and continue to hold so you can advance to another position to capture entire area.
  5. got any music suggestions for that?
  6. No TV for 6 months now. I'm now all work and no play. But the good news is that a new major computer system to rival planet Earth is in the making! Ha.
  7. But there is a difference between receiving an award for doing stuff in game verses receiving a team award for winning the match. This doesn't make people care more about awards than winning the game, nor does it make the game all about the reward. The reward is for winning the match not winning the reward.
  8. Hey honey did you know Squad just got a tracked vehicle?
  9. Mad Max fun! Insurgents should be like a band of motorcycle hooligans. Right?
  10. This one seems like a no brainer. I always said the first one to make a realistic WW2 multi player game is going to be a big winner in the gaming world. The potential is BIG.
  11. But in real life you have to deal with stupid.... It makes game feel like real life when you let stupid things happen. LoL! Games need to have element of surprise. For instance, when the Japanese would do Kamikaze or all do a sudden rush all at once and charge the front lines stupidly. You would never expect your enemy to charge the front lines on 20 or 30 motorcycles with guns blazing! What a stupid surprise, it might work.
  12. This one is more like I expected.
  13. The insurgency is going to be a motorcycle gang? Cool...
  14. Winning made me think of this today.
  15. Gold!