Battlefield 3 announced

Fair enough; I'm just surprised you die so often after spawning then (1/3 of the time seems like a lot!). Normally there are only a few players at a given point on those huge maps so even if I spawn on a point that is actively being captured or on a squad member that is near enemies, I rarely die right away. Then again, I do try to avoid spawning on friendlies who look like they are within seconds of death anyways :)

You may be a better player than me. ;)

Frankly speaking, RPGs should not be nerfed. If a sniper can kill a guy from a distance, whats wrong with RPGs? If an RPG is good at cleaning off a squad hunched together, just like a grenade, then why not use it?

I'm not against using RPGs against infantry but there ought to be a distinct penalty for that versus aiming for a tank. Right now the reload time is not long enough, you have enough ammo and can still move fast enough that RPGing infantry is recommended. Your average Bazaar game is 50% engineers firing RPGs at the alley way flag point which vehicles can't even get into. You don't need to nerf the damage directly vs infantry, change how the game rewards you for choosing to fire at vehicles instead. Having said that I agree with Andrew that short of a direct hit an RPG should cause minimal damage. I also think it should be harder to be accurate with it which would improve infantry chances.

I know it is abused, but personally,I feel more wrath towards snipers, since you can't even tell where they are! At least , with RPGs, you can clearly see a trail of smoke, exactly pin pointing to the spammer's position. Its not as if RPG guys are invincible.

Both classes with that loadout pose a similar issue. They are capable of devastating single-shot casualties (infantry and vehicle respectively). People need to learn to spot. I almost always spot before I fire, even when going against assault 50 feet away from me. If I miss or he goes into cover and tries to flank my team mates can see him. Perhaps there should be a Spotter ribbon and medal to get more people to spot the enemy :|. In some maps (like Domavand Rush, Wake Rush) I often spend two minutes at a time prone just spotting the incoming wave.

On another note, I think the best way to level up quickly is to play as medic in a 56/64 player Conquest on Metro. Just stay at a choke point and keep throwing med kits and keep reviving every sucker that dies and watch the points roll in without firing a single shot ;) ! Its a very amusing way to enjoy the chaos that ensues there !

Yes, 64 player Metro is a riot. Not just revive ribbons though, you can climb your grenade/handgun kills because of the enemy density. Shouldn't be allowed on ranked servers anyway.

How is the leveling compared to the release version? I have been sick lately but hope to play some in the near future. One of my biggest gripes is I don't get to play as much as I would like and the leveling/unlocking is... annoying. Ok, it is the #1 reason not to play for me. With the CoD games I always felt like the unlocks were like crack. With BF3 I feel like I entered the despicable world of MMO grinding + it sucked that great teamwork combos (e.g. SOFLAM with JAV) were unlocked stuff. Grrrrr

So has this changed some?

Mostly the first 5 or so levels lets you unlock what the game has to offer. From that point on it's just new cammo/weapon/accessories. You should be able to go up a level per match if you play from the start on 64 player servers. Of course, if you only play to get unlocks then yes, it will be annoying.

That reminds me:

If you apply for the Beyond3D platoon, post here what your BF3 name is so that we know it's you and not some random BF3 person that never visited B3D (those are nasty)

We currently have two guys waiting to get in but I don't recognise their names.
 
Why is BF3 so unbalanced??

When I play...I am either on the side who brutally loses or either on the side who brutally wins (200+ tickets difference)...there simple are no close matches in BF3 anymore...at least when I play it?!?!?

PS: i play hardcore mode and conquest exclusively
 
Both classes with that loadout pose a similar issue....

I do not understand all the complaint versus snipers and engineers...ok, I admit...it is annoying getting killed all the time by RPG or far away sniper.

But there is a natural consequence when the other team are only snipers: you will often die, but it is nearly guaranteed that your team will win the round...because those camping snipers don't play for the team and capture flags!!

Hence, I recommend two simple things, relaxing the situation in BF3:

1.) give way more points for the objective goals!! So that there is a real battle for it!! And killing is secondary...

2.) Change the weapon upgrade system! Now, weapongs upgrade when you make kills...heck, people need to make lots of kills, which is somehow contrary to the BF3 philosophy IMO.

Just make it this way: not the number of kills count. But the amount of points you make while holding the gun counts for upgrading the gun. In this way, you will get points when killing, when assisting a kill, when surpressing and when capturing objective goals etc etc etc...then games will not reduce to pure TDM games anymore IMO!!

Cheers DICE,
Billy aka CEO of Simple Solutions Inc.
 
Quite agree with poster above!

I'm amazed DICE didn't figure this out on their own :???:

I think the basic point system of 2142 worked the best, where all points go towards increasing your rank and each rank up gives you the ability to unlock another weapon/item, etc. However DICE knows that kind of progression is too slow, and it means initial players will probably have to play a while to get a substantial number of unlocks compared to BF3's separate unlock systems. You know how ADD gamers are.
 
I think the basic point system of 2142 worked the best, where all points go towards increasing your rank and each rank up gives you the ability to unlock another weapon/item, etc. However DICE knows that kind of progression is too slow, and it means initial players will probably have to play a while to get a substantial number of unlocks compared to BF3's separate unlock systems. You know how ADD gamers are.

catering to the COD crowd
 
It doesn't need to be exactly that. They're talking about vertical gameplay which is something to avoid for consoles (COD's biggest market). Frostbite 2 show make amazing interiours, I wouldn't mind seeing more of them with lots of stuff blowing up, walls coming down, etc.

Anyway, three expansions looks good but I hope they don't try and be greedy with them. I really like BF3 but CoD style map pack pricing won't go down well for me. I hope Armoured Kill has some arctic maps with tundra, snow storms, u-boats off shore, fighting on frozen glaciers, etc.

Also hoping Origin adds some more payment options. All my online purchase in Steam happened AFTER they brought in PaySafe.
 
Also hoping Origin adds some more payment options. All my online purchase in Steam happened AFTER they brought in PaySafe.

I think Origin "upgraded" their payment options to not allow CC payments through Paypal anymore. It's just the problem that their list of error messages doesn't know yet.
 
In BF BC2 in typically played only RUSH mode...in BF3 I can't stand RUSH.
I am not sure, but my feeling is that the maps are just not good for RUSH...boring as hell...no real game evolving during a RUSH game?!
 
http://blogs.battlefield.com/2012/03/bringing-battlefield-into-close-quarters/
The closest you come to this type of tight combat scenario in Battlefield 3 is on Operation Métro. We know this is one of our most popular maps, which tells us that our gameplay has what it takes to perform in such unique and frantic conditions.
... really? Operation Metro most popular? I can only think this is because it lowers the skill benefit and normalizes everyone into a CoD-style random spray fest.

This does not make me excited for this first expansion. Maybe it'll be good with low player counts though (I only ever enjoy Metro with - say - 6v6 ish players). I still think the potential for it to turn into nade/rocket spam is far too high though.
 
Maybe it's most popular because they're counting in maps played stats from the beta... which was metro right? :)
 
Hm, in my opinion, DICE get it wrong:

people play METRO, to fast unlock their weapon stats...because you make tons of kills. Or heal people or re-ammo them to get medals and stuff. METRO is grinding, but not real fun. Kill, die, kill, die...no real gameplay. Because the map is flawed with 2-3 choke points only, frantic action is unavoidable, but it is easy to kill.

And as I said in an earlier post...in my opinion it is a fundamental flaw in the system, that you need kills to level up your weapon. This causes people to always play TDM, this finally causes people playing METRO, causes that I get only METRO server when I am searching for a game...

If they take METRO as their measure...I am getting a little bit nervous about the future of BF MP...

PS: if they think they can support COD type gaming.....no!, movements and animations are way to slow for such a type of gameplay (just try to toss a grenade in BF and compare this to COD :D)
 
The unlock system really kills it for me as well :| That and on the consoles you cannot even practice/play with the toys on empty servers. Which is sad because there is a lot to like about BF3 as the core gameplay is amazing imo.
 
Personally I love inf only CQB and find Metro a fairly good map when there are not so many players on it. Have to say I'm really looking forward to the DLC and don't feel trolled at all. :p I do enjoy the bigger maps too, but there is definitely room for both. The karky map pack were all pretty big (by BF3 standards not BF2) so having some CQ stuff is a good idea IMO.

I don't think it's fair to compare BF to COD even when you take out the vehicles and wide open spaces, I still prefer the mechanics. It's still very much a team oriented game with high production values.

Still pissed at DICE for fucking us over with the eSports hype that never came to be, but Starcraft 2 has filled that hole in my entertainment schedule now and I don't think I'm looking back.
 
The first assault assignment is nearly impossible. Reason being, because winning SQDM matches is a nightmare. Some rounds go way too long, like 150+ points, and usually it's one squad dominating everyone. The next round, the teams are basically the same, with the same people running a train on everyone else. I want that rifle, but have only been part of a winning squad once in, almost, an entire weekend's worth of playing. It's really frustrating. Someone should host a server for five kill wins so the rounds go by quickly and people can complete the assignment, with relative ease. I'm a decent enough player when I have an objective to achieve, and teammates to support. All of which seems lost in the concept of SQDM.
 
I play Metro to rank up quickly, as all I have to do is throw medkits and revive people near the stairs.
Then go play B2K or Damavand/ Caspian,etc for a real game of BF.

If they think Metro is popular due to gameplay, they are dead dead wrong. Metro is popular because its chokepoints are a pointfest. Same for Grand Bazaar. But these are flaws in the maps, not highlights. :???: WTH is wrong with DICE? Can't they see this simple phenomena on their servers?

Get up DICE we want good BF MP, not shattering walls and instakills.

and OTOH, the recent Max Payne vidoc seems to have equally good destruction for walls and objects in their game.
 
Back
Top