Battlefield 3 announced

For me, the 416 is the best gun in the game. It's the one I'm most comfortable with. However, in real CQC, the FAMAS is better.

I started sniping over the weekend to unlock those guns. Sniping is waaaay too easy. No wonder I get hit with them so much. The hitboxes seems to be very generous in the game. The gunplay isn't as precise as Counter Strike but then again, that hasn't been the case in any BF game. I'm not complaining btw, just an observation.

I've noticed a lot of hacking going on with Aimbots. Hopefully Dice is on top of it sooner than later.
 
Agreed on sniping being too easy. Especially from long range it just isn't very hard to figure out the bullet arcs after shooting off one or two rounds, and when you hit someone from long range you almost always get headshots for some reason... Even close range it's way too easy to just bring up a sniper rifle and shoot; IMHO there should be a bit more delay in sighting in non-reflex sights.

Still, I don't think it completely breaks the game since you can "snipe" with a lot of assault rifles almost as effectively and high powered scopes are fairly nicely balanced due to the glint they produce. There are bigger issues I think, although honestly the game is in fairly good shape compared to most multiplayer FPSes balance-wise.
 
Andrew Lauritzen said:
I'm still sticking by the AN-94. Even from the hip that thing is a beast. Sure it shoots slow but that's hardly relevant when you only really need two shots. Close up you can literally spray and pray and win most of the time (even 1v2 or 1v3!) and long range it's probably the best assault rifle period due to the high damage and 2-round burst with basically no recoil/drift between the two shots.
Click to expand...
The Akaban actually has the same damage characteristics as all the other assault rifles asside fro the G3, 4-6 shots to the torso/arms depending on the range in regular, 3-4 at in hardcore, as can be seen along with much more on this site. That said, the two shot burst can be vicious when put to good use.
 
kyleb said:
That said, the two shot burst can be vicious when put to good use.
Click to expand...
Yup, to be clear I meant "you only really need two *bursts*". The two-round burst is so accurate that it's almost like you have a semi-auto rifle that does 2x the damage. If you've got even semi-decent aim (or close range, just spray from the hip like I said... for some reason it's crazy-effective) you're going to land the shots faster than another assault rifle that is going to miss a bunch of them due to recoil (even if burst fired). The G3 fired in semi-ish patterns might be an exception due to its higher damage, but I haven't tried it much yet. It's the next weapon on my list :)

[Edit] Really neat site btw! I've seen the numbers before but the accuracy plots are new/awesome! Much more intuitive way to interpret the data. Judging from them, I need to try this KH2002 thing next as well...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kyleb said:
The Akaban actually has the same damage characteristics as all the other assault rifles asside fro the G3, 4-6 shots to the torso/arms depending on the range in regular, 3-4 at in hardcore, as can be seen along with much more on this site. That said, the two shot burst can be vicious when put to good use.
Click to expand...

Wow really nice info there. I had no idea how many weapons drift left or right while firing. I don't see in the legend the meaning of the red and blue arrows near the recoil figures on a few of the rifles, e.g. the blue arrow for the AN-94. Has anyone figured those out?
 
Otto Dafe said:
Wow really nice info there. I had no idea how many weapons drift left or right while firing. I don't see in the legend the meaning of the red and blue arrows near the recoil figures on a few of the rifles, e.g. the blue arrow for the AN-94. Has anyone figured those out?
Click to expand...
I think it shows what's changed since the last update of the chart and/or game.
 
Is there an option to take screenshots in this game? Cos it has a "screenshots" folder under "My Documents".

Also, is there a way to display FPS counter in th game without using fraps?
 
I started playing bf3 again after a 3 or so weeks break and i noticed that my favourite A91 is not so good anymore. Since i saw few higher ranked players use M4A1 i decided to give it a go, and it was a revelation! I am not sure what dice have done to this weapon but its a beast! Accuracy is awesome, damage output is just a tiny bit worse than an assault rifle (even at distance) and reload time is just beastly short. I remember this weapon pre 1st patch and A91 was beating it hands down. Well not anymore.
Sad thing is that i get annoyed by the low ping players (below 20ms) a lot. If its just a few random guys with good ping i manage to do well but if i encounter 5+ clan players with ping 15 to 12ms it ruins the game for me. Normally on European servers my ping hovers just over 60ms. And i really feel the game engine favours low ping (almost lan like) connections. Its strange because players with pings higher than 60 (from 60 to 100ms) seem to not be at disadvantage against me. Basicly any ping from 100 to 20ms feels the same but there is an abyss if you go below 20ms.
This might be my individual perception of game play in certain conditions but im curious if you get similar feelings.
 
The engine actually is *less* sensitive to ping than in the past since much of the hit detection is now done on the client. Furthermore the difference between 15 and 100ms is just not relevant in Battlefield.

I've had pings all over the board. Beyond about 150ms it starts to become a real disadvantage. Below that though it's all pretty level even down to 10ms or so which is the lowest ping I've personally had.

That said, the team-work of a group of people is *very* relevant to doing well in Battlefield! A well-coordinated group of 5 clan guys (or just friends) with appropriately chosen upgrades can give a massive advantage. Stuff like having passengers in vehicles choose appropriate perks (proximity scan, etc) and choosing all unique squad-wide infantry perks makes a big difference.

Agreed M4A1 is a beast. I've had decent luck with the G53 as well (the new B2K engi gun). It's ineffective at long range (as engi guns really ought to all be) but it has fairly low recoil so even at midrange you can land a lot of quick hits with full auto.
 
Andrew Lauritzen said:
The engine actually is *less* sensitive to ping than in the past since much of the hit detection is now done on the client. Furthermore the difference between 15 and 100ms is just not relevant in Battlefield.

I've had pings all over the board. Beyond about 150ms it starts to become a real disadvantage. Below that though it's all pretty level even down to 10ms or so which is the lowest ping I've personally had.

That said, the team-work of a group of people is *very* relevant to doing well in Battlefield! A well-coordinated group of 5 clan guys (or just friends) with appropriately chosen upgrades can give a massive advantage. Stuff like having passengers in vehicles choose appropriate perks (proximity scan, etc) and choosing all unique squad-wide infantry perks makes a big difference.

Agreed M4A1 is a beast. I've had decent luck with the G53 as well (the new B2K engi gun). It's ineffective at long range (as engi guns really ought to all be) but it has fairly low recoil so even at midrange you can land a lot of quick hits with full auto.
Click to expand...

Regarding the bolded part - i have exactly the opposite experience. Maybe i put to much emphasis in my last post on fighting against a group of 5 well organized clan players but my point was that if i play those same guys on one server where they have higher pings and then switch with them to another server where they have lan like pings, perceived reaction time of said players goes waaaay down (at least for me). It might be something on my end although i have pretty decent cable connection (25M up/2M down) with reasonably low pings.
 
I'd need to see some proof (real measurement) to believe that claim, although I've certainly been wrong before :) But 100ms is plenty fast especially when the hit detection as largely client-side in BF3. You don't really need quake-like reflexes in Battlefield regardless. Given the bullet damage model if you don't suck and you get the drop on someone, you really had better win :) If you both see each other at exactly the same time, it's more about who stopped moving the longest ago, who is crouched/prone/ADS, and your weapons than reflexes. Again, this is assuming both players can aim, which is fairly independent of ping.

Client side hit detection makes it much less relevant to have a good ping to be competitive, but as a downside it does get you more of the "I always already around that wall on my client, but the guy shooting me was lagging" deaths. Annoying, but probably a fair trade-off as long as it's capped (so that you're not getting shot where you were a second or more ago for instance). BF3 doesn't seem to be the worst of client-side hit detection games that I've played.

In BF3 in particular though you're at a much larger disadvantage if your local machine's performance isn't sufficient (say maintains 50fps and above). If you're not getting that, you should try turning down your settings because that actually does make a *huge* difference to your ability to aim precisely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew Lauritzen said:
I'd need to see some proof (real measurement) to believe that claim, although I've certainly been wrong before :) But 100ms is plenty fast especially when the hit detection as largely client-side in BF3. You don't really need quake-like reflexes in Battlefield regardless. Given the bullet damage model if you don't suck and you get the drop on someone, you really had better win :) If you both see each other at exactly the same time, it's more about who stopped moving the longest ago, who is crouched/prone/ADS, and your weapons than reflexes. Again, this is assuming both players can aim, which is fairly independent of ping.

Client side hit detection makes it much less relevant to have a good ping to be competitive, but as a downside it does get you more of the "I always already around that wall on my client, but the guy shooting me was lagging" deaths. Annoying, but probably a fair trade-off as long as it's capped (so that you're not getting shot where you were a second or more ago for instance). BF3 doesn't seem to be the worst of client-side hit detection games that I've played.

In BF3 in particular though you're at a much larger disadvantage if your local machine's performance isn't sufficient (say maintains 50fps and above). If you're not getting that, you should try turning down your settings because that actually does make a *huge* difference to your ability to aim precisely.
Click to expand...

As i mentioned its how I perceive it and it might be related to my connection issues or something. I was just wondering if anyone has the same observations.
As far as pc performance goes i started playing BF with everything set to high and no AA but after a few weeks (and after bigtabs recommended it) i lowered my setting to everything low bar textures and 4xAA. And i have to admit it was a HUGE difference. Aiming became muuuuuch easier and perceived lag went way down. My gaming rig consists of PII 940, 4gigs of ram and GTX460. I am planning to uprage to I5 2500K and 28nm GPU but still waiting for the HD78xx/GTX660 series to launch.
 
I'm still perusing that awesome page Kyleb linked. A lot of people are recommending the M4a1 (eng) and m16a3 (ass)--looking at that page there is no functional difference between the M4 and M4a1 and the M16a3 and M16a4. Any particular reason you a1 and a3 lovers like those particular models more than their counterparts?
 
Here's a couple of questions.

1. Why, if my default web browser decides it needs to update something eg. one of its add-ons, does that screw up BF3 requiring as far as I can tell a reboot of my PC?

2. If I try to join a server, get bored after oh I don't know say three or four minutes of waiting, and hit cancel. Then try to join another game I get "game running in the background you can't run a game when there's a game running in the background you muppet" stuff which is apparently l get rid of without rebooting my PC.

In short: this is the worst gaming experience I've had in nearly 20 years of gaming. The game itself is fine, if and when I get into it. Props to Repi et al for that. The rest just sucks so hard it's difficult to be rational about things. I'm seriously quite tempted to take up flower arranging rather than continue to try to play this game.

Anyway, sorry about the elite fontage and colour choice. I just needed to get a couple of things off my chest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
NPD November 2021
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
zed
Z
S
The Walking Dead: Saints & Sinners - Chapter 2 [SteamVR, Quest2, PSVR2]
Replies
0
Views
2K
swaaye
S
S
NPD January 2022
Replies
1
Views
1K
Deleted member 11852
D
S
NPD December 2020
Replies
7
Views
2K
Entropy
E
Shortbread
Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
12K
trinibwoy
T
Back
Top