| Forum Index > General Games |
|
IveReturned
Turkey258 Posts
On March 07 2012 18:53 Chriscras wrote: I HATE U FOR THIS, what happened to NY, Miami and Seattle???? If the DLC turns Battlefield into CoD I will have lost faith in humanity T__T It has already got so much closer to CoD nobody PTFO, killcams make CQ into TDM where everybody hunt each other. 3D spotting, audio spotting etc. | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On March 07 2012 18:53 Chriscras wrote: I HATE U FOR THIS, what happened to NY, Miami and Seattle???? If the DLC turns Battlefield into CoD I will have lost faith in humanity T__T It completely depends on the maps. Close quarter doesn't neccessarily mean CoD level slaughterfests. Current "close quarter" maps like Metro are pointless because they're artificially funneling players into narrow chokes. There's little variety, few alternatives for tactical gameplay and no reason to play these maps except to boost your stats. BFBC2 maps like Oasis had a layout that both promoted close quarters and left room for strategical advances like a flank or a runby. Even "narrow" maps with chokes like Port Valdez allowed this. These maps even had a place for vehicles and enough space to maneuver them AND to take them out. Compare that to the unhindered carnage a LAV can inflict on BF3's Bazaar. | ||
|
IveReturned
Turkey258 Posts
On March 07 2012 20:00 Shockk wrote: It completely depends on the maps. Close quarter doesn't neccessarily mean CoD level slaughterfests. Current "close quarter" maps like Metro are pointless because they're artificially funneling players into narrow chokes. There's little variety, few alternatives for tactical gameplay and no reason to play these maps except to boost your stats. BFBC2 maps like Oasis had a layout that both promoted close quarters and left room for strategical advances like a flank or a runby. Even "narrow" maps with chokes like Port Valdez allowed this. These maps even had a place for vehicles and enough space to maneuver them AND to take them out. Compare that to the unhindered carnage a LAV can inflict on BF3's Bazaar. *looks at BF3 map design *looks at older map designs Were hopeless | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On March 07 2012 20:53 IveReturned wrote: *looks at BF3 map design *looks at older map designs Were hopeless Some of BF3's maps are really awesome. Caspian, Firestorm, Gulf of Oman or Wake Island all are great maps, with room and use for vehicles and infantry, squad play and teamwork. They actually feel like a battlefield. Kharg Island, Karkand and Canals are pretty good as well, though I don't play them as frequently. But then there's Metro, Bazaar, Highway and - ugh - Seine Crossing. These maps are horrible. Chokepoints, bad design, utter vehicle domination ... why these maps made it into release boggles my mind. It's almost as if two different teams designed the maps, with one team drawing from the highlights of the BF franchise and the other hastily finishing their job two minutes before deadline after a round of CoD. | ||
|
WakaDoDo
Sweden1183 Posts
Infantry only karkand clusterfucks existed in BF2 as well. A lot of people prefered that to the classic battlefield-experience. BF3 really surprised me with how good the gunplay and cqc gunfights are and some people play this game solely for that experience. The city maps metro, bazaar and seine are nothing short of glorious epicshizzle for game modes like TDM or rush. (bazaar rush is silly tho >_<)! It's like taking a Starcraft 2v2 map and using it for 1v1 imo. Metro shouldn't be used for classic conquest large. EDIT: DLC news! -Following up its first download expansion Back to Karkand, DICE today revealed plans to bring three more expansions to Battlefield 3 starting this June. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/03/07/battlefield-3-close-quarters-announced.aspx | ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
Whilst I strongly encourage teamwork in the form of an Engineer repairing a tank, in BF2 it was far far better balanced. In BF2 it was: 2 AT missiles in the back of a tank would bring it to 0-5% health in BF2. 3 in the side would do the same and 3 in the front would bring it pretty damn close. You could also guide the missile whilst in the air to compensate for vehicle movement. It didn't have anywhere near the anti-infantry effectiveness the BF3 RPG has and it didn't need it. It was a well balanced weapon versus the lethality of a tank and what the Anti-Tank class was for, to kill tanks. In BF3 vehicles are ridiculous. Three RPGs will not instantly destroy a Humvee. You need 6-7 or more to disable/destroy an AMTRAC. With Reactive Armor you need the same for a Tank. APCs can simply move away once you fire the RPG. Disabled just means you're on fire move more slowly, allowing the driver to escape. On top of all this, tanks and APCs can kill much faster, the splash damage and enviroment destruction means you have almost nowhere to hide. One or two RPGs can often be all you can fire before you die. Heat Vision and Radar make this easier for vehicles. The Javelin does nothing to help with this. Without a SOFLAM, it is utter garbage and with it, it is overpowered as heck. You also cant fire it without a lock, making it near useless without a SOFLAM. All this is without counting in an Engineer repairing the vehicle you're trying to kill. How it should be IMO: Damage similar to BF2, 2-3 missiles in the rear will destroy a tank if they hit it spot on (not at a shallow angle). 3-4 for the side and front. Disabled means disabled, can't rotate the turret, can't move, can still shoot (maybe) and be repaired, but slowly and the fire damage builds far quicker, another option would be that there is a chance that you cannot exit a disabled vehicle. Cut down the repair rate, stopping it if the damage taken was too recent, forcing vehicle drivers to retreat if they want to be repaired. A few seconds after getting hit can you start repairing. Add a penalty to multiple engineers repairing the same vehicle. Engineer #2 only adds 50% repair, #3 only 10-20% and 0% after that. Light transports (not Humvee/Vodnik) and aircraft/boats (except large chopper transport) instantly die and explode to any RPG hit at any angle. Humvee/Vodnik instantly disabled and on fire if hit, instantly destroyed if hit from the rear. AT mine instantly destroys any non APC/Tank vehicle that drives over them, rather than just killing a single Humvee occupant. Reactive Armor non-repairable or very slowly, it'll protect you once but once blown off it's gone or close to it. Javelin non-SOFLAM mode to become wire-guided like in BF2, does a little more damage than an RPG, at the cost of splash damage and anti-infantry damage and having to stay aimed to guide it. 2 Javelins in the rear or 3 in the side = instant death to any vehicle, 3 in the front is disabled or destroyed. SOFLAM range and damage would need to be addressed but I cant really say much more about that. And add a ton of transport vehicles. In BF2 you had 3-5 transport vehicles to move players around. Now it's one Humvee or DPV and that's it. | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3714 Posts
| ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On March 07 2012 23:23 DyEnasTy wrote: Damn, I need to get the HD for my xbox so I can get the DLC. My friends and I tried playing last night and I kept getting booted from the squad because I dont have any of the DLC. Can't you just stick to non-B2K maps? While B2K maps are great for the most part, most of the vanilla maps are entertaining too, whether you're a fan of infantry or vehicle combat or both. | ||
|
WakaDoDo
Sweden1183 Posts
| ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On March 08 2012 01:21 WakaDoDo wrote: Battlefield 3 - Raw Close Quarters Gameplay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5GsPaycjy0 If I wanted to play Counterstrike, I'd launch Steam, not Origin. | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On March 08 2012 01:21 WakaDoDo wrote: Battlefield 3 - Raw Close Quarters Gameplay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5GsPaycjy0 This map looks absolutely AWFUL. I dont want to play CoD ffs. I'm extremely disapointed with what they came up with. | ||
|
Jochan
Poland1730 Posts
On March 08 2012 01:50 Roggay wrote: This map looks absolutely AWFUL. I dont want to play CoD ffs. I'm extremely disapointed with what they came up with. Dude take a chill pill, it's a map, not a whole game. And you even don't have to buy it. Game doesn't change, it's still what it is now. That's just a one mode... | ||
|
Seiniyta
Belgium1815 Posts
On March 08 2012 03:55 Jochan wrote: Dude take a chill pill, it's a map, not a whole game. And you even don't have to buy it. Game doesn't change, it's still what it is now. That's just a one mode... Not to mention, didn't BF2 also had a more infantry focussed dlc/expansion/map-pack? | ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
On March 08 2012 01:50 Roggay wrote: This map looks absolutely AWFUL. I dont want to play CoD ffs. I'm extremely disapointed with what they came up with. Uhhh.... so don't play it? Is anybody forcing you to get the DLC? If you get the DLC, will all the Battlelog filters where you can choose which maps you want to play suddenly disappear? Fuck, so many haters on how BF3 is being developed, and they're really starting to piss me off. This isn't supposed to be BF2.5. It is it's own game, and IMO, it's pretty goddamn fun, faults and all. | ||
|
IveReturned
Turkey258 Posts
On March 07 2012 21:17 Shockk wrote: Some of BF3's maps are really awesome. Caspian, Firestorm, Gulf of Oman or Wake Island all are great maps, with room and use for vehicles and infantry, squad play and teamwork. They actually feel like a battlefield. Kharg Island, Karkand and Canals are pretty good as well, though I don't play them as frequently. Kharg,Caspian and Firestorm have the SAME layout. The only map with unique feeling(Vanilla) is Canals. look at BF2 designs, they are perfect compared to these stuff we have. Lack of teamplay tools hurt this game too much On March 08 2012 04:00 Rob28 wrote: Uhhh.... so don't play it? Is anybody forcing you to get the DLC? If you get the DLC, will all the Battlelog filters where you can choose which maps you want to play suddenly disappear? Fuck, so many haters on how BF3 is being developed, and they're really starting to piss me off. This isn't supposed to be BF2.5. It is it's own game, and IMO, it's pretty goddamn fun, faults and all. We are not haters, we are true BF fans. We want a working game with full scale battlefield properties. We dont want extreme casualisation and console port. We only want the working feature oof BF2, not the whole game. CQB is not battlefield. That is CoD. I have stopped playing CoD after CoD4. If I wanted to get CoD, I would buy CoD! Look at the map designs(Vanilla CQ Large), these are small as shit, with vehicles enough for 26 players! now were getting even more CoDified with this DLC! | ||
|
IveReturned
Turkey258 Posts
Let's see what it means. And now, let's see. What did i expect when i ordered this game? DICE: Battlefield 3 will have the largest maps we've ever made DICE: "PC is the lead platform for Battlefield 3" DICE: "True battlefield sequel!" DICE: "Above and beyond the call!" DICE: "Unrivaled Destruction will be featured in BF3" DICE: "This is only a Beta. The graphics and destruction will be on a whole new level when we release the game" DICE: "After we released Bad Company 2, we felt that it wasn't the game that we wanted to create. In fact, we are embarrassed about BC2. We just knew that we could of created a better game" DICE: "alienating our core audience or transforming Battlefield into some generic shooter clone simply will not accomplish that. Have some bloody faith will you?" DICE: "…I’m not ready to directly address your concerns this early, but I’m confident what Battlefield 3 has to offer will provide an innovative and deep Integrated Teamwork experience… It’s going to be a good year to be a hardcore Battlefield fan." DICE: "This is our biggest, deepest, and most varied multiplayer yet." DICE: "E-sports is a focus for BF3" DICE: "Playing with friends has never been easier!" And what did i get? DICE: "Battlefield has evolved" DICE: "We feel that the Frostbite 2 engine will be too complicated for mods" DICE: "Major chunk of the community not interested in too long stretches of transport to battle" DICE: "We’ve met our Battlefield 3 goals!" DICE: "Nailed it" DICE: "At that time, it was." (In response to why they told the community that e-sports was the focus of BF3.) This "true battlefield sequel" is stripped down of features. The features BF2 and all other BF games had as a standard. Where is the VOIP? Where is the real Squad System? Where is the mod tools? Where is the "large maps"? What's with the cluttered UI? Why is the UI made for consoles, on PC? What's with the mini map? Why is this game filled with crutches? Where is the footsteps? And i can go on all day! It's a game made for the sole purpose of hooking the CoD fanbase. I mean, just look at their frontpage... ![[image loading]](http://i39.tinypic.com/lyu85.jpg) After all of this. This 100 million dollar marketing campaign. The hype, the lies, the shady advertising, the ignorance of EA/DICE, everything... You tell us that we're not entitled to anything? You tell us that we can't fight back? You tell us that they made the game, and we should be happy no matter what? It's both fair and reasonable to expect things of this game. And I'll tell you this. Keep your lalalalaing mainstream, brainwashed gamer mind to yourself. I have standards, and i'm fed up with this. Thank you. Edit #1: (Another reason to question our entitlement.) ![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/1eovb9.jpg) Edit #2: (Some more...) [CENTER]Oh, and. For you people that leaves "haters" comments. These are QUOTES FROM DICE. SO HERE YOU GO: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GPMCn.gif) | ||
|
WakaDoDo
Sweden1183 Posts
| ||
|
IveReturned
Turkey258 Posts
On March 08 2012 04:28 WakaDoDo wrote: ..welcome to the video game industry? Since when was this any different with any other game/developer? blizzard? I at least get what I expect And why the fuck are we fighting for somethig that happened older and had nothing but positive effect!?! Ask yourself | ||
|
Skullflower
United States3779 Posts
On March 07 2012 13:06 Torte de Lini wrote: MoH came out in 99. Cod came in the year 2001. oops? CoD came out in '03 | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
Where is the VOIP? dont see the big issue. i hate standart voip cause its full of idiots on public servers and for private communication there is ts/skype/whatever. Where is the real Squad System? explain real squad system please Where is the mod tools? doesnt happen nowadays and what do we really need it for? would be nice sure but meh Where is the "large maps"? whats "large"? as said i dont know how it was in previous ones but i like the size of firestorm/caspian etc. far bigger and we just increase the "boring" times or not? What's with the cluttered UI? whats cluttered about the ui? Why is the UI made for consoles, on PC? as above What's with the mini map? yeah whats with it? Why is this game filled with crutches? what? Where is the footsteps? agree On March 08 2012 04:39 IveReturned wrote: blizzard? I at least get what I expect And why the fuck are we fighting for somethig that happened older and had nothing but positive effect!?! Ask yourself blizzard? many are hugely dissappointed by recent wow expansions and sc2. for similar reasons. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
ByuN vs Clem
MaxPax vs TBD
Serral vs ByuN
GgMaChine vs Bunny
PiGStarcraft277
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games gofns12751 tarik_tv5633 Grubby3089 shahzam1083 ToD235 Liquid`Hasu198 mouzStarbuck177 XaKoH  143Livibee57 |
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
Bonyth vs Ret
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
