I treated it as a demo; I will call it a demo. Problem?
Just because you stick it in her butt does not mean it's a vagina.
if a man hands me a butt and tells me it's a vagina, it doesn't mean it's a vagina
Edit: regardless of whether or not I stick anything in it
Edit2: and what dice handed out was most definitely a butt
Sillyness aside. It was a beta. It was handed out as a beta. It was clearly labeled beta. The content contained within the package we received was very obviously a beta.
You're just being a silly goose for the sake of thinking you're edgy and special. Feel free to continue to think this way, but do note that everyone else in this thread will probably treat you like shit and completely disregard anything you have to say due to you being horrendously wrong. Just because you are capable of forming an opinion doesn't mean that it's correct, informed, or in need of any level of respect.
I will not being going around and around with you on this because this horse has been beaten into a fine paste and frankly I've got better things to do. (No, really, I do. Imma buy Forza 4 in the morning and then head to the ship I was dispatched to).
TOGSolid on
0
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
I treated it as a demo; I will call it a demo. Problem?
Just because you stick it in her butt does not mean it's a vagina.
if a man hands me a butt and tells me it's a vagina, it doesn't mean it's a vagina
Edit: regardless of whether or not I stick anything in it
Edit2: and what dice handed out was most definitely a butt
Sillyness aside. It was a beta. It was handed out as a beta. It was clearly labeled beta. The content contained within the package we received was very obviously a beta.
You're just being a silly goose for the sake of thinking you're edgy and special. Feel free to continue to think this way, but do note that everyone else in this thread will probably treat you like shit and completely disregard anything you have to say due to you being horrendously wrong. Just because you are capable of forming an opinion doesn't mean that it's correct, informed, or in need of any level of respect.
I will not being going around and around with you on this because this horse has been beaten into a fine paste and frankly I've got better things to do. (No, really, I do. Imma buy Forza 4 in the morning and then head to the ship I was dispatched to).
no but it's cool that you have to resort to the threat of ridicule from my peers in order to get your point across
I like increased survivability. The only thing I saw increased lethality add to the gameplay was a bigger number of bushpeople. The gameplay boiled down to "ambush them or you get ambushed and die", which was not a lot of fun in a game where it can be so difficult to see anyone before you are already dead. I personally like firefights that last more than 1 second and I like playing a medic that does not immediately die as they try to run to a downed opponent. I like that I'll have a chance of surviving a camped corner if I turn back fast enough instead of dying immediately. I also like that guns with less stopping power might actually differentiate themselves to guns with more stopping power.
I do not like the looming threat of instant, unavoidable death if a camper I can't even hope to see spots me. It's not Battlefield to me at all.
Hardcore mode is for those of you who want to kill in 1-2 bullets.<3
Lethality more like BC2 sounds good to me. Gives everyone who doesn't have skillz but still loves Battlefield a bit more room for error. It's fair, and I think for most people it will be more fun. It's not a big difference, and it's certainly not game-breaking.
This actually makes it worse for everyone except the very best. However many hits it takes to kill someone is also how many times you need to shoot accurately in order to do it, which seems obvious, but really means that if it takes 6 shots to kill someone instead of 3 then you can no longer kill someone with one good 3rd burst. It means that at long range you're only going to get kills if you are very accurate, since by the time you've hit someone with 5 shots you'll have given them the chance to find cover and heal - or just turn around and shoot you back. If you reduce the number of hits it takes to kill, then it tends to equalize things because the really good players can't take advantage of their biggest strength - the ability to hit things - to nearly the same effect, since they tend to be dead by the time they know they're getting shot. Increasing the number of hits required provides the opposite effect. Obviously there are more considerations than just this when it comes to balancing things for new players vs experienced ones but this is a major thing.
0
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
Seriously, trying to shoot people at long range will now probably be completely useless again cause he just goes "lololol gonna sprint to cover lololol" after me shooting him like 5 times.
BC2 lethality is balls. It makes it so that any tardypants can run right through fields of fire with little to worry about as long as they're not running headlong into the bullets and even then sometimes that still works. It's hard to, yanno, suppress an area when your targets can very calmly pop their heads up and dump fire into your MG Nest. Map tactics go from proper firing angles and tactical advances into LOL ZERG RUSH.
They're not doing full on BC2 lethality though, so we'll see how that goes.
no but it's cool that you have to resort to the threat of ridicule from my peers in order to get your point across
swell
When dealing with someone trying to either troll the thread or who is just being a contrarian just for the sake of it, yea, it's appropriate. Feel free to act like a wounded puppy just for sympathy points though.
It's not like people were bullet sponges in BC2. They could take like 5-6 bullets and it took barely a second to shoot those bullets at people. Less if you hit them in the head. One second of survivability is not a lot. I certainly had no issues murdering people in the open like some of you are claiming
The problem in BC2, especially early on, was that sometimes bullets didn't register at all which was because of shitty hit detection
There is a balance to look for, if the weapon damage is too low it will actually be detrimental for the the game, without any need for cover or tactics in general, if it is too high any kind of movement will result in death and players will just camp.
A low damage model doesn't really reward the best. It may reward the most accurate but it removes pretty much all the risk and tactics of the game.
It also slows down the pace of the game by a good amount.
BC2 damage level was way too weak for me, if they indeed toned it back that much, i have been fooled into pre-ordering a game i will not like at all.
EDIT: i would also like to point out that having head shots do that much damage then normal shots in no way rewards the most accurate as well. Basic hit reg issues in online gaming and the fact that most people can easily hit head shots will make dumb luck an even bigger factor. There is a balance here as well. Maybe a small multiplier, not 2 shots head/5 body.
The internet isn't perfect and having systems that quickly fail due to such things only create frustration and not fun.
It's not like people were bullet sponges in BC2. They could take like 5-6 bullets and it took barely a second to shoot those bullets at people. Less if you hit them in the head. One second of survivability is not a lot. I certainly had no issues murdering people in the open like some of you are claiming
The problem in BC2, especially early on, was that sometimes bullets didn't register at all which was because of shitty hit detection
It's not that I don't have problems shooting mans, it's that I'm aware of the low lethality and am able to quite calmly walk through shit I really should be able to walk through since I know at what points I can abuse it and where. Basically a good player can make shooting mans a problem for everyone else.
There is a balance to look for, if the weapon damage is too low it will actually be detrimental for the the game, without any need for cover or tactics in general, if it is too high any kind of movement will result in death and players will just camp.
A low damage model doesn't really reward the best. It may reward the most accurate but it removes pretty much all the risk and tactics of the game.
It also slows down the pace of the game by a good amount.
BC2 damage level was way too weak for me, if they indeed toned it back that much, i have been fooled into pre-ordering a game i will not like at all.
BC2, as far as damage goes, felt more like earlier BF games to me. BF3 is just something else entirely. It is literally the hardcore mode from BC2 but with spotting. That shit was called Hardcore for a reason and was a separate mode for a reason.
I enjoyed the BF3 beta a lot but most of my frustration in the game came from getting killed so fast I could not react to the situation. So most of my time was either getting lucky and successfully not getting spotted by a camper as I tried to advance or getting spotted by a camper and if he was anything but completely awful I was already dead. I had the most success on Caspian by hiding in 'hard to see areas' (all areas) near focal points and sniping people with any gun and I was never, ever killed in such a situation because 95% of the time they couldn't see me let alone fire back at me. Only when I moved forward would I die so to me the current lethality only promotes a slower gameplay with more campers, snipers and bushpeople.
Zzulu on
0
0Replace4DisplaceThe best girls are ships and guns.Registered Userregular
edited October 2011
Campers don't exist in Battlefield. I'm sorry. There are defenders, there are attackers, and there are players who bring down their team by having a sick ratio of three kills to zero deaths after 30 minutes. I'm sure you're referencing the third archetype.
The lethality was great. If you got out in the open, you died. If you got flanked, you died. If you made a retarded decision and got fucked over, you died. If you went up against a tank by yourself, you died. These are all good things. In BC2, I could charge up to an Abrams, soak 5-6 rounds from the M2, throw two C4 onto it, detonate it from 3 feet away, and walk away with probably about 20% of my health left.
Never once, the sprint bug aside, did I say to myself in the beta, "Goddamnit, if only it took twice as many rounds to kill as it does now. Then I would be having a grand old time."
I just remembered that there was some talk during the E3 blitz that being suppressed would turn off your health regen. Anyone know if that's actually a thing?
The BF3 beta was not a good experience shooter wise. Evaluating damage levels without a bug free environment will lead to poor decisions.
I too has those issues, sometimes i could hear the weapon of the other player firing, but no shots registering in my screen. I knew i was dead long before the game told me. Not to mention all those times i died behind full cover.
I find it strange such a huge departure from the beta damage levels to BC2 damage levels, i guess we will see for ourselves at release.
My memory of earlier BF games was that they were far more lethal then BC2, i don't understand why they made it as such tbh.
@Lord Yod Not sure, didn't tested it, but its quite possible. However the suppression system is deeply flawed, since its possible for a sniper to peek and head shot you under a barrage of LMG fire.
shelak on
0
0Replace4DisplaceThe best girls are ships and guns.Registered Userregular
I just remembered that there was some talk during the E3 blitz that being suppressed would turn off your health regen. Anyone know if that's actually a thing?
That's been a thing since the alpha. Unless you've got a health kit at your feet, anyways.
"Barrage of LMG fire" is not the correct way to suppress somebody. You actually have to aim and hit near them. Four to five round bursts are the way to go, and they can help you not be such a big target for the guy with the bolt-action. It makes me sad when I see Supports derping 200 rounds toward a rock and not hitting jack shit.
0Replace4Displace on
0
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
BC2 lethality is balls. It makes it so that any tardypants can run right through fields of fire with little to worry about as long as they're not running headlong into the bullets and even then sometimes that still works. It's hard to, yanno, suppress an area when your targets can very calmly pop their heads up and dump fire into your MG Nest. Map tactics go from proper firing angles and tactical advances into LOL ZERG RUSH.
They're not doing full on BC2 lethality though, so we'll see how that goes.
no but it's cool that you have to resort to the threat of ridicule from my peers in order to get your point across
swell
When dealing with someone trying to either troll the thread or who is just being a contrarian just for the sake of it, yea, it's appropriate. Feel free to act like a wounded puppy just for sympathy points though.
maybe I learned how to be contrarian for contrariness's sake from you in the tablet thread (waaaaah itunes is bad waaaaah, etc.) a while back. I thought I remembered a smug contrarian sailor, turns out it was you!
Stones, glass houses, shouldn't be throwing. Doesn't change the fact, however, that the demo as it was presented was shit and really only hurt DICE in the one market they seem to care about: the console market.
In a nutshell, fanboys gonna fanboy, haters gonna hate, but those on the fence and the "wait and see" crowd are probably all looking for another shooter to fill the void BF3 will leave until DICE deem their customers worthy of a working product. Plenty of evidence of that in this very thread, actually.
also yeah you can't really camp if you're defending, not in the "oh god you're useless" sense
or rather, if someone as non-retarded as zzulu dies to said "campers", they're absolutely not campers. I never felt like I died to a camper, because I was always trying to get a charge set.
They're campers, because they take up position in obscure areas and use the position to get the jump on people. This is fine, but it's not fun in a high lethality game for me because it gives them such a ridiculous advantage and it's nothing at all like earlier Battlefield games where you actually had a chance to react to campers instead of just bending over and accepting your fate
I just remembered that there was some talk during the E3 blitz that being suppressed would turn off your health regen. Anyone know if that's actually a thing?
That's been a thing since the alpha. Unless you've got a health kit at your feet, anyways.
"Barrage of LMG fire" is not the correct way to suppress somebody. You actually have to aim and hit near them. Four to five round bursts are the way to go, and they can help you not be such a big target for the guy with the bolt-action. It makes me sad when I see Supports derping 200 rounds toward a rock and not hitting jack shit.
Never been on the receiving end of more than about half a second of suppressing fire so I never knew.
0
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
They're campers, because they take up position in obscure areas and use the position to get the jump on people. This is fine, but it's not fun in a high lethality game for me because it gives them such a ridiculous advantage and it's nothing at all like earlier battlefield games where you actually had a chance to react to campers instead of just bending over and accepting your fate
You were also playing against clueless newbies in almost all BF3 beta games, when people actually learn to aim and have all the tools they want the lethality will only get worse and worse. I often played against competent people and if we were evenly matched the game ground to a halt because no one could advance
This is where map design and player adaptability comes into play. Things like the MAVs, mortars, smoke grenades, etc all change the competitive landscape and you need to switch it up against a good opposing team. This won't do shit for you on a bad map however.
0
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
They're campers, because they take up position in obscure areas and use the position to get the jump on people. This is fine, but it's not fun in a high lethality game for me because it gives them such a ridiculous advantage and it's nothing at all like earlier battlefield games where you actually had a chance to react to campers instead of just bending over and accepting your fate
You were also playing against clueless newbies in almost all BF3 beta games, when people actually learn to aim and have all the tools they want the lethality will only get worse and worse. I often played against competent people and if we were evenly matched the game ground to a halt because no one could advance
yeah but knowing you and the way you play (i.e. you're p good bro), any person who kills you is a successful defender, not a camper. you were probably on your way to a) blow something important up or b) kill everything from behind, both of which are very good things to do as an attacker sooooooo
Edit: klyka i have no idea what you're trying to imply
are you calling me black
Edit2: oh
demoman
I approve
Senshi on
0
Dr_KeenbeanDumb as a buttPlanet Express ShipRegistered Userregular
They're campers, because they take up position in obscure areas and use the position to get the jump on people. This is fine, but it's not fun in a high lethality game for me because it gives them such a ridiculous advantage and it's nothing at all like earlier battlefield games where you actually had a chance to react to campers instead of just bending over and accepting your fate
You were also playing against clueless newbies in almost all BF3 beta games, when people actually learn to aim and have all the tools they want the lethality will only get worse and worse. I often played against competent people and if we were evenly matched the game ground to a halt because no one could advance
I got into a game on Metro a few nights ago where I would literally spawn in (on attack) and die. If I mashed Z as I was clicking DEPLOY there was a slight chance I would begin the prone animation efore dying. There was 1 motherfucker just crouching and looking at the spawns and covering them in LMG fire.
They're campers, because they take up position in obscure areas and use the position to get the jump on people. This is fine, but it's not fun in a high lethality game for me because it gives them such a ridiculous advantage and it's nothing at all like earlier battlefield games where you actually had a chance to react to campers instead of just bending over and accepting your fate
You were also playing against clueless newbies in almost all BF3 beta games, when people actually learn to aim and have all the tools they want the lethality will only get worse and worse. I often played against competent people and if we were evenly matched the game ground to a halt because no one could advance
I got into a game on Metro a few nights ago where I would literally spawn in (on attack) and die. If I mashed Z as I was clicking DEPLOY there was a slight chance I would begin the prone animation efore dying. There was 1 motherfucker just crouching and looking at the spawns and covering them in LMG fire.
That should never happen in any game. Ever.
It's commonly occurring in DICE games
My favorite example is Isla Innocentes in BC2, where two snipers could keep an entire attacking team completely locked down while nowhere near their spawn, but the map was devised in such a way where the shots were clear and above all incredibly easy. Get in a chopper? WHO CARES, YOU'RE DEAD. Get in a boat? WHO CARES, YOU'RE DEAD. Just spawned? 60MM MORTAR ON YOUR HEAD.
I used "barrage" as an hyperbole, like you stated suppression itself only works if your target is stuck between your bullets and a low wall/floor and you only need a few bullets. However, if they are behind a large obstacle they can get far away enough from the bullets to prevent suppression and in that case, he has enough room to peek and kill you before you can suppress anything.
I would also like to add that the PDW's general hip accuracy was completely broken, they should require ADS to hit anything like everyone else. Half the time people got instantly killed by the ump was due to it being hip fired with lazer.
Rush is just a horrible game mode in general. They still haven't fixed the fact then when you take a base the enemy can stay in your spawn and bleed your tickets, or the really cramped MCOM rooms, or the lack of flanking options. I hope conquest is better, and not Domina- I mean three flags all over again.
It's still surprising to me that gameplay and design wise, 1943 is still one of the better console battlefield games. I play Battlefield to have options, not to be forced down the one road of death. Also, the bullet damage was almost perfect, but perhaps that was due to the fact all the guns were the same and there wasn't a crappy unlocking system....
0
mojojoeoA block off the park, living the dream.Registered Userregular
The game goes dark for 48 hours and the thread devolves into mush.
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
The game looks like it was designed with less lethality in mind. I mean look at shotguns. Buckshot/Flechette vs slugs. They all kill just as well at close range except slugs also travel to longer ranges where it deals the same damage as up close because people die so easily. The high lethality just makes buckshot pointless
They're campers, because they take up position in obscure areas and use the position to get the jump on people. This is fine, but it's not fun in a high lethality game for me because it gives them such a ridiculous advantage and it's nothing at all like earlier battlefield games where you actually had a chance to react to campers instead of just bending over and accepting your fate
You were also playing against clueless newbies in almost all BF3 beta games, when people actually learn to aim and have all the tools they want the lethality will only get worse and worse. I often played against competent people and if we were evenly matched the game ground to a halt because no one could advance
I got into a game on Metro a few nights ago where I would literally spawn in (on attack) and die. If I mashed Z as I was clicking DEPLOY there was a slight chance I would begin the prone animation efore dying. There was 1 motherfucker just crouching and looking at the spawns and covering them in LMG fire.
That should never happen in any game. Ever.
It's commonly occurring in DICE games
My favorite example is Isla Innocentes in BC2, where two snipers could keep an entire attacking team completely locked down while nowhere near their spawn, but the map was devised in such a way where the shots were clear and above all incredibly easy. Get in a chopper? WHO CARES, YOU'RE DEAD. Get in a boat? WHO CARES, YOU'RE DEAD. Just spawned? 60MM MORTAR ON YOUR HEAD.
stay classy, dice
The first time i saw the last stage of metro i was in awe, then i deployed my PKP on a window and proceeded to spawn kill everyone while weeping inside. It's like they want us to spawn kill.
Are these maps a small non changed variation of their 64 man counterparts like it was in BF2 and older games ? Or are they changed to account for the lesser amount of players and size ?
shelak on
0
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
The game looks like it was designed with less lethality in mind. I mean look at shotguns. Buckshot/Flechette vs slugs. They all kill just as well at close range except slugs also travel to longer ranges where it deals the same damage as up close because people die so easily. The high lethality just makes buckshot pointless
From a pure point-counting perspective, however, buck has a higher point ceiling. Suppression with buck is almost a given, and the points you get from kill assists can get pretty high. 100 points per kill, maybe with a 10 point bonus. Suppression is 50 points and then you'll probably have clipped them a few times, and you may or may not have done 50 or more damage. Food for thought. I mean, I'll always use slugs just for their massive rage-inducing potential, but buck is certainly far from useless.
Flechettes are meh, although the amount of times I shot someone through the plywood at the third point's Bravo MCOM thanks to someone's spotting makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. That's like, the only place, though.
Are these maps a small non changed variation of their 64 man counterparts like it was in BF2 and older games ? Or are they changed to account for the lesser amount of players and size ?
I'm pretty sure it's like BC2 where the maps have different areas open depending on the game mode.
The first time i saw the last stage of metro i was in awe, then i deployed my PKP on a window and proceeded to spawn kill everyone while weeping inside. It's like they want us to spawn kill
They do want you to do it. Look at the positioning of B: the map is designed for the offense to push the other team back enough to arm B. This means into their own spawn.
Spawn killing/camping is the wrong word for what you are describing (the negative connotation at least). theres base rape, griefing and spawn camping- but then theres losing badly and getting pushed back into your spawn.
mojojoeo on
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
Campers don't exist in Battlefield. I'm sorry. There are defenders, there are attackers, and there are players who bring down their team by having a sick ratio of three kills to zero deaths after 30 minutes. I'm sure you're referencing the third archetype.
A Rush map in BF3 can be heaven for spawn campers. A squad of 3-4 good bros can rush to the original spawn point, lay down in bushes, and cover the relatively few number of spawn points. This happened more and more frequently as the beta went on. There's nothing you can do to stop it due to the higher lethality (see below). Any conquest map that has a linear series of objectives (like the BC2 map with the beached tanker in the middle) is a haven for sniper campers. You've only got 1 direction to go and there's tons of open cover to get there.
The simple fact is that BF3, compared to BC2, caters to newbs, spawn campers, and sniper campers. The high lethality means any newb can spray and pray and land 3 hits, compared to the "dance of death" in BC2 that required 5-6 hits, a headshot, or a lucky shotty magnum slug. High lethality + prone + a huge amount of visuals and cover on screen makes any Rush map and even many Conquest maps vulnerable to a good squad hiding in bush rows and covering the spawn points. Finally, that same equation as above means that snipers covering a spawn or covering an open tract in a linear progression Conquest map have a much easier farming their bullshit kills.
I realize that most of the players left in this thread are the type that are going to Day 1 purchase this game and have no interest in discussing the balance of the BF and BC brand as a whole - but for those of us who have played competitively since 1942, there are some serious problems with this game's design decisions, balance, and mechanics.
0
mojojoeoA block off the park, living the dream.Registered Userregular
edited October 2011
I read a pretty intelligent post somewheres that stated the lethality isn't higher in retail- the lag is lower. So instead of insta dying you actually have reaction time on being hit.
I.e. since hit detection was client side and lag to server (even with low ping to the server) was pushing 400ms-1000ms you died immediately (sometimes behind cover) because the other guy hit you all 3-5 times before your screen registered it. If the netcode is tighter being dead in cover goes away, and it will seem like you take more damage solely based on this.
mojojoeo on
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
A Rush map in BF3 can be heaven for spawn campers. A squad of 3-4 good bros can rush to the original spawn point, lay down in bushes, and cover the relatively few number of spawn points. This happened more and more frequently as the beta went on. There's nothing you can do to stop it due to the higher lethality (see below). Any conquest map that has a linear series of objectives (like the BC2 map with the beached tanker in the middle) is a haven for sniper campers. You've only got 1 direction to go and there's tons of open cover to get there.
The simple fact is that BF3, compared to BC2, caters to newbs, spawn campers, and sniper campers. The high lethality means any newb can spray and pray and land 3 hits, compared to the "dance of death" in BC2 that required 5-6 hits, a headshot, or a lucky shotty magnum slug. High lethality + prone + a huge amount of visuals and cover on screen makes any Rush map and even many Conquest maps vulnerable to a good squad hiding in bush rows and covering the spawn points. Finally, that same equation as above means that snipers covering a spawn or covering an open tract in a linear progression Conquest map have a much easier farming their bullshit kills.
Not quite sure what you're saying here. BC2 had plenty of spawn camping and plenty of snipers sitting on hills, depending on the map. And Atacama Desert was a map with rather fewer snipers than usual, in my experience, probably because of the terrible visibility. I don't see how higher lethality makes sniping and spawn camping more viable. Bolt action snipers are weaker than in BC2, besides, and spawn camping is really only a fault with map design or a huge team imbalance. And I'm pretty sure there aren't any automatics that kill in 3 hits, except perhaps the LMGs. And you really cannot spray them.
The first time i saw the last stage of metro i was in awe, then i deployed my PKP on a window and proceeded to spawn kill everyone while weeping inside. It's like they want us to spawn kill
They do want you to do it. Look at the positioning of B: the map is designed for the offense to push the other team back enough to arm B. This means into their own spawn.
Spawn killing/camping is the wrong word for what you are describing (the negative connotation at least). theres base rape, griefing and spawn camping- but then theres losing badly and getting pushed back into your spawn.
True, but this is the last point, they could have added a more covered spawn that still allowed the team to get pushed back without the massacre. The other points i understand, since they want to keep the map tight and allow the attackers to push but on the last point ? You just get murdered as soon as you spawn.
On a side note, i would like to play this game with solid bushes to players. I think it could overall be a better experience. You could still hide behind it, just not on it.
EDIT: Actually on the other points the defending team does have some cover on the spawn point.
shelak on
0
mojojoeoA block off the park, living the dream.Registered Userregular
The first time i saw the last stage of metro i was in awe, then i deployed my PKP on a window and proceeded to spawn kill everyone while weeping inside. It's like they want us to spawn kill
They do want you to do it. Look at the positioning of B: the map is designed for the offense to push the other team back enough to arm B. This means into their own spawn.
Spawn killing/camping is the wrong word for what you are describing (the negative connotation at least). theres base rape, griefing and spawn camping- but then theres losing badly and getting pushed back into your spawn.
True, but this is the last point, they could have added a more covered spawn that still allowed the team to get pushed back without the massacre. The other points i understand, since they want to keep the map tight and allow the attackers to push but on the last point ? You just get murdered as soon as you spawn.
On a side note, i would like to play this game with solid bushes to players. I think it could overall be a better experience. You could still hide behind it, just not on it.
I like the logic but to counter I will use your words against you- THIS IS THE LAST POINT. there are 7 prior. You failed 7 times to get to here. If you get pushed back at this last point all the way into the spawn you earned it in this case. I feel like they kinda want it to be very hard on the defenders on this very last point. Its so very hard to even SEE stage 4 of metro sometimes. Theres point of no return in the map where if the attackers take the buildings in the middle and you have no mobile spawns- your are in the worst possible spot.
A happy medium would be placing the damn spawns in what little cover there is vs spawning 5 feet from cover or just forcing all the spawns to occur in the building so you can try and mount a push back out.
I would love to test solid bushes. Theres enough of a gap to crawl between bushes and walls... but make guys have to bound over them. Would be interesting to see how it plays that way.
mojojoeo on
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
Posts
You're just being a silly goose for the sake of thinking you're edgy and special. Feel free to continue to think this way, but do note that everyone else in this thread will probably treat you like shit and completely disregard anything you have to say due to you being horrendously wrong. Just because you are capable of forming an opinion doesn't mean that it's correct, informed, or in need of any level of respect.
I will not being going around and around with you on this because this horse has been beaten into a fine paste and frankly I've got better things to do. (No, really, I do. Imma buy Forza 4 in the morning and then head to the ship I was dispatched to).
no but it's cool that you have to resort to the threat of ridicule from my peers in order to get your point across
swell
I do not like the looming threat of instant, unavoidable death if a camper I can't even hope to see spots me. It's not Battlefield to me at all.
Hardcore mode is for those of you who want to kill in 1-2 bullets.<3
This actually makes it worse for everyone except the very best. However many hits it takes to kill someone is also how many times you need to shoot accurately in order to do it, which seems obvious, but really means that if it takes 6 shots to kill someone instead of 3 then you can no longer kill someone with one good 3rd burst. It means that at long range you're only going to get kills if you are very accurate, since by the time you've hit someone with 5 shots you'll have given them the chance to find cover and heal - or just turn around and shoot you back. If you reduce the number of hits it takes to kill, then it tends to equalize things because the really good players can't take advantage of their biggest strength - the ability to hit things - to nearly the same effect, since they tend to be dead by the time they know they're getting shot. Increasing the number of hits required provides the opposite effect. Obviously there are more considerations than just this when it comes to balancing things for new players vs experienced ones but this is a major thing.
They're not doing full on BC2 lethality though, so we'll see how that goes.
When dealing with someone trying to either troll the thread or who is just being a contrarian just for the sake of it, yea, it's appropriate. Feel free to act like a wounded puppy just for sympathy points though.
The problem in BC2, especially early on, was that sometimes bullets didn't register at all which was because of shitty hit detection
There is a balance to look for, if the weapon damage is too low it will actually be detrimental for the the game, without any need for cover or tactics in general, if it is too high any kind of movement will result in death and players will just camp.
A low damage model doesn't really reward the best. It may reward the most accurate but it removes pretty much all the risk and tactics of the game.
It also slows down the pace of the game by a good amount.
BC2 damage level was way too weak for me, if they indeed toned it back that much, i have been fooled into pre-ordering a game i will not like at all.
EDIT: i would also like to point out that having head shots do that much damage then normal shots in no way rewards the most accurate as well. Basic hit reg issues in online gaming and the fact that most people can easily hit head shots will make dumb luck an even bigger factor. There is a balance here as well. Maybe a small multiplier, not 2 shots head/5 body.
The internet isn't perfect and having systems that quickly fail due to such things only create frustration and not fun.
BC2, as far as damage goes, felt more like earlier BF games to me. BF3 is just something else entirely. It is literally the hardcore mode from BC2 but with spotting. That shit was called Hardcore for a reason and was a separate mode for a reason.
I enjoyed the BF3 beta a lot but most of my frustration in the game came from getting killed so fast I could not react to the situation. So most of my time was either getting lucky and successfully not getting spotted by a camper as I tried to advance or getting spotted by a camper and if he was anything but completely awful I was already dead. I had the most success on Caspian by hiding in 'hard to see areas' (all areas) near focal points and sniping people with any gun and I was never, ever killed in such a situation because 95% of the time they couldn't see me let alone fire back at me. Only when I moved forward would I die so to me the current lethality only promotes a slower gameplay with more campers, snipers and bushpeople.
The lethality was great. If you got out in the open, you died. If you got flanked, you died. If you made a retarded decision and got fucked over, you died. If you went up against a tank by yourself, you died. These are all good things. In BC2, I could charge up to an Abrams, soak 5-6 rounds from the M2, throw two C4 onto it, detonate it from 3 feet away, and walk away with probably about 20% of my health left.
Never once, the sprint bug aside, did I say to myself in the beta, "Goddamnit, if only it took twice as many rounds to kill as it does now. Then I would be having a grand old time."
I too has those issues, sometimes i could hear the weapon of the other player firing, but no shots registering in my screen. I knew i was dead long before the game told me. Not to mention all those times i died behind full cover.
I find it strange such a huge departure from the beta damage levels to BC2 damage levels, i guess we will see for ourselves at release.
My memory of earlier BF games was that they were far more lethal then BC2, i don't understand why they made it as such tbh.
@Lord Yod Not sure, didn't tested it, but its quite possible. However the suppression system is deeply flawed, since its possible for a sniper to peek and head shot you under a barrage of LMG fire.
That's been a thing since the alpha. Unless you've got a health kit at your feet, anyways.
"Barrage of LMG fire" is not the correct way to suppress somebody. You actually have to aim and hit near them. Four to five round bursts are the way to go, and they can help you not be such a big target for the guy with the bolt-action. It makes me sad when I see Supports derping 200 rounds toward a rock and not hitting jack shit.
maybe I learned how to be contrarian for contrariness's sake from you in the tablet thread (waaaaah itunes is bad waaaaah, etc.) a while back. I thought I remembered a smug contrarian sailor, turns out it was you!
Stones, glass houses, shouldn't be throwing. Doesn't change the fact, however, that the demo as it was presented was shit and really only hurt DICE in the one market they seem to care about: the console market.
In a nutshell, fanboys gonna fanboy, haters gonna hate, but those on the fence and the "wait and see" crowd are probably all looking for another shooter to fill the void BF3 will leave until DICE deem their customers worthy of a working product. Plenty of evidence of that in this very thread, actually.
also yeah you can't really camp if you're defending, not in the "oh god you're useless" sense
or rather, if someone as non-retarded as zzulu dies to said "campers", they're absolutely not campers. I never felt like I died to a camper, because I was always trying to get a charge set.
Never been on the receiving end of more than about half a second of suppressing fire so I never knew.
This is where map design and player adaptability comes into play. Things like the MAVs, mortars, smoke grenades, etc all change the competitive landscape and you need to switch it up against a good opposing team. This won't do shit for you on a bad map however.
yeah but knowing you and the way you play (i.e. you're p good bro), any person who kills you is a successful defender, not a camper. you were probably on your way to a) blow something important up or b) kill everything from behind, both of which are very good things to do as an attacker sooooooo
Edit: klyka i have no idea what you're trying to imply
are you calling me black
Edit2: oh
demoman
I approve
I got into a game on Metro a few nights ago where I would literally spawn in (on attack) and die. If I mashed Z as I was clicking DEPLOY there was a slight chance I would begin the prone animation efore dying. There was 1 motherfucker just crouching and looking at the spawns and covering them in LMG fire.
That should never happen in any game. Ever.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
It's commonly occurring in DICE games
My favorite example is Isla Innocentes in BC2, where two snipers could keep an entire attacking team completely locked down while nowhere near their spawn, but the map was devised in such a way where the shots were clear and above all incredibly easy. Get in a chopper? WHO CARES, YOU'RE DEAD. Get in a boat? WHO CARES, YOU'RE DEAD. Just spawned? 60MM MORTAR ON YOUR HEAD.
stay classy, dice
I would also like to add that the PDW's general hip accuracy was completely broken, they should require ADS to hit anything like everyone else. Half the time people got instantly killed by the ump was due to it being hip fired with lazer.
It's still surprising to me that gameplay and design wise, 1943 is still one of the better console battlefield games. I play Battlefield to have options, not to be forced down the one road of death. Also, the bullet damage was almost perfect, but perhaps that was due to the fact all the guns were the same and there wasn't a crappy unlocking system....
The game looks like it was designed with less lethality in mind. I mean look at shotguns. Buckshot/Flechette vs slugs. They all kill just as well at close range except slugs also travel to longer ranges where it deals the same damage as up close because people die so easily. The high lethality just makes buckshot pointless
The first time i saw the last stage of metro i was in awe, then i deployed my PKP on a window and proceeded to spawn kill everyone while weeping inside. It's like they want us to spawn kill.
Are these maps a small non changed variation of their 64 man counterparts like it was in BF2 and older games ? Or are they changed to account for the lesser amount of players and size ?
From a pure point-counting perspective, however, buck has a higher point ceiling. Suppression with buck is almost a given, and the points you get from kill assists can get pretty high. 100 points per kill, maybe with a 10 point bonus. Suppression is 50 points and then you'll probably have clipped them a few times, and you may or may not have done 50 or more damage. Food for thought. I mean, I'll always use slugs just for their massive rage-inducing potential, but buck is certainly far from useless.
Flechettes are meh, although the amount of times I shot someone through the plywood at the third point's Bravo MCOM thanks to someone's spotting makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. That's like, the only place, though.
I'm pretty sure it's like BC2 where the maps have different areas open depending on the game mode.
They do want you to do it. Look at the positioning of B: the map is designed for the offense to push the other team back enough to arm B. This means into their own spawn.
Spawn killing/camping is the wrong word for what you are describing (the negative connotation at least). theres base rape, griefing and spawn camping- but then theres losing badly and getting pushed back into your spawn.
A Rush map in BF3 can be heaven for spawn campers. A squad of 3-4 good bros can rush to the original spawn point, lay down in bushes, and cover the relatively few number of spawn points. This happened more and more frequently as the beta went on. There's nothing you can do to stop it due to the higher lethality (see below). Any conquest map that has a linear series of objectives (like the BC2 map with the beached tanker in the middle) is a haven for sniper campers. You've only got 1 direction to go and there's tons of open cover to get there.
The simple fact is that BF3, compared to BC2, caters to newbs, spawn campers, and sniper campers. The high lethality means any newb can spray and pray and land 3 hits, compared to the "dance of death" in BC2 that required 5-6 hits, a headshot, or a lucky shotty magnum slug. High lethality + prone + a huge amount of visuals and cover on screen makes any Rush map and even many Conquest maps vulnerable to a good squad hiding in bush rows and covering the spawn points. Finally, that same equation as above means that snipers covering a spawn or covering an open tract in a linear progression Conquest map have a much easier farming their bullshit kills.
I realize that most of the players left in this thread are the type that are going to Day 1 purchase this game and have no interest in discussing the balance of the BF and BC brand as a whole - but for those of us who have played competitively since 1942, there are some serious problems with this game's design decisions, balance, and mechanics.
I.e. since hit detection was client side and lag to server (even with low ping to the server) was pushing 400ms-1000ms you died immediately (sometimes behind cover) because the other guy hit you all 3-5 times before your screen registered it. If the netcode is tighter being dead in cover goes away, and it will seem like you take more damage solely based on this.
Not quite sure what you're saying here. BC2 had plenty of spawn camping and plenty of snipers sitting on hills, depending on the map. And Atacama Desert was a map with rather fewer snipers than usual, in my experience, probably because of the terrible visibility. I don't see how higher lethality makes sniping and spawn camping more viable. Bolt action snipers are weaker than in BC2, besides, and spawn camping is really only a fault with map design or a huge team imbalance. And I'm pretty sure there aren't any automatics that kill in 3 hits, except perhaps the LMGs. And you really cannot spray them.
True, but this is the last point, they could have added a more covered spawn that still allowed the team to get pushed back without the massacre. The other points i understand, since they want to keep the map tight and allow the attackers to push but on the last point ? You just get murdered as soon as you spawn.
On a side note, i would like to play this game with solid bushes to players. I think it could overall be a better experience. You could still hide behind it, just not on it.
EDIT: Actually on the other points the defending team does have some cover on the spawn point.
I like the logic but to counter I will use your words against you- THIS IS THE LAST POINT. there are 7 prior. You failed 7 times to get to here. If you get pushed back at this last point all the way into the spawn you earned it in this case. I feel like they kinda want it to be very hard on the defenders on this very last point. Its so very hard to even SEE stage 4 of metro sometimes. Theres point of no return in the map where if the attackers take the buildings in the middle and you have no mobile spawns- your are in the worst possible spot.
A happy medium would be placing the damn spawns in what little cover there is vs spawning 5 feet from cover or just forcing all the spawns to occur in the building so you can try and mount a push back out.
I would love to test solid bushes. Theres enough of a gap to crawl between bushes and walls... but make guys have to bound over them. Would be interesting to see how it plays that way.