Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -

Status
Not open for further replies.
The core of a great battlefield is the maps and they have 100% been dumbed down to cater for the COD crowd, even the so called air maps have all the action clustered in the middle of the map. This was done to cater for consoles and 24 players, 64 players and only 5 caps all clustered together on a big maps is just wrong.

Other gameplay features dumbed down are things like unlimited ammo for all vehicles and aircraft, fire and forget guided missiles on jets and choppers. Health regeneration for infantry and vehicles. Squad management is a joke currently.
 
Not that my opinion is needed but, after spending about 30 hours with the game my conclusion on the NV issue is, the game is just too fast on 32 player or above for the NV to cause serious problems, the guys sitting there looking through there scopes may get one or two kills before getting owned.

And get owned they do, the pace of the game is so great sometimes that you barely have time to re-load your gun (and 50% of the time you do not), playing anything other than recon and just sitting there looking through your scope is going to get you killed very quickly due to the low FOV.

I have not played a round yet where the NV was able to dictate the outcome of the battle, I would sooner have a much useful scope on my gun than the NV, I find anything other than a red dot or a holo too restrictive.

To me the NV does not represent a major "cheat" as such and I would sooner energy was spent trying to tighten up on the players who seem to be racking up silly amounts of head-kills in the armored cars and tanks who for me, are the real problem.

The lack of truly great maps is not a problem at the moment, due to the amount of time the game has been out, it will be a while longer before the first batch of maps become tired.
 
Hi Everyone,

Been hearing a lot on the IRNV scope last few pages and maybe it needs work but for me it’s for different reasons.

To start i honestly don't like it and not because its OP or anything just from an rds point I feel slower to attack my target + on the side of being realistic it don't work as clearly the only map it should work on is "Tehran highway" but yet again it’s not really that dark. The sun on most maps would blind the user.

I think many of us at times are thinking its OP as everyone is using it much like the flavour of the month, but if everyone is using it then you’re going to get killed by it more often and think its OP. In all honesty I don't feel like players using the scope are making me do worse than before, I still place well on most servers and now sitting at rank 49 nearly 50 I often have a pap (i.e. no attachments) weapon on as I like to service star all weapons.

I only used it for the first time last night after 80ish hours and then for about 5mins. I can see why people use it, camping away it does give you an edge but i much prefer a holo or red dot when it goes CQC.

My friend on the last page went on about the US12 + Frag + IRNV and I agree US12 + Frag are fun but I prefer the kobra red dot with that combo.
 
Besty said:
Not that my opinion is needed but, after spending about 30 hours with the game my conclusion on the NV issue is, the game is just too fast on 32 player or above for the NV to cause serious problems, the guys sitting there looking through there scopes may get one or two kills before getting owned.

And get owned they do, the pace of the game is so great sometimes that you barely have time to re-load your gun (and 50% of the time you do not), playing anything other than recon and just sitting there looking through your scope is going to get you killed very quickly due to the low FOV.

I have not played a round yet where the NV was able to dictate the outcome of the battle, I would sooner have a much useful scope on my gun than the NV, I find anything other than a red dot or a holo too restrictive.

To me the NV does not represent a major "cheat" as such and I would sooner energy was spent trying to tighten up on the players who seem to be racking up silly amounts of head-kills in the armored cars and tanks who for me, are the real problem.

The lack of truly great maps is not a problem at the moment, due to the amount of time the game has been out, it will be a while longer before the first batch of maps become tired.
Click to expand...

think we are sharing a thought
 
BOBPegasus said:
People seem to complain about this game more than try to enjoy it.

People are never happy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Give them a carbon copy and they would still find something to complain about, it's in their nature to do so, we all do it from time to time but some more so than others and about trivial matters too. BF2 was full of bunny hoppers, then they fixed it, cheaters/exploiters all over the game, still there :D. I enjoyed BF2 though, it was frantic run and gun fun with a tad of tactics thrown in for good measure, the same as BF3, imho, lol.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
well of course it does, come on you have to be blind to not notice the vast amount of nerfing to the core gameplay mechanics even when compared to BF2.
The game is pure trash, and im grateful Skyrim came out when it did.



have you seen the vids? lol - it wont stop.
Click to expand...

Neo, its clear you dont like the game and you've made your feeling well known. Its getting a bit 'trolly' now tbh.

All i'l say on the matter there is no other current FPS title out atm that comes close to BF3. MW3 is pure **** and anything else is simply old! Its not a trash game, MW3 is a trash game... The game imo has been HUGELY improved from BC2... so i'm happy.

I'm happy with BF3, i'm looking forward to KArkand, our guys are currently getting plenty of ladder matches and win's which says to me the game is heading in the right direction.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
A BF2 remake would have been the better game IMO with better GFX, gun play and hit reg, the maps alone would have made the game so much more fun and tactical than what we currently have. BF3 still has potential they just need to get the game up to 6+ years old BF2 standards in regards squad management, maps that support 64 players better with more caps and better cap spacing that utilize most of the map, commo-rose, in game VOIP, advanced squad leader orders, spectator mode, battlerecorder, in game ping, a more intuitive UI and I would like a better netcode as being killed whist behind cover is really bad.
Click to expand...

I love the game, i think it is much better than BF2 (the glasses in this thread are so rose tinted i cant believe you guys can still see out of them) but i still agree with everything said here
 
Here is a question to the haters. Why are you still playing?

It is making you look foolish. DICE don't owe you anything. You bought the product and don't like it. Deal with it.

Put up or shut up as it is very tiresome reading some of the constant drivel.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
well of course it does, come on you have to be blind to not notice the vast amount of nerfing to the core gameplay mechanics even when compared to BF2.
The game is pure trash, and im grateful Skyrim came out when it did.



have you seen the vids? lol - it wont stop.
Click to expand...

The aiming is console based.
BF3 requries basically no skill.
sure you can use team/squad using teamspeak to work togeheter, but I didnt need that for Bf2.

BF3 is a EA adapted to kids and noobs who cant aim, and the core mechanics just plain suck.
 
Thegoon84 said:
Neo, its clear you dont like the game and you've made your feeling well known. Its getting a bit 'trolly' now tbh.

All i'l say on the matter there is no other current FPS title out atm that comes close to BF3. MW3 is pure **** and anything else is simply old! Its not a trash game, MW3 is a trash game... The game imo has been HUGELY improved from BC2... so i'm happy.

I'm happy with BF3, i'm looking forward to KArkand, our guys are currently getting plenty of ladder matches and win's which says to me the game is heading in the right direction.
Click to expand...


tbh that is why i play bf3 at the moment as ive played cod 4 so many times i just grown bored of it even though to me personally its ten times better than bf3.

mw3 isnt trash but its not as good as cod 4 and thats all that matters really :D

some things like tdm in bf3 and so on are pretty decent fun but its not gunna be a alltime great though like cod 4 or cs and the like .
 
~>Dg<~ said:
tbh that is why i play bf3 at the moment as ive played cod 4 so many times i just grown bored of it even though to me personally its ten times better than bf3.

mw3 isnt trash but its not as good as cod 4 and thats all that matters really :D

some things like tdm in bf3 and so on are pretty decent fun but its not gunna be a alltime great though like cod 4 or cs and the like .
Click to expand...

CoD4 is in no way an 'all time great'. Its quite fun , sure, but there are many many better games than it out there.
 
Everybody slates cod games for being a rehash of old engines and same old game. Why are people calling for dice to do the same?
BF2 when it came out had the same level of hate. Were are the ships?, aa missiles are lame, gun *** comments etc. When bf2 came out it was unstable with memory leaks everywere. Have people forgotten the server crashes that lost you scores and awards? Have people forgotten the god awful in game server browser? Have people forgotten the lack of team work when the game came out, people driving away, leaving people behind?
Why are you people still playing the game if its so bad?

BF3 jets are crap compared to bf2. Lack of commander is a serious omission. The other issues can be patched like the broken squads and comm rose etc.

Is bf3 better than bf2, to early to tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom