Battlefield 3 getting nerfed

badcompany · 14 Jul 2011 at 16:08

HHs said:
I understand that, But it turns into people just randomly shoot rockets and tubes at buildings and get kills, Thus taking away the tactics of cover.

Also having planes and helicopters with that level of destruction would make playing infantry pretty frustrating to say the least.

Infantry only servers in bf2 were my fav and I reckon they will be in bc3 if I bother to get it

badcompany · 14 Jul 2011 at 16:09

badcompany said:
Infantry only servers in bf2 were my fav and I reckon they will be in bf3 if I bother to get it

PapaLazaru · 14 Jul 2011 at 16:23

RavenXXX2 said:
You know what a cluster **** the game would be on maps with choppers and jets if everything could be destroyed? I'm all for destruction done sensibly to keep balance in the game.

Exactly my point.

PapaLazaru · 14 Jul 2011 at 16:25

jonneymendoza said:
for a start, fighter jets couldnt capture part of a area on conquest mode and u really need the soldiers on ground to do that.

And how are soldiers meant to capture a flag with zero cover? It would be a total imbecile that would think that being able to totally destruct buildings would be a good idea.

arknor · 14 Jul 2011 at 17:14

PapaLazaru said:
And how are soldiers meant to capture a flag with zero cover? It would be a total imbecile that would think that being able to totally destruct buildings would be a good idea.

you never played BF2? people captured flags with 0 cover all the time and it was never an issue aslong as the sides were balanced a good proportion of cap zones were always beeing contested

PapaLazaru · 14 Jul 2011 at 18:01

arknor said:
you never played BF2? people captured flags with 0 cover all the time and it was never an issue aslong as the sides were balanced a good proportion of cap zones were always beeing contested

Yeah I played it for a while.

In BF2, even if the flag did not have cover, it had some kind of cover near it. I cannot think of one without something near it to hide behind / under. All the big jet and chopper maps had flags near cover. If it is all destroyed, you have nothing to hide in. Jets will be able to just fly around and bomb the hell out of you if you are on the ground.

QlimaxUK · 14 Jul 2011 at 18:17

often the pile of rubble makes for better cover then the none damaged building

Tefal · 14 Jul 2011 at 18:18

PapaLazaru said:
In BC2 you can take some down buildings and not others. So it would be the same?

they're saying you can't bring any buildings down just damage a cosmetic façade

Tefal · 14 Jul 2011 at 18:18

PapaLazaru said:
And how are soldiers meant to capture a flag with zero cover? It would be a total imbecile that would think that being able to totally destruct buildings would be a good idea.

there's more things to hide behind that just buildings :/

and as said the indestructible wreckage is often a lot better than the buildings was as no one an blow your walls up.

Tombo · 14 Jul 2011 at 18:21

~>Dg<~ said:
basically it will be like bad company 2 just a little more fancier.

also that building it from crysis 2

I like how you say that every chance you get even when it doesn't make any sense.

PapaLazaru · 14 Jul 2011 at 18:25

Tefal said:
there's more things to hide behind that just buildings :/

Like what? I seem to recall playing BF2 there was only ever buildings to hide in or behind. Unless you are counting a tree or a hill, which is pretty useless against a chopper or jet.

Tefal · 14 Jul 2011 at 18:31

PapaLazaru said:
Like what? I seem to recall playing BF2 there was only ever buildings to hide in or behind. Unless you are counting a tree or a hill, which is pretty useless against a chopper or jet.

natural cover like ditches etc.

destroyed buildings like bc2 which make you immune from choppers unlike their non destroyed counter parts.

one thing i find really odd though is people saying "choppers will level the map with destruction" you ever tried doing that in bc2 with the attack choppers?

takes a ****ing age to take down a building compared to c4 or a tank and you have to be able to see all 4 sides of wit which means you have to get behind the enemy lines, and if they're letting you do that they deserve to die.

Tefal · 14 Jul 2011 at 18:37

or maybe just make the destruction more realistic.

ie a rocket will do this to concrete walls

rather than the

style it does now.

PsychoPigeon · 14 Jul 2011 at 19:21

false alarm, no official statement saying this.

XPE · 14 Jul 2011 at 19:30

BF3 is going to be closer to BF2 than BFBC2, its just in BF3 a corrugated bit of metal or a thin wall will no longer stop a tank.

Neil79 · 15 Jul 2011 at 15:50

http://bf3blog.com/2011/07/battlefield-3-battlelog-revealed/