Battlefield 3 getting nerfed

[InHuman]

RANDOM kills are RANDOM?

hmm ok.

I just dont like going into a building, And instead of killing me with a nade or a good shot you just aim at the wall and get a kill that way, BC2 had so many people using that gustav that it felt more like quake than battlefeild.

 

[Swifty55]

hmm ok.

I just dont like going into a building, And instead of killing me with a nade or a good shot you just aim at the wall and get a kill that way, BC2 had so many people using that gustav that it felt more like quake than battlefeild.

So what you're really saying is, you want to camp?

 

['Wes]

Interesting, i was on a SQDM server last night and people were firing at the buildings each team was in causing holes and half blown up roofs, and it adds an element of realism and also fun, because you have to get into cover, it's the main reason i like BF:BC2, the fact you don't have that reassurance that a wall or whatever is going to absorb the rockets damage and not make a scratch.

 

[Delboy]

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.

Camping lamers deserve a rocket in the face And having choppers in BC2 is no guatantee of air superiority now that people have learnt to use the tracer dart and/or AT4 so their time in the air can be limited when against a good ground force of engies.

 

[Gzero]

If BF3 had BC2's level of destruction it would epic fail.

That level is fine for BC2, I just mean it wont work as well in BF3 where you have 4-5 jets and 4 choppers flying around strafing and bombing the living crap out of everything. Playing infantry on a map like that just wont be fun.

Source?

Where did you read that there will be 4 to 5 jets and 4 choppers?

Have you tried to take out a squad in a building? It can be nigh on impossible when they have a medic and ammo classes.

I love how they say there will still be destruction 2.0. Yeah see that structure that collapses in 2 shots, nobody goes there.

 

[PapaLazaru]

So, you agree it's inferior? That would make it a nerf.

It is not inferior. It is better. You get annoyed with tank whores sitting back on BC2 blowing up buildings? Total destruction would be 10 time worse.

Good move I say.

 

[Gzero]

Well in that case BF2 was also badly nerfed. Where were the controllable battleships and SPG's from BF1942?

Who cares about that crap, scout and arty was the best.

 

[MANFACE]

If BF3 had BC2's level of destruction it would epic fail.

That level is fine for BC2, I just mean it wont work as well in BF3 where you have 4-5 jets and 4 choppers flying around strafing and bombing the living crap out of everything. Playing infantry on a map like that just wont be fun.

+ 1

 

[Gzero]

Remember folks, DICE claimed the maps will be the biggest they have ever made.

Random camper's heaven.

 

[gropingmantis]

It is not inferior. It is better. You get annoyed with tank whores sitting back on BC2 blowing up buildings? Total destruction would be 10 time worse.

Good move I say.

From what I understood we aren't talking about total destruction as in being able to take down every structure on the map but total destruction as in actually being able to bring some buildings totally to the ground which quite frankly if I can't do that then that is a step backwards.

What they said in the article was that no buildings would be able to be brought to the floor but merely there was a destructable facade on the buildings so you can open them up but never destroy which is definitely a step back from BC2.

 

[Martini1991]

Cue Raven "CONSOLE PORT".

 

[Sin_Chase]

It is not inferior. It is better. You get annoyed with tank whores sitting back on BC2 blowing up buildings? Total destruction would be 10 time worse.

Good move I say.

Good tank commanders don't do this.

The bads who do get nuked by Recon/Engineers in about 5 seconds flat.

So, no-issue really is it not?

 

[Dave85]

Yeh BF3 sooo real that buildings can withstand rockets and tanks. No wonder real wars take so long the bad guys just go out into there bomb proof sheds.

Dice need to a get a grip 1 side of a building opening up is a step 5 years back.

 

[dave1983]

what we have to remember is that the BC2 maps were pretty small areas for example arica harbour, whereas BF3 maps are pretty big for example return to karkland. so even if you were camping out in a destructable building you may not even get shot at, depends if your really hidden and move from building to building, im not surprised if you get killed if you camp in the same spot over and over.

 

[perox]

Source?

Where did you read that there will be 4 to 5 jets and 4 choppers?

I'm just assuming that there will be around the same amount as BF2 64 player maps.

 

[garyfl]

this is really naff, you cant just only blow up certain buildings in real life, you dont get to choose, these games are supposed to similate real life and a good game would be able to blow up all the buildings as thats realisitc in my eyes.

 

[Psypher5]

oh what the...

biggest part of the hype train was destruction.

 

[[TFU] Thegoon84]

Cant view in work... wish people would quote websites they post... Dam work filter!"

It is not inferior. It is better. You get annoyed with tank whores sitting back on BC2 blowing up buildings? Total destruction would be 10 time worse.

Good move I say.

Fair do's you always some up what i'm thinking!!! Spot on.

 

[Redman]

So, you agree it's inferior? That would make it a nerf.

My point is that it's a design decision for a new game. This isn't the old game, things wont be exactly the same, therefore it's not a 'nerf'.

My opinion of superior or inferior is irrelevant, the use of 'nerf' just irritates me

 

[titaniumx3]

Not too concerned to be honest, I mean BF2 managed just fine without it.