Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -

Status
Not open for further replies.
Renni 95 said:
The m9 is not used by british forces :confused:
Click to expand...


WEl lthe uk forces arn't in the bf3 game

and just because somones a soldier doesnt mean there a great shot
Click to expand...
.


that's the whole point, berreta say for the average solider effective range is ~50m.


No im talking about somones who's had some range time not a lot but has fired a fair few rounds
Click to expand...

And you think a person with "not a lot of range time" is going to be getting 3 times the manufactures effective range in a combat situation? :confused:
 
Renni 95 said:
lulwut.

dont suppose youve got a link to the story?


i just cant believe your saying a "machine gun" usually using 5.56/7.62 hit a traget further away than a .50cal sniper such as the barret or macmillan tac 50 (which holds the record)
Click to expand...

it was that browning m2 i posted that was used.

but yes complete incomparable to the lmg's in the game.



in bf3 anyway they've said they're making lmgs take set up time remove the side arm and slow you down.

which takes away the big advantages they had i nbc2 that are the current problem where they're basically more accurate more powerful and higher capacity assault rifles.
 
The current record ~2475m from 2009 using a L115A3 Long Range Rifle.

The point is though that the M2 record is a completely moot point. Its a heavy machine gun, absolutely nothing like any weapon in game for infantry use and it was modified for single shots and couldn't do much against moving targets.
 
Evilsod said:
Probably for the best cos it didn't look like you had anything worth reading to say anyway. A bullet can travel 2km? Whats that got to do with perfect accuracy?
Click to expand...

Where did I say it can travel 2km? Don't put words in my mouth.

And now you've just disproved yourself by saying that. Because you're exaggeration was well off the mark and you make it sound like they're turning your head into a seive. On smaller maps they're deadlier purely because of how close the fights are. Rifle calibres are much bigger and speed is much greater and goes through wind (Not sure if wind is even accounted in this game)

Why such the aggresive attitude?

Tefal said:
Effective range of pistols is like 50m.

You'd have to fire a pistol at artillery style angles tp get it that fire.
Click to expand...

Due to the calibre of the bullet and air friction it slows down drastically yeah.

Squark said:
Try less than half that, ~300-400 m/s
Click to expand...

At cruising speed, peak velocity is around 900m/s at the nozzle and will probably take around half a second to drop to that for it to drop to around that.

And to clarify I've not said bullets can travel 2KM. That's just absurd.

Edit - This link has facts from physics books. Speed of a Bullet
 
Last edited:
LeJosh said:
Where did I say it can travel 2km? Don't put words in my mouth.

And now you've just disproved yourself by saying that. Because you're exaggeration was well off the mark and you make it sound like they're turning your head into a seive. On smaller maps they're deadlier purely because of how close the fights are. Rifle calibres are much bigger and speed is much greater and goes through wind (Not sure if wind is even accounted in this game)
Click to expand...

You quote me saying that the largest map is around 2-3km and then state the pistol has a bullet speed of 900m/s, then change paragraph. That sounds to me like you're saying it could travel that far.

Either way bullet drop for BC2 was almost none existant for anything but sniper rifles. And this still has nothing to do with my original reply about the sheer overpoweredness of LMGs down the sights.

Oh and from wikipedia: "M9 - Muzzle velocity 380 m/s (1,247 ft/s), Effective range 50 m" So i dunno where exactly you pulled 900 from.
 
Last edited:
LMGs most common calibre is 5.56mm Bullets.

You be the judge. :p

Yeah, re-reading what I wrote it does sound like that. But wasn't my intention, my delivery of facts is some what rough these days.

Edit - the link above. Maybe I should've said up to 900m/s.

Double Edit - :mad: Even a magnum is max 450m/s pfft. But 900m/s is for 5.56mm NATO bullets. Silly me.
 
Last edited:
LeJosh said:
At cruising speed, peak velocity is around 900m/s at the nozzle and will probably take around half a second to drop to that for it to drop to around that.
Click to expand...

ermm how exactly is a bullet going to speed up from it's muzzle velocity after it's left the barrel?

You've linked to .22 none of the guns are .22 and more importantly your link is rifles.

feel free to check the muzzle velocities of them are any where near 900m/s that's incredibly fast for a normal calibre pistol.
 
I for one do not want this game to be realistic. I want it to be fun.

I dont want every building to be destructable. I dont want random deviation like BF2 and I dont want stupidly oversized maps like BC2.

If you want realism, go and play a flight sim.
 
What's required is some balance.

Too simple/fun is shortlasting and only caters to be people with short attention spans (e.g. COD).

Too realistic/sophisticated and it becomes inaccessible to the majority of people who can't devote enough time to reap the full rewards of the game, regardless of how long their attention spans are (e.g. Arma2).

BF2 got this balance down far better than BC2, which in all honesty was only slightly more sophisticated than COD4.

If you're serious about playing BF3, you'll want it to have features that take months and years to explore and master.

If you want a quick run around .... GTFO.
 
gropingmantis said:
Go play CoD then and stop buying BF titles. Troll.
Click to expand...

I do play CoD, and BF2. I wasnt trolling either, just expressing my opinion. That OK?

My thoughts on the destructability are simple really. Some of the best CQB battles I have had on the Battlefield games have happened trying to cap the Tv Station on Sharqi. Trying to get into that building to cap could be extremely difficult against a well organised oppenent ( especially 5v5 inf only). However, if it was similar to BC2 you would just shell the building for 10 mins untill it comes down. Boring.

Random deviation shouldnt be part of any fps if you ask me. Added to the diabolical hit reg in BF2 a headshot on a moving target becomes a thing of luck.

As for the maps being too large in BC2 its simple, a lot of them are. The vehicles available and the team sizes dont really accomodate for the scale of some of the maps. Most of the time it seems as though you are playing 8v8 inf only on Wake.
 
The maps will be huge its going to have 64 player MP the maps have to be huge. Which BC2 maps are too big? Rush maps are all far too narrow and conquest maps are hardly colossal The only time maps feel too big to me is playing squad rush.

Why would having every building destructible be a bad thing? Ok so you can't camp caps in buildings, you'll just have to go out and find whats doing the shelling and shut it down before it brings the building down.

I hope it is more realistic than BC2 where you can get away with spraying with an AR or LMG and get a kill. It should be more like hardcore mode with more realistic bullet spread.

I do agree with titaniumx3 though in that Arma2 was too realistic to be much fun for most people but BC2 was not realistic enough.
 
i find it amusing that people talk so casually about weapons and firing distance, glorifying the act of killing another virtual human being.

BF3 is not some kids game where the acts of players doesn't matter! these polygons have lives and real families in semi destructible houses :D








:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom