I couldn't care less about skill and winning every single round, all I want is to have fun good close rounds, which bf 3 currently does not provide on the majority of maps for conquest and rush, at least for me anyway.
My stats are decent (>750SPM, 17% accuracy, 1.85K/D [which is increasing quite a bit now and should hit 3+ if I keep playing the way I am, mostly infantry player and use tanks every now and then, heli very rarely and I don't really touch jets at all now], decent amount of 1st, 2nd & 3rd MVP ribbons, >1.5 w/l ratio etc.) plus I was at a huge disadvantage for the first 130 or so hours as I had crappy FPS [15-30] with my 4850 512MB but I would trade them all for really **** stats just to have good fun games.
K/D is the biggest problem, a lot of stats just need to be removed from the game (especially when it is suppose to be more team based....), other ones being skill, SPM etc. Only stats that we should see are team stuff like revives, accuracy, ribbon stuff etc.
When I see people's k/d etc. that are really high (almost cheater like), at first I think wow but then I go and look at how much time they have spent in vehicles (particularly jets and helis) and those figures/stats are FAR less impressive then. Fair enough if that is how they like to play, after all they paid for the game so can play however they want.
If I wanted to play for pure skill/competitive gaming then I would be playing CS!
And yet most PC players think that BC 2 is way better than BF 3!
Well if you understand what I mean then why is it so much of a problem?
A lot of the stuff I have listed is what puts a lot of other people of bf 3 and chances are if DICE haven't changed/improved those things then it will just be the exact same complaints again so they would be stupid to not fix/improve them....
How do you know that it will still blind you in bright environments in BF 4 anyway? Has there been a video showing it specifically?
That is why I posted in my previous post, we don't know yet what things will be like in bf 4 till we play for ourselves, especially not till the final game due the amount of changes there will be.
Of course if the rest of the game is excellent and the stuff like levolution is throughout the entire map (rather than just 1-2 areas) then I could put up with the bad implementation of those things listed, except for the main basics such as a poor balanced team system/landslide wins etc. BF 3 didn't really have anything "great" about it to make up for the problems where as BF 4 does have a lot of great stuff (at least it looks to be from the videos so far.... ) i.e. the dynamic weather, levolution, better destruction, great designed maps etc. so all of that could make the listed potential problems more bearable to live with if you know what I mean?
As DG said, if there was another good FPS game then I would, but there is nothing that really competes with bf, COD is just dog ****, planetside II is good but has "too much" going on (made even worse without a proper tutorial), takes forever to find action, "requires" team/squad play and I don't like the pay to get better weapons etc.
My stats are decent (>750SPM, 17% accuracy, 1.85K/D [which is increasing quite a bit now and should hit 3+ if I keep playing the way I am, mostly infantry player and use tanks every now and then, heli very rarely and I don't really touch jets at all now], decent amount of 1st, 2nd & 3rd MVP ribbons, >1.5 w/l ratio etc.) plus I was at a huge disadvantage for the first 130 or so hours as I had crappy FPS [15-30] with my 4850 512MB but I would trade them all for really **** stats just to have good fun games.
K/D is the biggest problem, a lot of stats just need to be removed from the game (especially when it is suppose to be more team based....), other ones being skill, SPM etc. Only stats that we should see are team stuff like revives, accuracy, ribbon stuff etc.
When I see people's k/d etc. that are really high (almost cheater like), at first I think wow but then I go and look at how much time they have spent in vehicles (particularly jets and helis) and those figures/stats are FAR less impressive then. Fair enough if that is how they like to play, after all they paid for the game so can play however they want.
If I wanted to play for pure skill/competitive gaming then I would be playing CS!
And yet most PC players think that BC 2 is way better than BF 3!
Well if you understand what I mean then why is it so much of a problem?
A lot of the stuff I have listed is what puts a lot of other people of bf 3 and chances are if DICE haven't changed/improved those things then it will just be the exact same complaints again so they would be stupid to not fix/improve them....
How do you know that it will still blind you in bright environments in BF 4 anyway? Has there been a video showing it specifically?
That is why I posted in my previous post, we don't know yet what things will be like in bf 4 till we play for ourselves, especially not till the final game due the amount of changes there will be.
Of course if the rest of the game is excellent and the stuff like levolution is throughout the entire map (rather than just 1-2 areas) then I could put up with the bad implementation of those things listed, except for the main basics such as a poor balanced team system/landslide wins etc. BF 3 didn't really have anything "great" about it to make up for the problems where as BF 4 does have a lot of great stuff (at least it looks to be from the videos so far.... ) i.e. the dynamic weather, levolution, better destruction, great designed maps etc. so all of that could make the listed potential problems more bearable to live with if you know what I mean?
As DG said, if there was another good FPS game then I would, but there is nothing that really competes with bf, COD is just dog ****, planetside II is good but has "too much" going on (made even worse without a proper tutorial), takes forever to find action, "requires" team/squad play and I don't like the pay to get better weapons etc.
Last edited:
