Handheld AA would have to have some kind of extended deployment time to prevent abuse. Not exactly PR territory but something to prevent cases of 'quick deploy, fire!' That or make it a kit unlock with only one or two round's available for carry.
Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread
Just stick with better mobile AA and better stationary AA. That way AA and Air are always balanced.M.O.A.B wrote:
Handheld AA would have to have some kind of extended deployment time to prevent abuse. Not exactly PR territory but something to prevent cases of 'quick deploy, fire!' That or make it a kit unlock with only one or two round's available for carry.
Yeah, ok and why not just paint them with red and white targets on top? That would be even better.
"Raise the flag high! Let the degenerates know who comes to claim their lives this day!"
you gots boats also. maybe some amphib vehicles could be added.RDMC wrote:
Wouldn't work properly unless they really make the maps in such a way that you aren't limited by air and sea transports. Just look at a few of the maps they made in BF2. Wake Island, Gulf of Oman, Dalian Plant and Operation Cleansweep which mostly relied on helos to get infantry onto shore. Now imagine a team of 32 people just staring at the sky with stingers. Rape ensues.11 Bravo wrote:
i agree with that. stingers or gtfo.Dilbert_X wrote:
And call it 'Infantryfield'? Brilliant.
Give infantry Stingers or make the fixed AA missiles work and we're done.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-10-22 11:35:06)
Battlefield 3 Will Get Extra PC Attention
It is fairly well known by now that DICE has been working on Battlefield 3 since at least last year. We haven't heard much about the officially unannounced title, and while this isn't really news I'm sure a DICE employee merely saying 'Battlefield' and '3' in the same sentence should excite most.
A couple weeks ago DICE Senior Gameplay Designer, Alan 'Demize99' Kertz tweeted that him as well as other Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 veterans are working on Battlefield 3.
Aside from that, Mr. Kertz also made a post in the EA UK forums explaining how weapons were tweaked on console and PC in Bad Company 2. He talks about how PC needs special attention and intends to give Battlefield 3 just that. There is still hope for us PC players.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Early on BFBC2 our PC playtest feedback showed that weapon feeling was lacking. It just wasn't as much fun to shoot the guns on PC as on console. With controls being the big gameplay difference (mouse vs pad) it quickly became clear that simply put the original weapon tweaks, which were done on the PS3, weren't working on PC. The guns all had a bit of base inaccuracy, that with a gamepad wasn't really noteworthy, but on PC it really prevented players from taking advantage of the mouse input. On 2142 one of the key things about the guns is that they were all deadly accurate, they lost damage over range sure, but if you could put the crosshairs on the target you could hit it. Sure, some people feel like an AR should be more accurate than an SMG or carbine. I feel like the issue is "ARs should be better at range" and thus, they do better damage over range than the SMGs.
In response to the feedback on PC, I completely retweaked the accuracy. The next playtest it was immediately obvious that it was a change for the better, and surprisingly it also made gamepads feel much better as well.
Fundamentally I think it is an error to have different core gameplay on console vs PCs. PC gives a player more input control and if a gun feels good on PC it feels good on console. I won't "dumb it down" by lowering the recoil or changing the damage model or other such silliness.
PC and Console Battlefield players want similar gameplay: Epic sprawling Battlefields, and also tight infantry fights. Balanced weapons and land/sea/air vehicles with a rock-paper-scissors emphasis. Squad and teamplay, where no one player can be a do-it-all super soldier, and communications systems to support teamplay. And a deep and rewarding system of progression with deep and varied gameplay that keeps you wanting to go 1 more round. Everyone also wants it to be easy to play with their friends.
Consoles generally are less tolerant of overly complex interfaces. They have less buttons, you need more elegant interfaces. Deep systems work well though if they have a straight forward interface. The fun is not in figuring out how to use the system, it's in figuring out how to best use the system.
PC players have their own set of requirements. They tend to play only on PC, and they know their PCs have capabilities beyond that of a console. The gap is narrowing, but PCs still have a clear advantage in memory. PC players also demand a PC interface, a server browser, and anything that feels like it might have been "ported" from a console is going to get flamed hard. They are more forgiving of complex systems and will tear any design down into its parts to really figure out how it works. It's a damn sight harder to please a PC player, they have higher expectations.
It's too early to talk BF3 specifics. But it's never too early for me to acknowledge that PC players have a fear that BF3 will be "consolized." PC gaming is alive and well, BFBC2 has proven that and no one at DICE or EA can argue with the numbers. Battlefield 3 needs an extra bit of special attention on the PC. I intend to give it that attention, tradition and our community demand it.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EA UK Forums
It is fairly well known by now that DICE has been working on Battlefield 3 since at least last year. We haven't heard much about the officially unannounced title, and while this isn't really news I'm sure a DICE employee merely saying 'Battlefield' and '3' in the same sentence should excite most.
A couple weeks ago DICE Senior Gameplay Designer, Alan 'Demize99' Kertz tweeted that him as well as other Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 veterans are working on Battlefield 3.
Aside from that, Mr. Kertz also made a post in the EA UK forums explaining how weapons were tweaked on console and PC in Bad Company 2. He talks about how PC needs special attention and intends to give Battlefield 3 just that. There is still hope for us PC players.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Early on BFBC2 our PC playtest feedback showed that weapon feeling was lacking. It just wasn't as much fun to shoot the guns on PC as on console. With controls being the big gameplay difference (mouse vs pad) it quickly became clear that simply put the original weapon tweaks, which were done on the PS3, weren't working on PC. The guns all had a bit of base inaccuracy, that with a gamepad wasn't really noteworthy, but on PC it really prevented players from taking advantage of the mouse input. On 2142 one of the key things about the guns is that they were all deadly accurate, they lost damage over range sure, but if you could put the crosshairs on the target you could hit it. Sure, some people feel like an AR should be more accurate than an SMG or carbine. I feel like the issue is "ARs should be better at range" and thus, they do better damage over range than the SMGs.
In response to the feedback on PC, I completely retweaked the accuracy. The next playtest it was immediately obvious that it was a change for the better, and surprisingly it also made gamepads feel much better as well.
Fundamentally I think it is an error to have different core gameplay on console vs PCs. PC gives a player more input control and if a gun feels good on PC it feels good on console. I won't "dumb it down" by lowering the recoil or changing the damage model or other such silliness.
PC and Console Battlefield players want similar gameplay: Epic sprawling Battlefields, and also tight infantry fights. Balanced weapons and land/sea/air vehicles with a rock-paper-scissors emphasis. Squad and teamplay, where no one player can be a do-it-all super soldier, and communications systems to support teamplay. And a deep and rewarding system of progression with deep and varied gameplay that keeps you wanting to go 1 more round. Everyone also wants it to be easy to play with their friends.
Consoles generally are less tolerant of overly complex interfaces. They have less buttons, you need more elegant interfaces. Deep systems work well though if they have a straight forward interface. The fun is not in figuring out how to use the system, it's in figuring out how to best use the system.
PC players have their own set of requirements. They tend to play only on PC, and they know their PCs have capabilities beyond that of a console. The gap is narrowing, but PCs still have a clear advantage in memory. PC players also demand a PC interface, a server browser, and anything that feels like it might have been "ported" from a console is going to get flamed hard. They are more forgiving of complex systems and will tear any design down into its parts to really figure out how it works. It's a damn sight harder to please a PC player, they have higher expectations.
It's too early to talk BF3 specifics. But it's never too early for me to acknowledge that PC players have a fear that BF3 will be "consolized." PC gaming is alive and well, BFBC2 has proven that and no one at DICE or EA can argue with the numbers. Battlefield 3 needs an extra bit of special attention on the PC. I intend to give it that attention, tradition and our community demand it.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EA UK Forums
Think Sambuccashake already posted the exact same.HaiBai wrote:
Battlefield 3 Will Get Extra PC Attention
It is fairly well known by now that DICE has been working on Battlefield 3 since at least last year. We haven't heard much about the officially unannounced title, and while this isn't really news I'm sure a DICE employee merely saying 'Battlefield' and '3' in the same sentence should excite most.
A couple weeks ago DICE Senior Gameplay Designer, Alan 'Demize99' Kertz tweeted that him as well as other Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 veterans are working on Battlefield 3.
Aside from that, Mr. Kertz also made a post in the EA UK forums explaining how weapons were tweaked on console and PC in Bad Company 2. He talks about how PC needs special attention and intends to give Battlefield 3 just that. There is still hope for us PC players.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Early on BFBC2 our PC playtest feedback showed that weapon feeling was lacking. It just wasn't as much fun to shoot the guns on PC as on console. With controls being the big gameplay difference (mouse vs pad) it quickly became clear that simply put the original weapon tweaks, which were done on the PS3, weren't working on PC. The guns all had a bit of base inaccuracy, that with a gamepad wasn't really noteworthy, but on PC it really prevented players from taking advantage of the mouse input. On 2142 one of the key things about the guns is that they were all deadly accurate, they lost damage over range sure, but if you could put the crosshairs on the target you could hit it. Sure, some people feel like an AR should be more accurate than an SMG or carbine. I feel like the issue is "ARs should be better at range" and thus, they do better damage over range than the SMGs.
In response to the feedback on PC, I completely retweaked the accuracy. The next playtest it was immediately obvious that it was a change for the better, and surprisingly it also made gamepads feel much better as well.
Fundamentally I think it is an error to have different core gameplay on console vs PCs. PC gives a player more input control and if a gun feels good on PC it feels good on console. I won't "dumb it down" by lowering the recoil or changing the damage model or other such silliness.
PC and Console Battlefield players want similar gameplay: Epic sprawling Battlefields, and also tight infantry fights. Balanced weapons and land/sea/air vehicles with a rock-paper-scissors emphasis. Squad and teamplay, where no one player can be a do-it-all super soldier, and communications systems to support teamplay. And a deep and rewarding system of progression with deep and varied gameplay that keeps you wanting to go 1 more round. Everyone also wants it to be easy to play with their friends.
Consoles generally are less tolerant of overly complex interfaces. They have less buttons, you need more elegant interfaces. Deep systems work well though if they have a straight forward interface. The fun is not in figuring out how to use the system, it's in figuring out how to best use the system.
PC players have their own set of requirements. They tend to play only on PC, and they know their PCs have capabilities beyond that of a console. The gap is narrowing, but PCs still have a clear advantage in memory. PC players also demand a PC interface, a server browser, and anything that feels like it might have been "ported" from a console is going to get flamed hard. They are more forgiving of complex systems and will tear any design down into its parts to really figure out how it works. It's a damn sight harder to please a PC player, they have higher expectations.
It's too early to talk BF3 specifics. But it's never too early for me to acknowledge that PC players have a fear that BF3 will be "consolized." PC gaming is alive and well, BFBC2 has proven that and no one at DICE or EA can argue with the numbers. Battlefield 3 needs an extra bit of special attention on the PC. I intend to give it that attention, tradition and our community demand it.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EA UK Forums
without a source
Or just reduce the range, as Anti-Tank is limited.M.O.A.B wrote:
Handheld AA would have to have some kind of extended deployment time to prevent abuse. Not exactly PR territory but something to prevent cases of 'quick deploy, fire!' That or make it a kit unlock with only one or two round's available for carry.
Then the jetwhores can have their gay dogfights and leave the infantry alone.
Also, remove the ability of 'Support' to supply AT and AA missiles, restrict that to crates, but give AT more effectiveness against tanks.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-22 16:24:47)
Fuck Israel
Having old-style BHs will just lead to an identical situation which BF2 gave us - players who want kills, but aren't prepared to put in any effort to get them.
There could be a feature where the pilot only receives points for every two kills he gets.Like, he'll receivethefull valueof thekillsbutonly after he get's two or more. Or people who spend too long in vehicles could get less points per kill.Pubic wrote:
Having old-style BHs will just lead to an identical situation which BF2 gave us - players who want kills, but aren't prepared to put in any effort to get them.
So you are actually punishing people who take their time to master a specific vehicle? If so, then people who spend too long using one class should be given less points too.Acerider wrote:
There could be a feature where the pilot only receives points for every two kills he gets.Like, he'll receivethefull valueof thekillsbutonly after he get's two or more. Or people who spend too long in vehicles could get less points per kill.Pubic wrote:
Having old-style BHs will just lead to an identical situation which BF2 gave us - players who want kills, but aren't prepared to put in any effort to get them.
master? the old BH? master? lol its just hold down the mouse button
With the exception of the old BH.11 Bravo wrote:
master? the old BH? master? lol its just hold down the mouse button
EDIT: Oh and J-10 before you will mention that too.
Last edited by RDMC (2010-10-23 06:38:18)
I was reffering not to the people taking time to practise and master vehicles, but to the people who spend 90%ofthe game in the gunners seat of the mi-28.RDMC wrote:
So you are actually punishing people who take their time to master a specific vehicle? If so, then people who spend too long using one class should be given less points too.Acerider wrote:
There could be a feature where the pilot only receives points for every two kills he gets.Like, he'll receivethefull valueof thekillsbutonly after he get's two or more. Or people who spend too long in vehicles could get less points per kill.Pubic wrote:
Having old-style BHs will just lead to an identical situation which BF2 gave us - players who want kills, but aren't prepared to put in any effort to get them.
How is only gunning a vehicle not mastering it, but say, flying in it is? (Just keeping out of perspective here that the Mi-28 has a super cannon which could raep anything)Acerider wrote:
I was reffering not to the people taking time to practise and master vehicles, but to the people who spend 90%ofthe game in the gunners seat of the mi-28.RDMC wrote:
So you are actually punishing people who take their time to master a specific vehicle? If so, then people who spend too long using one class should be given less points too.Acerider wrote:
There could be a feature where the pilot only receives points for every two kills he gets.Like, he'll receivethefull valueof thekillsbutonly after he get's two or more. Or people who spend too long in vehicles could get less points per kill.
Er, I was refering entirely to the cannon. Compromise. If you can pick off targets at most altitudes, speeds (within reason), and with most chopper weapons in the gunners seat, then your a good gunner.RDMC wrote:
How is only gunning a vehicle not mastering it, but say, flying in it is? (Just keeping out of perspective here that the Mi-28 has a super cannon which could raep anything)Acerider wrote:
I was reffering not to the people taking time to practise and master vehicles, but to the people who spend 90%ofthe game in the gunners seat of the mi-28.RDMC wrote:
So you are actually punishing people who take their time to master a specific vehicle? If so, then people who spend too long using one class should be given less points too.
If you just camp the baseuntil the mi-28 or HAP appears and getin the gunners seat and just randomly shooteverything, that's a different story.
Rather than nerfing a particular powerful vehicle, wouldn't it be better to make it easier to take down? For example, give it the same handling and weapons capabilities but 2/3 the health it normally has. It can still be just as effective but would require more skill to survive for longer stretches of time.
Think we have an agreement here. *Shake hands*Acerider wrote:
Er, I was refering entirely to the cannon. Compromise. If you can pick off targets at most altitudes, speeds (within reason), and with most chopper weapons in the gunners seat, then your a good gunner.RDMC wrote:
How is only gunning a vehicle not mastering it, but say, flying in it is? (Just keeping out of perspective here that the Mi-28 has a super cannon which could raep anything)Acerider wrote:
I was reffering not to the people taking time to practise and master vehicles, but to the people who spend 90%ofthe game in the gunners seat of the mi-28.
If you just camp the baseuntil the mi-28 or HAP appears and getin the gunners seat and just randomly shooteverything, that's a different story.
Why, yes old chap. *returns shake* *offers coffee of resolution*RDMC wrote:
Think we have an agreement here. *Shake hands*Acerider wrote:
Er, I was refering entirely to the cannon. Compromise. If you can pick off targets at most altitudes, speeds (within reason), and with most chopper weapons in the gunners seat, then your a good gunner.RDMC wrote:
How is only gunning a vehicle not mastering it, but say, flying in it is? (Just keeping out of perspective here that the Mi-28 has a super cannon which could raep anything)
If you just camp the baseuntil the mi-28 or HAP appears and getin the gunners seat and just randomly shooteverything, that's a different story.
Acerider wrote:
Why, yes old chap. *returns shake* *offers coffee of resolution*RDMC wrote:
Think we have an agreement here. *Shake hands*Acerider wrote:
Er, I was refering entirely to the cannon. Compromise. If you can pick off targets at most altitudes, speeds (within reason), and with most chopper weapons in the gunners seat, then your a good gunner.
If you just camp the baseuntil the mi-28 or HAP appears and getin the gunners seat and just randomly shooteverything, that's a different story.
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photo … 279781.jpg
There's no logic in punishing players because they enjoy a particular vehicle or kit. In the food chain, infantry are at the bottom, and they should always be.
If you don't like vehicles or a particular class then don't play it, but don't bitch about it. It's not like there's one jet for every man...
If you don't like vehicles or a particular class then don't play it, but don't bitch about it. It's not like there's one jet for every man...
true that , it's battlefield , not CODjord wrote:
There's no logic in punishing players because they enjoy a particular vehicle or kit. In the food chain, infantry are at the bottom, and they should always be.
If you don't like vehicles or a particular class then don't play it, but don't bitch about it. It's not like there's one jet for every man...
How about just creating an equal amout of city maps and air maps?
and we totally need weapon limits in BF3thepilot91 wrote:
true that , it's battlefield , not CODjord wrote:
There's no logic in punishing players because they enjoy a particular vehicle or kit. In the food chain, infantry are at the bottom, and they should always be.
If you don't like vehicles or a particular class then don't play it, but don't bitch about it. It's not like there's one jet for every man...
weapon limits ?Trotskygrad wrote:
and we totally need weapon limits in BF3thepilot91 wrote:
true that , it's battlefield , not CODjord wrote:
There's no logic in punishing players because they enjoy a particular vehicle or kit. In the food chain, infantry are at the bottom, and they should always be.
If you don't like vehicles or a particular class then don't play it, but don't bitch about it. It's not like there's one jet for every man...
Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread