BF2S Forums Battlefield 3 - Main Thread

DUnlimited wrote:

Roc18 wrote:

jord wrote:

And no, I don't want bf3 to be bf2 with better graphics.

Yeah right, what else does anyone who played bf2 wants it to be?

bf2 with better balance, netcode, maps, new content, new playerbase

couldn't care less about graphics

Well all that stuff too obviously lol

Better balance?  What about all the BC2 complaints about aircraft not being the repe-fest that they were in BF2?  Too many counters to vehicles on BC2.

On BF3, just using the IFV as an example.  I was going 11/0 in the IFV before I got bored.  What happened to BF2 limited vehicle ammo.  On another round, I kept repairing the IFV enough times that eventually about half a dozen enemies had to go engineer to take us out.  No APC on BF2 was as hard to kill as the IFV.  If it stays this way, ground pounders will have no chance in more open maps againt multiple IFV's.  If BF3 had tags, we wouldn't have lasted as long.

why are you bringing up bc2, we are talking about better balance than bf2.

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

People seem to forget too many of BF2's problems. It was the best BF game, I'll agree. But that mostly came from the stellar map design, not from the minor details about how you reload.

Minor details
BF2's sound effects were beast
Night Maps
64 players
Prone/Infantry gameplay was superior


Just a few things that made BF2 a little more epic for me.

Why would you need counters? It makes for such mundane gameplay if things just outright counter one another.

survival in bf2 was underrated, good players knew how to stay alive, bad players would cry a river about how they couldn't bring down a blackhawk being kept alive by a 6-man squad with a fucking pistol. or should a humvee have AA now too because if a jeep can't kill a jet that's unfair?

yes BF2 was unbalanced, but the knee-jerk reactions everyone has to it are equally terrible. Just look at BC2 where the game is designed so that it's not any degree of skill that lets you beat a vehicle, it's just having the right equipment and teamwork.

Lucien wrote:

Why would you need counters? It makes for such mundane gameplay if things just outright counter one another.

survival in bf2 was underrated, good players knew how to stay alive, bad players would cry a river about how they couldn't bring down a blackhawk being kept alive by a 6-man squad with a fucking pistol. or should a humvee have AA now too because if a jeep can't kill a jet that's unfair?

yes BF2 was unbalanced, but the knee-jerk reactions everyone has to it are equally terrible. Just look at BC2 where the game is designed so that it's not any degree of skill that lets you beat a vehicle, it's just having the right equipment and teamwork.

Yeah,, because your most played kit was AT and your most used vehicles were on the ground.  Yeah, good players versus bad players.  More like, who gets the most unbalanced vehicles and gets good at it.

Reality is, you used the most dominating kits and vehicles and rarely used the typical ineffective counters.  And that is what the whiners want of BF3.  I won't deny that you have skills on BF2, but a large part of that was because of your use of superior weapons and vehicles.

Ilocano wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Why would you need counters? It makes for such mundane gameplay if things just outright counter one another.

survival in bf2 was underrated, good players knew how to stay alive, bad players would cry a river about how they couldn't bring down a blackhawk being kept alive by a 6-man squad with a fucking pistol. or should a humvee have AA now too because if a jeep can't kill a jet that's unfair?

yes BF2 was unbalanced, but the knee-jerk reactions everyone has to it are equally terrible. Just look at BC2 where the game is designed so that it's not any degree of skill that lets you beat a vehicle, it's just having the right equipment and teamwork.

Yeah,, because your most played kit was AT and your most used vehicles were on the ground.  Yeah, good players versus bad players.  More like, who gets the most unbalanced vehicles and gets good at it.

Reality is, you used the most dominating kits and vehicles and rarely used the typical ineffective counters.  And that is what the whiners want of BF3.  I won't deny that you have skills on BF2, but a large part of that was because of your use of superior weapons and vehicles.

The point is there is only 1 or 2 of a superior vehicle, say a jet. So what's the point in even getting in it if you're just going to get killed after 3 kills?

How about being able to actually manipulate the chopper instead of feeling like it's a flying shithouse with "shoot me" written all over it.

In 2142 it would glitch the fuck out and crash if you tried to roll it and in BC2 it feels like you're flying a cardboard box. I can't even imagine how they'll fuck with the jets to make it "accessible".

If the IFV is any sign, vehicles will dominate.  And those who can headshot, will win out even if you aren't first to shoot.

jord wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Then what's the point of getting on an APC or tank if all it takes is a bombing run or TV missile to take out?  What's the point of being on foot with AT when an attack heli is circling jerking a flag?

On BC2, I've been gunner of some attack helicopters where we've lasted pretty much from inital spawn, all the way to the last MCOM.  Despite all the counters, we dominated.

My point is, get good enough, and even with all the counters, you can still get insanely high kill streaks.  But heaven forbid that you can't maintain your XX/0 K/D on BF3.

Well to answer your first sentance, I'd say go Karkand. I've gone like 50-1 on Karkand in a tank and like 40-1 in an APC. There's a food chain (rightfully so) and heli's are above armour, and jets are above helis, and jets can be countered by another jet or static AA. That food chain was correct and pretty well balanced. The only hole in the balance was the skill curve for AA, there was none. This is why an AA that fires multi rounds, like an AAA emplacement or an effective essex type system would be a good improvment.

And in reality, mobile AA owns Heli's and Aircrafts.  Even Bf2's intro movie showed that, but that rarely happened.

BF2 really screwed up when it gave jets all-the-time-on vehicle radar, when mobile AA should have had the all-the-time-on aircraft radar.

I agree.  I good player should win most encounters against a bad player.  But a good player shouldn't be one who can flop himself all over the place and then make a single jump/prone burst kill.

Ilocano wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Why would you need counters? It makes for such mundane gameplay if things just outright counter one another.

survival in bf2 was underrated, good players knew how to stay alive, bad players would cry a river about how they couldn't bring down a blackhawk being kept alive by a 6-man squad with a fucking pistol. or should a humvee have AA now too because if a jeep can't kill a jet that's unfair?

yes BF2 was unbalanced, but the knee-jerk reactions everyone has to it are equally terrible. Just look at BC2 where the game is designed so that it's not any degree of skill that lets you beat a vehicle, it's just having the right equipment and teamwork.

Yeah,, because your most played kit was AT and your most used vehicles were on the ground.  Yeah, good players versus bad players.  More like, who gets the most unbalanced vehicles and gets good at it.

Reality is, you used the most dominating kits and vehicles and rarely used the typical ineffective counters.  And that is what the whiners want of BF3.  I won't deny that you have skills on BF2, but a large part of that was because of your use of superior weapons and vehicles.

Your idea that my opinion is invalid because I use vehicles and have classes that aren't played as much as others is fucking ridiculous, but even if I was dumb enough to take it seriously it wouldn't hold up. Whether I was good or not at BF2 has FUCK ALL to do with my choice of kit or vehicle. I've played BF2 for 1200 hours on that account, more than half of which as infantry. I've played 100 hours of all kits bar AT, used all vehicles, and played all maps for a significant amount of time. Should I go sit in a fucking jeep for 300 hours to get my stats evened out? please.

And how is medic supposed to be the dominating kit vs vehicles when it has literally no anti-vehicle defense? I played BF2 when it was still a real battlefield game with tanks everywhere, even on infantry maps, and I still played medic, because I learnt how to deal with vehicles. That should SUPPORT the point I made earlier that perceived vehicle imbalance has a lot to do with players w+m1ing in front of them and then crying when they die.

jezus i haven't played bf2 in such a long time that i have no fucking idea what you guys are talking about.