Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2011-10-31 21:25:03
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6921
Jets are fun. Fly high up, out of the range of SAMs and just take in the sky. Then swoop down to the Earth and be instantly locked by some hidden enemy(ies) and see tracers flying at you from all directions. Pull back up a thousand meters, stall, free fall till 800m when suddenly you take fire from an enemy pilot, as you regain engine control and you start to billow black smoke, you careen towards the ground, hoping to escape the enemy bird, but as you do so the SAMs get you in the end. And you die charred to your seat, then vaporize upon impact. Rage quit.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2011-10-31 21:25:24)

x
2011-10-31 21:27:37
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6918|Tampa Bay Florida
I wish there were a que for jets and helicopters.  Usually its either me flying the whole round or, when I want to fly, I cant because someone else is hogging it
2011-10-31 21:55:22
krazed
Admiral of the Bathtub
+619|7008|Great Brown North
shoulder fired AA weapons are very very stupid
2011-11-01 10:05:16
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6943|US

krazed wrote:

shoulder fired AA weapons are very very stupid
I think it is more that they are ridiculously effective, if they connect.  AT weapons take multiple hits to disable a tank, but Stingers/IGLAs disable helos and jets in one hit.  About the only way I have found to survive for more than a minute or two is have both guys in an attack helo equip stealth and flares, then use tree lines to break up the IR lock-on. 

Aircraft SHOULD be vulnerable if multiple people get pissed at them and go hunting.  They should not fall prey to every engineer who feels like risking a minute of effort to get 2 kills and destroy a vehicle.

edit:
I'd also give claymores back to snipers, and give the AT launchers to assault instead of the current set-up.
Assault is supposed to be the "in the thick of it" type, but they cannot stand up to vehicles.  Give them the AT launchers so they can, you know, assault objectives.  Let them pick between medic and AT.  Have Engineers be the anti-air, stationary AT (mines), and repair guys.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2011-11-01 10:17:23)

2011-11-01 10:33:09
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6514|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

RAIMIUS wrote:

I'd also give claymores back to snipers, and give the AT launchers to assault instead of the current set-up.
Assault is supposed to be the "in the thick of it" type, but they cannot stand up to vehicles.  Give them the AT launchers so they can, you know, assault objectives.  Let them pick between medic and AT.  Have Engineers be the anti-air, stationary AT (mines), and repair guys.
That's the worst idea I've ever heard in a battlefield context
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-11-01 12:20:15
BVC
Member
+325|6924
Timmah & FloppY, I've never had an issue with the BC2 server browser, its always worked perfectly for me.

The whole squad spawn/weapon/perk selection thing needs to be like BC2.  BF3's menu system in that regard is far too complex, there are way too many menu levels/layers.  Also, you should be able to click on spawn points/squaddies on the minimap to spawn on them, rather than having to click on their names - thats just retarded.

On air, the balance should stay the way it is.  In BF2, even a mediocre pilot could fly around unchallenged and rack up screeds of lazy kills.  Its still possible to dominate with air in BF3, but if you want a 10:1 KDR you actually have to work for it now.
2011-11-01 12:21:49
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6514|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Pubic wrote:

Timmah & FloppY, I've never had an issue with the BC2 server browser, its always worked perfectly for me.
Congratulations, I think you are the only person in the world for whom it works
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-11-01 12:32:08
SonderKommando
Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....
+564|6888|The darkside of Denver
You know what I miss?  The little synopsis on the map loading screen that tells the backstory of the conflict in that area.  Why this is missing from BF3, I dont know...
2011-11-01 12:41:25
BVC
Member
+325|6924

FloppY_ wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Timmah & FloppY, I've never had an issue with the BC2 server browser, its always worked perfectly for me.
Congratulations, I think you are the only person in the world for whom it works
I should say that I don't consider accurate ping reporting to be an issue, as that didn't always work in BF2 or 42 and I kind of got used to it.
2011-11-01 12:43:02
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6514|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

SonderKommando wrote:

You know what I miss?  The little synopsis on the map loading screen that tells the backstory of the conflict in that area.  Why this is missing from BF3, I dont know...
I might have read them once each in BF2.. but honestly I didn't care...

I did like them in 2142 because it had a better overall story... neither faction was evil, but both fought to control ressources that could help their respective populations survive the ice-age...


Pubic wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Timmah & FloppY, I've never had an issue with the BC2 server browser, its always worked perfectly for me.
Congratulations, I think you are the only person in the world for whom it works
I should say that I don't consider accurate ping reporting to be an issue, as that didn't always work in BF2 or 42 and I kind of got used to it.
Ping is the most important thing to know in battlefield games tbh, the engine handles lag so terribly you have to stay <50ms to keep it playable...

Last edited by FloppY_ (2011-11-01 12:44:30)

­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-11-01 12:49:29
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,741|6965|Oxferd Ohire
asians are evil floppy
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2011-11-01 12:55:22
BVC
Member
+325|6924

FloppY_ wrote:

Ping is the most important thing to know in battlefield games tbh, the engine handles lag so terribly you have to stay <50ms to keep it playable...
Thats why I only play on servers which I know will have good pings regardless of what a server browser reports.  If the browser is mis-reporting them I fairly confident they'll be good, regardless.
2011-11-01 13:50:45
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6943|US

FloppY_ wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

I'd also give claymores back to snipers, and give the AT launchers to assault instead of the current set-up.
Assault is supposed to be the "in the thick of it" type, but they cannot stand up to vehicles.  Give them the AT launchers so they can, you know, assault objectives.  Let them pick between medic and AT.  Have Engineers be the anti-air, stationary AT (mines), and repair guys.
That's the worst idea I've ever heard in a battlefield context
Why is that?
Look at the unlocks for each class.  Assault gets the shock paddles, and a GL.  Engineers get stingers, AT mines, javelins, and EOD bots.  Snipers get TUGS, SOFLAM, and the MAV.  Support gets C4, claymores, and the mortar.
2011-11-01 13:59:47
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6514|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

RAIMIUS wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

I'd also give claymores back to snipers, and give the AT launchers to assault instead of the current set-up.
Assault is supposed to be the "in the thick of it" type, but they cannot stand up to vehicles.  Give them the AT launchers so they can, you know, assault objectives.  Let them pick between medic and AT.  Have Engineers be the anti-air, stationary AT (mines), and repair guys.
That's the worst idea I've ever heard in a battlefield context
Why is that?
Look at the unlocks for each class.  Assault gets the shock paddles, and a GL.  Engineers get stingers, AT mines, javelins, and EOD bots.  Snipers get TUGS, SOFLAM, and the MAV.  Support gets C4, claymores, and the mortar.
Giving the medic class anti-tank measures just throws game-balance out the window... You want a do-all class, that's not how battlefield works...
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-11-01 18:21:37
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6943|US

FloppY_ wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:


That's the worst idea I've ever heard in a battlefield context
Why is that?
Look at the unlocks for each class.  Assault gets the shock paddles, and a GL.  Engineers get stingers, AT mines, javelins, and EOD bots.  Snipers get TUGS, SOFLAM, and the MAV.  Support gets C4, claymores, and the mortar.
Giving the medic class anti-tank measures just throws game-balance out the window... You want a do-all class, that's not how battlefield works...
No, I'm suggesting that if an assault class equips AT rockets, they lose the health pack or paddles.
Right now, I think Engineer is too much of a "do-all" class.
2011-11-01 18:27:59
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6851|Little Bentcock

RAIMIUS wrote:

krazed wrote:

shoulder fired AA weapons are very very stupid
I think it is more that they are ridiculously effective, if they connect.  AT weapons take multiple hits to disable a tank, but Stingers/IGLAs disable helos and jets in one hit.  About the only way I have found to survive for more than a minute or two is have both guys in an attack helo equip stealth and flares, then use tree lines to break up the IR lock-on. 

Aircraft SHOULD be vulnerable if multiple people get pissed at them and go hunting.  They should not fall prey to every engineer who feels like risking a minute of effort to get 2 kills and destroy a vehicle.

edit:
I'd also give claymores back to snipers, and give the AT launchers to assault instead of the current set-up.
Assault is supposed to be the "in the thick of it" type, but they cannot stand up to vehicles.  Give them the AT launchers so they can, you know, assault objectives.  Let them pick between medic and AT.  Have Engineers be the anti-air, stationary AT (mines), and repair guys.
I think that's silly.

Yes assault is supposed to be in the thick of it, but their job is to cap flags and kill/heal PEOPLE.

Engineer is also in the thick of it, but their job is to kill/heal VEHICLES.

It just works that way. Its a battlefield game, you shouldnt be able to have one class and deal with any threat you want on the field, you need to have members of your team fill in for your weakness with their strengths, just as you fill in their weaknesses with your strengths.
2011-11-01 18:28:56
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6227|Vortex Ring State

RAIMIUS wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:


Why is that?
Look at the unlocks for each class.  Assault gets the shock paddles, and a GL.  Engineers get stingers, AT mines, javelins, and EOD bots.  Snipers get TUGS, SOFLAM, and the MAV.  Support gets C4, claymores, and the mortar.
Giving the medic class anti-tank measures just throws game-balance out the window... You want a do-all class, that's not how battlefield works...
No, I'm suggesting that if an assault class equips AT rockets, they lose the health pack or paddles.
Right now, I think Engineer is too much of a "do-all" class.
solution is to nerf the engy's weapons but not to buff the Assault

otherwise everyone could play assault and have an anti-everything class, with assault rifles that can kill infantry and AT launchers that can kill vehicles.

AT class was almost useless in most infy combat (excluding DAO spamming CQC) in BF2
2011-11-01 18:35:59
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6514|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

RAIMIUS wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Why is that?
Look at the unlocks for each class.  Assault gets the shock paddles, and a GL.  Engineers get stingers, AT mines, javelins, and EOD bots.  Snipers get TUGS, SOFLAM, and the MAV.  Support gets C4, claymores, and the mortar.
Giving the medic class anti-tank measures just throws game-balance out the window... You want a do-all class, that's not how battlefield works...
No, I'm suggesting that if an assault class equips AT rockets, they lose the health pack or paddles.
Right now, I think Engineer is too much of a "do-all" class.
Engineer depends on support to resupply them, medics to keep them alive and they have limited anti-infantry weaponry compared to support and assault...

I play engineer a lot (hell I have as many engineer points as I have with the 3 other classes combined in BC2), but I completely disagree with you... Giving assault Anti-tank weaponry will make them even more of a do-all class than you claim Engineer is now...

I'm glad DICE went back to the 2142 class system, it's been the most balanced in the series...

Last edited by FloppY_ (2011-11-01 18:45:13)

­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-11-01 18:42:47
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6851|Little Bentcock

FloppY_ wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Giving the medic class anti-tank measures just throws game-balance out the window... You want a do-all class, that's not how battlefield works...
No, I'm suggesting that if an assault class equips AT rockets, they lose the health pack or paddles.
Right now, I think Engineer is too much of a "do-all" class.
Engineer depends on assault to resupply them, medics to keep them alive and they have limited anti-infantry weaponry compared to support and assault...

I play engineer a lot (hell I have as many engineer points as I have with the 3 other classes combined in BC2), but I completely disagree with you... Giving assault Anti-tank weaponry will make them even more of a do-all class than you claim Engineer is now...

I'm glad DICE went back to the 2142 class system, it's been the most balanced in the series...
please buy the game..
2011-11-01 18:43:43
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6514|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Adams_BJ wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

No, I'm suggesting that if an assault class equips AT rockets, they lose the health pack or paddles.
Right now, I think Engineer is too much of a "do-all" class.
Engineer depends on assault to resupply them, medics to keep them alive and they have limited anti-infantry weaponry compared to support and assault...

I play engineer a lot (hell I have as many engineer points as I have with the 3 other classes combined in BC2), but I completely disagree with you... Giving assault Anti-tank weaponry will make them even more of a do-all class than you claim Engineer is now...

I'm glad DICE went back to the 2142 class system, it's been the most balanced in the series...
please buy the game..
Typo/brainfart... meant support

Last edited by FloppY_ (2011-11-01 18:44:41)

­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-11-01 18:44:19
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6918|Tampa Bay Florida
the balance in BF3 is fine.  Perfect actually.
2011-11-01 18:57:28
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6851|Little Bentcock

Spearhead wrote:

the balance in BF3 is fine.  Perfect actually.
qft.

fix the bugs, then leave the game the fuck alone. Don't listen to the whiners like was done with all the other games. Let people get some experience before the kneejerking.

Things like sniper glare, tac lights etc can be tweeked, but dont adjust the core gameplay. Not yet.
2011-11-01 18:59:54
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6514|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Adams_BJ wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

the balance in BF3 is fine.  Perfect actually.
qft.

fix the bugs, then leave the game the fuck alone. Don't listen to the whiners like was done with all the other games. Let people get some experience before the kneejerking.

Things like sniper glare, tac lights etc can be tweeked, but dont adjust the core gameplay. Not yet.
BC2 wasn't unjustifiably nerfed tbh, they only nerfed the blatantly overpowered stuff like Carl Gustav, M60 and Abakan.
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2011-11-01 19:03:08
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6918|Tampa Bay Florida
I'd like to see fewer urban maps

More fields with ditches and hedgerows, mountain slopes, etc.  Urban maps reduce gameplay to hugging corners.  (Karkand was like this but still had more freedom than maps like bazaar)
2011-11-01 19:52:58
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6943|US

Trotskygrad wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:


Giving the medic class anti-tank measures just throws game-balance out the window... You want a do-all class, that's not how battlefield works...
No, I'm suggesting that if an assault class equips AT rockets, they lose the health pack or paddles.
Right now, I think Engineer is too much of a "do-all" class.
solution is to nerf the engy's weapons but not to buff the Assault

otherwise everyone could play assault and have an anti-everything class, with assault rifles that can kill infantry and AT launchers that can kill vehicles.

AT class was almost useless in most infy combat (excluding DAO spamming CQC) in BF2
I think that is my issue.  Right now I see Engineer as the "anti-everything class."  If I wind up solo, I almost always go engineer since it is so flexible.  Right now, the engineer carbines are reasonably powerful.  The AT mines are free points, if you know where people are likely to drive (let's face it, there are a ton of funnel points for vehicles in the game.)  Stingers are good against helos, as long as they don't have two pilots with stealth+flares.

In BF2, engineers and AT were much more limited in their anti-infantry capability.  If you wanted a decent rifle and AT, you had to go spec-ops and play chicken against the tanks with C4.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard