Pages: 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 683

 

2010-10-05 07:44:56
GullyFoyle
Member
+25|5604
twitter.com/Demize99:  "Actual BF3 playtest bug: The Knife can destroy tanks. Oops or Feature?"

Who thinks this would this be a good time to join CombatTesting.com? (calm before the storm)
Battlefield 3 FAQ
2010-10-18 07:56:31
White-Fusion
Fuck
+616|6769|Scotland
"Buying Medal Of Honor: Limited Edition will give fans the opportunity to join the 'Battlefield 3 Multiplayer BETA' when it goes live. BETA access details will be included within the game packaging."

http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/1298065 … oduct.html
2010-10-18 09:22:30
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6440|Escea

I actually think if BF3's gameplay was like that of MOH's SP, it would be epic.

BF3 needs to go back to a more realistic set-up as well, including weapons. The factions need to have the weapons they would irl, so for example the Russian's wouldn't be lugging around a Chinese GPMG.
2010-10-18 09:37:23
Acerider
Stupid keyboard is stuck
+32|5228|Ontario, Canada

M.O.A.B wrote:

I actually think if BF3's gameplay was like that of MOH's SP, it would be epic.

BF3 needs to go back to a more realistic set-up as well, including weapons. The factions need to have the weapons they would irl, so for example the Russian's wouldn't be lugging around a Chinese GPMG.
I agree, they should go cod1 on it. Actually, bf3 should go back to the bf2 weapons style.

Last edited by Acerider (2010-10-18 09:37:50)

2010-10-19 07:13:17
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|6783|Area 51

GullyFoyle wrote:

twitter.com/Demize99:  "Actual BF3 playtest bug: The Knife can destroy tanks. Oops or Feature?"

Who thinks this would this be a good time to join CombatTesting.com? (calm before the storm)
Obviously a feature.
2010-10-21 18:43:04
HaiBai
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
+304|5701|Bolingbrook, Illinois

White-Fusion wrote:

"Buying Medal Of Honor: Limited Edition will give fans the opportunity to join the 'Battlefield 3 Multiplayer BETA' when it goes live. BETA access details will be included within the game packaging."

http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/1298065 … oduct.html
posted like 2 months ago...?
2010-10-21 19:38:00
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6217|Vortex Ring State

Acerider wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I actually think if BF3's gameplay was like that of MOH's SP, it would be epic.

BF3 needs to go back to a more realistic set-up as well, including weapons. The factions need to have the weapons they would irl, so for example the Russian's wouldn't be lugging around a Chinese GPMG.
I agree, they should go cod1 on it. Actually, bf3 should go back to the bf2 weapons style.
HELL NO

I want GOOD hitreg in BF3 DAMMIT.

BF3 I haz epic ideas for, but I don't think EA/DICE will agree with my ideas

you gain experience on a weapon the more you use it, resulting in faster reload times/sight-in. Stock weapons can be "trained" this way the most. Training carries over 75% within a weapons family (M16/M4 carbine)

Commander system returns in a better way (perhaps use CoD style objective markers?)

Stock weapons are the weapons that allow a noob to fulfill their role the easiest.

5 classes, 2-3 specializations per class.

Pointman (SMG/Shotgun/Carbines): Recon/CQB specializations. Gets more points for kill the closer to target. er/Squad Leader (2 primaries) Gets more points for accuracy and improved headshot modifier. Carries a light weapon (SMG/PDW/Carbine/Shotgun) and a very light weapon(SMGs/PDWs)/sidearm

Rifleman (Assault Rifles/Battle Rifles): Grenadier/Squad Leader Specializations. Gets more points for ammo efficiency (Accuracy) and a slightly improved headshot point modifier. Squad leader spec allows for carrying a primary and a Light Weapon

Sniper (Sniper/DM rifles): Desg. Marksman/Sniper specializations. Gets more points for kill further away from target, improved headshot point modifier. Carries very Light Weapon (SMGs/PDWs)or a sidearm.

Support (Carbines/SMGs/Shotguns/PDWs): Engineer/Medic/Resupply specializations. Gets more points for doing shit related to support role. Sidearm, but no other primary other than light weapon.

Automatic Rifleman (LMG/GPMGs) LMG/GPMG specializations. Gets more points for suppression (firing rounds close to target that cause target not to move) Carries a sidearm and a very light weapon as secondary

Anti Vehicle (AA/AT launcher): Anti-Vehicle/Anti-Structure specializations. Gets more points for hitting weak points on targets. Carries very little ammo (1-3 shots of launcher depending on type), and only very light weapons as secondary. No Sidearm.

Taking lighter loadouts allows you to move faster, slot system for grenades, different ammo types for magazines.

But yeah, DICE is not going to implement this in any way, so this is just a pipe dream.
2010-10-21 19:39:44
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5455|Cleveland, Ohio
or get rid of points and just have k/d info
2010-10-21 19:44:59
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6217|Vortex Ring State

11 Bravo wrote:

or get rid of points and just have k/d info
nar, then it would turn into counter-strike.
2010-10-21 19:45:46
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5455|Cleveland, Ohio

Trotskygrad wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

or get rid of points and just have k/d info
nar, then it would turn into counter-strike.
well its better than half the team standing around waiting for a helo or jet
2010-10-21 20:10:04
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX
k/d only would mean the whole team would stand around waiting for helo or jet
Remove k/d and just have points.
Fuck Israel
2010-10-21 20:11:56
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5455|Cleveland, Ohio

Dilbert_X wrote:

k/d only would mean the whole team would stand around waiting for helo or jet
Remove k/d and just have points.
no...remove helos and jets
2010-10-21 20:13:14
Blade4509
Wrench turnin' fool
+202|5726|America

11 Bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

k/d only would mean the whole team would stand around waiting for helo or jet
Remove k/d and just have points.
no...remove helos and jets
no...remove 11 Bravo
"Raise the flag high! Let the degenerates know who comes to claim their lives this day!"
2010-10-21 20:14:31
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6715

Dilbert_X wrote:

k/d only would mean the whole team would stand around waiting for helo or jet
Remove k/d and just have points.

Morpheus wrote:

stats r lyf
2010-10-21 20:18:06
Morpheus
This shit still going?
+508|6217|The Mitten
remove the guns
just have stats
EE (hats
2010-10-21 21:48:37
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6217|Vortex Ring State

Morpheus wrote:

remove the guns
just have stats
then it would be the sims
2010-10-22 02:23:13
thepilot91
Member
+64|6454|Åland!

Trotskygrad wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

remove the guns
just have stats
then it would be the sims
or wat ?
2010-10-22 03:02:04
Sambuccashake
Member
+126|6828|Sweden
Demize99
DICE

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.
2010-10-22 04:43:36
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

11 Bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

k/d only would mean the whole team would stand around waiting for helo or jet
Remove k/d and just have points.
no...remove helos and jets
And call it 'Infantryfield'? Brilliant.

Give infantry Stingers or make the fixed AA missiles work and we're done.
Fuck Israel
2010-10-22 05:48:54
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5455|Cleveland, Ohio

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

k/d only would mean the whole team would stand around waiting for helo or jet
Remove k/d and just have points.
no...remove helos and jets
And call it 'Infantryfield'? Brilliant.

Give infantry Stingers or make the fixed AA missiles work and we're done.
i agree with that.  stingers or gtfo.
2010-10-22 06:55:28
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|6783|Area 51

11 Bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


no...remove helos and jets
And call it 'Infantryfield'? Brilliant.

Give infantry Stingers or make the fixed AA missiles work and we're done.
i agree with that.  stingers or gtfo.
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.
2010-10-22 07:00:12
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6217|Vortex Ring State

11 Bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


no...remove helos and jets
And call it 'Infantryfield'? Brilliant.

Give infantry Stingers or make the fixed AA missiles work and we're done.
i agree with that.  stingers or gtfo.
Same here.

Stinger in AIX is rape...

but yeah that would be under the AA kit in my system thingy.
2010-10-22 07:01:17
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6217|Vortex Ring State

RDMC wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


And call it 'Infantryfield'? Brilliant.

Give infantry Stingers or make the fixed AA missiles work and we're done.
i agree with that.  stingers or gtfo.
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.
Well see, the stinger people will be defenseless against infantry.

fly a helo WAAAY above them, paradrop a couple infantry in, profit.
2010-10-22 07:34:04
Acerider
Stupid keyboard is stuck
+32|5228|Ontario, Canada

Trotskygrad wrote:

RDMC wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


i agree with that.  stingers or gtfo.
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.
Well see, the stinger people will be defenseless against infantry.

fly a helo WAAAY above them, paradrop a couple infantry in, profit.
Eventually people will cluster around bases instead of just going to the coastline when the high altitude insertions begin. But, that does put the attacking team at a disadvantage. The defending team has all the vehicles and natural defences they need. The attackingteam has only their infantry and air support (On maps where the only way to reach bases is via boat or aircraft). And since there will be tons of stingers, the attacking teamsair support is rendered useless, since infantry with rockets can smash air vehicles. Then only paradropped infantry cando anything, except that the defendingteam will be camping all the bases with armour and heavy defenses. If BC2 makes aerial/naval insertion maps, the defendingteam should not get stingers and instead go backto the bf2 way of stationary AA bases. Just my opinion though.
2010-10-22 10:01:40
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6217|Vortex Ring State

Acerider wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

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.
Well see, the stinger people will be defenseless against infantry.

fly a helo WAAAY above them, paradrop a couple infantry in, profit.
Eventually people will cluster around bases instead of just going to the coastline when the high altitude insertions begin. But, that does put the attacking team at a disadvantage. The defending team has all the vehicles and natural defences they need. The attackingteam has only their infantry and air support (On maps where the only way to reach bases is via boat or aircraft). And since there will be tons of stingers, the attacking teamsair support is rendered useless, since infantry with rockets can smash air vehicles. Then only paradropped infantry cando anything, except that the defendingteam will be camping all the bases with armour and heavy defenses. If BC2 makes aerial/naval insertion maps, the defendingteam should not get stingers and instead go backto the bf2 way of stationary AA bases. Just my opinion though.
kit/weapon limits, muthafuckas

 

Pages: 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 683

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard