but i wanna snipe with the pkm
Pages: 1 … 96 97 98 99 100 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread
People just want things that worked.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No, I just can't fucking stand the "DO NOT LET THIS GAME BE AT ALL ANYWAYS DIFFERENT FROM BF2!!!!" crap I've been seeing so much of. Everyone else seems blinded by nostalgia that you forget how many problems BF2 had.HaiBai wrote:
hes supported the "lets make bf3 more like bc2 then bf2 argument"Adams_BJ wrote:
I think he is going for the opposite effect, haibai.
If the ammo count instead of the mag count a massive deal? No, probably not...
Would it be better than an ammo count? Yes.
It's about striking a balance to make the ideal game. That generally means keeping more things from bf2 than bfbc2, which is fine.
I don't give a shit about how ammo works, but people need to remember how much bitching and moaning they did about BF2, and how their nostalgia is preventing them from thinking about how shit affects the game.jord wrote:
People just want things that worked.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No, I just can't fucking stand the "DO NOT LET THIS GAME BE AT ALL ANYWAYS DIFFERENT FROM BF2!!!!" crap I've been seeing so much of. Everyone else seems blinded by nostalgia that you forget how many problems BF2 had.HaiBai wrote:
hes supported the "lets make bf3 more like bc2 then bf2 argument"
If the ammo count instead of the mag count a massive deal? No, probably not...
Would it be better than an ammo count? Yes.
It's about striking a balance to make the ideal game. That generally means keeping more things from bf2 than bfbc2, which is fine.
Like the people who were pissed that there were only four classes, they demanded the same class system as in BF2. But the BF2 class system was very flawed with many classes overlapping greatly. With the four class system in more recent BF games, all the classes were unique and useful. This was lost on people because they wanted BF3 to be exactly like BF2, and are forcing themselves to be ignorant of the problems BF2 had.
What was different? No prone? No jets? No commander? Less number of classes?jord wrote:
People just want things that worked.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No, I just can't fucking stand the "DO NOT LET THIS GAME BE AT ALL ANYWAYS DIFFERENT FROM BF2!!!!" crap I've been seeing so much of. Everyone else seems blinded by nostalgia that you forget how many problems BF2 had.HaiBai wrote:
hes supported the "lets make bf3 more like bc2 then bf2 argument"
If the ammo count instead of the mag count a massive deal? No, probably not...
Would it be better than an ammo count? Yes.
It's about striking a balance to make the ideal game. That generally means keeping more things from bf2 than bfbc2, which is fine.
It's not like they reinvented the wheel for BC2. All they did was streamline it.
People bitch about changes in video games. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It could be something as inconsequential as the developers moving a single tree on a map and there will be certain people whose entire game was predicated on hiding behind that tree and they will bitch. The bitches simply need to be ignored because you sure as shit can't please everyone, let alone the professional whiners that dominate video game forums.
Anyone expecting BF2 to come back, just with different graphics, is a retard. The world evolves.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Steamline? Jets were an integral part of the bf food chain. So that doesn't really belong in the insignificant category with less number of classes. Whilst the others aren't massive things by themselves they're facets of the game that could be implemented easily for the benfit of the players. Like prone, I mean how hard is it to code that firing position in?Jay wrote:
What was different? No prone? No jets? No commander? Less number of classes?jord wrote:
People just want things that worked.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No, I just can't fucking stand the "DO NOT LET THIS GAME BE AT ALL ANYWAYS DIFFERENT FROM BF2!!!!" crap I've been seeing so much of. Everyone else seems blinded by nostalgia that you forget how many problems BF2 had.
If the ammo count instead of the mag count a massive deal? No, probably not...
Would it be better than an ammo count? Yes.
It's about striking a balance to make the ideal game. That generally means keeping more things from bf2 than bfbc2, which is fine.
It's not like they reinvented the wheel for BC2. All they did was streamline it.
People bitch about changes in video games. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It could be something as inconsequential as the developers moving a single tree on a map and there will be certain people whose entire game was predicated on hiding behind that tree and they will bitch. The bitches simply need to be ignored because you sure as shit can't please everyone, let alone the professional whiners that dominate video game forums.
Anyone expecting BF2 to come back, just with different graphics, is a retard. The world evolves.
Anyway I'm not going to ramble as I don't like whiners either, but I also don't like the other end of the spectrum that believe changing every aspect of a PROVEN GAME is a good thing. Striking a balance between old and new is key. bf2 was the best fps i've ever played, and there's no harm in bringing key aspects of that game into the sequel.
BC2's problems came from the weapon handling, 12x zoom attachment and poor map design. These were pretty big, maybe bigger than all of BF2's problems. But to discount everything in that game just because on a whole it was worse than BF2 isn't right. BC2 had a good class system, and air vehicles were actually balanced with the ground. The same couldn't be said for BF2, where we had classes that overlapped greatly and some that were just completely obsolete, and air vehicles were hard counters against everything on the ground, including dedicated anti-aircraft units.
What was wrong with the zoom attachment?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Made sniping to easy. Sniping is very low risk, and the zoom attachment made it high reward aswell. It enabled players to get large amounts of points without advancing objectives, as well as made it easier for snipers to get kills from very far away, very safe positions, effectively eliminating any means of killing without pulling out a rifle yourself. Combined with the linear and cramped maps, its one of the main reasons why so few people actually bother attacking in rush.Jay wrote:
What was wrong with the zoom attachment?
Jets should be hard to take down, there's 4 jets for lets say 50 people on average. That's not really a big problem if your own teams pilots don't suck balls.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
BC2's problems came from the weapon handling, 12x zoom attachment and poor map design. These were pretty big, maybe bigger than all of BF2's problems. But to discount everything in that game just because on a whole it was worse than BF2 isn't right. BC2 had a good class system, and air vehicles were actually balanced with the ground. The same couldn't be said for BF2, where we had classes that overlapped greatly and some that were just completely obsolete, and air vehicles were hard counters against everything on the ground, including dedicated anti-aircraft units.
I never had issues with snipers in BC2 but I also didn't play hardcore much. Personally, I always felt completely useless to my team as a bush wookie unless I was running around with the VSS or a shotgun and tossing out sensor balls.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Made sniping to easy. Sniping is very low risk, and the zoom attachment made it high reward aswell. It enabled players to get large amounts of points without advancing objectives, as well as made it easier for snipers to get kills from very far away, very safe positions, effectively eliminating any means of killing without pulling out a rifle yourself. Combined with the linear and cramped maps, its one of the main reasons why so few people actually bother attacking in rush.Jay wrote:
What was wrong with the zoom attachment?
If the issue is you were playing a lot of hardcore... well, the game wasn't designed around hardcore.
Last edited by Jay (2011-04-18 10:39:37)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If they do suck balls, and the other team has a single good pilot, the game is then over for the other 49 people. Yes, it's realistic for jets to dominate, but it's not fun in a video game setting. Air maps blew goats in BF2.jord wrote:
Jets should be hard to take down, there's 4 jets for lets say 50 people on average. That's not really a big problem if your own teams pilots don't suck balls.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
BC2's problems came from the weapon handling, 12x zoom attachment and poor map design. These were pretty big, maybe bigger than all of BF2's problems. But to discount everything in that game just because on a whole it was worse than BF2 isn't right. BC2 had a good class system, and air vehicles were actually balanced with the ground. The same couldn't be said for BF2, where we had classes that overlapped greatly and some that were just completely obsolete, and air vehicles were hard counters against everything on the ground, including dedicated anti-aircraft units.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
dont remember jets being much of a problem on wake..about the only jet map i played a lot
snipers were a problem, if there were more than 1 and they spotted targets, 2 shots, you dead.Jay wrote:
I never had issues with snipers in BC2 but I also didn't play hardcore much. Personally, I always felt completely useless to my team as a bush wookie unless I was running around with the VSS or a shotgun and tossing out sensor balls.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Made sniping to easy. Sniping is very low risk, and the zoom attachment made it high reward aswell. It enabled players to get large amounts of points without advancing objectives, as well as made it easier for snipers to get kills from very far away, very safe positions, effectively eliminating any means of killing without pulling out a rifle yourself. Combined with the linear and cramped maps, its one of the main reasons why so few people actually bother attacking in rush.Jay wrote:
What was wrong with the zoom attachment?
If the issue is you were playing a lot of hardcore... well, the game wasn't designed around hardcore.
and that often happens.
Were you a J-10 whore? Try getting off the carrier when the other teams pilots were competent.
Wake was probably my least favorite map in bf2.
Wake was probably my least favorite map in bf2.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Not only were they too hard to take down but also they were just too effective. The jets were capable of killing ANYTHING on the ground without ANY resistance.jord wrote:
Jets should be hard to take down, there's 4 jets for lets say 50 people on average. That's not really a big problem if your own teams pilots don't suck balls.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
BC2's problems came from the weapon handling, 12x zoom attachment and poor map design. These were pretty big, maybe bigger than all of BF2's problems. But to discount everything in that game just because on a whole it was worse than BF2 isn't right. BC2 had a good class system, and air vehicles were actually balanced with the ground. The same couldn't be said for BF2, where we had classes that overlapped greatly and some that were just completely obsolete, and air vehicles were hard counters against everything on the ground, including dedicated anti-aircraft units.
At this point you're saying "well, it should be like that as jets are blah, blah, blah." You're probably right. I don't think that jets could be put into a game in such a way where they are both fun to use and do not cause large amounts of frustration to people on the ground. Not in BF3, not in BF2 and not in any game really. But none the less, jets are in but no one is forcing me to play on maps with them. So I probably won't.
noooJay wrote:
Were you a J-10 whore? Try getting off the carrier when the other teams pilots were competent.
Wake was probably my least favorite map in bf2.
i suck at flying jets.
I'm not bothered about realism, I'm bothered about retaining the variation that made bf2 so popular. Jets, tanks, Apc's, helis cars. All adds to the variation and dynamic of battlefield. Like DS said, you don't have the play the jet maps, and that makes everybody happy. I enjoyed whoring it up on wake as much as playing infantry on karkand. If you only enjoy infantry, or land based vehicles then I'm sure you'll be able to stick to that configuration.Jay wrote:
If they do suck balls, and the other team has a single good pilot, the game is then over for the other 49 people. Yes, it's realistic for jets to dominate, but it's not fun in a video game setting. Air maps blew goats in BF2.jord wrote:
Jets should be hard to take down, there's 4 jets for lets say 50 people on average. That's not really a big problem if your own teams pilots don't suck balls.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
BC2's problems came from the weapon handling, 12x zoom attachment and poor map design. These were pretty big, maybe bigger than all of BF2's problems. But to discount everything in that game just because on a whole it was worse than BF2 isn't right. BC2 had a good class system, and air vehicles were actually balanced with the ground. The same couldn't be said for BF2, where we had classes that overlapped greatly and some that were just completely obsolete, and air vehicles were hard counters against everything on the ground, including dedicated anti-aircraft units.
It's been said before, man portable AA. Perhaps 5-15% more effective than in bf2. I think fun/fairness can be achieved whilst still keeping jets ingame.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Not only were they too hard to take down but also they were just too effective. The jets were capable of killing ANYTHING on the ground without ANY resistance.jord wrote:
Jets should be hard to take down, there's 4 jets for lets say 50 people on average. That's not really a big problem if your own teams pilots don't suck balls.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
BC2's problems came from the weapon handling, 12x zoom attachment and poor map design. These were pretty big, maybe bigger than all of BF2's problems. But to discount everything in that game just because on a whole it was worse than BF2 isn't right. BC2 had a good class system, and air vehicles were actually balanced with the ground. The same couldn't be said for BF2, where we had classes that overlapped greatly and some that were just completely obsolete, and air vehicles were hard counters against everything on the ground, including dedicated anti-aircraft units.
At this point you're saying "well, it should be like that as jets are blah, blah, blah." You're probably right. I don't think that jets could be put into a game in such a way where they are both fun to use and do not cause large amounts of frustration to people on the ground. Not in BF3, not in BF2 and not in any game really. But none the less, jets are in but no one is forcing me to play on maps with them. So I probably won't.
Ye imagine that. 2 planes per side and possibly 32 portable AA guns.jord wrote:
It's been said before, man portable AA. Perhaps 5-15% more effective than in bf2. I think fun/fairness can be achieved whilst still keeping jets ingame.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Not only were they too hard to take down but also they were just too effective. The jets were capable of killing ANYTHING on the ground without ANY resistance.jord wrote:
Jets should be hard to take down, there's 4 jets for lets say 50 people on average. That's not really a big problem if your own teams pilots don't suck balls.
At this point you're saying "well, it should be like that as jets are blah, blah, blah." You're probably right. I don't think that jets could be put into a game in such a way where they are both fun to use and do not cause large amounts of frustration to people on the ground. Not in BF3, not in BF2 and not in any game really. But none the less, jets are in but no one is forcing me to play on maps with them. So I probably won't.
The entire enemy team isn't going to all go AA to take down a jet or 2. Give them a shitty sidearm like an MP7 so they can't be effective an infantry.RDMC wrote:
Ye imagine that. 2 planes per side and possibly 32 portable AA guns.jord wrote:
It's been said before, man portable AA. Perhaps 5-15% more effective than in bf2. I think fun/fairness can be achieved whilst still keeping jets ingame.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Not only were they too hard to take down but also they were just too effective. The jets were capable of killing ANYTHING on the ground without ANY resistance.
At this point you're saying "well, it should be like that as jets are blah, blah, blah." You're probably right. I don't think that jets could be put into a game in such a way where they are both fun to use and do not cause large amounts of frustration to people on the ground. Not in BF3, not in BF2 and not in any game really. But none the less, jets are in but no one is forcing me to play on maps with them. So I probably won't.
Again, there's no reason there can't be a balance between fair and fun.
Well keeping in mind that jets needed 3 hits, however you want to increase the damage, thus 2 hits is required.jord wrote:
The entire enemy team isn't going to all go AA to take down a jet or 2. Give them a shitty sidearm like an MP7 so they can't be effective an infantry.RDMC wrote:
Ye imagine that. 2 planes per side and possibly 32 portable AA guns.jord wrote:
It's been said before, man portable AA. Perhaps 5-15% more effective than in bf2. I think fun/fairness can be achieved whilst still keeping jets ingame.
Again, there's no reason there can't be a balance between fair and fun.
A squad of 6 as BF2 had them: 2 AT, 2 AA, 1 medic, 1 support and you can take on the entire map. Planes would not stand a chance, tanks would not stand a chance and neither would infantry..
Little OP if you ask me.
Planes being overpowered in BF2 is a myth.
Some pilots were overpowered.
Of course jets would still stand a chance, a good pilot in bf2 isn't hit once with a ground aa missle, and if you were by my suggestion you could still repair anyway.RDMC wrote:
Well keeping in mind that jets needed 3 hits, however you want to increase the damage, thus 2 hits is required.jord wrote:
The entire enemy team isn't going to all go AA to take down a jet or 2. Give them a shitty sidearm like an MP7 so they can't be effective an infantry.RDMC wrote:
Ye imagine that. 2 planes per side and possibly 32 portable AA guns.
Again, there's no reason there can't be a balance between fair and fun.
A squad of 6 as BF2 had them: 2 AT, 2 AA, 1 medic, 1 support and you can take on the entire map. Planes would not stand a chance, tanks would not stand a chance and neither would infantry..
Little OP if you ask me.
If someones willing to put 100/200 hours into 1 method of gameplay to become good enough to dominate the scoreboard then fair play to them.CC-Marley wrote:
Some pilots were overpowered.
Pages: 1 … 96 97 98 99 100 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread