Battlefield thread...

[Code_Yuki]

Premium was basically my last purchase from EA.

 

Don't like close Quarters. I feel that the spawns and flag placements could be much much better. I was expecting a Seine's like experience.

 

It's like a map that you play like metro when you feel incredibly bored and want to waste time. Good for the first few plays but get's stale incredibly quickly because it's just too chaotic. I usually play 2-3 games before I move on.

 

Gun master is hard. Especially when you join in late.

 

Overall, compared to what other FPS's a delivering, I'd say it's pretty good. But for a BF experience. Not really.

 

Is it just me but do maps like Karkand, Sharqi, Seine's play much better without vehicles.

[MasterDex]

Is it just me but do maps like Karkand, Sharqi, Seine's play much better without vehicles.

Most definitely. Karkand and Sharqi were kings of the infantry only servers back in the day and Seine is a fantastic infantry map as well.

 

Overall, compared to what other FPS's a delivering, I'd say it's pretty good. But for a BF experience. Not really.

I haven't played any of the CQ maps yet but from the getgo, I had little interest in them. Don't get me wrong, I still regard CoD4 as one of the best, most perfect FPS games to ever see the light of day and I like that type of playstyle but as far as Battlefield goes, I'd rather just play Battlefield, not Battlefield wearing a Call of Duty mask.

 

I'm looking forward to Armoured Warfare, I hope they do the game some real justice. It's sad that Caspian Border is the only stock map that even comes close to the old large maps. I don't know if it's EA or DICE themselves but somewhere along the line, they lost touch with what made Battlefield so great. Now they pander to the masses and placate the whiners when they could be listening to the true BF fans and recapturing the magic that made the series.

[Livingtarget]

Guns are good, but the maps are Meh. Armored Kill looks good though. Biggest map in Battlefield history apparently.

[Luftwaffles]

Yep. When I'm looking for my CQ fix I go and play Canals DM now, which is sort of silly considering there's a huge expansion for all of them.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CQ expansion guns are well worth the price of admission.

 

Oh, and you should all join the Press X Or Die platoon. Dex and I are the leaders, so we can let you in.

[Livingtarget]

Ah, I should have bought it for PC. Though I probably can't run it.

[Code_Yuki]

Ah, I should have bought it for PC. Though I probably can't run it.

What kind of specs you have because BF3 is optimized pretty well. So long as you play on realistic resolutions and graphical settings according to the specs you have, then you're all good.

 

 

 

Personally, I'm running on Core 2 Quad , 3GB ram and HD 5850 running High settings ( I use custom settings but it's more around the high settings mark), 1280 x1080 with around 50 FPS.

[Luftwaffles]

If you can run BC2, you can definitely run BF3. In fact, I'd say the low graphics settings of BF3 scale better than BC2 and are less intensive.

[Livingtarget]

My PC can run it, but probably at a crappy frame rate. Which is the problem.

[MasterDex]

My PC can run it, but probably at a crappy frame rate. Which is the problem.

 

What are your specs? The beauty of PC gaming is that you can tweak the settings to fit your needs. Even if it's at a low resolution with settings at low, if you can get around 40fps average, you'll be able to compete fine - since a lot of people think their rigs are better than they are and run beyond their means.

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CQ expansion guns are well worth the price of admission.

 

I haven't seen it mentioned over on the battlelog forums - surprisingly - but I'm beginning to think that the new weapons, rather than being properly balanced with the existing weapons, are pay2win weapons. Both the Mtar and AUG seem to have an insane time-to-kill, yet people are still more concerned with bitching about the M16.

[madbassman39]

The MTAR is way overpowered. I played it, loved it, and realized that its just too damn good.

[MasterDex]

You have to give them credit though, EA have been trying to integrate pay2win without getting the backlash they've often received at the mere suggestion for years now. That they've managed to do so without causing a stir is a miracle. I wonder if Activision would have had the same success.

Edited June 29, 2012 by MasterDex

[Livingtarget]

My PC can run it, but probably at a crappy frame rate. Which is the problem.

 

What are your specs? The beauty of PC gaming is that you can tweak the settings to fit your needs. Even if it's at a low resolution with settings at low, if you can get around 40fps average, you'll be able to compete fine - since a lot of people think their rigs are better than they are and run beyond their means.

 

A lenovo laptop with a 555M. I study away from home, and this is powerful enough to run dev tools on.

[Luftwaffles]

Noooo way.

 

If any weapon from the pack is OP it's the M417, because it really has no downsides if you want close range engagements. It fires as fast as the SKS, but does the same damage as the MK11 and other semis. Yeah, it's shit at range and recoils a bit much, but it's pretty deadly for a semi-auto sniper in CQB. Aug fires far too slow and reloads too slow to be considered OP (in fact, it's pretty much just a AK74M that fires a tiny bit faster) and the MTAR recoils like crazy and reloads slower than all the other carbines.

 

So yeah, the expansion packs are okay, but to call them OP based on time-to-kill is silly, IMO. The MTAR in particular is just a FAMAS for the engie class with its sights, fire rate, and reload time, so of course it's going to kill faster than even the A-91. But take it to ranged maps like Caspian Border or Oman and you're going to be outclassed by the AKS-74U and M4 unless you're damn good at controlling recoil.

[Code_Yuki]

My PC can run it, but probably at a crappy frame rate. Which is the problem.

 

What are your specs? The beauty of PC gaming is that you can tweak the settings to fit your needs. Even if it's at a low resolution with settings at low, if you can get around 40fps average, you'll be able to compete fine - since a lot of people think their rigs are better than they are and run beyond their means.

 

A lenovo laptop with a 555M. I study away from home, and this is powerful enough to run dev tools on.

 

I'm pretty sure that's sufficient enough to run low-mid with decent framerates.Like around (30-50 FPS)

You have to give them credit though, EA have been trying to integrate pay2win without getting the backlash they've often received at the mere suggestion for years now. That they've managed to do so without causing a stir is a miracle. I wonder if Activision would have had the same success.

 

 

 

Actually, Quite a lot of people recognize it which is why quite a lot of people are abandoning EA. The problem is, new consumers come in and don't realize it and will literally buy it without so much as protest which is why EA can keep doing it.

Noooo way.

 

If any weapon from the pack is OP it's the M417, because it really has no downsides if you want close range engagements. It fires as fast as the SKS, but does the same damage as the MK11 and other semis. Yeah, it's shit at range and recoils a bit much, but it's pretty deadly for a semi-auto sniper in CQB. Aug fires far too slow and reloads too slow to be considered OP (in fact, it's pretty much just a AK74M that fires a tiny bit faster) and the MTAR recoils like crazy and reloads slower than all the other carbines.

 

So yeah, the expansion packs are okay, but to call them OP based on time-to-kill is silly, IMO. The MTAR in particular is just a FAMAS for the engie class with its sights, fire rate, and reload time, so of course it's going to kill faster than even the A-91. But take it to ranged maps like Caspian Border or Oman and you're going to be outclassed by the AKS-74U and M4 unless you're damn good at controlling recoil.

 

That's pretty much it. But I must say, from what I can remember, M16A3 was incredibly powerful. It was way too all rounded which meant that it basically had no downsides unless in the extremities. It could be used in every single situation which basically fits well in all maps. Not sure about now since I haven't touched the gun in ages.

[MasterDex]

If any weapon from the pack is OP it's the M417, because it really has no downsides if you want close range engagements. It fires as fast as the SKS, but does the same damage as the MK11 and other semis. Yeah, it's shit at range and recoils a bit much, but it's pretty deadly for a semi-auto sniper in CQB. Aug fires far too slow and reloads too slow to be considered OP (in fact, it's pretty much just a AK74M that fires a tiny bit faster) and the MTAR recoils like crazy and reloads slower than all the other carbines.

As a preface, I should say that I haven't had a chance to pick up the new weapons and use them myself so my experience of them is one-sided but the time-to-kill certainly seems out of whack with the other guns. I noticed this particularly yesterday, as people were able to kill me with those weapons in less than a second, even after I shot the shit out of them. It was like "Dzzt" and then I was dead. Perhaps there were network factors in play but it seemed to be only these two weapons that were in a class of their own. Looking at the weapon stats, I see that the Aug fires 700rpm, meaning it sits mid-way in the assault class for firing speed but then you look at the muzzle velocity and it's 670m/s, making it the gun with the fastest bullets in the game, while also having the longest range for the assault rifles (1005m). That seems unbalanced to me.

Actually, Quite a lot of people recognize it which is why quite a lot of people are abandoning EA. The problem is, new consumers come in and don't realize it and will literally buy it without so much as protest which is why EA can keep doing it.

I've seen plenty of people complaining about premium over on the Battlelog forums, but I haven't seen many people question the new weapons. Maybe I just missed those threads. At the rate new threads are started on Battlelog, it's hard to catch everything.

That's pretty much it. But I must say, from what I can remember, M16A3 was incredibly powerful. It was way too all rounded which meant that it basically had no downsides unless in the extremities. It could be used in every single situation which basically fits well in all maps. Not sure about now since I haven't touched the gun in ages.

The M16A3 was never overpowered. Most other guns outclass it at their respective ranges so while it is well-rounded (something I think the assault class requires for good class balance), it doesn't excel at anything, except perhaps the recoil, but the M16 is characteristically steady for an assault rifle in real life anyway so increasing the recoil in an attempt to balance the weapon might not be the best option. I think the best thing they could do with the M16 to better accentuate its jack-of-all, master-of-none characteristics is to bring the minimum damage falloff back to 40-45m, rather than the 50m it's currently at. That said, with these new weapons, the M16 probably doesn't need to be nerfed at all. The thing with well-rounded guns is that they're popular choices, simply for being well-rounded and that can lead to a false impression that they're overpowered.

Edited June 29, 2012 by MasterDex

[Luftwaffles]

The problem is all in the recoil, Dex. The AUG is certainly controllable, but if I remember right it has some odd "popcorn" recoil similar to the F2000 that bounces all over the place and makes it difficult to control at longer ranges. So yeah, it does have some pretty good range for the AR's, but personally, having used the weapon for about ~100 kills, I'd take the M16A3 anyday. Easier to control, slightly faster fire rate, AND better reload time means the spread and accuracy that the AUG brings gets somewhat canceled out. Oh, and the AUG has AWFUL hipfire. It's a good gun, and a lot more versatile than many of the other AR's, but in my eyes overpowered it is not.

 

As far as the MTAR goes, yeah, it's going to kill you really, really fast as long as the person can line a shot up. Like I said before, it's a FAMAS for the engineer class, with an extremely long reload time, high fire rate, and low ranged accuracy. Close quarters it will rip you to shreads, as it should, but anywhere outside of that, or if you get caught reloading at a bad time, you're going to die to nearly every other carbine as long as your opponent has alright aim.

 

I really hate to be this guy, but I do think if you play with the guns in question a bit you might sort of see where I'm coming from. Yeah, statwise the CQ guns are pretty fantastic. Some of them, like the ACW-R, are nice niche weapons that fit in really well with the other guns in the class. I still disagree with your claim of OP, and like I said (although I HATE HATE doing this), definitely play with them before judging them. Unless it's the M417. That one may be a taaaad OP.

[MasterDex]

Yeah, as I said, I haven't used them so I can't deny that my experience with them is one sided but with the way cashflow is right now, I won't be getting premium for some time so the only chance I'll have to use them is if I happen to pick up someone's kit and they have them equipped. I don't know if I'd consider them overpowered in the traditional sense but they do seem like a step above their contemporaries, even if it's only in certain aspects. The point I was getting at is that if they are truly a step above the rest - which I can't say for certain since I haven't used them personally yet - it does set a precedent that allows Dice to push the pay2win concept that bit further, even if it isn't until BF4 that we see the true ramifications of such a strategy.

Edited June 29, 2012 by MasterDex

[Maritan]

The M16A3 was never overpowered. Most other guns outclass it at their respective ranges so while it is well-rounded (something I think the assault class requires for good class balance), it doesn't excel at anything, except perhaps the recoil, but the M16 is characteristically steady for an assault rifle in real life anyway so increasing the recoil in an attempt to balance the weapon might not be the best option. I think the best thing they could do with the M16 to better accentuate its jack-of-all, master-of-none characteristics is to bring the minimum damage falloff back to 40-45m, rather than the 50m it's currently at. That said, with these new weapons, the M16 probably doesn't need to be nerfed at all. The thing with well-rounded guns is that they're popular choices, simply for being well-rounded and that can lead to a false impression that they're overpowered.

It's still the best gun in the game. None of the new weapons are as OP as m16(although I don't use automatic weapons much). Some people use *ONLY* this gun and have 30-50 stars on it. Basically, every second assault I see uses it.

I prefer shotguns, explosives and knife, so when I pick up m16 from a body I feel like some kind of laser-shooting robot. It's accurate, it has high RoF, and it's everything one can ask from a gun, it's too easy to use and fits almost every situation.

I still think that DICE failed at balancing the game, it's just too damn hard when you have so many weapons.

Also, flares break laser designated rockets. FAIL.

[Livingtarget]

I use the M16A4. Because I'm a rebel. And I like burst. But mostly the first one.

[MasterDex]

The M16A3 was never overpowered. Most other guns outclass it at their respective ranges so while it is well-rounded (something I think the assault class requires for good class balance), it doesn't excel at anything, except perhaps the recoil, but the M16 is characteristically steady for an assault rifle in real life anyway so increasing the recoil in an attempt to balance the weapon might not be the best option. I think the best thing they could do with the M16 to better accentuate its jack-of-all, master-of-none characteristics is to bring the minimum damage falloff back to 40-45m, rather than the 50m it's currently at. That said, with these new weapons, the M16 probably doesn't need to be nerfed at all. The thing with well-rounded guns is that they're popular choices, simply for being well-rounded and that can lead to a false impression that they're overpowered.

It's still the best gun in the game. None of the new weapons are as OP as m16(although I don't use automatic weapons much). Some people use *ONLY* this gun and have 30-50 stars on it. Basically, every second assault I see uses it.

I prefer shotguns, explosives and knife, so when I pick up m16 from a body I feel like some kind of laser-shooting robot. It's accurate, it has high RoF, and it's everything one can ask from a gun, it's too easy to use and fits almost every situation.

I still think that DICE failed at balancing the game, it's just too damn hard when you have so many weapons.

Also, flares break laser designated rockets. FAIL.

 

I don't think you can really call the M16 the best gun in the game. It can be outclassed at just about every range but it performs well at all ranges. It's designed as the assault's all-rounder, which is also why it makes a good starting weapon for new players and old alike. As an assault, you have to be able to deal with targets at multiple ranges effectively and while the M16 does so to a degree, it doesn't excel at any range. It works better on some maps than others too. On Caspian Border for instance, it's useful, there's wide expanses and tight corridors so it fits right in. On other maps, weapons like the M416, the AEK, or AS Val are more useful. It's just the all-rounder. It's no different to the likes of the Scar 11 and FA-37 of 2142.

 

I've used it a lot myself but honestly, I have more fun and often do better with the likes of an M39 with holo sights and a suppressor, or the Scar and an RPG and I've been having fun with the M27 IAR today. I just don't think the M16 is all it's made out to be.

[Livingtarget]

I... I like the ACR. Why is the ACR getting no love?

[MasterDex]

I... I like the ACR. Why is the ACR getting no love?

 

I've seen a few people making use of the ACR, it looks like a good weapon. Looking at the stats on Symthic, it seems to compare well with the M16A3.

[Luftwaffles]

The ACW is really neat because it has the M4 and all the other carbines beat in recoil, spread, accuracy (minus the AKS), but does far less damage, requiring one extra shot to kill at most ranges.

 

It's actually one of those guns I think DICE did a really good job with, as you can look at the stats and think "OP" but then realize it does 2 or 3 less damage than every other carbine, sort of putting it into its own niche.

[Vargras]

Annnd Battlefield 4 has been confirmed to be in modern setting... just like Battlefield 2, 3, and every game in Bad Company.

 

All you had to do was make a sequel to 2142, DICE. That was all you had to do, and you couldn't even do that.

[Mister Jack]

There's a rumor based on a leaked picture (which I'll post whenever I can find it again) that they're gonna try to charge 80 bucks for the next game. Frankly, if they do that it really wouldn't matter how good it is. They could give out free blowjobs from supermodels with every copy and I still wouldn't pay that much.