5punkyBEEF Server

[Dog Pants]

I imagine that there are people who just do it for the bragging rights, either about how omg leet they are, or how they pwned lots of noobs with their hax.

Ahem. I feel dirty from that language now.

[Pnut]

Ahem. I feel dirty from that language now.

I feel dirty from just reading it

[buzzmong]

not sure if it is possible to kill 2 people with one bullet

It is. I've done it on occasion with sniper rifles and shotguns with flechettes (which seems to break the shotgun accuracy % stat). You're right though, the leaderboard should be the easiest place to find out who's a dirty hacker.

[deject]

That is slightly bizarre. The only reasons i can see behind it are 1) you don't have the time / skill to unlock the bits and bobs for all guns 2) you want to disrupt a public server. Other than that, i can't massively see any enjoyment from that.

Never thought about the more kills than bullets killed stat - not sure if it is possible to kill 2 people with one bullet - i guess you can with frag rounds - but surely the powers that be can run a script on the database, and anyone who has an unrealistic ratio gets their account suspended / nuked.

With sniper rifles, you can kill up to 5 people with one shot if they're lined up properly. I've gotten double kills with sniper rifles before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... YMI#t=238s

[Jimmington]

That is slightly bizarre. The only reasons i can see behind it are 1) you don't have the time / skill to unlock the bits and bobs for all guns 2) you want to disrupt a public server. Other than that, i can't massively see any enjoyment from that.

Never thought about the more kills than bullets killed stat - not sure if it is possible to kill 2 people with one bullet - i guess you can with frag rounds - but surely the powers that be can run a script on the database, and anyone who has an unrealistic ratio gets their account suspended / nuked.

With sniper rifles, you can kill up to 5 people with one shot if they're lined up properly. I've gotten double kills with sniper rifles before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... YMI#t=238s

Cheers for that, enlightening.

On a similar road, in the other direction - anyone else bugged by people using sniper rifles with no scope as CQ guns? It seems that they have quite high damage capabilities with one shot, which then make you easier to pick off. Of course, you can apply the usual arguments, it's in the game, if you had the skill you try it etc which i do agree with - But like rockets on infantry, i just think they should be booked for ungentlemanly conduct.
Anyone bored enough to have given it a go?

[Dog Pants]

I've only given that a go by accident when caught by surprise, and my twitch accuracy isn't good enough to be effective. I suppose it's like a railgun and needs skills to match. I've never had a problem being on the receiving end at any rate.

On an unrelated note, we were playing SDM last night, only for the Professional Russian achievement. All night and not a single win. Bah. I've noticed that you need a lot more tight teamwork to win, which is kind of nice, but ultimately I'll be glad when I've got that damn L85A2 and never have to play it again. Any other weapon and I wouldn't be bothering.

[Jimmington]

I managed to ponce 4 wins by hanging on the others coat tails - but I agree, you have to be on form - and get some luck. A couple of them we got on last kill type thing.

[Dog Pants]

They were certainly close games, which was kind of exhilarating.

[buzzmong]

On a similar road, in the other direction - anyone else bugged by people using sniper rifles with no scope as CQ guns? It seems that they have quite high damage capabilities with one shot, which then make you easier to pick off. Of course, you can apply the usual arguments, it's in the game, if you had the skill you try it etc which i do agree with - But like rockets on infantry, i just think they should be booked for ungentlemanly conduct.
Anyone bored enough to have given it a go?

One hit kills under <15m with bolt action sniper rifles were added back in to the game in the last patch. I was against the tactic in Bacons, and am still against it now, namely because it allows good players to totally dominate with no fear of recourse, as well as being balls out silly (1.5 metre+ sniper rifles shouldn't be better at CQB than carbines/shotties/assaults etc).

[Jimmington]

http://bf3blog.com/2012/02/battlefield- ... next-week/

Mumblings and grumblings of DLC on the horizon.

I can't tell if i am jumping on the bandwagon, old, a hateful person, can't shoot or just plain bored of games these days... but it just has not grabbed me like BF2 - and i know that is a common whine, rose tinted specs and all that, and that Chequered Flag, Atic Atac and Spy vs Spy were 100 times better than any new game etc etc, but i just don't have that burning urge whilst listening to the wife moan or whilst at work that i should be playing BF3.

Anyway, misery aside, let's hope it is something funky coming - commander and UAV would be a start :D

[buzzmong]

I agree with you Jim.

Personally, I think it's down to the run and gun gameplay due to the regerating health, the current (soon to be fixed) totally unbalanced nature of the unlocks and the biggest thing of all: the maps.

It's just on the whole...less satisfying.

[FatherJack]

I've not been tempted to get BF3 at all, granted I wasn't a massive fan of BF2 - while I loved it on release, it was stuff that happened in-game that ended up in us parting on less than amicable terms.

However, I did rather enjoy BF:Bad Company 2 aka BaCons, which was an island of goodness in its execution that transcended all the in-game cockbags and revived a genre I had thought dead to me. Sadly, that was an isolated incident and the slow death, which started much earlier, with MW2 being the final nail in the coffin and with the brief dalliances I've had with Black Ops and MW3 doing nothing to convince me otherwise, continued. I still rate Modern Warfare (1) above any other game in this rough genre.

I have often thought myself grumpy and old about this, but I continue to enjoy a lot of other new games in different genres including shooters just as much as I enjoyed their predecessors, if not more - so I think it's probably a real thing. If I'm not feeling the spark from new squad-based online shooters anymore it's because it isn't there.

[Dog Pants]

Cliche as it is, I think it does suffer from being dinner down. Regenerating health, loss of commander, disabled vehicles, no vehicle soft spots. It all contributes to a watered down experience. The maps are lacking too for the most part as the success of the Back to Karkand maps show. Despite it all though, it offers the best multiplayer shooter experience available at the moment, it's still a good game, it just falls short of being the evolution of BF2 it should be.

[Jimmington]

Well that makes me feel better, that i am not just moaning for the sake of it and others think something is not quite right - i think a lot of the pull of the game at the mo is playing with other players and having some teamwork - without that, if i see no-one online, it is a real 50/50 to open up the game.

And all valid points made; effectively dumbing down the game - and there is any easy way to see that - my stats. Before this game i never used a shotgun in the BF games (slight exageration, but certainly no more than 10 kills) in this game 2/3 of my kills come from that - because it is so damn easy - christ, i even have a positive k/d ratio! And i hear that the USAS12 frag is like an automatic grenade launcher - loving that skill.

Buuuuut as you say it is still the best out there at the moment, and we can but hope they liven things up a bit.

[deject]

totally unbalanced nature of the unlocks

Unless you're talking about vehicle unlocks, I seriously do not understand the unlock complaint whatsoever. I've unlocked weapon that exists (except the Jackhammer) and I've used all but 4-5. Calling them unbalanced is just patently wrong. Even in terms of damage dealt, they are all pretty much equivalent to each other. The only differences between the different weapons are mostly in the recoil characteristics. Even there they just generally don't vary that much. I really don't know how to say it more clearly. The only infantry unlocks that really have any effect on your ability to do things (defrib, AA missile, recon tools) are all unlocked really quickly. Vehicle unlocks are stupid, I agree. Having none of the unlocks for vehicles can definitely hold you back, but unless you totally give up on using vehicles at all, it doesn't take that long to unlock the first set of them so you aren't at a disadvantage.

The other parts I can see not liking. I completely disagree with you on them, but they're at least more subjective in nature. My point is any level 1 newb who has some skill can perform every bit as well as anyone else. The only disadvantage they have is the metagame, things like knowing the maps well, understanding the game modes, and situational awareness. Every game will have these though.

no vehicle soft spots

What? No seriously. This is just flat out untrue. I don't think the vehicle damage model is quite as complicated as BF2 was (as you can kill a tank with one shot to the front if you know where to aim and have a bit of luck in BF2) but there are definitely weak spots on vehicles. Tanks and IFVs take double damage when you hit them in the rear. You can take out an IFV with two rockets to the rear. I've disabled countless ones with one rocket to the rear. The sides also take more damage than the front, though I can't think of the numbers off the top of my head.

And i hear that the USAS12 frag is like an automatic grenade launcher - loving that skill.

All I will say about this is that DICE have nerfed shotgun FRAG rounds significantly in semi-auto and full auto shotguns because of how unbalanced they are. These days it takes about 3-4 direct hits with frags out of a USAS12 to get a kill. It's still viable and potent, but it's nowhere nearly as ridiculous as it was before.

Shotguns are only easy mode when you're in close combat anyways. If you're more than 20m from a guy, you're far better off switching to your pistol. Anyone with a rifle will tear you apart. Unless you're great at avoiding combat and closing distance, relying on the shotgun only works if you only play on Op Metro, Grand Bazaar, or Seine Crossing.

[Dog Pants]

I don't consider having three different armour values accurate damage modelling for vehicles. In BF2 you could take out a tank in one shot if you hit it just right, or almost KO it with a front track hit from an AT4. In BC2 they dumbed it down but at least kept some damage modelling on the turret, but since BC2 was supposed to be more arcade that's not a big issue. In BF3 they've removed even more detail, modelling front, side, rear and turret. The effect is that there is no advantage to accuracy any more, and an average AT is as effective as a good one. The replacement of the AT4 with the Javelin is another complaint of mine for the same reason. I like the Javelin as it opens up more team action, but it leaves the engineer without their best top tied weapon. I suppose, though, with the amount of engineers in BF3 that might not be such a bad thing.

[buzzmong]

totally unbalanced nature of the unlocks

Unless you're talking about vehicle unlocks, I seriously do not understand the unlock complaint whatsoever.

Actually, I was talking about the weapon accessories unlocks.

Foregrip is a full on upgrade, and the supressor's penalities are ignorable in the face of the 50% aimed accuracy bonus it gives, yet the heavy barrel and flash supressor are pretty much pointless to use.

Then we get to the 10-kills-per-unlock for them, which 1) Makes them trivial to get and not a challenge and 2) Doesn't make sense either. Why do I have to unlock the M145 or the ACOG for each gun? By class I'd understand, but each gun, and when some of the guns are in the same family or use the same rail system? No, it's just pandering to the "oooh shiny!" crowd. Bacons had it perfectly right on that front with the way you chould choose unlocks.

As for disagreeing about regenerating health and stuff, fair enough, but BF2 fostered much better teamplay with medics being crucial to advancement of squads and there was less running and gunning due to not being able to hunker down and magically heal your wounds.

You can't deny the maps are rather bad though, and Dogpants is correct with the damage. We (Doggers, Myself, Mr J and another person) did some testing on Nosehair Canals shortly after the game came out, there's no damage variation at all apart from the front, the sides (inc top and turret) and the back.

Then we also get to the "steps back" such as no longer loading the next level while the scoreboard is up, or not being able to mess around with your loadout while alive ready for your next respawn. Or the small squads (compared to BF2). Or the lack of static weaponry like AA or MG's.

As much as I'm hammering into the game, it's not actually a bad game, it is fairly good, but it's certainly not on par with previous titles.

[Jimmington]

totally unbalanced nature of the unlocks

Unless you're talking about vehicle unlocks, I seriously do not understand the unlock complaint whatsoever.

Actually, I was talking about the weapon accessories unlocks.

Foregrip is a full on upgrade, and the supressor's penalities are ignorable in the face of the 50% aimed accuracy bonus it gives, yet the heavy barrel and flash supressor are pretty much pointless to use.

Then we get to the 10-kills-per-unlock for them, which 1) Makes them trivial to get and not a challenge and 2) Doesn't make sense either. Why do I have to unlock the M145 or the ACOG for each gun? By class I'd understand, but each gun, and when some of the guns are in the same family or use the same rail system? No, it's just pandering to the "oooh shiny!" crowd.

As for disagreeing about regenerating health and stuff, fair enough, but BF2 fostered much better teamplay with medics being crucial to advancement of squads and there was less running and gunning due to not being able to hunker down and magically heal your wounds.

You can't deny the maps are rather bad though, and Dogpants is correct with the damage. We (Doggers, Myself, Mr J and another person) did some testing on Nosehair Canals shortly after the game came out, there's no damage variation at all apart from the front, the sides, top and turret, and the back.

I think the term is "agree".

Must change heavy barrel of my Famas Death Laser though - cheers for that info.

[deject]

totally unbalanced nature of the unlocks

Unless you're talking about vehicle unlocks, I seriously do not understand the unlock complaint whatsoever.

Actually, I was talking about the weapon accessories unlocks.

Foregrip is a full on upgrade, and the supressor's penalities are ignorable in the face of the 50% aimed accuracy bonus it gives, yet the heavy barrel and flash supressor are pretty much pointless to use.

Then we get to the 10-kills-per-unlock for them, which 1) Makes them trivial to get and not a challenge and 2) Doesn't make sense either. Why do I have to unlock the M145 or the ACOG for each gun? By class I'd understand, but each gun, and when some of the guns are in the same family or use the same rail system? No, it's just pandering to the "oooh shiny!" crowd. Bacons had it perfectly right on that front with the way you chould choose unlocks.

As for disagreeing about regenerating health and stuff, fair enough, but BF2 fostered much better teamplay with medics being crucial to advancement of squads and there was less running and gunning due to not being able to hunker down and magically heal your wounds.

You can't deny the maps are rather bad though, and Dogpants is correct with the damage. We (Doggers, Myself, Mr J and another person) did some testing on Nosehair Canals shortly after the game came out, there's no damage variation at all apart from the front, the sides (inc top and turret) and the back.

Then we also get to the "steps back" such as no longer loading the next level while the scoreboard is up, or not being able to mess around with your loadout while alive ready for your next respawn. Or the small squads (compared to BF2). Or the lack of static weaponry like AA or MG's.

As much as I'm hammering into the game, it's not actually a bad game, it is fairly good, but it's certainly not on par with previous titles.

All you're saying is "waaaaaaaaah unlocks" though. You complain about having to do it for each gun while complaining that they're too easy to get. Huh? I don't get that. If they're so easy, why does it matter if you have to unlock the same accessories for a new weapon? It's not like you have to use the new gun at all. Like I said, I've used essentially every weapon and accessory in the game, and unless you're a completionist compelled to run the unlock treadmill, it's utterly irrelevant to do anything but find a combo that fits the way you play and stick with it. I think I've earned the right to say with certainty that if you ignore the unlocked weapons you're not really missing out on much.

Also, the guys at DICE are aware of the foregrip and suppressor not having real downsides and they're going to be nerfing them in the near future.

I can and will disagree about the maps being bad. I like most of them, Nosehair Canals and Operation Metro probably being the worst of them. I like the level of detail and flow of the vast majority of the maps. The B2K maps are great updates to the BF2 maps as well, addressing some of the balance concerns that they had. I haven't seen any compelling arguments for why the maps are bad, other than compared to BF2 maps they are generally more compact. It's true that they're mostly smaller than BF2 maps, but then again, surely you remember how easy it was to get lost far from anything resembling an objective in BF2. It was so bad they had to add the vehicle drop commander ability which was not exactly the most well thought out thing. Nothing sucked more than having to choose between a five minute walk to a flag or vehicle or someone who can kill you so you can get back to doing something productive or just suiciding to get it over with.

As for the damage thing, it's like you didn't read what I said at all. You just said exactly what I did. Literally. The sides and rear take more damage than the front. This is completely the opposite of there not being any soft spots on vehicles. Just flat out. I said myself it's not as complex as BF2's vehicle damage model, but I honestly think it's better. BF3's damage model is much more reliable and predictable. It's super frustrating to have your tank get fluke one-shot-killed because the other guy got lucky and hit you in just the absolute right spot.

I do wish it had the 6 person squads like BF2 had, but that seems a bit nitpicky to me. Not being able to change stuff while being dead also sucks, but is also a pretty minor detail to me as well. I think you guys put far too much importance on the health regeneration. The amount of time it takes to regenerate your health is pretty long. It's nowhere near the level of regeneration that COD games have. It doesn't make people invincible bullet sponges, not even close. What it does do is that if you barely survive an encounter, it means you don't have to spend all your time worried about being killed by a fly landing on you. If you're severely damaged, any enemy is still able to kill you with ease.

[Dog Pants]

I can and will disagree about the maps being bad.

I don't think the maps are bad, just not as good as the B2K ones, which by extension makes me think they're not as good as the BF2 ones. I don't actively dislike any one of them in all game modes, although some are terrible in one or the other.

As for the damage thing, it's like you didn't read what I said at all. You just said exactly what I did. Literally.

I would suggest that you didn't read what I said, because I said BF3 has dramatically simplified damage modelling as opposed to the detailed modelling in BF2 with soft spots like tracks and turret rings. The rear is not a soft spot, it's the arse end and it's still not that soft. If you got a lucky on-shot on a tank because you managed to bounce a shell into the turret off the hull then well done, I like that. If you managed to dump an AT4 round into the foot-square piece of track on the front, with the explosives upgrade, and get a one-shot kill, I'd suggest that's a skilled engineer. I don't know how much you played AT in either game, but I made a career of tank killing in BF2 and I find it much less satisfying in BF3.