PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

[[21CW]DWillis]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

I think one of the most interesting things about BF2 is the stats system and how that has affected the playability over the long term. What has happened is that BF2 has turned from an all-out game to an infantry only, nade-spamming stat fest which has caused EA to produce numerous patches to combat those who were abusing the stats system. EA spent more time protecting that system than adding new, cool content (outside of the expansion packs). I think this has really hurt and helped BF2. It has hurt it on one hand because it's no longer that all out battlefield and just a bunch of infantry only maps that you can find lots of people playing on. It has also hurt because it cause more people TK'ing over vehicles for the purposes of being the stat whores, which has resulted in everyone removing the vehicles from the maps. It has been a positive for BF2 in that the stats have basically given people a continued reason to play BF2, long after its shelf-life has passed.

Personally, I think there's way too many IO maps, but I do enjoy playing IO, even if it is a nade fest and even if the maps are SO unbalanced for IO play they simply make for a one-sided rape fest. But again, isn't that what those maps are for? rape fests that generate stats for those who want them...

[=98=]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

Are you saying that people play IO simply because of the stats, or because they enjoy it.

I love IO karkand. Not because of stats really. I have seen the most teamwork in IO Karkand than i have ever seen on any other map. People actually work in squads and talk to each other.

Sure, there is nade spamming. But, we learn to adapt. We don't just run into a flag. You clear it, you have two men capping and 3 on the outer spawn zones making sure no one gets in.

Evolve, don't complain.

[[21CW]DWillis]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

Are you saying that people play IO simply because of the stats, or because they enjoy it.

What I am saying is that the majority of playing is now done on IO servers. I believe that is directly related to the stats. That isn't the same as those who enjoy IO. I like IO as well, as a matter of fact I enjoy infantry the most in BF2.

I love IO karkand. Not because of stats really. I have seen the most teamwork in IO Karkand than i have ever seen on any other map. People actually work in squads and talk to each other.

Sure, there is nade spamming. But, we learn to adapt. We don't just run into a flag. You clear it, you have two men capping and 3 on the outer spawn zones making sure no one gets in.
Evolve, don't complain.

I also know I'm not complaining. Only commenting on the long term trends we have seen throughout the life of BF2. :thumbsup:

[Ctrl-Alt-Del]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

Are you saying that people play IO simply because of the stats, or because they enjoy it.

I love IO karkand. Not because of stats really. I have seen the most teamwork in IO Karkand than i have ever seen on any other map. People actually work in squads and talk to each other.

Sure, there is nade spamming. But, we learn to adapt. We don't just run into a flag. You clear it, you have two men capping and 3 on the outer spawn zones making sure no one gets in.

Evolve, don't complain.

Same for me really. There is more teamwork in Inf Only citymaps (Karkand, Sharqi, Mashtuur, Jalalabad) then anywhere in the entire game. (when not playing with friends/clan buddies)

And talking about stats, teamwork will get you twice the points you usually get. So if they were a bit smart, and still care about stats, they would do some more teamwork and everyone's happy.

[iQue]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

Wasnt Bf:V just an expansion of Bf1942 or something?

Nope. But it uses the same engine.

[MrChris_CJ]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

bleh, they probably havent released it because they dont want legions of people whining about release dates while they are working....if thats what Dice really do

Modern day is where it needs to be, but properly done ffs, if they give BF3 the same amount of playtesting and thought that they did with BF2 I will jump off a building

(a very small building that is for some reason only 1 metre tall)

win

[jesus]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

What I am saying is that the majority of playing is now done on IO servers. I believe that is directly related to the stats. That isn't the same as those who enjoy IO. I like IO as well, as a matter of fact I enjoy infantry the most in BF2.


I also know I'm not complaining. Only commenting on the long term trends we have seen throughout the life of BF2. :thumbsup:

That doesn't make sense because if they care about their stats, then wouldn't they care about their vehicle stats, too? Or their anti-tank and engineer stats? (Since these two kits are generally not used in IO)

Anyway, I like playing IO because I just find it fun. I like how the maps are smaller, the fights are way more concentrated, and yet there's still 64 people all playing at the same time. And then when the server settings have it so it's 64 players on a 16 player map it's even better because then it's just complete chaos, which is what I like. And nades are really easy to avoid if you know the map on the back of your hand.

I also play on lots of air map servers and I don't really see a lack of them, either. Some are 24/7 on certain maps, and some do full rotation.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

That doesn't make sense because if they care about their stats, then wouldn't they care about their vehicle stats, too? Or their anti-tank and engineer stats? (Since these two kits are generally not used in IO)

No, because the true 'stat wh0r3' only cares about two stats: SPM and KDR. Now, one could argue that in a vehicle server you could whore the tank and get a higher KDR, but in maps with more vehicles they're not dominating, and on maps with fewer vehicles (Karkand, Mashtuur, Sharqi) there's a good chance you won't get it and you'll have to go it on foot (possibly against the enemy tank = bad KDR) or you'll have to wait until that one guy dies and you can have a go at the tank when it respawns (waiting for a long time = bad SPM). The only ways to get both good KDR and SPM are to either be dominating in a jet, which takes a fair amount of skill and luck to be able to get the jet in the first place, or play IO where you can get more points since you can kill anything and never have to be anything but medic (or nadespamming support, if you choose). High SPM, and with more medics running around to rez you, high KDR. Win/win for the 'true stat-wh0r3'.

~Wolfgang

[Skaggy]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

That doesn't make sense because if they care about their stats, then wouldn't they care about their vehicle stats, too? Or their anti-tank and engineer stats? (Since these two kits are generally not used in IO)

I use them!

If you see AT mines scattered on an IO map, chances are I'm in the server!

[imported_Chael]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

You know what I want for BF3? Removal of the UAV, scan, and spot. These things just don't make for a fun game. It makes sneaking around completely worthless. And think of the poor snipers! I don't play that kit much at all, but I've dropped a lot of splies on their heads. Naturally my line of thinking is not the main-stream and thus BF3 will have UAV, etc.

But at least can we do away with the jet target on occupied cars? Sure I can dodge some of those bombs, but the fact of the matter is: Whenever I hop in a jeep I'm lit up like some b¡tch-аss christmas tree!

The destructable buildings will make for some interesting play, but I am worried that your average BF2 player isn't ready for such a change. I feel like it may take several implementations before it's just right for the gameplay. Time will tell. This might also make custom objects a bit more difficult to make.

Oh and if explosions make craters they damn well better give me a shovel.

I like the idea of customizable soldiers. Some people might like the uniformity of the current system, but I'm a bit more expressive. I'd also like to see some female player models for once.

Stats: I like the idea of stats... but the implementation doesn't work so well in reality. What the system really needs is comprehensive coverage (no not auto insurance). The system now shows kills and deaths with a particular weapon or vehicle. What is needed most are things like "# of tanks killed". The point system needs work as well. Players need to be rewarded for things that are difficult, amazing, or theoretically impossible. Things like nailing a bomb-running J10 with a rocket or knifing a whole squad of medics.

We need customizable kits. If I wanna go into a fight with 20 C4s in my pack and nothing else, that should be my business.

Destructable buildings are nice and all, but what other kinds of interaction will be possible with the environment? I've been wanting to pick sh¡t up and throw it for a long time.

Wingwalking, although not exactly realistic illustrates a fundamental flaw in the physics of the BF2 engine. Everyone remembers how it was back in '42 right? It's hard to beleive that technology has simply leapt backwards. I will be severely dissapointed if the physics don't allow this in BF3.

And to the people having the pidly fight over the pic of the M4 or whatever... Just whip em out and compare already!

[L3adcannon]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

I prolly won`t love BF3, stats or no stats.
After playing BF2 for 100 hours, I came to the conclusion that games which focus on one aspect of combat are better (ex. RO, Opfor, ArmA).
I doubt BF3 will do what CoD4, Lock-on or any tank simulator does best. It will, to me, be just like BF2: half-arsed air combat, half-arsed tank combat, fully-arsed infantry combat.
BF3 doing everything right would be a miracle, but miracles don`t happen as we all know.

[jdrou]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

Wasnt Bf:V just an expansion of Bf1942 or something?

In the same sense that BF2142 is an expansion of BF2: a new game on the same engine. They probably just didn't think long enough before writing the article.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

You know what I want for BF3? Removal of the UAV, scan, and spot. These things just don't make for a fun game. It makes sneaking around completely worthless. And think of the poor snipers! I don't play that kit much at all, but I've dropped a lot of splies on their heads. Naturally my line of thinking is not the main-stream and thus BF3 will have UAV, etc.

Well FWIW, you're not completely alone in that thinking. If I have one gripe about BF2142 it's the overabundance of detection devices. BF2's UAV was bad enough, but in 2142 each soldier can spawn with a vehicle or infantry sonar (assuming they have them unlocked and choose the engineer or support kit, respectively), and that's in addition to the UAV and commander spot.

That's what's kind of annoying about BF2, is even if you do manage to somehow sneak by the frontlines past all the carnage, the second you get to a back base you have arty there to wipe you clean out, or if not then the commander is spotting you and you have enemies all over you. No sneaking is possible if the enemy has a decent commander. It's another thing that made Wake 1942 much more fun than Wake 2007 (well, that and the fact that a plane couldn't cover the entire map in 5 seconds. ).

~Wolfgang

[imported_Chael]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

Thanks for further illustrating my point. That's exactly what I was talking about.

[Reaper2794]

Re: PC gamer confirms battlefield 3?

I want more than 4 planes on a map. Seriously WTF! They gotta make an aerial combat map FFS! Imagine 5 planes on each side. DUDE! Ooh and if u go on the other side like near their carrier you get punished like going out of borders so no raping you know? :) I'm a genius