Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

The main thing im worried about is plane jocks just bombing random buildings to get random kills on people hiding inside (easier than attacking armour) leaving us PBI with no cover to be mopped up later by armour et all.

Ide want both but with not every building destroyable.

Thats true, but if you compare it to the BC2 destruction, it takes a lot of hits to actually break down a building with bombs(mortar) strikes. C4 and 40mm grenades do better at breaking a building down than heli/tank rounds.

So I would think DICE would change the destruction power the same way as they did for mortar strikes so that it would take three or so passes to level one building.

Good point though. If there are going to be planes and destruction, how will that affect things?

Crunch

[dfour]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Yeah but your compaing a 110mm mortar vs a 500lb HE bomb. F35 in reality caries 1000lb bombs. 1 bomb 1 building no infantry.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Thats true, but now you're comparing reality to Battlefield games. In reality buildings are instantly destroyed by mortar attacks and there are no walkers or titan ships and the static buildings in BF2 should crumble.

Reality isnt very fun. I know, I tried to play ARMA

Crunch

[Stryker]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Personally I would not give up larger maps for destruction. Destruction is a feature that bad company is known for and you can see the maps are greatly effected and so are player counts. Bf2 is known for its massive size and massive battles were there are many multiple firefights taking place throughout the map. Theoretically they can have 64 man size bf2 maps with destruction if they want but many gamers are not going to be able to play it at an "ultra" setting. :dead:

Here is the problem....it's multiplat. Since bfbc2 has it, console gamers are going to expect it, so def. destruction is in there. I don't expect the PC version to be different because companies want to deliver the same game to all customers. :cry:

BF3 is almost starting to feel like Bad company 3 w/o the story/ I really hope they dont use a story like that:shock:

[old sch00l]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

PC, DICE, RIP, 64, maps

:)

Could Frost 2 do 64 without all that destuction? no point asking for 64 if it could't do it. DICE cannot comment as EA have a left nipple firmley jammed in their mouths\milk..

[_X_]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

By the time BF3 comes out it will be possible to have destruction and big maps/64 player servers IMHO.

[old sch00l]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

just voted

take as long as you like DICE :)

[Yoster]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I kinda hoped 5 years from 2142 the technology would be close enough to allowing both, but it is by no doubt huge maps that make Battlefield what it is. We need it back.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

I kinda hoped 5 years from 2142 the technology would be close enough to allowing both, but it is by no doubt huge maps that make Battlefield what it is. We need it back.

As for PC, it is, but people have to upgrade too. I find it amazing how many gamers out there are running on very old PCs that barely play the game and then they complain about the game running bad. I know not everyone can afford upgrades every year and/or are on fixed incomes or whatever, but I dont know why they act surprised about it either.

Devs want to be able to sell to as many as possible, so they are going to go as low as they can on that point.

Crunch

[Minmaster]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

they need to figure out how to do destruction on wider scale maps some how. otherwise BF franchise will eventually die.

[RangerXML]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Silly question. Goes prone on mountain 3-4 miles away from flag, cracks a GuS Cola and puts on iPod headset. Looks through M82/95 or L96AW scope, "Come and get some."

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

*WolfAlmighty spawns on Ranger and drops an ammo pack just as an artillery strike hits and sends both of their bodies flying*

[bradino27]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

*wolfalmighty spawns on ranger and drops an ammo pack just as an artillery strike hits and sends both of their bodies flying*

"ammo here!!"

[Kylee!]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Silly question. Goes prone on mountain 3-4 miles away from flag, cracks a GuS Cola and puts on iPod headset. Looks through M82/95 or L96AW scope, "Come and get some."

Silly you, no .50 cal rifles have 3-4 miles of range. Or the L96 for that matter.

[Yoster]

Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Pyrate Yoster hops in a gunship, flies up beyond the range of view, and patrols the skies for prey down below while sipping on his cup of tea.