We were hacked. Several times over the past two weeks, in fact.
While all passwords are encrypted and salted, it's recommended that you change your password here when you can.
Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
No, I prefer gameplay possibilities over shiny graphics, you just need to carefully think about the destruction mechanics. It has nothing to do with glitch or smoothness.
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
think his post had swearing in it ,i think?:laugh:
As for destruction, Yes i think there is too much and not enough of safe cover for infantry. I think infantry need places that wont blow up to hide ,i dont think the place should be able to be leveled like it does.
you should be safe behind some brick walls,not all but some.
im kinda ole fashioned but i miss my battlefield with bunkers and a purpose built battlefield(not just street maps converted into a war senarios)
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I would take Bigger maps/more people over destruction anyday. Being able to blow up buildings only adds a small amount of gameplay variation, having massive maps with more people brings much more. I would like to see things like the micro destruction (walls, fences, trees), building can stay upright for all I care.
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
Originally posted by =MNKY=Frosty
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I would take Bigger maps/more people over destruction anyday. Being able to blow up buildings only adds a small amount of gameplay variation, having massive maps with more people brings much more. I would like to see things like the micro destruction (walls, fences, trees), building can stay upright for all I care.
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
You really dont have to sacrifice destruction for map size though. It is the level of destruction that you need to keep down.
BC2 has nearly every building destructible. This means that buildings are cut into somewhere around 6-10 pieces, all with their own texture space, physics properties, collisions meshes/decal mehses etc etc. This really really limits the amount of these buildings you can have on the map at one time, leading to smaller levels. All trees and vehicles are also destructible.
Now if they went back to basics of still going with destruction but not giving physics to the wall pieces and cut them into smaller chunks you could easily mask the destruction with a effect rather than the actual wall parts flying around. You still have destruction, it may look slightly worse, but it is going to allow you to have many many more net workable objects on the map at any one time. They could also do say 3 stage destruction of a building as a whole, rather than cutting small chunks out of it. I.e you only need 3 meshes, Normal, damages and destroyed.
Large maps are entirely possible on FB.
View Post
Terrain Rendering System:
Long view distance with true horizon
32x32 km visible, 2x2 ? 4x4 playable
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
I want both. Bf2 sized maps, players, squadleaders with com-rose, commander. But there is no way I'm going to be happy with BF2 infantry ballistics and no destruction. Also even just graphically not just shiny wise, BC2 makes it more of a tactical game.
First lets start with my favorite, armour combat: In Bf2 if a AT soldier is hiding behind a few trees and I'm in a tank, the trees acts like a impenetrable shield that if the AT soldier just stands a bit behind the tree I can't even kill the soldier with splash damage. That's just plain silly, never mind being able to soften up building for fellow infantry before they move into said building. Also graphically when my shell connects and when I fire, there is a lot of dust and debris that flys up, that's realistic and adds to the tactical decisions that have to be made because of my actions in armour. Plus tracer darts level the playing field a bit, since I get to destroy cover easily, the AT soldier has the chance to dart me and fire from a safer location. This forces armour to really require infantry support to move into a area safely, never mind people C4ing you.
Infantry: Bf2 aside from the worst ballistics I've had to deal with ANY FPS I've player (yes even after 1.4 patch). With a lack of destruction any FPS becomes a memorization game after week one of any game. Want proof? people have already memorized the maps in COD: black ops. In Bf2 after 5 years, and in a match after 20-40 mins of a game, the level NEVER even changed. going around a corner you knew where people most likely were because there were only certain places they could be, and always a few prime locations within that given area that gave clear advantage. That's just plain backwards after playing games like Crysis and Bad company 2, I'm in the 21st century and if my FPS lacks that, then it feels like a 20th century video game with better graphics. Destruction forces dynamic decisions at any given moment.
Aircraft: Now this will be a balancing act, yes a plane should be able to wipe out a building with a single bomb pass, however there is balance, just like a chopper in BC2 takes a while to take out a building, usually leaving them vulnerable to darting if they just hover there and unleash on a structure. However has everyone forgotten about mobile AA? something I was a pretty good in (I made a AA guide for BF2 on these forums) if the plane does dive bomb a building, it better have more then 2 enemies inside, because that low pass means I in mobile AA, have a decent chance of either severely damaging or outright destroying the aircraft. And if it's balanced like BC2, then yes it will take more then one or two passes to level a building for a plane.
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
Exactly, destruction add to gameplay. But I'm sure they could add more players and if they cut the destruction on certain things like when a frag or 40mm grenade can destroy a stone wall, all the small part of a wooden fence, etc. It would also be better for gameplay because on some maps with 32 players buidlings go down very fast.
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
In this case, destruction is seriously taking away from game-play in my opinion.
A building falling down doesn't equal game-play in my eyes. Being able to go through a fence with a click doesn't equal game-play. Might as well not even have a fence if you can just click and go through.
Keep the destruction for the single player crowd and let me keep my multi-player strategy game-play.
The reason EA/Dice wont do this is because people will be too happy with the game. They will end up making less money. Right now the are profiting off the people who are "ooo i can put holes in the wall and make buildings fall down!" woopty doo, go build something out of legos and destroy that.
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
i just think the destruction need to be tweaked, right now this scripted destruction feels a lot like a gimmick to add to gameplay just like lunatik said, but i wouldnt mind if they improved it and also optimized the ****ty ported engine
Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?
Of course it need to be tweaked (right now it feels worst than a Hollywood movie), but you're a fool if you cannot see the gameplay possibilities with destruction. If you want you can go back to BF2 and hide in an invincible cloth tent while 120mm shells explose on it, there's still a lot of players.
If you play RTS like Company of Heroes or Men of War you just have to imagine the little guy are players and you see most of the possibilities. In Red Orchestra 2 like I said they're adding dsetruction as well, just much more limited (you can't level a whole buidling).
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
) then.
![[GCA]Tim270](./core/images/default/default_avatar_large.png "[GCA]Tim270"){kind=avatar}
Comment