Battlefield 3 - Games - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=kevlar jens;28638366]singleplayer looks really weak but I have my hopes up for the multiplayer.[/QUOTE] Yeah, basically my thoughts. I wouldn't say the singleplayer is weak, but it's just quite conventional-looking, nothing new to see. The charm of BF1942 and BF2 were always the large scale sandbox multiplayer.

One thing that annoys me to no end is the travel speed of rocket launcher projectiles in games, they are portrayed as far too slow.

[QUOTE=Oxu365;28638745]One thing that annoys me to no end is the travel speed of rocket launcher projectiles in games, they are portrayed as far too slow.[/QUOTE] If they were super fast then in MP they would be too OP.

[QUOTE=wombo;28639404]If they were super fast then in MP they would be too OP.[/QUOTE] Decrease in power maybe?

[QUOTE=Oxu365;28638745]One thing that annoys me to no end is the travel speed of rocket launcher projectiles in games, they are portrayed as far too slow.[/QUOTE] Wasn't the bit with the rocket launcher in slow motion?

[QUOTE=Oxu365;28639525]Decrease in power maybe?[/QUOTE] Well if they kept the current speed and upped the power it would be fine. They're relatively easy to avoid in BC2/BF2, but they don't hit too hard when they do hit.

[QUOTE=wombo;28639404]If they were super fast then in MP they would be too OP.[/QUOTE] Rocket launchers should be mostly limited to clearing buildings and anti-armour duties, I don't think anyone would miss anti-personnel rocket launchers. I for one would not miss people jumping around firing Carl Gustavs everywhere. That or make them not replenish until respawn (or be only replenishable in the main base).

Preparing for a nade-spam like in the current BF2, rate me boxes or disagrees, I don't care.

[QUOTE=acds;28640173](or be only replenishable in the main base).[/QUOTE] Excellent idea.

[QUOTE=MoarFunz;28640207]Preparing for a nade-spam like in the current BF2, rate me boxes or disagrees, I don't care.[/QUOTE] If you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted.

[QUOTE=rnate;28640581]If you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted.[/QUOTE] He doesn't care about the rating oh enlightened one :downs:

Hopefully jets need to land this time to get rearmed/repaired

I always imagined the planes in BF2 had magnets that sucked bullets and bombs right to the airframe.

According to Demize99 [quote]The rocket in video is a NE variant: Novel Explosive. It has a great effect on structures and is built as a bunker buster.[/quote]

the rocket was going so slow because it was in slow motion at that part, but anyway as someone already said it's also gotta be balanced because it's a video game and stop comparing it to medal of honor and shit, all we've seen is single player, ya it's scripted as fuck as we've already seen, so what? battlefield is about the multiplayer, no one gets it for the single player

[QUOTE=Solidsnail;28641193]According to Demize99[/QUOTE] Thermobaric warheads don't exist for the AT-4 I think. Still, it's a game.

[QUOTE=wombo;28639404]If they were super fast then in MP they would be too OP.[/QUOTE] Like I said.. Two AT laodouts, "Light AT" with one to two AT4 rocket tubes (with fast projectiles), and then the normally "Heavy AT" with the slower and more numerous rockets for anti tank. The Light AT would be a hybrid rifleman/AT class, they can use the AT4 to engage light armor and cars, and they have their normal rifle to engage infantry.. The AT4 would be the multipurpose ammunition, destroys walls and bunkers and can be used against light armor, the Heavy AT would remain the "devoted" AT class, they'd get a SRAW with 3-4 shots, and they'd get an SMG instead of a rifle. The SRAW wouldn't be so good for blowing up walls, and it would be using the anti-tank ammunition to defeat Heavy Armor on tanks.. [quote]the rocket was going so slow because it was in slow motion at that part[/quote]No kidding. I think everybody saw that. But it's still to slow in relation to everything else. [editline]16th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=evilweazel;28640907]Hopefully jets need to land this time to get rearmed/repaired[/QUOTE] YES, Jets always have an unlimited supply of those faggot bombs to drop on your face.. if they need to land, spec ops and AT classes could get an opportunity to blow them up.

[QUOTE=Oxu365;28638745]One thing that annoys me to no end is the travel speed of rocket launcher projectiles in games, they are portrayed as far too slow.[/QUOTE] The Pilum in 2142 was supposed to go 300 meters a second (it says so in the ingame description) but it goes more around 100 if I remember. Tested it once by standing 300 meters away from a Titan and just counting the seconds, it was ALOT more than 1.

Give us the god damn multiplayer videos. This Fault Line singleplayer gameplay crap is in every modern FPS shooter and nothing original.

This game is pre-alpha and months away from rele- I WANT TO SEE MULTIPLAYER NOW! :downs: Seriously. What's the big deal with you people wanting to see multiplayer already? Is seeing it now goin to make it any better? I doubt it. Be patient and enjoy the tech.

I found it interesting how when laying on the ground it seemed as though the player was rotating on his elbow rather than rotating on a dime. Weapon mounting in action?

[QUOTE=Apache249;28643100]This game is pre-alpha and months away from rele- I WANT TO SEE MULTIPLAYER NOW! :downs: Seriously. What's the big deal with you people wanting to see multiplayer already? Is seeing it now goin to make it any better? I doubt it. Be patient and enjoy the tech.[/QUOTE] I can just about guarantee you they have multiplayer fully functional. They would not be 2-3-4 years into the project and not have their online aspect up and running. The issue is probably just in filming it. Everybody likes to put together fancy complete-looking trailers for their game. I suppose it makes sense, there's a lot of people who can't put "WIP" in context when watching gameplay.. but I'd be more content seeing raw, (nearly) uncut multiplayer gameplay footage from developer testing, that sort of thing is always way cooler.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28644233]I can just about guarantee you they have multiplayer fully functional. They would not be 2-3-4 years into the project and not have their online aspect up and running. The issue is probably just in filming it. Everybody likes to put together fancy complete-looking trailers for their game. I suppose it makes sense, there's a lot of people who can't put "WIP" in context when watching gameplay.. but I'd be more content seeing raw, (nearly) uncut multiplayer gameplay footage from developer testing, that sort of thing is always way cooler.[/QUOTE] I remember hearing somebody said that somebody at pax said that MP was still buggy and WIP. It's easier to make trailers and show SP footage than MP.

Oh God, DICE needs to release some MP footage and stop all this bitching going on and on, and on.

[QUOTE=wombo;28644668]I remember hearing somebody said that somebody at pax said that MP was still buggy and WIP. It's easier to make trailers and show SP footage than MP.[/QUOTE] "Buggy and WIP" means nothing, and is a broad statement. I'm assuming (and rightfully so) that their netcode must be done or be very near completion, "buggy and WIP' likely means theres still some annoying registration and lerp discrepancies. they've probably got a fair number of maps done. What may still be buggy would probably be the class selection UI, and some maps may not be fully complete. Either way, there'd be enough to show, even if they needed to hide the buggy parts by cutting it out of the footage.

[QUOTE=Oxu365;28638745]One thing that annoys me to no end is the travel speed of rocket launcher projectiles in games, they are portrayed as far too slow.[/QUOTE] What about Arma 2?

[QUOTE=shian;28647245]What about Arma 2?[/QUOTE] Yeah ArmA 2 does it right.

IGN talks about the new teaser [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMA0MoIaQ1k&hd=1[/media]

I've never played a Battlefield game. *hides*

[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;28649124]I've never played a Battlefield game. *hides*[/QUOTE] Missing out.