Battlefield 3 - Games - Facepunch Forum

There's nothing wrong with a large variety in classes, it's one of the very few things Call of duty does right. [sp]Oh god I mentioned call of duty in a battlefield thread please don't murder me[/sp]

Any word if they are still going to use punkbuster?

[QUOTE=The very best;28691623]There's nothing wrong with a large variety in classes, it's one of the very few things Call of duty does right. [sp]Oh god I mentioned call of duty in a battlefield thread please don't murder me[/sp][/QUOTE] People will just mod the class they like and play how the like instead of playing the class how it was intended to be played. It would be like medics capturing stuff, assault guys camping, support guys assaulting etc. Besides, realistically, soldiers have defined roles and even if they can do something they aren't supposed to do, they won't do it (well, theoretically speaking) because they are disciplined and follow orders. Can't say the same for online gaming, public that is.

[QUOTE=counterpo0;28692703]Any word if they are still going to use punkbuster?[/QUOTE] They are. What else can they use? I doubt they want to make it a Steamworks title.

[QUOTE=The very best;28691623]There's nothing wrong with a large variety in classes, it's one of the very few things Call of duty does right. [sp]Oh god I mentioned call of duty in a battlefield thread please don't murder me[/sp][/QUOTE] Battlefield 2 had seven classes, which is a lot... I still think that keeping all of the Battlefield 2 kits except with a hybrid of engineer and AT would be optimal.

[QUOTE=The very best;28691623]There's nothing wrong with a large variety in classes, it's one of the very few things Call of duty does right. [sp]Oh god I mentioned call of duty in a battlefield thread please don't murder me[/sp][/QUOTE] Call of duty just has loadout presets, not classes in the sense of battlefield, team fortress etc. To be honest I don't quite like the loadout presets system, it gives you a bit less freedom ingame if you need a certain thing to deal with the situation.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;28693884]Call of duty just has loadout presets, not classes in the sense of battlefield, team fortress etc. To be honest I don't quite like the loadout presets system, it gives you a bit less freedom ingame if you need a certain thing to deal with the situation.[/QUOTE] But it's realistic.

Looking forward to this shit so much. Things I'm looking forward to: New guns! New maps! Multiplayer Singleplayer Realisticness (Not hurr i shot in the foot im gon die, more like, bodyshot, need health or if shot again you die) Destruction! :smug: Team work, new game modes. We need more gameplay and some MP gameplay! :smithicide:

I'm hoping there is nothing like realism in this. A realistic Battlefield game would be boring as shit.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;28694200]I'm hoping there is nothing like realism in this. A realistic Battlefield game would be boring as shit.[/QUOTE] We go over this every few pages now. battlefield is a semi-arcade shooter, it has some realism, but it is overall slightly over the top (seriously, if it was realistic infantry would not be allowed near the tank controls). Making it PR realistic for the main game would be boring, making it overly CoD cloney would be boring, something like the BF2 gameplay just refined for the modern day would be fun I would say. Obviously with newer features added on, just porting BF2 to Frostbite would probably suck ass.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;28694176]:aaaaa: [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] they should have done rio aswell to satisfy my brazilian fetish of destroying the ficticional rendition of my city of birth to pieces[/QUOTE] Then people would call it a CoD clone. Wait...

Cool i have this "pre-ordered" for 37 euro. Gotta upgrade my PC now :argh:

They need to include guns that actually make sense for the factions in the game. Not like MW2 or Black Ops where they just throw in random guns because they look cool.

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;28697942]They need to include guns that actually make sense for the factions in the game. Not like MW2 or Black Ops where they just throw in random guns because they look cool.[/QUOTE] Call of Duty players try and be gun hipsters. "I just shot you with something you've never heard of before."

Speaking of weapons that haven't been in many games I think that the SKS should be a option for terrorists/resistance. and maybe the mosin nagant would be a more obtainable sniper for terrorists.

[QUOTE=Apache249;28693786]Battlefield 2 had seven classes, which is a lot... I still think that keeping all of the Battlefield 2 kits except with a hybrid of engineer and AT would be optimal.[/QUOTE] Seven classes was too many (look at Killing Floor for an example of trying to level up 7 classes... a bit ridiculous). I'm actually not opposed to the way it was handled in Bad Company 2. 4 classes is pretty good. I remember playing BF2 and seeing an engineer was like seeing Halley's Comet. Now that Engy and AT are mixed, you seem them all the time. Also, I am experiencing nostalgia for the old DAO-12 unlock for AT. That gun was a beast... I'd like to see more options made available for class specific items. Example: making snipers choose between C4 or Mortars? Genius. More like this please.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;28702393]Seven classes was too many (look at Killing Floor for an example of trying to level up 7 classes... a bit ridiculous). I'm actually not opposed to the way it was handled in Bad Company 2. 4 classes is pretty good. I remember playing BF2 and seeing an engineer was like seeing Halley's Comet. Now that Engy and AT are mixed, you seem them all the time. Also, I am experiencing nostalgia for the old DAO-12 unlock for AT. That gun was a beast... I'd like to see more options made available for class specific items. Example: making snipers choose between C4 or Mortars? Genius. More like this please.[/QUOTE] Four classes was shit. I mean a Medic with an LMG? How wrong is that?

Well, what if insurgents can pick up weapons and get a hold of the M4? It goes the same with the Marines, pick up AK-47.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;28702393]Seven classes was too many (look at Killing Floor for an example of trying to level up 7 classes... a bit ridiculous). I'm actually not opposed to the way it was handled in Bad Company 2. 4 classes is pretty good. I remember playing BF2 and seeing an engineer was like seeing Halley's Comet. Now that Engy and AT are mixed, you seem them all the time. Also, I am experiencing nostalgia for the old DAO-12 unlock for AT. That gun was a beast... I'd like to see more options made available for class specific items. Example: making snipers choose between C4 or Mortars? Genius. More like this please.[/QUOTE] Killing Floor did the 7 classes right, imo. But like everyone is saying, mix AT and Engi and leave the rest and it'd be fine.

I would be fine with 4 classes as long as medics don't get LMG's, really dumb decision.

Mixing AT and Engineer is a bad idea, i loved playing engineer in BF2, didn't need an AT weapon to enjoy it. BC2 encouraged crap gameplay, people would bail out of tank fire AT round then hop back in, cause it was quicker then to wait to load a new shell. Or you think you've won a tank battle to find your self seeing an rpg coming towards you through the smoked wreckage.

[QUOTE=Bravo;28702910]Mixing AT and Engineer is a bad idea, i loved playing engineer in BF2, didn't need an AT weapon to enjoy it. BC2 encouraged crap gameplay, people would bail out of tank fire AT round then hop back in, cause it was quicker then to wait to load a new shell. Or you think you've won a tank battle to find your self seeing an rpg coming towards you through the smoked wreckage.[/QUOTE] That's a good point, I do hate all of the AT flying around the maps in BC2.

[QUOTE=Bravo;28702910]Mixing AT and Engineer is a bad idea, i loved playing engineer in BF2, didn't need an AT weapon to enjoy it. BC2 encouraged crap gameplay, people would bail out of tank fire AT round then hop back in, cause it was quicker then to wait to load a new shell. Or you think you've won a tank battle to find your self seeing an rpg coming towards you through the smoked wreckage.[/QUOTE] All can be solved if they made a delay for entering and exiting vehicles. They should have put this feature in every bf game.

[QUOTE=Bravo;28702910]Mixing AT and Engineer is a bad idea, i loved playing engineer in BF2, didn't need an AT weapon to enjoy it. BC2 encouraged crap gameplay, people would bail out of tank fire AT round then hop back in, cause it was quicker then to wait to load a new shell. Or you think you've won a tank battle to find your self seeing an rpg coming towards you through the smoked wreckage.[/QUOTE] Or 3 people behind a tank repairing it and taking potshots at you with rpgs

[QUOTE=oscarr;28703075]All can be solved if they made a delay for entering and exiting vehicles. They should have put this feature in every bf game.[/QUOTE] An actual animation of entering and existing the tank would be awesome :buddy:

I can't wait for this game. It's gonna be so cool.

[QUOTE=counterpo0;28704589]Or 3 people behind a tank repairing it and taking potshots at you with rpgs[/QUOTE] That is one thing they should fix, engineers amassing behind tanks and repairing them. Maybe have the back of the tank too hot to amass around (the exhaust from tanks isn't a place you want to be around in real life)? That way engineers will be forced to stand at the sides if they want to repair the tank, couple that with some directional armour for the tank (AKA a shot in the back does more damage than one in the front) and there you go, either the engies are exposed or the tank has to expose it's side to the enemy. Having tanks take more damage depending on where you hit them is a must, not because of realism, just because otherwise we end up with 2 tanks looking at eachother while spamming Mouse1 as fast as they can to fire that shot a split second before the opponent (or the usual case of "He hit me first therefore he will now win the tank duel"). [editline]20th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Taepodong-2;28697942]They need to include guns that actually make sense for the factions in the game. Not like MW2 or Black Ops where they just throw in random guns because they look cool.[/QUOTE] Which is why I want interesting factions. Sure the US will have the usual, but hopefully MEC and EU (I'm guessing it will be EU, since we'll be fighting in NY, Paris and Tehran) will have something more interesting (within the EU there are all kinds of different weapons being used, and MEC is supposed to be a coalition of Arab states, please don't give them AK-74s, a lot of Arab nations are quite rich and very capable of getting their hands on better stuff).

[QUOTE=acds;28705663]That is one thing they should fix, engineers amassing behind tanks and repairing them. Maybe have the back of the tank too hot to amass around (the exhaust from tanks isn't a place you want to be around in real life)?[/quote] Only for the M1 Abrams. You can stand right behind other tanks like the M48 since their engine isn't a gas turbine one. [quote]That way engineers will be forced to stand at the sides if they want to repair the tank, couple that with some directional armour for the tank (AKA a shot in the back does more damage than one in the front) and there you go, either the engies are exposed or the tank has to expose it's side to the enemy.[/QUOTE] This. Didn't even old BF2 have a rudimentary directional damage system? You could take a tank out with 1-2 shots from the rear instead of 3-4 against the frontal arc.

Yeah the burning hot exhaust is pretty much unique to the Abrams, for it is one of the only tanks with the gas turbine.

[QUOTE=Apache249;28705716]Yeah the burning hot exhaust is pretty much unique to the Abrams, for it is one of the only tanks with the gas turbine.[/QUOTE] The T-80 has a gas turbine too but its exhaust grill is much smaller than the Abrams though. Nevertheless gas turbines are hideously expensive compared to good old diesel and I don't think something granular as tank-specific hazards being implemented for BF3.