Battlefield 3 v2 - Now with 900% more Battlefields - Games

Sharqi Penninsula had a great layout for a multiplayer map, I still remember it.

Huge assaults on the TV station... good times.

Bring back Dalian Plant. Imagine seeing one of those cooling towers collapse.

[QUOTE=AshMan55;30449160]Bring back Dalian Plant. Imagine seeing one of those cooling towers collapse.[/QUOTE] Via plane crash. So awesome...

[QUOTE=markfu;30448490]So can every class get a suppression bonus or is it just support? Because I feel in open fields snipers can also suppress people. [editline]14th June 2011[/editline] Yeah, are the weapons like BF2 and 2142, where each team gets their specific starting weapons but all unlocks are the same for both sides, or are there different unlock trees for each team?[/QUOTE] i remember hearing in an interview that any class can suppress, but of course Support is best for it because they have the Machineguns

Are the basic weapons faction based? Otherwise it's going to be a bit shit in that department

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;30449587]Are the basic weapons faction based? Otherwise it's going to be a bit shit in that department[/QUOTE] supposedly, that's what OffDutyGamers posted

I think that at the end of the day, pretty much all Battlefield 2 maps should be ported to BF3, except for maybe some derivative 32-player only conquest maps like Zatar. And, maybe some Vietnam maps, like Flaming Dart, or Saigon 1973, or Khe Sahn. And, perhaps some 1942 maps, like El Alamein, or Monte Cassino, or the Phillipines, or Stalingrad. I can only hope...

I wrote this, should I send it to the EA emails? [QUOTE=email]Hello, I am contacting you regarding the*'physical warfare' and the 'back to karkand' DLC for the upcoming game Battlefield 3. I am disappointed EA is trying to force fans and potential customers to pre-order this game in order to gain an advantage over the players that don't and it is very dis-respectful to fans such as my self and the battlefield player-base. The 'back to Karkand' map pack is a good idea in theory but the way it is being executed is wrong in my opinion. The idea of DLC (down-loadable content) is to prolong the longevity of an active player base of a game but in this case it's taking a piece of the game and asking users to pay for it or preorder the game. This DLC was obviously planned during the game's development so therefore it should be included in the released version of the game. It's like cutting a slice of a cake and asking the customer to pay the full price of the cake, and then an additional charge for the cut slice. It simply isn't fair and is dis-respecting for the loyal player base who have been waiting for this game for over half a decade.* The 'physical warfare' pack is also disappointing. It gives an advantage to players who pre-order the game from select stores over those who didn't. In addition to that players who purchase the game after it's release will forever be left out of a piece of a game because they didn't buy Battlefield 3 before it was released. To put it into an analogy - it's like releasing a movie in a certain cinema which has extra scenes which the same movie in other cinemas doesn't. Yet again this is dis-respectful to customers and this content should be included in the released product and available to everyone. It's things like this that have made me stop buying games such as Call Of Duty. Their publishers consistently expected me to buy content which should of been there in the first place and I was fed up with it so I simply stopped purchasing their games. Battlefield 3 so far looks like it could very well be one the best games made for a long time and I hope to enjoy it fully, but moves such as these destroy faith of players in developers and publishers. What you might lose in DLC revenue you make up for in customer loyalty and purchases if the game from players who would not of bought this game due to day 1 DLC.* I ask that you may consider including these content packs into the game itself free of charge and available to everyone who purchased the game. Thank you, Scott, Battlefield fan*[/QUOTE]

no one is gaining an advantage

[QUOTE=Duckmeister;30449663]I think that at the end of the day, pretty much all Battlefield 2 maps should be ported to BF3, except for maybe some derivative 32-player only conquest maps like Zatar. And, maybe some Vietnam maps, like Flaming Dart, or Saigon 1973, or Khe Sahn. And, perhaps some 1942 maps, like El Alamein, or Monte Cassino, or the Phillipines, or Stalingrad. I can only hope...[/QUOTE] or better yet Expansions for Vietnam and 1942

They should have a flyable AC-130. That would shit all over CoD. Imagine one person being the pilot with 3 gunners, would work perfectly with squads.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;30450150]They should have a flyable AC-130. That would shit all over CoD. Imagine one person being the pilot with 3 gunners, would work perfectly with squads.[/QUOTE] That would be HORRIBLE.

[QUOTE=oakman26;30450303]I hate when people act like battlefield was always a console shooter. This one guy was talking about how BF1943 was the first battlefield game ever since it was in WW2. And this is a guy I always play bad company 2 with.[/QUOTE] Shoot him.

[QUOTE=simkas;30450170]That would be HORRIBLE.[/QUOTE] They'd have to add a viable anti-air gun of some sort. The BF2 anti-air was a pain in the ass to use if the pilot was any good (like, they knew where their flare key was mostly). An entire gunship would require so much more to take down. It could work, but they'd have to make it easy enough to take out.

No, it would have no counter. And only one team would get it. But they would get like, 5 of them.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;30450150]They should have a flyable AC-130. That would shit all over CoD. Imagine one person being the pilot with 3 gunners, would work perfectly with squads.[/QUOTE] I can imagine it now: The entire team of 32 players running as fast as they can to the AC-130 spawn, sometimes stopping to shoot any of their teammates that are ahead, a desperate chase, going the completely opposite direction of where the objectives are, when, finally, 2 people from one squad get in, another guy from a different squad comes in, and a lone-wolf guy comes in and starts shooting the turret at the sky, and as the AC-130 finally starts to take off, 4 anti-tank missiles slam into the fusilage, with a few mines on the runway for good measure, and the AC-130 is no more. Then, as the 14 other team-killed players respawn, the entire team starts jumping around the AC-130 spawn, until it finally appears, and the cycle starts again.

[QUOTE=Duckmeister;30450692]I can imagine it now: The entire team of 32 players running as fast as they can to the AC-130 spawn, sometimes stopping to shoot any of their teammates that are ahead, a desperate chase, going the completely opposite direction of where the objectives are, when, finally, 2 people from one squad get in, another guy from a different squad comes in, and a lone-wolf guy comes in and starts shooting the turret at the sky, and as the AC-130 finally starts to take off, 4 anti-tank missiles slam into the fusilage, with a few mines on the runway for good measure, and the AC-130 is no more. Then, as the 14 other team-killed players respawn, the entire team starts jumping around the AC-130 spawn, until it finally appears, and the cycle starts again.[/QUOTE] its like helicopters!!! but worse

[QUOTE=Duckmeister;30450692]I can imagine it now: The entire team of 32 players running as fast as they can to the AC-130 spawn, sometimes stopping to shoot any of their teammates that are ahead, a desperate chase, going the completely opposite direction of where the objectives are, when, finally, 2 people from one squad get in, another guy from a different squad comes in, and a lone-wolf guy comes in and starts shooting the turret at the sky, and as the AC-130 finally starts to take off, 4 anti-tank missiles slam into the fusilage, with a few mines on the runway for good measure, and the AC-130 is no more. Then, as the 14 other team-killed players respawn, the entire team starts jumping around the AC-130 spawn, until it finally appears, and the cycle starts again.[/QUOTE] It'd be better if there was a circling AC 130 that was for the attacking team only, that worked like the titan from 2142

Obviously then they would add one of those felt-rope queue thingies they have at movie theaters and such to form a line for the AC-130s. Also make them rocket proof. Next?

[QUOTE=AshMan55;30449160]Bring back Dalian Plant. Imagine seeing one of those cooling towers collapse.[/QUOTE] Damn just realized my favourite BF2 maps aren't being converted to BF3 :( I absolutely loved Dalian Plant, Kubra Dam and Daqing Oilfields. [editline]14th June 2011[/editline] also hooray if unique faction guns are back

Just started playing BF2 again for nostalgia purposes. Ah, just love facing up against the top player of the other team as he grenade spams and combat rolls to victory.

I have to say that it's way easier for me to find a server on BF2142 than it is on BF2 I mean one that wont kick me, that is

The big problem with all the BF games imo is that they take waaay too long to start up / join servers / load for it to be really fun, like when BC2 crashes it takes atleast 4-5 minutes to start it again. BF2 is even worse, but there you can atleast abort the loading if you do something wrong.

BC2 server joining and start up is fairly fast compared to BF2 where it's horribly slow even if you have built all the shader caches or whatever BC2 also kicks me from servers for bullshit reasons though, "recons r snipers fgt", "packet loss 9000:1", "PunkbusterB.exe heartbeats stopped".