[Game] Battlefield 3

[Colt .45 killer]

moar lulz
http://www.modernwarfare4.com/



... noone has #5 yet, should we snag that as a community? would come in handy in about 1.5 years..

 

[Dr. Pierre Chang]

http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/destruction-of-battlefield-3-is-getting-nerfed/

Thoughts, fellow forumites?

 

[Fedorov]

http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/destruction-of-battlefield-3-is-getting-nerfed/

Thoughts, fellow forumites?

 

[Dcode]

Well it makes sense.

64 players and full destruction the map would be flat in no time.

 

[LightsabeR]

http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/destruction-of-battlefield-3-is-getting-nerfed/

Thoughts, fellow forumites?

And yet again gameplay is being sacrificed in order to provide better graphics.

 

[Rak]

3 points deducted from epicness.

 

[Zips]

And yet again gameplay is being sacrificed in order to provide better graphics.

How can you possibly draw that conclusion? If ANYTHING, they're doing the complete opposite. Keep building intact to provide more dynamic gameplay than have completely flattened locations after a period of time.

Dcode nailed it on the head above.

 

[Amerikaner]

This is another thing that would be perfect as a cutomizeable server option...

 

[Ralfst3r]

It was/is kinda lame in BC2 to destroy a house with a MCOM station in it. I know I do it, but it's kinda cheap. Maybe this will prevent stuff like that. We'll have to see what kind of influence it has on gameplay.

 

[Actin]

It was/is kinda lame in BC2 to destroy a house with a MCOM station in it. I know I do it, but it's kinda cheap. Maybe this will prevent stuff like that. We'll have to see what kind of influence it has on gameplay.

Imho it was one of the best tactical decisions you could make.
"They all camp in that house, they are really annoying".
"Well then let's bring it down!!"

One of the reasons I liked the game (BC2) despite being kicked all the time, are situations like this.
Also making a second door to the mcom station was heaven

I get why 64 players will have it down in no time as it is now, but that's also the case with 8 players, seeing how 4 normal bullets can bring down a wall

 

[Guest]

Well it makes sense.

64 players and full destruction the map would be flat in no time.

Bring in the jets and Tanks and in about five seconds, the map is gone.

DICE has to release the mod tools eventually. "Too complex" isn't a reason to keep the tools away from us. GTA4 didn't have mod tools, and we have what? Gravity mods, ragdoll mods, damage mods, graphics mods, etc. Dead Rising 2 didn't have mod tools, and there's a whole site putting up mods for use. I'm sure modders will have little to no problems with BF3.

 

[Zennousha]

So what do we lose when we lose the ability to take down buildings?

-Making the map less appealing/have less cover
-Taking down a building from afar that has an MCOM within it
-Grenade spam

What did we gain in terms of other elements for destruction?

-Falling debris can kill
-Harder to destroy structures
-More emphasis on vehicles for structural damage

Yeah, seems like a fair trade.

 

[Krazyxazn]

http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/destruction-of-battlefield-3-is-getting-nerfed/

Thoughts, fellow forumites?

Flattening an entire map is lame. It's called balancing. Gameplay Fun Factor > Destruction. RO 2 has it limited destruction and people just need to think the big picture.

I get why 64 players will have it down in no time as it is now, but that's also the case with 8 players, seeing how 4 normal bullets can bring down a wall

Normal bullets do not do that as far as I remember. They can chip away small pieces but they do not bring down walls. You need bigger punch.

 

[Amerikaner]

So what do we lose when we lose the ability to take down buildings?

-Making the map less appealing/have less cover
-Taking down a building from afar that has an MCOM within it
-Grenade spam

What did we gain in terms of other elements for destruction?

-Falling debris can kill
-Harder to destroy structures
-More emphasis on vehicles for structural damage

Yeah, seems like a fair trade.

Falling debris can kill when buildings are fully destructible too. Not being able to destroy a structure =/= harder to destroy structures. And how does limited damage mean more emphasis on vehicles for structural damage? I do think there are pros and cons but your reasons make no sense at all.

 

[Flogger23m]

More tweaking of the damage to the builds could have prevented this. For example, making grenades do little to no damage... only rockets and heavy vehicle weapons would cause damage.

Even if corny, I did like the destruction in BFBC2.

 

[Zennousha]

Falling debris can kill when buildings are fully destructible too. Not being able to destroy a structure =/= harder to destroy structures. And how does limited damage mean more emphasis on vehicles for structural damage? I do think there are pros and cons but your reasons make no sense at all.

Wrong, falling BUILDINGS can kill people in BC2, but not debris.

The structures are also more resilient to damage, meaning people just spamming grenade launchers will do significantly less damage to the building than a tank would.

So really, my reasons make sense when you actually read up on the game instead of jumping to hastily drawn conclusions.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

Wrong, falling BUILDINGS can kill people in BC2, but not debris.

at a certain point in the collapse animation, anyone inside the structure is just "auto killed" before the building generates lots of dust to hide the model change...

 

[DraKon2k]

None of you played 64player BF3 with full destruction, yet everybody seems to know better.

 

[Mr. Explosion]

Has there been a single shooter with fully destructible levels after Red Faction 1?

Sure it could be nice, but I won't complain if it's well-made partial destruction opposed to shoddy full destruction.

 

[Rak]

at a certain point in the collapse animation, anyone inside the structure is just "auto killed" before the building generates lots of dust to hide the model change...

Not really, all buildings collapse with a smooth animation. There's no model change. What you described is RO2's "destruction". I wonder have you ever played BC2? Lots of your claims are just false.

You're right about "auto killing" though, some time after the animation starts everybody auto dies. I don't think they model people's bodies disintegrating