• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Battlefield 3 getting nerfed

you’re not going to be bringing buildings down in Battlefield 3 like you did in Bad Company 2 outside of scripted moments in singleplayer and possible hard-coded objectives in multiplayer.
Click to expand...

Seems like a step backwards to me...bringing down buildings in BC2 was one of it's greatest and most unique elements compared to a lot of other games, and now they are taking it out...
 
Fine by me to be honest. Some games in BFBC2 where there were around 900 tickets(conquest) towards the middle there was nothing standing anymore and it looked kinda lame. Some buildings like the bomb site buildings should be able to go down though.
 
why do I have a feeling this simply means that gigantic 5 story tall buildings and other key structures that are crucial to actually keeping the layout of the map intact are not entirely collapsible.

in some cases, in BC2, it was possible to force the other team to run through like a 200 yard open expanse of fucking death because anything that could have been used for cover is gone. this is dumb. turning the map into a complete and utter flat, open, devoid of cover wasteland is dumb.
 
Pffft I wouldn't accept anything IGN has to say at face value. Everything they have seen is based on pre-alpha code, and there has been no statement from DICE suggesting that the destruction has been toned down.

Anyway the article posted by the OP is bullshit, DICE have said no such thing. Everyone can put their pitchforks and torches down.....for now.
 
socK said:
why do I have a feeling this simply means that gigantic 5 story tall buildings and other key structures that are crucial to actually keeping the layout of the map intact are not entirely collapsible.

in some cases, in BC2, it was possible to force the other team to run through like a 200 yard open expanse of fucking death because anything that could have been used for cover is gone. this is dumb. turning the map into a complete and utter flat, open, devoid of cover wasteland is dumb.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right and I totally agree with your second statement. On maps like Oasis or Africa Harbor it's ridiculous that if you don't zigzag, you will get sniped from across the map by someone with a 12x hiding in their base, once all the buildings are down.
 
I don't think full building destruction is really that important, with larger structures especially, I'm just happy that I can still punch holes in cover which is what is important really.
 
I finds it hard to believe after all the talks about destructible environment in BF3. I guess I'll just wait for an official statement.
 
With the size of the buildings seen so far, I think it makes sense. A) It would be hard as hell to bring down a building of that size and B) With buildings that large falling all over the place it would really disrupt the gameplay. It might be awesome for a little while, but once the novelty wears off I could see it sucking trying to actually play with that going on.
 
wouldn't surprised. I mean modern warfare sites redirect to Bf3 now. probably gonna be a big surprise that its the same game.
 
Meh, I think this is crap, the videos of destruction were too good to be true. If they wanted to keep balance they should have made it a server option to have destruction or no destruction, not completely remove it. In BFBC2 I rarely ever had issues with too much of the map being destroyed. It happened occasionally, but usually it was due to an already one sided battle and it was outweighed by the joy of seeing the odd building collapse.

Its not like the building vanishes when it is destroyed, its still usable as cover for infantry, and if they're big buildings it'd add a whole extra dynamic level if the chunks of rubble are large enough to still hide behind easily as where at one stage you could hide in the building but later you're having to hide behind a chunk of a half destroyed column or something.

I was really looking forward to some good destruction. The more I hear about BF3 recently the more I feel its not gonna kill me just to skip it and play some of the other games in my backlog instead.
 
consoles probably couldn't handle the must larger complex maps which the destruction on so they nerfed it.

much as I have loved the BF series since 1942 and played the hell out of them, I just know....BF3 is going to be junk.
 
Bigbacon said:
consoles probably couldn't handle the must larger complex maps which the destruction on so they nerfed it.

much as I have loved the BF series since 1942 and played the hell out of them, I just know....BF3 is going to be junk.
Click to expand...

That would be depressing.
 
If true, just another step in the direction of BF2, which is completely welcomed.
 
Tudz said:
Meh, I think this is crap, the videos of destruction were too good to be true. If they wanted to keep balance they should have made it a server option to have destruction or no destruction, not completely remove it. In BFBC2 I rarely ever had issues with too much of the map being destroyed. It happened occasionally, but usually it was due to an already one sided battle and it was outweighed by the joy of seeing the odd building collapse.

Its not like the building vanishes when it is destroyed, its still usable as cover for infantry, and if they're big buildings it'd add a whole extra dynamic level if the chunks of rubble are large enough to still hide behind easily as where at one stage you could hide in the building but later you're having to hide behind a chunk of a half destroyed column or something.

I was really looking forward to some good destruction. The more I hear about BF3 recently the more I feel its not gonna kill me just to skip it and play some of the other games in my backlog instead.
Click to expand...

You read the article right? Not just the title...

You can still blow up parts of buildings, basically its gonna be just a few steel/concrete poles/pillars and blown out walls. Better than a totally destroyed building.
 
LOL - Nice thread title... My BF3 radar started going bonkers and then I read the article linked. No biggy - didn't we already know this? I never once thought we were ever going to level all the structures in an MP map.
 
socK said:
why do I have a feeling this simply means that gigantic 5 story tall buildings and other key structures that are crucial to actually keeping the layout of the map intact are not entirely collapsible.

in some cases, in BC2, it was possible to force the other team to run through like a 200 yard open expanse of fucking death because anything that could have been used for cover is gone. this is dumb. turning the map into a complete and utter flat, open, devoid of cover wasteland is dumb.
Click to expand...

I feel pretty similar. Though I hope a decent level of destructibility stays in, example: a RPG fired towards a balcony where a enemy troop is at.
 
This is old news. They've already talked extensively how a lot of buildings would still stand but their facades would be destructible. This was obviously a game play decision and not an engine limitation.

I guess some of you just want one more to whine about.
 
xIronCrossx said:
You read the article right? Not just the title...

You can still blow up parts of buildings, basically its gonna be just a few steel/concrete poles/pillars and blown out walls. Better than a totally destroyed building.
Click to expand...

Yeah I read it. I'm not all that up to date with BF3 news as I didn't know that was the situation before reading the article. Guess I was just expecting something new and interesting rather than the same as every second FPS game for the past 10 years but with better graphics.

I would like to have seen fully destructable buildings, though maybe that's still a few years off as far as the technology is concerned. I dont think it would be nearly as game/balance breaking as people are making it sound. Maybe I'm the only one getting bored of running the same paths around the same maps over and over again.
 
Last edited:
Well in Rush it usually wasn't a problem since you would move on to the next part of the map and there would be new buildings, but in Conquest it sucked. I rarely played it because halfway through the game all the buildings would be down and it would be so boring.
 
Rooble91 said:
Seems like a step backwards to me...bringing down buildings in BC2 was one of it's greatest and most unique elements compared to a lot of other games, and now they are taking it out...
Click to expand...

That's my thoght as well.
 
This is actually a good thing. I would rather fight in ruins rather than flattened grounds. Also, ever heard of collateral damage?
 
Ok so this game has been in development for years now.......................














They are just now realizing for the first time they can't have the level of destruction in the MP portion of the game they wanted because of balance reasons?? Que? I smell bullshit. Get them boots on people. If this is true they are fucking inepth. I'm sorry but if your just now seeing for balance reasons or performaance reasons that you can't have the level of destructibility that we had in a game from a year and a half ago then you fucking fail. Maybe I'm reading a little too much into this but this really makes me lose some confidence in Dice. I hope they don' let us down with this game. Fuck. /facepalm
 
SUPERGT said:
If true, just another step in the direction of BF2, which is completely welcomed.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding! With BF2 matches lasting 40+ minutes on a regular basis, the entire map would be flattened half way through the match. It wouldn't make any sense to have full scale environment destruction if you wanted a serious multiplayer game. This isn't BC2.5, it's supposed to be a successor to BF3.
 
Savoy said:
Ok so this game has been in development for years now.......................






They are just now realizing for the first time they can't have the level of destruction in the MP portion of the game they wanted because of balance reasons?? Que? I smell bullshit. Get them boots on people. If this is true they are fucking inepth. I'm sorry but if your just now seeing for balance reasons or performaance reasons that you can't have the level of destructibility that we had in a game from a year and a half ago then you fucking fail. Maybe I'm reading a little too much into this but this really makes me lose some confidence in Dice. I hope they don' let us down with this game. Fuck. /facepalm
Click to expand...

This! I've been saying all along that dice lies and they are console sellouts. The closer we get to release the truer this starts to ring..
 
They are destructible, but not like in BFBC2 where they come crashing down. You can punch holes in them though. I don't get why everyone is getting so riled up about this, they tested it out in BFBC2 and noticed that it hurts balance for a lot of people so they are getting rid of it to make it more balanced.

Its like a cake that has icing on the icing, who wants that extra layer of icing?
 
xIronCrossx said:
They are destructible, but not like in BFBC2 where they come crashing down. You can punch holes in them though. I don't get why everyone is getting so riled up about this, they tested it out in BFBC2 and noticed that it hurts balance for a lot of people so they are getting rid of it to make it more balanced.

Its like a cake that has icing on the icing, who wants that extra layer of icing?
Click to expand...

I'm hyperglycemic, so I just want to be able to blow the cake up.
 
Savoy said:
Ok so this game has been in development for years now.......................

They are just now realizing for the first time they can't have the level of destruction in the MP portion of the game they wanted because of balance reasons?? Que? I smell bullshit. Get them boots on people. If this is true they are fucking inepth. I'm sorry but if your just now seeing for balance reasons or performaance reasons that you can't have the level of destructibility that we had in a game from a year and a half ago then you fucking fail. Maybe I'm reading a little too much into this but this really makes me lose some confidence in Dice. I hope they don' let us down with this game. Fuck. /facepalm
Click to expand...



Seriously? I'm pretty sure balance issues are the very last thing you can work out, as you need a fully playable game to see how everything interacts together with real people playing the game. I doubt when they're coding the engine that was top of their mind.

Jesus, everyone just calm down.
 
"EA DICE developers claim that the destruction elements of Battlefield 3 will only be nerfed to provide better gameplay experience".


.....Yeah for Consoles.


LOL.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Seriously? I'm pretty sure balance issues are the very last thing you can work out, as you need a fully playable game to see how everything interacts together with real people playing the game. I doubt when they're coding the engine that was top of their mind.

Jesus, everyone just calm down.
Click to expand...

Dude the game at this point should be basically done. Fine tuning and polishing is what's done in the last few months before launch. You can't tell me this is the first time this has occured to them in the last ...what 3 years + of dev time? I'm sorry but I like Dice as much as anyone but I can't suck down this cool aid without sensing bullshit here somewhere. You wanna drink it down? Fine, but I don't have too.
 
Krenum said:
"EA DICE developers claim that the destruction elements of Battlefield 3 will only be nerfed to provide better gameplay experience".


.....Yeah for Consoles.


LOL.
Click to expand...

Yep, once again catering to the consoles...
 
You guys know there were indestructible structures in BFBC2 right? WAIT, LET'S ALL WHINE ANYWAY.
 
Savoy said:
Dude the game at this point should be basically done. Fine tuning and polishing is what's done in the last few months before launch. You can't tell me this is the first time this has occured to them in the last ...what 3 years + of dev time? I'm sorry but I like Dice as much as anyone but I can't suck down this cool aid without sensing bullshit here somewhere. You wanna drink it down? Fine, but I don't have too.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is new info at all. Have they at any point told us we will be able to completely 9/11 every high rise building on the map? I certainly haven't seen that.
 
Superhuman said:
This is 100% not true.

It has already been confirmed by Demize on Twitter that this article is 100% false. I don't know where they got that information from.

Chill the fuck out, people.
Click to expand...

Probably cus Activision paid them to spread false information. Only a retarded subhuman believes anything that IGN writes about anyways. IGN, Gamespy, what self respecting PC gamer actually follows these putrid low IQ sites anymore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top