• 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

In BF2 there is strategic destructibility, like blowing up bridges.

The thing that should be upsetting is that they lauded the destructibility of the game, which got everyone excited. Now they are backing-off that statement for multiplayer.

Kinda like a bait and switch. If they had just been honest from the beginning, everyone who plays or has played BF2 would have understood that this is a necessary limitation and there would have been little complaints about it. Of course, they always knew what they were going to do with the dynamics of the game.

Now, this opens up the door for other similar discrepancies of what we believe the game will be and how it will actually be.

If the this info is correct, as a long time BF2 player and fan of the series, I am fine with this aspect of multiplayer being "revised".

But if Dice "nerfed" the flying aspect of the game in terms of difficulty, variety and accessibility of online players to use jets and attack choppers, I will be fucking furious.
 
I'm not quite clear on the situation...

One of the largest aspects of BF3 was going to be the destructibility, which was being touted as one of the biggest features, and made to sound as if it would be a huge part of the game.

So how much is it really being "limited" at this point, compared to how they've been making it sound up until now?

If we're able to still completely take-out full walls of buildings etc., then that's fine, I don't care if not every building doesn't come down... but the destructibility does need to be there to a degree that's at least close to BC2, and has usefulness (such as being able to take out full walls on any level of a building where an enemy might be hiding)...

...otherwise, despite the incredibly impressive, almost cinematic visuals, it would just be one more military shooter, albeit the most impressive looking one to date.

I cant imagine they'll limit it that much...?
 
My god, it is amazing how some people whine just for the sake of whining.

In BFBC2 there are non destructible buildings where you can only destroy the facade. This is not news. In fact, this is so obvious because this game would be comically bad if you could completely level Paris (one of the maps). You can still destroy facades, so ffs, stop with the unnecessary whining.
 
diogo said:
My god, it is amazing how some people whine just for the sake of whining.

In BFBC2 there are non destructible buildings where you can only destroy the facade. This is not news. In fact, this is so obvious because this game would be comically bad if you could completely level Paris (one of the maps). You can still destroy facades, so ffs, stop with the unnecessary whining.
Click to expand...

Quiet console kiddie. Why don't you go back to CoD. BF3 will never be as good as BF2 even though none of us play it anymore.

BTW that was sarcasm.
 
I've been a big fan of the BF series since 1942 and BF2. I definitely enjoyed the destruction in BC2 and I want to see that aspect of play in BF3. Yet, I'm VERY happy about this news.

I always thought that BF was more about using your cover and environment while CS was more about aim and reflexes. In BC2 I just couldn't make the same use of cover as I could in previous games because of how easy a map was to flatten. By the time the first 5-10 minutes are done on a map I find myself looking more for uneven ground or rocks to use as cover than any sort of structure.

I think the experiment with destruction in BC2 was a success, but it needs to be refined quite a bit. If you want to see maps get flattened in the first 5 minutes, then I guess you'll be disappointed, but I have a feeling that people who are just worried about them keeping the destruction aspect of the game will be pleasantly surprised. :D
 
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...

There you go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if this article was true, BFBC2 had plenty of destruction for me.

I don't want to play on maps where every fucking building is leveled in 10 minutes and it becomes just playing on a giant open field. There should be, and I support a decent amount of destroy-able objects, with a mix of not-fully destructible.
 
Can you guys read whole threads for once? Look at the post above yours, the quote.
 
All the destructible buildings in BC2 were just little huts and simple designs, no surprise here.
 
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...

So how about not letting the other team do that?

if a team has time to take down that many buildings.. your doing it wrong.
 
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...

I think it comes down ot the large-city gameplay. Its a lot harder to calculate the physics or make realistic pre-scripted physicals for one skyscraper falling into another skyscrapper and both being demolished than a single house seperated considerably frmo another house falling down into rubble. Maybe we'll see Skyscraper on Skyscraper depth of physics demolition come 2016ish graphics/processing power wise.
 
WBurchnall said:
I think it comes down ot the large-city gameplay. Its a lot harder to calculate the physics or make realistic pre-scripted physicals for one skyscraper falling into another skyscrapper and both being demolished than a single house seperated considerably frmo another house falling down into rubble. Maybe we'll see Skyscraper on Skyscraper depth of physics demolition come 2016ish graphics/processing power wise.
Click to expand...

baah do it now. They can have my money today if it means I can blow up a skyscraper.
 
Outside of a scripted event they could still do it, but it'd basically be similar to BC2 to. It wouldn't be realistic, but the animation would still be scripted in itself by having the building essentially collapse in (conveniently) on itself.

As a side point this is also a misconception when people tend to bring up BC2's destruction versus those of physics tech demos. The destruction in BC2 is not truly simulated in the same way. But it does look better because like in many cases art/design trumps technology/realism.
 
SUPERGT said:
If true, just another step in the direction of BF2, which is completely welcomed.
Click to expand...

Yeah...in BC2, I hated that the "cheap" solution to "we're blocked out of the objective, they're defending too well" was to get a soldier and an engineer and blow it to shit.

Or get in the UAV, hide behind a wall, pop out, shoot missile, hide...on the map where the ruassians start on a hill next to a pipeline...the second base, you can hide the UAV on a hill. The enemy cannot see you, but you can dump missiles on them. It was bad. So often, I could move my team forward by just taking the buildings down. No skill needed from teammates.

If BF3 trends AWAY from BC2 towards BF2 I might consider buying it.
 
Full building destruction sucks. BC2 maps all turned into boring flat maps once everything is blown up. Leaving no cover to advance from.

BC1 style of destruction was better, still left portions of buildings to hide behind while advancing. That's how Red Orchestra 2 is doing it. You can destroy portions of buildings but still good amount left behind to use as cover for advancing.

Game balance / Fun factor > Destruction. I mean if you could bring every building to rubble, why would anyone go into them if its going to get flatten.
 
Krazyxazn said:
Full building destruction sucks. BC2 maps all turned into boring flat maps once everything is blown up. Leaving no cover to advance from.

BC1 style of destruction was better, still left portions of buildings to hide behind while advancing. That's how Red Orchestra 2 is doing it. You can destroy portions of buildings but still good amount left behind to use as cover for advancing.

Game balance / Fun factor > Destruction. I mean if you could bring every building to rubble, why would anyone go into them if its going to get flatten.
Click to expand...

Exactly. BC2...I can't play anymore - I just got so tired of everything being blown to shit.
 
You guys are gonna shit a brick when this whole things turns out to be just another console port with bigger maps. I hope im wrong, I really really really do! Battlefield is my crack.
 
chaikovski2002 said:
You guys are gonna shit a brick when this whole things turns out to be just another console port with bigger maps. I hope im wrong, I really really really do! Battlefield is my crack.
Click to expand...

I won't. I'll just sit there laughing. I gave up on DICE a long time ago.
 
Lol, reading through this thread is pretty funny. A bunch of people bitching about something that's been confirmed as false. Good job.
 
simonizor said:
Lol, reading through this thread is pretty funny. A bunch of people bitching about something that's been confirmed as false. Good job.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, all this 'secrecy' about the game is getting tiring, they need to release the beta already so we can start playing and see whats up. Also, I dont really give a shit what demize says on his twitter we all know what a console troll he is. Let me refresh if you dont remember - flares on pc not working for 4 months when he said they work fine on his xbox, screwing up an94, not giving optics for m14/g3 when he clearly has videos in beta of people using those features and most of all no modding tools for BC2 EVER! So forgive my french but demize99 can fuck off! The rest of the dice team is cool.
 
chaikovski2002 said:
Well to be fair, all this 'secrecy' about the game is getting tiring, they need to release the beta already so we can start playing and see whats up. Also, I dont really give a shit what demize says on his twitter we all know what a console troll he is. Let me refresh if you dont remember - flares on pc not working for 4 months when he said they work fine on his xbox, screwing up an94, not giving optics for m14/g3 when he clearly has videos in beta of people using those features and most of all no modding tools for BC2 EVER! So forgive my french but demize99 can fuck off! The rest of the dice team is cool.
Click to expand...

I agree. Three months away that beta should be out there so people can pick it apart and they have time to make things better.
 
chaikovski2002 said:
Well to be fair, all this 'secrecy' about the game is getting tiring, they need to release the beta already so we can start playing and see whats up. Also, I dont really give a shit what demize says on his twitter we all know what a console troll he is. Let me refresh if you dont remember - flares on pc not working for 4 months when he said they work fine on his xbox, screwing up an94, not giving optics for m14/g3 when he clearly has videos in beta of people using those features and most of all no modding tools for BC2 EVER! So forgive my french but demize99 can fuck off! The rest of the dice team is cool.
Click to expand...

Didn't he go console troll after BF2? BC2 balance issues were the worst...
 
Krazyxazn said:
Full building destruction sucks. BC2 maps all turned into boring flat maps once everything is blown up. Leaving no cover to advance from.

BC1 style of destruction was better, still left portions of buildings to hide behind while advancing. That's how Red Orchestra 2 is doing it. You can destroy portions of buildings but still good amount left behind to use as cover for advancing.

Game balance / Fun factor > Destruction. I mean if you could bring every building to rubble, why would anyone go into them if its going to get flatten.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that full building destruction sucks for the opp. team. That is why I think they should keep it, but just make it difficult to do and require more than one person to accomplish.

If me and my 5 friends all with max c4 want to make any building collapse we should be able to but only if we put in that kind of dedicated effort. Tank shells and/or rpgs should not be able to do the job. The ability to use destruction to create new ways to new ways to attack or defend is something that could be hurt if they make it it to where no building can be leveled.

I think there are ways to have both. Allowing full building collapse as well as terrain or game play elements (like a plan that you can drop troops off with) that allow smart advance to happen. You could even make the elements that get grounded just simply stay and we can hide in the rubble to advance.

There has to be better solutions than that sucked just do it the old way.;)
 
rampantandroid said:
Didn't he go console troll after BF2? BC2 balance issues were the worst...
Click to expand...

he apparently did the balancing work on 2142 which was imo, more or less the pinnacle of the series in terms of balancing / classes.

he's trying to mimic the 2142 playstyle in BF3 so... they've already returned to a similar class style, and i've seen him say on his twitter they are playing with similar damages / gameplay pacing.
 
socK said:
he apparently did the balancing work on 2142 which was imo, more or less the pinnacle of the series in terms of balancing / classes.

he's trying to mimic the 2142 playstyle in BF3 so... they've already returned to a similar class style, and i've seen him say on his twitter they are playing with similar damages / gameplay pacing.
Click to expand...

This is really nothing but a good thing. 2142 was hands down the best in the series, unfortunately most people only want modern warfare.
 
Valshistixol said:
This is really nothing but a good thing. 2142 was hands down the best in the series, unfortunately most people only want modern warfare.
Click to expand...

The pods were close to the best thing in any game ever.

It was an awesome way to spawn and an even more awesome way to kill someone. CRUNCH
 
socK said:
The pods were close to the best thing in any game ever.

It was an awesome way to spawn and an even more awesome way to kill someone. CRUNCH
Click to expand...

I miss 2142 :(

The BF2 unlock system, while annoying....at least syncs to a server UNLIKE COD...where you reinstall Windows and you lose it all. If you want to port from console to PC, please either remove your fucking ass backwards idea of gun unlocks...or sync it to a server.
 
I'm a bit conflicted on this, In bc 2 one of the coolest things to do was bring a building down on top of a camping enemy squad, At the same time like others have said, the map eventually deteriorates into a waste land with no cover though, and what your left with is a bunch of snipers camping in rubble while one team tries to get out of spawn for the last 400 tickets. I'm just going to wait and see how this pans out I think.
 
I heard recently theyre replacing modern weapons with nerf guns. admit it. It's going to be awesome.

nerf-guns-9-470-0409.jpg
 
piscian18 said:
I heard recently theyre replacing modern weapons with nerf guns. admit it. It's going to be awesome.

nerf-guns-9-470-0409.jpg
Click to expand...

We have one of those in the office. You know how long it takes to reload that damn belt? Imagine how long the reload animation will have to be!

:D
 
socK said:
The pods were close to the best thing in any game ever.
Click to expand...

Did they fix pod drifting in a patch? Landing entire squads on command at any spot on the map was pretty game breaking.

I had lots of fun playing 2142, but I feel like BF2 had better balance. At least they didn't give the same class rifle rockets and a multi-charge revive tool.
 
Mozex said:
Did they fix pod drifting in a patch? Landing entire squads on command at any spot on the map was pretty game breaking.

I had lots of fun playing 2142, but I feel like BF2 had better balance. At least they didn't give the same class rifle rockets and a multi-charge revive tool.
Click to expand...

I have more hours in BF2142, than any BF game. I have never even remotely thought of the pods as being game breaking. Badass, awesome and just plain cool came to mind.

Again. 2142 had the best balance of the BF series IMO.
 
Gmok Bonecrusha said:
I have more hours in BF2142, than any BF game. I have never even remotely thought of the pods as being game breaking. Badass, awesome and just plain cool came to mind.

Again. 2142 had the best balance of the BF series IMO.
Click to expand...

Does anyone still play 2142 or is it pretty much done?
 
ebs5049 said:
Does anyone still play 2142 or is it pretty much done?
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty much done. the EA forums for it get little traffic now a days. It has been pretty much dead since early to mid 2010.

Also agree that 2142 was the best of series. Almost perfect balance and I spent the most time with it as well.
 
rampantandroid said:
We have one of those in the office. You know how long it takes to reload that damn belt? Imagine how long the reload animation will have to be!

:D
Click to expand...

The in game animation will just be you sitting down and loading the gun for 30min.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top