Results 21 to 40 of 68
Thread: BF3 Game
10-09-2013, 09:39 PM #21
ARrrr. sorry about that, Laldy has my phone number, should have just texted me to password protect it.
10-09-2013, 10:11 PM #22
Long post short, I don't think randoms are the problem, its the balance between us RPSers and the fact that there aren't enough people to deal with any exceptionally annoying vehicles like in that last game. In a public game with 64 players, a tank would have to fend off jets, choppers, engineers, other tanks, supports trying to sneak C4 up their arse and all sorts. On the RPS server, a tank can just pop one person at a time, the next one comes along, they die, then those people respawn and go and die again.
In my opinion we should try joining a public server and, although it's a huge pain in the arse, try to have a squad on each side. Yeah, it would have to be ranked, but it would probably be more fun and balanced. Failing that, a mix of infantry only maps would probably be more fair.
11-09-2013, 02:39 AM #23
I dont think the problem is randoms or the balance, its just the way the game plays and is meant to play. Its a varied game where its not all about winning.
Ive played every BF game in the series, and I find I have the most fun from just embracing the nature of the open map and try and challenge myself to do new things and get the best kills possible.
Whether playing as a team or solo, its always fun to just fuck about in battlefield.
Again, as I always say, dont think about the win, because if you do youll just end up being miserable about it.
Any shooter gets boring when you rinse-repeat the same thing over and over. Going down the "lets go for the objectives, do it a certain way and win" attitude, while perfectly valid, is not as rewarding as just letting go and playing for the sake of it.
Theres no issue to me with going up against overwhelming odds, especially in battlefield, because there is always a way to overcome it, and the fault usually always lies with the player if they cannot see the solution. (Unless the randoms are using cheats, in which case, its not your fault :P .. )
If you are playing with a bunch of RPS guys and some randoms start to abuse you with the large tank barrel in disgusting unthinkable ways, team up and approach the bitch from all sides with rockets. :P
11-09-2013, 09:13 AM #24
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
You're describing why I find Planetside so much fun.
I've got BF3 without Premium, but the install size of it all is just too much for my SSD to keep it on there for any reasonable amount of time.
11-09-2013, 10:08 AM #25
My opinion of BF3, especially compared to PS2, is that it is more about twitch reflexes and 1337 skillz than teamwork and coordination. This is my experience both from random servers and the RPS server (however, some teamwork has been happening, have to credit that). This makes it fun for experienced players that dominate, but can be incredibly frustrating for less experienced players, such as me. As my preference is teamwork and coordinated play, I feel less enthusiastic when that is lacking.
11-09-2013, 11:17 AM #26
I like it the way it is. I feel, however, that conquest is more dependant on teamwork than just killing fools in Rush.
when we stepped up our teamgame, we tended to win, when we neglected it and just all rushed for objectives, we tended to fail.
So maybe we should do conquest games only?
The thing is, I dont want to stop playing BF3 with RPS, and that I didnt have time yesterday was surely a reason for it to end so soon.
11-09-2013, 03:09 PM #27
While I enjoyed last night, it wasn't as good as at the weekend for example. Not sure if our numbers were affected by the international football? I'm a complete noob, had the game 3 weeks and just about got to rank 8. I don't mind getting my arse handed to me personally but I agree it seems to flow better if the teams are competitive. Even if the same team loses every round but it's close that'd be fine for me. I didn't mind the randoms too much, and we can always coordinate against vehicle spammers/base rapers.
If we do have low numbers (less than 4 a side,) in future maybe getting organised on a pub server could provide some fun?
11-09-2013, 03:20 PM #28
also note, I could make vehicles super valuable, only spawn every 10 min or so.
11-09-2013, 05:46 PM #29
11-09-2013, 05:48 PM #30
I dont understand games you cant configure at all anyway. Either they work, and you dont have to do shit, or they dont work, but you can configurate them.
Having a game you cant change and is unbalanced, is just poor.
Either way, Im still looking for information if I should keep the server or not.
11-09-2013, 06:11 PM #31
I mean for your server on tuesday and saturday nights, if you decide to lock it to keep randoms out. I know what you mean, though, it should be an option to remove vehicles altogether. Setting the respawn timer even higher would make the problem worse, as far as I can tell, because a good enough pilot can almost completely avoid damage whilst dealing plenty, at least if armour doesn't regenerate they could be whittled down by a steady stream of ill-fated jets and choppers I guess.
I was thinking, though, if we could agree to not hold all the flags at any given time (i.e. gift flags back to the flagless team) and at least use heavy vehicles less (jeeps and scout choppers are ok in my opinion as they're not hard to destroy or shoot the passengers out of) if not abandon them completely, we should be able to have some better-balanced games. Last night if the problem wasn't people dominating in vehicles it was that the weaker team couldn't do anything to stem the loss of tickets, so in the end the winning team won with very few flag captures and very few kills just because it was mostly just ticket bleed that caused the loss (this, by the way, is why I like team deathmatch when you have few players).
But then this will all be moot if you decide to not renew the server, and frankly if every scheduled night is like last night I can't see people coming back often, unfortunately.
11-09-2013, 07:01 PM #32
How about a little rematch tonight? I have time this time.
11-09-2013, 07:06 PM #33
Nope. Tonight is TVA ops night. Also, I'm on bedtime duties again.
11-09-2013, 10:46 PM #34
Battlefield has always been and should always be played as a middleground between your simple team based shooter reflex shit, and something like arma.
Its much more about taking your time and setting up the kills. Reflexes come into play in any shooter game where you are likely to come face to face with an opponent, and theres no getting away from that... but its not at all about 'leet skills', or however you want to refer to it :P.
Battlefield can be played exactly like how we play tactical games in PS2... In fact, it can be a lot more rewarding and is definitely a lot easier to keep track of. The major difference is that you can only ever have 31 other people in your direct command.
Above all, its about having a varied experience where you and your friends decide how you want it to play out, but its also about the vehicles and variety of options for solo play. Its accessible to everybody, even new players.
Unlike cames such as counter strike, which certainly are twitch based and not at all enjoyable for unexperienced, battlefield games are easy to pick up and play, and it takes very little to learn to be good.
I can jump into a game and score within the top few, even though I have played a lot less time than a lot of the high ranks.
PS2 and BF are VERY similar. Both team focussed shooters that offer solo play and customisation, both offer a variety of play such as vehicular etc. The major differences are that: Battlefield has a lot less players and PS2 has a much more boring landscape with less variety.
Sure, more players does facilitate better team games, but as I said before, the lacking in team play isnt anything to do with the game itself, its to do with how you play it and organise it. I used to be part of a large community that played a lot of battlefield 2 and 2142, and it was a lot of fun to play in their team matches. The problem is that we dont have the level of organisation in BF3 that we do in PS2.
Side note: I dont find a game lacking without team play personally, so this is a big factor for you, but it has nothing to do with the play style of the particular game, just your experience with said game .
12-09-2013, 12:57 AM #35
The combat mechanics are of course very similar, nearly identical, but the bigger picture is not. PS2 has strategic elements in its massive open world that are not present in BF3. PS2 has a persistent world - once you capture a base it is added to your territory bringing, albeit short-lived, meaning to the battles which is absent from BF3. The servers and teams are always the same, which together with the MMO format allows for a richer metagame and the development of some kind of lasting team spirit.
Although PS2 remains my favourite, BF3 does have its pros. I appreciate the destructible and detailed environments, polished gunplay, high quality immersive sound effects and generally very well designed maps.
Last edited by LaKroy; 12-09-2013 at 01:00 AM.
12-09-2013, 02:25 AM #36
The essence of what I wanted to convey was mainly that I disagree that it is even comparable to a twitch based shooter, and that even novices can enjoy it as its not as dominated by pros as youd thing. You can play perfectly well, and even VERY well, just taking your time. It doesnt always pay to rush in!
Im a firm believer that (in most cases) your enjoyment of the game is entirely down to the person playing.
I do see where you are coming from with the strategic elements thing, but this isnt necessarily a bad thing for battlefield, as its not at all meant to have these elements. I mean, you can play like that and plan move to move as a team if you want to and have a bunch of people available, but its definitely more of an open experience, where as PS2 kind of requires you to play as a team to make the most of it.
BF3 was definitely designed to appeal more to a wide market, and in so brought with it some of the need for more action, and I suppose more comparisons to (imo, lesser) games. The older games had a lot more of the teamwork and grand battle feel, especially 1942, which was a masterpiece.
Id definitely choose battlefield over planetside if I had to choose a series to stick to.
Thats mostly because of the repetetive maps and nature of a game of PS2, and what feels like a major lack of things to do variety wise. That said, PS2 is very fun to play with a large group of guys, though I dont imagine id get much enjoyment out of it if I were to play with only a few, which is where BF3 beats it hands down in my opinion.
I would certainly be up for a game that balances more aspects of the two. For one, id love to see more varied vehicular warfare in PS2, like water based stuff etc. Id also like to see more dynamic terrain and effects, and more variation in the maps.
While I appreciate that PS2 is free, I actually believe it is hindered by the fact that its free to play, because the nature of the upgrades system makes it a horrible grind to do anything worth while, and thus makes me not want to bother. What should be more of an achievement ends up falling short of that and just annoying me.
Im not saying id want a pay to play model, but maybe a one off price for all content. Id certainly prefer that to free to play and microtransactions.
12-09-2013, 07:09 AM #37
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
So far, I've just been playing with a few friends but I've been having a blast. Although to get into it, I've been avoiding maps that don't have as many vehicles - if you get a decent chopper or jet pilot, they can easily ruin your fun if you're trying to get used to infantry or armoured gameplay.
I've found that the way I've been playing BF3 compared to PS2 to be a lot more 'gung-ho' and a lot less tactical. My friends and I just goof around and while we have an objective, we mainly run around having a good old time.
I think who you're playing with can determine how tactically you play.
12-09-2013, 10:45 AM #38
12-09-2013, 10:53 AM #39Face Down On The Pavement, Dead Drunk, At The End Of Our Days.
Ministry: End Of Days Part 2.
12-09-2013, 11:50 AM #40
Do any of you think that the DLC seriously enhances the gameplay?
Also, theres still the issue of the server.