BLASPHEMY! No jets can only go 150 mph an d can only have 2 missles which are unguided, and they only get 100 rounds for the cannons. Then that's it. And they don't respawn. And tanks armour is too good they should die after 1 AT round. Infact jeeps are too fast too, they should be reduced by 50%. Yep that'll give the people that prefer infantry the balance they need...coke wrote:
Jets aren't too fast particularly if the maps are the right size for them.jord wrote:
Jets too fast? What next, c4 to explosiony?
They go fast, they're meant to, they're jets. And the speed hardly affected the balance either. Stop it
Pages: 1 … 209 210 211 212 213 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread
touché
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I have no problem with vehicles. I was a pretty good BF2 tanker in fact. And good enough with the Bardley that I could take down your average copter pilot, or at least make him run away to repair. And for the limited time I had with jets, I think I did rather good. If only I had the chance to fly it more, surely I would have gotten much better.0akleaves wrote:
Game, Set and Match.Lucien wrote:
Ilocano are you going to do that thing where someone makes a retarded point, gets proven wrong, then sneaks back into the thread later on to spout the same bullshit again
if you hate vehicles and winning I suggest you buy an xbox 360 and play bad company
The general consensus here is that if one can't get double-digit k/d on an air vehicle on BF3, it'll be a shitty game. It'll be a shitty game if a soldier on the ground can take a jet out with a stinger. It'll a shitty game because one lone AT guy shot my copter down with a single shot. So what if I was circle strafing that flag, and I was just meters from him. He is not allowed to kill me in one shot. No, because I have the attack helicopter, and I have skillz. You didn't get the jet or copter, tough shit. Nyah, nyah.
Oh shit, that's my jet. M95 out. How dare you take my jet. Damn, missed, he got my jet and he's good. Rage quit. Time to find another server. It's no fun being on foot when someone stole my jet/copter. QQ...
Unless the j10 spawn bases are taken.coolstorybro wrote:
a good j10 pilot dominates every single mapIlocano wrote:
Dragon Valley was actually a pretty good balanced map. No one vehicle really dominated that map. There were enough anti-air counters and cover such that they didn't fly about with impunity like most other air maps.
you cant cap out the airbases on dragon valley fwiw. i think the biggest danger to me in a j10 on that map was the urge to fly under every bridge
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
oops i'm thinking of fushe
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
yup.FatherTed wrote:
oops i'm thinking of fushe
You haven't played Bad company since it came out have you? The last map back put a bunch of nonlinear maps into the game and the old maps have been tweaked.Spearhead wrote:
Because its Battlefield, and the thing that made the series so fun and successful in the first place was giving absolute freedom to everyone, everywhere on the map. The idea of adding objectives on a certain part of the map creates lame ass choke points, where you are rewarded more for having quick reflexes and blowing shit up as opposed to having to think about the layout of the map and pick the best positions based on the physical layout of the environment. I mean, honestly, is Rush fun to play at all when you are defending? You sit there and wait for someone to come, one team has all the vehicles and has all the fun while the defenders have to fan out to the cramped corners of the map and snipe, or sit by the objective and get raped.Ilocano wrote:
Why such hate for Rush? Conquest is easy mode if you are playing with friends. On Conquest, you spend most of your time flag-hopping, air vehicles excluded. Vehicle whores love Conquest because the enemy is less concentrated. Except for choke points, opposition is typically thin. On Rush, most of the enemy could be focused in one location.
Its not that rush isnt completely horrible and not fun to play, but it was clearly designed for the sole purpose of dividing the game into simplistic "attack and defend" that we all know was only added to the game to appease console noobs who had no idea how to play. And because they built the game from the ground up with this kind of mentality, the maps, even when played on conquest, are reduced into attack and defend, one direction bullshit. Hill 137 or whatever, or that one snowy map with three flags. Its kind of like what Karkand would be if instead of having the option to sneak around a flank, cap a flag from behind and create chaos from the rear, you are forced to capture each individual flag one at a time and are being told where to go.
"Its not that rush isnt completely horrible and not fun to play, but it was clearly designed for the sole purpose of dividing the game into simplistic "attack and defend" that we all know was only added to the game to appease console noobs who had no idea how to play."
Don't be a retard. BF2 and the whole flag capping crap wasn't complicated at all. Rush actually takes a bit more thinking than conquest. Being able to successfully hold down a base or penetrate defenses is a lot more complicated than BF2's run around and kill things and cap flags crap. It's way harder to be successful at rush than it is conquest.
Well, unless you're defending. All the Rush maps heavily favor the defenders.
Really?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Well, unless you're defending. All the Rush maps heavily favor the defenders.
Arica, Oasis, White Pass. Really? All those are cake-walk as attacker with just a single coordinated squad.
nelson bay has a stupid amount of mcoms in buildings also
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
orly?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
All the Rush maps heavily favor the defenders.
http://www.bfbc2.eu/en/pc/statistik
makes sense since I find myself winning a lot more than not as attacker
In fact, for practically every map, there are "ways" to win as attacker with just two players.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
orly?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
All the Rush maps heavily favor the defenders.
http://www.bfbc2.eu/en/pc/statistik
makes sense since I find myself winning a lot more than not as attacker
As there are more total wins than loses, when they are supposed to be even I call into question the veracity of those stats.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
orly?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
All the Rush maps heavily favor the defenders.
http://www.bfbc2.eu/en/pc/statistik
makes sense since I find myself winning a lot more than not as attacker
And I have never seen the attackers win on Oasis. Ever. Along with that one jungle map with the light house it's pretty much impossible to win as attackers.
It isn't, I seen attackers win plenty on that map, and I haven't even played that much on this game.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Along with that one jungle map with the light house it's pretty much impossible to win as attackers.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
orly?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
All the Rush maps heavily favor the defenders.
http://www.bfbc2.eu/en/pc/statistik
makes sense since I find myself winning a lot more than not as attacker
I agree, the new maps are a lot better (some of them are reused, of course). But they are too little too late. you have to wonder why it took them so long to come out in the first place. The core maps (the ones that shipped with the game) are clearly designed from the ground up to be played in rush,Macbeth wrote:
You haven't played Bad company since it came out have you? The last map back put a bunch of nonlinear maps into the game and the old maps have been tweaked.
"Its not that rush isnt completely horrible and not fun to play, but it was clearly designed for the sole purpose of dividing the game into simplistic "attack and defend" that we all know was only added to the game to appease console noobs who had no idea how to play."
Don't be a retard. BF2 and the whole flag capping crap wasn't complicated at all. Rush actually takes a bit more thinking than conquest. Being able to successfully hold down a base or penetrate defenses is a lot more complicated than BF2's run around and kill things and cap flags crap. It's way harder to be successful at rush than it is conquest.
Rush is in itself a linear game mode. That is the point I was making. We purists are not looking for just a good fps that lets you hop into a vehicle with shitty controls from time to time, we are looking for a Battlefield game..... I will buy BF3 either way but if they can't convince me that this is a true sequel then I'll just get it for the xbox and slowly weep myself to sleep for a few months thinking about "what could have been"...
Agreed Val isn't that hard to win.coke wrote:
It isn't, I seen attackers win plenty on that map, and I haven't even played that much on this game.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Along with that one jungle map with the light house it's pretty much impossible to win as attackers.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
orly?
http://www.bfbc2.eu/en/pc/statistik
makes sense since I find myself winning a lot more than not as attacker
Yeah, really. All it takes is HALO jumping from the rear.jord wrote:
Agreed Val isn't that hard to win.coke wrote:
It isn't, I seen attackers win plenty on that map, and I haven't even played that much on this game.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Along with that one jungle map with the light house it's pretty much impossible to win as attackers.
probably because on average the 170,000+ people have played as attackers a tad more often than defenders but the ratios are still relative.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
As there are more total wins than loses, when they are supposed to be even I call into question the veracity of those stats.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
orly?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
All the Rush maps heavily favor the defenders.
http://www.bfbc2.eu/en/pc/statistik
makes sense since I find myself winning a lot more than not as attacker
I just checked my own stats and I have a 9-1 win/loss ratio as attacker in over 1000 rounds and I don't even play with a team for the most part.
Actually I did a pretty fine job by myself with a tank, an engy, or C4.Ilocano wrote:
Really?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Well, unless you're defending. All the Rush maps heavily favor the defenders.
Arica, Oasis, White Pass. Really? All those are cake-walk as attacker with just a single coordinated squad.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
When did the bf3 thread tur into the bf2 nostalgia thread?
When we all realized during the alpha that Battlefield 3 wont fill the shoes that Battlefield 2 left.Kampframmer wrote:
When did the bf3 thread tur into the bf2 nostalgia thread?
or jord gunning and me flyingIlocano wrote:
Yeah, really. All it takes is HALO jumping from the rear.jord wrote:
Agreed Val isn't that hard to win.coke wrote:
It isn't, I seen attackers win plenty on that map, and I haven't even played that much on this game.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Those aren't just rush stats. Those are counting in conquest games too. BC2 doesn't distinguish between the two.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
As there are more total wins than loses, when they are supposed to be even I call into question the veracity of those stats.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
orly?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
All the Rush maps heavily favor the defenders.
http://www.bfbc2.eu/en/pc/statistik
makes sense since I find myself winning a lot more than not as attacker
And I have never seen the attackers win on Oasis. Ever. Along with that one jungle map with the light house it's pretty much impossible to win as attackers.
Those can't be trusted at all since a conquest victory is counted as an attacking victory in your stats while a conquest lose is counted as defending lose. It messes the whole thing up. For instance take Rukus' win-lose stats.
He plays only conquest while I on the other hand play Rush 90% of the timeRukus' stats wrote:
Team stats
Name Wins Loss W/L Ratio
Attacker 579 13 44.54
Defender 20 185 0.11
So yeah you can't trust those. Now going by the amount of Rush I've played I have to say the maps favor the defenders. Well the whole game mode does. The very act of attacking a well entrenched team is more difficult than sitting back and holding off attacks. Between two equally skilled team the defenders should win.Macbeth's stats wrote:
Team stats
Name Wins Loss W/L Ratio
Attacker 566 262 2.16
Defender 573 207 2.77
interesting macbeth. thanks for clearing that up. kindly disregard everything i've said in this page
Pages: 1 … 209 210 211 212 213 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread