Quoted from "Cheapnub"

1: has been discussed endlessly already
2: I doubt this was intentional, but it's not a gamebreaker so mehh
3: this is an issue in almost every shooter from the last 10+ years

there´s the answer

Quoted from "s0urce"

Quoted from "Cheapnub"

1: has been discussed endlessly already
2: I doubt this was intentional, but it's not a gamebreaker so mehh
3: this is an issue in almost every shooter from the last 10+ years

there´s the answer

nuthing to add

Quoted from "MrT3a"

Quoted from "s0urce"

Quoted from "Cheapnub"

1: has been discussed endlessly already
2: I doubt this was intentional, but it's not a gamebreaker so mehh
3: this is an issue in almost every shooter from the last 10+ years

there´s the answer

nuthing to add

Can't be arsed to write the same thing as the other 3 in a different format.. Or maybe I did?

I was of the understanding that the 2010 release of Medal of Honor was more or less a training ground for Battlefield 3 concepts. I can tell you that they both look and play very similarly.

But, in Medal of Honor, the bullets come out of your gun, not your eyes. I wonder what led them to abandon this principle.

Quoted from "david_grohl"

I posted this on BFforums first (i use BFforums as a filter to get a tentative response so i know if my post is worthwhile so don't muck up these forums )

anyway..
I have been playing this game since 30 minutes after release and as far as gunplay goes (not balance or bugs or ui) these are the only real problems that I see:

#1 (obviously) Suppression-

#2 Movement speed increases when jumping-

#3 Head glitching.

My personal opinion...

1. I'm one of the few that support suppression in this game. I'm one of those "make the best of it" types, so I deal with the suppression because it's a part of the game and we just have to deal with it and make the best of it. I've come to understand for myself that the suppression is meant to teach us how to peak and how to choose which fights to go against properly. If you're being suppressed then don't peak out and try to kill the opposing player, wait till they reload or flee and try to flank. Every person has a choice to pick their battle, you can fight or flee, and if you're being suppressed and you know what suppression effect does yet you still try to peak and try to battle the guy and you die but you complain that you can't aim while being shot at then that is your own fault. You knew what you were doing and you knew what you were getting yourself into. There's nothing unfair about it, because you can suppress other players as well, it's just a matter of who plays it right and who plays it wrong. Same idea goes if you are going against multiple enemies, you just gotta peak the right way or figure out a way to stop them from suppressing you (throw a grenade, flank, wait for them to reload).

2. To confirm, if you sprint and jump you will cover more distance than sprinting alone. I agree this isn't realistic and in real life you would exhaust yourself but it doesn't ruin the game for me, I do it and other players can do it to and I don't mind or find it troublesome. I believe that BF3 isn't trying to be "realistic" but just "more realistic" than other games, if that make sense.

3. You can shoot back and you can kill them, you're just at a severe disadvantage because the opposing player has 3/4 of his body protected by an object. I understand that you can barely see the enemies head but the concept is still true, the player is protecting most of his body by an object and you are 100% exposed, you have to consider that you are obviously at an extreme disadvantage. This can go back to my idea of being able to choose your battle, you can fight or flee, if you choose to fight then you made that choice of going against the odds and trying to battle a player with the upper hand. But if you die from trying to battle a "head glitcher" then don't try to blame that the game is broken, you made the choice to fight against a guy that has 3/4 of his body protected.

P.S. When I say "you" I don't mean to talk directly to you, I'm just saying the player in general.

1: not gonna touch this with a 10 foot pole
2: movement speed is not gunplay ;D and imo this "bug" makes the game better
3: yeah would probably be better if someone came up with a solution for this but like others said its not a bf3 specific problem

1: I can find good arguments for both sides; i'm not going to pretend i prefer it either way (with or without).
2: It's idiotic, just as the speed at which a player can change direction while sprinting is idiotic. I hate missing shots at range just because the guy is jumping around or is swerving his movement.
3: Like Pepin said, making the bullets leave your gun instead of your eyes would fix it. Maybe they could make it so that a bipodded gun would benefit you on headglitching spots, stopping every m16 whore from camping such spots or make them equip a bipod instead of that ungodly attachment that is the foregrip.

Quoted from "Cheapnub"

1: has been discussed endlessly already
2: I doubt this was intentional, but it's not a gamebreaker so mehh
3: this is an issue in almost every shooter from the last 10+ years

1: Yup..

2: Yup...

3: True, which is why developers need to wake the hell up and fix it already. I hate head glitchers across all platforms & games.