Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 23:47. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Sokolovac

Administrator

(332)

  • "Sokolovac" started this thread

Posts: 1,009

Date of registration
: Jan 7th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

11

Tuesday, February 14th 2012, 10:30pm

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

Guys as I said I am not looking for realism, but authenticity. To make it feel real. Whilst still retaining fun.
If I want realism then I would go to arma or something like that. I'm just saying that the game feels a bit stale as far as weapons go.
POI~

Posts: 48

Date of registration
: Jan 28th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

12

Wednesday, February 15th 2012, 1:21am

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

Soko, I know what you mean but if you're looking for "authentic". You've already had it like you said it yourself.

Not sure if you have but, in case you haven't, you might want to spend time with guys in THE military. It might give you a good idea of what "authentic" looks like. No offence in anyway.


Before I start, I honor guys in the military and acknowledge that some forces emphasize pistol marksmanship.

Most of "supposedly trained soldiers" don't have sufficient sidearm skills. Some of them don't even apply high grip on pistol. They don't get to practice it a lot. If you point at the improper grip and give him an instruction, one of 2 things will happen. 1. He'll tell you how gay you are and quietly practice it when you are not watching. 2. Flat out. He says, ""Fxxx you. I don't give a shit. Why am I on the range in off-day? You're gay."


Regarding the reload that you mentioned about, they don't care about it as much as you think they do. It's one of the smallest things of what they do. They follow whatever they are told to do in the basic training. In the field, they just go for what they feel comfortable with based on the general knowledge that they learned in the camp.

Tactical reload, emergency reload, reload with retention, reload from side pouch. All the technique sounds cool but they'll tell you that it's all bullshit.(They could do them all properly.) When some people emphasize this(reload), they see it as a sales pitch from some shooting school for civilian.

As far as the authenticity goes, nothing is authentic even in the real world. Some military sees one way is the most effective for their purposes. (their primary concern is time and cost to train) Special forces and some serious shooting schools choose one way over others. (because it's the fastest and the most accurate. They often goes by clock and result)

So, have comfort in this. When you see something wrong in technique, that's realistic.


But, hey, you have highly unlikely blazing 1.35sec shot to shot handgun reload from an unopened mag pouch.
You're enjoying it, aren't you?

Posts: 246

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

13

Wednesday, February 15th 2012, 2:02am

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

Quoted from ""Aenonar""

2. Barrel length isn't really that important

Wait, are we talking about authenticity as in better feel or realism now? Because in one of two cases I'd strongly disagree. Ask any girl.

InternationalGamer

Always trust a Tork!

(1,398)

Posts: 3,846

Date of registration
: Dec 24th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: ebenin ami

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

14

Wednesday, February 15th 2012, 7:00am

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

I don't understand you for being disapointed in the game because of the detailed realism being not so realistic.
Every seems to does it here, so...
Lemme join the fun...

-The US Marines doesn't operate the F/A-18/E Super Hornet, yet, in multiplayer, it is clearly shown that there is a MARINE label on the F/A-18/E.
-The US Marines doesn't operate AH-6J Little Bird, yet it clearly has a MARINE label on it.
-The Russians doesn't operate the Z-11W, it is a Chinese helicopter which was never operated by the Russians.
-The US Marines doesn't operate the A-10, yet there is a MARINE label on that jet.

Why Battlefield 3 isn't realistic in some cases

Posts: 177

Date of registration
: Jan 19th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

15

Wednesday, February 15th 2012, 9:58am

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

I feel that BF3 is plenty authentic. I was afraid that i'd never see selectable fire modes again after BC2 adopted CoD-esque full auto 24/7. The way the weapons behave in addition to the artistic style of the game lend themselves to a game that offers more authenticity than its predecessors. Moving towards realism would be a move away from the gameplay I as a player have come to expect from a battlefield game.

Certain animations like reloads may not be entirely realistic, but are far closer to reality than some of the tripe to come from Modern Warfare and CounterStike (pulling the forward assist to charge charge an AR-15 platform comes to mind). BF3 even has the ejection ports on the correct side, which is more than can be said for many shooters.

Its also a myth that barrel length has some magically huge effect on lethality (which we gamers so lovingly call 'damage'). Ammo type is the real consideration. Sure certain projectiles will work better out of 20 inch barrels but 5.56 M855 ball out of a 14.5 inch barrel will seriously fuck you up just the same. With the knowledge that some serious though has gone into selecting modern military ammunition, the differences between barrel lengths is marginal at best. This is especially considering that the vast majority of engagements in BF3 happen at less than 100 meters (and even more at less than 50).

I really enjoy the modicum of authenticity that DICE put into BF3, all too often they'res virtually none. But I would not have bought the game if it wasn't in the vein of the previous BF games. I expect a level of arcadeyness that makes it easy to pick up and not expect to spend half my day to have some fun. What im saying on a basic level is that BF3 would not be a battlefield game if it included an extra level of complexity in the name of 'authenticity' or 'realism'. The entire premise and core gameplay is not authentic, why try and make it something its not?

Games like ARMA, which place a high value on realism, incorporate that level of authenticity on a very basic level. ARMA doesn't have anything like BF3's gamemodes because the gamemodes aren't themselves realistic at all. You could have minute differences between weapons represented as well as a complex reload and kit system, but you'd still be charging headfirst into enemy fire without proper reconnaissance, support, or coordination with any kind of greater command structure in order to capture a flag or place explosives on a specific crate for some unknown reason. Complexity and detail mirror the fundamental premise and gameplay, BF3 despite its exterior, is still fundamentally arcadey and a bit silly.

Sokolovac

Administrator

(332)

  • "Sokolovac" started this thread

Posts: 1,009

Date of registration
: Jan 7th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

16

Wednesday, February 15th 2012, 12:20pm

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

Well to be honest I did overreact and I was being nitpicky (Wasn't a good night for me)

Its just I used to play this game that put a massive emphasis on how you made your gun, changing barrel length, fore-grip type, stock type etc etc. Going from a game where you could customize your weapons from even the most minute details like rail position and ammo type, it was a bit jarring to move to bf3 which kind of had a one size fits all Philosophy.

But yes, I did overreact If you want the thread gone just say so :D
P.S I still love BF anyway!
POI~

Posts: 177

Date of registration
: Jan 19th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

17

Wednesday, February 15th 2012, 9:17pm

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

Quoted from ""Sokolovac""

Going from a game where you could customize your weapons from even the most minute details like rail position and ammo type


I must admit, my dream shooter would be one with gameplay that encouraged drawn out firefights and focusing everything else on the guns, down to these kinds of details. Extreme amounts of weapon customization (and I don't mean CoD pink tiger stripe paint jobs) and with completely custom classes, balanced by a points system. The Firearms mod from half life 1 with modern graphics and tons of content basically.

Posts: 31

Date of registration
: Dec 28th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

18

Thursday, February 16th 2012, 10:40am

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

Quoted from ""1awrenceofarabia""

I feel that BF3 is plenty authentic. I was afraid that i'd never see selectable fire modes again after BC2 adopted CoD-esque full auto 24/7.


Hmm, I don't get this. Although it didn't have selectable fire, BC2 had the AN-94 (2 round burst), M16 (3 round burst), ALL-CLASS semi-auto weapons (which I want in BF3), Bolt-action and semi-auto sniper rifles. In addition to that, burst firing was VERY important. Guns were even less sprayable than in BF3 meaning that the game was quite the opposite of CoD. Even though visual recoil was mostly low, spread increased quickly and you had to quickly tap-fire most guns at most ranges.

On-topic: (Be aware, massive rant inbound)

My disappointments with battlefield, in comparison to BFBC2, summed up:

Claymores (Completely autonomous, player doesn't even need to click fire button) have more chance of 1 hit killing someone than bolt-action sniper rifles (Supposedly powerful accuracy weapons).
Claymores sucked in BF2, they sucked in CoD4, they sucked in MW2, they sucked in BO, why the hell did they put them in BF3?


UNLOCKS: I mean, I could have a rant on unlocks alone. WHY do developers keep putting >functional< (gameplay-changing, not aesthetic like new skins) unlocks in their videogames? Even worse, why do players keep calling for harder/longer unlocks? Why are unlock systems getting implemented in more and more games? The entire system of functional unlocks is only bad for gameplay top to bottom. It's all about getting an unfair advantage because you've played the game for 5 hours longer than the guy you're facing. It's about winning a helicopter vs helicopter fight, not because you were better, but because you had ECM/gunner flares/AA missiles and the other helicopter didn't.

It sucks to be on the receiving end, because you lost to a guy because of his unlocks, not because he outplayed you.
It sucks to be on the giving end, because you know you won because you had more unlocks, and you don't get the satisfaction of knowing you really beat your opponent.


Weapons have a less unique feel to them, higher RoF with the same base accuracy? Higher RoF gun is generally better. (AK74M vs AEK-971 for example, but the FAMAS isn't neccesarily better than the AEK.
In BC2 (After balance patches!), weapons were distinct, but generally balanced (Except for 40mm/Carl gustav explosives which were annoying) and almost all guns were usable and seen in everyday multiplayer combat.

VEHICLE WARFARE:
Vehicles are too powerful with their boatload of perks, and the forced split between RPG/Stinger/Javelin means you're fucked with a Stinger vs tanks, RPG vs air etc. Proximity sensor/thermal sights remove the need for Situational Awareness...

They replaced the M136 AT4 (fun, challenging, rewarding) with lock-on weapons (Stare at a vehicle and hope for success)

Engineers are too effective at keeping a vehicle alive. A tank with 2 engineers repairing it is nigh invincible. Repair tool needs BFBC2 cooldown.

C4 throwing range/damage versus tanks nerf, together with proximity sensor, thermal optics and more lethal weaponry, and only available to Support -> :(

My feelings on Jets vs helicopters vs ground:
The reasoning which seems to have been appplied
Jets 'needed' to be in the game, but they're good fighters against Helicopters, so Helicopters were made better vs ground to compensate for their weakness to Jets.
In my opinion, Jets just need to go. Something so fast only lock-on things or other jets can consistenly hit it cannot be balanced, same as something which automatically kills players (claymores). Things you cannot fight cannot be balanced and need to be taken out. With Jets out you can reintroduce manually-aimed missile launchers such as the M136AT4 and reduce the power of attack helicopters to make ground vs air warfare fun and challenging again.

Helicopter vs helicopter:
TV missiles are fun but their controls are clunky and they're buggy.
Lock-on warfare gets real boring real fast

You can actually hear 3 lock-on sounds if you're in the CITV of a tank: Your CITV laser locking on, your tank's guided shell locking on, and your tank getting locked onto.
After playing with lock-on weapons for a while, all you'll hear is
BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP


Airfield raping: Blatant fault, still not fixed.

Weapons kill a tad bit too fast, even in normal mode you can't really 'respond' to being shot at, especially with supression. If somebody you hadn't seen before opens up on you you're generally dead, although it can happen that they're using a PDW at long range, or using a sniper rifle at close range which means you can still win. I would prefer more damage dropoff over range, instead of random deviation, so that long-range hits aren't luck-based.
Also, a current problem with bolt-action rifles in direct combat is that they're accuracy-> headshot weapons and supression messes with accuracy, this in combination with them not being instantly accurate after scoping in and the low bullet speed means that bolt-action sniper rifles only really work against unaware targets that aren't actively trying to dodge your shots and supressing you. I currently feel the AN-94 with Heavy Barrel outclasses the sniper rifles. Yes, at long range the sniper rifles dominate, but at long range you're not being very useful to the team anyways.

Posts: 7

Date of registration
: Feb 10th 2012

Platform: 360

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

19

Thursday, February 16th 2012, 5:34pm

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

^I agree with most of the things you said but ultimately the developers of BF3 wnat us to play a certain way.

Quoted from ""dragonfury""




Claymores (Completely autonomous, player doesn't even need to click fire button) have more chance of 1 hit killing someone than bolt-action sniper rifles (Supposedly powerful accuracy weapons).
Claymores sucked in BF2, they sucked in CoD4, they sucked in MW2, they sucked in BO, why the hell did they put them in BF3?


Apparently you can crouch walk past them and they won't explode. I also think they are auto detected, so you can be near one and it'll show up on your minimap.

Quoted from ""dragonfury""



VEHICLE WARFARE:
Vehicles are too powerful with their boatload of perks, and the forced split between RPG/Stinger/Javelin means you're fucked with a Stinger vs tanks, RPG vs air etc. Proximity sensor/thermal sights remove the need for Situational Awareness...

They replaced the M136 AT4 (fun, challenging, rewarding) with lock-on weapons (Stare at a vehicle and hope for success)

Engineers are too effective at keeping a vehicle alive. A tank with 2 engineers repairing it is nigh invincible. Repair tool needs BFBC2 cooldown.

C4 throwing range/damage versus tanks nerf, together with proximity sensor, thermal optics and more lethal weaponry, and only available to Support -> :(


Yeah I agree with you here, Engineer class is probably so OP in Battlefield 3 right now and they do definitely need a nerf on their repair tool. I also think Supports should be able to actually 'throw' their C4. Nothing ridiculous as say 20 yards, but a little chuck would be nice.

Quoted from ""dragonfury""



My feelings on Jets vs helicopters vs ground:
The reasoning which seems to have been appplied
Jets 'needed' to be in the game, but they're good fighters against Helicopters, so Helicopters were made better vs ground to compensate for their weakness to Jets.
In my opinion, Jets just need to go. Something so fast only lock-on things or other jets can consistenly hit it cannot be balanced, same as something which automatically kills players (claymores). Things you cannot fight cannot be balanced and need to be taken out. With Jets out you can reintroduce manually-aimed missile launchers such as the M136AT4 and reduce the power of attack helicopters to make ground vs air warfare fun and challenging again.


Jets are also good for anti tank combat aswell. But I don't think they need to go. I just think it needs to be a little easier to take it out if you're without another jet or any type of Anti Air weapon. Whenever I'm in a squad though and one of my teammates are in a jet and they are being persued by another, I tell them to come over to the Base where the AA gun is and just keep circling til I get them.

Quoted from ""dragonfury""



Weapons kill a tad bit too fast, even in normal mode you can't really 'respond' to being shot at, especially with supression. If somebody you hadn't seen before opens up on you you're generally dead, although it can happen that they're using a PDW at long range, or using a sniper rifle at close range which means you can still win. I would prefer more damage dropoff over range, instead of random deviation, so that long-range hits aren't luck-based.


I think the whole point of supression is to deter that 'rush' style of play. It teaches you to find cover. It also encourages squad play. If you are being hit from somewhere, you can just tell your squad to go kill them.

Quoted from ""dragonfury""



Also, a current problem with bolt-action rifles in direct combat is that they're accuracy-> headshot weapons and supression messes with accuracy, this in combination with them not being instantly accurate after scoping in and the low bullet speed means that bolt-action sniper rifles only really work against unaware targets that aren't actively trying to dodge your shots and supressing you. I currently feel the AN-94 with Heavy Barrel outclasses the sniper rifles. Yes, at long range the sniper rifles dominate, but at long range you're not being very useful to the team anyways.


Again it's all about trying to encourage team work. As a recon in the squad, you go somewhere reasonably far from your squad and over watch them, spotting enemies and picking off people who are already in cover. If every sniper rifle had a speedy zoom in and had a 1 shot kill capability, then what would really be the point of choosing any other class other than Engineer for anti vehicle? At the end of the day, it's the 'recon' class.

Posts: 16

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

20

Thursday, February 16th 2012, 6:05pm

Re: I am honestly dissapointed in battlefield.

Quoted from ""dragonfury""


Engineers are too effective at keeping a vehicle alive. A tank with 2 engineers repairing it is nigh invincible. Repair tool needs BFBC2 cooldown.


Instead of increasing the cooldown of the repair torch i would like to see the cooldown removed and the repair speed dropped to a lower level.
Additionally the repair speed in combat should also be decreased.

Quoted from ""dragonfury""

Weapons kill a tad bit too fast, even in normal mode you can't really 'respond' to being shot at, especially with supression. If somebody you hadn't seen before opens up on you you're generally dead, although it can happen that they're using a PDW at long range, or using a sniper rifle at close range which means you can still win. I would prefer more damage dropoff over range, instead of random deviation, so that long-range hits aren't luck-based.


I agree partially with this statement.
The weapons are simply to accurate. The required number of hits at range is appropriate although it could be one less hit for assault rifles. I would like to see a simple spread increase for automatic weapons.