I was in one of those Op metro servers last night. It was... interesting. I haven't noticed anything wrong with LMGs (although I do know that a dual drum mag like that should hold 200 rounds). Anyway, I've been enjoying the patch, but I wish I could find a rush-only server that didn't have crap settings.
What I've played only involved Dice's new server choices; I didn't realize quick match was skewed now. I dislike the changes to repairing and tank vs. tank. I think both are unnecessary now that lock-on weapons and offensive repair tools have been buffed against tanks. The culmination of it all is just too much.
Exactly. I spent 20+ minutes searching for a Default Settings Conquest Server and found like 3... I guess they want you to give up trying to find one and buy your own, which, by the looks of things, is working.
you do have to wonder why at this point they are still brining out balance patches. I mean, with all the hype and raving about how important it was to have a "beta" and "alpha" youd think they would at least care to listen to anybody. Why only give one map to people, if you want the game TESTING. Honestly, EA did a really half assed job with BF3. Caspian border is a good example. Right by one of the sides of the map there is a road leading off. A solid grey road, in the centre of which is two identical cardboard trees. Identical trees dont grow in roads! Everywhere I look there is Z-fighting in the maps, jets that randomly explode when taking off, spawn bugs and poorly desined areas insanely favoured towards one team, or promoting spawncamping or camping in general. It's a game I really can't stand. But i'm less sick of it than I am reach if i'm playing for an hour or two.
The beta was for server-side testing, which went quite well; BF3 doesn't suffer from the lag that has plagued previous titles. I haven't noticed your other complaints outside of spawncamping, but that comes down to sheer skill disparity. Sounds like you're often on the wrong end of it, too.
I agree with you on that chrono, but patching a game nearly a year after release for core issues stinks of carelessness and half ass-ness. I guess the stink is the other half arse but there you go. Many other games have just about never been patched for weapon balance and the like. And considering what a big game BF3 is supposed to be it's quite mediocre that they haven't done it right, and refused to listen to or even offer the chance to fans to say what they think.
I played for a few hours last night for the first time since the patch and I have to say, it was amazing. I played 1000 ticket Seine Canal Conquest match and it was the most fun I've had in a while. The vehicle nerfs are great, IMO. I've actually started using the Javelin and it's serving me pretty well. Suppression is a bit ridiculous now, but not game breaking. That's really my only gripe so far. Yeah, it's not like Halo did it or anything.
Do you not realize why they balance these games? They balance them because tactics are discovered or invented that skew the balance of the game. These come up all the time, even years after initial release, because people come up with new tactics and new ways to essentially break the game. Think of it like this. Let's say the game has... 50 weapons, across all gun types, explosives, tactical devices, etc. Most of these weapons also have somewhere around 10 attachments. Add in vehicles, differing map design, and perks, and you have a game with quite literally thousands of variables that can alter the game drastically. There's just no way that DICE could hire enough testers to weed out every single overpowered and underpowered weapon at launch. So, they patch the game. But they can only make changes to the game, not necessarily fix it, because everytime they change the numbers on something, something else becomes overpowered. I think that we should be applauding DICE for releasing major patches this long after release, not insulting them for it. No game will ever be balanced perfectly, it's impossible. But atleast these guys are actually trying on a consistent basis.
This is the second balance patch in less than six months, and much of it is a direct result of player feedback. I'm not sure where you're coming from with this line of thought, because it's just unfounded.
After playing a little more I finally get what you mean. The Type 88 just went from my favorite gun to my least favorite gun. Not only does it take an inordinate amount of bullets to kill someone now, it's damn near impossible to hit people because accuracy is nerfed and suppression is insane.
Yeah the AS Val was my favorite gun per patch, but now it has contracted Parkinson's. **** this, I'll go back to my 870 and M39.
I have found solace in the M60 which was buffed in the patch. With the grip and flash suppressor, it's pretty tame and can outgun people at most ranges.
GTs gentlemen, I need them (or rather, who wants to play). I recently got back into BF3 and LOVE the Back to Karkand maps.
Did they make it so you can't be killed by mavs cuz that's bull **** and in the last major update not this one the one before did they change anything about the jets?
Ah, yes, but what is your game, sir? I'm almost strictly Conquest, but will do Rush with friends. Add me if you like. GT: Rohg. That goes for anyone.
Bullshit that you can't kill with something that you're not meant to kill with in the first place? Seriously, I swear the only times I've ever raged while playing BF3 is when I was killed by an MAV. It's really ****ing stupid that you could kill with that thing. And no, they didn't change anything with the jets as far as I know.