BF3's 'Generic corridor DLC' gameplay from PAX

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Jesus, the amount of whining in this thread is spectacular.

Holy sh*t, they're making DLC that appeals to people who enjoy maps like Metro. Since when does that make BF3 like CoD?

Ondoval

No one likes Metro. Metro is played only for unlocking purpouses, as Nuke Town in Black Ops. Is a clusterf*** meatgrinder that provides easy kills and exp. points. Let mah show u mah pokemans:

A ton of people like Metro(myself included). If you get into a small game(if you go into a 64 player Metro match that's your fault) it's one of the funnest maps available. Same with Nuke Town.

Yep, I'm done with this game now.

Johacamigames

11 of your last 16 games were on Metro..........

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

stopped reading there

seanmcloughlin

You're a moron.

Having a killstreak that can end an entire round is a HUGE gameplay factor. You think they're not but "running" is? :roll:

Killstreaks determine if you win or lose a round in CoD. Some of the best players dominate with killstreaks. You can't be that stupid to think they're not a big factore. It is nowhere near the same with killstreaks on or off.

I don't see the problem. They have announced two DLC's: Close Quarters, and the other with huge maps. Battlefield plays inherently different than CoD, and the fact that the maps are smaller don't change that. If you play Metro Conquest with 16 players, it's a exactly like playing a larger map if the player density is the same. The only difference is the lack of vehicles. However, you do still have to work together by laying down covering fire, popping smoke, etc etc.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] lmao, you think killstreaks is a big gameplay design? Really? Big gameplay designs are shooting, running, guns, armor, level design, and stuff like that. Not killstreaks that can be turned off (at least on CoD 4 they could, never checked in MW2) CoD is ultimatyely the same expoerience with killstreaks on or off. Yeah, they add something to the game, but it's not a major factor in the game.

Gooeykat

You're a moron.

Having a killstreak that can end an entire round is a HUGE gameplay factor. You think they're not but "running" is? :roll:

Killstreaks determine if you win or lose a round in CoD. Some of the best players dominate with killstreaks. You can't be that stupid to think they're not a big factore. It is nowhere near the same with killstreaks on or off.

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

You're a moron.

Having a killstreak that can end an entire round is a HUGE gameplay factor. You think they're not but "running" is? :roll:

Killstreaks determine if you win or lose a round in CoD. Some of the best players dominate with killstreaks. You can't be that stupid to think they're not a big factore. It is nowhere near the same with killstreaks on or off.

realguitarhero5

Right, okay...so you go into the map and try to kill people...as many as you can in a row before you die...right? So this is different from other corridor shooters how? I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just trying to understand how not having killstreaks would alter the gameplay. How would COD players play the game differently.

Give it a chance but i have to warn you if this is a success for EA the next battlefield game will be a COD Clone.

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"][QUOTE="Gooeykat"] This seems to be kind of strange thing, isn't the whole point of COD to kill people (i.e. usually the one with the most kills finishes near the top). It seems to me that rewarding people for killstreaks is basically rewarding players for playing the game the way it should be played. Are you saying that if killstreaks were not a part of the gameplay, that COD players would kill less of the opponent. I'm just trying to understand how killstreaks alter the way COD is played and how that differs from other corridor shooters?Gooeykat

Right, okay...so you go into the map and try to kill people...as many as you can in a row before you die...right? So this is different from other corridor shooters how? I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just trying to understand how not having killstreaks would alter the gameplay. How would COD players play the game differently.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] lmao, you think killstreaks is a big gameplay design? Really? Big gameplay designs are shooting, running, guns, armor, level design, and stuff like that. Not killstreaks that can be turned off (at least on CoD 4 they could, never checked in MW2) CoD is ultimatyely the same expoerience with killstreaks on or off. Yeah, they add something to the game, but it's not a major factor in the game.

Gooeykat

You're a moron.

Having a killstreak that can end an entire round is a HUGE gameplay factor. You think they're not but "running" is? :roll:

Killstreaks determine if you win or lose a round in CoD. Some of the best players dominate with killstreaks. You can't be that stupid to think they're not a big factore. It is nowhere near the same with killstreaks on or off.

If you have to ask then you just don't get the point of it

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Jesus, the amount of whining in this thread is spectacular.

Holy sh*t, they're making DLC that appeals to people who enjoy maps like Metro. Since when does that make BF3 like CoD?

Ondoval

No one likes Metro. Metro is played only for unlocking purpouses, as Nuke Town in Black Ops. Is a clusterf*** meatgrinder that provides easy kills and exp. points. Let mah show u mah pokemans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxsbTjPe2fs

If "that's" Battlefield is not a secret why some people think that the spirit of the series was trampled by COD -and still, despite all the sacrifices, BF3 sold less than 1/2 of MW3-.

Metro's a great map. You just have to find a server than stops all the spammable weapons like rockets, grenades etc. then it's great even on CQ.

It's an excellent rush map

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

You're a moron.

Having a killstreak that can end an entire round is a HUGE gameplay factor. You think they're not but "running" is? :roll:

Killstreaks determine if you win or lose a round in CoD. Some of the best players dominate with killstreaks. You can't be that stupid to think they're not a big factore. It is nowhere near the same with killstreaks on or off.

seanmcloughlin

If you have to ask then you just don't get the point of it

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"]

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]Ok. So on the map there can only be 1 or 2 types of air support up (not counting UAVs/Counter-UAVs). In a game like Domination, its a race to get air support up. The team that gets the Chopper Gunner/whatever is the team that wins. You can't contest it very easily. The team that gets the most air support up wins, and so all people try to do is get their killstreaks.realguitarhero5

Right, okay...so you go into the map and try to kill people...as many as you can in a row before you die...right? So this is different from other corridor shooters how? I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just trying to understand how not having killstreaks would alter the gameplay. How would COD players play the game differently.

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Jesus, the amount of whining in this thread is spectacular.

Holy sh*t, they're making DLC that appeals to people who enjoy maps like Metro. Since when does that make BF3 like CoD?

seanmcloughlin

No one likes Metro. Metro is played only for unlocking purpouses, as Nuke Town in Black Ops. Is a clusterf*** meatgrinder that provides easy kills and exp. points. Let mah show u mah pokemans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxsbTjPe2fs

If "that's" Battlefield is not a secret why some people think that the spirit of the series was trampled by COD -and still, despite all the sacrifices, BF3 sold less than 1/2 of MW3-.

Metro's a great map. You just have to find a server than stops all the spammable weapons like rockets, grenades etc. then it's great even on CQ.

It's an excellent rush map

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

No one likes Metro. Metro is played only for unlocking purpouses, as Nuke Town in Black Ops. Is a clusterf*** meatgrinder that provides easy kills and exp. points. Let mah show u mah pokemans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxsbTjPe2fs

If "that's" Battlefield is not a secret why some people think that the spirit of the series was trampled by COD -and still, despite all the sacrifices, BF3 sold less than 1/2 of MW3-.

Travis_Odell

Metro's a great map. You just have to find a server than stops all the spammable weapons like rockets, grenades etc. then it's great even on CQ.

It's an excellent rush map

100% agree. I was chatting Zubinen about this before saying people must not know how to find the servers to suit them. Instead of just clicking random ones.

People saying they hate lasers, tac lights, grenade spam, RPG spam. They can all be removed on certain servers people. Learn how to do it rather than blaming the game. People just want to hate this game sometimes

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"][QUOTE="Gooeykat"]

Right, okay...so you go into the map and try to kill people...as many as you can in a row before you die...right? So this is different from other corridor shooters how? I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just trying to understand how not having killstreaks would alter the gameplay. How would COD players play the game differently.

Gooeykat

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"][QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]Because Battlefield is about capping flags and bringing down tickets by your gun, Call of Duty is about getting a ridiculously positive K/D and then spawntrapping the crap out of the other team. Battlefield just has different dynamics and priorities. Call of Duty is much more of an in-your-face try-to-make-the-other-team's-gaming-session-suck kind of thing. Oh yeah, and quickscoping.wis3boi

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Jesus, the amount of whining in this thread is spectacular.

Holy sh*t, they're making DLC that appeals to people who enjoy maps like Metro. Since when does that make BF3 like CoD?

seanmcloughlin

No one likes Metro. Metro is played only for unlocking purpouses, as Nuke Town in Black Ops. Is a clusterf*** meatgrinder that provides easy kills and exp. points. Let mah show u mah pokemans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxsbTjPe2fs

If "that's" Battlefield is not a secret why some people think that the spirit of the series was trampled by COD -and still, despite all the sacrifices, BF3 sold less than 1/2 of MW3-.

Metro's a great map. You just have to find a server than stops all the spammable weapons like rockets, grenades etc. then it's great even on CQ.

It's an excellent rush map

Metro is a terrible map by all design philosophies. People just love it because it's constant action with no thinking.

These CQB maps will at least have more directions than forward to move in.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"] No, I totally get how B3 and COD are different, it's like night and day. My question was related to killstreaks and how it affects gameplay and if it alters it significantly. Anyway, you didn't really answer my question but I appreciate the attempt.SF_KiLLaMaN

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

No one likes Metro. Metro is played only for unlocking purpouses, as Nuke Town in Black Ops. Is a clusterf*** meatgrinder that provides easy kills and exp. points. Let mah show u mah pokemans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxsbTjPe2fs

If "that's" Battlefield is not a secret why some people think that the spirit of the series was trampled by COD -and still, despite all the sacrifices, BF3 sold less than 1/2 of MW3-.

Wasdie

Metro's a great map. You just have to find a server than stops all the spammable weapons like rockets, grenades etc. then it's great even on CQ.

It's an excellent rush map

Metro is a terrible map by all design philosophies. People just love it because it's constant action with no thinking.

These CQB maps will at least have more directions than forward to move in.

That's why I said it was an excellent rush map. Rushing forward.

Tehran is a terrible map in all design philosophies. At least Metro has one mode as a saving grace for it and the others aren't that bad when you find the right filter settings. Tehran is just dull and boring no matter what way you play it

Its good .. i am happy to see some new maps.

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"][QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]Because Battlefield is about capping flags and bringing down tickets by your gun, Call of Duty is about getting a ridiculously positive K/D and then spawntrapping the crap out of the other team. Battlefield just has different dynamics and priorities. Call of Duty is much more of an in-your-face try-to-make-the-other-team's-gaming-session-suck kind of thing. Oh yeah, and quickscoping.wis3boi

Okay, thank you for that reply. So what you are saying it turns it into free for all mess, with players racking up kills they didn't actually earn.

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

Oh no, how dare they add map variety.

SF_KiLLaMaN

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"] No, I totally get how B3 and COD are different, it's like night and day. My question was related to killstreaks and how it affects gameplay and if it alters it significantly. Anyway, you didn't really answer my question but I appreciate the attempt.Gooeykat

Okay, thank you for that reply. So what you are saying it turns it into free for all mess, with players racking up kills they didn't actually earn.

That's exactly what ruins CoD.

The gunplay is actually kind of fun, even if all of the guns have almost identical properties, and the perk system is unique as it really allows for distinct playstyles. Killstreaks break the game by giving out free kills just because you've gotten a handful of kills yourself.

Yeah, this seems like an obivous attempt to appease the 24/7 metro (AKA CoD) crowd. Not buying it.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"] No, I totally get how B3 and COD are different, it's like night and day. My question was related to killstreaks and how it affects gameplay and if it alters it significantly. Anyway, you didn't really answer my question but I appreciate the attempt.Gooeykat

Okay, thank you for that reply. So what you are saying it turns it into free for all mess, with players racking up kills they didn't actually earn.

Yes exactly. They are cheap ways of getting kills. And it forces some people to camp a lot just to get a few kills to get their killstreaks going, which in turn changes a lot about the round.

Not only that but CoD is the only game where you get bonus points for playing badly. You get a "Deathstreak" bonus. I mean come one wtf is that? :?

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"] Playing CoD without killstreaks is like playing a semi-skilled arena shooter. Add in the killstreaks, and that's all anyone strives for, even in team modes....avoid all objectives or strategy or teamwork, just camp in a corner and use dirty tricks and exploits to get your air support and get a truckload more kills by an AI controlled aircraft with aimbot

seanmcloughlin

Okay, thank you for that reply. So what you are saying it turns it into free for all mess, with players racking up kills they didn't actually earn.

Yes exactly. They are cheap ways of getting kills. And it forces some people to camp a lot just to get a few kills to get their killstreaks going, which in turn changes a lot about the round.

Not only that but CoD is the only game where you get bonus points for playing badly. You get a "Deathstreak" bonus. I mean come one wtf is that? :?

Looks fine to me. I'll see you guys in-game :) As for the whiners, just don't buy it. Geez. Wait for Armored Kill for your vehicular / horribly optimized maps (you know they will be, look at Gulf of Oman)trastamad03

[QUOTE="trastamad03"]Looks fine to me. I'll see you guys in-game :) As for the whiners, just don't buy it. Geez. Wait for Armored Kill for your vehicular / horribly optimized maps (you know they will be, look at Gulf of Oman)SF_KiLLaMaN

i5 2500k @ 4.0Ghz

8GB DDR1333 RipjawsX

2x GTX560Ti 384Core 1GB

And I don't believe you. Stare at the Carrier, then turn around and stare at the city, I'm sure your fps is going to go from 60fps to 40fps. The sudden drop is very annoying and occurs no matter what settings/resolution is being used. Oh and it's a well known issue.

PS: CAN WE GET A BETTER FORUM, hate editing.

I haven't had much fun in the BF series since the original. BF42 the **** ,everything else has been trying to recapture that.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="trastamad03"]Looks fine to me. I'll see you guys in-game :) As for the whiners, just don't buy it. Geez. Wait for Armored Kill for your vehicular / horribly optimized maps (you know they will be, look at Gulf of Oman)trastamad03

My fps drops when I stare at a part of the map that has 10x the polygons as an ocean and a boat?

[QUOTE="trastamad03"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] I've never had a problem on Gulf of Oman. Sorry your PC isn't good enough to handle large maps. That's not the game's fault.

wis3boi

My fps drops when I stare at a part of the map that has 10x the polygons as an ocean and a boat?

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="trastamad03"] Stare at the Carrier, then turn around and stare at the city, I'm sure your fps is going to go from 60fps to 40fps.

trastamad03

My fps drops when I stare at a part of the map that has 10x the polygons as an ocean and a boat?

[QUOTE="trastamad03"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

My fps drops when I stare at a part of the map that has 10x the polygons as an ocean and a boat?

wis3boi

Also, are you on dual GPU or single, cause I'm starting to see a pattern here.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="trastamad03"] Ok smartass, explain to me why Strike at Karkand doesn't make my fps dip to 40s and stays at constant 60fps when I'm in the city. Not to mention that Karkand is bigger than Oman's city.

trastamad03

Also, are you on dual GPU or single, cause I'm starting to see a pattern here.

[QUOTE="trastamad03"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"] I don't have that issue, I stay at about 60fps the entire time, I'm not about to go and try to replicate your problem. Also, Oman is a lot larger than karkand and contains a lot of air combat, just throwing that out there

wis3boi

Also, are you on dual GPU or single, cause I'm starting to see a pattern here.