Battlefield 3

[Seraphim989]

therefore stopping moving/hiding in a corner with ghost and a silencer, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE YOU LITTLE GITS! = camping

 

Why is this bad? The whole point is to just kill each other. Why get ###### that I make myself hard for you to find?

[T3CH]

Why is this bad? The whole point is to just kill each other. Why get ###### that I make myself hard for you to find?

 

 

No problem with 'hard to find' it's 'skulking in a part of the map thats impossible to flank you in to get a chopper gunner and attack dogs' and that being the ONLY tactic these little gimps use is ruining the gameplay experience, of course the fact that bf3 will have NO perks and no auto aim (at least I bloody hope not) will change the leet-boy dynamic somewhat, wherein they will all SNIPE or spawncamp.

 

Valdez on BC2 is unplayable due to retards sniping on it and making no attempt to attack objectives, no lie myself and 2 friends were the ONLY people attacking on valdez the rest of the team was 'attempting' to snipe. And FAILING.

[adadqgg]

^exactly why we need PR.

 

Limiting sniper kit to two people on a 32 people team really moves the game.

[k30dxedle]

Apparently the Back to Karkand pack will contain (yet another) Wake Island. Wonder if the Chinese will be making a return, or if they'll just pull another "stick 'em wherever" a la BC2's Russians in Bolivia. Looking forward to it regardless.

[vorgaphe]

Is there any news on whether or not the fire mode will be adjustable.

[T3CH]

if you pay attention in the 12 minute reveal, he switches from semi to auto then back again during the car park shootout

[k30dxedle]

It will. He switches his weapon from full-auto to semi at one point in the 12min vid.

 

Edit: Bah. Ninja'd.

 

Edit: Or not, seeing as he posted 12 minutes earlier. O_o Clearly something went wrong here.

[Shardik]

You do NOT have the mk3 recon eye ball!

[Stuey]

Does anyone think that there's a conflict in what the game (well, the singleplayer) is trying to be? At the start of the 12 minute video, you get this great authentic Marine chatter (Generation Kill actors?) and a really well fleshed out world. There's the fantastic animations and the (so far) excellent pacing. Then...he starts shooting and crosshairs pop up on screen and we have shooting on full auto with no recoil, cars exploding by being shot with small arms and incorrect MG reloading (and suspect M4 reloading too).

 

It starts out really authentic, and it really dragged me in and immersed me - then ruined it with standard CoD/arcade shooting. Anyone else think it would have been awesome if the game had gone more down the milsim route? Had full auto only really useable at short range, a few decent longe-range firefights, a bit of freedom etc?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the pacing and structure are great, just like in BC2 they don't overdo the number of enemies like CoD does, but the arcadey shooting drags it down for me. It just ruins the immersion because soldiers (riflemen) do not open up on every target with automatic fire! It annoys me that supposedly realistic/authentic games do this.

[LordElpus]

Does anyone think that there's a conflict in what the game (well, the singleplayer) is trying to be? At the start of the 12 minute video, you get this great authentic Marine chatter (Generation Kill actors?) and a really well fleshed out world. There's the fantastic animations and the (so far) excellent pacing. Then...he starts shooting and crosshairs pop up on screen and we have shooting on full auto with no recoil, cars exploding by being shot with small arms and incorrect MG reloading (and suspect M4 reloading too).

 

It starts out really authentic, and it really dragged me in and immersed me - then ruined it with standard CoD/arcade shooting. Anyone else think it would have been awesome if the game had gone more down the milsim route? Had full auto only really useable at short range, a few decent longe-range firefights, a bit of freedom etc?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the pacing and structure are great, just like in BC2 they don't overdo the number of enemies like CoD does, but the arcadey shooting drags it down for me. It just ruins the immersion because soldiers (riflemen) do not open up on every target with automatic fire! It annoys me that supposedly realistic/authentic games do this.

 

Perhaps they are trying to muscle in on the COD cash cow?

[TheFull9]

I think they've gone for an appropriate mix of realistic elements and fairly simplistic shooting. Battlefield has never been about simulation style gameplay, it's always struck that middle ground, BC2 was probably more leaning towards the arcade/console end of things and the single player side of BF3 does seem to be going a little more arcade'y than BF2, but personally I'd rather have the realism in the gear/vehicles/voice acting/environments etc and have a nice easy shooting mechanic. Basically, something that looks, sounds and 'feels' real, but i'm not having to always worry about my position, tiredness, breathing and fire mode, otherwise it just takes the fun out of the fact that I'm playing a game rather than actually participating in a real live firefight.

[LordElpus]

I think they've gone for an appropriate mix of realistic elements and fairly simplistic shooting. Battlefield has never been about simulation style gameplay, it's always struck that middle ground, BC2 was probably more leaning towards the arcade/console end of things and the single player side of BF3 does seem to be going a little more arcade'y than BF2, but personally I'd rather have the realism in the gear/vehicles/voice acting/environments etc and have a nice easy shooting mechanic. Basically, something that looks, sounds and 'feels' real, but i'm not having to always worry about my position, tiredness, breathing and fire mode, otherwise it just takes the fun out of the fact that I'm playing a game rather than actually participating in a real live firefight.

 

 

^^ This

[Stuey]

Perhaps they are trying to muscle in on the COD cash cow?

 

You think?

 

I think they've gone for an appropriate mix of realistic elements and fairly simplistic shooting. Battlefield has never been about simulation style gameplay, it's always struck that middle ground, BC2 was probably more leaning towards the arcade/console end of things and the single player side of BF3 does seem to be going a little more arcade'y than BF2, but personally I'd rather have the realism in the gear/vehicles/voice acting/environments etc and have a nice easy shooting mechanic. Basically, something that looks, sounds and 'feels' real, but i'm not having to always worry about my position, tiredness, breathing and fire mode, otherwise it just takes the fun out of the fact that I'm playing a game rather than actually participating in a real live firefight.

 

I'd agree with the 'appropriate mix' bit - I do think they've struck a good balance. It just struck me as a bit of a shame that all that authenticity was being 'wasted'...it's not of course, I've always liked the balance BF has struck. I love what they did with BC2 - it's been the closest anything's come to my perfect FPS so far. Love it.

 

Anyone else think the pacing in CoD games is horrible? Especially MW2, the best bits were the walking through the city after the EMP, all dark and creepy, wondering if an enemy was going to pop up out of the rubble, the Rangers nervously trying to work out what's happening. But even that degenerated into blasting your way through office blocks eventually.

 

Could you expand on how you think this is more arcadey than BF2? BF2 didn't have a SP so I'm finding comparing it hard. I suppose in BF2 the guns were horribly inaccurate unless you were standing still (I kinda liked that actually).

 

I appear to be liking sim-style games more and more - perhaps I need to pick up Operation Flashpoint and give it a whirl...

I like action too, but I like it to be believeable, authentic and to have some aspects of realsim. I think the only thing most FPSs now get wrong is the gratuitus use of full auto - the first time I watched the BF3 trailer I found it jarring how there was all the Marine babble and fantastic animations, then one of the guys took aim and loosed off an entire magazine (at that sniper maybe)...just momentarily broke the immersion for me.

 

I guess I need to learn to mod/make games so I can make my perfect FPS rather than pick holes in existing ones...

[TheFull9]

I actually wouldn't say that firing full auto is as inaccurate as many people think. I've only done it with blanks of course but it isn't that hard to keep you weapon fairly steady even when you do a full 30 without taking your finger off the trigger, and in theory ball rounds have even less recoil to them.

 

BF2 was good in that because the guns were so awful when not using the irons/while moving you pretty much had to get down prone and use your sights at any kind of range, which is of course realistic. This meant that when playing online people were always using their sites, lying/crouching behind cover, making use of the selector switch to use semi-auto, all that good stuff. It's quite possible that the guns will behave slightly differently in the MP portion, it won't be as vastly different as MoH was, but, much like Crysis 2, your character in SP is probably going to be tougher/better than the soldier you get in MP because of balancing.

[Stuey]

Agreed on the 'bad' weapons making people play more realistically!

 

With regard to full auto, my point wasn't that it's hard to fire on full auto, but that real soldiers surely aren't trained to open up on auto on every target they engage, like they do in most FPSes?

 

Also, surely ball rounds will have more recoil than blanks?? Because live rounds have mass at moving forward at high speed as well as hot expanding gases, producing a rearwards force. Maybe that's why you didn't think it was too hard keeping on target? Or maybe it isn't, depends on the shooter I guess.

[TheFull9]

With regard to full auto, my point wasn't that it's hard to fire on full auto, but that real soldiers surely aren't trained to open up on auto on every target they engage, like they do in most FPSes?

 

Also, surely ball rounds will have more recoil than blanks?? Because live rounds have mass at moving forward at high speed as well as hot expanding gases, producing a rearwards force. Maybe that's why you didn't think it was too hard keeping on target? Or maybe it isn't, depends on the shooter I guess.

Thing is, real soldiers also don't take multiple gun shots, have their eyes go a bit red, sit behind cover for a few seconds while breathing heavily as their wounds heal and then get back in to the fight. BF games are just that, games, they don't try to be sims. End of the day if you personally don't like all the full-auto shooting, then the game will feature a selector switch for all appropriate weapons, so I'd imagine you'll be quite free to play it in as much of a realistic fashion as you should choose to, you won't have to run through blasting as the guy did who was recording the videos.

 

As for blanks, due to the lack of an actual bullet causing the barrel to be (very briefly) sealed and gas tight, they have to contain more/more powerful explosives in order for the actual gas parts to receive enough pressure to cycle the action on each shot. So no, ball rounds do not necessarily kick harder.

[Stuey]

As for blanks, due to the lack of an actual bullet causing the barrel to be (very briefly) sealed and gas tight, they have to contain more/more powerful explosives in order for the actual gas parts to receive enough pressure to cycle the action on each shot.

 

Isn't that why real guns need a blank-firing adaptor to cycle with blanks?

[TheFull9]

Isn't that why real guns need a blank-firing adaptor to cycle with blanks?

The BFA is more of a safety measure, without one you could easily blow a hole in someone (or at the least cause a bloody nasty burn) at close enough range when using blank ammo, but it doesn't create a gas tight seal at the end of the barrel, hence why the rounds themselves have to create a higher pressure of gas inside the system in order for the bolt to cycle properly.

[MarsdenH]

What bothered me with BF2 was the guns were completely inaccurate when firing even prone and doing short bursts with lmg's and the like. I love having to use sights, but it seemed like unless you had a sniper rifles your iron sights were useless 90% of the time. There is nothing more frustrating than having someone in your sights, being prone, firing semi/short bursts and not hitting them. Change that and I'm game.

[TheFull9]

 

I never had any issues like that to be honest, especially when prone using semi-auto and irons I found the rifles to be quite realistic in their good level of accuracy, even out to long ranges. As long as you took in to account that you did have to lead targets and compensate for bullet drop at distance they were fine in my experience.

[Stuey]

The BFA is more of a safety measure, without one you could easily blow a hole in someone (or at the least cause a bloody nasty burn) at close enough range when using blank ammo, but it doesn't create a gas tight seal at the end of the barrel, hence why the rounds themselves have to create a higher pressure of gas inside the system in order for the bolt to cycle properly.

 

Ah that's not what I heard...also, wikipedia backs me up...I thought they partially seal the end of the barrel to maintain enough pressure to cycle the weapon. Stopping debris etc. from escaping is a secondary function. From wiki (couldn't find any other sources):

 

Blank firing adapters are required for allowing blanks to cycle most automatic firearms.

...

BFAs for blowback and gas-operated firearms are relatively simple. These weapons depend on high pressures in the chamber generated by the combustion of the propellant to push the breech block to the rear, allowing another round to be chambered and fired. If a blank round is used, there is no bullet to seal the barrel, and the combustion gases exit through the muzzle without building up enough pressure to rechamber the next round.

 

What bothered me with BF2 was the guns were completely inaccurate when firing even prone and doing short bursts with lmg's and the like. I love having to use sights, but it seemed like unless you had a sniper rifles your iron sights were useless 90% of the time. There is nothing more frustrating than having someone in your sights, being prone, firing semi/short bursts and not hitting them. Change that and I'm game.

 

Yeah I also found the guns to be fine, when crouched or prone and stationary (if you move at all you can't hit anything). What might be catching you out is that the iron sights don't always point where the bullets hit. In BF2, bullets always come from the centre of the screen, and it appears DICE didn't centre the images of the sights properly so most of the guns have the rounds go above and to the left or right of the aim point. It can make longe range shooting a real lottery. Apart from the SAW, that's horribly inaccurate however you shoot it

 

There's a document around somewhere that shows you where to aim, if you still play I'll dig it out for you

[TheFull9]

That's all very nice, but I don't think all my instructors during armourer training and all the boys that I know who work in small arms have all told me lies somehow... Hell if you're right then some of the military equipment manuals need some re-writing.

 

Regardless of anything wikipedia might say, making the forward blast from the barrel safe is the primary purpose of a blank-firing attachment. We were given a heavily emphasised demonstration about half way through recruit training of what a blank will do before we got to shoot any ourselves. Without a BFA attached and the muzzle put within ~0.5 inch of a wooden target board, the blast easily punched a fairly substantial hole (I'd guess about ~10 diameter) right the way through it, so imagine the chunks that could take out of a person. Yes the BFA partially seals the end of the barrel, but in a far less complete manner than a bullet going down does, being that it digs in to the rifling. Hence my original point, I'm pretty damn skinny and not very strong in the upper body, if I can easily control a 5.56 rifle on long bursts of full auto, some huge burly marine who's job it is to practice with that weapon day-in, day-out, can certainly manage it just fine, i.e. all this full-auto firing at sub-50m ranges isn't that implausible.

[Stuey]

That's all very nice, but I don't think all my instructors during armourer training and all the boys that I know who work in small arms have all told me lies somehow... Hell if you're right then some of the military equipment manuals need some re-writing.

 

Regardless of anything wikipedia might say, making the forward blast from the barrel safe is the primary purpose of a blank-firing attachment. We were given a heavily emphasised demonstration about half way through recruit training of what a blank will do before we got to shoot any ourselves. Without a BFA attached and the muzzle put within ~0.5 inch of a wooden target board, the blast easily punched a fairly substantial hole (I'd guess about ~10 diameter) right the way through it, so imagine the chunks that could take out of a person. Yes the BFA partially seals the end of the barrel, but in a far less complete manner than a bullet going down does, being that it digs in to the rifling. Hence my original point, I'm pretty damn skinny and not very strong in the upper body, if I can easily control a 5.56 rifle on long bursts of full auto, some huge burly marine who's job it is to practice with that weapon day-in, day-out, can certainly manage it just fine, i.e. all this full-auto firing at sub-50m ranges isn't that implausible.

 

OK fair enough on the safety point, though I imagine it wouldn't 'take chunks' out of a person at any great distance, I'd have thought the gases would slow rather quickly. Still not something you want in a training situation though.

 

I'm intrigued by this so I did some research into the 5.56 NATO cartridge. A normal, live, M855 ball round has 26.1 grains of powder in it (source), an M200 blank has 7 grains (source). From this, I'm going to conclude 1) that a BFA is needed to cycle the gun, due to less gas being available and 2) that a live round will recoil quite a bit more than a blank, due to the live round having more gas going forward, plus the bullet too.

 

Just one more question then, I take it you've never had a chance to fire a blank without the adaptor to see what would happen?

[TheFull9]

I wasn't trying to imply it would do damage at a distance, but it does close up, which is all that matters.

 

Feel free to conclude what you like, but I've fired both kinds myself and I can tell you from personal experience that the difference between a ball and a blank round is not what you're currently thinking, otherwise using blanks wouldn't be a realistic simulation for usage in training.

 

And no, it's rather big no-no to fire blanks without the BFA, so I've never done it. The rifle wouldn't cycle properly if that's what you're getting at, but I was trying to imply that in my previous posts.

[sigma3]

See: movie guns. Also why most movie guns have ridiculous muzzle flash – especially for full auto they have to do heavy powder loads. (but mostly because most directors want giant-*albatross* nasty muzzle flashes).