Mine is doing the same thing. I am only showing 10 servers max for conquest large.
If I change the filters, I find 0 servers.
Wtf?
as long as they are good I dont care
dont need new maps if they suck
The Karkand and other reboots are kind of irritating to play now. There are just TOO many places to huker down and hide. Team mates rarely know how to spot (or just plain don't spot a FUKING thing), snipers are easy as hell to spot with the scope glare no matter the environment, and SO many buildings can be occupied. With the destructable terrain and walls, the "normal" flow of the maps (normal compared to the originals) is all out of whack. There aren't any hold points anymore.
Can't get to poin D?? Fuck it. Blow the wall up and lets go straight to F.
The fun on the maps is kind of lost.
jackstar7
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2009
- 11,679
- 1,944
- 126
It stinks you're not having fun, but I have to disagree for myself. I find that instead of nade-fests and the like taking place there's a lot more flow to the points and neither team is necessarily screwed over by a frag-wall. To me that's a good thing.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
I think the biggest thing is that it feels like a lot of vehicles spawn outside of deployment, which really screws up the dynamic. Now you'll just randomly get raped by an LAV from your backside... which already happened before, but now it just happens to me all the time because there are just so many cap points, and so you're always having to defend on all sides.
If you want to snipe use a 4X scope. No glint, and I can aim and shoot reliably fast at around 125m with it. But if your in one spot and you steady your shot you should be able to go much further. Any further than that...you're not really helping anyways.
My complaint about the new maps is there might be too much destruction. So you have people hiding in rubble waiting to bushwack you. And f'ing tanks and choppers just level everything. I went up to the top of B on Karkand, and someone fired 1 rocket, which collapsed the roof. So that vantage point is gone 3 min into the game. Once I'm done with the assignments I'll go back to infantry only. Vehicles are only fun when I'm gunning for expandas. :biggrin:
I think this game in general has an identity crisis. It wants to be tactical, but it also wants to be COD. It needs teamwork, but hardly any of the tools to enable it are present. It wants to be BF3, but it also wants to be BFBC3. It wants to talk up its technical advantages, but its the most unstable pos in recent memory. It says we have vehicles, but doesnt put enough of them on the map so everyone can use them. It wants lots of weapons and attachments, but they are all basically the same. Any differences apparently makes it OP and will eventually get nerfed. Took me like an hour of game time to get my preferred attachments for the L96, but its no different than the SV98. If anything, it makes you slower. Whats the point of it?
I think they need to focus in on what they want this to be. Its like a game designed around a bunch of marketing bullet points that someone came up with who doesnt actually play the game.
Last edited:
I agree completely with this. BF3 needs to start moving in one direction to solidify the community. I find it really hard to join normal game modes unless I know that I have a solid team/squad to play with. If I just join pub alone I just get really frustrated. It seemed that pre BTK the gameplay seemed to just solidify nicely and there were some good pub battles to be had, but all that went out the window once the BTK patch/changes occurred. Though the flashlight both pre and post patch are still annoying.
As for the L96, the numbers all indicate that this should be in-between the m40 and the m98, but it seems that it just doesn't have the mobility and time to ready stance that the m40 has. The m98 just beats both with the bullet speed/drop and the power. I keep on finding that I want to go back to the m40+ACOG just for the mobility and the m98 for the long distance shots.
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
That's an interesting complaint. Having to defend all sides is one thing I like about Battlefield--it's not just a simple back and forth push. Anyway, I always felt the vanilla BF3 maps suffered a bit from the lack of vehicles at cap points. Most maps needed some additional Hummvees and Firestorm should have deleted a tank out of main and added a tank and IFV at E and A. Kharg could use a IFV at B and D? (Dock warehouse) as well
Spent many late nights playing BF2.
Had my first gaming system a oced p4 and a 7800gs and the game was so much fun.
When i jumped on my e6750 and 8800gts i remember being wowed by how fluid the game ended up being and i became even more of a addict.
BF2 is the only game i have ever played to this day that got me so hooked eventually UT3 and issues with windows 7 discouraged me from BF2 but man i was up till 5am most times playing BF2.
The last time i ever had so much fun with a game was super mario bros on the super nes over 13 years ago:|
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
you might be right, it's just perhaps the sheer number of capture points that are so close together now.. but it's just a clusterfuck of capture points now. It almost spreads both teams too thin and makes it a series of individual battles rather than more team oriented, in my opinion. The vanilla maps (i <3 Kharg Island) have good spacing between capture points, so even if there were vehicles that spawned there, it wouldn't be so bad because it still takes time to get from A to B.
I'm enjoying B2K but the maps are a tad too messey, the maps somewhat don't play well with the beefed destruction, especially the longer-ticket games. Hopefully the next pack will have a proper open plains map with heavy vehicle emphasis but increased spawn time (check the respawn times, there way too fast for anything tougher than a buggy) for them and the buildings only at the flags but they'll have to be tougher ones than houses/stores.
Also I admit I had to boost a bit for the L85A2's SQDM 5 wins, I know I'm ashamed but fuck playing SQDM and be in a constantly losing squad 20+ times and I don't want to contribute to DICE's recent fawping over telemetery, those 24/7 64 player Op Metro servers is bad enough.
I would like a Highway Tampa remake without the vanilla art direction but that's it. Though I dobut DICE can actually do new great maps anymore IMO .
Also I admit I had to boost a bit for the L85A2's SQDM 5 wins, I know I'm ashamed but fuck playing SQDM and be in a constantly losing squad 20+ times and I don't want to contribute to DICE's recent fawping over telemetery, those 24/7 64 player Op Metro servers is bad enough.
I would like a Highway Tampa remake without the vanilla art direction but that's it. Though I dobut DICE can actually do new great maps anymore IMO
.
HybridSquirrel
Diamond Member
- Nov 20, 2005
- 6,161
- 2
- 81
I agree. I am used to playing those maps with no destruction and I think the balance is kind of fucked with now that you can blow up walls. it is still fun, but team mates rarely work together, and it seems like the vast majority of people have never played BF2 in their lives so they don't know what they are doing in the first place.
- Dec 13, 2000
- 4,362
- 11
- 81
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
Well... I always thought most of BF2 had too many flags. The maps in B2K aren't too bad though in my opinion. In Sharqi and Oman there are groupings of flags so the battles are often somewhat linked. In Karkand the map is designed slightly as a push (though there are obviously many points of attack) so it's not a problem here either (Sharqi is like this also to a much lesser extent). Maps like Dragon Valley and Oilfields on the other hand I though had serious problems like you described where there were too many points to far apart and battles were completely isolated. It would have been find on those maps if there were 5 flags, but they were 7 and I think some even had 9.
BF2's sprint distance was way too low and in BF3 we've got all-squad spawning and Spawn Beacons which help us get nearer to the action. I do think we do need maps that have more play-able space for 64 players than the current ones, even the B2K can get messey on 64 players.
Those maps as you said didn't have enough vehicles on them IMO but if they do bring similar sized maps they need to have far more vehicles but longer spawn times than the current times (except the buggies which should be instant after being destroyed).
Just a pet peeve but it drives me totally bat shit insane that I can't destroy a buggy with a single shot from a SMAW. It's a glorified dune buggy. Really?
WTF
WTF
Anubis
No Lifer
Awesome, I wonder what it would look like when he has it sync'd up with a live game.
Totally fake, if this was BF3 the lights should be stronger and blind everyone.
cacademono6543 50 minutes ago
LOL great comment.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter