One thing I'll say about the Alpha version of BF3...

it reinforces why I HATE playing rush with blueberries. I can't wait until I start playing with some SEC members or something because this just gets stupid.

On a more positive note, team work and suppression is an absolute necessity. I've found that when we've got a good team that has at least two support players applying suppressive fire over the enemy teams snipers heads, we tend to take the first set of MCOMs rather quickly. Combine that with a competent LAV driver and gunners, the game progresses rather nicely, the second MCOMs get to be a little tricky, and again, suppressive fire is the key. Forcing the enemy to stay in cover really helps, though I wish they had some form of smoke grenades or something to help provide cover for the choke points leading to the last MCOM.

Ultimately, if you've got a good team and an even better squad, you'll enjoy Rush, if not, well...it's the same old story with stupid blueberries.

the more things change the more they stay the same huh?

And then there's the ridiculous bullet damage. It's pretty sweet that sniper rifles are worthless because you can just slap your AR on semi-auto and accomplish the same goal.

^Really need to tone down the damage. It was dumb enough that in BC2 I could countersnipe with the Abakan, or kill somebody with an SMG from 400 meters away.

Uh, I don't know about you guys, but It's very difficult to hit a sniper at range even with x4 on an assault rifle in Alpha. Maybe it's just me, but rifles just are not as accurate as Sniper rifles. People are also a hell of a lot more cautious and take cover way more in BF3 than they do in BC2.

The damage feels appropriate to me, it's pretty much exactly how it was back in BF2. Bad company felt extremely watered down when compared to BF2 and BF2142 as far as lethality is concerned. One or two bursts from an M16 was more than enough to deck you in BF2.

Weapons for the most part seem to be on the right track IMO, you simply can't do what you used to in BC2, the play style rewards good marksmanship and careful use of cover and team work to achieve your goal and seems to do away with the more run and gun methods of BC2.

Ars Diaboli wrote:^Really need to tone down the damage. It was dumb enough that in BC2 I could countersnipe with the Abakan, or kill somebody with an SMG from 400 meters away.

How many bullets should it take then? MG3 w/Mag ammo takes eight body shots to kill someone. Eight.

Inaccuracy has been reimplemented into the game, so the days of sniping with a pistol or SMG is long gone. You can see that much in the videos

I don't know, maybe it's because I remember playing BF2 and how lethal the guns used to be then. However I understand for the sake of balance and keeping the game fun, then maybe the guns can stand to have a slight damage nerf, but nothing to crazy is necessary IMO.

MEGA MILK wrote:

Ars Diaboli wrote:^Really need to tone down the damage. It was dumb enough that in BC2 I could countersnipe with the Abakan, or kill somebody with an SMG from 400 meters away.

How many bullets should it take then? MG3 w/Mag ammo takes eight body shots to kill someone. Eight.

I wasn't clear. I think the damage in Bad Company 2 is perfect, but the lack of bullet drop would let me countersnipe with an AR. In Alpha I see people dying very, very quickly, and I think it's better to tone it down to BC2's level. But of course, there's still the full game to play, since I'd have to take into account map size, cover, etc.

How many hits does it take to kill in the alpha?

BC2 damage always felt a bit to low to me. If it's somewhere between Call of Duty and BC2 then I should be happy.

literally 3-4 shots with most weapons, even handguns are rather lethal, with my 1911, I can kill an enemy player within 4 shots if it's to the chest.

Headshots are headshots, they kill in just about one hit with almost any weapon (I've not tried it with a hand gun yet)

You die stupid fast, in many cases by the time you realize you're taking fire and try to move, you're already dead. Running out into the open is just begging for you to receive your respective factions equivalent of the purple heart. You HAVE to use cover and be stealthy (At least in Rush you do).

Fortunately, cover is certainly something you are NOT lacking in most cases.Vehicles are no longer a death trap, it takes many many rockets to bring one down, I think roughly 4-8 depending on location of where the rockets strike and that's from 100% -> Disabled (roughly 60%-50%) -> 0%

If you grew up with BFBC2 and are used to the run and gun gameplay, you may not like BF3, it's gameplay is more akin to the classic PC versions where weapons were dreadfully lethal and you could die in a heartbeat if you were careless. Which is what I'm most familiar with when it comes to the BF franchise.

No longer does it take 3 to for bursts of M16 fire to bring your target down, one short burst will suffice in most cases at medium to close range.

Artimise Flare wrote:literally 3-4 shots with most weapons, even handguns are rather lethal, with my 1911, I can kill an enemy player within 4 shots if it's to the chest

just for reference the 1911 in bc2 is 3 shot kill in the chest with/without mag ammo.

id really like to see some sort of damage chart but they arent releasing one.

I wouldn't count on things staying the same as far as damage is concerned. This is still Alpha phase after all, and many things are subject to change.

So far, no weapon really feels terribly OP. Sniping take quite a bit more skill it seems now that they implemented the shaking feature.

Those familiar with CoD4 will know what I'm talking about, you can hold your breath for a brief moment by pressing shift to steady your aim, however you must still compensate for drop and lead. So if you're dieing by head shots, you know you're up against a pretty decent sniper.

Carbines can barely hit anything beyond 100 meters even in semi/burst fire, and Light machine guns still have heavy enough recoil that to hit anything at range, even with the bipod deployed requires careful aim and use of burst fire.

So far all of the complaints about how you could snipe with just about every weapon in BC2 can be laid to rest in BF3. Those days are long gone, or so it appears.

I'll try to pay attention to how fast I kill someone with the various guns a bit more next time I play and will let you know what I find. But you DO die exceptionally fast in BF3, and as I mentioned, taking cover and being stealthy really helps a lot.

Artimise Flare wrote: Light machine guns still have heavy enough recoil that to hit anything at range, even with the bipod deployed requires careful aim and use of burst fire.

I thought I read a preview where a dev said that the MGs become more accurate as you continue to pour fire on the target. I remember thinking that didn't make sense . . . but maybe I just misunderstood what he was saying.

I don't know, it sure didn't seem that way to me. Full auto fire with the SAW did not produce better results for ranged accuracy as opposed to burst fire.

I'll try that tonight and see how it works out for me.

I just don't want the game to turn into a "AHA! I saw you first, I win!" type of game. That's what CoD is for.

Elraptor wrote:

Artimise Flare wrote: Light machine guns still have heavy enough recoil that to hit anything at range, even with the bipod deployed requires careful aim and use of burst fire.

I thought I read a preview where a dev said that the MGs become more accurate as you continue to pour fire on the target. I remember thinking that didn't make sense . . . but maybe I just misunderstood what he was saying.

That's in BC2.

yeah, but for some reason you end up having to aim at your targets feet when doing that.

I bet they'll tone down the damage, and give BA snipers a leg-up.

Also, I think the damage was perfect when BC2 first came out, when there was the damage-multiplier. You died fast enough to be reasonable, but it wasn't ridiculous. Afterwards, it felt like everything took far too long to kill, but that may have just been because of shitty hit-detection.

After playing for a while, I'll have to agree that you die stupidly fast. For the sake of keeping the game fun, I too forsee a slight nerf to weapon damage. What I am grateful for is that a head shot is a head shot. You'll die just as easily from a semi auto sniper rifle as opposed to a bolt action.

I can't wait until beta comes out, hopefully they'll have conquest mode available, because I can't stand rush with stupid blueberries.

interesting. I wish I had played some of the older battlefield games. BC2 is my only foray into the franchise so despite having 700 hours in BC2 I'm still a noob to the series.

Terrinator wrote:interesting. I wish I had played some of the older battlefield games. BC2 is my only foray into the franchise so despite having 700 hours in BC2 I'm still a noob to the series.

a tweet i saw earlier

Get @Battlefield 2142, BF2, BFBC2 & BFBC2: Vietnam for $4.99 each on Origin! (U.S. only) Ends today. http://bit.ly/pYJxdP #EA #DICE

nows your chance!

Ars Diaboli wrote:I just don't want the game to turn into a "AHA! I saw you first, I win!" type of game. That's what CoD is for.

Same. Hearing all this doesn't make me too happy but it's only in alpha so a lot of room for change.

I think the damage level would be pretty easy for them to adjust before launch or even beta. we will just have to be patient and wait to see what they do with them.