Vehicle philosophy in BF3

**WinterSays** · 03-02-11, 01:56 PM

Jets shouldn't have to land to repair/rearm, maybe one or two slow passes over the air field, forcing them to land and take off again is more along the lines of PR than the pick up and play style of the BF games.

Engineers should simply have access to man portable AA launchers to deal with helicopters/jets, which should of course be useless for everything else except in a point blank scenario against super light targets. And aircraft should have flares and in some cases armor to shrug off a hit or two. There, done. Balanced. Granted ingame might take some tweeking.

Infantry should be able to deal with aircraft at the cost of dealing with other assets. And on the other hand aircraft should be able to cause serious damage if they're coordinated with their team. If only because of info of where the other team is(or their own) where enemy assets are located, simple stuff like that.

And 2142 infantry weren't overpowered, although EMP grenades could have used a longer reload time from a single ammo box. 2142 had a fantastic balance, because the vehicles were absolutely lethal, but infantry could deal with every situation. So there was no We have jets you dont, we autowin. Battle walkers were monsters in combat, but the right infantry squad could take one down without a sweat. On the other hand if the walker had his/her own infantry support...

Originally Posted by Watsyurdeal?

This is great and all.....but where's Battlefield 2143 dammit!?

2143 would be the greatest thing to happen ever.

**Blakeman** · 03-02-11, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I don't think this is a valid point, though. PR is a mod you have to go out of your way to download, so people that do are far more likely to want to play it how it's meant to be played and that means fewer assholes. More people are going to buy BF3, and that means there are going to be more assholes.

All you'll get is a Gulf of Oman situation, where the enemy planes camp the airfield waiting for the other planes to land. It's almost impossible to defend that. And I know WE have a way of dealing with TKers. We also have a more mature playerbase with fewer asshats, but DICE isn't going to design BF3 with just TPG in mind. (They totally should, though) And if there is a lot of griefing and assholes on other servers, fewer people are going to play the game in general and it's going to die out sooner.

Plenty of assholes in PR too, but the way PR is played is different in that you have to cap in a specific order, so going back to their airfield isn't doing much for the team and would be fairly obvious. The bases in PR are a bit easier to defend as well since you have more assets that can deal with vehicles. Aircraft tend to avoid the enemy airfields since AA is all over there.

Having to land the plane means you have to have some skill if you want it beyond the initial payload. They could add a auto-land feature like Arma where it lands you slowly and you are more susceptible to attack as it slows you down etc. Skilled pilots can land much faster.

Gulf of Oman is impossible to defend against because all ground based AA sucks in vanilla BF2, hopefully we will see more tactical strikes and less WW2 style dogfighting.

You can balance the ground based AA with laser guided munitions. Squad leaders with lasers (ala PR) could make precision hits from bombs a lot more dangerous. Especially since laser guided bombs do not need WW2 style dive bombing.

**Glitch** · 03-03-11, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

The problem with that is landing a plane will attract a lot of griefers, tkers, and other assholes. Not to mention it makes it infinitely easier for opposing troops to camp the airfield and shoot you when you land. A touch-and-go system may work, but a landing system would be ridiculous.

Guess I just have better faith in our admins.... :P

Oh, hell no! Stealing assets was part of what made BF2 great. I had tons of fun trying to do it. It's also not like they were stolen every round, either.

No, that is a lot of what I hated about the game. PR and MAG are 2 games I played that didn't allow it and were still both very fun to play. Much more balanced.

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-04-11, 11:25 AM

Griefers may be a problem initially, but assuming this game lives up to its reputation, you're going to have at least 20-30 admins volunteering for this game right off the bat. More will come as the months progress and as we drag new players to the servers. Asshats won't stand a chance.

Stealing Assets in 2142 was balanced as engies were well equipped to take out ground and air assets. You wouldn't worry so much about jets being stolen if they ported the SAAR over. Unguided (therefore undetectable) AV weapons are nice, too. Vehicles will also be easier to take out without the shields from 2142.