Armoured Kill: Initial Thoughts

#1 Posted by SpawnMan (748 posts) -

Terrible. But of course this is only after about 30 minutes of games time.

So far I played matches on Alborz Mountains and Armoured Shield, and only Conquest. I rage quit before I got any further.

Why do I think it's a terrible dlc? First of all, the maps are too big for the console's player limitations. The 64 player PC lobbies would be FAR superior. Secondly, I spent most of the first games not really knowing where to go, where the enemy spawns, and where the vehicles are placed. The tank destroyers are terrrrrrible. They'd be suited for a normal map, but apart from the driver, all the other passengers have to settle for pea shooters which are effectively useless in a full-tank game.

And full tanks? PAH! Although I sincerely hope it's different for Tank Superiority, for the two maps I played vehicles were scarce. This was the scenario on all rounds I played: Every dumbass jumps in a tank and rolls off without a passenger thinking that there will be more in the spawn. This leaves most of the players sitting around either waiting for tanks, hopping in a jeep or going off on foot. The tanks which you do get are shitty tank destroyers. Otherwise you set off in a jeep (which I have to admit, are super fun) only to be blown to bits by the enemy tanks. The people in tanks seem to last forever and you can never reach them on foot or in a jeep without getting owned first, so it's just a continuous cycle of waiting for shitty destroyers, getting bored and rolling off on foot or in a jeep, dying and getting owned by helis, tanks and rpgs, respawning and never even seeing a tank! I've had more tank warfare on maps like Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm!

So that leads me to believe that the new maps should probably only be exclusively used with the tank superiority game mode, which is NOT WHAT I WANTED! I didn't want another Close Quarters where I had to change my style of play and server search just to play it! I wanted new maps for conquest and for rush. But they're so huge and the flow of combat is so severely underpowered if you don't have vehicle, that if you're unlucky like I was, you might as well just not play. I mean armoured shield, I spawned in the spawn so many times and there was never even a jeep! I couldn't even get in the gunship because people hogged it. And then on the off chance I slogged it for about 2 minutes to the first objective WITHOUT dying several times, then I may find an artillery or I may not. 90% of the time, not.

So all in all, a terribly frustrating experience. There were no tactics of the closer maps, and it was just boring. Boring as hell. I'm going to try Tank Superiority tonight and hopefully play the new maps. I can't find any full-map guide images of the individual maps online (like where people spawn, where the vehicles are etc) which would certainly help know where to go. Being in a tank makes you a huge target if you try to explore with one, and trying to explore on foot is worse.

I hope the experience gets better... : (

#2 Posted by mosdl (3228 posts) -

Pro tip - people spawn at flags and on other players

#3 Posted by hangedtoaster (156 posts) -

Doesn't really surprise me that the larger maps feel empty on consoles, DICE have been pretty open about saying that PC is the lead platform for BF3. I kinda feel that console players got there fix with the Close Quarters pack, where as I think  Armoured Kill is tailored more towards the PC market. I'm taking a wild stab and guessing the you're playing on the 360, It is only the first day of the maps being out. It'll take a while for people to figure out how the maps work and to hopefully not be stupid when it comes to taking vehicles. I'm still looking forward to playing it though

#4 Edited by mikeeegeee (1562 posts) -

@SpawnMan: I'm sorry, but it's really, really hard to take you seriously when you openly state that after 30 minutes on two brand new maps, you were upset that you

"spent most of the first games not really knowing where to go, where the enemy spawns, and where the vehicles are placed."

I completely wrote off your post after about four sentences of reading. I'd love to hear further impressions, but please don't waste your time like this.

#5 Posted by hoossy (934 posts) -

While I haven't played the DLC... I think there are always some growing pains with the release of new material. 30 minutes is not enough time to appreciate 1 Battlefield map, let alone 2.

I'm sure your experience will improve once you are more familiar with their idiosyncrasies

#6 Posted by SpawnMan (748 posts) -

@hangedtoaster: @mikeeegeee: @hoossy: I was underestimating the 30 minute mark - it was probably more like an hour. But in any case, I've spent far more time in game, this time playing Tank Superiority. And still, it is pretty terrible. I'm not a terrible player, but there is so few ways you can be effective on these maps without every factor going your way. Tank superiority definitely does remove the number of times you die before you can slog your way to the middle of the map (no heli's), but again, the number of tanks is far too few. I was in a squad with FOUR people and between all of them, I could not spawn on anyone (for one reason or another). No tanks at spawn. There was little choice but to strap on an rpg or some c4 and head off to try and not be useless. I had some success cowering behind rocks near the flag, capturing it and then disabling/destroying vehicles, but after the ammo ran out there was little choice but to attempt an open field run to a nearby friendly tank, or to just sit tight and try to stop the objective being taken.

So again, my experience with AK has been hugely frustrating. I've spent about 4 hours or so on it now and I die over and over and over. It is so boring finding no options for spawning, being forced to spawn at the base, finding zero vehicles and then being forced to foot slog it. You might as well not even use the assault class. Other than engineers and the odd sniper, the other classes are next to unused from what I've seen. And yeah, players spawn at flags, but it's pointless. Scenario: Spawn on Armoured Shield, say, D flag. If you don't spawn onto a raging tank battle, you are free to find a vehicle. 90% of the time, I've not seen one. Queue now being stuck in the middle of nowhere, with NO vehicles and surrounded by enemies. AK practically forces you to camp at your base to wait for tanks. I like the freedom of tactics for the main BF3 game, but this is a pointless dlc that is terribly executed.

Like a trooper, I will keep on destroying my k/d spread, being bored out of my skull and try to bring you a better summary in the form of a blog post. I want to spend at least a solid 24 hours (read hours, not day period) with the damn thing and try all the new stuff so as I don't get blasted by fanboys when I post my final review.

#7 Posted by believer258 (11913 posts) -
the maps are too big for the console's player limitations. The 64 player PC lobbies would be FAR superior.

I had the 360 version for quite a while and, frankly, this was my experience for almost every map. Yeah, shit happened sometimes, but the maps generally felt empty, the only exceptions being the infantry focused, close quarters maps (not the DLC maps).

I have been playing the PC version and the difference is night and day; just putting that out there. Besides, Close Quarters seemed like a console-focused DLC anyway from what I've seen of it, so here's a PC focused one to keep things fair.

One more thing:

@mikeeegeee said:

@SpawnMan: I'm sorry, but it's really, really hard to take you seriously when you openly state that after 30 minutes on two brand new maps, you were upset that you

"spent most of the first games not really knowing where to go, where the enemy spawns, and where the vehicles are placed."

I completely wrote off your post after about four sentences of reading. I'd love to hear further impressions, but please don't waste your time like this.

This is also slightly troubling to me, but I don't think it's a particular problem since he clearly stated "initial thoughts", meaning after he played two games. Still, OP, this seems like a knee-jerk reaction to having two bad games in a row; it's a good thing you said you'd play it more, you might like it better after a little while.

Online
#8 Posted by SpawnMan (748 posts) -

@believer258: Already updated above... if anyone bothered to read... -_-

Still the same situation.

#9 Posted by deathstriker666 (1337 posts) -

So what you're saying here is too put in more tanks? Everything needs more tanks

#10 Posted by Qwell (20 posts) -

I put in about 5 hours last night and I'm loving it, especially Tank Superiority. For whatever reason tanks are my least used of the main vehicles (I'm more a heli and jet fighter) and its a great mode to really learn the ins and outs. I admit, when I'm infantry it seems like any tank I come across blows me up in an instant, however when I'm a tank I get destroyed by C4, repair torches and other tanks easily. This new mode will help me, and like all Battlefield games the trick is in the teamwork. Doubly so in this expansion. Because of the size and the amount of vehicles you really need a team working together. For TS mode you can't just keep grabbing tanks and barrel down to the enemy you will get chewed up. You need to learn how to flank, and on conquest you have to use cover effectively and learn when to actually take pot shots and announce your location.

I haven't tried Rush mode yet, but I have played all map and mode combinations besides that, and I think they are just great. Of course I'm playing on the PC, and I could potentially see the console versions being hampered, but I would think Tank Superiority would actually work quite well on consoles. Does it really take that long for another tank to spawn if you do spawn and no vehicles are present? I actually found myself spawning at the uncaps more often than not just because there was always some vehicle there for me to use. And if one wasn't there, sure enough one would spawn in 20 seconds at the most. Also I would suggest trying to find a scout heli or attack heli and flying over the maps a bit to learn the layout if you are decent at flying. I would say try and find a low pop server also, but I'm not sure how the server browser works on the console.

#11 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

I disagree. Of course large-scale vehicle-centric Battlefield gameplay on sprawling maps requires a higher quantity of the virtue known as 'Patience'. That said, I'm playing on PC, and there's millions of vehicles and constant flippin' mayhem - so I'm just lovin' it.

Maybe you should stick to more infantry-centric maps and modes then. Or play Rush, which is usually great on open maps.

#12 Posted by SpawnMan (748 posts) -

@Qwell: @Seppli: I definitely think you'd have a completely different experience on the console. Those maps would be great with 64 people! But our max is only 24!!! Can you imagine those maps with only 24 people?

@deathstriker666: Good advice! Seriously, I think this is really the key. Even ONE more tank per spawn would improve things dramatically.

#13 Posted by natetodamax (19207 posts) -

The maps are indeed terrible for a 24 player count. The design is totally fine, and they are no doubt amazing on PC. But 360 and PS3 players really got the short end of the stick here.

#14 Posted by Spoonman671 (4640 posts) -

I'm not that happy with it.  I knew this update was going to be vehicle-focused, but for some of these maps, there's not point in playing if you're not going to jump in a tank.  I almost never get in vehicles in Battlefield games, so I should have known I wouldn't care for this.  It really exacerbates the issue of forcing me to play engineer whether I like it or not.
 
Alborz Mountains is fucking awesome though, except for bipods having issues with their vertical aim limitations.

#15 Posted by Wacomole (819 posts) -

I'm curious. Has BF3 disabled the "Spawn on Squad" functionality?

I've not played it for many months now and from your posts it sounds like it has.

#16 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@SpawnMan said:

@Qwell: @Seppli: I definitely think you'd have a completely different experience on the console. Those maps would be great with 64 people! But our max is only 24!!! Can you imagine those maps with only 24 people?

Sure. BF:BC 1 was like had spawling and wide-open maps (not that extreme, but close enough), and it worked like a charm. If everybody plays the flippin' objective, you should have a hot zone to play in at all times - though chances for a functional room are worse on consoles - you might get stuck with a server with too few 'objective driven' players.
 
If Conquest doesn't work for you on Armored Kill content - play Rush - it must be a blast on such open maps. If I was on consoles, all I'd play is Rush. The Rush experience ain't that great on PC - there's just not enough wiggle room between often higher playercounts and higher accuarcy and quicker aim - as well as the plentora of designs that make Rush less fun to play in BF3, than in the Bad Company games - like indirect mortars and such.
 
Regardless - on consoles, play Rush. Especially if you prefer a higher pace.
#17 Posted by GoofyGoober (937 posts) -

I've put some time into each map and I too don't think to highly of them. Close quarters maps were fun for like a day and Armored kill isn't really fun at all. Maybe it is the player count but damn they are fucking boring, regardless. Also that tank only gametype is horrible.

#18 Posted by SpawnMan (748 posts) -

@MoleyUK: TBH, I don't think they have but for some reason many times all I can spawn on is just the home base of flag! It's unlikely their vehicles are full with the tank destroyers and their many slots, or me having unlocked the CTV station for the MBT, so I have no idea why. They're not shown in the gunship or in a heli. Strange indeed.

@GoofyGoober: 100% agree. I've already gone back to the normal maps.

#19 Posted by Shakezula84 (443 posts) -

I agree that as Rush and Conquest maps, these are pretty disappointing. For me however its not the size of the maps (because while they are some of the largest maps to be used, combat usually gets focused into key areas) but the use of the gunship. These just rain death down on whoever is in the way. It looked cool in the trailers, but now that I know how it works (hold a specific spawn point on Conquest maps, and it looks like its used by the attackers in Rush) it just seems unfair.

On the other hand, I love shooting these things down from the ground using my antiair missile launcher.

Tank Superiority is fun, but I feel it doesn't have enough tanks.

And I'm tired of this 24 player bull crap. The PS3 can handle more, and Sony doesn't have the same restriction Microsoft has on player counts (Microsoft limits how many players can be in a game to limit bandwidth use on Live). I say EA take the chance and patch up the servers and the game to allow at least 32 players on PS3 (and if Microsoft will let them, 360 too).

#20 Posted by hangedtoaster (156 posts) -

To those that have played, Is the AC-130 ridiculously overpowered?  I've heard stories of it being nigh impossible to successfully defend on rush mode.

#21 Edited by big_jon (5728 posts) -

The maps are great, but the Rush versions are fucked for the defenders, the bases are cool, the maps could be fun, but there are way to many vehicles for the attackers, and those stupid fucking AC130's, those assholes at Dice should have put effort into rush so console guys could have fun too, but once again they just sharted them out.

It is inexcusable how unbalanced these maps are, I could tell you that they were overly bias toward the attackers after one glance. How does shit like this happen?!

#22 Posted by big_jon (5728 posts) -

@hangedtoaster said:

To those that have played, Is the AC-130 ridiculously overpowered? I've heard stories of it being nigh impossible to successfully defend on rush mode.

Yes and no, on console it is because there is too much shit to worry about even with out that stupid thing raining down super death. If you don't have a good jet pilot, you're fucked.

#23 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@Shakezula84 said:

I agree that as Rush and Conquest maps, these are pretty disappointing. For me however its not the size of the maps (because while they are some of the largest maps to be used, combat usually gets focused into key areas) but the use of the gunship. These just rain death down on whoever is in the way. It looked cool in the trailers, but now that I know how it works (hold a specific spawn point on Conquest maps, and it looks like its used by the attackers in Rush) it just seems unfair.

On the other hand, I love shooting these things down from the ground using my antiair missile launcher.

Tank Superiority is fun, but I feel it doesn't have enough tanks.

And I'm tired of this 24 player bull crap. The PS3 can handle more, and Sony doesn't have the same restriction Microsoft has on player counts (Microsoft limits how many players can be in a game to limit bandwidth use on Live). I say EA take the chance and patch up the servers and the game to allow at least 32 players on PS3 (and if Microsoft will let them, 360 too).

The hell the PS3 can handle more. That thing's got the least memory of the two current console platforms, and BF3 is an extremely memory hungery game. Back in BF:BC1 & 2, the console systems always were on their last leg memory-wise - meet a certain set of conditions, and the game/console would lock up. Frostbite 2 uses the so called 'deferred rendering' method (same as the upcoming Unreal Engine 4), which is even more memory intensive. It's a wonder BF3 runs at all, on the craptastic hardware of current generation machines.
#24 Posted by MiasmaFett (129 posts) -

I am laying on PC and i think armoured kill is fantastic. Endless amounts of fun enormous battles and general craziness!

#25 Posted by tariqari (430 posts) -

I thought the same thoughts initially but I think it just needs time to adjust to the style of these maps. There is a lot of armor, A LOT of ARMOR. They probably should have named it "Armored OVER-Kill," but I think it really just needs time getting used to. The AC-130 on the other hand...I don't know if it can be defeated on Rush. I've played Rush a couple of times both as attacker and defender and whichever side gets the plane wins each time. That being said, I didn't see anyone attempting to take the planes down. The plane as a unit is actually not what makes it difficult as defender, it's the fact that you can paradrop anywhere on the map which makes it impossible to predict where the enemy is coming from. You could just look up but unless you've always got eyes on the skies, you're going to be ambushed at any given time. Personally, I like this as it freshens up the gameplay and provides what I think is a realistic possibility in battle. Think Medal of Honor Airborne, here. It's just an awesome new take on the maps and I wish these features could be implemented on the original maps. Talking about it makes me want to play right now!

#26 Posted by Qwell (20 posts) -

Put plenty of more time in Armored Kill, I have now played very map and mode combination available and still having a blast with it. I also played a ton on lower pop servers last night (I'm on PC) to see what the maps feel like for the console players. They are definitely more barren, but actually it turns into more armored warfare, you just lose a lot of the infantry fighting as everyone goes for a vehicle.

For the AC-130, its very hit or miss, if a team focuses on the AC-130, and I mean even just like 1 AA guy and 1 Jet, that thing goes down so fast its not even funny. A single jet can take one down in about 2 strafe runs if they are using rocket pods + machine gun. I have attempted to use the AC-130 quite a few times, and I do have about 70 kills with it so far, but more often then not I get in the thing and get shot out of the air in about 45 seconds.

Have the consoles players tried TDM? I have actually had quite a bit of fun with TDM in all the expansions and Armored Kill is no exception. TDM reduces the map size significantly so you can focus on the infantry fighting and not have to worry about running stupid distances and getting blown up by tanks every 20 seconds.

#27 Posted by wardcleaver (173 posts) -

@hangedtoaster

I have only played a few games, but I didn't get the impression that the AC-130 was overpowered. First, it seems to be vulnerable to lock-on, either air-to-air or air-to-ground, as it kinda lumbers in a set circular pattern above the battlefield. Yes, it has some powerful guns that if used effectively can rain death, but this seems to balanced by the fact that it is slow and cannot maneuver.

I haven't played Rush with it, though. All my experiences are in Conquest.

#28 Edited by CABBAGES (530 posts) -

Im on xbox and i think its great !

I would say use support if you cannot get a tank as they are best at taking out tanks.

The Gunship is easy to take down but if you have 2 people in it talking to each other then they can coordinate their flares so its a bit harder.

But most of the time ive been in the gunship both of us end up letting our flares off a the same time

#29 Posted by HKZ (70 posts) -

Your problem is that you have shitty teammates, and you played two new maps and a new game type for half an hour. Everything after saying you only played for 30 minutes has no value as a statement. Go back, play it, learn tactics, get better teammates, and quit bitching. There's a million different things you can do to stop enemy armor, you just have to quit being a baby and rage quitting when you don't get a vehicle that is almost invincible. Armored Kill has nothing wrong with it other than the weak defense against air attackers in the C-130. All of your problems are because you have shitty teammates, you didn't spend any time trying to learn the maps on empty servers, and you don't know anti-vehicle tactics. Get more than 30 minutes under your belt, and then you may have something worth reading about.

#30 Posted by HKZ (70 posts) -

@big_jon said:

The maps are great, but the Rush versions are fucked for the defenders, the bases are cool, the maps could be fun, but there are way to many vehicles for the attackers, and those stupid fucking AC130's, those assholes at Dice should have put effort into rush so console guys could have fun too, but once again they just sharted them out.

It takes something like 6 or 8 Stingers to completely kill the C-130, and every game of Rush I've ever played it was in the air and firing for not more than 30 seconds every time. It's incredibly easy to kill that thing, I don't see why it's such a big deal.

#31 Posted by SpawnMan (748 posts) -

@HKZ said:

Your problem is that you have shitty teammates, and you played two new maps and a new game type for half an hour. Everything after saying you only played for 30 minutes has no value as a statement. Go back, play it, learn tactics, get better teammates, and quit bitching. There's a million different things you can do to stop enemy armor, you just have to quit being a baby and rage quitting when you don't get a vehicle that is almost invincible. Armored Kill has nothing wrong with it other than the weak defense against air attackers in the C-130. All of your problems are because you have shitty teammates, you didn't spend any time trying to learn the maps on empty servers, and you don't know anti-vehicle tactics. Get more than 30 minutes under your belt, and then you may have something worth reading about.

Ummm, maybe you didn't read my follow ups. I got banned for calling someone else a f*g before, so I'm not going to call you one, BUT you should go and re-read your comment and realize you have no friggin' idea what you're talking about and you just ended up looking stupid posting a comment in here without the facts. In your advice, go back, re-read the entire thread, learn manners and quit bitching, then maybe you'll have something worth reading about. : )

#32 Edited by HKZ (70 posts) -

@SpawnMan:

Your only other reply updating your time in AK says you've played for about 4 hours. My statement still stands. You need better teammates, and learn better tank killing tactics. I've played about two hours and have no problems killing vehicles on foot. You seem to be limited to being in a vehicle, or dead. This can easily fixed by learning better tactics, like teaming up with at least one other person that has a SOFLAM and wreaking havoc. It's not that hard to do. I die a lot on foot, but I kill vehicles quite regularly with a simple Javelin or a full compliment of RPGs. The game isn't broken, you just haven't learned how to fight on foot effectively. It took me a bit to get in a rhythm, but it's not as bad as you seem to feel it is. Also, as someone mentioned about the C-130, that's ridiculously easy to kill as well. I think I've only had two Stingers not hit it out of the thirty or so I've fired at it. You just need to learn how to fight on foot effectively.

I play on PC so it is a little different, but not every game I've played is even half full. DICE didn't release these maps where the only effective way is to be in a tank, otherwise you wouldn't have weapons to fight them. They nerfed the loading times of the canister shell pretty bad, but two dudes with RPGs can ruin a tank in seconds if you work together. Hell, me and my squadmates kill tanks by having one or two shoot rpgs at it, and the other hit it with the propane bottle. Its amazing how weak a tank is when you work together. Find yourself a few good squadmates and stick together, you'll be fine, I promise. I'm not the one crying about how bad the game is because I lack the skill to fight on foot, and I'm not bitching at all. You just posted a knee jerk reaction to unfamiliar maps, and then blamed DICE for it. Seems you learned some manners by refraining to call me a fag, maybe you should learn how to be effective before saying DICE released unbalanced maps. It takes WAY more than four hours to learn the maps to be able to dominate the other team. I look stupid because you can't do anything other than die on foot? Okay. Have fun with that thought process.

#33 Posted by GoofyGoober (937 posts) -

Meh the 130 isn't that big of a problem, I would always try to help shoot it down from the ground, but most of the time someone up in the air for help finish it off.

#34 Edited by big_jon (5728 posts) -

@HKZ said:

@big_jon said:

The maps are great, but the Rush versions are fucked for the defenders, the bases are cool, the maps could be fun, but there are way to many vehicles for the attackers, and those stupid fucking AC130's, those assholes at Dice should have put effort into rush so console guys could have fun too, but once again they just sharted them out.

It takes something like 6 or 8 Stingers to completely kill the C-130, and every game of Rush I've ever played it was in the air and firing for not more than 30 seconds every time. It's incredibly easy to kill that thing, I don't see why it's such a big deal.

8 Stingers is pretty high when you have a total of twelve people on your team, and there are tank destroyers, and Warthogs fucking your base, but four of your guys (almost half your team) is trying to stinger the AC130, which meanwhile is raining death, and parachuting guys into your flanks.

Please watch this.

#35 Posted by HKZ (70 posts) -

@big_jon said:

@HKZ said:

@big_jon said:

The maps are great, but the Rush versions are fucked for the defenders, the bases are cool, the maps could be fun, but there are way to many vehicles for the attackers, and those stupid fucking AC130's, those assholes at Dice should have put effort into rush so console guys could have fun too, but once again they just sharted them out.

It takes something like 6 or 8 Stingers to completely kill the C-130, and every game of Rush I've ever played it was in the air and firing for not more than 30 seconds every time. It's incredibly easy to kill that thing, I don't see why it's such a big deal.

8 Stingers is pretty high when you have a total of twelve people on your team, and there are tank destroyers, and Warthogs fucking your base, but four of your guys (almost half your team) is trying to stinger the AC130, which meanwhile is raining death, and parachuting guys into your flanks.

Please watch this.

Since when did 4 out of 12 people (1/3) become almost half? Is that some kind of special console player math? The ridiculousness of that complaint is hilarious. You do know that you don't have to have 4 people on your team doing absolutely nothing but shooting stingers, right? Same as you don't have to have 4 people doing any other one thing only. Having 4 people equipped with stingers, and only shooting at the C-130 is stupidity. Do you guys not know anything about tactics on consoles? Do you not know anything about tank/helicopter hunting teams? Is it nothing but a free for all on console servers where every jackass is out for himself? Have one or two shooting stingers, and spread out the load for other tasks (RPGs for instance) among the other guys.

Those videos aren't proof of anything, besides the fact that they are two different maps and thus not comparable directly in any way. You don't seem to grasp what they word teamwork means. The guy in the second video was really damn good on foot, then like a complete jackass takes on a helo in a tank destroyer, gets shot the hell up, and then gets out of a piece of armor he never should have risked in that way. You're acting like shooting down a really slow and almost indefensible airplane is like doing brain surgery! Yes, I see where it can get frustrating, I understand that you are on the backfoot as the defender, but guess what? That's the challenge.

Like I said to SpawnMan repeatedly, get better teammates, learn tank killing tactics (or in this case C-130), and you'll be fine. I've gotten killed a grand total of two times by the C-130 across all new game types and maps, yet I've got something like a 94% hit rate with the stinger. It's not hard to shoot it down, hell it's not even able to defend a whole side of itself! Yeah, it sucks to be on the back foot on Rush, but that's the exact challenge they are giving you, and you have to learn different ways of doing things. Just sitting back and saying the game is broken because you don't know how teamwork helps does you no good. The best way to win Rush is to find people you can trust not to be an idiot, and be talking to them the whole time. Don't pair up with random dickheads that go off an do stupid things like waste good armor on attacking a helo in an open field when it has a C-130 over its shoulder. This is really not as hard as you are making it out to be.

I feel where you are coming from in a way because I'm playing this on a MacBook running Windows 7. I have to have every graphics option turned all the way to minimum and run it at 720p on my 1900x1200 monitor. Its ugly as shit to look at, and I can't tell if things are players or bushes until either someone spots them or they move. I have a huge disadvantage against all other players on graphics alone, I can't see them hardly. Having to play through my wireless router just makes it worse, so it's not all sunshine and rainbows for me either. It's a good thing in the long run because once I get my PC up and running again it'll be like having a new pair of glasses on!

Stick with it dude, there are ways around being on the back foot. Good teammates is 99% of winning anyway. If you don't have that, no amount of advantage will get you a win. I've lost way more games that had a squad or two of guys who had their shit together far more often than to a game or weapon imbalance.

#36 Edited by big_jon (5728 posts) -

@HKZ: You're not going to change the way I feel about it, they are imbalanced.

I am a fucking monster in tanks, few can match me in armoured combat, and even in those I find it almost impossible to fight off or even survive the tide of incoming tanks, Amtraks, AC130, Warthog/Frogfoot, and dudes parachuting down in Rush, you can't stand still for more than a fraction of a second at a time, there is nowhere to move, and you really can barley even take shots because to have to be running from all the incoming AT fire constantly, on foot it is even worse, the AC 130 is bad design in Rush, I would argue it adds nothing good to the game, it is too easy to spawn trap with it if the other team does not have an very good jet pilot.

If you feel differently that's fine, but I straight up think that you're wrong, and I will not play rush in its current state of either being too easy if you're attacking, or too hard if you're defending.

Oh, and I have put in a whole hell of a lot more than a half an hour, and by your argument that learning the map will make it easier to win, does that not effect the attackers too? Do you think that their strategies will not adapt and get harder to counter with time? I mean if the attackers are winning I would guess at lest 75% of their game already (that's being modest), I mean I have a W/L of 2.4, and rarely quit games yet I have won maybe two or three defence games of Rush in Armoured Kill out of the 30 or so games I have played, and lost one attacker game, do you really think that two months from now that the number with be roughly 50/50? I doubt it.

#37 Posted by HKZ (70 posts) -

@big_jon: I don't disagree that it is tough, and maybe more than it should be. But you posted video proof that you can survive and do damn well against your attackers. The person in that second video was doing a damn fine job of defending his base from what I could see. Up until he wasted good armor going after a helo that was guarded by the C-130. Simply saying that it's not possible to defend adequately is refuted with your own video evidence. That's one player of course, and one video, so it's no indicative of the entire play style of that map. It is hard, and I've lost more on defense than I have on offense but the gap isn't a chasm. I get my ass handed to me all the time on Rush when I'm on foot, but I also take out my fair share of armor at the same time. I don't play Rush that much simply because it's not a game type I've ever really enjoyed. Over time tactics on both sides will ebb and flow in favor of one side, but those that work together will always stand a much higher chance of victory than those assholes that take off in an empty tank. I HATE people that do that! I've started in on Engineer after running Assault for a long time and there's nothing more frustrating than to be an Eng watching some idiot drive off with no one to repair their tank if they get hit. Those guys always lose games for teams no matter what game type you are playing.

I've played for a lot longer than half an hour, and even four hours. I know for damn sure that playing for half an hour and then bitching about how you don't know where spawn points, flags, or anything else related to winning a round is completely asinine. That's like starting med school and complaining that brain surgery is too hard when you've been in school for 6 months. I'd say it takes a minimum of about 5 hours to get a feel for how maps usually play out, especially the Conquest maps. A thousand ticket map can easily take over an hour and playing two of those you can't learn anything. I've played a lot of games and probably 20 hours in the BTK pack and I still don't have a perfect feel for all the maps and where I need to go to counter attacks.

#38 Posted by SpawnMan (748 posts) -

@HKZ said:

@SpawnMan:

I play on PC so it is a little different,

YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE MOOT! GTFO and stop acting like you're the only one who knows how to own in a tank or knows about team work or how to kill tanks on the ground. I've put months and months and months of game time into BF3, I'm not a noob. As Big Jon, and a fair few other people have mentioned, the new maps need major balancing and are a far cry from what they should be.

It is UNREALISTIC to expect that you'll have 11 other people on your team who are ALL your friends who you can communicate with unless you're in a clan etc. 99% of the time you're going to be playing with at least 2-8 people you don't even know on your team. You keep spouting off about team work team work but a single squad can only do so much if the maps are one-sided and your team mates are doing the stupid things I've been experiencing for almost 100% of the matches I've played on AK.

I've spent nearly 4 days on armour kill and I'm still having the same problems. I've now learnt where all the vehicles etc are and the like, but you can't learn away the balancing issues.

@big_jon: Good videos. Pretty much my thoughts on the AC-130 exactly. At least for Rush. On Conquest, it ain't so bad, although a 30 second extra spawn time would be nice on that mode, but on Rush they should just plain remove it. DICE stop being so damn stubborn. The whole point of being in a squad is in part to move up and be effective mobile spawn counters. To be able to simply drop directly over an MCOM simply because a vehicle spawned there is completely unreasonable and stupid.

Again I do not like the way these maps are making our choices for us. As a defender versing the AC-130, you pretty much HAVE to be an engineer. With a stinger. You'd definitely need about 3 or 4 to combat that and the other air vehicles. Of course, you've also got the tanks. So then another 3-4 people are going to have to take rpgs or javelins. If you're lucky to have a full server, then everyone else is probably an engineer in a jet or tank too. Where are the options for being a sniper or assault? They just don't really factor into this game and it annoys me that the rest of the maps have places for all types of gameplay, and yet the AK maps really just funnel you down into a few options that are neither fun nor enjoyable.

#39 Posted by HKZ (70 posts) -

@SpawnMan: Okay, so I played a bit of AK on my friends 360, and holy shit are you right! I didn't think it was nearly as bad as it sounded it was, so my sincere apologies for that. I wouldn't want to play that shit either, those maps just are too big with not enough players to go around. Guess that's why I play on PC. (That and I pretty much hate what they 360 has turned into, and what Microsoft charges to make it useful.)

#40 Posted by SpawnMan (748 posts) -

@HKZ: Lmao, we made a believer out of you yet! ; )

#41 Posted by natetodamax (19207 posts) -

On consoles, TDM on the mountains is really fun. Besides the fact that the map looks great, it's fun picking off enemies hiding in the rocks and mountains.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.