Don't respond to the thread?GameMaNiAC said:
OT: The large maps work. If they're too big, play Metro, Seine, Bazzar or any of the other small maps.
Poll: BF3's Armored Kill Has No Place On The Xbox 360
- Thread starter cojo965
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: The large maps work. If they're too big, play Metro, Seine, Bazzar or any of the other small maps.
Honestly, my opinion of Battlefield is a bit dated having last played it at the dreadful close quarter pack - something so terrible that I retired the game to the case for eternity in spite of the fact that I had pre-purchased all DLC for the game.
The problem I have always had with the battlefield on the console holds even now: snipers and aircraft. The sniper problem is as it always has been. Simply put, the sniper played in the obvious role of long distance fire support has no purpose in the game. Console players for whatever reason have proven time and again across four games that as a sniper they are only truly dangerous to other snipers. Bad Company 2 gave them a viable anti-tank weapon which extend their utility a bit but the fundamental problem remains. The sniper is simply incapable of reliably being useful to his team when played in the obvious fashion. The sniper then, as a role, is as broken as it has been since Bad Company - a nuisance when facing them, a burden when siding with them.
Aircraft on the other hand are a different problem. Unlike past games, aircraft are largely immune to ground fire. Though it is theoretically possible to harm such an aircraft with any number of weapons, the truth is only one class actually carries a viable weapon against the airborne menace and it is, as is traditionally the case, woefully ineffective. I know why the balance is such that it is - aircraft must possess tremendous firepower to be useful as it is so very difficult to reliably place fire upon a target in the first place. The attack helicopter and the fighter demonstrate the problem far better than the scout or transport aircraft. The attack helicopter possesses tremendous firepower - able to destroy any object in an instant should the fire be accurate. The balance, it can be assumed, comes in the fact that it is difficult to deliver this firepower with reliability. This same aircraft has a very slight vulnerability to ground fire from infantry. Well aimed heavy fire can kill the pilot or gunner but I've only once seen such a thing happen. Portable SAMs can also bring down such a target but many factors conspire against the utility of such a weapon from ECM which delays an already long lock sequence, the aforementioned long lock sequence, the short maximum range of SAM systems (exacerbated by the incredible maximum speed of the aircraft - the Apache can easily cross from this outer limit, over the head of any would be attacker and out of range in about the same time it takes to actually acquire a target and fire and considering line of site problems, in the worst cases a lock is easily impossible), the utility of flares, the usefulness of what amounts to an onboard repair system of startling effectiveness etc. Placing fire upon an attack helicopter is difficult. Placing effective fire is easily rendered all but impossible.
Fixed wing aircraft have all the same benefits but their tremendous speed is such that any problems related to hitting a moving target, requiring time to acquire said target and so forth are exacerbated with an commensurate increase in difficult placing reliable fire on any given target. In both cases you run into a the same conclusion: when flown with competence, the attack helicopter is not effectively countered by anything on the ground; the only danger it faces is airborne. The same is true of any of the fixed wing aircraft.
This isn't to say that the attack helicopter or the fixed wing aircraft are immortal or overpowered. In general, the fixed wing is nothing more than ambiance for the infantry man and a nuisance for any who choose to play in bullet attracting armor. The helicopter is dangerous to the infantry man and a nuisance to one in armor but it is relatively easily dispatched by properly equipped infantry or armor. But it is not the usual cases that concern me. I've shot down dozens of fixed wing aircraft using the main gun of a tank. I've done the same to helicopters. I've used AAA vehicles to great effect and even spent useful time ferrying a SAM around the battlefield. In normal conditions, the threats in the air are easily countered by those on the ground.
But in the extraordinary circumstances the story is altogether different. A properly flown attack helicopter can easily demolish all infantry and armor of any sort on the field and anything less than a full commitment or extraordinary luck is easily undone by the simple fact that the vehicle has so much power in potentia as to be little more than an unstoppable killing machine in the right hands. Effective fire can easily be delivered at a rate of travel such that acquisition by SAM is impossible. Sufficient movement speed is easily attained to make stopping with anything without a guidance system as likely as a lightening strike. In short, flown properly the attack helicopter is a grave and terrible threat to anything on the ground while those on the ground, even if supported by an excellent gunner in one of the AAA vehicles, are unable to defend themselves.
The fixed wing aircraft are a lesser problem of course. I have only rarely encountered a player able to reliably kill infantry in such a machine but the threat to vehicles is easily as grave.
In both cases the problem is the same - when put in the hands of an expert, both vehicles can wreak havoc on the ground and only need fear threats from the sky. By contrast, the more common threat of tank and IFV are vulnerable to all. C4 ends plenty of skilled runs with vehicles. RPG's and guided missiles are all viable counters even if the vehicle driver chooses to bring reactive armor or smoke. In spite of any appearances to the contrary, a player in an armored vehicle represents an easy kill to a prepared player. I've played games where I piloted an IFV to 52 kills without giving up a single life but I also know that such was only possible because the opposing team never put any effort into stopping my spree.
I expect that my problems with the game might largely be avoided if I simply played on the PC rather than the 360. Experience in other games over the years is proof enough that a player with mouse and keyboard is the more proficient sniper. Battlefield on the console has long proved that combat at a distance of 40m or more is optional; few players can hit a target at a distance with sufficient reliability to force an engagement. By the same token, higher player counts largely undermine the relative invulnerability of aircraft. More players means more potential SAM systems and ensures that any aircraft no matter how skilled is only capable of having a relatively small impact. It ensures that the potential effect of armor is likewise mitigated. 52 kills means I wiped the opposing team on 4 occasions on the Xbox versus less than once on the PC.
In the end, my very specific concerns that eventually lead to me leaving the game are very much related to the platform. The game delivered is a PC game and the strain of the port showed in one too many games.
The problem I have always had with the battlefield on the console holds even now: snipers and aircraft. The sniper problem is as it always has been. Simply put, the sniper played in the obvious role of long distance fire support has no purpose in the game. Console players for whatever reason have proven time and again across four games that as a sniper they are only truly dangerous to other snipers. Bad Company 2 gave them a viable anti-tank weapon which extend their utility a bit but the fundamental problem remains. The sniper is simply incapable of reliably being useful to his team when played in the obvious fashion. The sniper then, as a role, is as broken as it has been since Bad Company - a nuisance when facing them, a burden when siding with them.
Aircraft on the other hand are a different problem. Unlike past games, aircraft are largely immune to ground fire. Though it is theoretically possible to harm such an aircraft with any number of weapons, the truth is only one class actually carries a viable weapon against the airborne menace and it is, as is traditionally the case, woefully ineffective. I know why the balance is such that it is - aircraft must possess tremendous firepower to be useful as it is so very difficult to reliably place fire upon a target in the first place. The attack helicopter and the fighter demonstrate the problem far better than the scout or transport aircraft. The attack helicopter possesses tremendous firepower - able to destroy any object in an instant should the fire be accurate. The balance, it can be assumed, comes in the fact that it is difficult to deliver this firepower with reliability. This same aircraft has a very slight vulnerability to ground fire from infantry. Well aimed heavy fire can kill the pilot or gunner but I've only once seen such a thing happen. Portable SAMs can also bring down such a target but many factors conspire against the utility of such a weapon from ECM which delays an already long lock sequence, the aforementioned long lock sequence, the short maximum range of SAM systems (exacerbated by the incredible maximum speed of the aircraft - the Apache can easily cross from this outer limit, over the head of any would be attacker and out of range in about the same time it takes to actually acquire a target and fire and considering line of site problems, in the worst cases a lock is easily impossible), the utility of flares, the usefulness of what amounts to an onboard repair system of startling effectiveness etc. Placing fire upon an attack helicopter is difficult. Placing effective fire is easily rendered all but impossible.
Fixed wing aircraft have all the same benefits but their tremendous speed is such that any problems related to hitting a moving target, requiring time to acquire said target and so forth are exacerbated with an commensurate increase in difficult placing reliable fire on any given target. In both cases you run into a the same conclusion: when flown with competence, the attack helicopter is not effectively countered by anything on the ground; the only danger it faces is airborne. The same is true of any of the fixed wing aircraft.
This isn't to say that the attack helicopter or the fixed wing aircraft are immortal or overpowered. In general, the fixed wing is nothing more than ambiance for the infantry man and a nuisance for any who choose to play in bullet attracting armor. The helicopter is dangerous to the infantry man and a nuisance to one in armor but it is relatively easily dispatched by properly equipped infantry or armor. But it is not the usual cases that concern me. I've shot down dozens of fixed wing aircraft using the main gun of a tank. I've done the same to helicopters. I've used AAA vehicles to great effect and even spent useful time ferrying a SAM around the battlefield. In normal conditions, the threats in the air are easily countered by those on the ground.
But in the extraordinary circumstances the story is altogether different. A properly flown attack helicopter can easily demolish all infantry and armor of any sort on the field and anything less than a full commitment or extraordinary luck is easily undone by the simple fact that the vehicle has so much power in potentia as to be little more than an unstoppable killing machine in the right hands. Effective fire can easily be delivered at a rate of travel such that acquisition by SAM is impossible. Sufficient movement speed is easily attained to make stopping with anything without a guidance system as likely as a lightening strike. In short, flown properly the attack helicopter is a grave and terrible threat to anything on the ground while those on the ground, even if supported by an excellent gunner in one of the AAA vehicles, are unable to defend themselves.
The fixed wing aircraft are a lesser problem of course. I have only rarely encountered a player able to reliably kill infantry in such a machine but the threat to vehicles is easily as grave.
In both cases the problem is the same - when put in the hands of an expert, both vehicles can wreak havoc on the ground and only need fear threats from the sky. By contrast, the more common threat of tank and IFV are vulnerable to all. C4 ends plenty of skilled runs with vehicles. RPG's and guided missiles are all viable counters even if the vehicle driver chooses to bring reactive armor or smoke. In spite of any appearances to the contrary, a player in an armored vehicle represents an easy kill to a prepared player. I've played games where I piloted an IFV to 52 kills without giving up a single life but I also know that such was only possible because the opposing team never put any effort into stopping my spree.
I expect that my problems with the game might largely be avoided if I simply played on the PC rather than the 360. Experience in other games over the years is proof enough that a player with mouse and keyboard is the more proficient sniper. Battlefield on the console has long proved that combat at a distance of 40m or more is optional; few players can hit a target at a distance with sufficient reliability to force an engagement. By the same token, higher player counts largely undermine the relative invulnerability of aircraft. More players means more potential SAM systems and ensures that any aircraft no matter how skilled is only capable of having a relatively small impact. It ensures that the potential effect of armor is likewise mitigated. 52 kills means I wiped the opposing team on 4 occasions on the Xbox versus less than once on the PC.
In the end, my very specific concerns that eventually lead to me leaving the game are very much related to the platform. The game delivered is a PC game and the strain of the port showed in one too many games.
Interesting. I noticed this to begin with as well, but lot of players have started to realise that a group of infantry acting in conjuction with a vehicle will kick the ass out of an all out vehicle assault every single time. I've seen engineers and support troops riding along on a TD then dismounting to go and cause havoc among the enemy while the Tank Destroyer keeps them distracted. Works more often than not. Also, recon and their fucking SOFLAMs. Makes things interesting because Javelins seem to be in fashion again...Drizzitdude said:
The battles seem to be pretty fluid, flowing from one objective to the next (I mostly play Conquest or Tank Superiority), and with the flags constantly changing hands it's rare for one team to dominate the map. It only usually happens when you have one team using infantry properly while the other team are all spawn camping for an MBT or waiting to GET TO THE CHOPPA!!! Guess which team usually loses?
So yeah, I actually think it works OK on the console.
[EDIT] Edited to add:
Snipers aren't actually so bad in AK. The "sit at base camp and fuck about with my MAV" type are still useless, but I've seen, and been killed by a few of them. And fucking SOFLAM! Those things are a fucking nuisance because once it locks on, you're instantly distracted because your paying extra attention to the alarm in anticipation of the dreaded deedle-deedle-deedle of the missile launch signal, because sometimes you only have a second to react. On the other hand, that launch might never come but you'll still be bloody distraced!Eclectic Dreck said:
The mobile AA on some maps is really effective if you use it right too. On Alborz for example, the best place to sit with the russian one is the valley just to the west of the starting base. Good field of view, well out of harms way from infantry and vehicles, and perfectly placed to tear an AC 130 out of the sky every single time because it's open enough to let you manouver to throw his aim. It's a big and slow enough target to hit on the move, easy kill usually. The range is huge on the AA guns too, so you can give the enemy a good tickle from halfway across the map.
The downside is that it's vulnerable to a quick ground attack from a nearby control point if the enemy figures out where you are and are playing as a team. As always with BF3, it's about knowing the weaknesses as well as the strengths of any class or vehicle. There is a pretty easy solution to most problems, it's just a question of being able to work as a team.
The air battles are pretty tactical now as well. Before it often made no real difference if the jets were up or not, as they would invariably end up chasing each other randomly across the sky and making no other contribution to event on the ground other than to give the helicopter pilots something to look out for while they spawn camped the enemy.
Now, keeping the AC 130 alive is the key, because frankly it IS massively powerful. However, it's also entirely possible to kill it with mobile AA as long as the guy on the 105mm isn't too good a shot at moving targets. It can also be torn to ribbons by fighter attacking from below and from the right, where it has a huge hole in it's defensive field of fire. Apart from being a big tempting easy kill, it can also be a royal pain in the arse for those on the ground if the gunners are any good. Therefore, killing it is also a priority.
This means that the air battles are more focused and a dogfight often means breaking free to have a go at the AC 130. People often don't bail from it either, so unlike a jet kill where the guy often has plenty of time to bang out, you actually get the player kill quite often as well as the vehicle kill. It's a points-cow. Makes the air battles much more fun when there's actually a point to them though!
No chance against jets or helis you say?
I AM THE TROLL MASTER GENERAL FOR AIRCRAFT. Stingers and soflams out the ass.
I really need to go to bed...
I AM THE TROLL MASTER GENERAL FOR AIRCRAFT. Stingers and soflams out the ass.
I really need to go to bed...
Maybe that is something DICE needs to learn if they are going to be developing for consols. 64 players is all well and good on the PC but consoles are not PCs and as such games should be made in a manner that is made in a mindful way of what the console can and cannot do.silverbullet1989 said:
I play Battlefield 3, and I honestly don't really care about Armored Kill. That's why I responded.CityofTreez said:
But i remember a time when pc games and consoles games were completely different before the xbox360 and ps3 came along, hell even when they were first out some games were still completely different, Medal of honor pacific assault (pc) medal of honor rising sun (console counter part) battlefield 2 (pc) battlefield 2 modern combat (console counter part) etc... the gaming industry has bread a group of people who demand things to be the same, the pc version cannot be seen to be superior because then the console users would go mental, and with good reason, and probably not buy tht version of the game... imagine if BF3 had been the true sequel to battlefield 2, massive maps, full destruction, 64 players, amazing graphical difference, commander, 6 man squads etc, then the console version was small linear maps, 24 players (i know it is) low vehicle counts, no jets... there would be uproar, specially when the console guys pay on average £15 more for a console game than a pc gamecojo965 said:
1. In my very first game of armored kill of Conquest on armored shield I killed three separate helicopters with unguided RPG's and had the most kills in the game when only using vehicles for transport.
2. Teamwork. My squad has killed the AC-130 no problem multiple times.
3. If your team doeskin suck you'll spawn where you need to. I have never had the issue of being too far away from something, worse comes to worse at the beginning of a game and you don't get a vehicle, wait till your team caps something, suicide, and then spawn there.
2. Teamwork. My squad has killed the AC-130 no problem multiple times.
3. If your team doeskin suck you'll spawn where you need to. I have never had the issue of being too far away from something, worse comes to worse at the beginning of a game and you don't get a vehicle, wait till your team caps something, suicide, and then spawn there.
I must say I'm loving Armoured Kill playing primarily as infantry...Good Maps, room to stretch your legs, and finally some tactical capture points. As always great sound design too, I love the sprinklers around A and B in Bandar Desert, it really covers the sound of your approach when assaulting the beach houses. The owls in Death Valley are fantastic too.
Then again I'm on PC. I don't really think Battlefield has any place on consoles if they can't support 64 players and huge maps.
Then again I'm on PC. I don't really think Battlefield has any place on consoles if they can't support 64 players and huge maps.
Unless there's some glitch exclusive to the 360 version, stingers/igla's are 1 shot disables on jets, attack choppers (which recently had their gunner's countermeasures removed so that ground troops can actually bring them down now), and scout choppers like the little bird, but not transport choppers like the venom.cojo965 said:
Although it's pretty normal for scout/transports to stay airborne since they usually have an engineer or 2 repairing it in flight. Not much you can do about that by yourself... but then again Battlefield was never a "by yourself" kind of game now was it?
SOFLAM and Javelins are the way to go for choppers. Requires 2 people to execute, but when they do it's a 1 shot kill on just about any aircraft.
I will agree that armored kill seems a little more catered to the PC crowd for having huge maps so that all aspects of the game are being embraced at once (air, ground, man to man), but it's still fun enough for console as well.