Poll: BF3's Armored Kill Has No Place On The Xbox 360

Recommended Videos

cojo965

New member
Jul 28, 2012
1,650
0
0
Yeah you heard me but hear me out. Now don't get me wrong I like Battlefield 3 I just don't like this new pack. Keep in mind I don't play on the PC but have seen enough on Youtube to know that PC players don't have the problems that I see on the 360. I will list the problems in no particular order so lets start with this:

1. Now I am well aware Battlefield has always been big on vehicle combat, that in and of itself is not a problem. Keep in mind however that another part of the fighting is that guy who is not in a tank or jet. That guy should be just as important as the guy in the jet, and in Rush mode that's usually true. But if it isn't Rush that guy on foot is fucked to no end. I know for a fact the PC has enough players in the game where that isn't an issue but the console only houses a max player count of 24. I can't even remember the last time I was killed by a guy on foot it always seemed to be someone who was in a vehicle.

2. Speaking of vehicles there seems to be a big focus on air combat this time around. Usually that entails some sort of improved anti-air abilities. This doesn't offer that. Instead engineers have the Stinger and IGLA man-portable missiles, and I feel that they are completely useless. I thought the point of these missiles were that they were easy to out-smart but deadly when they hit, but I recall hitting jets and helicopters with them and not even disableing them. Speaking of which, the AC-130 gunship in the game must be on steroids or something because I have spent my entire pool of ammo for IGLA missiles, every one connecting and the damn thing was still in the air. What happened to the Stinger that took down air vehicles in one shot. Yeah I pissed and moaned about getting shot down by these weapons, but as the saying goes, "you don't appreciate something untill it's lost." That is the feeling I have with the Stinger, you would be better off trying to shoot the air vehicles down with the RPG and SMAW and I suck at hitting air targets as alot of people do.

3. I'm sure that on the PC the Armored Kill maps are well suited to the high player count, but on the Xbox I feel they are kind of too big. You know how in vanilla BF3 you had idiots that waited on spawn for vehicles? Well in Armored Kill on the 360 it seems to be the rule rather than the exeption. It takes forever to get between objectives if you are on foot, or at least it feels that way because of the emptiness between them and even when you do reach them chances are good that the other team isn't at the one you're at so battles are boring, drawn out, and take forever. It almost seems like no thought was given to compensate for the lower player count. Here is an idea, show some restraint or give console players vehicle based maps made for the lower player count while PC players get Armored Kill.

Whoo damn that was a rant. Either way that was why I don't like Armored Kill for the 360. Do you like it? If you don't, what are your reasons?
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
Well, for point 2, at least playing on the PC, 1 Stinger will disable a jet, and 2 will disable or destroy a Heli, dependent on what type. If its not doing that for you, that's f***ed up.

Otherwise, its simple. Don't like it, don't buy/play it. Its an optional add on, play Metro or something if you hate Vehicles so much. Hell, playing PC I'll play Metro most of the time on the few times I decide to play because it doesn't force me to play as Engineer so that my team of idiots has a chance against enemy vehicles.

But yeah, when a pack says its vehicle focused with large maps, its kinda up to you to realise whether you'll like it or not. Personally I prefer the more drawn out combat. Its no a cluster-f*** like it is normally, even on 32/24 player servers, though the vehicles are still annoying, thanks to the complete reliance on engineers to take them out.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
It's thinking like that -to make foot soldiers competitive at every level- that completely messed up battlefield's rock-paper-scissors structure in the first place. Bf1942 was the only one that got it just right.

It's a vehicular shooter. The vehicles are supposed to be powerful. You use teamwork to counter the enemies' vehicles with your own, while the foot pawns do the dirty work around the capture points to win the game. That's how it was, and how it always should have been.
 

Zipa

batlh bIHeghjaj.
Dec 19, 2010
1,489
0
0
It sucks on PC to from what I hear, people are really slating it for having maps that are too big even for 64 players and not enough vehicles with certain ones (ac130) spawning too fast so its always up.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
I absolutely 100% can't wait. As soon as I heard the NAME I was excited for this as epic vehicle oriented battles have always been my favorite part of BF3

I was too cheap to get Premium, but as soon as the regular release hits, I'll be buying it.

I suppose I'll address you points.

1) Personally, I have no clue what you are talking about. For me, one of the most fun parts of BF3 is taking out vehicles while on foot. Be smart and it really isn't that difficult.

2) Haven't seen the AC-130 yet, but it sounds like it just needs teamwork. One guy shouldn't be able to down a gunship

3) Haven't seen the maps yet, so I can't really comment on this one, but in my experience on the other maps, there is always a vehicle to at least ride shotgun in or a person or control point to spawn in on.

So yeah. No complaints from me.
 

silverbullet1989

New member
Jun 7, 2009
391
0
0
saw your title and immediately thought "close quarters had no place on the pc"
On topic... as a pc player here the armored kill maps are what battlefield should have been from the beginning, none of these clusterfuck choke point linear maps with capture points within spitting distance of each other...

The main problem with dice at the moment is there not treating each platform separately... pc / consoles get the same maps, same patches which don't work out right for each platforms respected player base, consoles max 24 pc max 64... what works for console isn't going to work for pc and vice versa. Yes i know pc can also play with lower player counts but frankly battlefield to me has always been about 64 players.
 

srm79

New member
Jan 31, 2010
500
0
0
I was a bit concerned about the giant maps vs low player counts thing before it dropped, but to be honest, I'm loving it. I haven't really come up against any of the problems you've described unless I've ended up on a crap team where everyone is doing their own thing. Land in a halfway decent team and there's not really a problem. The AC 130 seems to be pretty quick to go down in fact, and I'm sure that on most if not all of the new maps there are AA vehicles. Getting from A to B isn't a massive issue either. If you can't hitch a lift on a passing TD, then there are quad bikes all over the place.

The biggest sticking point for me is actually one that I suspect 99% of players won't even have realised. The Stryker is not, never had been and never will be a tank destroyer. I understand why DICE chose it, as it's the closest thing in size and appearance to a tank destroyer, but it's essentially an infantry fighting vehicle. Because the US doesn't actually have a thoroughbred tank destroyer, it was the only real option. There's also the small issue of the Strykers development being scrapped on account of it actually being a bit shit as well, but that's another story...
 

cojo965

New member
Jul 28, 2012
1,650
0
0
Joccaren said:
Well, for point 2, at least playing on the PC, 1 Stinger will disable a jet, and 2 will disable or destroy a Heli, dependent on what type. If its not doing that for you, that's f***ed up.

Otherwise, its simple. Don't like it, don't buy/play it. Its an optional add on, play Metro or something if you hate Vehicles so much. Hell, playing PC I'll play Metro most of the time on the few times I decide to play because it doesn't force me to play as Engineer so that my team of idiots has a chance against enemy vehicles.

But yeah, when a pack says its vehicle focused with large maps, its kinda up to you to realise whether you'll like it or not. Personally I prefer the more drawn out combat. Its no a cluster-f*** like it is normally, even on 32/24 player servers, though the vehicles are still annoying, thanks to the complete reliance on engineers to take them out.
The hitch in that is I was thrilled to have a reasonto return to Battlefield 3 but it was only when I started playing that I realized the problems I saw. Like I said I don't mind vehicle combat, however, it's when you seem to be the only Engineer on your team that vehicles get irritating because they take so much punishment before being taken out. The higher damage taking locations are a bit too specific. 30% of the time I can hit a tank and disable it in one shot but at all other times it takes so many rockets that you would think there should be nothing left but the driver now in orbit.
 

angry_flashlight

New member
Jul 20, 2010
258
0
0
I like it (PS3). The vehicular slaughter is just great and what I've been wanting from BF3 from some time. Tank Superiority is just a blast, even with recons spamming soflams 24/7 (the beeping! It never stops!).

1. If you wanted to play infantry, you have to know which flags to play. Bandar Desert: the 3 close flags by the ocean are fairly close together and vital for the win. Operation Armoured Shield (I think that's the name): The C and D flags, maybe B if you get a quad bike too. Death Valley: B, C & D, zip between them on quads and cap all day. Alborz: B, C, and D flags are you friend with lots of cover and verticality to hide from tanks.

2. Stingers useless? Have you tried whoring out air vehicles? Do a halfway decent job and you'll have a near constant lock-on alert from everything and it's mother trying to kill you from 3 km away with the increased lock on range and the ECM/flares not working properly. Add in the nerf to attack choppers and they die fast to virtually everything.

3. Play the AC130 spawn flag. It won't get boring for long there. Ride a quad bike to get to the action, there's usually at least one at each flag plus more in your spawn. Use them to go places fast.

My one gripe in Armoured Kill is that on Alborz Mountains, my fucking tank is always bouncing. ALL THE TIME. Hit bump, BOUNCE. Glance rock, BOUNCE. Run over pebble, OMGWTFBOUNCE. Go down hill, BARRELROLLBOUNCE720SPINBACKFLIP. Knick tree stump, stuck for 5 minutes trying to desperately un-wedge yourself. -.- My god it's hard to aim, especially with the fixed slow-ass vehicle sensitivity on consoles, I'm so jelly on PC being able to up tank sensitivity to something not ponderously slow. I might actually be able to aim on the move then. >.<
 

cojo965

New member
Jul 28, 2012
1,650
0
0
angry_flashlight said:
I like it (PS3). The vehicular slaughter is just great and what I've been wanting from BF3 from some time. Tank Superiority is just a blast, even with recons spamming soflams 24/7 (the beeping! It never stops!).

1. If you wanted to play infantry, you have to know which flags to play. Bandar Desert: the 3 close flags by the ocean are fairly close together and vital for the win. Operation Armoured Shield (I think that's the name): The C and D flags, maybe B if you get a quad bike too. Death Valley: B, C & D, zip between them on quads and cap all day. Alborz: B, C, and D flags are you friend with lots of cover and verticality to hide from tanks.

2. Stingers useless? Have you tried whoring out air vehicles? Do a halfway decent job and you'll have a near constant lock-on alert from everything and it's mother trying to kill you from 3 km away with the increased lock on range and the ECM/flares not working properly. Add in the nerf to attack choppers and they die fast to virtually everything.

3. Play the AC130 spawn flag. It won't get boring for long there. Ride a quad bike to get to the action, there's usually at least one at each flag plus more in your spawn. Use them to go places fast.

My one gripe in Armoured Kill is that on Alborz Mountains, my fucking tank is always bouncing. ALL THE TIME. Hit bump, BOUNCE. Glance rock, BOUNCE. Run over pebble, OMGWTFBOUNCE. Go down hill, BARRELROLLBOUNCE720SPINBACKFLIP. Knick tree stump, stuck for 5 minutes trying to desperately un-wedge yourself. -.- My god it's hard to aim, especially with the fixed slow-ass vehicle sensitivity on consoles, I'm so jelly on PC being able to up tank sensitivity to something not ponderously slow. I might actually be able to aim on the move then. >.<
Yeah it's unfortunate that is it either a jet or attack helicopter doing the lock-on, as of late I have not once been killed by a Stinger.
 

Drizzitdude

New member
Nov 12, 2009
484
0
0
I stopped playing bf3 completely due to two main reasons.(I have it on 360)

1: The Lighting is stupid half the time. More often than not I find that I can't look towards the center of the screen because the sun on the horizon will blind me if I do. When going inside of some buildings they went for the more realistic 'giving your eyes a seconds to adjust' type of deal, well first off that makes it basically a given that a guy camping on the inside will kill you while your blinded, and secondly even after the adjustment period it is still hard to make out objects.

2: The player count is too damn low for xbox and ps3. There is no point in NOT getting a vehicle on console version of the game, more often than not you will simply be in vehicle fights the majority of the game and due to the lower player population the enemy team doesn't need to worry about a mini army of engineers hiding amongst the roads. With the population cap as it is there is simply no chance of infantry having any sort of helpful role over vehicles
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
don't have a 360, or BF \3 at all really, but, i'm a say yes, it dose have a place on consoles, why?


there's gotta be a guy on consoles doing this to
 

LtFerret

New member
Jun 4, 2009
268
0
0
Not to derail this topic, but was there a given reason why the player count on consoles is only 24? I've played console games that have 60 player caps so its not like it hasn't been done.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
cojo965 said:
The hitch in that is I was thrilled to have a reasonto return to Battlefield 3 but it was only when I started playing that I realized the problems I saw. Like I said I don't mind vehicle combat, however, it's when you seem to be the only Engineer on your team that vehicles get irritating because they take so much punishment before being taken out. The higher damage taking locations are a bit too specific. 30% of the time I can hit a tank and disable it in one shot but at all other times it takes so many rockets that you would think there should be nothing left but the driver now in orbit.
Hehe, yeah I hear you on that man. Trust me, its as bad or worse on PC in that regard. Half the time you'll be vsing close to a full team of enemy engineers, who will sit with 5 of them just sitting behind a tank constantly repairing it, and the tank gunner kills anyone who tries to get near. Some rounds its nigh on impossible to take a tank down, unless you've got a good squad on VOIP and can time your rockets perfectly.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
LtFerret said:
Not to derail this topic, but was there a given reason why the player count on consoles is only 24? I've played console games that have 60 player caps so its not like it hasn't been done.
It doesn't have enough processing power and bandwidth from what I hear. Sure, other games have done 60 players, but what has the size of the map in those other games been, how many vehicles, what level of terrain destruction - ect. This is all stuff that has to be processed by the console, along with graphics and everything else. As is the game plays at 30 FPS, doubling the players would undoubtedly drop that, and likely induce more server lag dependent on how multiplayer in games is handled by XBL and PSN.
 

MrTwo

New member
Aug 9, 2011
194
0
0
Yeah, thats the reason I haven't gotten it. I want a reason to play BF3 again, but Close Quarters isn't really BF, and Armored Kill is too much BF. I need something in between. Maybe the next one, or if CQ goes on sale.

Also, rent-a-server fucked this game up, I know they recently added more official servers, but it's too little too late for me.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
Considering that even the regular large maps in BF3 are barren and full of nothing, NO, I am not even going to attempt to get this, because I already know how it's going to turn out. I swear it takes ages to find anyone even on Caspian border, especially now that everyone spends 90% of the game time in the air. Things are just so unbalanced for the consoles it's sad.