bf4

[AdmiralGiggles]

Unfortunately, it's just not practical to have hugely different weapons within the same class in a modern shooter. As opposed to a Sci Fi or fantasy setting where very different weapons can be made with different mechanics that are situational, every reality based gun has very little differences that can be changed to alter how they operate. (Namely fire rate, damage, spread, recoil and fire mode) There are special cases like the AN-94 dual shot mode, but those are rare. These leaves you with guns that will just have the best damage output at varying ranges which is what we have currently.

I guess they could deviate more from the current BF3 model where nearly every rifle of the same class has the same magazine count, same damage drop off and just alters fire rate, spread and recoil but it doesn't really lend itself to unique weapon experiences. I think most people would agree that having weapons with more variances between them is better but it's really hard to balance a system like that. I'm not trying to excuse the bland nature of the guns, but I can understand why it is the way it is. That said, we don't have enough information to make these type of judgement calls. We'll just have to wait and see once the beta/game are finally released.

Regarding the recon C4, I think that was just a bug with the hud. The player classes were switched mid way through the demo. I don't think they'd change something that integral to the classes from BF3, but I could be wrong. (Plus I don't think it makes much sense to have a recon with C4)

I agree that many of the "new" features in BF4 should have been in BF3, but I don't think we should hold that against DICE. We should encourage them to continue listening to player demands and to incorporate more changes like commander and spectator modes. Complaining about a new game coming out with features that should have been in it's predecessor doesn't make sense to me. Although I guess you could make the argument based on principle.

[Necromancer]

premium members only!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfzJ4ft4NzA

i don't see whats wrong with everyone using the same weapon.
its only natural for each individual player to pick the best weapon to get the best results.
and its pretty impossible to balance them, unless you give them all the exact same characteristics.
I do find it a waste of time to add so many weapons though.

i'd be perfectly happy with 3 weapons for every kit and 3 global weapons or so.
i'd throw away half of the scopes too.

[AdmiralGiggles]

premium members only!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfzJ4ft4NzA

i don't see whats wrong with everyone using the same weapon.
its only natural for each individual player to pick the best weapon to get the best results.
and its pretty impossible to balance them, unless you give them all the exact same characteristics.
I do find it a waste of time to add so many weapons though.

i'd be perfectly happy with 3 weapons for every kit and 3 global weapons or so.
i'd throw away half of the scopes too.

yeah i agree, i think every class should have access to all weapons.

[Róka]

premium members only!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfzJ4ft4NzA

i don't see whats wrong with everyone using the same weapon.
its only natural for each individual player to pick the best weapon to get the best results.
and its pretty impossible to balance them, unless you give them all the exact same characteristics.
I do find it a waste of time to add so many weapons though.

i'd be perfectly happy with 3 weapons for every kit and 3 global weapons or so.
i'd throw away half of the scopes too.

Although you might find it surprising, that opinion is very much from the minority of players. Most people like variety that is balanced.

[Necromancer]

Although you might find it surprising, that opinion is very much from the minority of players. Most people like variety that is balanced.

"variety that is balanced" - its a sentence that contradicts itself.
what true about most people, and is not surprising, is that people always want more.
it doesn't matter if they use it or not.

[Gwynzer]

Command & Conquer Renegade is a perfect example of how two completely different armies can be perfectly balanced against each other in a shooter, despite non-symetrical maps and lots of other things

[Róka]

Although you might find it surprising, that opinion is very much from the minority of players. Most people like variety that is balanced.

"variety that is balanced" - its a sentence that contradicts itself.
what true about most people, and is not surprising, is that people always want more.
it doesn't matter if they use it or not.

People want choices that won't leave them impaired compared to another choice.

[zorplex]

"variety that is balanced" - its a sentence that contradicts itself.

Not necessarily. Just take a look at Starcraft for some of the best balanced and varied game content in PVP. It's just incredibly difficult to get different mechanics to balance.

[Necromancer]

starcraft? starcraft is a completely different genre.
and if you look closely you'll see that at least half, if not more of the units are the same across the armies.
they all have somekind of cheap soldiers, vehicle, and artillery unit. the air units are also just mirrored, they all have a cheap air unit, and an air "artillery" unit, attacking from distance.
the buildings are also very much a like. for example, the zerg units spawn only in the hatchery, why are all the other buildings needed? no reason, just for balance. the most obvious example is the Zerg overlord, Terran supply, and the Protoss pylon cost the same amount, as they are basically the same thing, just mirrored across factions.
it doesn't offer more "balanced variety" then any other C&C game.

[zorplex]

Man this is going to veer off topic fast. lol In a very broad scope, yes, each army has analogue units to one another. But the mechanics of those units are very different. Using your example, supply from pylons, overlords and depots are very different. They all offer the same supply but one is a slow, flying unit, one is a defensive building that can be retracted under ground and one is a building that also supplies power to adjacent buildings. That doesn't sound the same to me!

Another good example is their first tier air units. Zerg gets a cheap air unit that can hit multiple air or grounds targets per shot. Terran gets a tough utility jet that can only attack air unless it transforms into a ground mech that only attacks ground. And Protoss gets a fast ship that can only attack air but has a special ability to lift ground units making them vulnerable to air attacks.

I could go on, but I think it's sufficient to say that StarCraft is quite varied and it's so popular as an eSport because of it's history of balance between factions. If you want to talk FPS, I'd point to Halo or Planetside as games with varied infantry guns that have good balance. But the setting allows for more variance. When you limit yourself to real guns, you limit the ways you can introduce variety.

[BlooDRaptoR1]

Correct me if this is incorrect.

Topic mentions Battlefield 4 (bf4), how come you guys are arguing about the weapon mechanics in *Battlefield 3 (bf3)* ????????????




*EDIT* and scopes are made for 1 reason. to engage enemy at longer ranges then the weapon can fire at with accurate shots. x0 (KOBRA e.g.) to Acog x4 is for close to medium ranges, and x7 to x12 is to medium to long distances (depends on the weapon you are using and the bullet drop. Please do not mention the sniping shotgun

i'd throw away half of the scopes too.

[elchino7]

"variety that is balanced" - its a sentence that contradicts itself.

Not necessarily. Just take a look at Starcraft for some of the best balanced and varied game content in PVP. It's just incredibly difficult to get different mechanics to balance.

And what about the other 2 races.

Marines OP, Forcefield OP, Late zerg OP (joke)

@Necro...all the units behave completely different. You coulnd´t have chose a worst game to talk about same things. Also each race plays completely different (some are more micro oriented, others are more macro oriented).

I wont quote it, but basically what zorplex already said.

Ontopic:
Does anyone know anything of the new "disable mechanics"? I have seen little to non regarding vehicles.

[zorplex]

Does anyone know anything of the new "disable mechanics"? I have seen little to non regarding vehicles.

The only thing I've heard is that how a disable behaves is now dependent on where you take damage. I suppose this means that taking damage to the treads will disable that tread or perhaps taking fire to one of the jet's control surface will disable that control surface.

[haruky]

starcraft? starcraft is a completely different genre.
and if you look closely you'll see that at least half, if not more of the units are the same across the armies.
they all have somekind of cheap soldiers, vehicle, and artillery unit. the air units are also just mirrored, they all have a cheap air unit, and an air "artillery" unit, attacking from distance.
the buildings are also very much a like. for example, the zerg units spawn only in the hatchery, why are all the other buildings needed? no reason, just for balance. the most obvious example is the Zerg overlord, Terran supply, and the Protoss pylon cost the same amount, as they are basically the same thing, just mirrored across factions.
it doesn't offer more "balanced variety" then any other C&C game.

I'm going to have to politely disagree with this. As someone who has played StarCraft since the 1998 release, this is a very bad statement.

[Darkrider312]

For an on topic post, I noticed in LevelCap's gameplay that BF4 will have the XM25. For those that have not played Modern Warfare 3, this is an air-burst grenade launcher (at least in MW3). Maybe it'll be like this for BF4. Too bad he didn't show it off.