[CatPee]

I'm excited. I was so done with this damn game after the beta. Just disgusted. And then I saw actual battlefield maps. And then I saw the choppers. 0_o They look fucking awesome. So fast!

Hahaha, I had a gut feeling you'd come around.

My copy should get here from Ammy tomorrow. Maximum hype <3.

[Dreamgazer]

So are we making the thread or not?

[JJD]

So are we making the thread or not?

I think we should...

Any word yet if the clan from the beta is still valid? Because if it's not, I nominate you Dream to create a new one! :-)

[MuseManMike]

So are we making the thread or not?

I thought you were? I can't read the OT anymore.

[Evolved1]

People are posting spoilers all over the place in the OT so I'm not going in there any more... make the thread Dream!

[Evolved1]

Well I'm off to pick up the game... see some of you guys tomorrow! And hopefully a new thread!

[Dreamgazer]

Well I'm off to pick up the game... see some of you guys tomorrow! And hopefully a new thread!

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=449638

me goes work on it

[TheSeks]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=449638 me goes work on it

Oh, hi. I posteded in your threadz. Did I ruin your OPz? :3

Also it's still in Orlando. Fail, UPS. FAIL. I'm only two hours from there. WTF.

[Dreamgazer]

Oh, hi. I posteded in your threadz. Did I ruin your OPz? :3 Also it's still in Orlando. Fail, UPS. FAIL. I'm only two hours from there. WTF.

I told ya.
I made it so it'll arrive exactly on the 25th.

[TheSeks]

I told ya. I made it so it'll arrive exactly on the 25th.

There's no way you did that. No. Way. Unless you told them draw a Pony or something on the box to troll me when I get it as well.

[lazybones18]

Trading in BC2 for BF3 in less than 50mins

Game 5 needs to fucking end already!

[The Faceless Master]

I'm out.

See you all on the Battlefield!

[JJD]

Oh, hi. I posteded in your threadz. Did I ruin your OPz? :3 Also it's still in Orlando. Fail, UPS. FAIL. I'm only two hours from there. WTF.

Don't worry Seks, I bet you'll be playing it before me... :-(

[The Faceless Master]

167MB Day 1 patch GO FASTER!!!

[Evolved1]

It's 221 MB on PS3. I'm at 50%

hurrrrryyyyy upppp!!!!!!!!!

Funny story: about 50-60 people in line for the midnight launch (we have three other gamestops in close proximity too) and 'd say about 90% of them were toolbags and/or embarrassingly gross. Most of them bought the 360 version.

[Dreamgazer]

A toast to one of the best OT/Community thread ever.

May we never need to comeback here outside of nostalgia.

[UFRA]

RIP BFBC2. It was a great ride.

I <3 you all PS3 BFBC2 GAF. Hope to see you in BF3!!

[Evolved1]

Cheers. Good times guys.

[The Faceless Master]

Be Advised, Oscar Mike to the next one.

[Erasus]

Sorry for bumb but I got inot this again because BF3 runs like dogpoop. I max this at 1080p and its still an amazing game. Loads of servers with players on PC, faster gameplay than BF3, its more fun imo

Anyone else feel the same?

[OG Kush]

Sorry for bumb but I got inot this again because BF3 runs like dogpoop. I max this at 1080p and its still an amazing game. Loads of servers with players on PC, faster gameplay than BF3, its more fun imo Anyone else feel the same?

Oh for sure, been palyin BC 2 on 360 this past few days. Quite empty but still some good games. One thing that is so prelevant is how much better the BC2 maps are than BF3, and thats not even saying much. I also appreciate the fact that you can take a few more bullets in BC2. You die way to fast in BF3. Some people prefer this but it changes the whole pace and feel of the game. Its too much like call of battlefield now.

[Mr Nightman]

Oh for sure, been palyin BC 2 on 360 this past few days. Quite empty but still some good games. One thing that is so prelevant is how much better the BC2 maps are than BF3, and thats not even saying much. I also appreciate the fact that you can take a few more bullets in BC2. You die way to fast in BF3. Some people prefer this but it changes the whole pace and feel of the game. Its too much like call of battlefield now.

just sad to watch my buddy play my bc2 360 copy and soo many low player count matches, I just cannot believe how few people play it. hell you prolly played my buddy sometime in the last couple days. Random generated gamertag is soiled manatee1 haha

[Flame Lord]

I bought this game for PC awhile back and every time I've tried to play it I can't find any games what so ever. Someone suggested to me that I might need to open some ports. Does anyone have any idea?

[MMaRsu]

Hey guys I just bought this again for 7 euro's! Sweet deal.. anybody wanna squad up on 360? GT = MMaRsu NL, send me a msg so I can free a spot.

[meppi]

For some reason when going back to BC2, I'm still having more fun than when I'm playing BF3. Even if it's harder to find a full server.

The game just feels more streamlined and well thought out and doesn't have the "let's dump everything those other guys are doing into our game to make it appeal to as many people as possible" design to it.

Also motion balls, fucking motion balls!
Those little tripods are worthless in comparison.

[MMaRsu]

For some reason when going back to BC2, I'm still having more fun than when I'm playing BF3. Even if it's harder to find a full server. The game just feels more streamlined and well thought out and doesn't have the "let's dump everything those other guys are doing into our game to make it appeal to as many people as possible" design to it. Also motion balls, fucking motion balls! Those little tripods are worthless in comparison.

I only played the beta for Battlefield 3 so my opinion isnt worth much, but if you buy BC2 now you get such a big amount of content, I'm wondering if I should maybe buy Vietnam as well if there are enough players.

[PsychoWARD23]

Sadly, on 360, I rarely get in to a Vietnam game with more than 8 players. If the game had a server browser I'd still play it.

[MMaRsu]

Sadly, on 360, I rarely get in to a Vietnam game with more than 8 players. If the game had a server browser I'd still play it.

Damn that's sad. Why the drop off for that game when Call of Duty still has thousands of players in older games? I mean shit, BC2 is so much better than any CoD game out there ( yes I have MW3, borrowing it from a friend, it plays just like Mw2 in my opinion, wtf is new? )

[The Faceless Master]

mainline BC2 still has lots of players, but the Vietnam expansion is pretty dead on 360 and PS3, probably because of the way the servers are segregated.

[Dreamgazer]

mainline BC2 still has lots of players, but the Vietnam expansion is pretty dead on 360 and PS3, probably because of the way the servers are segregated.

Indeed. Vietnam probably would have done better if it was a standalone game like 1943 (which has plenty of players still...)

[TheSeks]

Indeed. Vietnam probably would have done better if it was a standalone game like 1943 (which has plenty of players still...)

No it wouldn't and you know why. The maps.

Also 1943 is filled with grizzled Veterans now. Surprised to see there is some life in it despite that. Guess EA giving it away for free on PS3 made a surge.

[Dreamgazer]

No it wouldn't and you know why. The maps. Also 1943 is filled with grizzled Veterans now. Surprised to see there is some life in it despite that. Guess EA giving it away for free on PS3 made a surge.

I thought of the maps and limited weapon selection at first also, but I honestly don't think that's the main cause of it.

As for 1943 being filled with vets...I play 1-2 rounds of the game every 2 weeks or so.
Other than the air domination mode, I honestly don't see that many vets *cough* competent players. The game was also pretty popular before Dice gave it out for PSN, mainly because the demo allowed people to play Wake forever (they took it down on US PSN for a time, but it was always available for HK/JPN PSN.)

[Noisepurge]

i see the logic in that all the Battlefield hardcore players used to play BC2, and got the Vietnam expansion immediately and played that too. Then BF3 came along, 99% of the hardcore moved to that game, leaving BC2 for dead.

Now the people that play BC2 are more of the casual crowd who dont mind playing the older game, and don't even need the expansion. (plus some sourpusses that claim BF3 is worse, like Sekoku, or Waypoetic, or Dreamgazer!) :D

[BoatAck]

I thought of the maps and limited weapon selection at first also, but I honestly don't think that's the main cause of it. As for 1943 being filled with vets...I play 1-2 rounds of the game every 2 weeks or so. Other than the air domination mode, I honestly don't see that many vets *cough* competent players. The game was also pretty popular before Dice gave it out for PSN, mainly because the demo allowed people to play Wake forever (they took it down on US PSN for a time, but it was always available for HK/JPN PSN.)

Message me if you ever want to play and I am on. I still like to play that game. It's kind of a pain to get used to the button layouts after playing BF3 all the time. It's still fairly easy to find full rounds. 1943 was popular even during the heyday of BC2 and leading up to BF3.

[TheSeks]

Now the people that play BC2 are more of the casual crowd who dont mind playing the older game, and don't even need the expansion. (plus some sourpusses that claim BF3 is worse, like Sek, or Waypoetic, or Dreamgazer!) :D

When did I ever claim BF3 was worse? I claimed DICE made smart balance decisions in Rush, HOWEVER they knee-jerked those decisions too far and I can see Dreamgazers point of "no alt routes" being an issue in most of the Rush maps as well. However I've claimed that unlike BC2 the rounds aren't decided in two minutes if someone abuses C4 to give their team an advantage to where BF3 is better in that aspect.

They both have their pros and cons. But BF3's cons outweigh it's good by a slight bit.

[The Faceless Master]

When did I ever claim BF3 was worse? I claimed DICE made smart balance decisions in Rush, HOWEVER they knee-jerked those decisions too far and I can see Dreamgazers point of "no alt routes" being an issue in most of the Rush maps as well. However I've claimed that unlike BC2 the rounds aren't decided in two minutes if someone abuses C4 to give their team an advantage to where BF3 is better in that aspect. They both have their pros and cons. But BF3's cons outweigh it's good by a slight bit.

DICE balanced Rush mode right into an obscure distant second place with all of their changes. I wouldn't be surprised. It was in third place, behind TDM.

[TheSeks]

DICE balanced Rush mode right into an obscure distant second place with all of their changes. I wouldn't be surprised. It was in third place, behind TDM.

Wait a second, you're trying to fool me again aren't you?.jpg

You and I both know you love Rush mode over Babby mode. ;) Don't lie.

[The Faceless Master]

Wait a second, you're trying to fool me again aren't you?.jpg You and I both know you love Rush mode over Babby mode. ;) Don't lie.

There's a reason that so many people abandoned Rush mode...

And I'm not saying that I agree, but I understand.

[TheSeks]

There's a reason that so many people abandoned Rush mode...

...Because they're no good at it and need C4 for easy wins. *bah-dum-psh*

Honestly, there's only like two-three sets in two maps that I hate going against. Grand Bazaar first set B. Metro Third Set B. Seine isn't bad if you know you're supposed to attack B over A first set and then the rest follows. Norshal can be annoying with the cheesemobile but isn't bad if you can safely ignore it. The rest of the maps are balanced for both sides.

[The Faceless Master]

...Because they're no good at it and need C4 for easy wins. *bah-dum-psh* Honestly, there's only like two-three sets in two maps that I hate going against. Grand Bazaar first set B. Metro Third Set B. Seine isn't bad if you know you're supposed to attack B over A first set and then the rest follows. Norshal can be annoying with the cheesemobile but isn't bad if you can safely ignore it. The rest of the maps are balanced for both sides.

It's not even about C4, it's about the threat of damage from long range projectiles that made defenders spread out instead of just camping the objectives.

[DTKT]

Tanks shooting the MCOM from spawn is pretty dumb.

Explosives should have no effect on the MCOM.

[TheSeks]

It's not even about C4, it's about the threat of damage from long range projectiles that made defenders spread out instead of just camping the objectives.

Except that didn't help the defense at all, really. The way to get them to spread out is to make the crates not be in rooms/three wall areas that can't have the walls be taken down. See A Caspian Border second set versus Bazaar First set B or B Metro Third set. Those later two have no cover to blow to where the attackers can make the defense not camp there (unless they prone, obviously) while the former does. Meanwhile, it's open air to where the attackers can bail from a helicopter above it to arm. Whereas in Metro there is no such flanking ability.

It's more DICE knee-jerked the balance in Rush and while good intentions and I prefer a less lopsided balance, they didn't make the maps in mind for this new balance. It's not the defenses fault that they're able to camp easy, it's fully DICE's for making the crates be in those rooms with no ability to "punch through."

Explosives should have no effect on the MCOM.

I dunno, it's effective in BC1 (AND 2) when the tickets are low as a last-ditch desperation move. Unfortunately, unlike BC1 (where there is still some people that abuse it) BC2 was "throw rockets at a building that collapses, then C4 instead of arm/holding the other one" to where unless the defense abused the map and destruction (like I did in making "lines"/AKA: Gardening plants and the like) the attackers had basically the keys to the win kingdom in throwing Carl Gustav's into buildings and crates to blow them up. It was lopsided and unfair to the defense.

So DICE rebalanced by making areas around the crates in BF3 not destroyable. A good idea, but like Faceless said: It promotes camping, because they put the crates inside buildings instead of open-air where the defense has to camp and spread out a little while having some thought where the crates can't be seen from all sides in the open-air and at the same time can't be camped from all sides. Maybe one side at most.

[The Faceless Master]

Tanks shooting the MCOM from spawn is pretty dumb. Explosives should have no effect on the MCOM.

invincible spawn is IMBA, Tanks should be free to shoot from their spawn, but they shouldn't be free of enemies being able to get to them.

[Dreamgazer]

Except that didn't help the defense at all, really. The way to get them to spread out is to make the crates not be in rooms/three wall areas that can't have the walls be taken down. See A Caspian Border second set versus Bazaar First set B or B Metro Third set. Those later two have no cover to blow to where the attackers can make the defense not camp there (unless they prone, obviously) while the former does. Meanwhile, it's open air to where the attackers can bail from a helicopter above it to arm. Whereas in Metro there is no such flanking ability. It's more DICE knee-jerked the balance in Rush and while good intentions and I prefer a less lopsided balance, they didn't make the maps in mind for this new balance. It's not the defenses fault that they're able to camp easy, it's fully DICE's for making the crates be in those rooms with no ability to "punch through."

What's this? Seks promoting more destruction/ability to "punch through" in BF3? I am mind blown here. Oh man that bazaar argument, I'm sure I typed that up somewhere before...hmm...

---------------------

Anyway, two things I would like to comment on:
1)Lack of explosive damage on M-coms make C4-Mcom defense too easy. Although it's not "unbalanced", it can makes half decent teams extra hard to beat.

Of course, this only matters if the enemies even get to your m-com in the first place. Which gets us to...

2) To a certain degree I feel the lack of destruction + linearity of certain maps have made BF3 players too careless on defense. In BC2, there's usually a large open field between each set. There's very little incentive for people to push toward the attacker's base, other than to steal a vehicle, since the terrain/cover/team advantage is always near the m-com. In BF3, however, a lot of maps are just of choke points after choke points after choke points (ex: seinen first set, most of metro.) So for some reason or another, people have this false sense of security and desire pushes way up (that or I'm too much of a conservative pussy.) Which is fine and dandy in a perfect world where people never get through....but we don't live in that perfect world.

Someone get through, spawn his whole squad in, arm the m-com. Then you'll find the rest of your team miles away from the objective shitting themselves.

I mean I seriously wish people camp in Bazaar/Seinen 1st B. Cause we both know if done right (2 motion sensors, 2 beacon, sets of explosive.), those places are nearly impenetrable. Yet the reality I find is that most people rather not do that. Most people don't want a K/D, SPM suicide, and they're not going to want to be near the m-com when most of their teammates are racking up points at the front line. So this goes back to what I been preaching about since BC2 - "you need a good mixing of player types". Now a days I can honestly predict when gaffers will lose based on the combination of player types + map we have...

This problem is probably driven worst due to the popularity of conquest in BF3, since in conquest can push to the front line with very minimal consequences to the overall game. If something sneak through, at worst you just go back and cap your home base flag.

3)Additional side comment: there are some great conquest players in bf3 who do absolutely horrible in k/d, points, and many other things in rush (not necessarily speaking of gaffers.) Certain mindset/skills just doesn't seem to transfer over between the two game mode it seems.

[Octacamo]

I still play this game from time to time only for one thing

M95 Sound :wub: <3 especially in laguna Presa map....

oh man ;_;

[Noisepurge]

I did the harsh thing and just sold BC2 when BF3 hit :D i still have BC1 though because of the good singleplayer campaign.

[TheSeks]

What's this? Seks promoting more destruction/ability to "punch through" in BF3? I am mind blown here. Oh man that bazaar argument, I'm sure I typed that up somewhere before...hmm...

Except unlike you, I don't promote it for EVERYTHING. See, I admit that:

In BC2, there's usually a large open field between each set. There's very little incentive for people to push toward the attacker's base, other than to steal a vehicle, since the terrain/cover/team advantage is always near the m-com.

And conversely, you can C4 those "lack of cover" areas and then have a HUGE advantage in Rush defense. Come on, son. You saw it the last time we played BC2. You saw it in the year we played BC2. You saw me and Calion both abuse C4 to "garden" trees in Nelson Bay and NO ONE wanted to cross. Why? Because there was NO COVER and it was a barren wasteland. So what is left for the attackers to do? Throw rockets at buildings and objectives.

In BF3, however, a lot of maps are just of choke points after choke points after choke points (ex: seinen first set, most of metro.)

Which is only where the lack of destruction around objectives fails. Because, again: DICE didn't fully think their nerf through in the knee-jerk reaction to the issue. This isn't me going "DERP WE NEED COMPLETE DESTRUCTION." This is more me going "yeah, putting crates in four walled/roofed areas is a bad idea unless two-three of those walls can be blown down.

So for some reason or another, people have this false sense of security and desire pushes way up (that or I'm too much of a conservative pussy.) Which is fine and dandy in a perfect world where people never get through....but we don't live in that perfect world. Someone get through, spawn his whole squad in, arm the m-com. Then you'll find the rest of your team miles away from the objective shitting themselves.

And... who's fault is that? The players more than DICE's. What is your point here?

I mean I seriously wish people camp in Bazaar/Seinen 1st B. Cause we both know if done right (2 motion sensors, 2 beacon, sets of explosive.), those places are nearly impenetrable. Yet the reality I find is that most people rather not do that. Most people don't want a K/D, SPM suicide, and they're not going to want to be near the m-com when most of their teammates are racking up points at the front line.

Oh, that you want to basically camp an objective and not let the enemy in. Which goes back to me admitting that DICE should fix this issue. Right.

So this goes back to what I been preaching about since BC2 - "you need a good mixing of player types". Now a days I can honestly predict when gaffers will lose based on the combination of player types + map we have...

GAF's main problem is:

-They play engineer 24/7
-They play assault 24/7
-They play engineer/assault 24/7

I have rarely seen anyone go recon besides me and you, and even further rarely seen anyone go support besides me in general. And when they do, they play them poorly. I've had times where I don't notice someone needs ammo in the heat of battle, but generally I'm rushing around and resupplying people that aren't supports (esp. on Metro once I lead the charge up to the enemy base after they start to snipe and we wreck them) more than I am shooting, but no one wants to do that. Hell, no one wants to set attack/defend orders despite that being +10 points for the flipping leader! Even Faceless won't do it which is insane. Does no one want free points as command leader!?

3)Additional side comment: there are some great conquest players in bf3 who do absolutely horrible in k/d, points, and many other things in rush (not necessarily speaking of gaffers.) Certain mindset/skills just doesn't seem to transfer over between the two game mode it seems.

"Engineer 24/7 erryday" is the issue. Sure, the penalty of the enemy taking a flag is that you can go back and get it or spawn at base and get it. But conversely let's go with "this isn't a perfect world" and the converse is that you lose all flags because you didn't attempt to defend the bases evenly. This is the same issue that Faceless talks about with "BC2 made Rush defense spread out," except like there it's a bit bullshit and more the players fault that they didn't spread their defense out.

I'll go on record and say that GAF will also generally defend the first two flags (enemy base side and middle) in Conquest on consoles 9/10 of the time. I've only seen maybe 1 person ('Jas) go back to a blinking base/OUR FLIPPING HOME BASE at times before others will notice and lay off an attack. It's crazy.

But whatever. My issue with Rush is that DICE has made "impenetrable fortresses" that need to be fixed, more so than the lack of destruction. Because, once again: I'm completely fine with the lack of destruction. I don't mind losing it if it means the attackers and defense has to... *gasp* PTFO instead of C'nTFO. You can't throw C4 into Bazaar first set B because they made C4 drop like a piano. You can't aim (well you can but you have to L2/R1 hold at the same time) grenades like BC2 to flush people out. And even then if you get close you have a chokepoint of the door in the "back alley" area because while you can punch the first wall off, you can't punch the other wall off and so the defense has two areas they can lock down and throw rockets toward to shut the attackers out. There-in the issue more than the lack of destruction and why DICE needs to just stop putting crates in buildings that can collapse AND buildings that can't have their outer areas destroyed and leave the building standing like BC1.

ETA:

1)Lack of explosive damage on M-coms make C4-Mcom defense too easy. Although it's not "unbalanced", it can makes half decent teams extra hard to beat.

Sure, and that shit is annoying but that's lack of foresight more than an issue. I do think C4 on objectives as defense should cause harm to where that tactic is gone, but really you can throw a grenade at the crate to destroy the C4. Issue is that it breaks stealth and basically makes you a Christmas tree. So really, the issue here is you can't remove the C4 via stealth. Similar to the issue that you can't destroy the AT mines in BC2 if someone lays them around the crates because DICE did not think things through during the run-up to launch and balancing modes at times.

Hell, this is the same company that decided tactical flashlights being ON by default or hell BEING IN THE FUCKING GAME is a-okay. So who the fuck knows what they're thinking at times.

[Dreamgazer]

Except unlike you, I don't promote it for EVERYTHING. See, I admit that:

I never prmoted it for everything. Which for some reaon is what you believe my argument to be:

Again, I don't see how being able to blow certain walls is somehow wrong. BC2 had indestructible walls also. It's not like I'm asking for destruction to a point where I can create a sinkhole to sink the m-com into.

Still not getting what you're getting at. You couldn't destroy everything in BC1, you couldn't destroy everything in bc2, no one expecting you to be able to do so in BF3. This isn't "all sandbox or no sandbox"

-------------------------------------

And conversely, you can C4 those "lack of cover" blah blah blah blah.

Read the whole paragrah, the point of 2) is to talk about players sucking on defense, not about destruction.

And... who's fault is that? The players more than DICE's. What is your point here?

I am complaining about the players. What is your problem? (no mentioning of DICE or destruction in my discussion point #2

Oh, that you want to basically camp an objective and not let the enemy in. Which goes back to me admitting that DICE should fix this issue. Right.

Yes. Until then, we're still just talking about the players.

GAF's main problem is: -They play engineer 24/7 -They play assault 24/7 -They play engineer/assault 24/7 ... "Engineer 24/7 erryday" is the issue. Sure, the penalty of the enemy taking a flag is that you can go back and get it or spawn at base and get it. But conversely let's go with "this isn't a perfect world" and the converse is that you lose all flags because you didn't attempt to defend the bases evenly. This is the same issue that Faceless talks about with "BC2 made Rush defense spread out," except like there it's a bit bullshit and more the players fault that they didn't spread their defense out. I'll go on record and say that GAF will also generally defend the first two flags (enemy base side and middle) in Conquest on consoles 9/10 of the time. I've only seen maybe 1 person ('Jas) go back to a blinking base/OUR FLIPPING HOME BASE at times before others will notice and lay off an attack. It's crazy.

In general, I think engineer 24/7 is no longer true. People are mixing up the classes a bit more now. Although yes, it does seem like alot of people are just not familar with the advance tactics to support and recon. Some gaffers still screw up on blowing the C4 too early, not using the mortar effectively, putting beacons in board open day light or not 3d spotting with the mav. That will come with time.

Although it's probably also because meppi doesn't play on ps3 anymore >.>
(no offense man, but you are the ideal spokesperson for engineer 24/7)

But whatever. My issue with Rush is that DICE has made "impenetrable fortresses" that need to be fixed, more so than the lack of destruction. Because, once again: I'm completely fine with the lack of destruction. I don't mind losing it if it means the attackers and defense has to... *gasp* PTFO instead of C'nTFO. You can't throw C4 into Bazaar first set B because they made C4 drop like a piano. You can't aim (well you can but you have to L2/R1 hold at the same time) grenades like BC2 to flush people out. And even then if you get close you have a chokepoint of the door in the "back alley" area because while you can punch the first wall off, you can't punch the other wall off and so the defense has two areas they can lock down and throw rockets toward to shut the attackers out. There-in the issue more than the lack of destruction and why DICE needs to just stop putting crates in buildings that can collapse AND buildings that can't have their outer areas destroyed and leave the building standing like BC1.

To quote myself again, I never disagreed with that part:

Still not getting what you're getting at. You couldn't destroy everything in BC1, you couldn't destroy everything in bc2, no one expecting you to be able to do so in BF3. This isn't "all sandbox or no sandbox"

I don't need buildings to be collapsible, I just want the ability to alter the terrains to my advantage. Like I said about damavand peak - I don't get why I can't just blow a hole through the concrete walls when attacking or for defense to blow the walls around a m-com so I can see people approaching.

Sure, and that shit is annoying but that's lack of foresight more than an issue. I do think C4 on objectives as defense should cause harm to where that tactic is gone, but really you can throw a grenade at the crate to destroy the C4. Issue is that it breaks stealth and basically makes you a Christmas tree. So really, the issue here is you can't remove the C4 via stealth. Similar to the issue that you can't destroy the AT mines in BC2 if someone lays them around the crates because DICE did not think things through during the run-up to launch and balancing modes at times.

Certain C4s can be placed "into" structures on certain sets where they are basically not affected by any nearby grenade blast. Such as Metro 2nd set A. And yes, the problem with the C4 issue is the fact that you can't remove it stealthly. Since even if you were to remove it, any good defending support is sure nearby to get you.

[TheSeks]

BC2 had indestructible walls also.

With the exception of one, which is the construction areas and oil pipe stuff, BC2 was highly destructible. And it really showed why DICE needed to reign in the destruction on Rush. Helicopters raining death down on buildings and collapsing them and then basically splash damaging buildings to get people hiding in the rubble was stupid as hell.

I don't get why I can't just blow a hole through the concrete walls when attacking or for defense to blow the walls around a m-com so I can see people approaching.

Because the engine isn't the Geomod engine where you can put enough C4 in an area and punch through a solid mountain, dude.

Certain C4s can be placed "into" structures on certain sets where they are basically not affected by any nearby grenade blast. Such as Metro 2nd set A.

Then DICE needs to fix the clipping issues there, eh?

[meppi]

Although it's probably also because meppi doesn't play on ps3 anymore >.> (no offense man, but you are the ideal spokesperson for engineer 24/7)

None taken, I can assure you. ;)

One reason I played so much engineer was because I couldn't take the game serious with the shit controls, even though some want to pretend to be better than others and act like it's the better of the two versions...
So I went with what I liked and even went USAS for a long time as well as go engineer 24/7 because sukoku couldn't stop whining and bitching about it. :P

What does it even matter what class you play when you're doing your job quite well?
I can't vow for my teammates who might be running engineer as well, yet never even repair a vehicle or jump out of a tank to give your driver the advantage due to shooting a regular RPG at the tank he's fighting even though that might mean I'll die a lot more in the process.
Same with taking down birds. Someone has to do it when our team barely looks upwards.

Also, it hugely depends on what maps I'm playing.
Same as in BC2, which I believe this thread was originally about...
On a vehicle heavy map, I'll go engineer and on an infantry map I'll go attack-recon.
In BF3 I haven't found my comfort zone yet with the sniper class since it's now much more focussed on laying prone on a rock somewhere and that's just not how I like or ever want to play the game.
I do play a lot more Assault and Support compared to before on PS3 simply because in certain games and game types it is needed.

I barely touched rush on PS3 again for the same reasons I've mentioned before.
but I'm starting to enjoy the game type a lot more now that I actually get to aim where I want to shoot in a split second.
In rush, going engineer 24/7 just isn't an option if you play to win games and not just boost your k/d ratio like too many players do already.