Recommended Posts

If you shoot the right pixels you get way more points with m320. And if the medics do their job right you can walk away with 124 - 2 like i did.

Do some revives too for some extra points. Had 70.000+ in that round. Not one rifle bullet wasted.

Okay? I didn't want to say it but I guess I will, people who spam the m320 for days are irritating as hell. I'll have more respect for a guy who goes 2 and 124 and was only using a pistol than a guy who sits in a corner and spams explosives.

There's nothing to be proud of playing like that.

  • Like 1

I missed this yesterday. That is AWESOME! :D The A-Team music makes it magical.

Okay? I didn't want to say it but I guess I will, people who spam the m320 for days are irritating as hell. I'll have more respect for a guy who goes 2 and 124 and was only using a pistol than a guy who sits in a corner and spams explosives.

There's nothing to be proud of playing like that.

It's no worse than being the douche with the mortar, or the douche spamming SMAWs down a corridor.

It's no worse than being the douche with the mortar, or the douche spamming SMAWs down a corridor.

That's why he said "spam explosives."

I agree with him. There is nothing to be proud of when people play like that. The game should be played as if you were trying to impress someone, not camp and spam explosives b/c you might get a better k/d that way. No skill is involved.

Yay! Was in a match and had the best kill/death ratio of m life there and I get kicked because of the following.

Me: Ooh a sniper above me on the rocks. (throws grenade)

Me has killed Mr.x

Me: ****in lol what a kill

Kicked!!

Er?

Was it cause I swore or nabmin?

sorry, but for me the MP is now totally useless. i play like once a week so i'm still level 7, and most people seem to be like General of the Army 12. i get slaughtered it's not even amusing anymore. i still don't think "beginner" servers are the way to go, and i agree just dealing with the game as it is should be the approach, but it's just boring now - not even frustrating, just plain boring.

sorry, but for me the MP is now totally useless. i play like once a week so i'm still level 7, and most people seem to be like General of the Army 12. i get slaughtered it's not even amusing anymore. i still don't think "beginner" servers are the way to go, and i agree just dealing with the game as it is should be the approach, but it's just boring now - not even frustrating, just plain boring.

I feel your pain. Keeping up with other players is a nightmare, especially when you don't get a lot of time to play. I didn't play between Tuesday and Thursday this week, and when I came to play Friday night, I got ruined. I mean, I'm not a great player anyway (negative K/D and negative W/L), but I was making ground and generally getting positive K/D, and I finished the night playing with K/Ds of 3-4, 5-9, 3-10, 10-4 and 0-8 respectively, and similar scores today respectively. I know I took a couple of days off, but I didn't think I was going to lose that much skill in three days :/. Even at L25 I'm still getting my ass kicked.

One thing I have noticed though is that people seem to spend a HELL of a lot of time on this game. I can't find a game now without 10%+ players being Leutenant of higher. It's mad! I've got no problem with that, but the side effect of this is that it really hurts casual players, we're basically just cannon fodder. :(

The only thing time played brings with it is map knowledge. The weapons you have to access to at rank 1 are no worse than the weapons you have access to at rank 40. Remember the discussion about the m16a3 in the last page or two? It's a rank 1 gun.

Knowing where to "look" for enemies will get you more kills than a supposed good gun, and you can learn how to do that at rank 1. It's actually kind of amusing, we saw discrimination of high rank players in bc2 as well and it looks like it's starting again in bf3.

  • Like 1

The only thing time played brings with it is map knowledge. The weapons you have to access to at rank 1 are no worse than the weapons you have access to at rank 40. Remember the discussion about the m16a3 in the last page or two? It's a rank 1 gun.

Knowing where to "look" for enemies will get you more kills than a supposed good gun, and you can learn how to do that at rank 1. It's actually kind of amusing, we saw discrimination of high rank players in bc2 as well and it looks like it's starting again in bf3.

You act like it isn't anything but the higher ranked players fault in general. What do you expect is going to happen when players are mercilessly killed time and time again, usually within seconds of the last death?"Hurr durr, thats ok keep killing me and ruining my K/D"... No. They are going to try and curve it, so they at least have a fighting chance.

The only thing time played brings with it is map knowledge. The weapons you have to access to at rank 1 are no worse than the weapons you have access to at rank 40. Remember the discussion about the m16a3 in the last page or two? It's a rank 1 gun.

Knowing where to "look" for enemies will get you more kills than a supposed good gun, and you can learn how to do that at rank 1. It's actually kind of amusing, we saw discrimination of high rank players in bc2 as well and it looks like it's starting again in bf3.

I have to agree. I hardly play and when I do, I am always doing decent, and usually pretty good. I have truly never felt "overpowered." I have always thought out of all games out there, Battlefield always gives everyone a fighting chance, despite rank. But as you pointed out, with higher rank comes more familiarity of the map and all of it's nuances. So sure that is going to offer some kind of advantage, but those advantages can be overcome.

You act like it isn't anything but the higher ranked players fault in general. What do you expect is going to happen when players are mercilessly killed time and time again, usually within seconds of the last death?"Hurr durr, thats ok keep killing me and ruining my K/D"... No. They are going to try and curve it, so they at least have a fighting chance.

Read my entire post and try again. If you are dieing repeatedly it's because you chose to spawn in a bad location or on a team mate who is in a bad spot. You are not dieing because some one else is a high rank, I can kill you just as effectively with the m16a3 that you get at rank 1 as I can with the f2000 that you unlock last as an assault and rank plays no part in that other than meaning I can use the gun. I never understood why people see a high ranking person and automatically think they are amazing. Granted some are but most are not, they just have a lot of play time and that is all.

So again, you are not dieing because some one is high rank. You are dieing because you are unlucky or to be blunt you are bad at the game (speaking in generalities here, not aiming that at a specific person, hell I'm terrible myself). And that's all.

And believe me when I say even as a somewhat high rank I know what it feels like to die quickly and repeatedly because when it comes to spawns I've got the worst luck out of anyone who plays the game. I fully believe that half of my deaths or more are from spawning and instantly dieing because squad mates don't know how to stick to cover. :rofl:

  • Like 1

I don't discriminate against higher ranked players, but you don't become so highly ranked with map knowledge alone. Your aim in general is better (see my previous post re: sniping). I know that I need to learn the maps better and improve my aim, but the fact is that getting sodomised every round makes that difficult. Add to that the fact that I'm still adapting to the physics of the game (my last FPS was TF2), and I find this game very challenging.

Frankly I think the discrimination is more towards newbies, who are magically expected to have perfect aim from rank 1, something that players coming from other Battlefield games won't suffer with. If an enemy soldier and I spot each other at the same time, I regularly find that I'll get killed even before I get chance to look through the scope to take the shot. I'm not saying its anyone else fault but my own, but it can be mighty frustrating.

Read my entire post and try again. If you are dieing repeatedly it's because you chose to spawn in a bad location or on a team mate who is in a bad spot. You are not dieing because some one else is a high rank, I can kill you just as effectively with the m16a3 that you get at rank 1 as I can with the f2000 that you unlock last as an assault and rank plays no part in that other than meaning I can use the gun. I never understood why people see a high ranking person and automatically think they are amazing. Granted some are but most are not, they just have a lot of play time and that is all.

So again, you're not dieing because some one is high rank. You are dieing because you are unlucky or to be blunt you are bad at the game (I'm not saying anyone is or isn't, I'm terrible myself). And that's all.

And believe me when I say even as a somewhat high rank I know what it feels like to die quickly and repeatedly because when it comes to spawns I've got the worst luck out of anyone who plays the game. I fully believe that half of my deaths or more are from spawning and instantly dieing because squad mates don't know how to stick to cover. :rofl:

No. If you're going up against someone with 300+ hours invested into the game, generally they will know a lot more about it than you do... Practice makes perfect, and nothing in my post was even mentioning about weapons. Thus the discrimination stems from most people not having the time to invest the countless hours into the game practicing like Generals do, so can you really blame them? HURRDURR TRY AGAIN LOL.

No. If you're going up against someone with 300+ hours invested into the game, generally they will know a lot more about it than you do... Practice makes perfect, and nothing in my post was even mentioning about weapons. Thus the discrimination stems from most people not having the time to invest the countless hours into the game practicing like Generals do, so can you really blame them? HURRDURR TRY AGAIN LOL.

If you can't hack it because some one plays more than you do then that is entirely your own problem. This argument has been going as long as multiplayer games have existed. So people who have more time to play should be penalized somehow? Implement a "feature" that restricts people to a certain amount of hours of playtime a day/week/month? What would you suggest?

And yes, I can really blame them. People should know going in that there are going to be those that are better and play more. Again if they don't realize that then it's entirely their own problem.

  • Like 1

(PC)

I need more squad mates on my f list.

Add "fear_my_ego" if you play often, on hardcore, rotation map and rotation gametype, 16-64 players.

I'm lvl 48, 1.4 k/d, 1.2 W/L. I usually play engineer or support with a dash of recon. You'll usually find me in a tank. (Service star+ with each.) I can't fly at all.

After playing this game for some time on Xbox I find it extremely disappointing. The maps range from mediocre to atrocious. Many of the "classic battlefield" maps are far too big on console, They mainly consist of seemingly endless amounts of sprinting only for an enemy to pop up in an obscure location. And a majority of players seem to get under 5 kills, and about as many deaths. It's also generally pointless being a medic on those maps, unless you get a good squad together, but even then...

Once I get past all the nice visuals and animations, I find the game just doesn't play very well at all.

I'd expect it's a much better experience on PC?

After playing this game for some time on Xbox I find it extremely disappointing. The maps range from mediocre to atrocious. Many of the "classic battlefield" maps are far too big on console, They mainly consist of seemingly endless amounts of sprinting only for an enemy to pop up in an obscure location. And a majority of players seem to get under 5 kills, and about as many deaths. It's also generally pointless being a medic on those maps, unless you get a good squad together, but even then...

Once I get past all the nice visuals and animations, I find the game just doesn't play very well at all.

I'd expect it's a much better experience on PC?

Definitely not like that on the PC. I'm not sure what the player count is on the console, but I rarely find a match that deserted.

After playing this game for some time on Xbox I find it extremely disappointing. The maps range from mediocre to atrocious. Many of the "classic battlefield" maps are far too big on console, They mainly consist of seemingly endless amounts of sprinting only for an enemy to pop up in an obscure location. And a majority of players seem to get under 5 kills, and about as many deaths. It's also generally pointless being a medic on those maps, unless you get a good squad together, but even then...

Once I get past all the nice visuals and animations, I find the game just doesn't play very well at all.

I'd expect it's a much better experience on PC?

I've had a very difficult time getting into quality matches on Xbox. I don't know what it is. Games have been generally very slow and boring.

Lol what a bunch of moaning Moira`s! Seriously who gives a crap if theres 10% lvl40+ folk in most games. Im lvl17 and I walk out with a decent k/d ratio. I still enjoy the game even when im up against it.

Its pretty flipping ignorant to think that as a newbie player you aint going to get shot a lot or be at a dis-advantage, however even if you play maybe a game or 2 a day or even less, you will still get better and see improvements.

Aslong as you arent some dumb noob who jumps in a plane every round and has a 1kill - 35death ratio you should be fine aslong as you stick close to your team mates and play the game the way its meant to be.

Fact if your not in TDM, your high rank general squad mates will help keep you up, resulting in more points and faster lvl up for the casual player.

So sorry but BS argument.

  • Like 1

Lol what a bunch of moaning Moira`s! Seriously who gives a crap if theres 10% lvl40+ folk in most games. Im lvl17 and I walk out with a decent k/d ratio. I still enjoy the game even when im up against it.

Its pretty flipping ignorant to think that as a newbie player you aint going to get shot a lot or be at a dis-advantage, however even if you play maybe a game or 2 a day or even less, you will still get better and see improvements.

Aslong as you arent some dumb noob who jumps in a plane every round and has a 1kill - 35death ratio you should be fine aslong as you stick close to your team mates and play the game the way its meant to be.

Fact if your not in TDM, your high rank general squad mates will help keep you up, resulting in more points and faster lvl up for the casual player.

So sorry but BS argument.

Nobody here disagrees with you man, people were just mentioning the fact that it's frustrating being a newbie and there being such a steep learning curve for people new to the series. The same applies to other games like Counterstrike and (I assume) the CoD games. I still enjoy the game a hell of a lot, even if I am cannon fodder, but for someone who has a background in TF2, where running around like an ass with a minigun is a winning strategy, it's quite a switch to hiding in corners and being patient.

I certainly wasn't trying to cause an argument, I simple posted sympathising with my fellow newbies.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!