Recommended Posts

Was being sarcastic :p

It's true though, DICE gave us Metro as the beta demo map, to draw in the COD kids. Now they've dumbed down vehicles because COD kids cry they can't wipe out a tank while on foot.

Battlefield is dead, the future is tiny shoe box maps so people can rank up and get excited everytime something new flashes up on the screen.

BF2 / 2142 are the last of any true BF game. The franchise is dead.

Ah, than it's a good thing you where sarcastic, haha. And yeah, it's too bad that DICE feels the need to comply to the wishes of COD kids. I just hope that they'll see their mistakes and make up for it with BF3 or a future BF (Perhaps a Bad Company 3 ^_^).

Here's hoping that Armored Kill will come with some neat things for vehicles. All I know is that there are going to be new battle tanks, the biggest map of BF history and mobile artillery in that DLC.

Was being sarcastic :p

It's true though, DICE gave us Metro as the beta demo map, to draw in the COD kids. Now they've dumbed down vehicles because COD kids cry they can't wipe out a tank while on foot.

Battlefield is dead, the future is tiny shoe box maps so people can rank up and get excited everytime something new flashes up on the screen.

BF2 / 2142 are the last of any true BF game. The franchise is dead.

Yeah I loved the tanks pre patch. Now tanks are just a rolling target. No chance against choppers, two engineers with RPGs will kill a tank in no time. Pre patch it was a good fight against infantry.

Its not about tank camping

For someone who have played a significant amount of time, both as infantry and vehicle player, I can assure you that tanks are now almost useless.

I doubt you have spent much time in vehicles, because otherwise you wouldn't be saying that.

awwww you noob tank campers are mad they dumbed down the only way you know how to play the game :(

I love it when people like you blast other players for playing the game in their way.

Tanks are meant to be manned, it's way they are there, they play a significant role in the battle. What do you want? Do you want people to not get in the tanks so that you can't sulk that people are 'noob tank campers'?

Get over it. Let people play the game how it was intended and how they enjoy it. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram like a baby, throw your BF3 disc out of the window and let the rest of us enjoy the game with one less sulking baby troll.

  • Like 3
Tanks are meant to be manned, it's way they are there, they play a significant role in the battle.

Tanks weren't meant to be the unstoppable killing machines that they were (in public games). I don't see a problem with taking their resilience down a notch for balance sake.

Tanks weren't meant to be the unstoppable killing machines that they were (in public games). I don't see a problem with taking their resilience down a notch for balance sake.

Absolutely. If, for balance sake, the tanks needed balancing then fair enough (i'm a poor xbox players so i haven't had a patch yet *cry* ). My issue isn't with that, it was with the slating the way people play comment above.

Vehicles require skill. Not all of us can jump in one and take out a dozen of enemy players straight. I remember back when I started, I barely got one or two kills, in the whole round, 300-500 ticket match. Why? Because I didn't know how to do it.

After the patch, they are rendered almost, almost useless.

Played a 100 ticket match yesterday, and I couldn't get more than 9 kills, in the whole match, whereas normally, before the patch, I would get more than 25-30, easily.

So something is only useful if you personally can do well with it? Just putting this out there, but maybe, just maybe the enemy team had a lot of engineers on their team hunting for tank kills?

Saying something is bad because you can't get 50 kills a game with it is not really a valid argument. Also neither is using the "real life" argument. If we balanced for that there would be no respawns and the average military grunt wouldn't be able to just hop in a tank anyways.

Vehicles require skill. Not all of us can jump in one and take out a dozen of enemy players straight. I remember back when I started, I barely got one or two kills, in the whole round, 300-500 ticket match. Why? Because I didn't know how to do it.

After the patch, they are rendered almost, almost useless.

Played a 100 ticket match yesterday, and I couldn't get more than 9 kills, in the whole match, whereas normally, before the patch, I would get more than 25-30, easily.

tanks don't, at all. and you're bottom statements sounds like you are crying because all your vehicles killed got nerfed.

I love it when people like you blast other players for playing the game in their way.

Tanks are meant to be manned, it's way they are there, they play a significant role in the battle. What do you want? Do you want people to not get in the tanks so that you can't sulk that people are 'noob tank campers'?

Get over it. Let people play the game how it was intended and how they enjoy it. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram like a baby, throw your BF3 disc out of the window and let the rest of us enjoy the game with one less sulking baby troll.

then these smae people bitch at engineers camping in bushes blasting them rpgs when in reality it isn't doing that much because you needed four, five hits to kill them. nerfing the tanks needed to happen. it was retarded. there is no skill involved in using a tank. you get in drive, take a hit, keep driving, kill a few people, keep driving until rpgs hit you a bunch of times. it was stupid. i've used the tank before, it was cheap.

Yeah just like in real life.........

apparently i missed the part this is a NON REALISTIC video game...

I know its been covered before, but now we've had patch, which are the recommend weapons.

Im at 400 on AEK as Assualt and looking to change as over distance its not so great ( Had out side map problems for a while ), which others should i look at ? Ive hit Major so ive most of them unlock, except the COOPs.

So something is only useful if you personally can do well with it? Just putting this out there, but maybe, just maybe the enemy team had a lot of engineers on their team hunting for tank kills?

Saying something is bad because you can't get 50 kills a game with it is not really a valid argument. Also neither is using the "real life" argument. If we balanced for that there would be no respawns and the average military grunt wouldn't be able to just hop in a tank anyways.

Its not about getting kills. Its about what is fair. Tanks are supposed to be powerful. I doubt you have checked them after the patch. If you have played with them before and after the patch, you'll know exactly what I am talking about.

You remember the patch where IRNV scope was nerfed? Same with the tanks

Its not about getting kills. Its about what is fair. Tanks are supposed to be powerful. I doubt you have checked them after the patch. If you have played with them before and after the patch, you'll know exactly what I am talking about.

You remember the patch where IRNV scope was nerfed? Same with the tanks

What you think is fair and what I think is fair may not align properly. I think tanks are fine as they are now.

I know its been covered before, but now we've had patch, which are the recommend weapons.

Im at 400 on AEK as Assualt and looking to change as over distance its not so great ( Had out side map problems for a while ), which others should i look at ? Ive hit Major so ive most of them unlock, except the COOPs.

Same as before patch - M16A3. Pretty much the best assault rifle.

awwww you noob tank campers are mad they dumbed down the only way you know how to play the game :(

Could you please show us where the big bad tank touched you?

Honestly, a rather weak trolling attempt, rajput. I expected more from you.

Same as before patch - M16A3. Pretty much the best assault rifle.

Before the patch the AEK blasted the M16 out of the water, but as post-patch I agree with you: M16A3 all the way.

They still need to nerf the heck out of the USAS, or change the name from BF3 to That USAS Game.

Before the patch the AEK blasted the M16 out of the water, but as post-patch I agree with you: M16A3 all the way.

They still need to nerf the heck out of the USAS, or change the name from BF3 to That USAS Game.

Disagree about the AEK. I preferred the M16 even then due to its accuracy and super fast reload.

The tanks are fine now. They were just way too powerful before the patch, taking them out required too much resources, usually resulting in the asshat camping inside just hoping out and repairing the tank before you could fully destroy it.

I think they need to tone down the bull**** suppression. They increased the effect on it way to much and the resist suppress perk doesn't seem to work at all now. That's probably my only complaint for the patch so far. Oh yeah, and they took the extended mags from the mg36, which is bull**** as well.

Also if you have high accuracy and you actually hit people but don't kill them quickly, you are not actually suppressing them, which I think is stupid, too. So they can easily return fire and suppress you instead.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • I grew up a Star Trek fan and never watched Star Wars movies. To this days I've not watched most Star Wras movies. As a result I rarely get these references, I have no idea what this post means. Given the popular reactions these get I have to accept I missed out.  
    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences 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.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!