Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

BF3 Rank


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31-01-2013, 16:49
TheBilly
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,309

What rank are you on BF3?

I have ranked up to a 50 colonel, playing rush exclusively. Only took 2 million hours.
TheBilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 31-01-2013, 17:01
Delboy219
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,879
I agree, mate. BF3 is pretty rank.
Delboy219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2013, 19:47
OMTT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,251
I think I'm commander 5 or 6 but lost a bit of interest as it was taking far to long to go up ranks
OMTT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 01:33
Kopite79
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 224
I'm colonel 34 I think after playing a few hundred hours of both conquest and rush.
Kopite79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 13:08
The_One
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,829
COLONEL SERVICE STAR 43 (rank 88), from 500 hours of conquest mode.

I havnt played BF3 for 3 months. Prefer playing Planetside 2.
The_One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 17:07
Gevans81
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South Wales
Posts: 442
Is this actually any good this year? Enjoyed Battlefield Bad Company 2 and loved the destructible environments, is that back?
Gevans81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 15:05
Delboy219
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,879
It's a good game at times, i say this because i did quite like it for about a fortnight.

But most of the time i found myself stuck in 30 minute matches, and unless i was on Noshar Canals, there were times i searched for almost 10 mins before i found someone to shoot. BF3 fans will say that's a rare thing, and that i'm not playing the game correctly. But that's the usual excuse. It's a game where you search for the majority of your time. The camping is pretty bad too.

There are destructible environments, but it's pretty weak sauce.

It might be for you though. Maybe you should check it out. Millions (?) of fans will disagree wholeheartedly with my comments.
Delboy219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 23:05
TheBilly
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,309
It's a game where you search for the majority of your time.
Not if you play rush. People running about looking for people to shoot are playing it wrong. I'd rather win the game than get mvp.
TheBilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 23:20
Gevans81
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South Wales
Posts: 442
I always found the team play to be more rewarding in BF rather than COD.
Gevans81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 15:24
Tal'shiar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,267
It's a good game at times, i say this because i did quite like it for about a fortnight.

But most of the time i found myself stuck in 30 minute matches, and unless i was on Noshar Canals, there were times i searched for almost 10 mins before i found someone to shoot. BF3 fans will say that's a rare thing, and that i'm not playing the game correctly. But that's the usual excuse. It's a game where you search for the majority of your time. The camping is pretty bad too.

There are destructible environments, but it's pretty weak sauce.

It might be for you though. Maybe you should check it out. Millions (?) of fans will disagree wholeheartedly with my comments.
Perhaps because you really are playing it wrong. If you want lots of kills and action, go onto a smaller map, or a more action gametype (like deathmatch)

I got 400 kills in 30 mins on Metro once, and it wasnt very hard to do so. Nos is also good for the same thing.

I dont know why people stick to 12 man games on huge maps and complain about the lack of action. The game is pretty awesome, and it caters to many modes.

Unless of course if you were on one of the consoles, in which case, shame.
Tal'shiar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 15:42
Delboy219
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,879
Perhaps because you really are playing it wrong. If you want lots of kills and action, go onto a smaller map, or a more action gametype (like deathmatch)

I got 400 kills in 30 mins on Metro once, and it wasnt very hard to do so. Nos is also good for the same thing.

I dont know why people stick to 12 man games on huge maps and complain about the lack of action. The game is pretty awesome, and it caters to many modes.

Unless of course if you were on one of the consoles, in which case, shame.
I did go on small maps on TDM. Why do people assume you don't try out ALL the bloody modes/maps?

Last edited by Delboy219 : 04-02-2013 at 15:47. Reason: Discussion would soon become an exercise in futility.
Delboy219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 16:25
Tal'shiar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,267
I did go on small maps on TDM. Why do people assume you don't try out ALL the bloody modes/maps?
What system did you play on?
Tal'shiar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 16:28
Delboy219
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,879
Tis PS3.
Delboy219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 16:36
Tal'shiar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,267
Than thats your problem. Consoles are pretty weak in the numbers area, as I recall ps3 and 360 only get 24 players, whilst pc gets 64. Consoles are so poo haha.

But seriously, it was made as a PC game, and the console part was tacked on, hence the poor graphics, awful frame rate, less than half the player count. THey should have left it PC only really, kept warfighter as the CoD alternative.
Tal'shiar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 17:23
The_One
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,829
Ive watched my nephew play BF3 on the PS3, i thought it seemed kind of boring. 64 player metro is quite hectic usually.

Ive also seen him play Planetside 2, he kind of plays BF3 the same, i already showed him how to play. He loads in at the warpgate then runs out of the warpgate looking for a fight... really made me think about some people of how they play. CoD really has made the FPS player base get used to ultra easy mode with these games.
The_One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 19:35
Sam Seed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In the Spaceship
Posts: 294
colonel 34. with 300 odd hrs
Sam Seed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 22:41
ballybally
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Durham
Posts: 785
FFS, the PC gamers shooting down console players again in a thread with an unrelated topic.

I've played just under 400 hours on PS3, ranked colonel 32 and whilst I'm sure there's so much more going on on PC I'm happy with the poor tacked on version. The only issues I ever seem to have are the players you play with being numpties (which happens on every online game)
ballybally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 23:22
Tal'shiar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,267
FFS, the PC gamers shooting down console players again in a thread with an unrelated topic.

I've played just under 400 hours on PS3, ranked colonel 32 and whilst I'm sure there's so much more going on on PC I'm happy with the poor tacked on version. The only issues I ever seem to have are the players you play with being numpties (which happens on every online game)
Haha, but PC gamers have had to put up with the console army for years. From killing PC Gaming to it being better. But it is daft, but fun now and again to join the war haha. Like Apple vs Microsoft.

if you enjoy the game on ps3, then power to you. I like Fifa Manager, yet everyone tells me Football Manager is a better game. Different strokes for different folks.
Tal'shiar is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01.