Battlefield 3 Update Includes Paid "Shortcuts"

[Grey Day for Elcia]

without actually having played the game it is batshit retarded to think it is fair or qualified to say that the paid shortcut breaks the game in any way.

Now, you have a problem here; either you are saying I haven't played the game, which is incorrect, or you are saying my boyfriend hasn't and is suggesting the paid shortcuts break the game, which I never said and you would have no way of knowing.

Feel free to go into another rant (the last one was pretty funny) in an attempt to avoid the problem.

It's clear to me now that you are either incapable of reading, or are unwilling to do so. I can only assume now you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I'm really not interested. So honestly, have fun not reading.

And as a footnote, for the record, I explained to you precisely what I said. I didn't give you a multitude of options as to what I might have said. There was no ambiguity in what I said. What I said is based purely off what you have told us.

Ah. You went with the latter option and decided to avoid the problem and give me another paragraph of nothing.

Would have been easier to just own up to being a fanboy and jumping the gun when you saw my comment. Not reading someone's post fully is a lot better than whatever it is you're doing now, lol.

 

[-Samurai-]

well it's not as if suddenly getting the weapons makes the people have any more skill

Exactly.

If I ran out and picked up the game and unlocks today, I'd have some nice, higher ranked guns to use.

I wouldn't know choke points, popular routes, snipe spots, camp spots, glitch spots, general line-of-sight from certain points, vehicle or weapon behavior, or have the knowledge of any vehicle or weapon tactic on any map.

I'd get my ass handed to me.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

without actually having played the game it is batshit retarded to think it is fair or qualified to say that the paid shortcut breaks the game in any way.

Now, you have a problem here; either you are saying I haven't played the game, which is incorrect, or you are saying my boyfriend hasn't and is suggesting the paid shortcuts break the game, which I never said and you would have no way of knowing.

Feel free to go into another rant (the last one was pretty funny) in an attempt to avoid the problem.

It's clear to me now that you are either incapable of reading, or are unwilling to do so. I can only assume now you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I'm really not interested. So honestly, have fun not reading.

And as a footnote, for the record, I explained to you precisely what I said. I didn't give you a multitude of options as to what I might have said. There was no ambiguity in what I said. What I said is based purely off what you have told us.

Ah. You went with the latter option and decided to avoid the problem and give me another paragraph of nothing.

Would have been easier to just own up to being a fanboy and jumping the gun when you saw my comment. Not reading someone's post fully is a lot better than whatever it is you're doing now, lol.

Wouldn't it have just been easier to say what I posted was above your cognitive ability and that you needed a proper explanation? Also, I like how you admitted you didn't read the post fully.

I guess if you're going to put on a dunce cap, you might as well shoot yourself in the foot while you're at it.

As I said before; you're either unwilling or incapable of reading and understanding words. You're purposefully ignoring what I said, trying to reduce my position to a different one (fanboyism) and attacking that instead.

Isn't that called....oh what's the word, something to do with straw, I think...

 

[Ickorus]

I dont see a problem with this.

So long as all the content in the packs can be unlocked normally, its a nice grey middle ground.

I agree with Kouriichi, it appears to be just what it says, a shortcut, so long as they don't start releasing overpowered weapons only acquirable by spending real money (à la APB: Reloaded) I have no problem with it.

 

[Chanel Tompkins]

Eh. As others have said, so long as it's a system of either patience or cheaping your way to the guns with money, what does it matter? Yes, it sucks for the people who can't afford to be cheap, but having the best guns does not a good player make.

 

[paislyabmj]

I thought this kind of stuff only happened in F2P games but any way, I guess there is nothing tooooo wrong with it as long as the stuff can still be unlocked for free but for a massive non F2P blockbuster it is pushing the line a bit. personally I prefer the halo model were the only thing you can buy is map packs and the only thing you gain by levelling up is purely cosmetic but hey that just me.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

You already said you don't play BF3, so how do you know your 'your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game.'? It's not an MMORPG where the latter weapons are automatically the best. Different people have different styles and use different weapons to suit them. When I play recon (sniper) I use a Semi-automatic rifle with a medium range scope, so the last unlock for that class - a large single shot Anti-Materiel rifle - is of no use to me. It's not 'better' but 'different'.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point - BF3 isn't like an MMORPG, or really like CoD were certain unlocks are vastly superior to others. I believe on paper, or at least to the best of my knowledge, the FAMAS is currently the best weapon in BF3, yet it is far from the most widely used weapon. It is a short range rapid fire weapon, it doesn't suit a lot of playstyles.

The vehicle unlocks certainly make a tank/heli/plane better, but an enemy dies just as good from a M16 as he does from an AN-94.

And we have a winner!
I will however argue that the M98B sniper rifle is a much more superior sniping weapon since it has little drop off as compared to other sniper rifles in the game.

 

[Freyar]

As far as "funding the war effort goes" cute line, but in the end people already paid $60 for this. This is an example of the industry getting too greedy, with the greed undermining the integrity of the games.

I think it?s fair to say that we?re looking at that. Like all other companies, we?re looking at how we can maximize our investment in this and get the most out of our investment and get more people playing this product. That may take us to different places, but we?re not really talking about where that is yet.

We're seeing a lack of fair multiplayer games, turning in favor of lucrative pay-for-advantage games. We see this with the free-to-play market, we see this with Call of Duty's Elite package, we're seeing the fundamental business model change towards caring about improving profit margins at the expense of creativity and fairness in multiplayer.

It's a sad time when I see that Ben Cousin's perception [http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win] regarding "Equipment Advantages" is deemed appropriate by a majority of developers these days.

 

[Mr Jack]

I don't really see this as a problem. The initial weapon unlocks for each class are well balanced, and often the best general purpose weapon available. My favourite support weapons are the starters for example. Many players swear by the M16A4, as it has a good balance of attributes, and a rapid reload time. However, you will lose at close range to an F2000, and at long range to a G3A3. What the unlocks grant you is specialisation. If you care enough to be arguing the point, have a look at these figures: http://symthic.com/?s=bf3&sb=timetokill. One of the most common complaints on the forums is that the weapons feel very similar, make of that what you will.

What will make a difference is the vehicle unlocks. Until you unlock flares in air vehicles, you have no defence against heat seeking missiles (aside from advanced manoeuvres, which will take time and skill to learn), which veterans have easy access to. I maintain that the game would be improved by granting the first few unlocks for vehicles as well, to allow the same kind of specialisation to occur in the vehicles as they do with infantry.

As others have said, the weapons and unlocks are rather unimportant as a whole, and skilled players will beat unskilled players regardless of weapon. I think this is a good way to lessen the difficulty for new players, where games are filled with people who has spent several hundred hours learning how to play.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

I'll stick to my SKS and run around shooting everyone and generally being more help to the team than the wookie sat at the back with his M98B making 'awsum' headshots.

That's why I run M98B with a Holo and Straight Pull Bolt.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

Far as I can tell, you start with the best weapons. The only stuff you're missing are the tools to create an invincible death machine out of a helicopter. Seriously, if I don't have IR flares and you have heat-seeking insta-kill rockets, how am I ever going to level up my helicopter?

 

[Elamdri]

They did the exact same thing in BF:BC2, if you bought one of the Spec Ops packs it unlocked all the unlocks for that class.

 

[Therumancer]

[

It's really not 'pay to win' Aside from the vehicle unlocks nothing else is substantially superior to the base weapons. You don't get an advantage over others by paying for this. You save time, there is a fundamental difference. I was just playing it and saw people who were top level using the base guns. On BFBC2 I swore by my AEK-971, even though it was the 'beginner' assault rifle.

It's not really 'monetizing' the ending either - the games been out since November.

I really don't see the problem with this. Its not DLC, its nothing that cannot be acquired through normal gameplay. If people want to pay, that is their prerogative. I still haven't unlocked everything for BF3, and I probably wont, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pay for it.

Furthermore, as the article states this is nothing new to the BF series. It's not some new extra evil EA plot to cash grab. While I am rarely a fan of EA's actions, sometimes comments on here suggest that people have really lost their objectivity towards them, and just attack everything they do out of hand.

But whatever, if you guys wanna complain about how eeeeeevil EA is on a website, have fun. I'll be off to do something else. Like make a cheese sandwich
Except that it's not a Pay to Win setup. According to this article, everything that you can get with this are items that you can unlock through normal play. You're not getting the Death Star, you're getting weapons that everyone can get.

I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Actually it is "pay to win" your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game. Your basically paying for an advantage over anyone who hasn't put in the time, or spent the money, and gaining the abillity to dominate them.

Ultimatly if you "want to play" but don't want to put in the time (or can't) your supposed to suck compared to those that do, that's part of the point. Being able to decide "well I'm rich so I'm going to buy my way out of the boring stuff and paying my dues" isn't paticularly fair to those who can't afford to do that, or those who put in the time and effort.

In the end this isn't good for the game, or gaming in general. The only thing it's good for is EA lining it's own pockets.

Of course understand that I am of the opinion that in multiplayer I believe firmly in everyone being equal other than their skill and time investment. I do not believe in "equalizing" things between the serious players and the casuals if the more casual or unskilled players can afford to pay for it, if your a casual player, then you should expect to not be as powerful as the other players who take it more seriously. In any enviroment like this, even PVE games, there is going to be a degree of competition, and that means there are going to be losers, being able to buy your way into the winners circle and get those perks invalidates the entire process.

See, the arguement is double sided. Your casual player argues that he should not be held back because he's unwilling to turn a game into a hobby and make the time committment, or maybe he links the game but is just pants at it and doesn't like that this limits his progress. To him, if he has the money, paying a few bucks to even the playing field seems reasonable. To the more serious player, he feels that the time, effort, and perhaps displayed skill SHOULD get him some rewards. Putting 100 hours a week into a game (if that's what he decides to do) should make him better than someone who might play an hour or two a day and that should be recognized by the game by putting him well above those casual players in every conceivable way. Swiping a credit card should not give someone equal achievements and perks.

Now, to be honest I do understand the problem of being someone who always gets WTFpwned by giants in an established game. However I believe those are the lumps someone needs to take to earn their way up, especially seeing as the first ones playing generally had to pay their own kinds of dues. I feel that monetizing this is not the way to address it however, I think instead more effort needs to be taken to segregate queues such as ensuring PVP in MMORPGs is premade vs. premade, and pug vs. pug, and in all forms of games probably make the amount of time an account has been logged into the game a variable in matchmaking. If you've only played 40 hours in say a month, a queue should try and find people with a similar amount of played time for you, before it sticks you onto a map with people who log that in a week. You can't measure skill levels with a computer (yet) but you can measure that variable which would help, and which to me is a much better idea, and has more gaming integrity, than letting people pay to unlock benefits that are supposed to be earned... even if integrity doesn't put money into industry pockets.

You already said you don't play BF3, so how do you know your 'your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game.'? It's not an MMORPG where the latter weapons are automatically the best. Different people have different styles and use different weapons to suit them. When I play recon (sniper) I use a Semi-automatic rifle with a medium range scope, so the last unlock for that class - a large single shot Anti-Materiel rifle - is of no use to me. It's not 'better' but 'different'.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point - BF3 isn't like an MMORPG, or really like CoD were certain unlocks are vastly superior to others. I believe on paper, or at least to the best of my knowledge, the FAMAS is currently the best weapon in BF3, yet it is far from the most widely used weapon. It is a short range rapid fire weapon, it doesn't suit a lot of playstyles.

The vehicle unlocks certainly make a tank/heli/plane better, but an enemy dies just as good from a M16 as he does from an AN-94.

See, you assume that because I don't play something I'm ignorant of it, or the genere, which is not true in the least.

If you do not play the game, how do you have experience of it?

For all your protesting, the bottom line is that the weapons are locked for a reason. You, and others, might say they aren't better but apparently more people disagree with you than agree due to this being a viable business strategy. If they were not any big deal, nobody would pay, and EA wouldn't bother trying to do this kind of thing.

Stats to support your statement. If you can make such a claim you must be able to support it with some factual evidence.

Now, your correct that a lot of the weapons, like any shooter with a large arsenal, are probably highly situational. The player who purchuses them still winds up with more options for his load out he wouldn't be entitled to without having put in the time, he's not forced to say make do with a weapon that doesn't ideally suit him and his playstyle until he earns one like people who earned the weapons instead of paying for them probably had to in many cases.

That is true, but i'm really not to bothered about it. I'll hardly be upset if I start going up against Lvl 1s armed with AEK-971s, it'll still take them time to learn how to use the weapons, what works in what situation, which attachments suit which role. Just because they have a slightly more accurate gun that the base, does not immediately result in them running around the map obliterating all the other newbs.

See, if EA was just selling skins, like "make your M-16 look like a Galil" or whatever that would be one thing, but they aren't, they are actually selling weapons with differant, and usually higher levels of performance over more basic weapons.

If this were true, why did I not more than 2 hours ago come up against several level 50s using the base Assault rifle, LMG, and Sub-machine gun? The base weapons are often the most balanced, with the more advanced ones tending towards an extremity in one area over the other (the F2000 having an incredibly high rate of fire, but awful accuracy, for example).

I understand you like the franchise, and presumably the company from the way your defending it, but this is still a ridiculous money grab, that defeats the entire purpose of having a system where players are supposed to earn anything.

I have no real love for EA, I enjoy BF more for playing it with friends than anything fundamental about the mechanics.

Do you really think that many people are going to spend $39.99 for every unlock? It's an overpriced service which is entirely unnecessary. It's only on one platform. The Prothean DLC, now that was a cash grab, aimed directly at fans of the franchise.

Personally, I think a few years if these trends continue "grinding is for poor people" is going to become the truth of gaming. Whether it's MMO grinding, or grinding in other generes of games where you feed yourself into a veteran meat grinder again and again while you slowly chip away at your unlocks.

I don't really care for your hyperbolic predictions. The unlock systems in FPS are there to encourage persistence and expand the games lifespan (i'm really not sure why, tbh, doesn't seem that important to keep people playing once you have their cash). This service cuts out the unlocks which are purposefully designed to encourage persistent play. Which actually when I think about it is rather self defeating.

The grinding in MMOs is to encourage the player to sub for the longest period. With something like CoD Elite, we have a cross-over in the two (CoD Elite is a service that is defiantly damaging to gaming, and sets a bad precedent that I hope is not taken up, it also has utterly obnoxious advertising).

Battlefield 3 is a well known game and pop culture phenomena like CoD, you can't follow gaming like I do without gaining some familiarity with it.

To be honest it's getting to the point where I am going to ignore any demands for "evidence" to something obvious on any topic. EA apparently sells these packs, as the article points out they have done so before, which encourages them to keep doing it. If nobody gained an advantage and purchused them, this would not be an issue. They even call them "shortcuts".

As a word of advice since I run into this a lot, don't demand evidence or proof of something as hyperbole. It makes you look silly. I understand why people do it when they feel in control of a situation (to try and look cool, or to sidestep having to concede a point or do their own research when someone points something out that's easily verifiable). In this case for example this entire discussion exists because of specific events that have already transpired... ie EA providing a "shortcut" to top flight capabilities in the game for real money, with people supporting this enough to make it a viable business. No evidence needed, everything I said was established before this conversation even happened. Semantics games don't a point make.

At any rate, it seems you eventually came to the same conclusion that I did, albiet by a differant path, and for differant reasons so there is no real point to further discussion.

Odd that people repeatedly call you out for your made up bullshit, perhaps you should take not of this and stop making arbitrary claims without any evidence to back it up?

really ? which one ?

not that i care after the "try harder" remark.

ah, to be a teenager before you realised "logic" was bullshit...

If you can't engage in logical discourse then you can't argue properly. You'll make false arguments and logical fallacies. Thus destroying any credibility your position had in the first place.

Also not a teenager.

WTF is that last bit of quoting since I actually don't remember writing that.

That said, people don't really call me on "bullshit" as much as they try and play semantics games to avoid having to accept they are wrong. In general we wind up with a dance where if I provide "evidence" in the form of links, I wind up having people scream about that and the sources and refuse to accept them. I provide referances to where people can find information themselves, and then they scream for providing links. It's more a matter of having minority perspectives on a forum, and the simple fact that nobody changes long held beliefs over the internet.

The overall point being that trying to start a dance by demanding evidence of common knowlege, link-thrashing, or refusing to do research is pointless to me. In most cases I'm increasingly putting the burden on the people trying to play the games, if they aren't going to put in the effort themselves and show a willingness to even embrace the possibility they are wrong, then I'm wasting my time anyway and it wasn't worth the effort.

On the overall issue of BF3, the bottom line here is simply that people are getting rewards for work they did not put into the game by paying money. That's wrong... period. There is no way to dance around that because it's exactly what this is all about.

What's more most of the people I wind up here tend to be spouting nonsense in a sort of "shotgun approach". I just got 11 or so responses (which I am handling all here) from people claiming both that "there are no game balance issues, since the guns don't provide an advantage" along with "well the newsbs need this stuff if they are going to compete and it benefits veteran players with new blood", apparently sometimes within the same message. Not to mention the whole "well there are no advantages...except for the vehicles" which means that yes, there are advantages even in that person's statements.

Now, I get fan defense, I really do, and while I can't point fingers I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one Viral marketer involved in responding to me. Understand that I have difficulty taking counter-claims seriously when I'm basically getting contridictory feedback and justifications from people all of whom share only one thing in common... disagreeing with me because I'm saying something bad about Battlefield. That's not even getting into the guy who seems to think that Battlefield is so unique that you can't possibly understand anything about it without being a dedicated player (uh huh... unique).

In the end we're all going to have to agree to disagree, but I stand by my statements, and really nobody has done anything to convince me I'm wrong in the slightest, since there isn't even an entirely consistant claim among the defending fan. The whole "newbs need ot to compete, and new blood is good for the game" contridicting the crowd that is saying that this stuff is entirely pointless and doesn't have any effect on the game (which makes no sense since if that was the case nobody would buy it). Of course my personal favorite is the guys who miss the point entirely by saying that a "really big gun won't make a scrub or average player able to take down a skilled player", totally oblivious to how that isn't even the issue. A player on the same skill level who has not spent the money, is going to be at a disadvantage against one that HAS spent the money. Nobody was ever talking about newbs cleaning out veteran playes in paticular... making that whole line of defense entirely out of context to what is being said... and it surprises people when I don't take it seriously?

At any rate, I'd say this is about done. We'll all have to agree to disagree. EA did it, I don't like it, apparently fans here will still play the game. I'm stlll happy I didn't invest any time in it, and honestly if EA is going to do this kind of thing it's highly unlikely I am ever going to play any kind of competitive shooter or action game they produce with these kind of practices in force.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

massive wall of text

You type so fucking much but in the end all you're saying is "yes, I don't own the game, but I'm still right and you're wrong."

I'd leave this thread if I were you and I had even the slightest shred of dignity left. Your posts are utterly pathetic. Someone calling you out for your claims and saying you're not qualified to make remarks on the addons for a game you don't own is NOT fanboyism.

Also, I like how you've switched from "it's an unfair advantage" to "it's just wrong". Probably because you realized everyone felt you were full of shit when you said you don't own the game but because you "follow its news it's the same thing".

No one is arguing that it's right or wrong.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

but I stand by my statements, and really nobody has done anything to convince me I'm wrong in the slightest, since there isn't even an entirely consistant claim among the defending fan.

5+ people telling you that you not owning the fucking game or even having a clue what entails a victorious round is not consistent?

Are you blind?

 

[ElPatron]

I hear you. Man, I don't get why people would even think about being casual gamers. What's the point of even playing a game if you're not going to practice at least 12 hours a day on it? They're what's killing competitive gaming.

Stupid hyperbole.

If you need 12 hours a day to complete something, do 2 hours every day and at the end of the week you have 14 hours.

Then, instead of having X in one day, you have in one week.

 

[Therumancer]

but I stand by my statements, and really nobody has done anything to convince me I'm wrong in the slightest, since there isn't even an entirely consistant claim among the defending fan.

5+ people telling you that you not owning the fucking game or even having a clue what entails a victorious round is not consistent?

Are you blind?

No, that just means people are grasping for anything they can potentially use to claim any degree of victory. I left an opening that people think it sounds good to criticise so people with nothing else to say on the subject who know they are wrong are harping on it to try and salvage some degree of victory in their minds.

See, the arguement that someone who does not play a game must be entirely ignorant of it on every possible level is totally illogical and something I ignore as the rhetoric it is. For example you are jumping to the conclusion that I don't know what a victorious round entails because I haven't played the game, which actually isn't true.

The lack of consistincy is on what people actually claim the benefits of the weapons are and other related things. Them all not liking what I am saying however is pretty consistant.

That said, we're pretty much done, there isn't a lot more to be said. I've said my piece, whether you agree or disagree. Feel free to assume I'm ignorant, that won't make it true, but if it makes you feel better knock yourself out.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

No, that just means people are grasping for anything they can potentially use to claim any degree of victory.

No, that's actually people telling you that an unlocked upgrade tree means next to nothing in terms of how fair the game is and the reason you don't understand this is because you don't own the game. Unfotunately, like a toddler, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "NO NO NO U ALL FANBOI" because people aren't agreeing with you.

I left an opening that people think it sounds good to criticise so people with nothing else to say on the subject who know they are wrong are harping on it to try and salvage some degree of victory in their minds.

I don't know what the fuck is so hard about this. You are not correct. Your opinion is that you're correct. The fact you don't own the thing you are passing judgment on negates any entitlement to a proper well-based stance.

See, the arguement that someone who does not play a game must be entirely ignorant of it on every possible level is totally illogical and something I ignore as the rhetoric it is.

Cute, you've stepped back from "I know exactly what I'm talking about, even though I don't own it I've read all about it therefore I'm an expert" to a much more docile "Oh come on, I know at least something about it, I do read about it after all". You're just making yourself look more and more pathetic and foolish now. Want to change your stance one more time? Just for good measure? I mean we can already see that you're not confident enough in your own idiotic opinion that you are scaling it back as we go.

For example you are jumping to the conclusion that I don't know what a victorious round entails because I haven't played the game, which actually isn't true.

No, I'm not jumping to that conclusion. I calmly stepped over to it, because if you knew what a victorious round entails, you wouldn't have made the blanket assumption that an unlock tree greatly affects and offsets the balance in achieving that.

The lack of consistincy is on what people actually claim the benefits of the weapons are and other related things. Them all not liking what I am saying however is pretty consistant.

(OCD in me notes the irony of you using the word consistent but consistently misspelling it at the same time)

The lack of intelligence in any of your posts is the only consistent thing happening here, actually. You seem to be under the impression that several seasoned players (and I can only speak for myself, but I have already maxed out all the upgrade trees excepting a few vehicles myself) who are trying to make it clear to you that the later weapons in the game don't result in immediate victory are wrong, and that the more correct truth in your mind is that you (who keep pathetically admitting over and over again that you have not played the game, much less bought it) know better than they do.

And because your baseless anecdote based on what you read does not match what BF3 veteran players know for fact, you think they are harping on you purely because they don't like what you have to say.

If you would like me to rant on BF3's shortcomings, I can do so. For hours. Brutally. But there are certain truths apparent in this game and having all the guns ahead of time does not fall under one of those truths.

That said, we're pretty much done, there isn't a lot more to be said.

I like how for some reason you keep on thinking you speak in stone-tablet-inscribed facts. We're not actually done, you're just too stubborn to admit you are unqualified to discuss the potential side effects of the OP's topic.

I've said my piece, whether you agree or disagree. Feel free to assume I'm ignorant, that won't make it true, but if it makes you feel better knock yourself out.

Oh no, I don't assume you're ignorant. I know you're ignorant. And I will keep calling you out on it until you admit the truth or ignore me. By the way, for all your talk of ignorance, it's "I've said my peace", not "piece".

You come into a thread concerning a game you have not played and do not own, you insult anyone who does agree with you, you state your opinion as though it is fact, and you disregard the experience of people who have already maxed out their unlock trees without any sort of shortcut, and you think YOU have the high ground to stand on?

Utterly. Fucking. Pathetic.

I look forward to entering a thread for a game you love and deciding I know better than you even though I have not played it. And every time you make this clear to me, I'll just keep linking you to this thread.

 

[robert022614]

I really dont mind this as long as it is not stuff that you cant get any other way then more power to them. By this time most long term vets are already fully leveled and the addition to adding a lot of low levels with the same gear shouldnt really change much. It doesnt automatically give you skill or anything.

 

[singingpants]

You know, I don't get what the big deal about these packs is. I wouldn't buy them even if I was just starting (I have about 170 hours in bf3 multiplayer, Love the game) You can do well with the starting weapons same as the weapons you unlock later, its not like the weapons unlocked at level 30 are 20 times better than the starters, they just have different levels of power, firing rate, recoil and accuracy. Also, because bf3 awards points for just about anything, you can get a few friends and level up quickly even when not getting kills, but capturing points, arming mcoms, etc.