Servers...

[Apache Warrior]

Kills might be easier, but so are deaths.
Apache

[BadHabitz]

Kills might be easier, but so are deaths.
Apache

that's deep...

[Reconsnipe1]

I perfer HC but will play anything. It just comes down to a few games and a little practice and you get the hang of any game mode

[juneau]

Vanilla FTW

[Minerva]

The problem is when you have to split into two choices...

[Devilguns]

Engineers can see how much healing vehicles need. Medics can see how much health players still have. And you can spot vehicles and enemies in HC. It may not be as useful without the mini map, but you still get points for spotting. And I prefer HC for the same reasons as Infamous.
Apache

+1, I also like HC because the general pace of the game seems faster. Sure you can get easy kills, but you can get killed just as easy. It's not like you have an advantage. Regardless I'll play which ever you run.

[Donziboy2]

I like the HC bc2 because its a hell of alot harder to shoot those damn choppers down in vanilla. Only thing that really does it is the tanks main gun, you can shoot at a helo the entire round with the machine gun on the tank and that helo will just keep flying around. And I do get sick of having to put a whole clip into someone for them to die

[Rand{CLR}]

I like the HC bc2 because its a hell of alot harder to shoot those damn choppers down in vanilla. Only thing that really does it is the tanks main gun, you can shoot at a helo the entire round with the machine gun on the tank and that helo will just keep flying around. And I do get sick of having to put a whole clip into someone for them to die

The helos and jets have always been too hard to kill from the ground in the Battlefield games. Even in HC BC2 it's almost impossible to bring down a helo with most ground weapons up to and including tank gunner MG and jeep-mounted MG.

Regarding pace, we never had a problem with the pace of play in Battlefield 2 or 2142. Always seemed just right.

-Rand

[Cain]

The problem is when you have to split into two choices...

Exactly, that is the problem. And, it splits the community as it has in this thread.

BF2 we all had to play the same way, and BF3 should be the same way.

[Infamous]

split the community is right!! i am starting Hcainslair, the H standing for Hardcore

haha, not really. i guess if i dont play the HC version first, ill get used to vanilla.

[Apache Warrior]

The twin 50's on the PBR will bring down the chopper quickly too.
Apache

[baconoclock]

Personally (and there is some bias here) I say we start Vanilla and if we cant get the player count or vanilla is just too.... vanilla then we jump it to HC. I think fracturing the community right from the start isn't a good idea.

Also, I'm not sure we're going to have the war-chest built up to run two at once. That's 3-400 a month

[Dead...Again]

The main thing people don't like about vanilla is the damage:health ratio. This wasn't an issue with BF2 and wouldn't have to be an issue with BF3. IMO you don't need HC if you get the ratio right (which they did in BF2). In most of the games I have played that have HC, I would prefer playing vanilla with HC damage:health ratios...

[Devilguns]

I like Baconoclocks suggestion. We don't even have the game in our hands yet and we're just speculating. Maybe vanilla will be more like the original BF2. Start with that and if it doesn't work out try HC.

[juneau]

Personally (and there is some bias here) I say we start Vanilla and if we cant get the player count or vanilla is just too.... vanilla then we jump it to HC. I think fracturing the community right from the start isn't a good idea.

Also, I'm not sure we're going to have the war-chest built up to run two at once. That's 3-400 a month

I agree with Bacon.