**OFFICIAL** AT Battlefield 3 FAQ and News Thread

[DeadFred]

This is horrible news, that was the thing I hated about BC2. Taking half a mag to kill someone is just stupid. The BF3 beta had a pretty decent damage model if anything it was a tad too low. If this turns out to be true then Ill be playing only on hardcore servers just like I did in BFBC2.

 

[dyndragon]

https://twitter.com/#!/Demize99/status/123693205148545025

@Demize99
Alan Kertz
@VGZClarity We fixed a damage bug, the base combat speed is the same.
2 hours ago via Digsby

https://twitter.com/#!/Demize99/status/123440502052892672

@Demize99
Alan Kertz
@NeoSwagga No seriously, some hits in beta got upgraded to hradshots in beta even when they were not.
19 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone

and if that wasn't clear enough
https://twitter.com/#!/Demize99/status/123344770427916288

dandyboots Dan Alexander
@Demize99 still really sorry to bother you, but i'm liking the bullet damage in beta it's not been changed apart from the 1hit kill bug yes?
9 Oct
in reply to ↑

@Demize99
Alan Kertz
@dandyboots Correct, a bug has been fixed and some weapons have been balanced, but the core is intact.
10 Oct via Twitter for iPad

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

There are major gameplay balance differences between the two. Weapons feel different, with different fire rates and recoil. And the damage model has been radically shifted. Death comes quickly in the beta, situated more towards Call of Duty's durability, or even last year's DICE-developed Medal of Honor multiplayer. Firefights in the beta prioritize reflexes over tactics, which is a departure from Bad Company 2.

Firefights in BC2 prioritize reflexes over tactics, a departure from BF2. It would simply be more accurate to say that the BF3 beta makes this even more obvious than BC2 did.

 

[dyndragon]

The joystiq article seems to contradict what people are commonly saying:

That high damage->more tactics, more similar to BF2, and less like BC2. Low damage ->less tactics, more like CoD.

But the Joystiq article seems to imply that you get more tactics with lower damage weapon models, and the high damage model is more like CoD and MoH. (???!) I was always under the impression that CoD and MoH had low damage models like BC2?

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

The joystiq article seems to contradict what people are commonly saying:

That high damage->more tactics, more similar to BF2, and less like BC2. Low damage ->less tactics, more like CoD.

But the Joystiq article seems to imply that you get more tactics with lower damage weapon models, and the high damage model is more like CoD and MoH. (???!) I was always under the impression that CoD and MoH had low damage models like BC2?

I think it has more to do with accuracy than damage per shot. BF2's random deviation made it difficult to spray and pray from halfway across the map and get kills. And if you used single shot to compensate, that gave the enemy the ability to sprint/hop to avoid, take cover, etc.

Now, the need for approaching the flag to actually kill people at a flag is gone.

 

[TheUnk]

Personally I like having to shoot more rounds to kill someone. It gives them a fighting chance instead of simply a matter of who saw who first.

Besides, if you truely are the better shooter, you'll still do fine, but if the guy you shot at is able to turn around and kill you instead - right on him for being better than you.

 

[novasatori]

I already want to play so bad.
Before beta ended, 15 days didn't seem so long, but now without it...

 

[dyndragon]

I already want to play so bad.
Before beta ended, 15 days didn't seem so long, but now without it...

I feel the same way, surprisingly. I can't go back to BC2 (though really I'd like to get back to BF2, but it won't run for me anymore).

The sign of a great game, I suppose? even with all it's niggles and things we want changed.

 

[realjetavenger]

I feel the same way, surprisingly. I can't go back to BC2 (though really I'd like to get back to BF2, but it won't run for me anymore).

The sign of a great game, I suppose? even with all it's niggles and things we want changed.

Funny you should mention not being able to run BF2. A week or two ago I was playing it just fine. A few days ago I got a new joystick and wanted to first try it in BF2 single player, then multiplayer and then go into the BF3 beta with it.

Well, BF2 is now crashing to bsod when the map loads in single and multiplayer and I have not been able to figure out why. Which stinks since I did not want to have my learning curve in BF3 with this new set up (joystick, throttle, pedals). So annoying.

p.s. I am now having withdrawal symptoms too after playing the CB map.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I thought the damage model in the beta was perfect.

 

[JTsyo]

I feel the same way. BF3 beta damage was good, BC2 damage was too slow. Didn't enjoy hardcore without the minimap and kill cam for snipers.

 

[marrr]

Battlefield 3 PC dedicated servers will charge extra.. for every single player...

Planning to rent a dedicated server for Battlefield 3 on PC? Then you won’t be happy to find out that you will have to pay an extra charge on top of your monthly fee for every player slot on those servers – and on 64 player maps, those fees could soon add up.

In news that is bound to hit the most dedicated of Battlefield 3 players on PC right in the wallet, it’s been announced that if you wish to rent a dedicated server for the game, you will also have to pay an additional charge for every single player slot with some providers, while others are charging a flat extra fee no matter how many server instances you want to rent.

NFOservers.com announced that they will be using a prepay per slot system on their forums: “Managed VDS and dedicated server customers will also be able to create BF3 servers after the game is released. However, customers will need to prepay a small amount per BF3 player slot they wish to run (much less than the standard rental fee). This is due to a unique requirement of BF3 that does not relate to the resource requirements of the game,” wrote admin Edge100x. When a forum member asked for clarification using the scenario of “I’m planning to have 7 BF3 servers with 64 slots each one on my dedi server. So, I need to pay a monthly amount for 448 slots (7*64), is that correct?”, Edge100x replied “yes, it would be that slot count times the amount per slot, added to your monthly dedicated server fee.”

For large-scale clans, as the above exchange shows, the charges could become eye-watering. Edge100x admitted: “I really wish that we didn’t need to have it at all,” sympathising with those who pointed out that this could prove an impossible financial burden for dedicated servers run on a donation basis.

Meanwhile, GSP have announced that they will be using a flat-rate extra charge hat applies no matter how many servers you want to run:

There is also a BF3 support fee per physical machine. Unfortunately, we have to charge for this but are heavily subsidizing the cost. In order to support BF3 on your server, an additional £18 (incl VAT) will be charged; this fee applies even if you only want to run one BF3 game server instance. Accounts will be updated as and when we complete server migrations. The fee is only applicable from the Official release date.

This is certainly going to put a question mark against some groups ability to maintain dedicated servers for Battlefield 3 on PC, and seems a strange move which has presumably come from EA who hold approval over all official BF3 server partners.

You can keep up to date with all the latest Battlefield 3 news here at BeefJack.

http://beefjack.com/news/battlefiel...rs-will-charge-extra-for-every-single-player/

 

[KaOTiK]

What the fuck.......

Seriously are publishers so pissed that we want dedicated servers that they are trying to make it so damn expensive that suddenly everyone will want matchmaking instead?

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Er, so...can anyone provide an example of a single 64 player server and how that might compare to a single 64 p server in BF2 historical pricing? Because as far as I know, a BF2 64 server would be somewhere between 60 and 90 dollars per month.

What the fuck.......

Seriously are publishers so pissed that we want dedicated servers that they are trying to make it so damn expensive that suddenly everyone will want matchmaking instead?

You could be right. And, I think they may be trying to intentionally fuck with large maps by making, indeed, large maps, but making them play like small maps by packing the flags into 1/4 of the map, so that for BF4 we will be completely weaned off large maps and they can just make small maps. Pure genius. Example: Operation Firestorm.

 

[GullyFoyle]

Battlefield 3 PC dedicated servers will charge extra.. for every single player...

Planning to rent a dedicated server for Battlefield 3 on PC? Then you won’t be happy to find out that you will have to pay an extra charge on top of your monthly fee for every player slot on those servers – and on 64 player maps, those fees could soon add up.

http://beefjack.com/news/battlefiel...rs-will-charge-extra-for-every-single-player/

No where in that story is there an explanation of just what the extra fee is for.
Was there more information in that story that was not quoted? From what is there, is seems like an assumption is being made that EA is where the money is going. This would be the first time I am aware of that they ever got a cut of server rental money. I though they just got some free public server hosting from each GSP.

You could be right. And, I think they may be trying to intentionally fuck with large maps by making, indeed, large maps, but making them play like small maps by packing the flags into 1/4 of the map, so that for BF4 we will be completely weaned off large maps and they can just make small maps. Pure genius. Example: Operation Firestorm.

Be careful, you're starting to drift into foil helmet territory here...

Large player counts is an advantage they have over the competition.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

Digital copy of BF3 pre-order is 30% off at Amazon. Makes it $42 . Remind me why I pre-ordered it months ago at D2D?

 

[Jschmuck2]

No where in that story is there an explanation of just what the extra fee is for.
Was there more information in that story that was not quoted? From what is there, is seems like an assumption is being made that EA is where the money is going. This would be the first time I am aware of that they ever got a cut of server rental money. I though they just got some free public server hosting from each GSP.



Be careful, you're starting to drift into foil helmet territory here...

Large player counts is an advantage they have over the competition.

You know, I've been doing a *lot* of research on RSP's and not once have I run into this. Just a thought.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Digital copy of BF3 pre-order is 30% off at Amazon. Makes it $42 . Remind me why I pre-ordered it months ago at D2D?

What's amazon's bonus? SPECACT or something? EDIT: It's the dog tag pack, but apparently you don't get it for the download version, as the pop up that shows it disappears when you click PC Download.

Be careful, you're starting to drift into foil helmet territory here...

Large player counts is an advantage they have over the competition.

I just said small maps, not that player counts would be lowered. There's enough players who think that if you have to travel more than 5 seconds to be able to start shooting at enemies, that it "takes forever". We all know there's plenty of players who want large maps to justify making them, but the "OMG it takes 15 minutes to find enemies" people are the more vocal crowd, at least until it's too late.

 

[Termie]

Digital copy of BF3 pre-order is 30% off at Amazon. Makes it $42 . Remind me why I pre-ordered it months ago at D2D?

Link: http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-3-...8362468&sr=8-2

I'm posting to hot deals.

 

[marrr]

No where in that story is there an explanation of just what the extra fee is for.
Was there more information in that story that was not quoted? From what is there, is seems like an assumption is being made that EA is where the money is going. This would be the first time I am aware of that they ever got a cut of server rental money. I though they just got some free public server hosting from each GSP.
.

I just took these two posts from 2 different GSP's

Managed VDS and managed dedicated server customers will be able to create BF3 servers after the game is released. However, customers will need to prepay a monthly amount per BF3 player slot they wish to run (much less than the standard rental fee). This is due to a unique requirement of BF3 that does not relate to the resource requirements of the game.

This fee will likely be about 25 cents per slot, although the number has not been finalized yet. We will be providing the exact number and, we hope, why this surcharge has to exist, when the game is closer to release. These details will be posted here, and the option will be added to the order pages.


http://www.nfoservers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=5705


Battlefield 3 will be available on ALL* dedicated servers!

With the release of Battlefield 3 we will unfortunately be forced to charge an additional administrative fee based on the amount of server installs and slot counts you wish to have on your dedicated server.

Below are the options we will be offering to all dedicated server owners:

16 Slots - $4.25/Month USD per install
24 Slots - $6.40/Month USD per install
32 Slots - $8.50/Month USD per install
48 Slots - $12.75/Month USD per install
64 Slots - $17.00/Month USD per install

http://forums.hypernia.com/index.php?showtopic=2299

 

[Jschmuck2]

I just took these two posts from 2 different GSP's

Managed VDS and managed dedicated server customers will be able to create BF3 servers after the game is released. However, customers will need to prepay a monthly amount per BF3 player slot they wish to run (much less than the standard rental fee). This is due to a unique requirement of BF3 that does not relate to the resource requirements of the game.

This fee will likely be about 25 cents per slot, although the number has not been finalized yet. We will be providing the exact number and, we hope, why this surcharge has to exist, when the game is closer to release. These details will be posted here, and the option will be added to the order pages.


http://www.nfoservers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=5705


Battlefield 3 will be available on ALL* dedicated servers!

With the release of Battlefield 3 we will unfortunately be forced to charge an additional administrative fee based on the amount of server installs and slot counts you wish to have on your dedicated server.

Below are the options we will be offering to all dedicated server owners:

16 Slots - $4.25/Month USD per install
24 Slots - $6.40/Month USD per install
32 Slots - $8.50/Month USD per install
48 Slots - $12.75/Month USD per install
64 Slots - $17.00/Month USD per install

http://forums.hypernia.com/index.php?showtopic=2299

Those extra fees are if you're renting an entire box and are running multiple servers off of said box, correct?

If so, that's a kind of shitty thing to do - albeit a good revenue stream...I guess.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I think, depending on how many server providers start adopting those fees, it will be a good idea to proactively wonder if DICE is going to allow expansions like Back to Karkand to be rotated with base maps.

If not, that is certainly one way to push the clans into renting more servers. After all, when an expansion comes out, who is going to simply close down their vanilla server and use that space to run an expansion? Most probably wouldn't do that, they'd rent another.

 

[marrr]

Those extra fees are if you're renting an entire box and are running multiple servers off of said box, correct?

If so, that's a kind of shitty thing to do - albeit a good revenue stream...I guess.

Yes, that fee is for renting an entire box. I guess the fees are already included in the pay per slot price.

 

[Childs]

Digital copy of BF3 pre-order is 30% off at Amazon. Makes it $42 . Remind me why I pre-ordered it months ago at D2D?

I just saw this on slickdeals. You still get Back to Karkand pack, which is good enough for me.

 

[GullyFoyle]

I thought this was funny...