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

[Zargon]

In BF2's specific case, there were pistol and knife badges that you needed to get to rank up, and they were intended to be obtained in normal combat, running a pistol and knife server to make it easier was stat padding.

yeah good for them. imo requiring grinding stuff like that is stupid, and I think they learned their lesson with that and the SQDm win requirement in BTK finally

 

[BlitzPuppet]

you werent really stating what your point was, until the bolded part.

I could give a flying shit about that. I tihnk you can run your server however you want and just please be clear and upfront what the rules are.

there is no competitive anything for bf3 in reality and I dont see the point to lock down 'rankings' like that just to protect stat padding, because YOU CANT STOP IT ANYWAYS. worry about cheating, and give us tools to clear douchebags off the server, and make a good game.

and I feel they have done that.

maybe even a great game, that has sadly missed being as epic as it could be

though some of what people are crying for a) much bigger maps, b) much higher player counts

would be destructive because well I cant run the FPS I want with a 2500K@4.4GHZ and 6970 xfire some of the time as it is, with more players and bigger maps it would be an utter lag fest and slideshow. so I'll live

Yeah and the NFL shouldn't regulate any teams/make any rules at all and should let them do whatever the hell they want. That is good logic.

The game is a COD/Console port and is not nearly as good as it's predecessor, or the predecessor to that, or that. I hate hearing people spell doom and gloom to all games because of EA but it's really starting to look that way.

 

[Termie]

...

though some of what people are crying for a) much bigger maps, b) much higher player counts

would be destructive because well I cant run the FPS I want with a 2500K@4.4GHZ and 6970 xfire some of the time as it is, with more players and bigger maps it would be an utter lag fest and slideshow. so I'll live

I like what Bach says about how PC has allowed them to push the tech, and it sounds like they won't move that far beyond it in the next gen game. As you note above, even your system is pushed to the limit.

BTW, in case you haven't seen it (and assuming you're at 5760x1080), you might find these benches interesting: http://hardocp.com/article/2012/04/25/geforce_gtx_680_3way_sli_radeon_7970_trifire_review/4

Even 680Tri and 7970Tri can't push Eyefinity to the max. Both need Motion Blur and MSAA shut off, and the 7970 needs HBAO turned off. Your 6970 crossfire setup won't come close to those setting, unfortunately.

 

[DeadFred]

Yeah and the NFL shouldn't regulate any teams/make any rules at all and should let them do whatever the hell they want. That is good logic.

The game is a COD/Console port and is not nearly as good as it's predecessor, or the predecessor to that, or that. I hate hearing people spell doom and gloom to all games because of EA but it's really starting to look that way.

WTF!?!?!?!

Are you seriously comparing a competitive paid professional league sport to a video game?

BF3 is a console port???

 

[Childs]

ranking does what besides generate stats? nothing?

Unlocks weapons, which in many ways determines how level the playing field is. I somewhat agree with Blitz, in that a ranked server should be the same on every server. Yeah, its your server, but just make it unranked if you want to ban certain weapons and vehicles. These days you can say it doesn't matter as much, but there are still new players coming into the game. Although as it is now, putting a server in unranked mode is probably like a death sentence.

I personally would rather have unlocks go away so there is no need for levels and a ranking system, but that goes against modern game design philosophy. For many people these days, there is no reason to play if there is no unlock or leveling system.

A good intermediate solution is having the rules show up in Battlelog when you look at a server. They have some of it in place now, but they need to say what is allowed, and/or have a section list the code of conduct for the server. I absolutely hate hopping on a server, doing some damage, hopping in a tank or breaking out a gun and then getting kicked.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

WTF!?!?!?!

Are you seriously comparing a competitive paid professional league sport to a video game?

BF3 is a console port???

It is clearly an analogy and a pretty good one at that. Individual Players (gamers) and Teams (servers) governed by an Organization (EA/Dice). I can also do State/fed/local governments if you still aren't happy .

Compared to the previous releases? I'd say it definitely is since they admitted late into development PCs were no longer the forerunner.

 

[DeadFred]

Thats why I liked Alpha's idea about having a weapon denial system. If a weapon was banned on a server it would just be greyed out and unselectable.

 

[sigurros81]

It is clearly an analogy and a pretty good one at that. Individual Players (gamers) and Teams (servers) governed by an Organization (EA/Dice). I can also do State/fed/local governments if you still aren't happy .

Compared to the previous releases? I'd say it definitely is since they admitted late into development PCs were no longer the forerunner.

No actually, that's a horrible analogy. Where should I begin?

1. Pro sports league are played by professional players that are RECRUITED into the system, paid millions of dollars in contracts. BF3 gamers, anyone willing to fork over 60 bucks can play the game all over the world.

2. Pro sports league is a closed system, that's why they have rules and regulations, also because it is a competitive sport. BF3, I can play the game at my leisure, for however long I want, free from any form of regulations (with the exception of the rules of a particular server I'm playing on).

Should I stop there? How about you get a clue moran?

Now if you were to say that BF3 should be treated more like a sports league, then I may not have to call you a fucking idiot, but you didn't.

 

[DeadFred]

It is clearly an analogy and a pretty good one at that. Individual Players (gamers) and Teams (servers) governed by an Organization (EA/Dice). I can also do State/fed/local governments if you still aren't happy .

Compared to the previous releases? I'd say it definitely is since they admitted late into development PCs were no longer the forerunner.

Im not a fan of government intrusion in my life nor am I a fan of game developer intrusion on my server.

:biggrin:

 

[DeadFred]

No actually, that's a horrible analogy. Where should I begin?

1. Pro sports league are played by professional players that are RECRUITED into the system, paid millions of dollars in contracts. BF3 gamers, anyone willing to fork over 60 bucks can play the game all over the world.

2. Pro sports league is a closed system, that's why they have rules and regulations, also because it is a competitive sport. BF3, I can play the game at my leisure, for however long I want, free from any form of regulations (with the exception of the rules of a particular server I'm playing on).

Should I stop there? How about you get a clue moran?

Now if you were to say that BF3 should be treated more like a sports league, then I may not have to call you a fucking idiot, but you didn't.

Yeah that. ^

I was just too lazy to type all that, so I posted a pic.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

No actually, that's a horrible analogy. Where should I begin?

1. Pro sports league are played by professional players that are RECRUITED into the system, paid millions of dollars in contracts. BF3 gamers, anyone willing to fork over 60 bucks can play the game all over the world.

2. Pro sports league is a closed system, that's why they have rules and regulations, also because it is a competitive sport. BF3, I can play the game at my leisure, for however long I want, free from any form of regulations (with the exception of the rules of a particular server I'm playing on).

Should I stop there? How about you get a clue moran?

Now if you were to say that BF3 should be treated more like a sports league, then I may not have to call you a fucking idiot, but you didn't.

Lmao, you're just looking for a fight aren't you?

Go ahead and be anal and dissect apart my analogy and define each word to the point it makes no sense. Good for you, you passed high school and graduated as a neckbeard.

Now as a whole it is a good comparison, I wasn't going into specifics.

Go ahead, call me a fucking idiot. We'll see how far that gets you arschgesicht.

 

[Childs]

Should I stop there? How about you get a clue moran?

Now if you were to say that BF3 should be treated more like a sports league, then I may not have to call you a fucking idiot, but you didn't.

Kinda harsh. And thats coming from one of the biggest jerks in this thread.

 

[sigurros81]

Lmao, you're just looking for a fight aren't you?

Go ahead and be anal and dissect apart my analogy and define each word to the point it makes no sense. Good for you, you passed high school and graduated as a neckbeard.

Now as a whole it is a good comparison, I wasn't going into specifics.

Go ahead, call me a fucking idiot. We'll see how far that gets you arschgesicht.

Sorry if you're butthurt because someone pointed out the holes in your shitty analogy.

 

[sigurros81]

Kinda harsh. And thats coming from one of the biggest jerks in this thread.

Hehe, just thought I had to call out the idiocy of the person with this false sense of intelligence with his absurd analogy he passes as clever, too much of that going on in this board.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

Whatever, we all have our different opinions and I'll leave it at that.

It's just sad to see a franchise rise and fall. 1942 was awesome, BF:V was just cool beause of the helicopter towing mechanic (the in vehicle music was lolawful), BF2 added a bunch of things, BC2 added destruction and unlock upgrades to weapons...

Honest question is what did BF3 add besides more unlocks and prettier graphics/was what they added worth what they took away from BF2?

 

[Zargon]

Yeah and the NFL shouldn't regulate any teams/make any rules at all and should let them do whatever the hell they want. That is good logic.

The game is a COD/Console port and is not nearly as good as it's predecessor, or the predecessor to that, or that. I hate hearing people spell doom and gloom to all games because of EA but it's really starting to look that way.

horrid ananlogy, just jump to the nazi ones next time

I like what Bach says about how PC has allowed them to push the tech, and it sounds like they won't move that far beyond it in the next gen game. As you note above, even your system is pushed to the limit.

BTW, in case you haven't seen it (and assuming you're at 5760x1080), you might find these benches interesting: http://hardocp.com/article/2012/04/25/geforce_gtx_680_3way_sli_radeon_7970_trifire_review/4

Even 680Tri and 7970Tri can't push Eyefinity to the max. Both need Motion Blur and MSAA shut off, and the 7970 needs HBAO turned off. Your 6970 crossfire setup won't come close to those setting, unfortunately.

ye sits retarded how much it breaks my system. I run a mix of settings, blue hbao off, low AA like 4x, lots of textures at low and mid. I need to remember the one that affects draw and turn it back up though

even with all that stuff cranked down its still very impressively graphicly and problably still the best looking game I play

WTF!?!?!?!

Are you seriously comparing a competitive paid professional league sport to a video game?

BF3 is a console port???

yeah its pretty bad.

since the menus are good on PC, and the controls AND GRAPHICS its pretty retarded to infer its really a console port.

Whatever, we all have our different opinions and I'll leave it at that.

It's just sad to see a franchise rise and fall. 1942 was awesome, BF:V was just cool beause of the helicopter towing mechanic (the in vehicle music was lolawful), BF2 added a bunch of things, BC2 added destruction and unlock upgrades to weapons...

Honest question is what did BF3 add besides more unlocks and prettier graphics/was what they added worth what they took away from BF2?

the greatest graphics engine in existence pretty much. tons of tech. new weapons. animations to make things more fluid

this engine should need minor tweaks to be used for the next game, so hopefully more maps and squad/tactical things like commander can then be added

 

[Childs]

EuroGamer - Battlefield 3: the state of play

One interesting one is, people have been complaining about Operation Metro in the original game, that it's tight infantry, it's not Battlefield, people hate this, this is what makes people move away from Battlefield. Actually, it's the most popular map on all platforms.

Interesting....

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Interesting....

Telemetry only tells you what is happening, not why. If Metro is the most popular map, I submit to you that this is because people are looking for the fastest kill rate possible(even if that also means fastest death rate) in order to burn through the unlocks faster. And then there's also the fact that consoles, with their 24 player maximum, need a smaller map in order to even find enemies to kill. If console players had the option of going to 64 players they might play larger maps.

Also, DICE has been unwilling to release exact numbers, but I suspect that if you add up all small maps and add up all large maps, large maps as a general concept will look a lot better than DICE implies.

 

[DeadFred]

And to be honest, I have more fun in team deathmatch now. That is not because it's my favorite mode(shove your telemetry, Bach) but because Conquest is played like Deathmatch by all the players, so why shouldn't I just quit trying and play TDM?

Welcome to the dark side. :biggrin:

 

[Childs]

Telemetry only tells you what is happening, not why. If Metro is the most popular map, I submit to you that this is because people are looking for the fastest kill rate possible(even if that also means fastest death rate) in order to burn through the unlocks faster. And then there's also the fact that consoles, with their 24 player maximum, need a smaller map in order to even find enemies to kill. If console players had the option of going to 64 players they might play larger maps.

Also, DICE has been unwilling to release exact numbers, but I suspect that if you add up all small maps and add up all large maps, large maps as a general concept will look a lot better than DICE implies.

Console players (COD) tend to like small maps. One of the biggest complaints from those guys about Battlefield is that there is too much running to the action.

There are usually lots of 45+ ranks playing on these Metro Only servers, so its not just people who are unlocking. I think their telemetry is the reason why we are getting CQ first. From the article:

The Close Quarters DLC is infantry focused and a bit more run and gun - not what we're used to from the traditional, open Battlefield experience.

Patrick Bach: There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to have this experience in Battlefield. There is no limitation in the game that prevents you from having this experience. And also, looking at the data and feedback, there are a lot of people who want it. They're asking for it and they want it.

The rest is up in Gully's post. He goes on to talk about catering to everyone. Essentially, there is no typical Battlefield (1942) experience in their eyes anymore. Thats consistent with what we see in BF3. What was once a focused gameplay experinece is now generalized. It probably turns out that a lot of people who play BF3 now never played BF2142 or earlier. I guess its not necessarily a bad thing, but games that tend to try to appeal to everyone end up pleasing no one. Maybe if the next MoH is a big hit they'll bring BF4 back towards the traditional experience, but I think BF will be doomed until they stop competing with COD. Not to say that BF3 is fun. Frustrating at times, but still fun.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Console players (COD) tend to like small maps. One of the biggest complaints from those guys about Battlefield is that there is too much running to the action.

There are usually lots of 45+ ranks playing on these Metro Only servers, so its not just people who are unlocking. I think their telemetry is the reason why we are getting CQ first. From the article:



The rest is up in Gully's post. He goes on to talk about catering to everyone. Essentially, there is no typical Battlefield (1942) experience in their eyes anymore. Thats consistent with what we see in BF3. What was once a focused gameplay experinece is now generalized. It probably turns out that a lot of people who play BF3 now never played BF2142 or earlier. I guess its not necessarily a bad thing, but games that tend to try to appeal to everyone end up pleasing no one. Maybe if the next MoH is a big hit they'll bring BF4 back towards the traditional experience, but I think BF will be doomed until they stop competing with COD. Not to say that BF3 is fun. Frustrating at times, but still fun.

Thing is, we already have the experience Close Quarters will bring. They are just making the transition to CoD complete with this expansion.

As for no BF1942 experience, it's because they've abandoned it. Even when they talk about Armored Kill, you've got Gustav Halling talking about how do you cater to the infantry in a large map...to which I say, WTF is Close Quarters for?

How would MoH being a big hit have anything to do with the traditional BF experience? I haven't played the first MoH but I don't get the impression it is any more like the first BFs than BF3 is.

 

[Childs]

How would MoH being a big hit have anything to do with the traditional BF experience? I haven't played the first MoH but I don't get the impression it is any more like the first BFs than BF3 is.

EA has been going after COD since BFBC1, and every shooter they publish is tailored to the COD player. If the next MoH is on even ground or surpasses BLOPS2 (unlikely, but you never know), they wouldn't need to cater to COD in the BF games. But more than likely, they would continue to do it anyway, as COD is annual, and BF is not. The mp in the last MoH was like Dice's interpretation of COD, done in a half ass way. Anyways, if MoH became the next COD, Dice could focus on what they do best, instead of catering to everyone.

They might think that there are not enough vehicle heavy, large map loving people out there to sell 10 million copies. But there are for small, CQ maps. Well, at least one game.

 

[Ackmed]

I too wish they'd stop with the leveling and unlocks. Just give each class a weapon set, and be done with it.

And Id love to find a non air server somewhere. Not every single map needs 6+ people in the air at all times. A good ground map server would be awesome.

 

[chimaxi83]

Yeah and the NFL shouldn't regulate any teams/make any rules at all and should let them do whatever the hell they want. That is good logic.

The game is a COD/Console port and is not nearly as good as it's predecessor, or the predecessor to that, or that. I hate hearing people spell doom and gloom to all games because of EA but it's really starting to look that way.

I'm fairly certain that you should learn what "console port" means, because its obvious you have no idea.

 

[NoSoup4You]

I don't expect DICE to emulate the CoD experience... I expect them to do better than CoD. CoD is stale, literally we're talking superficial changes with each iteration. DICE, with Frostbite 2 powering it, can obliterate CoD if they actually try. And they can definitely do both - large scale maps and small CQB - without sacrificing anything.

With that said, DICE certainly isn't infallible and they do have a troubling history of making their games worse with each succesive patch/update. So this new DLC is anything but a sure thing... we'll see.