Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flopper said:
a game supposedly is to be fun, which is highly subjective, but make a game that is simply death if you move, then a ton of people wills it and stand behind a rock or cover the whole match, wont take objectives and simply sit and camp.
They ruin the gameplay for us as simply as that with HC.
Click to expand...

Assault rifles in BF2 did 30-40 damage a shot and there was no 3d spotting, yet it wasn't a camp fest. Where is your assumption coming from?
 
If you want to protest that HC is better then I'm willing to argue against that theory.

Using Black Ops as an example. HC mode in BO's is just too easy for a game. I enjoy a game to be somewhat realistic, but it is a game and the game play is important too. In HC mode you can kill three to five people with one clip. It forces people to sit still and "camp" more often because they are afraid of dying. The game play dynamics of most FPS games are just not well suited for HC. Capture the flag is rendered virtually useless if everyone sits around the whole map.

I can agree that in some games the regular mode takes too many shots, but requiring 1 shot or maybe 2 makes attaining goals or capturing points very difficult and not fun for the team.
 
NathanP2007 said:
Amen 1000 times Amen. I cant stand non HC in almost all games. Needing two mags to kill someone in MW annoyed me so much id quit out right away. And HC BC2 was crap as well. I do miss certain things in HC mode tho, having the map is nice and some other HUD things.
But i totally agree, the Alpha of BF3 which i assume is non HC definitely seems playable. Granted i had some issues with certain things (to many shots to kill when using sniper rifle) but those could be ironed out in Beta/Final version. If not, theres always HC mode which i can only imagine will be quite close to a FPS simulator (ARMA2) considering how close to real non HC BF3 in the alpha was.
Click to expand...

You needed two magazines to kill someone in modern warfare? I can only assume you somehow missed 99% of your shots as stock in mw you dropped pretty fast.
 
I used to play HC exclusively in bc2, then I tried normal and liked it more. Honestly I think it keeps the game more fun.
 
I personally prefer the HC mode in BC2 as I hate having to pump tons of rounds into someone to kill them. Really though, gameplay modes are a personal choice.
 
jifffy said:
If you want to protest that HC is better then I'm willing to argue against that theory.

Using Black Ops as an example. HC mode in BO's is just too easy for a game. I enjoy a game to be somewhat realistic, but it is a game and the game play is important too. In HC mode you can kill three to five people with one clip. It forces people to sit still and "camp" more often because they are afraid of dying. The game play dynamics of most FPS games are just not well suited for HC. Capture the flag is rendered virtually useless if everyone sits around the whole map.

I can agree that in some games the regular mode takes too many shots, but requiring 1 shot or maybe 2 makes attaining goals or capturing points very difficult and not fun for the team.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Was gonna type out a long post as a response.. but figured it wasnt worth it.. just gonna say this

COD series =/= BF series They are nothing alike, 2 totally different games..

Hardcore in BFBC2 is almost perfect (emphasis on ALMOST), hardcore in COD blops, way off.. I also understand its personally opinion, but.....
 
Last edited:
It most certainly is opinion and personal preference, which is why games should include both modes so you cater to each group instead of excluding one or the other.

I play HC in black ops exclusively and no one camps anymore than in normal mode (at least on the servers I play on). I enjoy games that take 3 shots to the chest or 1 to the head to incapacitate someone, it feels more realistic and more like counter-strike which is what I grew up on.
 
I don't get these player number limits any more. I get that they're about game play and resources, but why hard-limit? The players/serverops should get to decide. In the end, they're actually the ones who can make a meaningful determination. Someone want to try --maxplayers 256, just let them.
 
randomhero58 said:
No big deal to me as long as Conquest/Rush allow 64 players. Although I suppose rush would be quite hectic with 64 players. :p
Click to expand...

Rush will be limited to 32 players and no jets. A jet would level an mcom in no time, and 64 player rush would never work. I'm not sure why they only have 24 player for tdm, but the maps are supposed to be very cqb, with infantry only so it might be fun. I'll be playing traditional 64 player CQ myself, with some co-op on the side. This game will be awesome, it will have something for everyone.
 
Liqq said:
Rush will be limited to 32 players and no jets. A jet would level an mcom in no time, and 64 player rush would never work. I'm not sure why they only have 24 player for tdm, but the maps are supposed to be very cqb, with infantry only so it might be fun. I'll be playing traditional 64 player CQ myself, with some co-op on the side. This game will be awesome, it will have something for everyone.
Click to expand...

I trust that they (DICE) are being smart with all the limitations and differences of types of multi and map sizes/types. If a map is CQB and its TDM, having more than infantry (support for example) would ruin it, imagine the camping, idiots lay down in a close quarters hallway and spray with their SAW and rack up the kills. Or having more than 24 players (for example 64) and it would be a crap chute, laying down and spraying in hall ways or just down a street, getting kill after kill just camping and spraying. And those are just 2 examples, so i trust that DICE has worked out whats best for what map and game type.
 
NathanP2007 said:
I trust that they (DICE) are being smart with all the limitations and differences of types of multi and map sizes/types. If a map is CQB and its TDM, having more than infantry (support for example) would ruin it, imagine the camping, idiots lay down in a close quarters hallway and spray with their SAW and rack up the kills. Or having more than 24 players (for example 64) and it would be a crap chute, laying down and spraying in hall ways or just down a street, getting kill after kill just camping and spraying. And those are just 2 examples, so i trust that DICE has worked out whats best for what map and game type.
Click to expand...

yeah but if you dont want that game experience you can leave and find another server that has the rules you want
 
Liqq said:
Rush will be limited to 32 players and no jets. A jet would level an mcom in no time, and 64 player rush would never work. I'm not sure why they only have 24 player for tdm, but the maps are supposed to be very cqb, with infantry only so it might be fun. I'll be playing traditional 64 player CQ myself, with some co-op on the side. This game will be awesome, it will have something for everyone.
Click to expand...

Ah, surprised I didn't know that about rush already. :eek: :p
 
I guess servers can't run different gametypes then, because if you're on Conquest-64 then switch to Rush it'd kick 32 players :)
 
eloj said:
I don't get these player number limits any more. I get that they're about game play and resources, but why hard-limit? The players/serverops should get to decide. In the end, they're actually the ones who can make a meaningful determination. Someone want to try --maxplayers 256, just let them.
Click to expand...

Demize99 said they tried 64 rush and it was simply unfun, 32 vs 32 all swarming one single point was dumb.
 
I'm in support of letting players decide what sizes the teams should be, some maps become too hectic with 64 player or 128 but so what? Some people like that and who are other people to decide if we get to play like that or not, it's an arbitrary limit that needs to go.

For newbs that do know any different just do what valve does and simply give a player a warning that they're joining a larger than advisable server and inform the player that gameplay might not be balanced (which you can then turn off so it doesn't get annoying)
 
Liqq said:
Rush will be limited to 32 players and no jets. A jet would level an mcom in no time, and 64 player rush would never work. I'm not sure why they only have 24 player for tdm, but the maps are supposed to be very cqb, with infantry only so it might be fun. I'll be playing traditional 64 player CQ myself, with some co-op on the side. This game will be awesome, it will have something for everyone.
Click to expand...

For TDM, I read they are using the close quarter sections of other maps. Going to guess the subway section and the final section of Metro would be ones that they would look at as TDM style maps.
 
himmy said:
It isn't one person. They, as in DICE, tried it and ruled it out.
Click to expand...

Yup, its funny when people mention the name "demize" its like he's the be all end all of the series, in reality he does the weapons balancing mainly. He seems to have some status like the buck stops with him on forums though. :confused:
 
WorldExclusive said:
It would be inexcusable of DICE to allow and unbalanced gameplay mode.
Click to expand...

Valve said 24 was the max number of players for TF2 servers to have fun and balanced gameplay, but they didn't limit your choice of having a 32-player server. Same should apply here.
 
Has anyone heard any details about the beta release date? (other than "September")
 
Gamescon Impressions:

http://bf3blog.com/2011/08/bf3blogs-gamescom-battlefield-3-impressions/

Jets don’t feel slow at all, feel about the same speed as in BF2. Jets aren’t hard to control either — if you played BF2 and operated a jet with mouse and keyboard, BF3 is just as easy.

Controls and movement felt a lot like Battlefield 2, it definitely didn’t feel like a “Bad Company 3″ game by any means.

The game just felt like a proper sequel to Battlefield 2. I played Bad Company 2 the night before, and BF3 is totally different. There’s an atmosphere and feeling of war and combat that was in BF2 and something BC2 couldn’t replicate.

Weapons felt more realistic than Bad Company 2. They’re less “violent”, with less muzzle flash. They felt, sounded and handled realistically (BC2 weapons are almost cartoonish by comparison).

It felt full of BF2 nostalgia when, as soon as I spawned, I could see and hear jets dog fighting in the sky above, see tanks blowing up far into the distance, see teammates running around me towards a flag… Just those 5 seconds made me feel what I felt when I played the BF2 demo for the first time in 2005. Just “wow”.
Click to expand...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snowknight26 said:
Valve said 24 was the max number of players for TF2 servers to have fun and balanced gameplay, but they didn't limit your choice of having a 32-player server. Same should apply here.
Click to expand...
On the server side, that's a different argument. I really don't know how the community would ask to get that changed.
Maybe the server owners should call up EA/DICE.
 
The jets seem to be getting the most drama over their speed, dice have stated that theyre actually slightly faster than they were in BF2, but opinions on that are varying a lot with people playing.
 
I got to say, gamescom footage has been seriously lacking. Was really hoping for a lot of videos, even of shacky cam off screen, on the conquest gameplay like they did at E3.
 
himmy said:
I got to say, gamescom footage has been seriously lacking. Was really hoping for a lot of videos, even of shacky cam off screen, on the conquest gameplay like they did at E3.
Click to expand...

Apparently theyre not allowing it for some fucked up reason, but its ok for nvidia to prance in and record right in front of the monitors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiCNdEYCtgs&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUyIIIKta44&feature=player_embedded

Don't understand why theyre suddenly being so anal about people recording videos. :confused:
 
WorldExclusive said:
DICE Annouces Commander Mode for PC


http://www.gamebandits.com/news/pc/battlefield-3-commander-mode-to-reprise-in-pc-version-12944/

@cukoodukoo Happy now?

And to all the haters, if you still hatin' on this game now, it's probably because you can't run it or pride is getting in your way.
Both reasons are laughable to me.
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure they fucked that up, they actually say "Comm roles" which to me says "Comm rose". Theres certainly nothing on the devs twitter about it.
 
Chris_B said:
Im pretty sure they fucked that up, they actually say "Comm roles" which to me says "Comm rose". Theres certainly nothing on the devs twitter about it.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. I think they misquoted him. It doesn't make sense to say "the comm roles" if you're talking about ONE commander. Unless there are multiple commanders? Which doesn't make sense. I smell a mistake! :)
 
Chris_B said:
Im pretty sure they fucked that up, they actually say "Comm roles" which to me says "Comm rose". Theres certainly nothing on the devs twitter about it.
Click to expand...

WhyYouLoveMe said:
I think you're right. I think they misquoted him. It doesn't make sense to say "the comm roles" if you're talking about ONE commander. Unless there are multiple commanders? Which doesn't make sense. I smell a mistake! :)
Click to expand...

It was a mistake, that's confirmed. Looks like DICE is still opposed to it.
Doesn't really matter to me though, I think squad leaders can will a team to victory better than a commander can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top