Battlefield 3 General Discussion Thread

I hope it somehow becomes more teamwork oriented with the addition of squad command features and commo rose. I only really see teamwork when I manage to get in a squad with someone i know who i'm also in a teamspeak server with. Otherwise it's a bit like Quake deathmatch.
 
I don't know why they removed the contextual communication using the "spot" that was present in BC2. I kept chasing tanks around trying to repair, was pretty hilarious.

On another point, I don't like the huge drop in sensitivity (unless its a bug for me) when using the mounted HMGs.
 
limitedaccess said:
I don't know why they removed the contextual communication using the "spot" that was present in BC2. I kept chasing tanks around trying to repair, was pretty hilarious.

On another point, I don't like the huge drop in sensitivity (unless its a bug for me) when using the mounted HMGs.
Click to expand...

They didn't remove it, it's just broken. Plus, comma rose will hopefully be in the final version. I've actually heard it work once or twice.
 
Haiku214 said:
Yes that's about right. If you want to enable AA even at just 2X you need SLI/Crossfire. I would say 6950 Crossfire the minimum. The fastest single GPU ATM (gtx 580) can only even output 45 fps average at 1920x1080 Ultra settings and everything else on.

http://www.techspot.com/review/448-battlefield-3-beta-performance/page3.html
Click to expand...

Wrong. I've got a single 570 and at 1920x1080 I get at least 40 FPS average with Ultra settings, which includes 4xAA.

Will it run that well in the final? Maybe not. But in the beta it does.

This is on Caspian Border with a full server btw.
 
The game has some serious balance issues, very few people (I know of) actually enjoy playing it.

The 64-player conquest has epic scale and graphically appealing. But it's just not fun any more. The game actually encourages people camp, because that is the only way to get hundreds of kills. You can argue it is more realistic, but who enjoy staying at one spot for half an hour?

Well, you can run like COD players, but it will only get you killed sooner. I don't want to say this game is bad. It is just too hardcore for general audience. The weapon learning curve hasn't helped much either.

This game reminds me so much about Killzone 2, enormous hype, great fan support, giant pre-order number, and epic sale fail. Sony has some marketing problems with that game, they tried to market it to CS gamers. You all know how elite PC gamers react to games that wasn't made the way they wanted, right? So they are huge bitching on the internet.

As far as I can see, BF3 has similar scale of bitching, from both console and PC gamers, so I humbly predict, the game will not sell.
 
I humbly predict, the game will sell.

Very few people (I know of) actually do not enjoy playing it.
 
larkin said:
I hope it somehow becomes more teamwork oriented with the addition of squad command features and commo rose. I only really see teamwork when I manage to get in a squad with someone i know who i'm also in a teamspeak server with. Otherwise it's a bit like Quake deathmatch.
Click to expand...

I like working on squads who "GOES" for objectives/flags :)

Too many people do their own thing. I use the EXPL squad perk, really good swatting them pesky heli and jets :cool:
 
Last edited:
owenhehe said:
The 64-player conquest has epic scale and graphically appealing. But it's just not fun any more. The game actually encourages people camp, because that is the only way to get hundreds of kills. You can argue it is more realistic, but who enjoy staying at one spot for half an hour?
Click to expand...

Except it isn't deathmatch, so who cares about hundreds of kills besides people who want to camp anyway - BF3 is about objectives (at least for true BF players, not COD carryovers). Hotfoot it over to the contested flags and you'll get plenty of kills - and have a lot more fun to boot.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Rush will be on all maps, so you'll probably enjoy that more.
Click to expand...

I played Caspian Rush too, on some German server. Seemed quite good, if a bit laggy.

Is it me or does BF3 feel a lot more like BC2 than BF2?
 
Last edited:
shawnoen said:
Got my 1st "glitches" today after playing on and off all week.

Had the "great ready" message on the screen the whole round until I died.

Then suddenly I couldn't use my right mouse button to zoom in with scope.

Then the screen started flashing sometimes green and sometimes orange for no reason.

Was disconnected from the server once too for no reason...
Click to expand...

This has been happening from day 1 for me. I've got used to it.

There is another one - when I spawn the screen is black and white
 
Last edited:
My last round just ended. I had a blast over the last two weeks. I will be playing BF3 for many months to come.
Shame others couldn't enjoy a "beta" for what it was.

spicey said:
Is it me or does BF3 feel a lot more like BC2 than BF2?
Click to expand...

It's you. Sorry to put it bluntly. If you come in thinking you're going to leave off from where you started in BF2, then you'll get disappointed.
They took the best from BF2 and the Best from BC2 and made BF3. Everyone can enjoy the game rather than catering to the purist BF2 crowd.
 
Last game for me was Caspian and I enjoyed the Beta, bugs and all. Yes most of the bugs were annoying, but I was expecting that being a beta. Cannot wait until October 25th. Look forward to killing more [H]'ers on the battlefield.
 
owenhehe said:
The game has some serious balance issues, very few people (I know of) actually enjoy playing it.

The 64-player conquest has epic scale and graphically appealing. But it's just not fun any more. The game actually encourages people camp, because that is the only way to get hundreds of kills. You can argue it is more realistic, but who enjoy staying at one spot for half an hour?

Well, you can run like COD players, but it will only get you killed sooner. I don't want to say this game is bad. It is just too hardcore for general audience. The weapon learning curve hasn't helped much either.

This game reminds me so much about Killzone 2, enormous hype, great fan support, giant pre-order number, and epic sale fail. Sony has some marketing problems with that game, they tried to market it to CS gamers. You all know how elite PC gamers react to games that wasn't made the way they wanted, right? So they are huge bitching on the internet.

As far as I can see, BF3 has similar scale of bitching, from both console and PC gamers, so I humbly predict, the game will not sell.
Click to expand...

D8Gtg.jpg
 
WorldExclusive said:
It's you. Sorry to put it bluntly. If you come in thinking you're going to leave off from where you started in BF2, then you'll get disappointed.
They took the best from BF2 and the Best from BC2 and made BF3. Everyone can enjoy the game rather than catering to the purist BF2 crowd.
Click to expand...

Sure a mix of both, I see that.

Far from a purist I've enjoyed both games equally. To me BC2 and BF3 feel very similar in play due to both using Frostbite iterations
 
spicey said:
Sure a mix of both, I see that.

Far from a purist I've enjoyed both games equally. To me BC2 and BF3 feel very similar in play due to both using Frostbite iterations
Click to expand...

You do realize BC2 and BF3 use a different engine right?
 
DASHlT said:
They are not, Cant remember what the BF3 engine is called. It was posted in this thread somewhere
Click to expand...

Huh? BF3 is the Frostbite 2 engine which is simply the latest iteration of the Frostbite engine. Frostbite 1.0 was used for BC, Frostbite 1.5 was used for BC2 and Frostbite 2.0 is being used for BF3.

There's a good reason why the game feels more like BC2 than BF2, it's really just the better parts of both games, IMO.
 
Vega said:
Being a military pilot, in real life if I heard 1/10th of the nonsense that goes on with mind-numbing radio chatter like in BF3 I would lose it.

Also, I love how civilians think war is so clear cut. They don't call it the "fog of war" for nothing. In war, there has always been fratricide and there always will be.
Click to expand...

Agreed, having been Marine Corps infantry, this kind of radio chatter would piss off everyone involved and you'd have the chain of command breathing down your neck in no time. On personal comms you might have a comment like....once or twice in an entire operation...Radio comms is WAY too important to be flooding it with nonsense like this...keep in mind, only one person can talk at a time.

And to whoever said give 20 year old men some guns and see what happens, these are not the 20 year old men that you see in your every day life....they've got a shit ton more discipline then the average young adult.

The chatter is funny but overdone...gets old fast and is just background noise now.
 
I played Caspian Border last night, and I think there were around 56 people in the match. I played for around 45 minutes and had 1 kill and 5 deaths. I ran around and couldn't find any enemies. Out of 28 people on the other team?? Hell forget my kills; I should have had about 20 deaths in that amount of time with that many people.

I've seen at least one other complaint about this, but why don't they make it clearer who's on the same team? I was shooting at every body cause when someone runs up on you it's too hard to tell who's who. Put a colored marker over somebody or something. I'm all for realism but I don't think that's asking too much to be able to distinguish teams a little clearer.
 
htpc_user said:
I played Caspian Border last night, and I think there were around 56 people in the match. I played for around 45 minutes and had 1 kill and 5 deaths. I ran around and couldn't find any enemies. Out of 28 people on the other team?? Hell forget my kills; I should have had about 20 deaths in that amount of time with that many people.

I've seen at least one other complaint about this, but why don't they make it clearer who's on the same team? I was shooting at every body cause when someone runs up on you it's too hard to tell who's who. Put a colored marker over somebody or something. I'm all for realism but I don't think that's asking too much to be able to distinguish teams a little clearer.
Click to expand...

I said the same about Caspian, too much dead ground too much running about with no one to shoot. The map is too big even with 64 players. Rush is probably going to be more fun for us.

I'm a bit crap a spotting who is who also. There is a coloured marker above the soldier's head but sometimes it's hard to see. The enemy will always be red

At the end of the Beta I ended up with a KDR or 1.5 much lower than my recent BC2 soldier with a KDR of 1.92, it would seem BF3 is harder to master.
 
Regarding radio chatter, remember guys it's a game not real life. Sure we like realism in our shooters, but it's entertainment at the end of the day. People take things way too seriously on here, it's amusing how wound up some people get over small things!

All we need now is someone to come on and talk about how a guns characteristics are all wrong in the ninth degree :eek:
 
htpc_user said:
I played Caspian Border last night, and I think there were around 56 people in the match. I played for around 45 minutes and had 1 kill and 5 deaths. I ran around and couldn't find any enemies. Out of 28 people on the other team?? Hell forget my kills; I should have had about 20 deaths in that amount of time with that many people.

I've seen at least one other complaint about this, but why don't they make it clearer who's on the same team? I was shooting at every body cause when someone runs up on you it's too hard to tell who's who. Put a colored marker over somebody or something. I'm all for realism but I don't think that's asking too much to be able to distinguish teams a little clearer.
Click to expand...

IMHO, I think that's what makes both rush and conquest different game with its own attraction.

Rush is more of a combat game mode. If you want to grind exp points to level up your character, to unlock personal weapons and weapon attachment, this is the mode to do it.

Conquest is more BF2 like. Its about achieving your objective, how your team work together to defend and attack those points. And most fighting are done with vehicles. Its not about killing as many opponents to unlock weapons and attachments, its about the conquest game itself.

I do agree that spotting team mate is a bitch.
 
I actually have a higher kdr in BF3 than BC2, 1.9x versus 1.7x. And that's with a bunch of rush mode for BF3 that I usually never play because I'm terrible at it and/or it's no fun. For BF3 conquest, you just have to try to take the enemy flags constantly, or else strategically guard flag points your team owns that the enemy tends to try to take. Usually I end up staying around checkpoint/hilltop and see a bunch of action.

spicey said:
I said the same about Caspian, too much dead ground too much running about with no one to shoot. The map is too big even with 64 players. Rush is probably going to be more fun for us.

I'm a bit crap a spotting who is who also. There is a coloured marker above the soldier's head but sometimes it's hard to see. The enemy will always be red

At the end of the Beta I ended up with a KDR or 1.5 much lower than my recent BC2 soldier with a KDR of 1.92, it would seem BF3 is harder to master.
Click to expand...
 
Conquest is all about the flags, if you want combat then get in to vehicles, haul ass to a point and take it, rinse and repeat until you've either won or run into the enemy zerg.

Remember that if your enemy is being passive and not really taking flags then you'll eventually focus their spawn down in to one area and then they'll have no choice but to confront you.

There has always been loads of dead ground in conquest, you need quickly bundle across it on vehicles, and get to the points and cap them.
 
spicey said:
I said the same about Caspian, too much dead ground too much running about with no one to shoot. The map is too big even with 64 players. Rush is probably going to be more fun for us.
Click to expand...

This cracks me up...This is exacly how BF2 played out! There were pinch points with great battles but you could take other flags and hear crickets at the same time. It's exactly what I expected out of BF3.
 
spicey said:
Regarding radio chatter, remember guys it's a game not real life. Sure we like realism in our shooters, but it's entertainment at the end of the day. People take things way too seriously on here, it's amusing how wound up some people get over small things!

All we need now is someone to come on and talk about how a guns characteristics are all wrong in the ninth degree :eek:
Click to expand...

I think it would be a shitload more enjoyable with decent radio discipline. I would rather hear a tense tank spotted than omg he just blew a huge fuckin hole in the ground!


More immersion. IMO.:p
 
JD03Cobra said:
This cracks me up...This is exacly how BF2 played out! There were pinch points with great battles but you could take other flags and hear crickets at the same time. It's exactly what I expected out of BF3.
Click to expand...


Same here. Caspian Border plays and feels just like BF2 to me. I'm glad they kept the gameplay true (at least with the Conquest mode) to the Battlefield series. I personally enjoy the slower pace of action, that's what drew me to Battlefield 1942 many moons ago and it's why I put well over 1,000 hours into BF2. I'm really happy with how Caspian Border came out, bugs and all.
 
JD03Cobra said:
This cracks me up...This is exacly how BF2 played out! There were pinch points with great battles but you could take other flags and hear crickets at the same time. It's exactly what I expected out of BF3.
Click to expand...

I don't want to hear crickets I want to hear my gun exploding into action. Yeah, similar to BF2 but somehow it's not. Can't place my finger on it
 
MavericK96 said:
Wrong. I've got a single 570 and at 1920x1080 I get at least 40 FPS average with Ultra settings, which includes 4xAA.

Will it run that well in the final? Maybe not. But in the beta it does.

This is on Caspian Border with a full server btw.
Click to expand...

Your 570 is getting 40 FPS. I said a 580 is getting 45 FPS. So what's wrong about that? The reason why I am saying that a single GPU is not enough is because I was aiming for 50 FPS average for a smooth gameplay.
 
I never really played BF2, I think that's when my Eve Online addiction was in full force, but I was a huge fan of BF1942, and after playing the alpha, and now the beta of BF3 I can't wait for it's release and HATE that I have to wait two more weeks (and also hate the fact that I have to start unlocking everything for the third time. lol!)

I'm not the best player and my kdr was only about 1.1 during the beta, although my best match was last night when I went 48:4 (it had to be lag related or something because while I'm not horrid, I'm not that good.)

My only gripes, other then a few minor bugs, the range on the SMGs and shotties seems way to far, squad MGs should slow down their users. Also squad size should be increased and you should be able to tag other players as snipers and force them into their "sniper squad" as squad spawn in worthless when the other 3 guys in your squad are all camping the spawnpoint and sniping, and of course the other squads are full.
 
I could swear when I was playing last night there were no indicators for teams. I shot one of my guys right in the face several times because he came up behind me and there was no blue indicator over him.

I know Battlefield is about using vehicles, but I've just never cared about using them in a game. I used to play Star Wars Battlefront, and I never got into any ship or anything. I like shooting people, not planes or tanks. I just like the strategy of maneuviring my character around and trying not to get killed.
 
I just tried going back and playing BC2 Conquest.

Man it sucks.

Anyone know how to get rid of the BF3 Alpha and Beta items in Origin?
 
Played the Beta at a four-man LAN this weekend. Outside of the crappy party join feature, we had an absolute blast playing Caspian. All four of us managed to get into a squad a few times and ran train. :)
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
My only gripes, other then a few minor bugs, the range on the SMGs and shotties seems way to far, squad MGs should slow down their users. Also squad size should be increased and you should be able to tag other players as snipers and force them into their "sniper squad" as squad spawn in worthless when the other 3 guys in your squad are all camping the spawnpoint and sniping, and of course the other squads are full.
Click to expand...

The actual problem is that stray bullet damage is lethal even from a distance.Also there is no reason to choose an ASR over a SMG since the UMP-45 just dominates in every way possible (short, medium, long). Don't even get me started with players one shotting with shotguns with a scope :eek: (from a distance). IMHO, there should be restrictions on scopes for certain kits.
 
Sixthsense said:
The actual problem is that stray bullet damage is lethal even from a distance.Also there is no reason to choose an ASR over a SMG since the UMP-45 just dominates in every way possible (short, medium, long). Don't even get me started with players one shotting with shotguns with a scope :eek: (from a distance). IMHO, there should be restrictions on scopes for certain kits.
Click to expand...

Well I don't have issues with stray bullets but when I can take out a sniper from over 100 years away with a SMG then something is seriously wrong.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
There has always been loads of dead ground in conquest, you need quickly bundle across it on vehicles, and get to the points and cap them.
Click to expand...

This is true, but I always seem to end up on a team where my teammates take the jeeps and speed away alone while leaving the rest of us in the spawn.... so now we have to try and run 5 miles to help out.....:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top