In all honesty I would still rather have a Battlelog/browser built into the game and maybe have the website version of Battlelog, just to check stats and loadouts, as an option instead of a requirement.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Battlefield 3 General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Oldie
- Start date
In all honesty I would still rather have a Battlelog/browser built into the game and maybe have the website version of Battlelog, just to check stats and loadouts, as an option instead of a requirement.
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
In all honesty I would still rather have a Battlelog/browser built into the game and maybe have the website version of Battlelog, just to check stats and loadouts, as an option instead of a requirement.
Ditto, still not a fan of battlelog.
Ironchef Chris Wok
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 178
Battlelog is actually functional, it's so far down the list of things I bitch about
Hit detection(sometimes it works great, other times its like im on 56k)
Terrible spawn system
Unable to revive people
My top three things I hate about the game. I actually like Battlelog.
Ya know...you should subscribe to a month of dialup just to see if you remember how "well" it works, lol.
Actually, [H]ardOCP and Kyle should do an article centered around 56k gaming in the modern day....call it, time traveling with my gaming rig, lol.
collegeboy69us
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
- Messages
- 5,255
Battlelog is pretty cool I think - it's not revolutionary, but it's functional.
With some of the issues that still plague the game, it's one saving grace at least in terms of finding the server you want quickly and easily.
Every now and then I get a failure to join, or a crash on startup, just imagine how much rage there would be if you had to start the game EVERY time just to look for servers. I like knowing I can have everything in it's own protected memory space in Chrome. Game crashes on loading? no big deal, the server is already selected and ready for a re-try with a single click.
Fix the netcode is my biggest complaint.
With some of the issues that still plague the game, it's one saving grace at least in terms of finding the server you want quickly and easily.
Every now and then I get a failure to join, or a crash on startup, just imagine how much rage there would be if you had to start the game EVERY time just to look for servers. I like knowing I can have everything in it's own protected memory space in Chrome. Game crashes on loading? no big deal, the server is already selected and ready for a re-try with a single click.
Fix the netcode is my biggest complaint.
In all honesty I would still rather have a Battlelog/browser built into the game and maybe have the website version of Battlelog, just to check stats and loadouts, as an option instead of a requirement.
what do you really think that would get you? BF3 takes seconds to go from checking with origin to loading the game
are you just stuck in an old school mindset of 'thats how it should work'?
Yep. The only sound you hear is from when people jump. It has basically frustrated me into not playing the small squad maps my friends and I prefer. I posted about this before but to me the game is seriously broken in this regard. Going back to CS 1.6 or CSS from BF3 is like watching that video where the girl gets her cochlear ear implant turned on.
The game just behaves poorly once you get a certain amount of people and vehicles going. On a map with jets, you can't hear infantry for shit. So without a squad on voice, it is best to just be in a vehicle yourself bc you are going to get raped. I rely so much on my ears as infantry that it is kind of like changing the furniture on a blind person. I get all out of sorts.
Maplehamwich
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,539
Yeah, that's why I don't play much anymore. My audio cuts out randomly and only re-appears with an application restart. Makes the game unplayable.
Stayfr0sty
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 708
BF3=8.5
BF2=10
BFBC2=9
BF2=10
BFBC2=9
I wholeheartedly agree.
I don't know what you guys are doing wrong but I hear footsteps and movement fine. Unless there is a Jey/Copter battle right above me, I have no problem hearing people if I remember to pay attention to that kinda stuff.
I don't know what you are doing wrong but I revive people fine and my clan mates don't have any problems either.
I'm thinking that's the underlying issue for a lot of people. Though one simple fix I can't believe they havent done yet is to make the History tab on the server broswer show time/date stamps of when you played and also the ability to clear your history.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 17,011
It is just very laggy for a game UI or webpage. That is my main complaint.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Hard to say if you don't like them because they haven't been released yet or even had the contents decided!
But, if you aren't going to like the other packs, getting a single would be cheaper. So it's a gamble.
Med kits/ammo kits on body(shoot the kit...noob why you be killing my ammo!)
Bad angles(try try again)
Bushes(roll the dice, might work but will die trying)
I was not saying I could not revive at all lol. Have almost 8000. PTFO ftw.
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Not this chest nut again. Last time I timed it, loading BF3 via battlelog was no faster than booting up BC2 and joining a game via the server list....except that it actually took longer to reload assets each time you changed servers. And if you havent got Origin loaded, it does not take mere seconds for it to boot and authenticate.
But that's besides the point, what people were asking for was the option of having an in-game browser, not for it to be adopted in substitution of a web based battlelog. There is no reason why DICE couldn't have implemented both, except for the fact that they were rushing the game out to market because of a misguided goal of wanting to release before MW3
Possibly a more streamlined experience. Why change what's not broke?
Not this chest nut again. Last time I timed it, loading BF3 via battlelog was no faster than booting up BC2 and joining a game via the server list....except that it actually took longer to reload assets each time you changed servers. And if you havent got Origin loaded, it does not take mere seconds for it to boot and authenticate.
But that's besides the point, what people were asking for was the option of having an in-game browser, not for it to be adopted in substitution of a web based battlelog. There is no reason why DICE couldn't have implemented both, except for the fact that they were rushing the game out to market because of a misguided goal of wanting to release before MW3
thats retarded. why would do the same thing twice? thats pretty much always a bad idea......talk about a waste of resources, unless you want an identical browser both places, its still stupid because they are different environments and stiull require double the errorchecking
as for origin loading, you are simply moving that time not eliminating it, because thats going to happen no matter what.
maybe its because I do other things besides playing bf3, but I find it much easier to hop into a game when I have a free half hour or whatever
not to mention that I havent used an in game browser that came very close to being as user friendly as BL
i dunno, battlelog is pretty streamlined more so that most ingame server lists you dont have to load the game up to find a server or join off a friend just open the web browser and click play to get in the server you want.
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Yes, Valve is so retarded for incorporating a server browser in-game and one in steam for all their games.....what would they know, multibillion dollar idiots
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 17,011
I really wish this game had mod support. Throw in some free aim, remove bunny hopping, and make the weapons do some damage and it would be so much better.
Gee, you too ? Same here... Fukin EA...
I either get Origin that crashes when I try to load a game, "joining soldier" or "joining game" that just hangs forever, or bf3 just flat out freezes while playing...I have to ctrl/alt/del and force closed bf3, origin, and aurora....I hate EA!!!!!
Yes, Valve is so retarded for incorporating a server browser in-game and one in steam for all their games.....what would they know, multibillion dollar idiots
ah yes the company who has 1 real game, and the rest of constant remakes of the same content migrating to their updated engine
they also spend tons of time and money making hats for TF2, so lets not use them as a great example of time well spent
do you let your computer sleep/hibernate? if mine goes to sleep origin sometimes has to be closed/reopened to get it working again
Last edited:
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
ah yes the company who has 1 real game, and the rest of constant remakes of the same content migrating to their updated engine
they also spend tons of time and money making hats for TF2, so lets not use them as a great example of time well spent
You should probably lay off the kool aid, because there are legions of people who would disagree with your characterisation of Valve's portfolio of games. And that is irrespective of the fact that making both an internal and external web browser is obviously not as retarded and farfetched as you would like to believe.
Lets not also forget that many non-Valve games which are integrated with steam works also take advantage of steam's integrated server browser......e.g. AvP, America's Army 3, Killing Floor, all the Serious Sam games, various mods, etc.
ah yes the company who has 1 real game, and the rest of constant remakes of the same content migrating to their updated engine
they also spend tons of time and money making hats for TF2, so lets not use them as a great example of time well spent
Hehe, some people worship the ground Valve walks on. Granted, they brought us a spectacular franchise with Half-life but as you said, they haven't done a whole lot. I would consider Rock Star to be a more successful game dev. company than Valve but Valve has probably done more for PC gaming than any other game dev or publisher has. I still have game's available to me through Steam that I would have long trashed or lost if I had a physical disk...its a dream come true for the closet nerd
Back to BF3 though, why would you spend twice the resources to duplicate something inside and out of the game, it doesn't make logical sense. Especially since they would both most likely require different coding, creating two seperate teams of workers, inconsistant patching methods, potential issues of patching a problem with one that causes a problem between the both working properly, and let's not forget that the out of game browser would require some sort of interoperability with the ingame browser for the connection handoff once the game was created. Just WAY too much more to deal with and ultimately, we as gamers, would suffer and people that complain about wanting an ingame and out of game browser would be the one's bitching about having just a single browser.
In the end, its about progress. Look at the MMO genre, most of them are evolving into a F2P (most, not all...yet) to keep up with the ever changing dynamic of their niche. Gaming is the same way across the board, just in different ways. Imagine with we still had game interfaces like Doom or Duke Nukem 3D...imagine if no one had tried new things with that. We'd still have a bar taking up a bottom tenth or so of the screen with all weapons and their ammo amounts listed, a giant health indicator, or was it a facial indicator of the character's health...can't remember.
Regardless, gaming like most things, is going to change and I think Battlelog is actually a pretty good change overall. Was it perfect immediately through the gate, no. Is it perfect now, no. But it can be changed and altered in any way DICE likes any number of times it wants to without us as consumers having to do anything except hit the F5 key (unless of course they change the plugin). Give them enough time and CONSTRUCTIVE feedback and hopefully, if they're listening, we'll get something we can all enjoy more then the limited ingame browsers of ye olde times.
They still need to allow at least a limited amount of modding to fix the fucking hit reg, being able to spectate and other various changes so that at least for competition the game is viable. So saddened by the demise of competition in this genre.
Nope...I have all power settings to performance. No sleep, no hibernate, etc...
It freezes and/or crashes while I'm doing stuff and/or gaming.
(illing floor is a source mod isnt it?), Ive never played any of those others so I wouldnt know, but you are correct, a small # out of thousands mean its not far fetched
who is drinking what kool-aid? not replicating work is generally considered a best practice?
Hehe, some people worship the ground Valve walks on. Granted, they brought us a spectacular franchise with Half-life but as you said, they haven't done a whole lot. I would consider Rock Star to be a more successful game dev. company than Valve but Valve has probably done more for PC gaming than any other game dev or publisher has. I still have game's available to me through Steam that I would have long trashed or lost if I had a physical disk...its a dream come true for the closet nerd
Back to BF3 though, why would you spend twice the resources to duplicate something inside and out of the game, it doesn't make logical sense. Especially since they would both most likely require different coding, creating two seperate teams of workers, inconsistant patching methods, potential issues of patching a problem with one that causes a problem between the both working properly, and let's not forget that the out of game browser would require some sort of interoperability with the ingame browser for the connection handoff once the game was created. Just WAY too much more to deal with and ultimately, we as gamers, would suffer and people that complain about wanting an ingame and out of game browser would be the one's bitching about having just a single browser.
In the end, its about progress. Look at the MMO genre, most of them are evolving into a F2P (most, not all...yet) to keep up with the ever changing dynamic of their niche. Gaming is the same way across the board, just in different ways. Imagine with we still had game interfaces like Doom or Duke Nukem 3D...imagine if no one had tried new things with that. We'd still have a bar taking up a bottom tenth or so of the screen with all weapons and their ammo amounts listed, a giant health indicator, or was it a facial indicator of the character's health...can't remember.
Regardless, gaming like most things, is going to change and I think Battlelog is actually a pretty good change overall. Was it perfect immediately through the gate, no. Is it perfect now, no. But it can be changed and altered in any way DICE likes any number of times it wants to without us as consumers having to do anything except hit the F5 key (unless of course they change the plugin). Give them enough time and CONSTRUCTIVE feedback and hopefully, if they're listening, we'll get something we can all enjoy more then the limited ingame browsers of ye olde times.
this
Having an ingame browser and non-ingame browser is not that hard. Most coding bases have a browser base built-in that ties directly into the OS browser (IE in this case) for its browsing. Just like you can easily drop a browser window into an Android app or a windows script. It's already there.
It's actually more resource intensive to code for an out of game browser-based system because you to test against so many versions/programs (Chrome, FireFox, IE, etc.) and setups. Every one may display differently, something that an ingame browser does not deal with because it only needs to be coded for that one particular program.
Last edited:
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Not to mention that a browser has already been coded for the console versions.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Killing floor was a UT mod, and is UE 2.5 (I think, maybe 2.0). But it uses steam for something...
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Thousands? I think that kool-aid is making you vulnerable to hyperbole.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 17,011
It was a UT 2004 mod, turned into retail game. Like RO1.
Not this chest nut again. Last time I timed it, loading BF3 via battlelog was no faster than booting up BC2 and joining a game via the server list....except that it actually took longer to reload assets each time you changed servers. And if you havent got Origin loaded, it does not take mere seconds for it to boot and authenticate.
But that's besides the point, what people were asking for was the option of having an in-game browser, not for it to be adopted in substitution of a web based battlelog. There is no reason why DICE couldn't have implemented both, except for the fact that they were rushing the game out to market because of a misguided goal of wanting to release before MW3
I don't get it.
I have a browser open about 99.91587% of the time my computer is running. All I had to do was click a new tab, open Battlelog, and click a server. Then I'd just go look at another tab and it'd be in game when I checked back. It was seamless as fuck, that's the killer feature.
An in game browser wouldn't have improved shit, it was already far and away the best browser they've ever had in a BF game. There were hitches sometimes, but when it worked it worked pretty fucking nicely.