• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gx6? find a choke point, throw an ammo pack, g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g …
 
I would not mind playing wake again in BF3. But what we really need is battleship battles like it had in 42. It was fun as hell to move the CV,BB and sub around to control the land. I remember being a dick and beaching the CV right next to the airstrip so all you had to do is spawn and then jump off into the slaughter. It was also extra awesome cool when it sank as it slowly went into the deep.

I miss naval battles from 42
 
Is this thread breaking a record for size of an "official" thread for a product that's not going to be out for many months or is the ES V thread in the General Gaming area going for it? ;)

I say that light heartedly since I'm looking forward to both of those games quite eagerly myself. :)
 
Q-BZ said:
Is this thread breaking a record for size of an "official" thread for a product that's not going to be out for many months or is the ES V thread in the General Gaming area going for it? ;)

I say that light heartedly since I'm looking forward to both of those games quite eagerly myself. :)
Click to expand...


Wait until the official trailer comes out March 1st. I expect this thread to jump 10s of pages :)
 
I think I'm the only one whos not going to be purchasing BF3. I bought Bad Company 2 for like $6 on Steam Powered and I put in about 40 hours on multiplayer and got to level 12 before I realized that it's the biggest waste of time ever. BC2 (and BF3) is like WOW. People make fun of people who play WOW for 5+ hours a day but BC2 is the same thing, this game is so addicting. I'll play STALKER or MAFIA 2 or FEAR for an hour and get bored with it and get off the computer but BC2 I'll play for 4+ hours before realizing how much time I've spent.
 
Looking forward to this. That said, worst debut trailer ever. Seriously Un-epic.
 
Hulk said:
I think I'm the only one whos not going to be purchasing BF3. I bought Bad Company 2 for like $6 on Steam Powered and I put in about 40 hours on multiplayer and got to level 12 before I realized that it's the biggest waste of time ever. BC2 (and BF3) is like WOW. People make fun of people who play WOW for 5+ hours a day but BC2 is the same thing, this game is so addicting. I'll play STALKER or MAFIA 2 or FEAR for an hour and get bored with it and get off the computer but BC2 I'll play for 4+ hours before realizing how much time I've spent.
Click to expand...

I'm lost. By waste of time do you mean it sucks or it's so cool you lose yourself in it? If it's the latter than it's gotta be the weakest excuse I heard for not getting a game in a long time :D
 
Hulk said:
I think I'm the only one whos not going to be purchasing BF3. I bought Bad Company 2 for like $6 on Steam Powered and I put in about 40 hours on multiplayer and got to level 12 before I realized that it's the biggest waste of time ever. BC2 (and BF3) is like WOW. People make fun of people who play WOW for 5+ hours a day but BC2 is the same thing, this game is so addicting. I'll play STALKER or MAFIA 2 or FEAR for an hour and get bored with it and get off the computer but BC2 I'll play for 4+ hours before realizing how much time I've spent.
Click to expand...

Dude waste of time is so relative. I mean what's a waste of time..playing a video game? Riding your bike for 3 or 4 hours? taking a walk? watching tv? reading a book? Working on your car? constantly fix or making additions to your house? Get where I'm going here? What's a waste of time to one isn't to another. Playing a game that is enjoyable for 4 hours is no more or less a waste that anything else. If it's entertainment, enjoyable and or your hobby what's it matter?
 
Hulk said:
I think I'm the only one whos not going to be purchasing BF3. I bought Bad Company 2 for like $6 on Steam Powered and I put in about 40 hours on multiplayer and got to level 12 before I realized that it's the biggest waste of time ever. BC2 (and BF3) is like WOW. People make fun of people who play WOW for 5+ hours a day but BC2 is the same thing, this game is so addicting. I'll play STALKER or MAFIA 2 or FEAR for an hour and get bored with it and get off the computer but BC2 I'll play for 4+ hours before realizing how much time I've spent.
Click to expand...

Your sheer willpower puts me to shame. :eek:

Seriously though, this is the case with practically all video games. If you have this problem I suggest you simply stop gaming. It's a form of entertainment and like all forms of entertainment they're ideally a waste of time but they all exist for a reason, distraction.

Savoy said:
Dude waste of time is so relative. I mean what's a waste of time..playing a video game? Riding your bike for 3 or 4 hours? taking a walk? watching tv? reading a book? Working on your car? constantly fix or making additions to your house? Get where I'm going here? What's a waste of time to one isn't to another. Playing a game that is enjoyable for 4 hours is no more or less a waste that anything else. If it's entertainment, enjoyable and or your hobby what's it matter?
Click to expand...

+1
 
TheToE! said:
Looking forward to this. That said, worst debut trailer ever. Seriously Un-epic.
Click to expand...

Teaser, not trailer.

Savoy said:
Dude waste of time is so relative. I mean what's a waste of time..playing a video game? Riding your bike for 3 or 4 hours? taking a walk? watching tv? reading a book? Working on your car? constantly fix or making additions to your house? Get where I'm going here? What's a waste of time to one isn't to another. Playing a game that is enjoyable for 4 hours is no more or less a waste that anything else. If it's entertainment, enjoyable and or your hobby what's it matter?
Click to expand...

Exactly, playing video games is no different than gardening or reading books. You have free time, make of it what you will.
 
Hulk said:
I think I'm the only one whos not going to be purchasing BF3. I bought Bad Company 2 for like $6 on Steam Powered and I put in about 40 hours on multiplayer and got to level 12 before I realized that it's the biggest waste of time ever. BC2 (and BF3) is like WOW. People make fun of people who play WOW for 5+ hours a day but BC2 is the same thing, this game is so addicting. I'll play STALKER or MAFIA 2 or FEAR for an hour and get bored with it and get off the computer but BC2 I'll play for 4+ hours before realizing how much time I've spent.
Click to expand...

It's only a waste of time if you could be having a better time doing something else. Many of us enjoy video games enough to spend that kind of time in them just like how some people will spend hours at the gym, playing sports, or engaging in some other hobby.

Heck, some people think building your own computer is a waste of time :eek:

(and what all the guys above me said too)
 
Hulk said:
I think I'm the only one whos not going to be purchasing BF3. I bought Bad Company 2 for like $6 on Steam Powered and I put in about 40 hours on multiplayer and got to level 12 before I realized that it's the biggest waste of time ever. BC2 (and BF3) is like WOW. People make fun of people who play WOW for 5+ hours a day but BC2 is the same thing, this game is so addicting. I'll play STALKER or MAFIA 2 or FEAR for an hour and get bored with it and get off the computer but BC2 I'll play for 4+ hours before realizing how much time I've spent.
Click to expand...

What you consider a drawback, 90% of gamers would call it "immersion". I simply love it when I can lose track of time in a video game and let it take me in. As long as you have priorities sorted out, a game is no more a waste of time then a night out at the bar. (omg, I just made it to lvl 10 drunk!)

I think you either need a long break from gaming, or a stop to it altogether. Sounds like you have other important priorities.
 
Mojo3k70 said:
As long as you have priorities sorted out, a game is no more a waste of time then a night out at the bar. (omg, I just made it to lvl 10 drunk!)
Click to expand...

i wouldn't mind a level-up system for drinking. i'm fairly certain i'd be at least a Brigadier General by now.
 
Mojo3k70 said:
What you consider a drawback, 90% of gamers would call it "immersion". I simply love it when I can lose track of time in a video game and let it take me in. As long as you have priorities sorted out, a game is no more a waste of time then a night out at the bar. (omg, I just made it to lvl 10 drunk!)

I think you either need a long break from gaming, or a stop to it altogether. Sounds like you have other important priorities.
Click to expand...

+1

And you know what? Life is just a game. I really enjoy when games have mini-games within them. And if minigames had games within them I'd probably play them too.

It's just a game within a game within a game within a game within a game. And I love it.
 
Lengradde said:
+1

And you know what? Life is just a game. I really enjoy when games have mini-games within them. And if minigames had games within them I'd probably play them too.

It's just a game within a game within a game within a game within a game. And I love it.
Click to expand...

Better a game within a game, than a dream within a dream. :p
 
Crash250f said:
Are you 100% sure that's true? I play on a server that claims it runs duel quad cores with 48 gigs of ram. You'd have to do some good convincing to make me believe that server isn't more accurate/less laggy than other servers.
Click to expand...
Yes. I am 100% sure. Look for the official BFBC2 server requirement documentation. I am unable to find the exact document online at this time, but I have downloaded several official ea documents (in pdf format) that are from previous server versions of BC2 (and the beta also) that all mention that one 32 player server uses up approximately 50% of one core of a Xeon quad core processor. I remember specifically the document mentions the newest Xeon 5600 series when it made that comparison. The documents also state that Microsoft Windows Server 2003 is the preferred OS over Windows Server 2008 due to certain bugs that might pop. When I get home I will find the pdf's and try to find a link to them online.

The server my clan rents from NFOservers.com has roughly the same configuration. The reason for these massive configurations is because EA only has select partners that can run the ranked servers. For this reason, there is no such thing as a "dedicated" server for BFBC2 in the traditional sense that a dedicated server only runs one game on it and gives the owner full access to all the game and OS files. Combine the low hardware requirements with zero need for the end user to have 100% access to the game files and operating system, and game server providers will host several games on one physical server. Also, the reason the server itself utilizes so little power is because all it handles is the networking, telling each client where each character is and where their bullets hit. All the major processing (such as physics) is done client side.
 
Lengradde said:
+1

And you know what? Life is just a game. I really enjoy when games have mini-games within them. And if minigames had games within them I'd probably play them too.

It's just a game within a game within a game within a game within a game. And I love it.
Click to expand...

SUPERGT said:
Better a game within a game, than a dream within a dream. :p
Click to expand...

Whoa, I think we just went 6 levels deep... :eek:

I do not see how people won't like the "drag fallen comrades to safety" feature in BF3. Unless you are one of those idiot medics in BC2 who never use the defib, I just don't undersand. They aren't ping pong paddles for crying out loud! I think it would be bad ass to pull teammates to safety and cover them while you wait for a medic come.
 
Last edited:
Crash250f said:
Are you 100% sure that's true? I play on a server that claims it runs duel quad cores with 48 gigs of ram. You'd have to do some good convincing to make me believe that server isn't more accurate/less laggy than other servers.
Click to expand...

CaptNumbNutz said:
Yes. I am 100% sure. Look for the official BFBC2 server requirement documentation. I am unable to find the exact document online at this time, but I have downloaded several official ea documents (in pdf format) that are from previous server versions of BC2 (and the beta also) that all mention that one 32 player server uses up approximately 50% of one core of a Xeon quad core processor. I remember specifically the document mentions the newest Xeon 5600 series when it made that comparison. The documents also state that Microsoft Windows Server 2003 is the preferred OS over Windows Server 2008 due to certain bugs that might pop. When I get home I will find the pdf's and try to find a link to them online.

The server my clan rents from NFOservers.com has roughly the same configuration. The reason for these massive configurations is because EA only has select partners that can run the ranked servers. For this reason, there is no such thing as a "dedicated" server for BFBC2 in the traditional sense that a dedicated server only runs one game on it and gives the owner full access to all the game and OS files. Combine the low hardware requirements with zero need for the end user to have 100% access to the game files and operating system, and game server providers will host several games on one physical server. Also, the reason the server itself utilizes so little power is because all it handles is the networking, telling each client where each character is and where their bullets hit. All the major processing (such as physics) is done client side.
Click to expand...

I have found the official document. Please note this document is from a previous server patch version R8. It is from last year, but the performance requirements are still the same.

http://pdfcast.org/pdf/bfbc2-pc-server-management

page 3 said:
Performance
A full (32 players) server has been measured to consume approximately 50% of one CPU core when run on a Xeon L5520.
Click to expand...

The Xeon L5520 is a 2.2ghz quad-core cpu with hyperthreading (8 threads) released in early 2009. If one instance of the game server barely uses 50% of one core, it should be fairly trivial for server hardware to handle a 128+ player server provided a faster processor is used and/or the software is multi-threaded. As for the RAM usage, I took a guess at 2GB of RAM server side. It's probably less. Most of the basic server configurations I've seen from providers are a single quad core Xeon cpu with 6-8GB of RAM, which would be perfect to host 3-4 game servers at once. Since a single multi-core CPU is complete overkill for one instance of the game server and some servers even have multiple cpu's, the game server providers will run multiple instances of gameservers on a single box to maximize profit and be as efficient as possible.
 
Last edited:
bazylik said:
Yeah. I love this game but the subscription in NY is killing the fun. Gotta look for another world to play in. I'm a Cubicle Wizard at lvl 30.
You?
Click to expand...

QFT. The leveling system in the Ny area sucks for sure. I'm on Long Island and while it's still nice out here it's retarded expensive and the people arent so nice either. :/ Everyones always so dam stressed it's bs, not a way to live. Need a new zone myself dude. Looking to a mountainous area eventually to be perfectly honest. I'm a sucker for snow in games and out lol.
 
Savoy said:
QFT. The leveling system in the Ny area sucks for sure. I'm on Long Island and while it's still nice out here it's retarded expensive and the people arent so nice either. :/ Everyones always so dam stressed it's bs, not a way to live. Need a new zone myself dude. Looking to a mountainous area eventually to be perfectly honest. I'm a sucker for snow in games and out lol.
Click to expand...

The Chicago playing field is rather lax. You should check it out.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Yes. I am 100% sure. Look for the official BFBC2 server requirement documentation. I am unable to find the exact document online at this time, but I have downloaded several official ea documents (in pdf format) that are from previous server versions of BC2 (and the beta also) that all mention that one 32 player server uses up approximately 50% of one core of a Xeon quad core processor. I remember specifically the document mentions the newest Xeon 5600 series when it made that comparison. The documents also state that Microsoft Windows Server 2003 is the preferred OS over Windows Server 2008 due to certain bugs that might pop. When I get home I will find the pdf's and try to find a link to them online.

The server my clan rents from NFOservers.com has roughly the same configuration. The reason for these massive configurations is because EA only has select partners that can run the ranked servers. For this reason, there is no such thing as a "dedicated" server for BFBC2 in the traditional sense that a dedicated server only runs one game on it and gives the owner full access to all the game and OS files. Combine the low hardware requirements with zero need for the end user to have 100% access to the game files and operating system, and game server providers will host several games on one physical server. Also, the reason the server itself utilizes so little power is because all it handles is the networking, telling each client where each character is and where their bullets hit. All the major processing (such as physics) is done client side.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I know most of the major resource consuming parts of the game are client side, but I calculating bullet drop, keeping track of destructable environments (I know nothing to do with the physics) would still be more work than I guess it is.

Now my major issue is, why is the "shot well after I was around the corner" type of lag so prevelent in BC2. I know it's all about the netcode, so I'm going to have to spend some time reading into how it all works, though I don't think the BC2 netcode documentation/settings are very publicly available are they? I've never felt my character was nearly as far behind were he apparently actually is in source engine multiplayers. I've spent my fair share of time learning about the network settings in the source engine, so I have a slight idea of how it all works.

I'm also trying to relate this back to why 8v8 servers in CS:S had noticable better registry than 16v16 servers when the server load in that game must've been a fraction of what it is in BC2, which apparently isn't that much. Did they have a higher "resolution" interpolation because there was less data that needed to be sent other than character position?

Does the fact that my rig isn't exactly running BC2 perfectly affect how laggy the game feels from a network standpoint? I wouldn't think so but I suppose it's possible since the client side is responsible for interpolation and all of that.

If anyone's got some good sources on this subject, I could probably spend hours reading about it. Thanks.

Clearly, one of my hopes for BF3 is that it will feel less laggy.
 
All I can say is, bring it on!

Been waiting for the next "real" installment of the Battlefield franchise for awhile. BC2 is pretty good and I love the sound but it just doesn't have the 64 player mayhem that I miss. Here's to hoping BF3 brings everything to the table and becomes a huge success.
 
putting the cart before the horse here, but i'm already looking forward to a revamp of BF2142.
 
Porter_ said:
putting the cart before the horse here, but i'm already looking forward to a revamp of BF2142.
Click to expand...

Hey man I was as big a fan of BF2 as 2142 honestly. I loved and played the ever loving shit out of both games. Myself and my friends/clanmates logged hundreds(thousands) of hours playing both. I wouldn't mind them launching a totally revamped BF 2142 a little more than a year after BF3. BF2 came out June 2005 and 2142 november 2006. I wouldn't mind the same situation this time. 2142 was pretty fuckin awesome bro.
 
Hulk said:
I think I'm the only one whos not going to be purchasing BF3. I bought Bad Company 2 for like $6 on Steam Powered and I put in about 40 hours on multiplayer and got to level 12 before I realized that it's the biggest waste of time ever. BC2 (and BF3) is like WOW. People make fun of people who play WOW for 5+ hours a day but BC2 is the same thing, this game is so addicting. I'll play STALKER or MAFIA 2 or FEAR for an hour and get bored with it and get off the computer but BC2 I'll play for 4+ hours before realizing how much time I've spent.
Click to expand...


good you wont be missed. especially due to you comparing a piece of garbage game like WOW to BFBC2 then adding BF3 in the mix which has absolutely nothing to do with BFBC2.
 
Crash250f said:
Thanks for the clarification. I know most of the major resource consuming parts of the game are client side, but I calculating bullet drop, keeping track of destructable environments (I know nothing to do with the physics) would still be more work than I guess it is.

Now my major issue is, why is the "shot well after I was around the corner" type of lag so prevelent in BC2. I know it's all about the netcode, so I'm going to have to spend some time reading into how it all works, though I don't think the BC2 netcode documentation/settings are very publicly available are they? I've never felt my character was nearly as far behind were he apparently actually is in source engine multiplayers. I've spent my fair share of time learning about the network settings in the source engine, so I have a slight idea of how it all works.

I'm also trying to relate this back to why 8v8 servers in CS:S had noticable better registry than 16v16 servers when the server load in that game must've been a fraction of what it is in BC2, which apparently isn't that much. Did they have a higher "resolution" interpolation because there was less data that needed to be sent other than character position?
Click to expand...


its netcode + shitty anti-lag + retarded hitboxes = getting killed around a corner.

in reality it has a lot to do with your ping vs the ping of the person shooting you.. eg the guy shooting you has a 300 ping and you have a 90 ping for example, the 300 pinger will win 90% of the time because the anti-lag will compensate for your low ping instead of his ping being higher. its a stupid system and has been around since the RTCW/RTCW:ET days. some get it right and some get it horribly wrong (RTCW:ET with the final version of ETpub mod was hell). 300 ping vs 30 ping = the 30 ping players game coming to a screeching halt as the stupid game attempted to compensate for the ping, by the time it compensated you were already dead.

also helps to pay attention what you are hiding behind because theres tons of stuff you can shoot through, wood fences and corrugated metal walls will not stop bullets. i've killed many of people trying to hide behind them.
 
Ya, that's definitely a good way to think of it. I'm guessing it's similar to default source engine settings...cl_cmdrate/updaterate 33 or whatever, set very conservatively so that there aren't any visual studders that people could complain about because that's the only way most people would be able to tell that their connection wasn't perfect...and they'd blame DICE. It's kinda disappointing that games like these will never allow us to adjust those settings, but I understand why. Oh, and I've been using this as my source for how it all works.
 
Crash250f said:
Now my major issue is, why is the "shot well after I was around the corner" type of lag so prevelent in BC2. I know it's all about the netcode, so I'm going to have to spend some time reading into how it all works, though I don't think the BC2 netcode documentation/settings are very publicly available are they? I've never felt my character was nearly as far behind were he apparently actually is in source engine multiplayers. I've spent my fair share of time learning about the network settings in the source engine, so I have a slight idea of how it all works.

...

Does the fact that my rig isn't exactly running BC2 perfectly affect how laggy the game feels from a network standpoint? I wouldn't think so but I suppose it's possible since the client side is responsible for interpolation and all of that.
Click to expand...

sirmonkey1985 said:
its netcode + shitty anti-lag + retarded hitboxes = getting killed around a corner.

in reality it has a lot to do with your ping vs the ping of the person shooting you.. eg the guy shooting you has a 300 ping and you have a 90 ping for example, the 300 pinger will win 90% of the time because the anti-lag will compensate for your low ping instead of his ping being higher. its a stupid system and has been around since the RTCW/RTCW:ET days. some get it right and some get it horribly wrong (RTCW:ET with the final version of ETpub mod was hell). 300 ping vs 30 ping = the 30 ping players game coming to a screeching halt as the stupid game attempted to compensate for the ping, by the time it compensated you were already dead.

also helps to pay attention what you are hiding behind because theres tons of stuff you can shoot through, wood fences and corrugated metal walls will not stop bullets. i've killed many of people trying to hide behind them.
Click to expand...
SirMonkey is right. I would also like to mention something else that I have personally experienced with my Clanmates during scrimages on our server. We have noticed time and time again that the person who reported they were killed after turning the corner was NOT actually around the corner on the shooter's screen when they dropped dead. Have you ever noticed that when that happens and a medic happens to be nearby to revive you, that you are immediately revived out in the open and not behind the cover?;)
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
SirMonkey is right. I would also like to mention something else that I have personally experienced with my Clanmates during scrimages on our server. We have noticed time and time again that the person who reported they were killed after turning the corner was NOT actually around the corner on the shooter's screen when they dropped dead. Have you ever noticed that when that happens and a medic happens to be nearby to revive you, that you are immediately revived out in the open and not behind the cover?;)
Click to expand...

This is due to lag compensation.

The way modern engines work in multiplayer is to make the server the authority on who shoots when, and who kills who. What you see on your own screen is being calculated instantly is really just an approximation of what is occurring in the game world, and the server regularly updates your computer with what has actually occurred, sometimes these 2 things differ slightly due to latency and because the server is the authority it overwrites the game logic on your computer.

A lot of games today use lag compensation, say you're player A with a ping of 30ms and you're being shot at by player B who has a ping of 300ms, the packets of data are sent from player B to the server in order to tell the server what position they were at, what angle they were firing at. The server then works out if they scored a hit on any other players in the world. The problem is that in the time it takes for player B's packets of information to reach the server (300ms), your position might have changed and when the server does the calculation to check for hits/misses, you'll have moved and player B will have missed, despite being accurate on their screen.

To fix this packets are timestamped with the time at which the shot occurred, the server keeps the known states of all the entities for the previous few seconds and when it receives player B's data to say they had shot, instead of using the current state of the game to calculate hit/miss, it uses the state of the game at the timestamp for that data, about 300ms ago.

If the server works out that a player scored a hit then the server updates everyone (another 30ms to get to you) and tells them, the update back to you tells you that he killed you, by this time you've moved into cover (you've had 330ms to move about) but it doesn't matter the server is the authority and it's decided player B's shots were accurate and you're dead so you're killed while in cover.

The exact same thing happens in reverse, your own lag is effectively added to the delay of updates that other players see when you're interacting with them, so it's very possible when you shoot someone who is in the open that on their screen they are retreating into cover and die while in cover, where as on your screen they die in the open.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top