• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
spicey said:
Yep, but DICE is still discussing how to implement modifications, modding as we knew it is no more. Too complex for the modding community apparently
Click to expand...

lol I bet they don't want to give a mod tool cause its just a few changes to frostbite 1 and they don't want the public to know they could have made bc2 just like bf3 game with the right staff and effored.

on a side note. everthing being destructable what are people going to use for cover after the first ten mins. just standin the open to get spawn killed by tank across the whole map>
 
SputNick7 said:
on a side note. everthing being destructable what are people going to use for cover after the first ten mins. just standin the open to get spawn killed by tank across the whole map>
Click to expand...

It's not a problem in BC2 so it shouldn't be a problem in BF3, either. I love the fact that stuff is destructible. It adds to the realism and game depth.
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
It's not a problem in BC2 so it shouldn't be a problem in BF3, either. I love the fact that stuff is destructible. It adds to the realism and game depth.
Click to expand...

well bc2 is like 1/4 destructible and the maps are so tube like you can't do it. but once you get a full sand box choppers and jets will just level the whole town and you will just be running for your life and trying to hide behind whats left of the building just to stick out like a soar thumb for a sniper to get you
 
SputNick7 said:
well bc2 is like 1/4 destructible and the maps are so tube like you can't do it. but once you get a full sand box choppers and jets will just level the whole town and you will just be running for your life and trying to hide behind whats left of the building just to stick out like a soar thumb for a sniper to get you
Click to expand...

A la the middle base of Heavy Metal. :eek:
 
Superhuman said:
I am sick and fucking tired of Wake Island. Please for the love of god leave that map out of BF3.
Click to expand...

THIS!

I really don't get what's so special about that map other than being the included in the official demo for BF1942.


They've already brought this map back from the dead about 3 times now (BF:V, BF2, and BF1943).
 
Still excited for the game, but I'd be lying if I said the 64 player limit wasn't a bit of a let down.
 
trxjw said:
Still excited for the game, but I'd be lying if I said the 64 player limit wasn't a bit of a let down.
Click to expand...

I don't know... 32 snippers shooting at me while I'm trying to capture a point might be enough for me lol
 
I'm disappointed in there only being four classes and with no commander position. Hopefully squad leaders can pick up some of the lack-of-commander slack. I very much enjoyed organized BF2 game play where there were always commanders, everybody joined squads, and everybody used comms.
 
I've never been the biggest fan of wake, but I don't mind it. I'd give you the old "just don't play it" but I'm sure it can get annoying when it's in the rotation on a server you like. I think people like it because it's a fairly balanced air/sea/ground map. You really have to fight to get a foothold on the island. Also, taking the middle base with the air strip is always a fun challenge.

It's definitely not a map for people who don't like being taken out by jets while playing infantry. If you don't think of it as an unfair advantage for his KDR over yours, and more of a challenge to get that foothold on the main island, it can be fun.
 
Druneau said:
I don't know... 32 snippers shooting at me while I'm trying to capture a point might be enough for me lol
Click to expand...

I never really had a problem with too many snipers. 90% of the time they're horrible shots anyway. Only time they ever got to me was playing rush mode on BC2, and the ones that piss me off are the useless ones on my own team.
 
Wake Island FTW!!!! (My fav BF map of all time)

I would also love Bocage, El Alamein, Guadalcanal, & Coral Sea added to the game...
 
Based on Game Informer this looks like it will be the most important release the PC has seen in some time.
 
The Cobra said:
Wake Island FTW!!!! (My fav BF map of all time)

I would also love Bocage, El Alamein, Guadalcanal, & Coral Sea added to the game...
Click to expand...

El Alamein!!! I loooved the Desert Combat version of that map. So awesome in the Apache or MLRS.
 
The Cobra said:
Wake Island FTW!!!! (My fav BF map of all time)

I would also love Bocage, El Alamein, Guadalcanal, & Coral Sea added to the game...
Click to expand...

Wake Island? :facepalm:
The other maps? :cool:
Also, Gazala needs to make a comeback.

Gabriel said:
What!? No commanders?
Click to expand...

If it's going to happen, good. In BF2, too many asshats (especially on public servers) take the Commander position and either don't do anything (get the position just so they can drop supplies/cars to their location), don't listen to squads or teammates, or drive the team into the ground. I know of the Mutiny button's existence, but I've yet to see a game where a commander is kicked off by other teammates for his shenanigans. Also, ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED!

I also would like to see the old (BF1942\DC-style) artillery system make a comeback.
 
Last edited:
trxjw said:
I never really had a problem with too many snipers. 90% of the time they're horrible shots anyway. Only time they ever got to me was playing rush mode on BC2, and the ones that piss me off are the useless ones on my own team.
Click to expand...

I love 90% of snipers, because most just sit at one position, even after I have sneaked up and knifed them in the back, or lobbed a grenade to their "safe" position on top of a building.
 
GushpinBob said:
Also, ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED! ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED!
Click to expand...

But that's the best part of BF2.

I hope they have Wake. It's just not BF without Wake.
 
SUPERGT said:
But that's the best part of BF2.

I hope they have Wake. It's just not BF without Wake.
Click to expand...

Move on. I would rather them spend there time on a good new map, then rehash an old one. If you want to play Wake, BF2, 2142, and 1942 is where you should be playing.
 
BravO))) said:
Move on. I would rather them spend there time on a good new map, then rehash an old one. If you want to play Wake, BF2, 2142, and 1942 is where you should be playing.
Click to expand...

I guess I should listen to you... :rolleyes:
 
BravO))) said:
Move on. I would rather them spend there time on a good new map, then rehash an old one. If you want to play Wake, BF2, 2142, and 1942 is where you should be playing.
Click to expand...

Damn, nearly forgot 2142 had a remake of Wake.

So that's four. Four remakes of the same map. It's time to move on.
 
I'm excited for this game as I love BF2, but I'm upset about the small player size on the maps.
 
Well when you consider that 64 players was perfectly feasible 6 years ago, and with games like MAG with 100+ players, it would be nice to see a bump in map size/player count, but I'm not going to boycott the game or anything, it would just be nice, nothing more.
 
TheOneKnownAsMe said:
Well when you consider that 64 players was perfectly feasible 6 years ago, and with games like MAG with 100+ players, it would be nice to see a bump in map size/player count, but I'm not going to boycott the game or anything, it would just be nice, nothing more.
Click to expand...
I'm disappointed too. However, DICE has consistently proven they have difficulties with their netcode, especially evident with BC2, and it still has the occasional problem. It took how many patches before BF2 didn't have net related issues?

Lets just pray that DICE gets 64 players working flawlessly out of the gate. I'm betting modified servers after release will allow larger player counts...that is if they ever release mod tools. 128 players should be completely feasible on modern servers. BC2 only uses 50% of one core of a Xeon quad core processor and a couple gigs of RAM for a 32 player server.
 
Crispy002 said:
64 players is small?
Click to expand...

Is a 1Gb HDD small?

Sure it's small now but 15 years ago it was pretty huge, things improve over time.

Back in the BF1942 days we had 64 players, a game called Joint Ops had 100 players, today we have games like MAG with 256 and even MMOFPS games with upto 400 concurrent players (Planetside)

I don't know why 6 years on we're still limited to 64 players, the area of real serious large scale multiplayer remains completely unexplored. I wanted to explore the idea better and maybe make a free game with the UDK (Unreal Development Kit) which has a free licence if you make non-commercial work, but guess what, the engine is limited to 64 players...ask why on their forums and you're more or less politely told to get lost. :confused:
 
TheOneKnownAsMe said:
Well when you consider that 64 players was perfectly feasible 6 years ago, and with games like MAG with 100+ players, it would be nice to see a bump in map size/player count, but I'm not going to boycott the game or anything, it would just be nice, nothing more.
Click to expand...

That was six years ago on a totally different engine. Running 64 players on an engine featuring destructible cities is absolutely fine by me.

Out of interest since I've not played it: does MAG feature destructible environments?

It may also be due to balance or similar design choices. More people doesn't necessarily equate to more fun. We can be petulant and entitled and stamp our feet and opine on how we should be seeing progress all we like, but it doesn't change the fact that the people actually making the games and who know what they're talking about have elected to do something else for a reason.
 
Isn't it a limit of bandwidth? I thought that's why Crysis only had 32 players because it was do to most people not having a fast enough connection, everyone would need a Fios connection in order for it to work with that much data going back an forth..?
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
I'm disappointed too. However, DICE has consistently proven they have difficulties with their netcode, especially evident with BC2, and it still has the occasional problem. It took how many patches before BF2 didn't have net related issues?

Lets just pray that DICE gets 64 players working flawlessly out of the gate. I'm betting modified servers after release will allow larger player counts...that is if they ever release mod tools. 128 players should be completely feasible on modern servers. BC2 only uses 50% of one core of a Xeon quad core processor and a couple gigs of RAM for a 32 player server.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

It's probably on a shared "gaming" host company server. There's probably 10-12 servers running on that box
 
No ..NO MORE WAKE. Fuck that map , may it burn in the deepest part of hell locked away forever. And I don't want a game full of over 64 players .. too many cheese ball fucks play FPS games online.

I'm sad to hear that mod tools are on the "back burner" for now .. which knowing DICE will lead to "canceled". I really hope they don't fuck around with the tools , mods are a big part of why BF2 and 1942 were so amazing.
 
Yup, all new. Frostbite 2.0. They rewrote a majority of the engine including rendering, lighting, and destruction to name a few.
 
GushpinBob said:
Damn, nearly forgot 2142 had a remake of Wake.

So that's four. Four remakes of the same map. It's time to move on.
Click to expand...

Four remakes doesnt mean someone has played it in all 4 games. One being on consoles only. The new engine would add a lot of new gameplay. No more hiding behind a paper thin wall while a tank shoots at it and does zero damage. I dont think it will be there at launch, but will eventually come out. Probably with a price tag attached to it.

Fact is, a lot of people like Wake. Among other older maps. If they include older maps, you can easily find or create a server without them. Not wanting them to add older maps is just silly and selfish. You're wants are not the wants of everyone.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Is a 1Gb HDD small?

Sure it's small now but 15 years ago it was pretty huge, things improve over time.

Back in the BF1942 days we had 64 players, a game called Joint Ops had 100 players, today we have games like MAG with 256 and even MMOFPS games with upto 400 concurrent players (Planetside)

I don't know why 6 years on we're still limited to 64 players, the area of real serious large scale multiplayer remains completely unexplored. I wanted to explore the idea better and maybe make a free game with the UDK (Unreal Development Kit) which has a free licence if you make non-commercial work, but guess what, the engine is limited to 64 players...ask why on their forums and you're more or less politely told to get lost. :confused:
Click to expand...

I kinda of feel lucky that we're even getting 64 players considering the state of consolisation of PC games this generation. More would be nice but expecting more along with 2011-quality graphics, physics and other in-game tech might be asking too much right now. MAG sacrifices a lot to get 256 players, and as such hardly anyone plays it because a lot of the console demographic is more impressed with shiny things than battles on an epic scale. MAG really should have been a PC game, not a PS3 game.
 
Jellylesg said:
That was six years ago on a totally different engine. Running 64 players on an engine featuring destructible cities is absolutely fine by me.

Out of interest since I've not played it: does MAG feature destructible environments?

It may also be due to balance or similar design choices. More people doesn't necessarily equate to more fun. We can be petulant and entitled and stamp our feet and opine on how we should be seeing progress all we like, but it doesn't change the fact that the people actually making the games and who know what they're talking about have elected to do something else for a reason.
Click to expand...

Check out Arma 2 if you want a massive battlefield game. its pretty hardcore though but there is actually no limit to how many players can play online. the most i have seen is 120. stable with no lag.

BF2 maps are tiny compared to arma 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top