Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just called EA to change my card number since I replaced my debit card and they offered me a $20 promo code for having to call in. I already had 2x $20 codes on the orders so I asked if I was going to get $40 off each game, but the codes don't stack. :(, and he didn't notice the $20 off codes already on the orders.
$41.99 for each copy shipped. I went physical since it was only $2 more.
 
The commander in BF2 was the central focus of a team's strategy. It allowed a well formed team to really work in an organized fashion. It added a huge extra dimension, and made competitive play awesome. NO ONE during the time when bf2 and 2142 where were popular had any major gripes or complaints about the commander position. Therefore exclusion from this game is a cheap as shit cop out.
 
The commander in BF2 was the central focus of a team's strategy. It allowed a well formed team to really work in an organized fashion. It added a huge extra dimension, and made competitive play awesome. NO ONE during the time when bf2 and 2142 were popular had any major gripes or complaints about the commander position. Therefore exclusion from this game is a cheap as shit cop out. I am saying this as someone who never even played the role, I only benefitted from it.
 
Plague_Injected said:
That's the problem - you don't actually want a proper sequel, you just want the same game with better graphics. We criticise COD for never changing but when another game threatens to change the slightest things like fucking squad-size, people act hysterical.

The game has far more in common with BF2 than BFBC2 juding from the information we currently have...having a bunch of console-only people playing an 8v8 game in a Bad Company game type is what's obscuring that. EA probably didn't want to pony up for having 64 high-end PCs available for a full demo.
Click to expand...

First of all squad size makes the difference between having all your buddies in the same squad and having to split up. How can you make a game better if you remove many of the things that made its predecessor great? Their excuses are merely to cover up for laziness, sort of like how "prone wont work with frostbite, its unbalanced" . Turns out they were just lazy.
 
Dethred said:
First of all squad size makes the difference between having all your buddies in the same squad and having to split up. How can you make a game better if you remove many of the things that made its predecessor great? Their excuses are merely to cover up for laziness, sort of like how "prone wont work with frostbite, its unbalanced" . Turns out they were just lazy.
Click to expand...

They removed prone because people bitched about dolphin-diving in BF2. Then they put it back in because people bitched it wasn't in BFBC2. Since they do listen to player feedback from time to time, maybe the squad-count will be higher or they will make it so that server admins can change the squad sizes to how they want.

DICE have to do something controversial, otherwise bitchers won't have anything to bitch about and they might go kill themselves from the sheer anguish.
 
I thought DICE said prone was removed because it did not fit with the pace they were trying to achieve with BC2?
 
Plague_Injected said:
They removed prone because people bitched about dolphin-diving in BF2. Then they put it back in because people bitched it wasn't in BFBC2..
Click to expand...

I think you are missing a key point, Band Company was NOT and was NOT intended as a sequel to BF2.

BC2 is a fast paced, dumbed down arcade version of BF2. I think they hit the mark pretty well. BF3 will hopefully be the intended sequel for BF2.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
BF3 is the beautiful love child of all the best points from BC2 and BF2. To some BC2 was a dip in the road, personally I really loved the game and am grateful it came along, had it never been realised for the PC we may have never seen such an improvement in BF3.
Click to expand...

Good enough for me.
 
urbsnspices said:
I think you are missing a key point, Bad Company was NOT and was NOT intended as a sequel to BF2.

BC2 is a fast paced, dumbed down arcade version of BF2. I think they hit the mark pretty well. BF3 will hopefully be the intended sequel for BF2.
Click to expand...

I know mate, I've said that a few times to those who seem all too stubborn about accepting that.

The point was that prone wasn't in BFBC2 just because it's a crappy console game, since the king of crappy console games - Call of Duty - has prone...
 
NO ONE during the time when bf2 and 2142 were popular had any major gripes or complaints about the commander position.
Click to expand...

I think I would have liked to play the BF2 you were playing, because that was certainly not the case with the one I played.
 
The main problem with returning the Commander to BF3 is that it is now on the consoles too. The commander was too spammy. Imagine playing the commander on a controller.

Every time I've played the commander, no squad would follow orders. And you get a constant enemy spotted on repeat until the end of the map from the commander.

What DICE wants to do is reinvent the commander and make him more interactive. DICE is releasing more and more new gameplay features/mechanics. I would just say sit tight until Beta starts. They are keeping tight-lipped about features in the game atm. Like any smart developer would do, don't promise what you can't deliver in the time frame.
 
No commander isn't an issue for me, but I can see how it could be an issue for the LANers or competitive players. Commander was incredibly fun when every player was in the game to be played the way it should be played. That's the only way the commander position was really fun for the commander and the players. The commander role was a side show on almost all public servers.
 
Commander position in Bf2/2142 wasn't perfect but it was fine. If you really played as a commander should and just commanded and had a decent bunch of squads playing with teamwork it was brilliant actually. If you tried to command on a pub server with a bunch of aassholes doing wtfever they wanted then it was shit. So what's new about this situation? Nothing. Teamwork and heads up players excel and do well. Shitty players doing their own thing don't. Nothing new here.
 
I suppose in game development, as in lots of areas of life, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I suppose the commander haters were the loudest and most prominent in the ears of DICE. So goes it.
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
No commander isn't an issue for me, but I can see how it could be an issue for the LANers or competitive players. Commander was incredibly fun when every player was in the game to be played the way it should be played. That's the only way the commander position was really fun for the commander and the players. The commander role was a side show on almost all public servers.
Click to expand...

It was not just the Commander, but the Squad Leaders as well.

I remember playing on a server that had very good players and our side would tear apart the other team nearly every round.
We were extremely coordinated, everyone listened to the orders given, and the other team didn't stand a chance. those were some good times.
 
Zepher said:
It was not just the Commander, but the Squad Leaders as well.

I remember playing on a server that had very good players and our side would tear apart the other team nearly every round.
We were extremely coordinated, everyone listened to the orders given, and the other team didn't stand a chance. those were some good times.
Click to expand...

9.9 times out of 10 if you played on a side that played like that you would wreck the other team. No doubt about it. Only time that wasn't a given if if you played on a server where both sides usually had that kind of teamwork. Say for example tactical gamers BF2/2142 servers or Texas teamplayers servers as well.
 
Uh enemy spotted spam in bf2 sucked! With the return of squad leaders and the continuation of uav, the game will effectively have commanders plural. Beats just one when there is how many players?
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
I suppose in game development, as in lots of areas of life, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I suppose the commander haters were the loudest and most prominent in the ears of DICE. So goes it.
Click to expand...


not really. they talked about it in one of their interviews done a while back. they wanted to give everyone an equal opportunity and thus created the UAV in BFBC1/2. which will also be carried over to BF3. hell if anything i think the UAV will play a much bigger role in BF3 then it ever really did in BC2. should be more area's to hide the UAV so your not stuck in the open begging for bullets to be fired at you.
 
spaceman said:
Uh enemy spotted spam in bf2 sucked! With the return of squad leaders and the continuation of uav, the game will effectively have commanders plural. Beats just one when there is how many players?
Click to expand...

What spam, it wasnt a problem at all. BC2 is an constant barrage of useless chatter and no one complains.

Like some one said, commander is likely gone because it is impossible to smoothly implement on a console.
 
Krazyxazn said:
The main problem with returning the Commander to BF3 is that it is now on the consoles too. The commander was too spammy. Imagine playing the commander on a controller.

Every time I've played the commander, no squad would follow orders. And you get a constant enemy spotted on repeat until the end of the map from the commander.
Click to expand...

In no way picking on this post. You make great points.

What do you mean by spammy? Commanders constantly spamming targets and orders? BC2 handles this well IMO.

You needed some accuracy for drops and air-strikes? Maybe using a reticle system on console, that highlights/snaps to obvious POI, and areas on the tactile map. Then a button can slow up the curser when pressed for accuracy.

Following orders in BF 2142 (Still the best BF to date IMO!). I would talk to the squad leader using the VOIP. Let him know why I was sending him there. Then give him the orders. Worked perfectly. I rarely got push back doing it that way. If squad leaders weren't using VOIP, send someone in the squad if possible to get the squad mates to leave and reform to a real squad leader.

If a squad was rocking and didn't need me to tell them what to do...I left them alone.

The Timeless Camp Gibraltar server was VERY good for having great squad play.

Again 2142. I always found the trick was that with commander was NEVER let a guy who was "new" to the server command. People just wouldn't follow him. Get those obvious great players as commander and things went a lot smoother. Pretty much make the new guy earn a commander spot.

GOD I hope they change their mind about commanders in BF3. I loved it. Nothing more satisfying than marking a walker that was ripping shit up, and having a commander that trusted players to pin point where to drop an air-strike!
 
enemy spotted! submarine spotted! enemy spotted! the entire round was not annoying? I couldn't hear the rest of the game b/c of it. At least in bc2 you can turn dialogue off.
 
Things We Know about Battlefield 3 (Updated: 6/9/11)
Red font means new information added on that update date

@ Gmok Bonecrusha
If you look up the reason DICE gave about commander, what I posted is similar to what they said.

They basically just want to make it a more interactive position to play rather than someone hiding in one spot spending most of his time in a tactical map menu. Like what they did for the UAV for BC2.

I messaged them about how MAG does it's chain of commands and how their leaders provide an aura buff to nearby soldiers making them more interactive instead of sitting in one spot like in BF2. Haven't heard of anything yet (months ago back when they announce commander might not be in BF3).

Like I said they still have a lot of the game under-wraps. Just have to give them time to polish it so they can release that information to us.
 
Last edited:
The only thing more useless than a crappy commander (eventually became rare) in BF2 and 2142 is someone using the toy helicopter. Not only is it useless, it keeps players waiting on it, and only the best can get a kill or two with it. It doesn't even provide a reliable source of recon, and its just an occasional annoyance that you have to shoot down with ease.

Let me be clear. There was no vocal or widespread opposition to the commander role anytime during the prominence of BF2 or 2142. Whoever is saying people (by in large) didn't like it is just making shit up.

The spotted spamming in BF2 and 2142 was so that your team could see more enemy players on the minimap. It was a function of teamwork, and most servers had chat spamming disabled so it would block a spotting commander. I just reminisce about playing 2142 on maps like Gibraltar, sneaking past, and having a commander provide a shit load of support to open up a new front. Now its gone, because this is BC3, and not BF3. End of story.

I remember all the expert servers had commanders that brought so much to the game, and now we have multiple squads with no command structure just running around being douches. Sure, good commanders and obedient squads weren't as common as anyone would like, but now there is even less in the way of organization. Fucking pathetic.

The only way they are going to salvage their stance on commanders is if the toy copter auto-spots enemies, people can use the artillery instead of fagot snipers having it available to them, and someone can call in supply drops. I won't hold my breath.:rolleyes:
 
I never played with or spoke to anybody that wasn't pissed-off by the commander besides those that played it religiously.
 
I'm sure at some point or another, anyone who played BF2 long enough experienced a douchebag for a commander but I personally found some solid servers to play on and very rarely played as commander and personally liked having big brother directing the other 63 players.
 
With no commander, all it will do is make clans dominate even more. In my clan we run squads and still have an overall leader on vent. This will make people hate playing with clan servers even more.
 
BravO))) said:
With no commander, all it will do is make clans dominate even more. In my clan we run squads and still have an overall leader on vent. This will make people hate playing with clan servers even more.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the point of a clan server? To dominate?

I haven't played BC2 in ages, but I think they added in an auto-balancing thing. I doubt its as good as the plugins on Counter Strike though.
 
Jellylesg said:
I never played with or spoke to anybody that wasn't pissed-off by the commander besides those that played it religiously.
Click to expand...

Nah man. I played it sometimes. Not often. I loved the commander feature. Made my job soooo much easier as a squad leader.
 
Krazyxazn said:
Isn't that the point of a clan server? To dominate?

I haven't played BC2 in ages, but I think they added in an auto-balancing thing. I doubt its as good as the plugins on Counter Strike though.
Click to expand...

If your referring to a Counter-Strike after its initial beta stages then dont....it SUCKED by the time it went commercial.... :(

Amazing game itself in its day.
 
Without commander, will squad leaders now be able to call in artillery, supply drop, and UAV at will (provided it's available)?
 
SUPERGT said:
Without commander, will squad leaders now be able to call in artillery, supply drop, and UAV at will (provided it's available)?
Click to expand...

No one really knows. They're still really hush hush about multiplayer.

Lars is in charge of the multiplayer so I have 100% confidence it will be incredibly epic.
 
Jellylesg said:
I never played with or spoke to anybody that wasn't pissed-off by the commander besides those that played it religiously.
Click to expand...

Its one thing to be unhappy with the person commanding, its another to be unhappy that there is such a position. Just because some people don't use it properly doesn't mean it should be removed. By that logic, the player should control a "My Little Pony" and run around a field eating grass. Of course your friends will get mad that some of their ponies aren't eating enough and end up dying... so just have a blank screen?
 
Superhuman said:
No one really knows. They're still really hush hush about multiplayer.

Lars is in charge of the multiplayer so I have 100% confidence it will be incredibly epic.
Click to expand...

I think squad leaders should be able to target areas for jet pilots, laser designate and area and it shows up on the player's hud flying the jet.
 
Krazyxazn said:
Isn't that the point of a clan server? To dominate?

I haven't played BC2 in ages, but I think they added in an auto-balancing thing. I doubt its as good as the plugins on Counter Strike though.
Click to expand...


there are 2 auto balancers. there is the one built into BC2 that can be enabled/disabled. and there is the procon auto balancer script. the procon one sucks balls though.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
there are 2 auto balancers. there is the one built into BC2 that can be enabled/disabled. and there is the procon auto balancer script. the procon one sucks balls though.
Click to expand...

No, there are multiple plugins for ProCon for autobalancing.

The 4 most popular are:

Team Balance on Death: balances team based on next few people to die.

Team Balance Plugin: Same as above, but allows you to exclude splitting up clan members.

True Balancer: Most stable and most used of the balancers. Allows message to be flashed on screen or in chat. Allows whitelist of players not to be moved. Autobalances based on last person to join the team.

Insane Balancer: Balances on the fly based on your choice of criteria such as rank, score per minute, kill/death ratios, career points, round score. Allows message to be flashed on screen or in chat. Can also scramble teams per X rounds. Can keep clans and squads together or break them apart. Unstable and never left beta. Some servers have got it to work well, I have not. Has other issues such as losing tickets for attacking rush team when auto scramble is done at beginning of round.

I have tried every one of these. The only one that works on a consistent basis is the True Balancer with Insane Balancer a distant second.
 
Dethred said:
Its one thing to be unhappy with the person commanding, its another to be unhappy that there is such a position. Just because some people don't use it properly doesn't mean it should be removed. By that logic, the player should control a "My Little Pony" and run around a field eating grass. Of course your friends will get mad that some of their ponies aren't eating enough and end up dying... so just have a blank screen?
Click to expand...

You have a fair point but I just wanted to say that the analogy made very little sense.
 
Jellylesg said:
You have a fair point but I just wanted to say that the analogy made very little sense.
Click to expand...

I think he is trying to say that if someone has a problem with how the commander position forces the issue of teamwork, then perhaps those people should reconsider their decision to play online multiplayer team based games.

If not, I just have to say that my pony gets plenty of grass because I buy it from a Chinese grass farmer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top