Battlefield 3 - Games - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=-Method;28524160]I wonder how many wont get this.[/QUOTE] Australia is in southern hemisphere, so the world is upside down for them?

[QUOTE=Spetzaz;28525573]What? Dice said their engine can take 256 players, and yet they still haven't released a game with 1024 players. I WANT 1024!![/QUOTE] [url]http://www.vg247.com/2011/03/10/networking-company-attempting-to-break-world-record-with-1000-player-fps/#more-155075[/url]

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;28525078]maqzek, You forget how horrible arma2 is at handling even >50 players, whilst BF3 probably handles it fine[/QUOTE] At TacticalGamer we had 150 playing a TVT

Servers for 256 players will be so ridiculously expensive to buy and maintain. Donations almost never make game servers profitable, and things like buying adminship make the server terrible. DICE knows what they're doing, they're a huge fucking company paying millions of dollars to do this research.

I trust DICE in what they are doing. If they are not going for 256 players MP they have a really good reason behind it I'm sure :colbert:

[QUOTE=Spetzaz;28525573]What? Dice said their engine can take 256 players, and yet they still haven't released a game with 1024 players. I WANT 1024!![/QUOTE] 512 vs 512, the maps would need to be HUGE!

[QUOTE=Cree8ive;28535162]I trust DICE in what they are doing. If they are not going for 256 players MP they have a really good reason behind it I'm sure :colbert:[/QUOTE] Imagine having to dish out enough assets for both teams to be satisfied. Oh and there's the whole thing about cluster fucking a map and grenade spamming. When you've got lower numbers its easier to balance and deal with.

[QUOTE=Spetzaz;28524125]Here I found it: [img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1467131/Sidney.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Battlefield 3 takes place in Australia? /joke

[QUOTE=spekter;28535198]Imagine having to dish out enough assets for both teams to be satisfied. Oh and there's the whole thing about cluster fucking a map and grenade spamming. When you've got lower numbers its easier to balance and deal with.[/QUOTE] Grenade spam would be balanced by the 20 tanks rolling from flag to flag, AT mines would be killer.

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;28525078]maqzek, You forget how horrible arma2 is at handling even >50 players, whilst BF3 probably handles it fine[/QUOTE] get a better server..... The dedi boxes that host the huge 150+ player campaigns preform fine.

[QUOTE=koeniginator;28534979]Servers for 256 players will be so ridiculously expensive to buy and maintain. Donations almost never make game servers profitable, and things like buying adminship make the server terrible. DICE knows what they're doing, they're a huge fucking company paying millions of dollars to do this research.[/QUOTE] Have user-ran and maintained Dedi servers, problem solved(the user-dedi servers would be ranked EA!) There should be an option to chose whether Company hosted or community hosted though.

So what ever happened to that thread with the BF3 Questions/Interview thing?

[QUOTE=Firespray;28536176]So what ever happened to that thread with the BF3 Questions/Interview thing?[/QUOTE] We've said this multiple times we're waiting until Post-GDC/PAX East.

[QUOTE=Erebus.;28536261]We've said this multiple times we're waiting until Post-GDC/PAX East.[/QUOTE] Sorry, didn't see it within the past ten pages.

[QUOTE=Jrock455;28516045][url]http://gunclub.ea.com/us/intel/blog/bf3-paxeast[/url] If you have a gunclub account you will be able to play BF3 at PAX East, too bad I won't be able to get there :smithicide:[/QUOTE] I'm from fucking Boston, but I'm at school five hours away right now. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

[QUOTE='[CWG]RustySpannerz;28532944'][url]http://www.vg247.com/2011/03/10/networking-company-attempting-to-break-world-record-with-1000-player-fps/#more-155075[/url][/QUOTE] Now that they have 1000 I want more. 4000.

[QUOTE=Cree8ive;28535162]I trust DICE in what they are doing. If they are not going for 256 players MP they have a really good reason behind it I'm sure :colbert:[/QUOTE] Yes and No. A company not doing something can often ammount to laziness, other times it's a workflow issue and priorities. 128 players worked very well in FH2 for some of the larger maps (namely el alamien) if DICE wanted to they could pull off 128 player servers.

With 256 players it would be almost impossible to single out a lame ass cheater as well

[QUOTE=certified;28515979]Loaded up XBOX Saw "BF3 info" on the inside xbox dashboard channel. Question on sentuamessage refers to BF3 as "Battlefield Bad Company 3" Console kiddies :colbert: The sad thing is, I am going to be getting this on Xbox 360 anyway. My pc specs are in a position where I could upgrade anything (Already got good specs, just need a RAM and maybe GFX card upgrade) and be ready to play BF3. The problem? Win7 required. I can either buy Win7, or BF3 (My estimations put my money at about 95 euros left after PC upgrades and Crysis 2.) Obviously I am choosing BF3 because I would rather have an immediate functioning game rather than spending even more money on Win7. I was really sad when DICE announced that BF3 would require Win7. I can't keep on buying shit because minimum specs are getting boosted so damn fast now. I miss 05-09 when most [or rather all :( ] games were console ports and min specs stayed consistent. Well, I miss that time, MINUS the console ports part.[/QUOTE] Damn fast? How? It's FINALLY becoming a min spec to have an up to date OS.

PAX time! Fingers crossed!

As much as I dislike PA, it surprises me to see how they have a convention for games. But let's hope there are more BF3 announcements.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;28540805]Damn fast? How? It's FINALLY becoming a min spec to have an up to date OS.[/QUOTE] I thought that they said only XP wasn't supported.

Wonder if it's like BF2, getting a gold star is hard. In BFBC2 it's so easy to get the ace pin... Got my first gold star on BF2 today, I've owned the game for 4 years.

I hope grass can actually conceal you this time. I remember in Far Cry Instincts on the xbox, if you lay prone in grass, your character would go semi-transparent to other people's view at a distance. This compenstates for the "BF2 grass syndrome" wherin you can lay prone in grass and have your vision blocked, yet your enemy sees you clear as day. it also adds a reason to hide in tall grass. I don't know if it's possible, but it'd be crazy fucking awesome if the solid pixel on grass would "occlude" a person's body when seen at a distance, so the parts of their body that are behind the solid textures of grass will become transparent, and the parts that are not will stay exposed clear as day. As it is now, it's way too fucking hard to hide from people at a distance. Between the red name tags popping up, and the lack of grass at a distance, you're constantly exposed to any and all on the battlefield.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28550792]I hope grass can actually conceal you this time. I remember in Far Cry Instincts on the xbox, if you lay prone in grass, your character would go semi-transparent to other people's view at a distance. This compenstates for the "BF2 grass syndrome" wherin you can lay prone in grass and have your vision blocked, yet your enemy sees you clear as day. it also adds a reason to hide in tall grass. I don't know if it's possible, but it'd be crazy fucking awesome if the solid pixel on grass would "occlude" a person's body when seen at a distance, so the parts of their body that are behind the solid textures of grass will become transparent, and the parts that are not will stay exposed clear as day. As it is now, it's way too fucking hard to hide from people at a distance. Between the red name tags popping up, and the lack of grass at a distance, you're constantly exposed to any and all on the battlefield.[/QUOTE] The main problem with grass is people will turn off grass just so they can see you if you try to hide in it.

They shouldn't include an option to turn grass off. A HL2 mod I was working with had that problem in MP once in that regard, all the developers decided as a whole just to remove the option, and label the console command as a cheat. There may be a bit of a performance hit, but it's more important that people play on even grounds. But while that may be "a" problem, the worst problem is that a sniper in the distance may think he's safe hiding in a bunch of grass, but he's not. The grass will be out of sight, and to the view of everybody whos far away he'll be sitting out in the open like a jackass and will be an easy shot. If he goes partially transparent when hiding in grass, then it'll compensate by making him blend into the background a bit more.

Just got this in my inbox [img]http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/9120/battlefield3.jpg[/img]

Seems legit.

March 16th Fault Line Part 2. "trailer"

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28550792]I hope grass can actually conceal you this time. I remember in Far Cry Instincts on the xbox, if you lay prone in grass, your character would go semi-transparent to other people's view at a distance. This compenstates for the "BF2 grass syndrome" wherin you can lay prone in grass and have your vision blocked, yet your enemy sees you clear as day. it also adds a reason to hide in tall grass. I loved hiding in the grass as even assault guys ran past in BC2, it was so much fun. I don't know if it's possible, but it'd be crazy fucking awesome if the solid pixel on grass would "occlude" a person's body when seen at a distance, so the parts of their body that are behind the solid textures of grass will become transparent, and the parts that are not will stay exposed clear as day. As it is now, it's way too fucking hard to hide from people at a distance. Between the red name tags popping up, and the lack of grass at a distance, you're constantly exposed to any and all on the battlefield.[/QUOTE]