Battlefield 3 - Games - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=camaroni;28546579]it surprises me to see how they have a convention for games.[/QUOTE] Its not that surprising at all, it is a very popular web-comic, they sell a lot of merchandise, they have the money to do this. They also do charity work.

Okay I understand that 256 players may not be fun. But fuck's sake why won't they at least give the host the option of setting the player limit so high? Or at least higher than 64? I mean come on now, if people want to try it then give them the option of playing it with that many players.

I hope the classes are better in this, if they used BF2's structure but merged Spec Ops/Assault and AT/Medic, I don't think it could fail. It was dumb how the guy in BC2 with the most versatile weapon had unlimited ammo. Oh well, they're probably going to streamline it down to appeal to the average idiot like they did with everything in BC2...

[QUOTE=Erebus.;28486471]If you want shit like this, just play Project Reality. Battlefield 3 should not be entirely realistic.[/QUOTE] Just because it's asymmetrical doesn't mean it's realistic. What i'm asking for is something akin to like Command and Conquer with GDI and NOD, or Starcraft, or Splinter Cell Chaos Theory Mercs vs Spies. It can still be a goofy Battlefield game, but i'd like a reason to pick a faction over another than just appearance.

[QUOTE=Cookieeater;28557956]Just because it's asymmetrical doesn't mean it's realistic. What i'm asking for is something akin to like Command and Conquer with GDI and NOD, or Starcraft, or Splinter Cell Chaos Theory Mercs vs Spies. It can still be a goofy Battlefield game, but i'd like a reason to pick a faction over another than just appearance.[/QUOTE] When there's things like individual class and weapon progression, if you make one team not able to use a gun it just becomes an annoyance for the people trying to use it. Also having everything available to everyone also makes it much easier for weapon balance.

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;28558667]When there's things like individual class and weapon progression, if you make one team not able to use a gun it just becomes an annoyance for the people trying to use it. Also having everything available to everyone also makes it much easier for weapon balance.[/QUOTE] I think the whole both teams use the same guns thing is retarded, i mean they use different vehicles, why should they use the same weapons

They should go back to the 2142 classes, recon/sniper, assault/medic, anti-tank/engineer, support/ammo. In my opinion those combinations always made more sense to me.

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;28558667]Also having everything available to everyone also makes it much easier for weapon balance.[/QUOTE] Maybe, but that seems less exciting to me. [QUOTE]to use a gun[/QUOTE] You see that's the problem. You're thinking too small by focusing on 'guns.' The availability of firearms and even certain vehicles simply becomes a non-issue when considering the full spectrum of tactics that soldiers employ on the battlefield. It might be harder for players to adapt to, but the point here is to utilize the strengths of the team they are on, and to exploit the weaknesses of their enemy's. I'll even provide some ideas: Conventional armies will be better equipped and have a centralized command structure, but will be penalized more heavily for collateral damage, while guerilla forces will have the bulk of their firepower placed at the lower level, the element of surprise, greater knowledge of the terrain (the map will favor their side), and will be able to spawn in more places on the map, at the cost of sacrificing their ability to create squads. Each kill will provide more or less points depending on whether their victims were professional soldiers or guerrillas, respectively. All this is doable, and can be a separate mode from the more orthodox conventional-army vs. conventional-army gamemode that all BF games have only had to this day (with the exception of certain maps in BF:Vietnam, IIRC).

Or you could find another game to play, because that sounds like a dumb idea and I don't want it in Battlefield.

[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;28559421]Maybe, but that seems less exciting to me. You see that's the problem. You're thinking too small by focusing on 'guns.' The availability of firearms and even certain vehicles simply becomes a non-issue when considering the full spectrum of tactics that soldiers employ on the battlefield. It might be harder for players to adapt to, but the point here is to utilize the strengths of the team they are on, and to exploit the weaknesses of their enemy's. I'll even provide some ideas: Conventional armies will be better equipped and have a centralized command structure, but will be penalized more heavily for collateral damage, while guerilla forces will have the bulk of their firepower placed at the lower level, the element of surprise, greater knowledge of the terrain (the map will favor their side), and will be able to spawn in more places on the map, at the cost of sacrificing their ability to create squads. Each kill will provide more or less points depending on whether their victims were professional soldiers or guerrillas, respectively. All this is doable, and can be a separate mode from the more orthodox conventional-army vs. conventional-army gamemode that all BF games have only had to this day (with the exception of certain maps in BF:Vietnam, IIRC).[/QUOTE] I'd rather keep BF3 as its supposed to be. Those features are meant for PR, you can't really have "command structures" when most players don't want that kind of stuff.

Tbh, penalizing people for having fun and blowing up houses is bade game design.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;28559731]Tbh, penalizing people for having fun and blowing up houses is bade game design.[/QUOTE] [B]Bad*[/B] Blowing up houses can work if it's toned down.

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;28559767][B]Bad*[/B] Blowing up houses can work if it's toned down.[/QUOTE] That'd be a cool thing to be able to scale though. Although it won't be possible.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;28559633]Or you could find another game to play, because that sounds like a dumb idea and I don't want it in Battlefield.[/QUOTE] Problem is everyone says that and in the end there's hardly a game that resembles what different people want. Not saying I'm against BF3 being BF3, but they could always include a different game mode, maybe even after release, like a free mappack/gamemode like they have done with BC2.

They will definitely have conquest. There's probably a good chance of Rush being in it too. [QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;28559421]Maybe, but that seems less exciting to me. You see that's the problem. You're thinking too small by focusing on 'guns.' The availability of firearms and even certain vehicles simply becomes a non-issue when considering the full spectrum of tactics that soldiers employ on the battlefield. It might be harder for players to adapt to, but the point here is to utilize the strengths of the team they are on, and to exploit the weaknesses of their enemy's. I'll even provide some ideas: Conventional armies will be better equipped and have a centralized command structure, but will be penalized more heavily for collateral damage, while guerilla forces will have the bulk of their firepower placed at the lower level, the element of surprise, greater knowledge of the terrain (the map will favor their side), and will be able to spawn in more places on the map, at the cost of sacrificing their ability to create squads. Each kill will provide more or less points depending on whether their victims were professional soldiers or guerrillas, respectively. All this is doable, and can be a separate mode from the more orthodox conventional-army vs. conventional-army gamemode that all BF games have only had to this day (with the exception of certain maps in BF:Vietnam, IIRC).[/QUOTE] That's the problem. You want something SUPER SERIOUS out of a Battlefield game. I don't think Dice ever had the idea of Battlefield games being super serious simulation games. I'm pretty sure they made them the way they did because that's how they wanted to make them. They wanted a cool first person shooter that had large levels and lots of vehicle warfare, without being annoyingly realistic and tedious. If they had wanted the game to be like that, they would have made 1942, Vietnam, BF2, BF2MC, 2142, BFHeroes, BC1, 1943, BC2 and all 7 expansions have some of those features. Oh wait, BF1942 was released on September 10th, 2002, and none of them have had SUPER REALISM SUPER SERIOUS in them. Dice is NOT making SERIOUS FPS MILITARY SIM games, they're making fun Action/almost Arcade FPS/Vehicle warfare games. I don't know why people are trying to tell Dice how to make their games 9 years after they started. They've been doing fine for the last 9 years and 16 games (including expansions).

Don't yell at me I get scared easily

I'm tired of urban maps, give me somethig similar to Dragon Valley or Fushe Pass.

I'm really disappointed for DICE not finally giving modding tools (again) and upping the playerlimit. Look at Project Reality; they achieved 128 player limit easily and without problems. Video VERY related [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkftME1SbXo&feature=related[/media]

Yeah, but PR is using battlefield 2, which doesn't use the heavy hitter engine Frostbite, which did have problems upping the playercount in BC2. 64 players with BF3 is rather amazing.

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28562379]I'm really disappointed for DICE not finally giving modding tools (again) and upping the playerlimit. Look at Project Reality; they achieved 128 player limit easily and without problems. Video VERY related [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkftME1SbXo&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE] The engine is capable of 256, hopefully they won't be assholes and block that in every way they can. If they do, then someone will work his way into the game files and unlock it (if they then disallow that on servers someone will just make a private server). I really hope DICE won't force us to hack the game and go on private servers like if we pirated the game just because they think it's not fun in 256.

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28562379]I'm really disappointed for DICE not finally giving modding tools (again) and upping the playerlimit. Look at Project Reality; they achieved 128 player limit easily and without problems. Video VERY related [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkftME1SbXo&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE] I'm very fine with 64 players and I can deal with it, stop yer whining.

[QUOTE=Killeen;28562469]Yeah, but PR is using battlefield 2, which doesn't use the heavy hitter engine Frostbite, which did have problems upping the playercount in BC2. 64 players with BF3 is rather amazing.[/QUOTE] It's perfectly capable of 256, the even tried. The problem wasn't processing power, but that DICE did not think it was fun (which they could be completely right about, but if they excuse me I want to decide that by myself, if I wanted people to tell me exactly how to play a game I'd get it on 360).

[QUOTE=acds;28562509]It's perfectly capable of 256, the even tried. The problem wasn't processing power, but that DICE did not think it was fun (which they could be completely right about, but if they excuse me I want to decide that by myself, if I wanted people to tell me exactly how to play a game I'd get it on 360).[/QUOTE] If it's capable with 256 players it would be rather laggy for the clients, and not only that, it wouldn't be fun at all, it would be total chaos and end up like shit.

[QUOTE=wombo;28562502]I'm very fine with 64 players and I can deal with it, stop yer whining.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about large maps here you tool, the maps in BC2 were solely created for 32 player combat, and they're tiny. [editline]12th March 2011[/editline] Besides, with lots of teamworking players, it's hell lot of fun

[QUOTE=Killeen;28562540]If it's capable with 256 players it would be rather laggy for the clients, and not only that, it wouldn't be fun at all, [B]it would be total chaos [/B]and end up like shit.[/QUOTE] That's the fun. As for the laggyness, a higher playercount wouldn't make things worse unless the server is not up to it (which wouldn't happen since if someone wanted to invest in a 256, I'd imagine he'd think about having decent hardware) or the client has a computer that is either at or lower than recommended. As for the upload and download, there are loads of servers with 1Gb/s or more, it'd be more than enough.

[QUOTE=Killeen;28562540]If it's capable with 256 players it would be rather laggy for the clients, and not only that, it wouldn't be fun at all, it would be total chaos and end up like shit.[/QUOTE] People don't seem to understand that large amounts of players cause plenty of hardware issues. [QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28562379]I'm really disappointed for DICE not finally giving modding tools (again) and upping the playerlimit. Look at Project Reality; they achieved 128 player limit easily and without problems. Video VERY related [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkftME1SbXo&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE] Yeah look at that video. Look at all those people and vehicles lagging around like crazy. The only reason it doesn't feel as bad in Project Reality is because PR is SLOW. If you were to try and have 128 people at the normal speed of a BF2 or BC2 game it would be terrible. People get this huge hard-on from high player counts in FPS games. Don't get me wrong I think games with high player counts can be fun, however, I know that there's limitations to player counts. Just because a game can support 10000 people doesn't mean it should. [QUOTE=acds;28562620]That's the fun. As for the laggyness, a higher playercount wouldn't make things worse unless the server is not up to it (which wouldn't happen since if someone wanted to invest in a 256, I'd imagine he'd think about having decent hardware) or the client has a computer that is either at or lower than recommended. As for the upload and download, there are loads of servers with 1Gb/s or more, it'd be more than enough.[/QUOTE] Look at the Project reality 128 player video Raiskauskone posted. Notice the terrible lag. Note that it's on the BF2 engine and it's using modern hardware and it's still laggy as hell. Even if you had a server that could support BF3 with 128 players, it's going to be EXPENSIVE AS HELL to run. That much equipment would not be cheap, and that kind of connection just for 1 server wouldn't be cheap either. 128 players on BF3 is NOT worth the cost or massive increase to hardware specs.

[b]PC Gamer Article - 10 Things We Want in Battlefield 3[/b] [i]sorry if reposted[/i] So PC Gamer released a new article detailing what they would like to see in BF3. [url]http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/09/10-things-we-want-to-see-in-battlefield-3/[/url] If you don't want to read the article, here's a breif synopsis - [b] 1.) Require Vehicle/Aircraft training before players can hop in one or give hints while in the vehicle 2.) Steamworks Server Browser (aka Cstrike, TF2) 3.) Absurd physics/feats/more fun stuff 4.) Co-Op against Bots 5.) Complicated Sniping (aka bullet gravity/ballistics/insta-scoping) 6.) Larger Maps (BF2 sized) 7.) Destructible Buildings (more/better/procedural) 8.) Medic Defibs (revive comrades, another words, BC2 style) 9.) Clear Objectives (aka have a MP OBJ Mode such as Rush) 10.) Chain of Command (commander, squad commander, way points, more tactical/cooperative features) [/b] I have to say after reading this that I generally agree in principle with everything, especially the concept of prompting some sort of tutorial for vehicles & gadgets to help get noobs going faster like BF2 had. Also - they say use Steamworks server browser. It would be god's gift to man in my opinion if i could join a friends game that easy or invite people as such. As far as the Medic goes, honestly, what I think would be nice is a check box that says "no revive" so your body disappears more instantly. Sometimes its really really annoying to be revived constantly.

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;28562652] Look at the Project reality 128 player video Raiskauskone posted. Notice the terrible lag. Note that it's on the BF2 engine and it's using modern hardware and it's still laggy as hell. Even if you had a server that could support BF3 with 128 players, it's going to be EXPENSIVE AS HELL to run. That much equipment would not be cheap, and that kind of connection just for 1 server wouldn't be cheap either. 128 players on BF3 is NOT worth the cost or massive increase to hardware specs.[/QUOTE] Except that BF1942 can lag with 16 players too (just because a video on Youtube about PR with 128 players lagged it doesn't have anything to do with BF3, I've had 16 player CSS matches lag, doesn't mean anything above that has to lag even worse). As for the hardware, BF2 was released in 2005 and it is still played [B]a lot[/B], the hardware might be too expensive now but it will be a hell of lot cheaper in 2016 (actually much earlier). Also: [quote]"A lot of people ask us about 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we can go to 256, we’ve tried it.[B] We play tested with 128. You’ve got to make a game that’s fun to play. And, arguably, we think that the most fun you can have is when it’s between 32 and 40 players.[/B]"[/quote] No mention about the hardware not being up to it, just that it wouldn't be fun (most probably referring to it being overcrowded). Sure they most probably tried it on top of the line rigs, but I don't see any written laws stating that everyone has to be able to play with 256 players (hence why official and ranked ones would stay at 64, while if you wanted 256 you'd go on unranked ones).

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28562379]I'm really disappointed for DICE not finally giving modding tools (again) and upping the playerlimit. Look at Project Reality; they achieved 128 player limit easily and without problems. Video VERY related [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkftME1SbXo&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE] Wow. 128 players. Everytime I see something from PR I want to play it but I have yet to be able to play it properly after all these years. Mainly because the BF2 engine is a bitch and patching takes longer than most MMOs and don't get me started on Punkbuster.

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;28562652]People don't seem to understand that large amounts of players cause plenty of hardware issues.[/QUOTE] Exactly what I'm trying to point out.