[QUOTE=elitehakor v2;27316046]Steamworks integration? Usage of VAC instead of PB?
A boy can dream.[/QUOTE]
I want a better kicking system, having 30 votes be required to kick a spawnkiller or a vehicle whoring bastard is too much.
[QUOTE=certified;27310675]Also, I should mention that I am outraged that it won't support windows XP. If you need to make a stable OS unsupported to make it look like effort is going into your PC port, then I am just... Disappoint.[/QUOTE]
:siren:[highlight]IT IS MORE THAN TEN YEARS OLD[/highlight]:siren:
c
XP is still nice, despite its age
[QUOTE=high;27318873]I read that BF3 will be on the frostbite engine in the OP and I cried a little. Sure I love BC2 but the frostbite engine blows. Lag compensation is the worst. They have stated that the frostbite engine will never support mods :\. I doubt the frostbite engine will support planes.[/QUOTE]
If they don't make it support mods by BF3, i might not even buy it.
The reason BF2 is still alive and well is because of the mods, hell even desert combat on 1942 is still played!
[QUOTE=TheTalon;27324718]XP is still nice, despite its age[/QUOTE]
It's nice, but nothing compared to 7.
Oh shit 7 agrees
[QUOTE=TheTalon;27324718]XP is still nice, despite its age[/QUOTE]
So is windows 98 but that doesn't mean you should use it
[editline]10th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=maqzek;27323997]I hope they don't limit the amount of players and make it depend on how much the server can handle. And the map.
Arma2 style.
:smug:[/QUOTE]
This would make retards thinking they can host giant 500 player servers do that, and the gameplay would be horrendously laggy and it would still fill up because people are morons, you can't compare the playerbase of arma2 to the coming of bf3.
You see most people hosting arma2 have some sense in them, and understand that pushing their server too far would just make it annoying to play, but with bf3 people wouldn't care, BECAUSE THERSES SOMANY PLAYERS HURF . /endrant
Honestly though, without mods BF3 will be nothing to me.
I won't even buy it if it doesn't have mods and isn't polished on the PC.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;27324778]So is windows 98 but that doesn't mean you should use it
[editline]10th January 2011[/editline]
This would make retards thinking they can host giant 500 player servers do that, and the gameplay would be horrendously laggy and it would still fill up because people are morons, you can't compare the playerbase of arma2 to the coming of bf3.
You see most people hosting arma2 have some sense in them, and understand that pushing their server too far would just make it annoying to play, but with bf3 people wouldn't care, BECAUSE THERSES SOMANY PLAYERS HURF . /endrant
Honestly though, without mods BF3 will be nothing to me.[/QUOTE]
So? Let the idiots run their servers. I'm sure there will be decent hosters that know how to run servers.
Wouldn't you at least like the possibility to run 256 player slot server in the near future? 2-3 years later, we'll have some quad octo core whatever processors and people with fat wallets would be able to host some nice servers. Hell, look at MMORPG Project for Minecraft. That server is crazy and runs 100 players no problem.
[QUOTE=maqzek;27324918]So? Let the idiots run their servers. I'm sure there will be decent hosters that know how to run servers.
Wouldn't you at least like the possibility to run 256 player slot server in the near future? 2-3 years later, we'll have some quad octo core whatever processors and people with fat wallets would be able to host some nice servers. Hell, look at MMORPG Project for Minecraft. That server is crazy and runs 100 players no problem.[/QUOTE]
You do realise, the hosting will probably be stuck with the same thing as bc2 right?
And letting the idiots run their servers would be terrible, it's like the 200 player servers for warband, sure they're fun and all, but theres a point where it gets moronic and people only play on their servers, leaving most possibility for other peoples servers to fill up void
And the reason that mmorpg project works, is because the server software for that doesn't suck balls like notch's current shit does.
[url]www.gameservers.com[/url]
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;27324938]You do realise, the hosting will probably be stuck with the same thing as bc2 right?
And letting the idiots run their servers would be terrible, it's like the 200 player servers for warband, sure they're fun and all, but theres a point where it gets moronic and people only play on their servers, leaving most possibility for other peoples servers to fill up void
And the reason that mmorpg project works, is because the server software for that doesn't suck balls like notch's current shit does.
[url]www.gameservers.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Well, if it's the same as BC2, good bye mods and good bye BF3.
I don't know about you, but I'm sure that fun and good admin'ed servers would still pull players and be popular.
But incase if it is really a problem, there's always a possibility to limit players to 64 and then unlock 128-256 later when some new hardware arrives (and new maps) and some people would be able to afford it as opposed to a few out of thousands. My point is to not make 64 players limit an engine limit but a virtual one.
Everyone here seems to forget battlefield 2 technically wasn't PC exclusive either.
There was a PS2/Xbox/Xbox 360 version called Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
I will assume the Console version will be like Modern combat again and BF3 will just be BF2 in this context.
[QUOTE=WPlayer;27325132]Everyone here seems to forget battlefield 2 technically wasn't PC exclusive either.
There was a PS2/Xbox/Xbox 360 version called Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
I will assume the Console version will be like Modern combat again and BF3 will just be BF2 in this context.[/QUOTE]
That would be great. BF2 turned out to be great, and Modern Combat sucked - well, it was OK. And I was OK with that. :v:
there's no reason why both versions can't be incredible
I have BF:BC2, I like it. I can't wait to see giant maps with the FrostBite engine.. And better multiplayer.
So this is going to be a game with Manly European Commando's fighting against the North Atlantic Terror Organization?
I hope they have some more interesting factions than US and Russia.
[QUOTE=acds;27325445]I hope they have some more interesting factions than US and Russia.[/QUOTE]
What would you suggest
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;27325456]What would you suggest[/QUOTE]
Anything but US and Russia. Keeping the ones in BF2 wouldn't be bad (US, MEC and China).
its NATO vs MEC
[QUOTE=acds;27325501]Anything but US and Russia. Keeping the ones in BF2 wouldn't be bad (US, MEC and China).[/QUOTE]
High tech US, dirty terrorist arabs and extremely resourceful China just like in Generals. Boo ya.
[QUOTE=BmB;27325787]High tech US, dirty terrorist arabs and extremely resourceful China just like in Generals. Boo ya.[/QUOTE]
Not like the MEC were actually dirty terrorist arabs, in generals the GLA had no air support at all, can't say its the same
I don't care about the factions, I want to shootey-shootey, and I want it to be balanced and fun.
Sandbox mod + Battlefield 3 = Pure sex?
[QUOTE=BmB;27315912]Infantry only better stay out of this. I play Battlefield for the big, vehicle supported battles. This isn't CoD.[/QUOTE]
Another quality post by BmB
Battlefield NEEDS better physics.
They were planning to add a hovercraft that could carry tanks in BF2, but they cut it out at the last moment.
Just imagine these sort of things, it would improve the teamplay aspect a LOT.
Whoa, I did'nt realize I'm now one post away from yachtzee gold!
I would like to see some of the popular BF2 maps brought across to BF3, particularly Strike at Karkand, Mashtuur City and a map with a Chinese team such as Dragon Valley or Wake Island.
I also hope they implement something to prevent the teamkilling which comes from fights over vehicles. Nothing's more annoying then finally having the opportunity to fly and then have someone shoot you out of the cockpit or park their car on the runway.
[QUOTE=Black0ut;27326404]I would like to see some of the popular BF2 maps brought across to BF3, particularly Strike at Karkand, Mashtuur City and a map with a Chinese team such as Dragon Valley or Wake Island.
I also hope they implement something to prevent the teamkilling which comes from fights over vehicles. Nothing's more annoying then finally having the opportunity to fly and then have someone shoot you out of the cockpit or park their car on the runway.[/QUOTE]
I would actually prefer all new maps at first.
[editline]10th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=MendozaMan;27326394]Battlefield NEEDS better physics.
They were planning to add a hovercraft that could carry tanks in BF2, but they cut it out at the last moment.
Just imagine these sort of things, it would improve the teamplay aspect a LOT.
Whoa, I did'nt realize I'm now one post away from yachtzee gold![/QUOTE]
You don't need any advanced physics to make "hovercraft"
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;27326453]
You don't need any advanced physics to make "hovercraft"[/QUOTE]
The hover craft was easy.
Its the "carry tank on moving object" that was impossible with the engine they were using.
Ooo, gold!
[QUOTE=Black0ut;27326404]I would like to see some of the popular BF2 maps brought across to BF3, particularly Strike at Karkand, Mashtuur City and a map with a Chinese team such as Dragon Valley or Wake Island.
I also hope they implement something to prevent the teamkilling which comes from fights over vehicles. Nothing's more annoying then finally having the opportunity to fly and then have someone shoot you out of the cockpit or park their car on the runway.[/QUOTE]
In which case I'd want Kubra Dam just for some crazy jet action.
I want a big map with tonnes of vehicles and all three (or whatever number) factions at the same time (of course this would require a high player count). I want to see the whole sky lit up by tracers and explosions, with missiles, bombs, shells, debris and bullets flying all over the place and so much chaos I wouldn't be able to hear a M107 firing next to my ear.
I'm really hoping we get a very high max playercount.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
