Support NeoGAF

[Kade]

I don't get it, people just complain, complain and complain.
As a sequel the game will be different from BF2, that's fucking obvious! They've been experiencing gameplay modes and adjustments enough to know what's gonna make a better game and vice-versa.

BF3 IMHO will be THE killer FPS for this year, as BFBC2 was last's year.

Most people don't realize that a sequel is just a change in ruleset. For example, D&D 3 to D&D 4. If you don't like the ruleset of one game, play the version you like. Unfortunately, video games are a graphical medium so if you choose to stick with a previous version, you get the least technically advanced version of the game. This is also, why mod tools are important. If the players dislike the current version, they can just remake a previous version to the best of their availability and the players now have a choice between their preferred versions without sacrificing graphics, improvements, etc.

 

[Metalmurphy]

And what was their excuse with BF BC1?

BC1 still had the destruction 1.0 engine

 

[Rorschach]

And what was their excuse with BF BC1?

You're silly.

All I ask of DICE is to keep Call of Duty out of my Battlefield. I don't want people focusing on perks, k/d, or some uber silliness like Prestige.

They are bringing in more CoD elements. And why not? It's what BC2 was: a small step in that direction.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Whats wrong with unlocks + leveling if the game is fucking FUN as fuck to play?

I don't see a single issue with that.

what's wrong is you know exactly what the enemy is going to do, but you can't fucking impede their progress BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE AT MINES.

that's just one example.

 

[Rorschach]

what's wrong is you know exactly what the enemy is going to do, but you can't fucking impede their progress BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE AT MINES.

that's just one example.

Medic is the worst offender to me. You are in no way a medic to start the game. You're almost useless. May as well be playing Assault.

 

[The Faceless Master]

And what was their excuse with BF BC1?

the exact same excuse. BC1 also had vehicles and destruction.

 

[Massa]

They are bringing in more CoD elements. And why not? It's what BC2 was: a small step in that direction.

No it wasn't, and no they're not.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Medic is the worst offender to me. You are in no way a medic to start the game. You're almost useless. May as well be playing Assault.

not only that, but the first thing new people learn about being a Medic is YOU HAVE A BIG FUCKING GUN!!!!! great lesson there for their future career!

 

[The Faceless Master]

No it wasn't, and no they're not.

well, i dunno if COD has killcams, regenerating health, no friendly fire and spec slots or not, but BC1 didn't have them and BC2 did.

 

[Stallion Free]

And what was their excuse with BF BC1?

You decided to play games on a locked platform that would never become better hardware wise. When you did that you gave up the right to bitch about games not being able to match up to PC standards.

 

[poppabk]

Whats wrong with unlocks + leveling if the game is fucking FUN as fuck to play?


I don't see a single issue with that.

Because the game is a lot less fun to play when you can't use most of the gadgets and weapons, which means you can't use half the useful tactics. Its not very enjoyable to get mowed down by a group of M60 wielding, reviving, magnum ammo carrying medics when you have access to none of those things.

 

[tc farks]

I don't like perks much for that reason as well. You get into multiplayer for the 1st time and you're facing someone with maybe a hundred hours under his belt and significantly better weapons.

I never liked XP either. I prefered the leveling system of say Halo 2. I just started playing...I'm a level 1 and playing level 1's (or close).

I kind've missed out on this big change because I took a break from gaming. I throw in Halo Reach and they no longer even use that style. Feels unbalanced to me.

 

[Silly.Mikey]

the exact same excuse. BC1 also had vehicles and destruction.

Yes but by your logic, newer requires more and yet they've made 3 games with "newer" tech and didn't have to sacrifice player count once. I guess that's a miracle.

 

[The Faceless Master]

I don't like perks much for that reason as well. You get into multiplayer for the 1st time and you're facing someone with maybe a hundred hours under his belt and significantly better weapons.

I never liked XP either. I prefered the leveling system of say Halo 2. I just started playing...I'm a level 1 and playing level 1's (or close).

I kind've missed out on this big change because I took a break from gaming. I throw in Halo Reach and they no longer even use that style. Feels unbalanced to me.

yeah, the deck is already stacked with them knowing the maps and being familiar with the mechanics, now they also have stuff that helps them aim better, do more damage, take less damage, heal faster, etc... totally makes sense!

 

[iam220]

Yes but by your logic, newer requires more and yet they've made 3 games with "newer" tech and didn't have to sacrifice player count once. I guess that's a miracle.

Are you suggesting that the 24 player count was arbitrarily picked and not determined by technical limitations? Would you have even cared if the PC version was 24 players as well?

 

[The Faceless Master]

Yes but by your logic, newer requires more and yet they've made 3 games with "newer" tech and didn't have to sacrifice player count once. I guess that's a miracle.

my logic?

according to DICE, what they really need to expand the player count on consoles is more bandwidth, but MS and Sony's limits prevent that... maybe that will change as zh1nt0 mentioned that console player counts will be announced at a later date...

 

[tc farks]

yeah, the deck is already stacked with them knowing the maps and being familiar with the mechanics, now they also have stuff that helps them aim better, do more damage, take less damage, heal faster, etc... totally makes sense!

Exactly. Why has this become the norm?

 

[The Faceless Master]

Exactly. Why has this become the norm?

some people like carrots, popular game has lots of carrots, other games add carrots too...

 

[Red Blaster]

Exactly. Why has this become the norm?

Because developers are morons who need carrot-on-a-stick bullshit to keep people playing as opposed to putting together a balanced multiplayer experience.

 

[iam220]

Because developers are morons who need carrot-on-a-stick bullshit to keep people playing as opposed to putting together a balanced multiplayer experience.

It's not the developers who are morons.

 

[Ikuu]

Hopefully they get rid of perks for this one, and maybe they'll balance explosives this time.

 

[subversus]

It's not the developers who are morons.

edit: oops wrong idiom

well, you're right anyway.

 

[TheExecutive]

if telling the truth is showing disrespect then yeah.

So you actually think most people who will buy BF3 on the PC doesnt know what a mod is? I call bullshit on that statement. Oh and it most likely isnt disrespect but ignorance.

 

[TheExecutive]

Because developers are morons who need carrot-on-a-stick bullshit to keep people playing as opposed to putting together a balanced multiplayer experience.

Everybody enjoys some positive reinforcement

 

[tc farks]

Alright. So carrot on a stick became popular and everyone followed the trend - seems most are not fans.
But couldn't that still work if say they did their matchmaking with certain XP ranges? You would then still be able to learn the map and be competitive while facing nothing more than someone who has a small upgrade advantage over you due to more points earned per game. Rewarding him but not causing a huge imbalance. No say level 50's to your 10.

I don't know how they do this. But I play Blops over at a friends house and I see people with much different rankings than me in the 1st game. Never happened to me with (again, my Halo 2 example).

 

[Rorschach]

well, i dunno if COD has killcams, regenerating health, no friendly fire and spec slots or not, but BC1 didn't have them and BC2 did.

And the BC franchise in general has more of the elements (carrots, perks, etc).

not only that, but the first thing new people learn about being a Medic is YOU HAVE A BIG FUCKING GUN!!!!! great lesson there for their future career!

Yeah. Since they got rid of support class, they gave a big fucking gun to a guy that's supposed to be moving around the field fast.

btw- I hope they bring class sprint limits back.

Alright. So carrot on a stick became popular and everyone followed the trend - seems most are not fans.
But couldn't that still work if say they did their matchmaking with certain XP ranges? You would then still be able to learn the map and be competitive while facing nothing more than someone who has a small upgrade advantage over you due to more points earned per game. Rewarding him but not causing a huge imbalance. No say level 50's to your 10.

I don't know how they do this. But I play Blops over at a friends house and I see people with much different rankings than me in the 1st game. Never happened to me with (again, my Halo 2 example).

The hamster wheel shit I wouldn't mind as much would be unlocking certain weapons (since you can pick them up off the ground anyway). Perks, scopes, stuff that actually makes a class useful, and things of that nature, suck.

 

[Kibbles]

Just saw some actual scans and there are a few more pics not shown in the camera phone shots. So good. Still didn't get my GI though. =|

[edit] Read the article. I hope we get to see this demo they saw at GDC. I NEED THIS GAME! We can still get in the Beta if we buy MoH right? If there is a 360 beta... otherwise I'm not gonna bother.

 

[iam220]

Alright. So carrot on a stick became popular and everyone followed the trend - seems most are not fans.
But couldn't that still work if say they did their matchmaking with certain XP ranges? You would then still be able to learn the map and be competitive while facing nothing more than someone who has a small upgrade advantage over you due to more points earned per game. Rewarding him but not causing a huge imbalance. No say level 50's to your 10.

I don't know how they do this. But I play Blops over at a friends house and I see people with much different rankings than me in the 1st game. Never happened to me with (again, my Halo 2 example).

yes, we can apply all kinds of duct tape to this problem to try and minimize all the negatives that unlocks bring. Or a simple and elegant solution can be adopted which requires absolutely no duct tape ... and it is ... *drumroll* ... no unlocks at all!

 

[Silly.Mikey]

Are you suggesting that the 24 player count was arbitrarily picked and not determined by technical limitations? Would you have even cared if the PC version was 24 players as well?

I think since no one made a fuss about it like the player count on the PC version of BC2, so they figured they didn't have to improve it. The guy said it himself, no one complained about it on console...... he said nothing of technical limitations.

 

[tc farks]

yes, we can apply all kinds of duct tape to this problem to try and minimize all the negatives that unlocks bring. Or a simple and elegant solution can be adopted which requires absolutely no duct tape ... and it is ... *drumroll* ... no unlocks at all!

Well put me in the anti-even more unlocks coming your way!1! camp. I hate this feature and its one of the reasons I couoldn't get back into online FPS's for a long time.

 

[The Faceless Master]

yes, we can apply all kinds of duct tape to this problem to try and minimize all the negatives that unlocks bring. Or a simple and elegant solution can be adopted which requires absolutely no duct tape ... and it is ... *drumroll* ... no unlocks at all!

but then why would people buy the game? how would they figure out what to do!!?!?

 

[Enkidu]

I think since no one made a fuss about it like the player count on the PC version of BC2, so they figured they didn't have to improve it. The guy said it himself, no one complained about it on console...... he said nothing of technical limitations.

They have explained the technical limitations for the older games, and based on the player count it still applies here. Blame MS and Sony for having ridiculous bandwidth requirements (64kbps upload is not a good definition of broadband anymore).

 

[PjotrStroganov]

I like unlocks. But in a moderate way. Dice says they didn't account for the speed at which people unlocked all perks but because of that speed I liked it that way. It was manageable for casuals to get all their stuff within reasonable time.

 

[Cheech]

The "bandwidth" problem with 24 players on consoles feels like a bit of a smokescreen, because obviously if there are dedicated servers it's not an issue.

Anyway, what makes the most sense to me is that this now-ancient console hardware has trouble with the size of levels rendered in Frostbite 2.0. It simply can't do the size of levels that >24 players would require.

So, what they are most likely doing is making 64 player maps for PC, then taking what is called the "medium" sized versions of those map on PC and making those the console versions, because shit gets too choppy otherwise. In other words, the PC version has a superset of maps that the console guys don't get, which is what they're talking about when they say the PC was the "lead" platform.

That's how I'm reading things, anyway.

 

[subversus]

The "bandwidth" problem with 24 players on consoles feels like a bit of a smokescreen, because obviously if there are dedicated servers it's not an issue.

you're wrong but the decision was explained numerous times in this and other threads so I won't bother.

 

[CozMick]

Consoles only being able to handle 24 players is complete and utter bullshit.

MAG completely and utterly destroys EVERY platform for player numbers.

 

[The Faceless Master]

The "bandwidth" problem with 24 players on consoles feels like a bit of a smokescreen, because obviously if there are dedicated servers it's not an issue.

Anyway, what makes the most sense to me is that this now-ancient console hardware has trouble with the size of levels rendered in Frostbite 2.0. It simply can't do the size of levels that >24 players would require.

So, what they are most likely doing is making 64 player maps for PC, then taking what is called the "medium" sized versions of those map on PC and making those the console versions, because shit gets too choppy otherwise. In other words, the PC version has a superset of maps that the console guys don't get, which is what they're talking about when they say the PC was the "lead" platform.

That's how I'm reading things, anyway.

how do dedicated servers eliminate bandwidth usage?

 

[Stallion Free]

Consoles only being able to handle 24 players is complete and utter bullshit.

MAG completely and utterly destroys EVERY platform for player numbers.

Yeah, make your game look like utter shit and that all becomes possible.

 

[Cheech]

you're wrong but the decision was explained numerous times in this and other threads so I won't bother.

Have you played BC2 on a PC? The console versions feel very "framey" by comparison, and it's not a bandwidth issue. I think the hardware is struggling to keep up, so I can easily believe the console versions simply can't do the 64 player maps due to the sheer size of them. It makes far more sense than "bandwidth".

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

Consoles only being able to handle 24 players is complete and utter bullshit.

MAG completely and utterly destroys EVERY platform for player numbers.

It's also a terrible looking game, with no destruction.

Simple answer: because of consoles. Long answer, courtesy of 1943 programmer Gustav Halling: because of consoles' bandwidth limits, and inability to process network data in a speedy manner:

64 players are of course awesome but will all good there is some hurting also. I can assure you that the 24 player limit is not about us being lazy but the experience of a massive battlefield is not bound to the amount of players! And as many of you remember most clan wars where player with 8vs8 or 12vs12 and what we have seen many of the 64-player servers are mostly half-full or having lack of performance.

We have made it sure that Battlefield 1943 will feel big and have a fast pacing, bf1942 actually had very low pacing! If you place 100 people in one room it feels very small, but if you put 100 people on the streets it seems like nothing! 24 players will give us the benefit of having full servers almost all the time and the whole map area is being used!

Beside these design decisions there are technical limitations. There are very restricted bandwidth limits on the consoles and we are networking a lot more then 24 players:

# 24 players are networked
# Almost as many physics driven vehicles with movable and destroyable parts
# All destruction, if a wall is being destroyed on one client we need to update it on all the others, otherwise we could end up with players hiding behind non-existent walls.

If we did remove all destruction and all our vehicles we could have more players. But no other game gives you the wide gaming experience we have!

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/44624/Battlefield-1943-Why-The-24-Player-Limit

Consoles are old and busted. They just can't handle the heat like the PC can.

 

[ZoddGutts]

One of the reasons I'm looking forward to Red Orchestra 2 is that it won't have a perks/XP system.

 

[Cuban Legend]

Consoles only being able to handle 24 players is complete and utter bullshit.

MAG completely and utterly destroys EVERY platform for player numbers.

So you'll keep playing MAG over BF3 after it's released?

 

[CozMick]

It's also a terrible looking game.

Yeah, make your game look like utter shit and that all becomes possible.

No and No!

But then again all console games look like shit including BF3 so what's the problem.....right?

 

[Cheech]

how do dedicated servers eliminate bandwidth usage?

They don't eliminate it, obviously, but there is far less traffic being passed around.

I took your question honestly, BTW, if you're being sarcastic don't take offense.

 

[1-D_FTW]

Because developers are morons who need carrot-on-a-stick bullshit to keep people playing as opposed to putting together a balanced multiplayer experience.

Read the dude doing the interview for GI and tell me who the problem is. DICE is just responding to an ADD world where everyone needs a constant gold star to reaffirm their specialness.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Yeah saying MAG looks TERRIBLE is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Mr_Brit]

Yeah saying MAG looks TERRIBLE is a bit of a stretch.

MAG does indeed look bad but then again it does have 256 players so it's kind of justified.

 

[Cuban Legend]

No and No!

But then again all console games look like shit including BF3 so what's the problem.....right?

Answer my question otherwise don't come in here with your troll-baiting nonesense.

 

[Stallion Free]

MAG does indeed look bad but then again it does have 256 players so it's kind of justified.

What kind of framerate does it hold when there are 256 people on your screen at once?

 

[Red Blaster]

Read the dude doing the interview for GI and tell me who the problem is. DICE is just responding to an ADD world where everyone needs a constant gold star to reaffirm their specialness.

The consumers have always been idiots, but I'm annoyed that DICE is indulging them. Perks and ridiculous unlock trees hurt the games in the long-run as you establish the haves and have-nots. It's absolutely ridiculous how much of a disadvantage newcomers have in multiplayer games these days. BF2 and 2142 had plenty of unlocks but aside from stuff like advanced medhubs and things of that ilk, most of them were just alternatives to the default setups and didn't offer you a clear advantage. DICE of course, threw this philosophy out the window in Bad Company 2 with the retarded magnum ammo which you can't properly counter unless you play the game for 17-20 hours and unlock the body armor DERP.

Perks should only be in CoD which the game was designed around. It's a damned shame this industry has such a focus-grouped approach sometimes.