Jump to content

Battlefield thread...


excaliburps
 Share

  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. What System are you buying BF3 for?

    • PC
      18
    • PS3
      1
    • Xbox
      4
    • Unsure
      3
    • Not Buying
      9


Recommended Posts

  On 10/24/2011 at 11:25 AM, MasterDex said:

I probably won't have Steam running if I'm playing BF3 but if I'm not on Origin, just posting a status update here will probably be the surest way I'll see you're up for a game.

Just add each other's names in the Battlelog and you can connect directly to one another's games. That being said, my name will be Nezacant so please add me! My clan will have our own 40 person ranked server running conquest maps. I invite all of you to come join us on our server.

 

EDIT: For those that were concerned about the review embargo, I wouldn't be. BF is primarily a multiplayer game and logic would say that they would want reviewers to be able to experience multiplayer before passing judgement on the game. I would imagine they opened up some private servers for the review copies they gave out as has been done in the past. (And I don't think they wanted them to review it based on the beta either.) Tons of reviews are coming in now which shows they didn't intend on outright blocking reviews until after it's release. No offence to Mini Wheats, but comparing the release of Skyward Sword to the release of BF3, two completely different types of games with completely different technological challenges to be met and therefore would have to be reviewed differently, was silly.

Edited by Nezacant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game Informer threw up a review, gave it a 9.5/10.

 

Which is disappointing for me, really, considering it feels like another Bad Company game. I know others will love it, but I was heavily disappointed that it felt like another Bad Company game when they kept saying it was the "true" successor to BF2.

 

And it's still gonna sell millions based on name alone, which makes it even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/24/2011 at 11:25 AM, MasterDex said:

I probably won't have Steam running if I'm playing BF3 but if I'm not on Origin, just posting a status update here will probably be the surest way I'll see you're up for a game.

 

The reviews are starting to roll in now. Seems generally favourable. I have to laugh at the people over on the official forums though. They're raging at IGN for giving it 9.0, calling them CoD fanboys when they gave Black Ops an 8.5. Metacritic

Recently forum dwellers have turned into comatose fucktards. They started pelting Sterling with hate for giving Arkham City an 8/10. God forbid someone not give only 10/10s to every single game ever released...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an... erm... short conversation with MasterDex on the subject of this bottlefield thing. Spoilered for wall of text reasons.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rambo fuckers started in Counter Strike. Not CoD. :P

 

The lack of commander doesn't bother me much. I loved playing as commander, but the problem was that if you had one team with a commander and if no one took the roll on the other team, then the game became very unbalanced. So rather than use a commander, give squads the ability to call for artillery, fly UAVs, etc. I do wish they would find a good way to implement it again though.

 

As for squad beacons, this isn't the first time they've done this in a BF game. 2142 had them too. The problem with BF3's version of it is that it's completely stealthy. in 2142, when you spawned on the beacon, you would drop from the sky in a loud ass rocket pod that would give away the beacon's position. You knew right away when there was a beacon in the area. In BF3 you just pop in, and the beacon just lets out a faint beep for you to identify it with. I found in beta that good players will notice that people were getting to a base very quickly. As a squad (I play with clan mates and use Ventrilo) we'd split up and listen for a beacon. So this just may be something players will adapt to as they always do when things change.

 

I feel as if Johnny's feeling toward the game is because he hasn't had the time to put into it as others have and also hasn't played it with a good group of people. The people you play with, if you work together as a team, really changes it's dynamic.

Edited by Nezacant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 2142 had the beacons right. Like you said, you had the drop pods visible for a few seconds s you could prepare for conflict - or to get smushed beneath the pod (I loved that!). Hopefully DICE will adjust it so that every spawn beacon spawns you in the air with your parachute out and if I'm not remembering a simple suggestion, I think hardcore may have the option to keep squad spawning to the squad leader, which I thought also worked well, not only in reducing the amount of instances where squadmates spawned in as you finished off some guy but also encourage squads to stay close together and protect each other.

 

As far as Commander goes, the squad leaders will have the ability to call in artillery but UAVs will be accessible by anyone with engineers also getting a UAV and mortor unlock but this was all missing from the beta. The commander role was great but it was often misused and abused which lead to much frustration, especially when you know you could do a better job but you can't get the mutiny going.

 

I don't think CS totally ruined the teamplay aspect as it was still important in any decent match but in CoD, teamwork really meant jack shit. A good team would win but a good player could win the round just as easily, if not easier. Maybe it's just me but it wasn't until BC2 that I noticed a serious degradation in teamplay and I don't think you can blame the game for that, at least not entirely, as I've had some fantastic matches with good teams and have found that more often than not, it's the better team that wins.

 

Battlefield is a series that has always had its quirks and problems. I'm pretty sure the sentry-gun/shield/Titan Container exploit is STILL in 2142 and that's been there from Day 1. RDX spamming was also a major problem in that game with the lack of friendly explosive damage, many also found placing the beacons in such a way that you could control the pod and get to an otherwise unreachable point to be broken too (personally, I found it fine since it was only a select few locations where it could be done and they were all well known, it also added a greater need for vertical awareness too). The jets in BF2 could dominate far too much and the random deviation could be a real bitch, not to mention that the need for lag compensation in BF games has always caused it's fair share of problems.

 

Yet I still can't get enough of the games. As I said in the chat, there's no other game that scratches that particular itch for me. My love for the series, coupled with my faith in DICE to put a decent effort into listening to their community means I forgive the series for many of its flaws but I can certainly see why others might not.

 

edit: I just remembered that DICE improved the situation where new squadmates would spawn in and kill you as you finished off your buddy a bit, they did this by removing the spawn protection the newly spawned player has the moment they take any sort of action. It's not a fix but it's an improvement over the initial timed protection they had.

 

Ultimately, I think the balance issues that BF games have always had is a problem with the type of game they have. It's an extremely delicate balance with all the options available to the player. I don't think, even after all the time I've spent with the series, that I could do much better of a job in that regard.

Edited by MasterDex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dex: Teamplay is important in actual matches in CoD. It's not everything about the game, but a team that plays together will trump a team that just rushes in blindly.

 

@Nezacant: I have played Battlefield since the first title, so it's not a lack of time spent with the franchise. I feel the problems have just gotten worse for every installment past BF2.

 

also, "rambo fuckers" started in the old id games before your semi-realistic shooters even existed. =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/24/2011 at 5:23 PM, Johnny said:

@Dex: Teamplay is important in actual matches in CoD. It's not everything about the game, but a team that plays together will trump a team that just rushes in blindly.

I have to disagree. I've often carried a godawful team to victory on my own merit, even when facing a superior team. Teamplay certainly helps but I don't think it's important, at least not in the same way it is in Battlefield.

 

  Quote
@Nezacant: I have played Battlefield since the first title, so it's not a lack of time spent with the franchise. I feel the problems have just gotten worse for every installment past BF2.

I personally think 2142 is the crowning achievement for the BF series thus far. It was just a much more focused and balanced affair I feel, despite having its own share of problems.

 

  Quote
also, "rambo fuckers" started in the old id games before your semi-realistic shooters even existed. =)

Yeah but where teamwork was needed, it was generally there and most could enter Rambo mode but still contribute to the team effort whereas in recent years I find more people too stubborn to change their ways. But it could just be me.

Edited by MasterDex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree with both Johhny and Dex on a lot of their points, but I think at the same time I'm more than a little biased because I've sunk more time into the Battlefield games than any other FPS, and maybe any other game series.

 

I only have a couple points here because most of my opinions on all of this are pretty boring.

First, in regards to the Recon class being broken, I wholeheartedly disagree. To me, the Recon class is the most versatile class in the BF games (or at least BC2, the only time I've played the recon class for an extended period of time), and that's why so many people have a problem with it. Because you can play it sitting 3 bases behind and sniping, people do, and because you can run around quick-scoping and one shotting people do. The problem isn't wholly with the class, it's with how people play the class, and unfortunately, the class lends itself to the extreme agressive playstyle or the passive, irritating sit back 3 bases behind and snipe playstyle. The problem with these 2 styles is that one breeds hackusations and the other makes teammates rage at you when they have to respawn and run up to the next base. You can't do those types of things with any of the other classes in Battlefield, and that's why I enjoy playing recon so much in BC2. Unfortunately, I'm not very good at it, so I don't do it very much. Eventually my luck runs out with quickscoping, though, so I kinda rage and go assault or something.

 

Secondly, I don't really think that BF needs to or has good balance or good teamplay or good anything. I've had some of the worst multiplayer experiences in BF, and some of the best. The reason I keep coming back to the Battlefield games isn't the immersion, it isn't the guns or the gameplay, it's that I've spent so much more time in the BF games than any other series I can kinda pick up where I left off. I keep playing the games because the learning curve is practically nil with the exception of the new maps now. I keep playing the games because they're fun, not because they're better than COD or have great weapon balance or teamplay, because, well, that's in the eye of the beholder. They're not really well balanced games a lot of the time, and the engine is a little broken with hitreg on high and low pings, but the Battlefield series is by far my favorite MP series out there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to disregard the rest of your post, spork, but there's one thing in particular I wanted to comment on.

 

  On 10/25/2011 at 3:28 AM, Sporkwaffles said:

The problem isn't wholly with the class, it's with how people play the class

 

I see this kind of thinking a lot when people are discussing modern shooters and it just blows my mind.

If the designers want you to play Recon one way, they need to design it so it punishes the other ways of playing. It's not the players' fault that the game rewards them personally for not contributing to the team.

 

It's the same thing with the "god-damned campers" in counter-strike and CoD. If camping is too prevalent (which I don't think it is in the PC versions of either game, but that's irrelevant) that's a problem for the game designers to fix.

 

This is sort of aimed at MasterDex as well: it's not Call of Duty or any other game's fault that players are playing it wrong in BFBC2. The game isn't sufficiently teaching/encouraging them how to play right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with Johnny that a game should coach you into the right way of playing. You learn to move around in Quake to avoid dying. You learn to time your blocks in fighting games to avoid losing (I used to suck at blocking and grabbing, but then learned it due to necessity). That doesn't mean everyone will succeed at their attempts, but there's an obvious difference between trying to do something right and failing, and doing something you're obviously not supposed to do (7 Recons on a hilltop).

 

Obviously, my examples were games where death means failure, but if Battlefield isn't giving me a sense of personal failure by playing it wrong and having the whole team lose, then it needs to think of some better way of telling me I suck.

Edited by Cyber Rat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay the game is released! If any of you are looking for a server to play on, you would be doing me a favor by connecting to mine. The server name is Mount the Frak Up! Conquest 24/7 RevolutionFinale.com.

 

At the moment we cannot change the number of players required to start a match, so it's stuck at 8. The more I have connecting the easier it will be to get games started. See you in game!

Edited by Nezacant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/25/2011 at 9:58 AM, Johnny said:

I don't mean to disregard the rest of your post, spork, but there's one thing in particular I wanted to comment on.

 

  On 10/25/2011 at 3:28 AM, Sporkwaffles said:

The problem isn't wholly with the class, it's with how people play the class

 

I see this kind of thinking a lot when people are discussing modern shooters and it just blows my mind.

If the designers want you to play Recon one way, they need to design it so it punishes the other ways of playing. It's not the players' fault that the game rewards them personally for not contributing to the team.

The way I see it, the Recon has two roles to fill - The sniper role and the recon role. Neither role should be punished as they're both valuable roles to the team. The wookie horde problem in BC2 spawned from the ease at which snipers could get good K/Ds. This was due to the lack of sway, the accuracy over range and the lack of proper defensive measures of the teams when most of their members were selfish snipers. This was expounded by DICE's insistence on not allowing class limits on ranked servers for a long time with the threat of server closure. Thankfully over time, they changed their tune and most decent servers now have a limit on the amount of snipers that can be deployed on any one team. The >XG< server, for example, has a 3 sniper limit per team. While this creates the potential for those 3 roles to be filled with selfish snipers, I feel that as a moderation decision, it's better to instigate it than allow too many snipers to spoil the game on others. I don't feel the game really rewards selfish snipers truly but that the player mentality of "K/D ratio is everything" means they don't care that they get more points helping out their team. Certainly, DICE should have done a better job of balancing the recon class and having the sniper role require such a low skill level to do well with. They have made it more difficult for snipers to do well in BF3 however so at least they listened to the community in the end.

 

  On 10/25/2011 at 9:58 AM, Johnny said:

It's the same thing with the "god-damned campers" in counter-strike and CoD. If camping is too prevalent (which I don't think it is in the PC versions of either game, but that's irrelevant) that's a problem for the game designers to fix.

 

This is sort of aimed at MasterDex as well: it's not Call of Duty or any other game's fault that players are playing it wrong in BFBC2. The game isn't sufficiently teaching/encouraging them how to play right.

I'm not really saying it's Call of Duty's fault for promoting the Rambo playstyle but simply that I noticed more people using that playstyle after the release of Modern Warfare and I noticed it in more than just BC2. There may be no correlation however, it may simply be that the younger generation of gamer is more inclined towards the Rambo playstyle than the older generation of gamers but it is something I noticed around that time.

 

I agree wholeheartedly however about the game not teaching/encouraging players to play right and the same is true of many games. The problem is greater in Battlefield where there's more to learn than something like Call of Duty but even Call of Duty has its problems in that regard. I feel that a game like Battlefield would benefit greatly from a GT-style license system where a series of tests and tutorials would grant you some sort of skill ranking. If there were multiple rankings, say from Level D to Level A+, that server administrators could set as the minimum skill ranking, I feel the general quality of players and teamwork would improve. You're always going to have selfish players but I think you'd have less if they saw how better teamwork or gameplay can improve their play.

 

  On 10/25/2011 at 10:50 AM, Nezacant said:

Yay the game is released! If any of you are looking for a server to play on, you would be doing me a favor by connecting to mine. The server name is A Mount the Frak Up! Conquest 24/7 RevolutionFinale.com.

 

At the moment we cannot change the number of players required to start a match, so it's stuck at 8. The more I have connecting the easier it will be to get games started. See you in game!

 

The player limit is being discussed over on the EAUK forums so with any luck, DICE will spot the thread and change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/25/2011 at 12:04 PM, MasterDex said:
I feel that a game like Battlefield would benefit greatly from a GT-style license system where a series of tests and tutorials would grant you some sort of skill ranking. If there were multiple rankings, say from Level D to Level A+, that server administrators could set as the minimum skill ranking, I feel the general quality of players and teamwork would improve. You're always going to have selfish players but I think you'd have less if they saw how better teamwork or gameplay can improve their play.

 

I don't know anything about Battlefield and whether it would work, but I think this is an interesting concept you should write about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting concept but I don't feel as if it would work. At least not in an FPS. I think most would skip over it. I do remember server admins in BF 2 would use client tools that would prevent someone of a certain rank to play on their server. If they only wanted experienced players, they would lock out the lower ranks. If it was a noob friendly server they would lock out higher ranks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Locking out people of certain rank levels doesn't really work. It may with BF3 with its, if I remember correctly, one profile per account but before that, on say COD4. A total crap player can eventually rank up enough to play on higher ranked servers. It also works the other way with say me starting a new profile and I wipe the floor with the other team with just the basic gear.

 

I honestly want to see that concept realized. It already in one form in MW2 Spec Ops. Very basic in the sense of MasterDex's concept but it can be fleshed out more.

 

Also, on a different note... folks I know on campus are getting BF3 and its making me slip... I must hold on. Its way too soon to get this game even when I'm somewhat okay with the Origin crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/25/2011 at 5:28 PM, MaliciousH said:

Also, on a different note... folks I know on campus are getting BF3 and its making me slip... I must hold on. Its way too soon to get this game even when I'm somewhat okay with the Origin crap.

 

You are a better man than I, Malicious.

 

But anyway, my copy came today via Amazon. I really want to install it and play it tonight, but alas, bio midterm tomorrow. Probably not the best idea.

 

Amazon has a really odd way of doing release day shipping, though. Rather than ship it 2 day or very far in advance, they shipped it last night at 7:00 and it showed up today at 12. Not that I'm complaining, but it seems like it'd make more sense (and save them money) to ship it 2 day or sometime in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...