BF2S Forums Battlefield 3 - Main Thread

jord wrote:

I'm saying they should abandon the prestige bullshit and just make the space in between ranks far bigger. By a factor of like 2.5.

yeah i agree but in reality it makes zero difference.

Uzique wrote:

it does make a difference because there is no sense of qualitative prestige or achievement in the game when everyone is a colonel with a tiny pixellated digit underneath their rank. i made a post about this on the bf3 forums and received a lot of support. the ranking system is dumb. like or not, a major reason to carry on grinding pub play in bf2 was to rank up to the next rank and attain a new level of exclusivity. the fact is that after the first 50 hours of gameplay you are a colonel means your 'rank grind' for the rest of bf3's lifespan (100 hours? 250? 1000?) is just staring at a number. it's shit and it's lazy. the whole point of a ranking system is to indicate seniority/superiority over other players - the "oh shit this guy has a lot of experience racked up" kinda effect - and in bf3 that sense of ranking hierarchy is totally lost. at the end of the day the current ranking system is built on the condition that an average console gamer can't be expected to invest more than 50 hours on a couch to get all unlocks/weapons/ranks and feel 'happy'.

I can't understand why all the lower ranks have 123456701243289136 stars ( also colonoel) on each rank , but not for example the luitenants, captain , and major ... why did they stop with the "stars" on each rank AT THE WRONG END??

okay if you have to grind 10 stars on private , but the highest rank should be pretty exlusive , now it's just like all the other 50hours+ ranks with A NUMBER!

thepilot91 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

it does make a difference because there is no sense of qualitative prestige or achievement in the game when everyone is a colonel with a tiny pixellated digit underneath their rank. i made a post about this on the bf3 forums and received a lot of support. the ranking system is dumb. like or not, a major reason to carry on grinding pub play in bf2 was to rank up to the next rank and attain a new level of exclusivity. the fact is that after the first 50 hours of gameplay you are a colonel means your 'rank grind' for the rest of bf3's lifespan (100 hours? 250? 1000?) is just staring at a number. it's shit and it's lazy. the whole point of a ranking system is to indicate seniority/superiority over other players - the "oh shit this guy has a lot of experience racked up" kinda effect - and in bf3 that sense of ranking hierarchy is totally lost. at the end of the day the current ranking system is built on the condition that an average console gamer can't be expected to invest more than 50 hours on a couch to get all unlocks/weapons/ranks and feel 'happy'.

I can't understand why all the lower ranks have 123456701243289136 stars ( also colonoel) on each rank , but not for example the luitenants, captain , and major ... why did they stop with the "stars" on each rank AT THE WRONG END??

okay if you have to grind 10 stars on private , but the highest rank should be pretty exlusive , now it's just like all the other 50hours+ ranks with A NUMBER!

That's why i liked halo's rank system. The game has been out for quite some time and besides the hardcore stay at home gamers people are still struggling to reach ranks like hero or legend. It's pretty legit.

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Rank_%28Halo:_Reach%29

Google says there's around 300-500 inheritors. Out of the millions of people that play there are only 300-500 people that have seen the top ranks since the games release. Over 2 years ago.

Last edited by NeXuS (2011-12-04 08:26:54)

Uzique wrote:

it does make a difference because there is no sense of qualitative prestige or achievement in the game when everyone is a colonel with a tiny pixellated digit underneath their rank. i made a post about this on the bf3 forums and received a lot of support. the ranking system is dumb. like or not, a major reason to carry on grinding pub play in bf2 was to rank up to the next rank and attain a new level of exclusivity. the fact is that after the first 50 hours of gameplay you are a colonel means your 'rank grind' for the rest of bf3's lifespan (100 hours? 250? 1000?) is just staring at a number. it's shit and it's lazy. the whole point of a ranking system is to indicate seniority/superiority over other players - the "oh shit this guy has a lot of experience racked up" kinda effect - and in bf3 that sense of ranking hierarchy is totally lost. at the end of the day the current ranking system is built on the condition that an average console gamer can't be expected to invest more than 50 hours on a couch to get all unlocks/weapons/ranks and feel 'happy'.

when I saw a colonel in BF2 I would think "holy shit this guy knows what hes doing".  I knew I'd never rank up that high

now its "oh, that guy got it a few days before I did"

Last edited by Spearhead (2011-12-04 11:30:44)

With the way they withheld a lot of things that people consider basic to functionality in a FPS, I think that it's good that you can rank up to around level 20 or so in quick fashion. (Which begs the counter argument, if that shit was included in the first place, there would be no need to rank up so fast...)

I just wish it took longer and longer to rank up once you get closer to the 30s and 40s. Even playing just a few hours in a row can practically let you rank up in one sitting, ESPECIALLY at higher levels since you start to receive medals much more often (which used to take weeks of playing, for nothing more than the shiny new rank itself).

They overhauled BF2's system once upon a time, I'm not sure what would prevent that from happening in BF3...(but I'll go ahead and jump the gun on blaming consoles).

The lower sergeant ranks should go quickly. The higher Lt.'s should have large gaps between them to actually make them count for something. The reason why I think the lower ranks should go quick is so that by the time everyone reaches Lt. they would all by be on the same level in terms of unlocks and stuff. Condense all of the unlocks into the quick advancing sergeant ranks and make the other ones be about time/experience/skill. I know my bitching about unlocks is a bore but it's annoying not being able to outplay people who are less skilled than me because they sat around and grinded for all the better equipment. In BF2 someone who was generally more skilled and smarter in FPSs could jump in their first time and out play someone with 100+ hours in BF2 because everyone was on the same level in terms of what they had to work with. It was pure.

I know the whole BF2 style of multiplayer is dead but they had a good compromise between Bf3 and BF2 styles in BC2. The unlocks were condensed into the first few ranks and the higher ranks were just for prestige/dick waving and they took more time to get than BF3's. A level 50 in BC2 actually meant something. It didn't mean as much as a 3 star in BF2 but it meant hell of a lot more than a Colonel in BF3.

It worked for BC2.

I unlocked everything in BC2 but I wasn't the max rank. I enjoyed BC2 a lot, and in some ways better than BF3.

I was only rank 32 in BC2 when I stopped playing.

PC

I'm playing BF3 on xbox 360.

I had to move from Switzerland to California. I had no way of getting my PC here, so I sold it to my dad for a thousand bucks and bought a laptop that could run most games I enjoyed, unfortunately now it's performance is really low for some reason, even after reformatting.

Anyways, xbox was $300 and I'm enjoying it, but I'm still getting a PC in the future when I have a better job and can afford it.

you dont remember the threads about this?? big shit

-Sh1fty- wrote:

yep...

Anyways did EA/DICE even succeed in improving sales with their dumbing-down of the Battlefield series? Was it even good for them dedicate so much time to SP instead of MP as far as sales go? I don't understand why these big companies don't listen to their fan base when small companies do.

Because catering to casuals earn more sales. Just look at CoD...