BF2S Forums Battlefield 3 - Main Thread

Superior Mind wrote:

No I don't think that. What I hope for is an active tweaking and modding community that will make this game more playable.

AussieReaper wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

No I don't think that. What I hope for is an active tweaking and modding community that will make this game more playable.

I'm sure gfx tweaks like the above will be done by an active modding community.

Even the dust in karkand could be removed from bf2, only reason it wasn't is cause pb thought you were hacking without dust files.

FloppY_ wrote:

thepilot91 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

It shouldn't take >1000 hours to hit the top rank.. that's just plain retarded -.-

It doesn't and even if it did , whats the problem? , then you won't have every single player being so coool top rank , fuck yeah I'm general yeah ...Instead you have all those people down at the bottom complaining how the game sucks because they never get to the highest rank, and the actual no-lifers and skilled players will be the first ones to reach the top ranks , as it should be...

Like you see no problem with a long ranking system, I see no problem with a short one... Surely a game should be about the gameplay and not which .png is infront of your name...

Differences in opinion...

If ranking is tied to unlocking it should be short to make the game fair.

AussieReaper wrote:

thepilot91 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I'm sure gfx tweaks like the above will be done by an active modding community.

Even the dust in karkand could be removed from bf2, only reason it wasn't is cause pb thought you were hacking without dust files.

problem is karkand would be snipefest withouth the fog + it looks terrible

it was already a snipe fest.

don't you remember what it was like when the teams each had one side of the river?

Last edited by thepilot91 (2011-10-11 05:23:04)

The A W S M F O X wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

The A W S M F O X wrote:

I hope the rank system is ALOT slower, they claimed it was sped up for BETA, but by how much??!!?!?

Oh god please no...

The BF2 ranking was horribly slow.. It took forever to get anywhere (I never even unlocked the last 2 weapons because of it :()

2142 and BC2 were MUCH better, I hit the top rank in 2142 and after ~350 hours I'm almost lvl 49 in BC2...

Get fucked, BC2 was too fast, 2142 was ok. If I can reach 5> ranks every few hours of play, thats just silly. Rank in game is almost pointless now ( assuming it ever was), because it is attained too quickly to be of any significance. I agree BF2 was slow, but you really felt like a bigshot ranking up back in the day, and it was exciting because things werent popping up every fucking second you move the mouse or take a step.


BF3 ranking should be somewhere between BF2 and BC2, not too long and not too short.

FloppY_ wrote:

thepilot91 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Oh god please no...

The BF2 ranking was horribly slow.. It took forever to get anywhere (I never even unlocked the last 2 weapons because of it )

2142 and BC2 were MUCH better, I hit the top rank in 2142 and after ~350 hours I'm almost lvl 49 in BC2...

OH fuck no , I mean I played the bf3 beta for a total of 36 hours and if I would have kept on whoring points at metro I'd probably made it 3 or 4 ranks further instead of learning how to fly during the "caspian-weekend" ....I got to rank 47 It's redicoulus.

Bf2's rank system was perfect , everytime you ranked up it felt so much rewarding than all the common "realistic-shooters" after bf2 : 2142,BC2;MW2 and so on

It shouldn't take >1000 hours to hit the top rank.. that's just plain retarded -.-

FloppY_ wrote:

If ranking is tied to unlocking it should be short to make the game fair.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2011-10-11 05:55:54)

thepilot91 wrote:

The A W S M F O X wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Oh god please no...

The BF2 ranking was horribly slow.. It took forever to get anywhere (I never even unlocked the last 2 weapons because of it )

2142 and BC2 were MUCH better, I hit the top rank in 2142 and after ~350 hours I'm almost lvl 49 in BC2...

Get fucked, BC2 was too fast, 2142 was ok. If I can reach 5> ranks every few hours of play, thats just silly. Rank in game is almost pointless now ( assuming it ever was), because it is attained too quickly to be of any significance. I agree BF2 was slow, but you really felt like a bigshot ranking up back in the day, and it was exciting because things werent popping up every fucking second you move the mouse or take a step.


BF3 ranking should be somewhere between BF2 and BC2, not too long and not too short.

bf2142 hours: Total        272:58:48 (3000 points past highest rank)
BC2 hours:  total                Time:110h 33m 04s (rank 31, 19 from the highest )

I would say they're equally bad...

FloppY_ wrote:

thepilot91 wrote:

The A W S M F O X wrote:

Get fucked, BC2 was too fast, 2142 was ok. If I can reach 5> ranks every few hours of play, thats just silly. Rank in game is almost pointless now ( assuming it ever was), because it is attained too quickly to be of any significance. I agree BF2 was slow, but you really felt like a bigshot ranking up back in the day, and it was exciting because things werent popping up every fucking second you move the mouse or take a step.


BF3 ranking should be somewhere between BF2 and BC2, not too long and not too short.

bf2142 hours: Total        272:58:48 (3000 points past highest rank)
BC2 hours:  total                Time:110h 33m 04s (rank 31, 19 from the highest )

I would say they're equally bad...

And your next 19 BC2 ranks will take >200 hours... it slows down towards the end...

Spark wrote:

Seems like EA took the whole "beta" shtick a bit too literally.

GullyFoyle wrote:

joystiq.com - The Beta and Battlefield 3

by Arthur Gies on Oct 10th 2011 8:04PM

Last week, I spent some six hours with a not-quite-final-but-close version of Battlefield 3. I think EA and DICE would like for me to talk about the single player but really, I don't have anything more to say about it than I did a few weeks ago. I can't talk about most of the multiplayer maps I played with any specificity, other than the Grand Bazaar level, which, hallelujah, had a tank in it. But at this point, I feel confident in making the following statement:

Releasing a beta for Battlefield 3 might be the biggest mistake EA has made with its biggest game this year.
Battlefield 3 (10/7/11)

Or, more specifically, releasing this Battlefield 3 beta has been a spectacular miscalculation on EA's part. It isn't just the technical issues, though those are distressing. DICE has insisted that the open Battlefield 3 beta is very much that: a beta. And I think that if they had released it six weeks earlier, it would be easier to swallow.

DICE has insisted publicly that the beta that released was an old build caught up in the vagaries of console manufacturer certification, but a) most gamers have no idea what that even means, b) most gamers will never see that information, and c) EA and DICE are fully aware of the amount of time it takes to get content through the certification process.

The main problem with the Battlefield 3 beta – the one that's out right this moment – is that it doesn't play like Battlefield 3 does now ...

I don't know that we've ever seen a console beta with as many major technical issues as the Battlefield 3 beta; I know that we haven't seen one recently. And whether DICE and EA care to admit it, there's a public expectation that console betas will be more functional than the version of Battlefield 3 being offered now. And DICE has conducted betas on console before, most recently with Battlefield: Bad Company 2, which did not have the myriad technical issues that Battlefield 3 does.

But that's not the main reason that this beta has been a mistake. The main problem with the Battlefield 3 beta – the one that's out right this moment – is that it doesn't play like Battlefield 3 does now, how I assume the final game will play.

There are major gameplay balance differences between the two. Weapons feel different, with different fire rates and recoil. And the damage model has been radically shifted. Death comes quickly in the beta, situated more towards Call of Duty's durability, or even last year's DICE-developed Medal of Honor multiplayer. Firefights in the beta prioritize reflexes over tactics, which is a departure from Bad Company 2.

This is not the case with Battlefield 3 as it is now. The version of Battlefield 3 that I spent hours playing last week has weapons and damage that feel like Battlefield Bad Company 2. This, if you aren't sure, is a good thing. It changes the dynamics of firefights, allowing for each side to take and hold positions, and making flanking and tactical coordination much more viable. The increased player survivability also make vehicles in Battlefield 3 more fair than they would be with the beta's damage models.

Getting the drop on someone isn't the end of a fight in the version of Battlefield 3 I played last week. You have to be persistent, and you have to watch your ass to make sure you aren't left holding your, uh, empty gun in your hand if the guy you murdered has a teammate around the corner.

As it stands now, Battlefield 3's beta is a wellspring of misinformation about what your final Battlefield 3 experience will be.

It leads to more interesting, frantic firefights, including one moment where I killed one enemy with my M4, shot another that came around the corner from the hip, and had to switch to my sidearm to handle yet another opponent a moment later. This happened all the time in Bad Company 2, and it's one of the things that gave it an identity separate from other modern military shooters. Requiring more ammo per kill also makes the support class more important – as you run out of ammo, you'll be looking for that resupply. Battlefield 3 has made machine gunners your source of ammo, which means you'll probably need to fall back to resupply.

It's an example of one change resulting in a cascade of differences in how Battlefield 3 will play when it's released later this month than the beta does now. As it stands now, Battlefield 3's beta is a wellspring of misinformation about what your final Battlefield 3 experience will be. I'm glad for that – I enjoyed what I've played of this more-final build of Battlefield 3 much more than any time I've spent with the game throughout the year. DICE and EA told me last week that they've been taking player feedback from the beta into account, though I have a hard time comprehending how they could make such sweeping changes based entirely on player feedback. But the question is whether or not what EA and DICE have let people at home play early has done more harm than good for Battlefield 3's prospects.

We'll find out soon. Battlefield 3 is scheduled for release on October 25th.

thepilot91 wrote:

GullyFoyle wrote:

joystiq.com - The Beta and Battlefield 3

by Arthur Gies on Oct 10th 2011 8:04PM

Last week, I spent some six hours with a not-quite-final-but-close version of Battlefield 3. I think EA and DICE would like for me to talk about the single player but really, I don't have anything more to say about it than I did a few weeks ago. I can't talk about most of the multiplayer maps I played with any specificity, other than the Grand Bazaar level, which, hallelujah, had a tank in it. But at this point, I feel confident in making the following statement:

Releasing a beta for Battlefield 3 might be the biggest mistake EA has made with its biggest game this year.
Battlefield 3 (10/7/11)

Or, more specifically, releasing this Battlefield 3 beta has been a spectacular miscalculation on EA's part. It isn't just the technical issues, though those are distressing. DICE has insisted that the open Battlefield 3 beta is very much that: a beta. And I think that if they had released it six weeks earlier, it would be easier to swallow.

DICE has insisted publicly that the beta that released was an old build caught up in the vagaries of console manufacturer certification, but a) most gamers have no idea what that even means, b) most gamers will never see that information, and c) EA and DICE are fully aware of the amount of time it takes to get content through the certification process.

The main problem with the Battlefield 3 beta – the one that's out right this moment – is that it doesn't play like Battlefield 3 does now ...

I don't know that we've ever seen a console beta with as many major technical issues as the Battlefield 3 beta; I know that we haven't seen one recently. And whether DICE and EA care to admit it, there's a public expectation that console betas will be more functional than the version of Battlefield 3 being offered now. And DICE has conducted betas on console before, most recently with Battlefield: Bad Company 2, which did not have the myriad technical issues that Battlefield 3 does.

But that's not the main reason that this beta has been a mistake. The main problem with the Battlefield 3 beta – the one that's out right this moment – is that it doesn't play like Battlefield 3 does now, how I assume the final game will play.

There are major gameplay balance differences between the two. Weapons feel different, with different fire rates and recoil. And the damage model has been radically shifted. Death comes quickly in the beta, situated more towards Call of Duty's durability, or even last year's DICE-developed Medal of Honor multiplayer. Firefights in the beta prioritize reflexes over tactics, which is a departure from Bad Company 2.

This is not the case with Battlefield 3 as it is now. The version of Battlefield 3 that I spent hours playing last week has weapons and damage that feel like Battlefield Bad Company 2. This, if you aren't sure, is a good thing. It changes the dynamics of firefights, allowing for each side to take and hold positions, and making flanking and tactical coordination much more viable. The increased player survivability also make vehicles in Battlefield 3 more fair than they would be with the beta's damage models.

Getting the drop on someone isn't the end of a fight in the version of Battlefield 3 I played last week. You have to be persistent, and you have to watch your ass to make sure you aren't left holding your, uh, empty gun in your hand if the guy you murdered has a teammate around the corner.

As it stands now, Battlefield 3's beta is a wellspring of misinformation about what your final Battlefield 3 experience will be.

It leads to more interesting, frantic firefights, including one moment where I killed one enemy with my M4, shot another that came around the corner from the hip, and had to switch to my sidearm to handle yet another opponent a moment later. This happened all the time in Bad Company 2, and it's one of the things that gave it an identity separate from other modern military shooters. Requiring more ammo per kill also makes the support class more important – as you run out of ammo, you'll be looking for that resupply. Battlefield 3 has made machine gunners your source of ammo, which means you'll probably need to fall back to resupply.

It's an example of one change resulting in a cascade of differences in how Battlefield 3 will play when it's released later this month than the beta does now. As it stands now, Battlefield 3's beta is a wellspring of misinformation about what your final Battlefield 3 experience will be. I'm glad for that – I enjoyed what I've played of this more-final build of Battlefield 3 much more than any time I've spent with the game throughout the year. DICE and EA told me last week that they've been taking player feedback from the beta into account, though I have a hard time comprehending how they could make such sweeping changes based entirely on player feedback. But the question is whether or not what EA and DICE have let people at home play early has done more harm than good for Battlefield 3's prospects.

We'll find out soon. Battlefield 3 is scheduled for release on October 25th.

I'm actually getting concerned reading this , I mean when I played the beta ; guys moving around were more vunrable then the camping ones , I'm not gonna express my opinions on that now and create a riot BUT what concerns me about the text is: It takes more shots to kill people , and in the beta I actually had quite a hard time getting kills with the PDW for example: weak and 21 rounds and lack of damage on range , but then they're gonna make it take even more hits to kill (yes I know there's ammo upgrades, but not without getting certain amount of kills first, and I want my supressor on )

The A W S M F O X wrote:

WTF, the damage in BC2 was the worst aspect of it. I thought the beta damage was near perfect, with 10% reduction it would be perfect, not too quick, not too long. The difference in BC2 between normal and HC was too great, normal was just silly sometimes, while HC was too easy. I hope BF3 comes in between or makes the recoil larger than the laser guns in BC2.

UnkleRukus wrote:

The A W S M F O X wrote:

WTF, the damage in BC2 was the worst aspect of it. I thought the beta damage was near perfect, with 10% reduction it would be perfect, not too quick, not too long. The difference in BC2 between normal and HC was too great, normal was just silly sometimes, while HC was too easy. I hope BF3 comes in between or makes the recoil larger than the laser guns in BC2.

Recoil is def there. Especially with the LMGs, which is where it was needed the most.