On BF3 Multiplayer

The Battlefield Blog has an overview on the multiplayer philosophy for Battlefield 3, as DICE's Lars Gustavsson shares thoughts on their upcoming military first-person shooter sequel. The game's lead multiplayer designer describes how they have adopted a goal of letting the players choose how they will enjoy the game, compared with their approach on Battlefield 2 he describes as: "Play the game our way, or play something else." Here he expands on that a bit:
At DICE we have always been proud about our classic mainstay game modes Conquest and Rush. They embody much of what Battlefield stands for: vast scale and all-out vehicle warfare with an emphasis on teamplay. But focusing almost entirely on these modes have meant sacrificing the pick up and play instant action experience that a tight Team Deathmatch mode delivers.

Fans of the series can rest assured that both Conquest and Rush game modes are back, bolder and more beautiful than ever. Complementing these with Team Deathmatch means there are now even more ways to play Battlefield. From all-out vehicle warfare to tight infantry combat, it’s all about your current mood and your preferred play style. And this is far from everything we have waiting for you in the multiplayer component of Battlefield 3 -- we will return shortly to talk about more multiplayer modes and new features that change how you can play the game.
View : : :
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
24.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jul 1, 2011, 18:40
24.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jul 1, 2011, 18:40
Jul 1, 2011, 18:40
 
Sir Graves wrote on Jul 1, 2011, 16:43:
Still wondering (though I'm doubting) if there's going to be bots to fill out servers, like BF1942, BF Nam and BF2 had but BFBC2 didn't, for people who don't like to play with posterior chapeaus, and like to JUST play with family and friends on their own privately hosted servers. Like we currently do in BF2, TF2, L4D, CS:S, etc., etc., etc...

They are not as common as you think or your "etc. etc. etc." implies.

TF2 didn't get official (still require advanced knowledge) bots until 2 years after release. CS:S bots also must be added through console.

Programming even low quality bots with AI to play the game properly is no minor feat.

I don't expect any developers making AAA FPS to be adding bots from here on out to be honest. Pleasing a small contingent who prefer to mow down some of the most braindead AI in gaming just isn't a priority.

Though I must admit I probably would've never got so good coasting 1942 planes across the ground killing 10 guys at a time with my wings without those lobotomites.
Avatar 17249
23.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jul 1, 2011, 16:43
23.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jul 1, 2011, 16:43
Jul 1, 2011, 16:43
 
Still wondering (though I'm doubting) if there's going to be bots to fill out servers, like BF1942, BF Nam and BF2 had but BFBC2 didn't, for people who don't like to play with posterior chapeaus, and like to JUST play with family and friends on their own privately hosted servers. Like we currently do in BF2, TF2, L4D, CS:S, etc., etc., etc...

If play "our way" still means their way (like in BFBC2)--being forced to play with jerks and strangers on pub servers only, with no AI bots to add to privately hosted games across all game modes, so you can realistically just play with friends--then no thanks. No buy (like BFBC2).
22.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jul 1, 2011, 09:35
22.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jul 1, 2011, 09:35
Jul 1, 2011, 09:35
 
Matshock wrote on Jun 30, 2011, 17:41:
Yep, then you'd have to layer in more recoil, ballistics and the effects of physical stress on shooting.

Then you'd be playing ARMA.

I thought BC2 came close to a good balance, my only big gripes: The idea of medics toting LMGs was a bit ridiculous. Recoil was a bit light in many instances (M60) and falling more than 8 feet should be an insta-kill.

LMGs are ridiculously overpowered as is. Little recoil, massive damage, sniper scopes(well, the 4x), and no overheating. Biggest pile of horse shit in the game
21.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jul 1, 2011, 01:36
21.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jul 1, 2011, 01:36
Jul 1, 2011, 01:36
 
The BF series (since 1942) was never meant to be a reality sim gameplay wise, only graphical in model- and weapon-design. I don't bother shooting half a magazine on another player (spray and pray, but if I aim there are never more than 3 hits to the head or chest sections, which is OK for me) or having an orange triangle over my head when the enemy spots me because that is all what Battlefield is about. One-shot-kills with any gun (besides sniper rifles) is too frustrating for me. The only satisfaction for me is when another player tries to kill me he has the same "problem" if he refuses to aim.

And there I am at the topic: TDM is a total numb gameplay. If I want TDM I wouldn't be playing BF. One thing I liked most about BF is having an objective where the secondary objective is to get the main objective in any way possible. Not to have only secondary objectives... if you know what I mean. But I think thats for all the CoD-players to feel a bit more home :D.
20.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jul 1, 2011, 00:09
20.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jul 1, 2011, 00:09
Jul 1, 2011, 00:09
 
Meh in terms of being more like a tactical shooter and less like Quake the acrobatics could be toned down a bit, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Even ARMA's wound management system is extremely simplified. Some things we just have to live with for now.

Weak gravity effects aren't one of those things.
19.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 23:48
19.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 23:48
Jun 30, 2011, 23:48
 
Anyhow, hopping off of a a second floor and then breaking into a sprint with gear+ammo is kind of ridiculous.

Where getting shot 10 times, falling over "dead", and getting "revived" by a defib isn't? Or any of the other numerous ways that the game varies from reality.
18.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 22:52
18.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 22:52
Jun 30, 2011, 22:52
 
Mcboinkens wrote on Jun 30, 2011, 19:54:
Matshock wrote on Jun 30, 2011, 17:41:
Yep, then you'd have to layer in more recoil, ballistics and the effects of physical stress on shooting.

Then you'd be playing ARMA.

I thought BC2 came close to a good balance, my only big gripes: The idea of medics toting LMGs was a bit ridiculous. Recoil was a bit light in many instances (M60) and falling more than 8 feet should be an insta-kill.

lol, wut?

70+ lbs of gear and ammo, take an eight foot drop and land on your feet= ankles or knees busted.

So, either insta kill or insta gimp. Insta gimp would be fun.

Anyhow, hopping off of a a second floor and then breaking into a sprint with gear+ammo is kind of ridiculous.
17.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 21:18
17.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 21:18
Jun 30, 2011, 21:18
 
Much like BC2 I think going for the same rush objective every round will get old fast. I could play a map maybe 20-30 times and then I've had enough. Really, why not randomize the objectives each round, at least some? I mean, what's the point in playing the same round with only minor variations? Mix it up each time. Design maps with this in mind, also.

This is why I love insurgency in Project Reality. Each round plays differently because there are at hundreds if not thousand or more possible cache locations. The huge map size helps a lot too. So far I've not seen a big BF3 map, as in 4k by 4k, or even 2k by 2k. I'm interested in BF3 but I'm still not expecting it to best PR mod.

Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
16.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 20:12
16.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 20:12
Jun 30, 2011, 20:12
 
bigspender wrote on Jun 30, 2011, 18:38:
64 player conquest IS the only way to play a battlefield game. everyone else can go somewhere else for all i care!

32 player conquest or bust.
15.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 20:06
15.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 20:06
Jun 30, 2011, 20:06
 
trip1ex wrote on Jun 30, 2011, 18:45:
Half of the players won't even notice the difference between Conquest and Team Deathmatch.

On the bright side, those players will probably be attracted to the TDM servers. Leaving other servers with a higher ratio of players that care about objectives and teamwork.
Avatar 55038
14.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 19:54
14.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 19:54
Jun 30, 2011, 19:54
 
Matshock wrote on Jun 30, 2011, 17:41:
Yep, then you'd have to layer in more recoil, ballistics and the effects of physical stress on shooting.

Then you'd be playing ARMA.

I thought BC2 came close to a good balance, my only big gripes: The idea of medics toting LMGs was a bit ridiculous. Recoil was a bit light in many instances (M60) and falling more than 8 feet should be an insta-kill.

lol, wut?
13.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 19:36
13.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 19:36
Jun 30, 2011, 19:36
 
Nick Wilson wrote on Jun 30, 2011, 19:08:
I'm excited for this game and all, but the fact that they're trumpeting the inclusion of a mainstay FPS game mode worries me. Are we supposed to be impressed?

It's not a traditional BF mode, so it is worth announcing.

I'm not really all that interested in TDM, I have CS for that if I want it and everybody else has CoD. I just hope its inclusion isn't to the detriment of Conquest and Rush.
Avatar 17249
12.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 19:08
12.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 19:08
Jun 30, 2011, 19:08
 
I'm excited for this game and all, but the fact that they're trumpeting the inclusion of a mainstay FPS game mode worries me. Are we supposed to be impressed?
11.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 18:45
11.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 18:45
Jun 30, 2011, 18:45
 
Half of the players won't even notice the difference between Conquest and Team Deathmatch.
10.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 18:38
10.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 18:38
Jun 30, 2011, 18:38
 
64 player conquest IS the only way to play a battlefield game. everyone else can go somewhere else for all i care!



also i'd be all over ARMA, if the game was more playable. Even basic things like moving your character feels really frustrating.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
9.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 18:05
9.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 18:05
Jun 30, 2011, 18:05
 
Did anybody else reading that automatically mentally replace "even more ways to play" with "even fewer servers worth playing on?"
Avatar 54732
8.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 18:04
Jow
8.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 18:04
Jun 30, 2011, 18:04
Jow
 
Another vote for tweaking hardcore mode. With the complete lack of spotting, uselessness of in-game recon and the recon balls, and the weirdness of the sights I just won't play that mode. Make spotting useful again and tweak the sighting a bit and you can color me interested.
7.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 17:41
7.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 17:41
Jun 30, 2011, 17:41
 
Yep, then you'd have to layer in more recoil, ballistics and the effects of physical stress on shooting.

Then you'd be playing ARMA.

I thought BC2 came close to a good balance, my only big gripes: The idea of medics toting LMGs was a bit ridiculous. Recoil was a bit light in many instances (M60) and falling more than 8 feet should be an insta-kill.
6.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 17:35
6.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 17:35
Jun 30, 2011, 17:35
 
Play it your way. As long as "your way" doesn't involve co-op with more than one other person.
5.
 
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer
Jun 30, 2011, 17:34
5.
Re: On BF3 Multiplayer Jun 30, 2011, 17:34
Jun 30, 2011, 17:34
 
Techie714 © wrote on Jun 30, 2011, 16:59:
My only request more REALISM I dont want to empty a full clip to kill a guy. 1-3 shots MAX should do the trick, depending on entry & exit locations of course as well caliber.....I'm starting to sound to "ARMA"..lol.

It's almost like DICE has gone overboard in that direction. At least in hardcore mode. Playing BFBC2:V the other night I was consistently getting 1 hit kills with an Uzi from 50 yards away. There's no reason to ever use any weapon that trades rate of fire for power, because they're all 1 hit kills already.

Actually, putting some extra work into hardcore mode would be my #1 request. Many of the vehicles and turrets are left with literally no way to aim, not even iron sights or looking down the barrel. I expected that to be fixed in the first month or two, but it seems like they don't care about hardcore mode despite the high number of servers running it.

This comment was edited on Jun 30, 2011, 17:48.
Avatar 55038
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older