Also, it will once again be possible to reduce the number of players required to start a round to 1 both in ranked and unranked mode. We changed it back after getting a lot of negative feedback from both individuals and the RSP companies.

FINALLY. Trying to setup a joy stick for the vehicles was a nightmare in a live game.

With the way the netcode works in BF3 the interp disaster is already there. Client based hit prediction means nothing you see is actually 1:1 what happens on the server.

THIS GAME IS BUGGY AND UNBALANCED AND FRUITY AND UNLOCKING SHIT IS BULL SHIT

Teddy wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 07:49:

Ledge wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 05:02:

Endo wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 00:07:

CrimsonPaw wrote on Dec 4, 2011, 18:56:
Wish there was a way that servers could filter out players over certain ranks. It sucks that I can't dedicate my life to this game and am only rank 8 and get my ass handed to me constantly by 35+ers out there.

There is an easy fix for that, though unfortunately you may not like it.

Don't play FPSs with unlocks and levels. Frankly, the genre is not suited for that. There's plenty of excellent FPSs out there that are way better than Battlefield and CoD. You just need to spend a little time finding them.

Unless, of course, you like to spend hours and hours of not-fun game time just to ungimp yourself.

i agree. everything unlocked from the get go. its just tailored/or better suited to the hardcore nuts. the fun and enjoyment is not there for the casual gamer.

That's a pretty laughable statement. CoD sells 20 million units a game these days, Battlefield 3 has already sold 8 million. The majority of those are not "Hardcore gamers". Those ARE the casual gamers and they've proven in droves that they like unlock systems.

You want to play with everything unlocked, then play on unranked servers. That's what they're there for.

As for the previous comment "There's plenty of excellent FPSs out there that are way better than Battlefield and CoD." Don't confuse YOUR OPINION of games with a definitive 'better' or 'worse'.

Doesn't have to be definitive. There's sufficient FPSs out there that are all better than Battlefield or CoD in one way or another, so basically no matter what type of FPS you like... there's a better one out there. Unless, of course, your only metric is how popular the game is. But then, I shouldn't have to tell you how stupid that would be.

And if you do want definitive, try fewer bugs (ie. higher quality programming) for one.

It is totally possible to acquire unlocks but grinding out points isn't the goal of the game

I think a lot of people are confused about how the unlock system works. Some of the unlocks are based on your ranking points, but most of the weapon unlocks are based on kills. The IRNV, for example, requires you to get 100 kills with a gun (for most guns) in order to unlock it. So getting capture or revive points isn't going to help you at all. That's why unbalanced weapon unlocks can be quite frustrating, as you have to get kills to get unlocks, but the people who already have them have the advantage in engagements, making it harder to get the kills you need to get the unlocks.

Added a network interpolation setting. This allows users with good bandwidth reduce latency, but might increase some stuttering. The user can find what works best for his connection by tweaking the slider.

I'm surprised no one has talked about this one.

On many occasions on PS3/PC, I have shot behind a teammate by over 3 feet, and killed them. I've lead a rush through a door with a teammate on voicecomm behind me, only to die to a friendly fire headshot without ever appearing on his screen because on his screen he was in front. Close range encounters with a mix of friends and foes can not only be intense, but the game feels like it just can't keep up.

Adjusting interpolation could be a cure, but being user controlled, I'm concerned that people could make things worse or even gain an unfair advantage if the code is sloppy. Memories of cl_interp fiascoes from Counter-Strike come to mind...

I play on a server with 600 tickets, and its a much better experience, tactics and strategy actually come into play, as you can actually dedicate yourself/squad to fortifying and guarding a particular point.

or you can keep trying to capture a fortified point on the map.

With 300 or less tickets you barely get enough time to do capture a few points before the game is over.


Then again there is always rush, thats pretty good for unorganised play as it funnels everyone down a few similar paths.

Teddy wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 15:29:

Verno wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 09:04:
Parroting this in every post you make never gets old, really we never tire of hearing it Uh oh, I said we!

Goodness, what will I do, knowing that I don't entertain you to your satisfaction? I might start giving a fuck... then again, I might not.

Sorry Teddy, you shouldn't assume that you know what entertains me as your opinion doesn't represent the entire cosmos

Verno wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 09:04:
Parroting this in every post you make never gets old, really we never tire of hearing it Uh oh, I said we!

Goodness, what will I do, knowing that I don't entertain you to your satisfaction? I might start giving a fuck... then again, I might not.

Agreed- but where my post intersected with your idea is this: it won't take very long before nearly everyone playing has all the important unlocks that they want.

I don't know, I think a big franchise like this will have enough fresh blood to keep that disparity going for a long time to come. If you're talking about scrimmage or official play then it's a different story as that would likely be conducted with everything unlocked anyway.

Verno wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 13:42:

Matshock wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 13:29:
I'm someone who despises MMOs and other "play a 100 hours or you're not allowed to be good" games- I have to admit BF3 is somewhere in the middle. After a little less than 20 hours in I have the SCAR H with some goodies, enough goodies for the M249 to make it work and the mortar for points grinding. I broke 2000 points a round instantly after getting the mortar.

Most mechanics-changing unlocks come pretty early compared to past BF games and especially compared to MMOs and the like.

They're going to nerf the silly ones in this patch so there will be even less to complain about.

We're talking about two different things here. You're talking about acquiring unlocks, I'm talking about their relative measure versus others. It is totally possible to acquire unlocks but grinding out points isn't the goal of the game, the goal of the game is to win and the current unlock system (even without the silly attachments) creates an inherent imbalance without even taking skill sets and other variables into account.

A good team using voicecomms without advanced unlocks is still a potent force but putting them up against an equally skilled team with better unlocks (AGM, CITV, etc) I'd guess that the former rarely wins. Does make the game unplayable? No but it can certainly make for a frustrating affair if you play outside of clans regularly.

I think they could have easily made some design concessions to keep things a bit more level. For example, why does everyone have to unlock each attachment separately for every gun? Why does an LMG get a suppressor? Some of the vehicle unlocks are head scratchers as well.

Don't me wrong, I like BF3. At it's core there is a good game in there but it's a bit of a mess right now and I think they aren't doing new players to the franchise any favors.

Agreed- but where my post intersected with your idea is this: it won't take very long before nearly everyone playing has all the important unlocks that they want.

I.E. I don't want the AGM because after cutting my teeth in WWII sims and moving on to Falcon 4 flying a go-plane in BF3 is boring and frustrating.

If you want to pick at specific unlocks as being problems there's stil some headroom for that sure.

I am curious to see what kind of game BF3 becomes once everyone has their mid-level unlocks. Things will get much harder for the point whores in the near future I bet.
c

Matshock wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 13:29:
I'm someone who despises MMOs and other "play a 100 hours or you're not allowed to be good" games- I have to admit BF3 is somewhere in the middle. After a little less than 20 hours in I have the SCAR H with some goodies, enough goodies for the M249 to make it work and the mortar for points grinding. I broke 2000 points a round instantly after getting the mortar.

Most mechanics-changing unlocks come pretty early compared to past BF games and especially compared to MMOs and the like.

They're going to nerf the silly ones in this patch so there will be even less to complain about.

We're talking about two different things here. You're talking about acquiring unlocks, I'm talking about their relative measure versus others. It is totally possible to acquire unlocks but grinding out points isn't the goal of the game, the goal of the game is to win and the current unlock system (even without the silly attachments) creates an inherent imbalance without even taking skill sets and other variables into account.

A good team using voicecomms without advanced unlocks is still a potent force but putting them up against an equally skilled team with better unlocks (AGM, CITV, etc) I'd guess that the former rarely wins. Does make the game unplayable? No but it can certainly make for a frustrating affair if you play outside of clans regularly.

I think they could have easily made some design concessions to keep things a bit more level. For example, why does everyone have to unlock each attachment separately for every gun? Why does an LMG get a suppressor? Some of the vehicle unlocks are head scratchers as well.

Don't me wrong, I like BF3. At it's core there is a good game in there but it's a bit of a mess right now and I think they aren't doing new players to the franchise any favors.

Verno wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 09:04:

As for the previous comment "There's plenty of excellent FPSs out there that are way better than Battlefield and CoD." Don't confuse YOUR OPINION of games with a definitive 'better' or 'worse'.

Parroting this in every post you make never gets old, really we never tire of hearing it Uh oh, I said we!

As for unlocks, they're fine when they're balanced but BF3 has very poorly balanced unlocks overall that create a real disparity between those with and without.

I'm someone who despises MMOs and other "play a 100 hours or you're not allowed to be good" games- I have to admit BF3 is somewhere in the middle. After a little less than 20 hours in I have the SCAR H with some goodies, enough goodies for the M249 to make it work and the mortar for points grinding. I broke 2000 points a round instantly after getting the mortar.

Most mechanics-changing unlocks come pretty early compared to past BF games and especially compared to MMOs and the like.

They're going to nerf the silly ones in this patch so there will be even less to complain about.

I would try playing conquest on a server with a lower player count with 500-1000 ticket rounds. You get 500 points per total flag capture and you don't have to be a bad ass in the shooting department. Give yourself time to learn the maps, and I find being tactical helps a ton. Take time to let other people make mistakes and Squad up!

You guys are really sperging out in an impressive way

kanniballl wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 11:31:

yuastnav wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 08:56:
I hate to burst your bubble but when someone says "better" or "worse" it is automatically his or her opinion. It is generally not possible to confuse something like that with a "definitive" "better" or "worse" mostly because something "definitive" does not really exist.

True, 99.999% of the time... using better/best worse/worst is all subjective.

But there are objective scenarios:

• Which has the better survivor rate: leukemia or a common cold?
• Who's has the better batting average: guy with 450 average or the guy with a 100 average?

But I hear people say "Car X is better than Car Y" when they're comparing apples and oranges (compact coupe vs full sedan). It may be better for YOU but it's hard to grade X and Y when there are too many differences.

That is correct. However the, let's say batting average, is based on statistics which is an observable that everyone can agree on in case everyone lives in the same universe.
Still, even in this case people can redefine words like "good", "better" or "worse". We may think someone is crazy when he says that a batting average of 100 is better than of 450 but that is because that person may follow a different norm that we do or that the conditions which say what is good and what is bad are different.
For example: I actually like when it rains, when it is dark and cloudy and there is no sun shining and I have my reasons for that - and therefore I will call that good weather.
Other people think I am insane because for them good weather is when the sun is shining and everything is bright.

yuastnav wrote on Dec 5, 2011, 08:56:
I hate to burst your bubble but when someone says "better" or "worse" it is automatically his or her opinion. It is generally not possible to confuse something like that with a "definitive" "better" or "worse" mostly because something "definitive" does not really exist.

True, 99.999% of the time... using better/best worse/worst is all subjective.

But there are objective scenarios:

• Which has the better survivor rate: leukemia or a common cold?
• Who's has the better batting average: guy with 450 average or the guy with a 100 average?

But I hear people say "Car X is better than Car Y" when they're comparing apples and oranges (compact coupe vs full sedan). It may be better for YOU but it's hard to grade X and Y when there are too many differences.

they change a lot of the maps, as maps are in a pack file, its not a simple nor small patch ,p

I always felt the best balanced unlocks were in CoD Black Ops where you earned points and got to choose what you wanted to unlock. I would have loved that feature in BF3. Often times there is a specific optic I prefer, which is great on some guns that unlock it early, but others require hundreds of kills to get it.

As for the previous comment "There's plenty of excellent FPSs out there that are way better than Battlefield and CoD." Don't confuse YOUR OPINION of games with a definitive 'better' or 'worse'.

Parroting this in every post you make never gets old, really we never tire of hearing it Uh oh, I said we!

As for unlocks, they're fine when they're balanced but BF3 has very poorly balanced unlocks overall that create a real disparity between those with and without.