Off-Topic Thread

BloodBath

Monotype wrote: »

Battlefield 3 is a terrible game. Who thought that it would be a good idea to run a game from a browser?! Seriously!!! :mad:

I can't complain too much because of the offer on at the moment, but if I had been looking forward to this I'd be well pissed.

Terrible is a bit harsh. It's not a patch on battlefield 2 though. They ruined the franchise for me once EA got their claws in.

Battlefield 2 was and still is the ultimate online fps multiplayer game.

Serephucus

BloodBath wrote: »

Terrible is a bit harsh. It's not a patch on battlefield 2 though. They ruined the franchise for me once EA got their claws in.

Battlefield 2 was and still is the ultimate online fps multiplayer game.

This is the same for me. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, but I found Crysis 1 to be a fantastically enjoyable game, and has quite a bit of replay value (once you tweak the AI to make them a lot tougher). Once EA came along... Worthless. That said, I haven't played 3 yet.

gavmcg92

BloodBath wrote: »

Terrible is a bit harsh. It's not a patch on battlefield 2 though. They ruined the franchise for me once EA got their claws in.

Battlefield 2 was and still is the ultimate online fps multiplayer game.

My second favourite. Just after Cod4

BloodBath

All these big publishers, Activision and EA, kill any innovation by game devs. They all end up being generic piles of ****e to maximise sales. Crysis is another example. The first was brilliant. 2 and 3 generic piles of ****e with fancy graphics.

It's the same in Hollywood. The fact that some indie games made by a team of 1 or 2 are outscoring these games and are better, more fun, original games highlights the problem even more.

EA execs to DICE. COD sells more than BF, we need to make it more like COD. Here's 50 million. Go make it more like cod.

My second favourite. Just after Cod4

Agreed cod4 was the pinnacle of cod games. I also loved that game.

NTMK

Serephucus wrote: »

This is the same for me. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, but I found Crysis 1 to be a fantastically enjoyable game, and has quite a bit of replay value (once you tweak the AI to make them a lot tougher). Once EA came along... Worthless. That said, I haven't played 3 yet.

Crysis' ****iness is down to crytek alone in fairness. EA dont own them nor was there a requirement for another 2 games. EA only publish for them

Ive found all Crysis games to be pretty meh once you got past the visuals

BF3 wasnt a patch on BF2 but i'm putting some faith in dice to fix its problems since they didnt need to develop an engine this time and everything theyve said has sounded like they have

beno619

BF4 should fix everything that was wrong with BF3.

BF3 was rushed thanks to EA none the less I've been playing since launch and love it.
Its the game that brought me over to the master race

ED E

So if I'm about to start BF3 should I go KB/M + Joystick or KB/M + 360 Pad do you think?

BloodBath

In fairness Crysis 1 was way ahead of it's time. The graphics to this day are good and it offered a sandbox experience far better than most.

I wish I shared the same faith in BF4 but since it's coming so soon after BF3 and the fact it looks identical I don't have faith in it. Dice would normally put 5 years into a BF game. Get rid of the crap off the center of my screen please or at least give me an option to. I don't need to see how many points I got or what I've unlocked or what ****ty ribbon I've earned in the middle of my screen while playing.

Nor do I need to be awarded 100 meaningless ribbons after every battle. Earning medals in BF2 was an achievement. The stats page on BF2 actually meant something

Bringing back commander is a step in the right direction though but only if they also bring back the commander objectives. Artillery, command post, and radar. These were great side objectives on maps that could swing the tide of battle. They also need to change it back so only the squad members could spawn at the squad leader. Being able to spawn at any squad member is stupid and removes the balance and strength of squad play. A good commander would issue his commands to the squad leader who would then pass it on to his squad members but that's too hard for console kids to get their heads around. They also ruined vehicle combat which they won't fix. /rant

So if I'm about to start BF3 should I go KB/M + Joystick or KB/M + 360 Pad do you think?

If it was BF2 I'd say kb + mouse and a joystick but a controller is probably better for the ****ty air vehicles in bf3/4.

Gumbi

overclocked7950.JPG

Gumbi wrote: »

This is probably the best I can get my 7950 :P

My bad, didn't post image properly. here's is the best I can likely do.

NTMK

BloodBath wrote: »

In fairness Crysis 1 was way ahead of it's time. The graphics to this day are good and it offered a sandbox experience far better than most.

I wish I shared the same faith in BF4 but since it's coming so soon after BF3 and the fact it looks identical I don't have faith in it. Dice would normally put 5 years into a BF game. Get rid of the crap off the center of my screen please or at least give me an option to. I don't need to see how many points I got or what I've unlocked or what ****ty ribbon I've earned in the middle of my screen while playing.

Nor do I need to be awarded 100 meaningless ribbons after every battle. Earning medals in BF2 was an achievement. The stats page on BF2 actually meant something

Bringing back commander is a step in the right direction though but only if they also bring back the commander objectives. Artillery, command post, and radar. These were great side objectives on maps that could swing the tide of battle. They also need to change it back so only the squad members could spawn at the squad leader. Being able to spawn at any squad member is stupid and removes the balance and strength of squad play. A good commander would issue his commands to the squad leader who would then pass it on to his squad members but that's too hard for console kids to get their heads around. They also ruined vehicle combat which they won't fix. /rant


If it was BF2 I'd say kb + mouse and a joystick but a controller is probably better for the ****ty air vehicles in bf3/4.

the Gap between BF3 and BF4 will either be the longest or second longest gap between Battlefield games iirc

Dice havent had a balanced game since 2142 tbh the guys that used to balance left after that. they've paid attention to map balance this time as bf3 had some shocking level design in its vanilla form but i doubt they touched squad stuff so as not to upset console kiddies but i hope they allow for more server customisation this time

I do agree on the ****e popping up on screen and i would like suppression to be toned back to a visual only effect

I would also like players be easier to kill. the older games (i even include BC2 in this) a competent sniper would strike fear into players and you would need to plan to counter him bf3 if they hit you you usually survive

In a round about way dice did put their hands up and admitted that BF3 was rushed due to the PS3 issues during development and the engine wasnt finished on time

Considering that bf4 will be a next-gen game they have a lot more time to develop features as ps3/360 are getting a compressed version likely developed by the Dice la office


Kb/m + Joystick is usable if you have a decent stick. Controller is my preferred choice for jets and KB/M is what i use for everything else

BloodBath

the Gap between BF3 and BF4 will either be the longest or second longest gap between Battlefield games iirc

It's not as bad as I thought but how long is BF4 actually in development considering the 5-6 DLC's in BF3.

Dice havent had a balanced game since 2142 tbh the guys that used to balance left after that. they've paid attention to map balance this time as bf3 had some shocking level design in its vanilla form but i doubt they touched squad stuff so as not to upset console kiddies but i hope they allow for more server customisation this time

BF2 was reasonably well balanced. All nations had pros and cons in weapons and vehicles. The chinese J10 jet was too strong though. A competent pilot with a joystick was untouchable. Likewise the Arab chopper was a beast for killing infantry with that cannon but the American cobra was more agile and could still take it out of the sky easier. TV missile wars were fun The delay on respawns also meant you had some free time to go kill some infantry or tanks before they were back in the sky. None of this ****ty instant respawns in bf3.

I would also like players be easier to kill. the older games (i even include BC2 in this) a competent sniper would strike fear into players and you would need to plan to counter him bf3 if they hit you you usually survive

In BF2 you could not kill anyone with a sniper rifle with a single shot unless it was a headshot. (Assuming 100% health) You could always quickly switch to pistol to finish them though even at long ranges They removed claymores from snipers and ruined them in bf3 though. Partially compensated by bonus points for long range kills but your defence of a good sniping spot with claymores is gone. Look at all the troll videos of kids sneaking up on snipers. You wouldn't get that in BF2.

BF4 will also be a current gen title. The fact that it's on consoles at all constrains the game design on pc.

Don't even get me started on destructible environments. They look good but ruin the balance and flow of maps and contribute to worse gameplay.

kevovek

When was the driver that AMD announced that was supposed to improve crossfire meant to be released? If it hasn't been already that is.

gavmcg92

ED E wrote: »

So if I'm about to start BF3 should I go KB/M + Joystick or KB/M + 360 Pad do you think?

How do you get the 360 controller to work with the pc? Tried to do it earlier this year but it didn't seem to recognise it. I heard that it only works if you get the wireless usb receiver for the computer from amazon. My plug and play charger yoke doesn't seem to be compatiable.

Actually I think I know what the problem might be. Just checked the microsoft page and it seems that windows 8 isn't supported. Hmmm... If only I bought windows 7 when I ordered my PC... :rolleyes:

beno619

BloodBath wrote: »

It's not as bad as I thought but how long is BF4 actually in development considering the 5-6 DLC's in BF3.

Apparently since development for BF3, they have had two separate teams working on the 2 games.

BloodBath

What are you using? Surely it's only a driver issue. Getting the wireless to work is a pain as well but there are guides on youtube.

BloodBath

When was the driver that AMD announced that was supposed to improve crossfire meant to be released? If it hasn't been already that is.

You can get the 13.8 beta on their site.

gavmcg92

BloodBath wrote: »

What are you using? Surely it's only a driver issue. Getting the wireless to work is a pain as well but there are guides on youtube.

What am I using? I'm using the play and charge cable to connect the controller to the PC but it's not recognising it.

BloodBath

I'd say it's only a driver issue. It doesn't recognise wireless either without some jiggery pokery.

kevovek

BloodBath wrote: »

You can get the 13.8 beta on their site.

Ah right, I was wondering if anyone here maybe had tried it? Thinking about upgrading my PSU and sticking a second 7870 XT in if the price drops in the next few months

NTMK

BloodBath wrote: »

It's not as bad as I thought but how long is BF4 actually in development considering the 5-6 DLC's in BF3.

different team for the dlcs mostly

In BF2 you could not kill anyone with a sniper rifle with a single shot unless it was a headshot. (Assuming 100% health) You could always quickly switch to pistol to finish them though even at long ranges They removed claymores from snipers and ruined them in bf3 though. Partially compensated by bonus points for long range kills but your defence of a good sniping spot with claymores is gone. Look at all the troll videos of kids sneaking up on snipers. You wouldn't get that in BF2.

BF4 will also be a current gen title. The fact that it's on consoles at all constrains the game design on pc.

Don't even get me started on destructible environments. They look good but ruin the balance and flow of maps and contribute to worse gameplay.

Snipers couldnt one shot without a headshot but 1 hit was enough to slow you down a lot. the worst problem with bf3 imo is the unbalance classes Recon and support are just useless.

While its true that console development holds them design back but remember that the xbone/ps4 both have specs that would need to run the game on pc anyway so not much will be lost

Destructible environments work when done right bf3 didnt do that at all imo

NTMK

gavmcg92 wrote: »

How do you get the 360 controller to work with the pc? Tried to do it earlier this year but it didn't seem to recognise it. I heard that it only works if you get the wireless usb receiver for the computer from amazon. My plug and play charger yoke doesn't seem to be compatiable.

Actually I think I know what the problem might be. Just checked the microsoft page and it seems that windows 8 isn't supported. Hmmm... If only I bought windows 7 when I ordered my PC... :rolleyes:

Play and charge kits dont send data though the cable you need the wireless dongle or a wired controller

ED E

NTMK wrote: »

Play and charge kits dont send data though the cable you need the wireless dongle or a wired controller

Was just about to post this.


Get a receiver from DX, its only a couple bucks and works a treat.

deceit

NTMK wrote: »

EA:p

what else dont you like about it

Ive had it since launch and ive really enjoyed it

I love Battlefield 3 but hate the stupid web browser crap. I was hoping they would remove that crap with battlefield 4.
The way I see it is the browser was set up in the hope they could just kill off the game when they wanted to, to get people onto the next revision of the game.

BloodBath

Ah right, I was wondering if anyone here maybe had tried it? Thinking about upgrading my PSU and sticking a second 7870 XT in if the price drops in the next few months

Crossfire latency issues are mainly fixed with further patches to come to improve it even further.

the worst problem with bf3 imo is the unbalance classes Recon and support are just useless.

Not as bad as bf2. That's one good thing I can say about BF3. They combined the engineer and anti tank class into 1 which was a good move as both were all but useless for getting points in bf2. The engineer should cover the old engineer and anti tank roles which it pretty much does. No need for changes here.

They removed the spec op class as well which I enjoyed for taking out the commander objectives but it's understandable.

Bring back a separate assault class, remove c4 from support and grenade launchers from medics and give them to assault with the choice of either nade launcher or c4, not both. This is basically combining the old spec ops and assault classes. Bringing back the destruction of commander objectives, artillery, radar and command post would make it a good role. It's a front line class anyway. Support should not have c4 when it's a backline class.

Give recon their 2 claymores back and maybe give them a laser designator for the commanders missile strikes. Then buff claymores so they actually kill people unlike bf3 where they survive 90% of the time. The game is balanced for this with medics being able to revive. It promotes squad play.

Medic is still an over powered class though as it was in bf2. If you want points you go medic. They combined assault and medic into 1 class in bf3 to make it even worse. Medics should not get the best assault weapons and grenade launchers. Losing their grenade launcher option would improve this. They nerfed medic bags already at least. No more instant full health. Sitting on 3 medic bags in bf2 when you had the best weapon in the game and the ability to revive was pretty op.

Support isn't that bad in fairness. You can still rack up the points with resupplies, suppression and kills. Remove the ****ty mortar from the game and give them more nades. Maybe add smoke grenades for them and beef up the power of the support weapons. If you are set up in a good position with the tripod down you should be able to mow down enemies. Give them higher armor so they can take a bit of a beating as well. Let them have a single claymore or 2 smoke grenades.

Dice just need to give me a job

Ah good ole bf2 stats. Not bad considering I wasn't a spm or k/d whore.

http://www.bf2stats.net/player/63064270/

NTMK

If they want to go 4 classes then imo it should be:

Assault: Grenada launchers and supply crates as this imo would keep the class strong and insure we that the best squad isnt 3-4 assualt, one eng
Engineer: Largely the same
Support: becomes a medic with an LMG, losses c4 but keeps mortar, etc allowing it to be a more involved role
Recon: add c4 to allow for a more dynamic and situational class as atm its not particularly fun

BloodBath

NTMK wrote: »

If they want to go 4 classes then imo it should be:

Assault: Grenada launchers and supply crates as this imo would keep the class strong and insure we that the best squad isnt 3-4 assualt, one eng
Engineer: Largely the same
Support: becomes a medic with an LMG, losses c4 but keeps mortar, etc allowing it to be a more involved role
Recon: add c4 to allow for a more dynamic and situational class as atm its not particularly fun

No no no. That's how bad company did it and it was awful. The game was good but the class balance was bad.

Assault is an already strong class with the best all round weapons and grenade launchers. They do not need ammo supplies as well. This would give them infinite grenades for the grenade launcher as well. Giving them the option of c4 is more than enough.

Support should not be combined into medic. It's a backline class that's supposed to laying down suppressing fire. He also carries a **** load of ammo so it makes sense that he is the one supplying ammo. Medic is a front line class that needs to be able to change between paddles and weapon all the time. The setup involved with support makes him a poor choice for this role.

The same applies to recon. It's a backline class so giving him c4 is pointless when if he's playing right he's not going to be in a position to use c4 effectively against vehicles or commander targets. Give him his claymores back so he can protect himself in his sniping position.

NTMK

BloodBath wrote: »

No no no. That's how bad company did it and it was awful. The game was good but the class balance was bad.

Assault is an already strong class with the best all round weapons and grenade launchers. They do not need ammo supplies as well. This would give them infinite grenades for the grenade launcher as well. Giving them the option of c4 is more than enough.

Support should not be combined into medic. It's a backline class that's supposed to laying down suppressing fire. He also carries a **** load of ammo so it makes sense that he is the one supplying ammo. Medic is a front line class that needs to be able to change between paddles and weapon all the time. The setup involved with support makes him a poor choice for this role.

The same applies to recon. It's a backline class so giving him c4 is pointless when if he's playing right he's not going to be in a position to use c4 effectively against vehicles or commander targets. Give him his claymores back so he can protect himself in his sniping position.

i'd much rather it be 6 or 8 classes but atm teams of 4 assaults just wont die grenade spam can be limited by not including them in resupplies

you have a fair point with support but the class is effectively useless atm and bringing them more into the front line imo will mean that pushes will require far more team work

Recon can still act like a back line class but if targets get obstructed the class cant do jack **** (hopefully this will improve with commander mode). bring c4 to the class will allow for the class to attempt to take targets without being an full front line class as long as they dont get high powered weapons claymores should be a given for the class

The problem is that as long as BF adopts a 4 class system we'll end up with 2 classes being jammed together which results in some being better then others

WhiskeyGoblin

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Lovely looking. Chunky as hell though :eek:

I'm going through the Building phase of bigger is better. Really liked the way it's set up..

Already eying up a Prodigy

BloodBath

That's because the assault class is op and allowing respawns at any squad member is just stupid. They need to revert back to bf2's way of doing it. Spawns only at squad leaders and assault and medic split into 2 frontline classes. I'm sure there are other ways of making support more relevant. Some small buffs should do the trick.

Part of the problem is the map design in bf3 as well. BF2 was far more open so support and sniper had better positions and views to play effectively. Support could also nade spam like a mother ****er to help clear out bottlenecks for the invading friendlies. I don't want to see a return to the likes of infantry only Karkand nade spam fests but it should be a niche that the support role fits. Give him 2 nades and 2 smoke nades.

C4 for sniper no matter what way you look at it is a bad idea. His role is to scout and spot enemies, kill other snipers, snipe enemy targets and possibly mark targets for the commanders air strikes. Combined with giving him his 2 claymores back the class would be fun and competitive on the points front. Maps like metro in bf3 kill the usefulness of a sniper though but at least you have the option of other non sniper rifles now if you want to go with claymores. I hate close quarter maps like these though. It ruins the balance of the classes and game.

NTMK

Good news today Games For Windows Live is being phased out no more having to put up with that Piece of **** anymore


Although ms have hired ex valve staff to work on the pc gaming market