BATTLEFIELD 3 BETA a disaster?

Turbine

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Every thing just seems off, but perhaps the most worrying thing, for me at least, is that it if you think your games in bad shape you don't hold an open beta this close to release or you risk a sizeable amount of sales, you only should hold an open beta if you're sure you're close to a finished product. And well if DICE thinks this is in good shape they're wrong, and even if they do manage to release a product with all the bugs fixed and no need for a week 1 patch, then I still don't think the game will be anywhere near the world beater EA have pumped it to be. I'd love to be proven wrong but for me I think EA/DICE have encountered more problems than they forseen and are going to end up rushing this game a little bit just because they can't back down from the MW3 fight now.

You're confusing a demo with a beta, there is a huge difference. A demo, as you've explained, is a sample of the finished product. A beta is a 'still in development' product given out for testing of certain features, or in this case, the servers. So this beta served its purpose, while also creating a bit of extra hype leading up to release.

The version we've been playing is nearly 4 months old, so I'd be surprised if the finished product wasn't a big improvement on what we saw in the beta.

Dcully

*Battlelog sucks, please give me an in game browser. With previous BF games, you get disconnected, you land straight back to the in game server browser. But with BF3, it takes a minute or 2 for my desktop to reinitialize (probably not the right word). So if I want to switch servers it could take me 5mins to switch when previous titles allowed me to switch server in less than a minute.

2 minutes for your desktop to "reinitialize"?
If it takes 2 minutes seriously you need to replace the hamsters mate.
I dont have that issue on either of the two PC`s here,one high spec,one medium spec.
5 minutes to switch servers? no offence mate but your either talking porkies or running a pre-historic pc and or connection because that is simply not true.
I can switch servers in seconds just as fast as any browser.
As for hitboxes, ive not had any issues at all.

People having opinions about games is fine, they like or dislike but what ive quoted from you is totally false and misinformation.

Seifer

Battlelog does suck to be fair. A browser based game launcher for a game you have installed on your harddrive? How they thought that was a good idea I don't know. I'm amazed there wasn't a more vocal backlash against it.

Didn't think much of the Metro map but Caspian Border was awesome. It's a pity you can't import friends from Steam i.e. where all my gaming friends are. I'd say it's a lot more fun running around in a squad on voice comms.

Outkast_IRE

Seifer wrote: »

Battlelog does suck to be fair. A browser based game launcher for a game you have installed on your harddrive? How they thought that was a good idea I don't know. I'm amazed there wasn't a more vocal backlash against it.

Didn't think much of the Metro map but Caspian Border was awesome. It's a pity you can't import friends from Steam i.e. where all my gaming friends are. I'd say it's a lot more fun running around in a squad on voice comms.

I think metro could be a nice map if theres a alternative to Rush , it would be nice for street fighting with a few wide open areas.

Korvanica

Krieg wrote: »

*The metro rush map needs an overhaul, too easy for defenders and campers. In 5 hours of gameplay of metro I only saw the attackers win maybe 2/3 times.

? Played for about 5 hours yesterday and constantly won when attacking...
Must have been your team.. Or the enemy team were too good.

Seifer

Korvanica wrote: »

? Played for about 5 hours yesterday and constantly won when attacking... :rolleyes:
Must have been your team.. Or the enemy team were too good.

He said the defenders won the majority of the time...

Korvanica

Seifer wrote: »

He said the defenders won the majority of the time...

yea i know, thats why i said I won when attacking, meaning the defenders lost.

Royal Irish

Played about 35hrs on Xbox360, loved it and will be picking up the full game on release day.

Some issues I think need fixing are,

1. the UMP-35 is too over powering. Towards the end of the beta if I was killed by anything other than a UMP-35 I was shocked. It ended up with most people using the recon kit with the UMP and spamming area with respawn becons. This in my opinion takes away from the teamwork aspect of BF. With so many people using this class its a pain in the ass to get ammo or health. In BC2 you were never to far away from a squad member with health or ammo.

2. Squad set up needs to be sorted out. But dice have already came out and said that it is already fixed for the full game. Not being able to set up a squad in game in the beta again really takes away from the teamwork aspect of the game. I remember one game I was stuck in a squad with muppets and for the whole start of Metro at the first bases, they were doing synchronized swimming in the lake.

They are about my only issues with the beta that I hope will be fixed for the full game. Other than that I am really looking forward to this game. Activision couldnt pay me to play MW3.

Seifer

Korvanica wrote: »

yea i know, thats why i said I won when attacking, meaning the defenders lost.

Ah right, you're just misusing the rolleyes emote so.

dreamers75

Seifer wrote: »

Battlelog does suck to be fair. A browser based game launcher for a game you have installed on your harddrive? How they thought that was a good idea I don't know. I'm amazed there wasn't a more vocal backlash against it.

Didn't think much of the Metro map but Caspian Border was awesome. It's a pity you can't import friends from Steam i.e. where all my gaming friends are. I'd say it's a lot more fun running around in a squad on voice comms.

When you finish a round it shows you the shiny **** you just got, people like shiny ****.

Seifer

I'm all for viewing achievements and stuff; that's fine. But server browsing and launching games? No thanks.
And does the battlelog chat even popup in game? Or do you have to use Origin for that? It really is messy. I'm too used to how well everything is integrated in Steam for all this messing.

dreamers75

Dcully wrote: »

Question for ya, which format are you playing on? because if you played Caspian Border on the PC i have to 100% disagree with you.
I pumped in about 8 hours on it over the weekend and experienced no bugs at all plus the game felt like a BF game.
Jets as has been said need attention but apart from that and some minor issues im looking forward to full release.

10 hours......yesterday alone :pac:

sink

Seifer wrote: »

Battlelog does suck to be fair. A browser based game launcher for a game you have installed on your harddrive? How they thought that was a good idea I don't know. I'm amazed there wasn't a more vocal backlash against it.

Didn't think much of the Metro map but Caspian Border was awesome. It's a pity you can't import friends from Steam i.e. where all my gaming friends are. I'd say it's a lot more fun running around in a squad on voice comms.

Battlelog was great IMO. It only took me a second to alt-f4 out of a game and less than 30 to load another map. Granted I have a SSD which makes a difference but from what I've heard people with HDD's weren't suffering either. It's ease of use, depth of information and speed of navigation was way beyond any in-game server browser I've ever used, very impressed.

Turbine

Royal Irish wrote: »

2. Squad set up needs to be sorted out. But dice have already came out and said that it is already fixed for the full game. Not being able to set up a squad in game in the beta again really takes away from the teamwork aspect of the game. I remember one game I was stuck in a squad with muppets and for the whole start of Metro at the first bases, they were doing synchronized swimming in the lake.

FWIW, Dice has already confirmed that for the final release you'll be able to manage squads in the game as well as in battlelog.

Seifer

sink wrote: »

Battlelog was great IMO. It only took me a second to alt-f4 out of a game and less than 30 to load another map. Granted I have a SSD which makes a difference but from what I've heard people with HDD's weren't suffering either. It's ease of use, depth of information and speed of navigation was way beyond any in-game server browser I've ever used, very impressed.

It's that alt-f4ing I'm saying is a complete waste of time. Why do I have to shutdown the game I want to keep playing just to swap servers? (I have an SSD too but I'm not seeing the relevance)

What did the server browser have that other in game server browsers don't? Map name, game type, number of players, ping? What else matters?

sink

Seifer wrote: »

It's that alt-f4ing I'm saying is a complete waste of time. Why do I have to shutdown the game I want to keep playing just to swap servers? (I have an SSD too but I'm not seeing the relevance)

What did the server browser have that other in game server browsers don't? Map name, game type, number of players, ping? What else matters?

You can see what server your friends are playing on, you can see full match statistics of your last game, you can view player profiles of people you were just playing with and friend them. Finding servers with the filters and search box was far quicker than even steam. Not only that but all the achievements, unlocks and stats and full integration with the forums so you see your friends latest posts. It's just farm more community orientated and persistent than any other game.

And more pertinent, connecting to a new server and loading the map from the desktop took no longer than from an in game server browser so there was no real downside.

ktulu123

When I first heard about Battlelog I thought it was a stupid idea, even when the beta first came out I thought it was crap. But it really grew on me to the point I now think its class!

The fact that they can auto update server side issues is great as issued can be fixed fairly quickly as we saw in the beta.

I love the way it goes into a huge amount of detail with stats, friends and unlocks. Also I was able to join servers very quickly any time I was disconnected.

Seifer

sink wrote: »

You can see what server your friends are playing on, you can see full match statistics of your last game, you can view player profiles of people you were just playing with and friend them. Finding servers with the filters and search box was far quicker than even steam. Not only that but all the achievements, unlocks and stats and full integration with the forums so you see your friends latest posts. It's just farm more community orientated and persistent than any other game.

All of this is done in Steam but nicer and more web 2.0 with Battlelog but it's not worth it because you can't use it in the game like you can with Steam.

I'm not saying Steam is perfect; it has lots of issues of its own. I just don't see how Battlelog is in anyway a step forward.

And more pertinent connecting to a new server and loading the map from the desktop took no longer than from an in game server browser so there was no real downside.

How about the fact that you have to launch into a map to configure your graphics and customise your kits? That's a pretty big downside to me.

sink

Seifer wrote: »

All of this is done in Steam but nicer and more web 2.0 with Battlelog but it's not worth it because you can't use it in the game like you can with Steam.

I'm not saying Steam is perfect; it has lots of issues of its own. I just don't see how Battlelog is in anyway a step forward.

I don't see how staying in game versus going back to the desktop is a negative if the load times are not impacted. Your're entitled to your preference, but I don't think there is anything objectively negative about Battlelog.

Seifer wrote: »

How about the fact that you have to launch into a map to configure your graphics and customise your kits? That's a pretty big downside to me.

That won't be the case in the full game.

Seifer

sink wrote: »

I don't see how staying in game versus going back to the desktop is a negative if the load times are not impacted. Your're entitled to your preference, but I don't think there is any objectively negative about Battlelog.

Of course there is, I just explained the negatives.

Can anyone answer my question of whether the Battlelog chat appears as a pop-up in game? Or do I have to use Origin for that?

The whole thing just smacks of internal developer power struggles. I mean if the rumours are true that BF3 will eventually get released on Steam then Steam will launch Origin to launch Battlelog to launch the game. The design flaws with that implementation are glaringly obvious.

Br4tPr1nc3

Seifer wrote: »

All of this is done in Steam but nicer and more web 2.0 with Battlelog but it's not worth it because you can't use it in the game like you can with Steam.

I'm not saying Steam is perfect; it has lots of issues of its own. I just don't see how Battlelog is in anyway a step forward.


How about the fact that you have to launch into a map to configure your graphics and customise your kits? That's a pretty big downside to me.

you can use battlelog while in game.
shift+f1 brought up the ingame overlay,
where you could use an actually decent web browser unlike steam, and log into battlelog, and do whatever from there.

Battlelog is a very good addition to battlefield,
and i really like it.
its fast for finding games, and you can easily chat to friend/join games through it.
and you can continue doing whatever while your game launches and connects to the server, and then hit join game when your ready.

I dont know how someone could complain about it.


I also have a feeling they will probably implement a way to edit your ingame settings without having to be in game.

the_syco

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

I dont know how someone could complain about it.

As it's based on a server, there's no "server ping" option to sort by. This is very annoying, as you don't know what servers are good or bad. In BC2, some French servers were better than some UK servers!

Br4tPr1nc3

it showed a ping in battlelog for me,
you prob mean that the ping wouldnt have been right on it, which yeah i understand,
but ah well, sure the ping couldnt have been that bad if it was a french or uk server.

and im sure there will be irish servers that will be on the go, or servers you prefer to go to.

sink

Seifer wrote: »

Of course there is, I just explained the negatives.

So far you've stated that having to exit the game is a negative in and of itself, just because you perceive it to be does not make it so.

In objective terms it's no slower to load and has way more functions.

Seifer

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

you can use battlelog while in game.
shift+f1 brought up the ingame overlay,
where you could use an actually decent web browser unlike steam, and log into battlelog, and do whatever from there.

Battlelog is a very good addition to battlefield,
and i really like it.
its fast for finding games, and you can easily chat to friend/join games through it.
and you can continue doing whatever while your game launches and connects to the server, and then hit join game when your ready.

I dont know how someone could complain about it.


I also have a feeling they will probably implement a way to edit your ingame settings without having to be in game.

Unless I'm mistaken, shift+f1 brings up Origin in game. Which begs the question of why have two programs doing the job of one?

sink

the_syco wrote: »

As it's based on a server, there's no "server ping" option to sort by. This is very annoying, as you don't know what servers are good or bad. In BC2, some French servers were better than some UK servers!

In the server browser the last column was for ping and all you had to do was click on it to change the sort order by ping.

Seifer

sink wrote: »

So far you've stated that having to exit the game is a negative in and of itself, just because you perceive it to be does not make it so.

In objective terms it's no slower to load and has way more functions.

If you were browsing the web and I told you you had to shut down the browser each time you wanted to open a new page you wouldn't think that's a negative?

How do you know it's no slower? To me it seems like that if the game were actually running you would get into a game quicker than having to launch it from your browser. You can have all the functions it has and still have an ingame browser. Nothing it's doing re stats is original just all the facebook stuff.

Adamcp898

Turbine wrote: »

You're confusing a demo with a beta, there is a huge difference. A demo, as you've explained, is a sample of the finished product. A beta is a 'still in development' product given out for testing of certain features, or in this case, the servers. So this beta served its purpose, while also creating a bit of extra hype leading up to release.

The version we've been playing is nearly 4 months old, so I'd be surprised if the finished product wasn't a big improvement on what we saw in the beta.

No I'm not, I understand completely the point you're making, but I wasn't expecting the beta test to be a demo. I just don't think you hold a public beta this close to release if you're using a product version that is very far away from being finished, it just doesn't make business sense, that is why I think this beta version is a lot closer to what people will be buying come Oct 28th than most realise. EA would have made huge release week sales on this game without an open beta at all and I think this testing period has only served to decrease those sales. Yes people will point out that they're only trying to avoid the server problems that so many games suffer from in week 1 when an open beta isn't held but I think a lot people are shoving their head in the sand if they think it's going to be shiny and perfect come release day after this beta. For me, it's a long way off the quality of BC2 and by no means will knock COD off it's throne in terms of sales or, at this rate even, fun.

sink

Seifer wrote: »

If you were browsing the web and I told you you had to shut down the browser each time you wanted to open a new page you wouldn't think that's a negative?

How do you know it's no slower? To me it seems like that if the game were actually running you would get into a game quicker than having to launch it from your browser. You can have all the functions it has and still have an ingame browser. Nothing it's doing re stats is original just all the facebook stuff.

Why is better when you're only changing the user interface? When you exit a map in BC2 you change to the in-game server browser interface, when you exit a map in BF3 you exit to the battlelog desktop interface, both only take seconds. It takes about the same time to load a BC2 map from the in-game browser as a BF3 map from the desktop. There is nothing inherently better about in-game server browser and a desktop based server browser.

From the battlelog user interface you have a wider range of options, you can even use other desktop programs and view other websites in between maps. You can also view the battlelog from other computers without the game installed. I would log into the battlelog at work to have a look at what's happening chat with friends and in the forums and view unlocks/stats.

BlitzKrieg

No I'm not, I understand completely the point you're making, but I wasn't expecting the beta test to be a demo. I just don't think you hold a public beta this close to release if you're using a product version that is very far away from being finished, it just doesn't make business sense, that is why I think this beta version is a lot closer to what people will be buying come Oct 28th than most realise.

As I said earlier on the pc side of things a lot of the serious problems with the game got fixed server side. I get the impression that Dice found they couldnt as implement the changes to the console side as easily hence for the most part those glaring bugs remained.

For example the most crucial one, the going through the ground and shoting people from underneath was pretty much gone from the beta by halfway through last week.

Clearly the beta did a lot for DICE in addressing server side issues.