BATTLEFIELD 3 BETA a disaster?

mozattack

On this 64 v 24 debate, surely it is irrelevant anyway unless playing Conquest and CQ is a lame duck compared to Rush.

Also what is the point in doing well in a 64 player game when 1 person will make no difference to the outcome.

TheFairy

Using it to keep your feet warm? 2 Xbox 360's and 1 PS3 here in the house and the only one that gets used is the PS3 and thats to watch media in HD using PS3 Media Server! Now and again Guitar Hero is played, but thats it. At the lans we sometimes break out the Wii, but never the Xbox or PS3.

TheFairy

PS Cully http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3-pc/1439985-how-change-your-origin-name-yourself-right-now-iphone-android-users.html How to change your player name!

battser

mozattack wrote: »

On this 64 v 24 debate, surely it is irrelevant anyway unless playing Conquest and CQ is a lame duck compared to Rush.

Also what is the point in doing well in a 64 player game when 1 person will make no difference to the outcome.

ehhhhhhh GTFO :rolleyes:

mozattack

battser wrote: »

ehhhhhhh GTFO :rolleyes:

Please explain?

My point is that 64 players on Metro Rush would be nonsense as 24 players is more than enough given the difficulty as it is.

The same applies to most games on Rush, the fighting is condensed into an area of the area meaning 12 v 12 is more than enough as it can be quite hectic.

I would definitely say 12 v 12 on Conquest on Heavy Metal is a total borefest as it is too spread out and that is why I think the more numbers are required in Conquest than Rush. Given that I play CQ probably no more than 15% of the time, it makes no odds to me… PC could have 64,000 playing it as I would be happy playing Rush anyway.

I also said that being 1 of 32 is rather pointless as surely you must feel that the aim of the game (winning the round) is redundant when you could in theory be playing alongside 31 noobs or maybe 28 noobs if I am to assume that you will be in a squad with other equally good mates.

I feel than CQ with 12 v 12 is sometimes pointless cos I could be kicking ass and still lose due to my numbskull teammates hanging around trying to get into a chopper. Surely that issue can only be exacerbated in a 32 v 32 round.???

Auvers

mozattack wrote: »

it makes no odds to me… PC could have 64,000 playing it as I would be happy playing Rush anyway.[/SIZE][/FONT]

well stick to Rush mode

BF has always been about team\squad play, you are basing your assumptions on a gimped BF game that was BC2.

Rush mode is only there to keep the run and gun COD players happy

oh BTW any chance you could tone down you chosen font size as it hurts my eyes trying to read it and doesn't make your point any more valid than anyone else's

mozattack

Dcully wrote: »

The facts are exactly that, facts! console horsepower is seriously limited now,fine for games that dont have expansive maps,terrain etc but not for something like BF3, thats is all people are saying on this thread, why such hostility towards the truth?
Are you in denial?

Denial about what? If I wanted a PC i'd go an buy one.

Also not quite getting where I was "hostile", but anyway...

mozattack

Auvers wrote: »

well stick to Rush mode

BF has always been about team\squad play, you are basing your assumptions on a gimped BF game that was BC2.

Rush mode is only there to keep the run and gun COD players happy

oh BTW any chance you could tone down you chosen font size as it hurts my eyes trying to read it and doesn't make your point any more valid than anyone else's

Apologies on font size, just cut and paste from WORD and this is what happened.. it is annoying alright.

Hmmm so the Rush mode is only for "COD" players... that's a good one. We now have potentially a PC snob and a Conquest mood snob in the one. Excellent.

Auvers

mozattack wrote: »

PC snob and a Conquest mood snob in the one. Excellent.

Snob no, PC gamer yes, I just cant play FPS games with a controller, conquest has been the main Battlefield mode for a decade and its the only mode to play with 64 players

Rush mode is a hideous creation that definitely has been added to try and nab the COD player from all platforms

battser

Auvers wrote: »

Snob no, PC gamer yes, I just cant play FPS games with a controller, conquest has been the main Battlefield mode for a decade and its the only mode to play with 64 players

Rush mode is a hideous creation that definitely has been added to try and nab the COD player from all platforms

Totally disagree with you're take on rush and I played BF2 which of course I enjoyed playin. But Rush is a good mode and you sayin its run and gun for the cod players is total BS tbh! Rush is a good game and it requires just as good tactics like conquest, if not better imo.

mozattack

Auvers wrote: »

Snob no, PC gamer yes, I just cant play FPS games with a controller, conquest has been the main Battlefield mode for a decade and its the only mode to play with 64 players

Rush mode is a hideous creation that definitely has been added to try and nab the COD player from all platforms

It is fair enough that you prefer CQ to Rush but I don’t see why those who like Rush are labelled CoD players?

Lots of those who I play with hate CoD and solely play BF Rush so your point doesn’t wash.

Maybe CQ with 64 people is better than Rush… I dunno but that is my point all along in that you would need 64 players in CQ to have as much action as what happens in Rush.

In Rush a good squad can really affect the game whereas CQ is merely a fancy mood of Deathmatch and THAT IS more CoD like.

Mossay

(this is gonna be a long one, so feel free to skip it tldr;)

Battlefield 3's sniping hurts my finger's joints when using a ps3 controller as theres too much going on with spotting and steadying. Other than that it handles pretty well on a controller with aim assist. Tbh I'm considering getting the 360 shaped controller for the ps3 as my hands don't ache at all when using it, Im pretty sure its to do with the dualshock's handles being so small that it doesnt rest in my palm, leaving my hands in a perpetual tense state. Anyways

Back to the point, I don't think its fair to call someone a snob for expressing a preference for one game mode over another, and its hypocritical when you become somewhat of a rush mode snob in the thread. Granted you were more articulate when backing up your claims, but the argument fell flat on its face when you brought the "noobs" comments in. In the last year I've played the hell out of BC2 (steam says I'm approaching 150 hours ^_^), and I have never come across people camping for vehicles in conquest or rush. A game will always have "noobs" playing, whether the newbie kind or the ones that just have no grasp of how to play to win, and I'd argue that Battlefield 3 will (and the beta already experienced it) have an influx of dumbasses in the first month who camp vehicle spawn points in the hopes of leveling up their vehicle perks to become formidable, or just to make youtube videos to show off their "skill" and get more subscribers.

Getting to the point<---

I'm not sure how console matchmaking works, but for the PC you can join servers that boot out people below a certain rank, and that usually weeds out the bad players. So I will grant you that on a console, conquest will probably be marred by "noobs" camping vehicles, but on PC it isn't much of a problem with all the server restrictions that can be put in place such as limiting the number of classes allowed (1 recon per team for example), and forcing people to leave the spawn area in under 30+ seconds otherwise they're booted/killed.

If EA gets its act together and brings those types of server customisations then I'd put the gameplay of consoles on par with PC. /endnerd

Edit: woops, new posts before my post, I'm too hungry amend my original post. Disclaimer: I much preferred rush in BC2, it was probably because the maps in conquest were too small/linear?

mozattack

PS3 action, wow! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJyTIgTX80Q

Fnz

Korvanica wrote: »

I really have NO clue how some people still don't know that the beta was running old code... Its been mentioned so many times in so many threads... yet people still say things like "I dont think they have time to fix it, blah blah blah"...

At least one reviewers has said the same; and you'd imagine he would be privy to more information than us regular forum biscuits.

Mossay

Fnz wrote: »

At least one reviewers has said the same; and you'd imagine he would be privy to more information than us regular forum biscuits.

Well keep in mind people don't have review copies yet, the only thing they've had to base their opinions on is the alpha and the beta (which confused the crap out of people since EA decided to reclassify the beta as a method to test the backend and server infrastructure under heavy load, and not as a method of finding bugs in the latest code).

The ones who were privy to more information are the guys who get to visit the office and press events and even then they are just allowed tinker about with the single player showpiece levels. Then there are the guys who were used to stress test the caspian border at the beginning of the beta (the guys who leaked the server password) and even then they were just used for (for lack of a better term) "lag testing".

I'm not naive, 9 months into bad company 2 and still people were finding drop through the ground glitches on the "Arica Harbor" map, but I still think its not right perpetuating the idea that DICE cant fix the majority of pain in the ass glitches that people used in the beta since theyve had almost 3 months since the Alpha of the game had its bugs reported.

That said I'm a little bit worried by one of their recent statements about bugfixes:

"Downed bodies appear to be dead, but are not--
The DICE team has been looking into this issue which is caused by a combination of incidents in a confined area – and are working hard to address the issue for the launch of the retail game."

My inner pessimist worries that thats marketing speak for "were probably not gonna be able to fix it in time". Which is stupid because they fixed the zoom-out-of-map killcam and the inability of some players to sprint. I'd think the game-breaking bug would take precedence, at least when I was a games tester thats how it worked- bugs were ranked in order of severity though in some cases the most trivial bugs were fixed first.

*sigh*

lahcen86

Turns out the beta glitch with the long neck isn't a glitch after all !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6l4dAHKL-E&feature=related

mozattack

lahcen86 wrote: »

Turns out the beta glitch with the long neck isn't a glitch after all !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6l4dAHKL-E&feature=related

True classic.. very funny

.K.A.L.I.M.A.

Had to laugh at it! Very funny! Seems to be another one as well but I'll put the two of them up.

If you look carefully on the second video near the end all you can see is "Troll Support"!!!