Battlefield 3

[Nerdsturm]

I don't know luftwaffe.be, "the class" is also arbitrary. With more than 4 classes they can become too specific so you are at a disadvantage too often. How often don't you suicide just because you happened to spawn in a situation where you need "that specific" kit? Happened a lot in bf42, BF2 as well as our own FH2. 4 classes is enough IMHO, and give the players the freedom to customize his loadout as he see fit... Isn't that what you want? Freedom to do what you want?

If classes don't have specialized roles (and thus weaknesses) there really isn't a purpose to having classes in the first place. These weaknesses incentivize the best type of teamwork, since players need to rely on each other for different types of support, and it's just bland if every player can fulfill every role. Tanks can't appear powerful if every single soldier is carrying an RPG, and so on.

And class customization can be a bit of fun, but it's still ultimately just a gimmick that doesn't change whether or not the core game is fun or not (and in my opinion can actually detract from that, since customization can come at a cost to balance and require implementing annoying leveling systems). If there are a few well designed classes with specific roles, then customization doesn't really add anything and only distracts from the game. If I know I'm going to have to be fighting tanks in FH2, I take the AT class. There's no benefit from 10 different AT weapons that all do basically the same thing, and limiting choices can actually lead to some interesting gameplay as it is the case in some of the maps in FH2 that have no spawnable AT kits or only very weak ones.

[Natty]

But "levelling systems" is a permanent core in games now and will always be there. Progression / persistence and unlocks is as much a part of the game core as the maps are, or the menu. So you can't dedact that from the equation.

Classes still have their roles in BF3 though, it's not like anyone can become exactly what he wants with all classes, is it?
I also consider what "kit" the player has to be a minor balancing parameter. The heavy balancing factors should come from how the terrain is built, the level design and what vehicles the designer gives you.

Breaking it down, balance should come from a model looking like:
Terrain formation: 20%
Static placements: 25%
Vehicles/ assets on map: 15%
Soldiers individual strengths: 20%
Players individual "skills": 20%

These numbers are grabbed from thin air just to prove the idea of the model. It basically mean a very powerful soldier (all ulocks, all geared to the teeth with  the best stuff) and a very skilfull player (on a high-end rig with low ping) still won't be able to "ultra-pwn" another player if he has the map (terrain/positions) and map assets to his advantage. However if he also has the best vehicle, he'll crush the opponents even if they have the best position (>50%)
However a "low skilled" player who uses the map design and the assets to his advantage, will win over the highskilled/maxed out geared soldier (40% v 60%)

Design must take these rock-paper-scissors concepts in to practice, or the game will become too predictable and static. The game and the map should always be the over-weighing factor, if you use it well, you should get the upper hand, IMO

Consider Counter-strike as comparison. Their model could look like this:
Terrain formation: 10%
Static placements: 15%
Vehicles / assets: 0%
Soldiers individual strength (basically what weapon you buy in the beginning): 35%
Players individual skill: 40%

It does mean, that a low skilled player (like me) could win against a high-skilled player if I had the best weapon and had the best map-position advantage on him. However if I meet him in a straight corridor with equal cover, Im fragged, 100% of the times. It also means that if he has a better weapon, Im unlikey to ever get a kill on him, even if I use the best covers / routes.

[Paavopesusieni]

And here I thought using map design as advantage is part of player skill. Oh well...

[Natty]

Of course it is That is exactly what I meant.

[Nerdsturm]

It also means that if he has a better weapon, Im unlikey to ever get a kill on him, even if I use the best covers / routes.

Don't you see a problem with this? New players generally will be at a skill disadvantage (or at least they won't know maps as well), and adding an additional layer of perk and gun disadvantages only makes this worse. If I start playing a game and am just flat out worse than any other players (think magnum ammo in BC2) I'm not going to have fun, and I'm not going to continue playing a game for 30 hours that isn't fun.

Multiplayer FPS's aren't about character development, they're about competition. Maybe I'm in the old guard in that regard, but I haven't spent money on a primarily multiplayer FPS since BC2, and with the current trends in the genre I don't exactly plan to start again. Many of the older games are just simply more entertaining, even if their graphics aren't as shiny.

[LuckyOne]

^ You misunderstood him, he was talking about CS, not BF 3 (although I would say that not giving you a coax mg or flares for your plane  by default is seriously stupid and puts new players in a not-so-enjoyable position)

[Natty]

yes exactly, I was refering to CS in that sentence

FPS evolved and are now a lot about progression. People is actually tending to more stick around to "continue playing a game for 30 hours" because they want all that cool stuff

[THeTA0123]

attachment wise, every weapon is the same :/

[|7th|Nighthawk]

I don't know how this works out in BF3 ( I played it 2 or 3 hours) but I am gonna take the nightmare of all BF-gamers as a good example: Call of Duty 4 (the others after that are not more than "meh") had a really good starting loadout with M16, M249SAW and MP5. Even in the endgame this weapons are really top notch. Shortly after those you even get AK and RPD (and the buggy Skorpion). This is a really good example of how to combine unlocks with a good amount of balance. The only Weapon that is OP and is gained in the last levels is the Desert Eagle. The rest is really fair and balanced. Even the attachements don't change too much.
In BC2, the above mentioned Magnum rounds or the Saiga 12K with extended mag can really be a problem for new players. That combined with the nonexisting countermeasures in vehicles leads to the problem of them being not fun to play if the other players got all the gadgets. Even if you achieve to lock onto an enemy chopper, he can still throw his flares whereas you cant and get killed if not skilled enough.

[Natty]

Beautiful hi-res images from Battlefield 3 showing key elements of both the awesome game play and the wonders of Frostbite 2

http://imgur.com/a/XHbp0#32

exceprts from the 1080p 60 fps slow-motion video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqgPiE1suF0&feature=youtu.be

pretttYYyy niiiice 

[Kalkalash]

Wait, did that jet just take-off from a snowy road at 0:36? Well, fuck logic. Anyways, looks absolutely gorgeous, I wish I had a machine that could run it that high.

[Eglaerinion]

Kinda looking forward to Aftermath. Some interesting ideas. Should be fun.

[THeTA0123]

wish they included some "old world" weapons

like an AKM or M16A1. one little FAL. And then WITH bayonets!


But no, EA wants maximum profit and includes one crossbow...

[Alakazou]

[THeTA0123]

YEAH now we are talking BRO!