Author Topic: Battlefield 3  (Read 214103 times)

Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1575 on: 14-10-2011, 10:10:29 »
ha ha... the irony of interwebz logic... you guys have admitted without saying it now, that what you want, is a working BF Heroes matchmaking system.. But no no.. you want a server browser, right? You want to be able to choose the server you join. So explain then, how is the game going to put you in a server with equally levelled soldiers, if everyone can choose the server himself?

Let me tell you why BF:heroes did it so great. NO server browser. The game has a working matchmaking.. you are level 8? then you are assigned a range of available servers, perhaps from level 3 to 10 (I dont have exact numbers).. you are level 14, you might end up with some level 11 guys but also some level 18 guys.

This works, beautifully. A game of Heroes - once you get up a bit in level, say above 15 - is always a game of skillz, even though pretty much every single dude is geared up from top to toe with weapons, gadgets and stuff.... imbalance? sure, but you can re-balance that yourself.

But if BF3 offered this system, the torches&pitchforks emokidz would be marching down the street chanting the -modtools-serverbrowser-dedicatedservers-bigopenmaps- mantra til kingdom come.

You want to be able to join whatever server you want, do whatever you want to do on that server, and have no differences between the players?.. wow... sounds so stiff and dead, that game.... Remind me again, why would players bother playing a game in 2011, if they didn't get anything from it? Why should a tanker who put in 150 gaming hours in a tank, not have more stuff/gadgets than some n00b who just grabzed himself a tank and went out on a lol-ride?...
Many players find it cool and awesome, that not everything is the same in games.. that you can be surprised and find an opponent who has customized his equipment and playstyle, and is using the environment (map) in a new and exciting way.. This, is what gives long life to a game... new experiences.
When some "mod" changes the rules and laws of the game, is different... that isnt giving new experiences to the game, it's more like trying to make a sub-game.

Bf1942 was so successful, partly because it was so open and non-controlled, that the chaos-generator that is 64 dudes, always moved and behaved in a way so that you often saw new things/events happen and went "wow, this is a real war!".... but scratch a bit on the surface... take El Alamein as example... watch the map and you can literary see the ant-trail of players movements... you always took the same route between these 3 bases. You knew pretty much exactly where enemy tank would appear in the fog, you knew exactly at each base where the greying infantry was hiding, you knew where the mines were, planes insta-killed your tank easily.. it was predictable as well, despite the freedom and openness.

Destruction and customized inventory have replaced openness and size, it can create new experiences which are as exciting. It also gives more power to the player to influence the battle. You just need to get in to the game to do it. Learn the tactics, learn the gear, get the gear. I look at it abit like a "mission" you set for yourself, you know you're a grunt/n00b in the beginning, but if you just work hard enough, you'll climb in rank and will be offered more cool things as reward.
The so-called "vets" they dont like this, because they want to be cool right out of the box. They want to install a new game and be awesome immediately, just because they have played 1,000 hours of another game. They think that just because some dude on the server has managed to unlock more stuff before him, it's an "imbalance", and that just because he has played many other FpS games, he "deserves" to have all that stuff him too. But when he himsef gets those unlocks, he never once stops and reflects if those things makes him imbalance, or if his "skillz" makes him imbalanced to players that haven't grinded 1,000 hours of fps games.. he ignores the fact, that "skillz" are grinded just the same way as game tech can be grinded...
.. such simple is the ego of the player, and that simpleness is a key factor that powers a persistence system.

Offline Kelmola

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.854
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1576 on: 14-10-2011, 11:10:55 »
ha ha... the irony of interwebz logic... you guys have admitted without saying it now, that what you want, is a working BF Heroes matchmaking system.. But no no.. you want a server browser, right? You want to be able to choose the server you join. So explain then, how is the game going to put you in a server with equally levelled soldiers, if everyone can choose the server himself?
The matchmaking is required for unlocks to work; however, that won't change it that I hate game-changing unlocks. Period. End. Costumes and stuff I can accept grudgingly. Given a choice between unlocks and matchmaking and no unlocks and free server selection, I will always pick the latter, thank you.

But if BF3 offered this system, the torches&pitchforks emokidz would be marching down the street chanting the -modtools-serverbrowser-dedicatedservers-bigopenmaps- mantra til kingdom come.
What exactly are you doing in FH2 modding team if you consider these to be a bad thing? Trying to make FH2 as much COD-like as is possible on Refractor engine?

You want to be able to join whatever server you want, do whatever you want to do on that server, and have no differences between the players?.. wow... sounds so stiff and dead, that game.... Remind me again, why would players bother playing a game in 2011, if they didn't get anything from it? Why should a tanker who put in 150 gaming hours in a tank, not have more stuff/gadgets than some n00b who just grabzed himself a tank and went out on a lol-ride?...
Apparently, you described FH2, remind me again, why players are playing it in 2011?

Many players find it cool and awesome
Wikipedese for "I think". Also, different kind of games for different kind of people. It will be a sad day indeed when all FPS games are clones of each other.

that you can be surprised and find an opponent who has customized his equipment and playstyle, and is using the environment (map) in a new and exciting way... This, is what gives long life to a game... new experiences.
How excatly would giving the choice of equipment from get-go prevent this? How do unlocks affect in any way or form how you use the map/environment?

you always took the same route between these 3 bases. You knew pretty much exactly where enemy tank would appear in the fog, you knew exactly at each base where the greying infantry was hiding, you knew where the mines were, planes insta-killed your tank easily.. it was predictable as well, despite the freedom and openness.

Destruction and customized inventory have replaced openness and size, it can create new experiences which are as exciting.
So if players tend to use certain routes, your logic says to use OOB zones to prevent anyone using anything else. Also, destruction and inventory can never replace openness and size. Except for those who prefer COD over FH2.

The so-called "vets" they dont like this, because they want to be cool right out of the box. They want to install a new game and be awesome immediately, just because they have played 1,000 hours of another game. They think that just because some dude on the server has managed to unlock more stuff before him, it's an "imbalance", and that just because he has played many other FpS games, he "deserves" to have all that stuff him too.
If I know that a tank in real life has a coax MG, but in-game I will have to "unlock" this, it's not a game I want to play, ever. If push comes to shove, I will choose "military simulators" (ArmA etc.) over these "experiences", thank you. Now, as far as I have understood, FH2 tries to be more realistic than vanilla BF2.

Getting "extra" gear through unlocks is silly, but borderline acceptable. Not getting even the basic equipment without unlocking, you can keep this "experience" all to yourself.

I just hope that you are not trying to force-feed the FH2 dev team your concepts of what makes a game "fun" (read: COD clone).

Offline Beaufort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • WIP
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1577 on: 14-10-2011, 11:10:15 »
Yeah Natty why don't you make a mini WWII mod for team fortress or something if its only FUN you are looking for, seriously ?  :-\

Offline Eat Uranium

  • Tea Drinker
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.512
  • Today's news will contain [REDACTED]
    • View Profile
    • FH2 Music
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1578 on: 14-10-2011, 12:10:37 »
Now it looks to me like the personal attacks are beginning again.

So: either behave or don't play at all.

Offline SiCaRiO

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.554
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1579 on: 14-10-2011, 12:10:39 »
I love grinding.....I played BF bc2 until I got all the unlocks then stopped. I love having to unlock things.

and this, ladies, gentlemand and DICE employies , is why there is unlocks in their current form in modern games. companies want you to stop playing their first game and start playing their newer game that has brad new unlocks, over and over again.


Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1580 on: 14-10-2011, 12:10:52 »
that's ok Eat U, I can handle it.. this is nothing compared to what Im used to  8)

About the "why do u fh2 if u dontz like it"... My Answer: Because I am competent enough to differ game from game. FH2 and BF3 are not the same, period. End. Our players want certain things, a certain way, and we like to give certain things, a certain way to them. It's not like designers have one solid set of rules (a bible) they apply to everything and every game they encounter (ONE DESIGN, UNDER GOD, SO SAY WE ALL)

No no.. you need to be able to look at the game itself and what goal it has, what audience it has, what the design aims to deliver for that game.

@Beaufort: We can make this in to a theory of fun discussion if you want, but it will probably get too complex for some, and instead turn ugly. Let me end it with; you also want, only FUN. That is your goal when you press the power-button on the PC, log in to windows, and then log on to a game. How that FUN materializes for you, can differ ofcourse, but there is no other goal here, no other desire than to be entertained. All games entertain (provide fun) in different ways, be it TF2, ArmA, BF3, FH2 or MineCraft, all delivers an experience, and if we like the game, we have "fun" playing it. Period, The end.

What is "fun" then? Well, I read somewhere what I picked as the so-far best definition. It is something that makes us feel good - gives us pleasure (neurological; makes our brains produce Adrenaline, and Dopamine) - but it cant be too repetitive or predictable, it needs an element of surprise, (or our brains will adapt too fast, thus not producing dopamine or Adrenaline, thus diminishing the "kick") to keep us interested - on our toes. So, Fun is pleasure, with surprise.

"Many players find it cool and awesome" I said, and Kelmola edited me and pointed me to wiki "I think"... I pass the glowing hot charcoal piece back - Many players find it cool and awesome, the end. They do, it is not what I think, it is not a theory. Not all do, but many do. Period, the End.

Now we've reached the state in the discussion where the last and only argument from is "u wanna turn it in to a Cod clone?".... How could this be done? really?... Are we talking Modern Warfare 2 here?... How on earth could I or we, even if we wanted to, make FH2 in to a "CoD clone"?... what is that even? It's such an abstract and loosely defined term or phrase, it can't be anything but ignored... Please describe it to me, because to me -"Turn a BF2 ww2 mod in to a Call of Duty "clone"- is impossible to imagine, different engine, different game modes, weapons, maps, design.. everything is different. How could we even get close to anything, that would resemble Call of Duty?

(Add to this.. why is this hypothesis relevant to a dicussion about BF3?... propose I do have this secret little agenda, to turn a bf2 mod in to another retail game... why do we chat about that in a BF3 thread?)

[back on topic]
Kelmola: "How excatly would giving the choice of equipment from get-go prevent this? How do unlocks affect in any way or form how you use the map/environment?"

It's obvious, if everyone has all the stuff from the beginning, you are less likely to run in to guys who hasn't got all the stuff, simple eh? If everyone on the server has access to 100% of the assets, every round will be more similar to the next round, compared to if there is a total mix of assets.
Unlocks/perks/skills are designed to be used in different situations, so ofcourse you'll see players adapting certain playstyles in certain areas to his equipped skills/gadgets etc. that's what they're there for in the first place - to create interesting combat situations.

Kelmola "Also, destruction and inventory can never replace openness and size. Except for those who prefer COD over FH2."

How do you know it can't? And what makes it sure only people who prefer "cod over fh2" can like this?

Look at your statement again - it kind of symbolizes interwebz logic and reason in one sentence:

"Also!, Destruction and inventory (unlocks, gadgets etc) can never replace openness and size. You mean for you, right? You, can never have more fun with destruction and unlocks, than the fun given to you by large open maps. "ok", let's go with that.. But here comes a funny addition - remember we are talking about BF3 still: Except for those who prefer COD over FH2." ....

 ???

So.... designing BF3 with destruction and unlocks instead of large open maps, will never make the game more fun, except for those players who prefer another retail game (CoD) over a.. BF2 mod???....

I....totally....do not..see..the logic.....

Kelmola: "If I know that a tank in real life has a coax MG, but in-game I will have to "unlock" this, it's not a game I want to play, ever.

Well, then don't do it :) I personally love the coax MG as unlock. It's in BFP4F and it's awesome, as you can never see on an enemy tank if he has it or not. It feeds in to that thing about -keeping you on your toe- the surprise, the less predictable game. Unlocked coax or not, stimulates the dopamine production more than if everyone has it. Which in turn, makes us more addicted to the game, because just face it. We are junkies who use the game as a distributor of body-drugs. Nothing more, nothing less. We enter the 3D world on our monitor + headphones so that it can stimulate our neural response system and our brains produces those drops of natural narcotics. That is the fun, and no matter if you get it from shooting Angry birds, building lego-castles, levelling up a wizard or fragging someone with a special forces assault rifles - it's all-in-all, biologically, the same stuff.

have a nice weekend all  8)

Offline Ciupita

  • Gay Lord
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.581
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1581 on: 14-10-2011, 12:10:28 »

Offline Flippy Warbear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.871
  • Adequately docile
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1582 on: 14-10-2011, 13:10:24 »
If only Natty used as much time and effort to modding than he does to this pile-of-a-shit thread, we'd be at pacific by now.

Offline NTH

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 3.146
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1583 on: 14-10-2011, 13:10:40 »


bf3 command rose =3

Hehe lol. I would be nice if they add a "Stay Frosty" and "Callsign Actual" to it.

 That TEHRAN HIGHWAY map looks insanely detailed. I've yet to see a map that looked better details wise.
Today they will reveal the other maps.
« Last Edit: 14-10-2011, 16:10:31 by NTH »


Milton Gault roared, "Roffey, I know bloody well that Jerry knows we are here but you don't need to advertise the fact!"
(From: First in the Field, Gault of the Patricias by Jeffery Williams, page 72.)

Offline Eat Uranium

  • Tea Drinker
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.512
  • Today's news will contain [REDACTED]
    • View Profile
    • FH2 Music
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1584 on: 14-10-2011, 13:10:05 »
that's ok Eat U, I can handle it.. this is nothing compared to what Im used to  8)
I was being pre-emptive.
Quote
It's in BFP4F and it's awesome, as you can never see on an enemy tank if he has it or not. It feeds in to that thing about -keeping you on your toe- the surprise, the less predictable game.
Is this not exactly the same (or at least very similar) to the reason that you gave for not having the suppression shader?  Because that sure does sound like bad feedback to the player...

Offline Beaufort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • WIP
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1585 on: 14-10-2011, 13:10:10 »
@Beaufort: We can make this in to a theory of fun discussion if you want, but it will probably get too complex for some, and instead turn ugly. Let me end it with; you also want, only FUN. That is your goal when you press the power-button on the PC, log in to windows, and then log on to a game. How that FUN materializes for you, can differ ofcourse, but there is no other goal here, no other desire than to be entertained. All games entertain (provide fun) in different ways, be it TF2, ArmA, BF3, FH2 or MineCraft, all delivers an experience, and if we like the game, we have "fun" playing it. Period, The end.

By "fun" I meant "having a laugh"...  :P

Kelmola had good points, the features we'd like for BF3 that you find lame ("modtools-serverbrowser-dedicatedservers-bigopenmaps" + no difference between players) are the one that makes FH2 great. Either they aren't lame, or you have to start a new mod somewhere ...



Offline Eglaerinion

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 447
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1586 on: 14-10-2011, 14:10:14 »
I'm getting sick and tired of the same people constantly complaining about the same things. If you don't like it fine. Don't drag this thread down with your constant whining, thank you very much.

In the mean time the multiplayer embargo has lifted and some impressions (console only, tdm/rush game mode) have been posted.

Nowgamer.com
"The wolves will come again."

Offline DLFReporter

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.727
  • Betatesting FH2 makes me edgy...
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1587 on: 14-10-2011, 14:10:54 »
If you don't like it, then vote with your wallets. It's pretty simple.
Don't like Mondern Warfare and COD type gameplay? Then don't buy BF3 and MW3.
If enough people do this, then the next time round the managers at EA/IW will try something different. I promise you that. Hell, BF42 might even make a comeback on the new engine should BF3 and MW3 go belly up.
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off

Offline LuckyOne

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.711
  • Purple Heart Collector
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1588 on: 14-10-2011, 14:10:26 »
Let me tell you why BF:heroes did it so great. NO server browser (probably the reason why so many people left, especially clan scene). The game has a half-finished, half-working matchmaking ... you are level 8? then you are assigned a range of available servers, perhaps from level  3 to 10 (I dont have exact numbers, so it could be anything).. you are level 14, you might end up with some level 1 guys but also some level 30 guys.

This works, beautifully (sometimes). (In reality you'll end up with your lvl 30 on a server with a bunch of < lvl 10 noobs, that if you don't get kicked for some stupid class limits which aren't even accounted in the matchmaking or on a vehicle map server only when  you wanted an infantry one). A game of Heroes - once you get up a bit in level, say above 15 - is always a game of skillz cash, even though pretty much every single dude (with a credit card) is geared up from top to toe with weapons, gadgets and stuff.... imbalance? sure, but you can re-balance that yourself (by spending a ridiculous amount of money on weapons and "widgets" i.e. unfair advantages or on renting a server where you can make up your own rules to enjoy the game properly... except it will be empty most of the time.)

But if BF3 offered this system, the torches&pitchforks emokidz would be marching down the street chanting the -modtools-serverbrowser-dedicatedservers-bigopenmaps- mantra til kingdom come. (they sure would and they would have all the rights to do so).

You want to be able to join whatever server you want, do whatever you want to do on that server, and have no differences between the players?.. wow... sounds so stiff and dead, that game.... Remind me again, why would players bother playing a game in 2011, if they didn't get anything from it? Why should a tanker who put in 150 gaming hours in a tank, not have more stuff/gadgets than some n00b who just grabzed himself a tank and went out on a lol-ride?... (maybe because they know they can still beat him easily without extra help from all the cool gadgets" because the "noob in the tank" is new to the game and lacks the experience to use the tank effectively).

Many players find it cool and awesome, that not everything is the same in games.. that you can be surprised and find an opponent who has customized his equipment and playstyle, and is using the environment (map) in a new and exciting way.. This, is what gives long life to a game... new experiences.
When some "mod" changes the rules and laws of the game, is different... that isnt giving new experiences to the game, it's more like trying to make a sub-game. (agreed, but that doesn't mean that you have to implement "unlocks" which give direct advantages over the starting equipment. Another way to generate surprise would be if you LET the players attack from whatever direction they want, and REALLY surprise the enemy.)

Bf1942 was so successful, partly because it was so open and non-controlled, that the chaos-generator that is 64 dudes, always moved and behaved in a way so that you often saw new things/events happen and went "wow, this is a real war!".... but scratch a bit on the surface... take El Alamein as example... watch the map and you can literary see the ant-trail of players movements... you always took the same route between these 3 bases. You knew pretty much exactly where enemy tank would appear in the fog, you knew exactly at each base where the greying infantry was hiding, you knew where the mines were, planes insta-killed your tank easily.. it was predictable as well, despite the freedom and openness.
(that is probably due to the fact that the maps were barely detailed, there where only a few reasonable hiding spots, and the problem is even more pronounced today in the games like CoD where maps are usually small. Throwing grenades over the same wall over and over again just because you know the enemy will come from there, as he doesn't really have a choice)

Destruction and customized inventory have replaced openness and size, it can create new experiences which are as exciting. It also gives more power to the player to influence the battle. You just need to get in to the game to do it. Learn the tactics, learn the gear, get the gear. I look at it abit like a "mission" you set for yourself, you know you're a grunt/n00b in the beginning, but if you just work hard enough, you'll climb in rank and will be offered more cool things as reward. (you already knew that in the old games, and the reward was the improvement of your personal skill not some "skill" in the form of a more powerful, faster reloading, totally better gun.


The so-called "vets" they dont like this, because they want to be cool right out of the box. They want to install a new game and be awesome immediately, just because they have played 1,000 hours of another game. They think that just because some dude on the server has managed to unlock more stuff before him, it's an "imbalance", and that just because he has played many other FpS games, he "deserves" to have all that stuff him too. But when he himsef gets those unlocks, he never once stops and reflects if those things makes him imbalance, or if his "skillz" makes him imbalanced to players that haven't grinded 1,000 hours of fps games.. he ignores the fact, that "skillz" are grinded just the same way as game tech can be grinded... (but if you add the "skill grinding" to the "equipment grinding" you have a very unbalanced FPS if you let the players choose their own server, thus getting us to the fact that unlocks as upgrades are totally unnecessary in a FPS that has that feature).

.. such simple is the ego of the player, and that simpleness is a key factor that powers a persistence system. (the key factor that powers the persistence system is RAGE. You RAGE because when you get in the game you get pwned by all the grinders with unlocked gear, thus you start unlocking that gear, grinding your way to counter them, which leads to all the newcomers RAGING about them getting pwned by you with your top gear, and the circle continues. In the end nobody enjoys the game and after a while of playing with all things unlocked getting bored of killing the noobs again and again you quit and start looking for a "better game". Or you join some clan and play hardcore only.)
This sentence is intentionally left unfinished...

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.764
    • View Profile
Re: Battlefield 3
« Reply #1589 on: 14-10-2011, 15:10:00 »
Over half of the FH2 maps have their flags closer to each other than those on Caspian Border. Get over it already. I bet you didn't even try it.

Some maps, mostly the infantry maps. And the big gigantic vehicle/infantry maps have proper flag placement and distance. Saw the new pics of the new BF3 maps? Same tight circle flag placement.

You probably refer to all these super popular 2.0 desert maps ;)