Battlefield 3 General Discussion Thread

tehslippery said:
They really need to rework the boundaries, at least on Bandahar. The attackers being able to paradrop in literally behind your spawn point is retarded. You literally just have no sort of protection, you spawn and there are guys on top of you shooting you, plus the gunship. I don't really know what they where thinking with these Rush setups.
Click to expand...

The gunship I think is tweaked fine, but the paradrops on Rush are ABSOLUTELY overpowered, it's bad enough trying to defend with artillery raining down, it's IMPOSSIBLE when there are guys dropping down from every direction trying to defend two poles with no surrounding cover/buildings.

I only play public servers, and now I know what a truly terrible public team is:

Having 225 tickets and not being able to take ONE set of objectives on Arboz Mountain Rush.
 
My average play experience has been running from CP to CP solo capping uncontested for 250 worthless points and maybe get into a dozen shoot outs and armor engagements... then the game is over.

Meh either AK sucks or BF3 needs better players
 
Yeah AK makes me think that they just can't design vehicle maps. Or that the pub factor of the game has resulted in essentially a bunch of individuals with no teamwork unless it is forced upon them by the map and/or objectives.

In other words, the pubbers need herding. So that the cod+ type CQ dlc appears to be a better implementation of the game than a vehicle based map.
 
If you want action you have to go for certain objectives depending on how the server is playing. The one for the Gunship and Mobile Artillery are pretty good choices
 
I think these maps require some sort of communications medium other than typing out commands or the Wheel of Fortune while you're getting shot in the face. Well all of BF3 does. At this point I'm going to save some SSD space and uninstall for now as it's obviously not going to get better until BF4. Even though I purchased Premium and didn't mind doing so I still have friends that can't play with me. I know DLC is here to stay, but it would have been nice to play BF3 maps with them as they do have Skype.

Of course I'll watch the thread like a hawk to see if DICE figures out what makes BF3 fun to public players. I don't know what the secret sauce is nor do I care. All I care about is the finished product.
 
spaceman said:
Yeah AK makes me think that they just can't design vehicle maps. Or that the pub factor of the game has resulted in essentially a bunch of individuals with no teamwork unless it is forced upon them by the map and/or objectives.

In other words, the pubbers need herding. So that the cod+ type CQ dlc appears to be a better implementation of the game than a vehicle based map.
Click to expand...

This... exactly why I didn't rally with the BF2 lovers for large-scale maps. It just doesn't work with today's random PUG/pub players. I have more fun with the smaller-scale Conquest 64-player maps and Close Quarters... really the vanilla ones and CQ.
 
GoldenTiger said:
This... exactly why I didn't rally with the BF2 lovers for large-scale maps. It just doesn't work with today's random PUG/pub players. I have more fun with the smaller-scale Conquest 64-player maps and Close Quarters... really the vanilla ones and CQ.
Click to expand...

Didn't some of the previous versions (BF2? BFBC?) have different versions of each map? IE: The server could choose 16, 32, or 64 player versions (each with more and more objectives)? That'd alleviate a lot of the complaints, because a lot of servers would choose to run with fewer objectives.

They don't need to make anything out of bounds or move the main bases, just offer up less objective flags. I never had a problem with the amount of flags in BF3, just the scale of the maps. 4-6 is a good number (not including non-cap). 6 flags puts about 10 players per flag and 4 donkies flying circles. Firestorm and Caspian weren't bad scale wise, there just wasn't a whole lot of maps like those.
 
Last edited:
Spidey329 said:
Didn't some of the previous versions (BF2? BFBC?) have different versions of each map? IE: The server could choose 16, 32, or 64 player versions (each with more and more objectives)? That'd alleviate a lot of the complaints, because a lot of servers would choose to run with fewer objectives.
Click to expand...

Ya, and they kinda did that with BF3 just not well. There is conquest and conquest large but they are different game types. Large has more points. The other problem is that conquest doesn't use less map area, it just has more map that doesn't have points. So there is still lots of empty space. For it to work right it would have to use less of the map.
 
Spidey329 said:
Didn't some of the previous versions (BF2? BFBC?) have different versions of each map? IE: The server could choose 16, 32, or 64 player versions (each with more and more objectives)? That'd alleviate a lot of the complaints, because a lot of servers would choose to run with fewer objectives.

They don't need to make anything out of bounds or move the main bases, just offer up less objective flags. I never had a problem with the amount of flags in BF3, just the scale of the maps. 4-6 is a good number (not including non-cap). 6 flags puts about 10 players per flag and 4 donkies flying circles. Firestorm and Caspian weren't bad scale wise, there just wasn't a whole lot of maps like those.
Click to expand...

Caspian is probably my favorite map. I feel like it has a good size and the layout makes sense.

Armored Shield is the opposite of that. While the map has a good enough size, the layout is atrocious. The first thing I would to do fix it is remove the capture points that are immediately outside the spawn areas. This makes for super easy spawn camping as if their team gets blocked in, there's no where to go.
 
Is it just me or is the filter system FUCKED? I can barely find any Rush maps that aren't 3 out of 8 players or something ridiculous like 64 players on Metro. Also, on a different topic from the filtering, it seems every server I join that looks like it could be decent, the teams are always monstrously stacked, with the opposing team (of course, not the one I'm on), absolutely murdering the other team.

Are the new maps any better/worth it? I'm wondering if I bought the new expansion(s) that I'd be able to filter them in and maybe the servers I used to play on that were good would show up, since they've moved on now and thrown new maps into their rotations.
 
AK will be just like CQ in a few weeks. There might be a few more servers running it, but after it will stop attracting crowds soon and servers will go back to Stock + B2K rotations. If you're into vehicle wars, get AK, if not just wait it out.
 
I'm really liking Armored Kill. I don't really understand where the hate is coming from. I can get that certain game modes are imbalanced and such, but I don't think means the maps are terrible.
 
best idea is to give the finger to EA and uninstall your copy of BF3 without buying any more expansions for it. Forget BF as a game. If you have good memories of BF2 then that'll have to be enough......'cos EA have prolapsed the ass off this game :(
 
BiH115 said:
Is it just me or is the filter system FUCKED? I can barely find any Rush maps that aren't 3 out of 8 players or something ridiculous like 64 players on Metro. Also, on a different topic from the filtering, it seems every server I join that looks like it could be decent, the teams are always monstrously stacked, with the opposing team (of course, not the one I'm on), absolutely murdering the other team.

Are the new maps any better/worth it? I'm wondering if I bought the new expansion(s) that I'd be able to filter them in and maybe the servers I used to play on that were good would show up, since they've moved on now and thrown new maps into their rotations.
Click to expand...

You have to scroll all the way down in the server browser, more you scroll the more servers are loaded for you to pick from.
 
master noran said:
You have to scroll all the way down in the server browser, more you scroll the more servers are loaded for you to pick from.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought as well, but it just ends with maybe only 20 servers max. Idk what the hell is going on, game ran fine a few months ago.
 
The only thing I noticed is the more I scroll the worse the pings get. I have no desire to try servers with <100 ping.
 
I am enjoying AK specially Bandar Desert. Started flying jets more heavily now since most of the enemy is so distracted trying to shoot down the gunship that I am just sneaking up behind them and getting the kills. Fun times!
 
Ironchef Chris Wok said:
The gunship I think is tweaked fine, but the paradrops on Rush are ABSOLUTELY overpowered, it's bad enough trying to defend with artillery raining down, it's IMPOSSIBLE when there are guys dropping down from every direction trying to defend two poles with no surrounding cover/buildings.
Click to expand...

Gunship is kind of annoying, but unlike . . . well, basically all other air, it's actually vulnerable to IGLA fire. A few engineers paying attention can take it down rather quickly. I know that's asking a lot on a lot (most?) servers though.
 
verylostindeed said:
Gunship is kind of annoying, but unlike . . . well, basically all other air, it's actually vulnerable to IGLA fire. A few engineers paying attention can take it down rather quickly. I know that's asking a lot on a lot (most?) servers though.
Click to expand...

The .50 on a MBT is plenty of medicine if you get enough time on target.
 
I have two slightly factory overclocked GTX670s in my rig below. I run 3 1680x1050 in surround and I cannot get GPU usage over 90% on either GPU. It usually hovers between 60-80% depending on the scene.

Anybody know how to kickstart BF3 into using more Kepler goodness? My i5 3570k is at 4.5GHz so I know I'm not CPU bottle-necked. Help!?!
 
OFaceSIG said:
I have two slightly factory overclocked GTX670s in my rig below. I run 3 1680x1050 in surround and I cannot get GPU usage over 90% on either GPU. It usually hovers between 60-80% depending on the scene.

Anybody know how to kickstart BF3 into using more Kepler goodness? My i5 3570k is at 4.5GHz so I know I'm not CPU bottle-necked. Help!?!
Click to expand...

What's your CPU usage during multiplayer? It's possible you are being CPU limited on large 64-player maps. Otherwise, it might be an SLI issue.
 
jbz7890 said:
What's your CPU usage during multiplayer? It's possible you are being CPU limited on large 64-player maps. Otherwise, it might be an SLI issue.
Click to expand...

My CPU usage is at 90-100% usage all the time. My 1100T had all six cores at 95% and only my bulldozer was less then 100. In that case all 8 cores hovered between 60-85%
 
OFaceSIG said:
My CPU usage is at 90-100% usage all the time. My 1100T had all six cores at 95% and only my bulldozer was less then 100. In that case all 8 cores hovered between 60-85%
Click to expand...

It looks like you're CPU limited. You could try overclocking your CPU a bit more, but if you have good framerates already, I don't think you should bother.
 
OFaceSIG said:
I have two slightly factory overclocked GTX670s in my rig below. I run 3 1680x1050 in surround and I cannot get GPU usage over 90% on either GPU. It usually hovers between 60-80% depending on the scene.

Anybody know how to kickstart BF3 into using more Kepler goodness? My i5 3570k is at 4.5GHz so I know I'm not CPU bottle-necked. Help!?!
Click to expand...

This is a strange request. What is your FPS? Are you using Adaptive V-Sync? I like my cards to run cool, so with Adaptive V-Sync the cards don't get banged as hard, which is a good thing.
 
John1701 said:
I'm really liking Armored Kill. I don't really understand where the hate is coming from. I can get that certain game modes are imbalanced and such, but I don't think means the maps are terrible.
Click to expand...

Overall I'm having a bundle of fun, just like with Close Quarters :D.
 
spaceman said:
Still not buying the premium. This was the one dlc I thought might get me back into the game. Nope. Same old shit. Sigh. Not that I expected a huge reveamp of the netcode or something but still.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not going to bother either as of now, I spent $60 on the game with B2K, not gonna shell out another $50 for some extra maps... Give it 6 months or a year and the add ons will be like $10

I remember buying "Euroforce" with BF2

Was never able to play those maps on multiplayer as there were just no servers running them, waste of time
 
matteos said:
Yeah I'm not going to bother either as of now, I spent $60 on the game with B2K, not gonna shell out another $50 for some extra maps... Give it 6 months or a year and the add ons will be like $10

I remember buying "Euroforce" with BF2

Was never able to play those maps on multiplayer as there were just no servers running them, waste of time
Click to expand...

I think premium would be a good deal if 1) you bought it early and 2) you didn't buy B2K. But $50 is hard to swallow for four map packs, especially given that one of them (CQ) is on its way out in terms of popularity.
 
jbz7890 said:
I think premium would be a good deal if 1) you bought it early and 2) you didn't buy B2K. But $50 is hard to swallow for four map packs, especially given that one of them (CQ) is on its way out in terms of popularity.
Click to expand...

Premium is a good deal if you really, really like BF3. I just bought CQ by itself and I'm playing a lot of Gun Master between 1-4 different high populated servers. Fun times. Even though I like the huge maps and big battles, the close combat is just unbeatable in comparison. I really wish that they would release another round of small maps just for Gun Master and Conquest Domination.

Maybe one day EA will drop the price of Premium (year from now or more, I know) and I might bite.
 
jbz7890 said:
If his CPU is at 100% usage, then it's possible. My 2500k @ 4.6 often struggles on a few of the large 64-player maps.
Click to expand...

It's not 100% all the time but it's possible. That would really suck because I simply cannot afford a socket 2011 k series rig. The hex cores are retarded expensive.
 
Had a question for you guys. Triggering the flares for the AC-130 how does that work? Can you trigger flares from both seats? can you do it while on AA? and what is the cooldown timer?

Reason I ask is because for some reason is not activating for me and I don't know what I am doing wrong.

Thanks.
 
F.E.A.R. said:
Had a question for you guys. Triggering the flares for the AC-130 how does that work? Can you trigger flares from both seats? can you do it while on AA? and what is the cooldown timer?

Reason I ask is because for some reason is not activating for me and I don't know what I am doing wrong.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

For me it works just like a flare from a jet or chopper. It's mapped to X for me. I can trigger it from any seat/gunner position on the gunship.
 
Really enjoying AK thus far. New maps are fun (though I'm not crazy about the winter one) and so are the vehicles. Love sitting in the mobile AA on Bandar Desert. Absolute ownage. :D
 
F.E.A.R. said:
Had a question for you guys. Triggering the flares for the AC-130 how does that work? Can you trigger flares from both seats? can you do it while on AA? and what is the cooldown timer?

Reason I ask is because for some reason is not activating for me and I don't know what I am doing wrong.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The gunship mappings are not the same as anything else. They are separate just as the MAV. So whatever the defaults are, like X for flares is what the gunship uses.

It's just another idiotic thing I can't understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top