Battlefield 3

When Rick has made enough coffee.

Quote from Puddy

BF3 hit detection and net code doesn't do well in close quarters.

netcode expert

I dont get it, as much as im excited for new maps, the hardcore BF3 crowd who stays with the game dont want to play Infantry only maps. We want the big stuff coming in Decemeber.

The mysterious third expansion pack 'End Game' is making me think 2143. Battlefield 2142 was, after all, the end game for humanity.

Not particularly excited about the close-quarter maps as the tighter maps are my least favourite in Battlefield 3, in fact I never really play on them anymore. Armored Kill sounds more up my alley though, and if the third does turn out to be 2143 I'll be most pleased. Although

Is bf3 still bad? I haven't played it for months.

Rick, how do the close quarters expansion maps play? Is it basically just a COD clone or is it still flag capturing? How much more destructible are the environments? Why close quarters? I mean Battlefield is known for largeness and shit and you guys want to make it smaller?!

Im not being a dick, I genuinely curious as I am a huge battlefield fan (I have about 120 hours into bf3 so far)

I'm sure there'll be a proper press release and interviews with the lead designers, and while I don't pretend or intend to speak for anyone but myself, here is how I see it:

Metro is the most played map in battlefield by an enormous margin, I think the next is Caspian border, then Karkand or Oman, something like that anyway. I think they wanted to give that huge playerbase something else to play other than Metro, also a lot of people do enjoy the frantic close quarters fighting that you get sometimes in Battlefield. As for why no large scale maps, well, that expansion is coming.

Remember BF3 actually has a pretty solid core gameplay featureset, so transplanting that into other areas works very well, I imagine you could throw these guys on the moon and it'd work and be fun, so smaller maps still retains the Battlefield spark.

The enhanced destruction is really something else, the guys working on it have done a really nice job. You're never going to be able to totally flatten a map and see people spawning out of nowhere, but that is down to design rather than a technical desire to not do it. Imagine BF3's destruction was set to 7, Back to Karkand pushed that up to an 8 or 9, well Close Quarters cranks it up to 11.

Quote from Pampers

netcode expert

Shooting-people-in-the-face-expert, if I may.

After thousands of extreme close quarter engagements (3> meters), you come to realize that the mild problems with hit detection that Battlefield 3 has are worsened in those types of situations. It's simple really, any discrepancy between where you view a player on your client and where the player REALLY is (according to the game) is more noticeable because you're so close.

And while the video posted in the thread doesn't look all that interesting, I'm still not dismissing this expansion pack of course. My concern is that, while Metro is a pretty good rush/cq map, the focus here looks to be on an almost TDM:ish layout and the gameplay that comes with that. Still, there's another three (?) maps to be shown so I'm hoping that DICE proves me wrong!

Quote from Rick_D

I'm sure there'll be a proper press release and interviews with the lead designers, and while I don't pretend or intend to speak for anyone but myself, here is how I see it:Metro is the most played map in battlefield by an enormous margin, I think the next is Caspian border, then Karkand or Oman, something like that anyway. I think they wanted to give that huge playerbase something else to play other than Metro, also a lot of people do enjoy the frantic close quarters fighting that you get sometimes in Battlefield. As for why no large scale maps, well, that expansion is coming.

Remember BF3 actually has a pretty solid core gameplay featureset, so transplanting that into other areas works very well, I imagine you could throw these guys on the moon and it'd work and be fun, so smaller maps still retains the Battlefield spark.

The enhanced destruction is really something else, the guys working on it have done a really nice job. You're never going to be able to totally flatten a map and see people spawning out of nowhere, but that is down to design rather than a technical desire to not do it. Imagine BF3's destruction was set to 7, Back to Karkand pushed that up to an 8 or 9, well Close Quarters cranks it up to 11.

Awesome! I honestly think some close quarters maps could be fun because I love using shotguns in this game.

One last question - Will the second expansion (that focuses on large ass maps) be maps that are like bf2 where they are just large ass maps with vehicles everywhere and normal play? Or is it going to be vehicle ONLY play? Does that make sense?

EDIT: I lied, one more question. Whats the official player limit on PC close quarters DLC?

Quote from JeanPaul

Awesome! I honestly think some close quarters maps could be fun because I love using shotguns in this game.

One last question - Will the second expansion (that focuses on large ass maps) be maps that are like bf2 where they are just large ass maps with vehicles everywhere and normal play? Or is it going to be vehicle ONLY play? Does that make sense?

EDIT: I lied, one more question. Whats the official player limit on PC close quarters DLC?

I understand both your questions and I can't answer either of them for fear of reprimand by the glorious EA overlords. All I can say is that they will be what you expect of them, and will be executed with the same level of awesomeness you have come to expect from DICE. Hopefully that doesn't sound like a marketing response but it's the best I can do

I hear that baby, its okay.

Any word on PC ever getting voip?

Well, there's the party voip that works like crap. Don't think there are any plans to extend that into ingame voip if that's what you mean.

It isn't a highly requested feature really. Get your mates on a Mumble server and enjoy.

Why are there a shit ton of empty servers and less than a handful of servers with more than 30 people in them? I have hardcore, punkbuster, and north america selected as my filters... Are full servers automatically hidden? It seems like I always get the same results regardless of the empty slot filters I choose.

Unselect the NA region restriction. Euro's got a ton more active servers than America for whatever reason.

Hardcore

Quote from Puddy

Well, there's the party voip that works like crap. Don't think there are any plans to extend that into ingame voip if that's what you mean.It isn't a highly requested feature really. Get your mates on a Mumble server and enjoy.

What are you talking about? Works just fine without any issues. When I use it with friends, its clear as day.

Well, I haven't been so lucky then. In my experience, it's hit-or-miss when it comes to audio clarity. And even when it sounds good, it's just an okay:ish substitute for a solid, standalone voip program (and those aren't tied to a particular game). I mean, I don't go around complaining about the built-in VOIP nor do I demand that DICE fixes it; I was just mentioning what I thought of it since JeanPaul brought it up.

so how many DLC's are comming ? da fuck ?

Quote from Pampers

pampers spotted @ 1.45

hah, nice one!

Birgirpall