BF3 Beta Feedback 27 SEP - 10 OCT 2011

[swfwebmaster]

Oct 2, 2011 4:41:24 GMT 1 Spartan0536 said:

Caspian Border ... its massive
... not even the biggest map in the game...
...Wake Island 2011 will be 4x the Size of Heavy Metal ...
... ALL maps ...will ...support ... 64 Player CONQUEST!
specializations... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING GAME BREAKING,

...none of these break the game and give an unfair advantage,
coordinating with teammates about what specials you have will let you get the most our of your squad, its all about teamwork,

...if your team has YOU WILL WIN.
...their track record of patching is IMPECCABLE,
... the BETA is almost becoming a DEMO
... DICE has clearly shown that they are listening to the community and are willing to make appropriate changes.
Even mod tools down the road have been discussed, and they are planning to make a PROFESSIONAL set of them
Commander mode ...you will understand why the commander is NOT needed.
...FULL SIZED 64 Player MAP ZONE,
...even the small little Metro Map in 64 Conquest is BIG,
.. still bigger in Conquest than Heavy Metal!

Did EA/DICE pay you to post this propaganda in this forum??

[psyco6]

Bring back commander!!!!!

[Spartan0536]

Oct 2, 2011 12:59:41 GMT 1 swfwebmaster said:

Oct 2, 2011 4:41:24 GMT 1 Spartan0536 said:

Caspian Border ... its massive
... not even the biggest map in the game...
...Wake Island 2011 will be 4x the Size of Heavy Metal ...
... ALL maps ...will ...support ... 64 Player CONQUEST!
specializations... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING GAME BREAKING,

...none of these break the game and give an unfair advantage,
coordinating with teammates about what specials you have will let you get the most our of your squad, its all about teamwork,

...if your team has YOU WILL WIN.
...their track record of patching is IMPECCABLE,
... the BETA is almost becoming a DEMO
... DICE has clearly shown that they are listening to the community and are willing to make appropriate changes.
Even mod tools down the road have been discussed, and they are planning to make a PROFESSIONAL set of them
Commander mode ...you will understand why the commander is NOT needed.
...FULL SIZED 64 Player MAP ZONE,
...even the small little Metro Map in 64 Conquest is BIG,
.. still bigger in Conquest than Heavy Metal!

Did EA/DICE pay you to post this propaganda in this forum??

I wish I got paid to post, could use the extra money, this is all from either OFFICIAL sources or from my own experiences, as for the map on the previous page, its obviously not official but according to DICE through twitter that is a pretty darn good guess as to what it will look like. I know there is a BAD TASTE in everyone's mouth about Battlefield 3, lots of people just wanted a new reskinned version of BF2 1.5. The BETA using only 1 "open" map and 1 "closed" map didn't help things much either. I have petitioned for them to let the Open Beta testers at least test or play on Caspian Border for 24 hours prior to BETA close just to shut the door on the whole COD gameplay. I will say that YES METRO with 32 player size, infantry only, and RUSH does feel like COD and I'm not much a fan of it. Caspian Border however, well lets just say it almost brought a tear to my eyes, very nostalgic.

As for the Patching being IMPECCABLE, I am ONLY referring to the BETA of BF3. Its the best I have seen DICE do yet and the fastest.

[swfwebmaster]

I have an issue with DICE communicating with the Battlefield Community via Twitter. I will not follow them on Tweeter and do not believe what is said on Tweeter carries much weight.

Poor Messages
- "It's just a Beta"
- "BF2 fan-boys want a re-skinned BF2"

It is a DEMO for the Call of duty Crowd. It is not a Beta and it is not directed toward the Battlefield Community.

SalvinValkyries from the EA UK Forum

Sure was. Problem is, so many have been introduced to the Battlefield brand via BC, hardly any of these people have a clue of Battlefield's DNA. It's no one's fault. No one can blame them for not knowing the brand through and through. That said, those who voice their opinions and concerns over the direction BF3 seems to be taking, are conveniently branded as being "nostalgic." When in fact, for the most part, those are the very people who are actually in a position to be critical. It's a unique position simply because their experience spans the length and breadth of the Battlefield brand.

Which leades me to BF vs CoD. Much as I like to rip into the latter. It is what it is. An arcade shooter, who's focus is action, teamwork be damned. Conversly, I enjoy BF for what it is. A shooter that makes sits comfortably between arcade and simulation. Strategy and teamwork are it's heart. While combining the two games might seem like a great idea. It's not. MoH proved it. And to a lesser extent, so did BC2. Focus on what makes your game unique. Every shooter out there is trying to imitate either CoD or BF. Some do it by combing elements from both. And all have failed. Creating a game that plays to your strengths is the only way to ensure your place at the top. Diversity is a plus. More of the same only leads to homogenizing the genre.

Which leads me to the core of Battlefield. Innovation is indeed a beautiful thing. Ask any Battlefield veteran, they will tell you that they aren't against innovation. So long as it isn't in quotations. Why tinker with something that obviously works? Why reduce class size? Why reduce squad size? Why change squad spawning dynamics? Why strip out command structure? Each of these are absolutely valid concerns. And every Battlefield veteran should quiz DICE over it. Innovation takes us a few steps forward. Removing some of these features only turns it to "innovation."

Take for example prone . Never a problem in any previous Battlefield game. Especially after 1.5. All of a sudden deemed to be problematic in BC2. It's a problem, only if you make it a problem. If maps, classes and engines are designed with great care, niether prone or snipers would be an issue. Commander. Squad Leader. Prone. These are hallmark features of BF2 & 2142. Why remove them when you're making a sequel to one of these games? Is that truly innovating? Or simply realizing one has to lower the accepted standard in a vain attempt to capture some of your competitors audience. Which presents another problem. By trying to play the field, you end up alienating both sides.

If this were BC3. Would you support Commander, Squad Leader & Prone? In most cases, the answer would be a resounding no. Why should it be any different? Because that's what you know and love about the game. It's the same for every BF2 & 2142 veteran. Tweaking is one thing. That means one is refining on an already established and accepted model. Removing it entirely is akin to chopping off one of it's vital organs. It might go on to funtion without it, but it will never be quite the same.

Riksa_FIN from the EA UK Forum

If it really is a totally new game they should have given it some other name...

...Wouldn't you be upset at all if you had waited almost 6 years for a sequel to the best game you have ever played. A game that would be the new best game you have ever played, but then you will hear that the sequel won't have some of the features you and everyone else really liked and without which you know the game will be something totally different (in a bad way) not to mention that it will have features that you know you hate...

Being a sequel means that:

A)Those features that were in the most inner core of the series shoudln't be taken out unless there is some extremely good reasons. For example commander has been in the most the inner core of the BF series since BF2 and now it is being removed for non-existant (commander not used) or small reasons (like letting more people to use commander toys. Note that in case of BC2 the solutions gave opposite results). Even if removal of commander would fix those small issues, there wouldn't be any coordination on the battlefield without commander-->Huge part of inner core of BF series would be gone without replacement.

B) Some less significant features, which aren't necessarily even broken can be taken out if they can't be fixed and there are better alternatives (but for example in the case of BC2 replacements were worse than the original versions. Just think of [communication]... rose of BF2/2142 compared to what we had in BC2)...

swfcFreak in the EA UK Forum

...I was chatting to a friend about it who hasn't played BF2, but knows his films. I compared the Sheen family (Martin & Charlie) to BF2 and BC2.

If you wanted a truly great film you bring in Martin. Lots of class, depth and powerful performance that keeps you gripped for a whole 2hr movie. Bring in Charlie and you get a totally different experiance; Lots of fun, makes a shed load of money, but no class, no depth, over in 30mins and will be forgotten in no time after going down in huge alcohol and hooker fueled disaster.

What we want this time is Martin, yet all we ever get is Charlie. I'm sick of watching Charlie, it's time to bring back some class.

For the E3 and Gamescom conferences, EA/DICE intentionally stripped out all teamplay features. There was zero emphasis on improved in-game player behavior or integrated teamwork. The TEAMPLAY features started to magically appear recently mostly because of the Battlefield Community outcry. We are still waiting for DICE to put TEAMPLAY back into the Battlefield franchise.

- Commo Rose - DICE said they would put it back in BF3
- Squad Leader orders - DICE said a order system would be in BF3. No sign of it yet.
- Communication VoIP channels - DICE has talked about it, but it is unclear how it will function.
- Flag placement - DICE claims they are set for 24 players even for the 64 player maps
- Squad spawning system - all squad member spawn BAD. Squad Leader (SL) only spawn with SL deployable spawn GOOD.