Another 'Battlefield 3'

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Owalpo

Every game has its flaws. That is a given. All because a sequel isn't exactly like the one before does not make it bad. Every BF2 fan who is now a BF3 hater was expecting the same game, but bigger and better graphics. It didn't happen in all departments and somethings to open BF3 to a wider audience were included.

BF3 is being played by people and people like it. You can say the same thing by the way for people who like it. They could just be playing the game not praising it.


To sum up my point. Games from BF3 to Planetside 2 to games in the future are going to have new features to appeal to a wider audience. These features aren't just added for shits and giggles.

The problem is that there is no proof that these features appeal to a wider audience. We can be reasonably sure that for example, a wider audience wants better graphics, that's a given. But there is no proof that people would rather have small maps, or 3D spotting, and so on. The fact that people are still playing utilizing these features only proves that they don't hate them enough to stop; that's not the same as liking them.

New does not automatically mean better. There is no technological reason we could not have had 99% of these features 10 years ago. Destruction is an exception. They are only being adopted now because they help mold the game into more like CoD, and that because CoD sells 20 million copies a year. But there is no way to know whether these features are really what drives CoD's sales. CoD has been well advertised for years compared to Battlefield, for one thing. The bandwagon effect is strong, you buy what your friends buy so you can play with them. If they've been buying CoD, so do you. Just as an example.

You make it sound as if not having some of these features makes a game into ArmA and that it only appeals to a hardcore audience. That's not true at all.

[dai shan]

this thread got a little dumb, and some of you fucks need to chill the fuck out

but the older battlefield games were better than battlefield 3, which frankly, other than a couple moderately redeeming features, sucks

[TOCS]

Hold on a minute, this thread wasn't created to start a big war on whether Battlefield 3 is a proper sequel and whatnot, we've Mordor for that.

This thread is directed to those of you that already know why the veterans doesn't like Battlefield 3, and can contribute properly to what you think PlanetSide 2 will come to be.

And to those of you that responded properly, thanks.

[fod]

im both a planetside vet (playing PS1 atm) and a battlefield vet (yes im from mordor) and im REALLY hoping that planetside doesnt go the same way as battlefield did with bf3 and bc2
battlefield 3 has good graphics but the gameplay is poor and stuff like

removing commander
removing ingame voip
making everything blue
bad map design (flags clustered together)
imbalanced classes
bad weapons (no at4 but lots of lock on weapon/mortars just being lame etc etc)
weak tanks
not enough vehicles on most maps
3D spotting
auto spotting
audio spotting
and more

killed the battlefield franchise for me - battlefield R.I.P 1942-2142
one of the things that REALLY worries me about PS2 is the 3d spotting - i hope its WAY turned down and hopefully squad only

[Lorgarn]

PlanetSide came out came out in 2003. I expect PlanetSide2 to be a true sequel. Not just a sequel to the game itself, but to the concepts and ideas as well. I want PS2 to have all of what the industry and developers has learned these past 9 years and incorporate this into the game.

I don't want a PlanetSide with updated graphics. I want a PlanetSide with upgraded everything. So far it seems like we're getting this, so I'm confident in SOE at the moment.

And to the rest: A lot of people have problems with a franchise, industry and company being "developed". People expect companies and their franchises to basically "be what they are" and never stray from the common lines. The world around you is changing continuously as does the game industry as well. Whether or not you like it, it's how it works. It's how the world works.

Also, people need to stop talking for everyone else as if that miraculously makes it facts instead of opinions. I'm a BF veteran, countless of hours spent in all of their games and I happen to love BF3. I think it's one of their best games in the entire franchise and genre overall.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by fod

im both a planetside vet (playing PS1 atm) and a battlefield vet (yes im from mordor) and im REALLY hoping that planetside doesnt go the same way as battlefield did with bf3 and bc2
battlefield 3 has good graphics but the gameplay is poor and stuff like

removing commander
removing ingame voip
making everything blue
bad map design (flags clustered together)
imbalanced classes
bad weapons (no at4 but lots of lock on weapon/mortars just being lame etc etc)
weak tanks
not enough vehicles on most maps
3D spotting
auto spotting
audio spotting
and more

killed the battlefield franchise for me - battlefield R.I.P 1942-2142
one of the things that REALLY worries me about PS2 is the 3d spotting - i hope its WAY turned down and hopefully squad only

Commander wasn't utilised properly in public play after the initial novelty wore off. It just fell into something nobody listened to or followed, though UAV scans were useful, granted.

Have you not played Karkand?

In game voip, again, was only used properly in the early days of BF2's release, after that everyone moved to TS and privately played with clans or friends, public became empty, as in most games. Though I won't argue that it SHOULD be in BF3 on PC, it's in on console, again though nobody uses it but instead utilises private party chats with the groups they're playing with, be it friends or clans.

There's nothing wrong with the map design really, though this is a subjective issue, it really depends on the maps being discussed, don't generalise.

You're going to have to be WAYYY more specific here so I can tear you apart piece by piece, the game is surprisingly well balanced for a game with so many possibilities. The only real current imbalance in game stands as Javelins which are far too dominant. BF3's balance isn't simply focused at an individual level though, it's got a very large hierarchy. Again, you're generalising, be specific.

Bad weapons is just opinion. Bad opinion too since the majority of weaponry in the game was in BF2 and the game mechanics and authenticity has only been improved. Don't bitch about the AT4 not being in game when you bitched about BC2 in your first sentence. You contradict yourself.

Tanks aren't weak at all, a quality tank crew will go 50+ and 0 in a single round provided they're intelligent about it. You're bad.

This one is at least a little bit true, an extra jeep would certainly have helped.

3D spotting is a none issue besides being a crutch that allows people to hit q as they round every corner and spot enemies they might otherwise have not noticed.

There is no auto spotting in BF3, unless you're a hacker, bigger issues.

Audio spotting is again, a none issue. It only has any effect at the lowest skill level of play, and if you're arguing against the casualisation of the game it's really not something you should be bitching about because it doesn't affect anyone playing at an above average level of skill.

Put simply, you're trying to make the argument that the game has been over casualised when the vast majority of changes DO NOT affect anyone playing at an above average skill level against opponents that are his peers. None of the things you've mentioned, besides 3D spotting, actually change the game at all, this is the issue I have with the BF3 naysaying, it's just wrong. All these things do is raise the lowest level of skill a little bit, not much, just a bit, lowering the lower bracket skill gap. It doesn't change the skill ceiling though and as such doesn't really affect anyone with skill. The only people it really effects are the most average or slightly above average of players that want to join pubber servers and gank people of the lowest skill level. They're pissed off because it's made them realise that they're not all that good and now the previously crappy players stand a chance.

See, in my experience having played the game competitively the only thing you've mentioned that actually bothers anyone at that level is the 3D spotting, but then with or without it really wouldn't effect things because communication makes it obsolete, I can trust someone telling me there's an enemy somewhere over spotting because he was unable to spot due to a cooldown, the only real issue it causes is being able to aim at and track enemies through smoke and behind cover. And really that comes down as the only thing that bothers you about BF3 doesn't it? I bet you've put plenty of hours into it despite the fact that you're inferring with your behaviour (as others are here) that it's shit, why play a supposedly bad game huh? If you haven't put those hours in, how the fuck are you qualified to comment on it? Don't just reiterate what you've heard others say.

Undoubtedly you're going to try and sidetrack from the well rounded end point I've made and turn this into a balance argument though, but before you go and do that I'd suggest reading the resource guide I maintain here, which is the most comprehensive guide to BF3 online. It'll probably take a few hours to get through, and the threads and discussion that goes on in every one of those links is as important as the first posts themselves, so in all I'd say there's maybe 5-10 hours reading total, but it'll save me from tearing my hair out having to cite anything you say that's incorrect. /longsentenceidontcare

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

3D spotting is a none issue besides being a crutch that allows people to hit q as they round every corner and spot enemies they might otherwise have not noticed.

There is no auto spotting in BF3, unless you're a hacker, bigger issues.

Audio spotting is again, a none issue. It only has any effect at the lowest skill level of play, and if you're arguing against the casualisation of the game it's really not something you should be bitching about because it doesn't affect anyone playing at an above average level of skill.

You seem to have missed this, it's definitely not a non-issue:
3D spotting definitely changes gameplay a lot. Even if we put aside fairness and anything related to fairness, it still has people shooting at spots halfway across the map that they would normally not even see, let alone pay attention to, and also people chase after spots that are too far away to kill that run behind cover, instead of capping flags. I know this is happening, I see it and do it myself and I'm a nearly pure-objective player from BF2. Granted, people may only be doing it inside a bubble, that bubble being the servers I play on in BF3 and the ones I played on in BC2. And there's something that has to considered: Even Demize of DICE admitted that in BC2, people fired at 3D spots behind cover before they would fire at soldiers in plain sight. The exact quote is:

We noticed that players would focus on 3D spots over everything else, meaning they would ignore people in line of sight.

And the entire post by Demize can be viewed at:
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...l#post19710950

It stands to reason that if it is confirmed that people would fire at 3D spots before they would at soldiers in plain sight, it's not a stretch to believe they might fire at 3D spots before they would attack objectives. And if that's not enough proof for you, just play Hardcore and after a few minutes you realize you can walk around the edges of the map to sneak to wherever you are going and you take fire from the other side of the map a lot less.

And yes, I posted right after Demize supporting his decision to remove the wallhack but leave 3D spotting in. However, after playing BF3 with non-wallhack 3D spotting, I realized people were still focusing on 3D spots over objectives and that making the spot disappear wasn't enough, it needed removed, not fixed. OR made squad only.

Audio spotting is also not a non-issue. If you fire an unsuppressed weapon, you are spotted on the minimap automatically. That's a very big deal. Fire a weapon, get spotted. Not really understanding how you can downplay that. People of all skills levels become aware of you when you get audio spotted.

[dsi]

oh god planetside fans thinking that 3d spotting is a non-issue, or that bf3 was a good game.

this is bad.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by dsi

oh god planetside fans thinking that 3d spotting is a non-issue, or that bf3 was a good game.

this is bad.

Some of them like anything. :P But hey, can you blame them after having waited for a new game for almost a decade? They want their fix. Badly. Even if there's bad stuff, it must be good or better, right?




Critique people, learn to appreciate it. It makes things better.

[Owalpo]

Originally Posted by dsi

oh god planetside fans thinking that 3d spotting is a non-issue, or that bf3 was a good game.

this is bad.

How can something be a issue if we know nothing about it? We don't have the beta or better the final game to know if 3D spotting is a issue. If it is a issue in another game in a far away land that does not mean it will be the same in PS2. They could have their own ideas and restrictions behind it that other games don't. One of those ideas could be not to put it in at all if it comes down to it.

I wouldn't really call BF3 a bad game. Base on it's sales, unique players, overall population, and any other statistics you can find.There have been better, but it's far from the worst. You can argue over opinions all day(Search youtube for music and check the comments as an example), but in the end stats and facts shows what is successful and what is not. Sure many may find BF3 to be horrible, but does that make it bad? Nope.

*Que comment on how only casuals play the game and they don't matter in 5...4...3...2...1...*

edit: one to many words

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

You seem to have missed this, it's definitely not a non-issue:
3D spotting definitely changes gameplay a lot. Even if we put aside fairness and anything related to fairness, it still has people shooting at spots halfway across the map that they would normally not even see, let alone pay attention to, and also people chase after spots that are too far away to kill that run behind cover, instead of capping flags. I know this is happening, I see it and do it myself and I'm a nearly pure-objective player from BF2. Granted, people may only be doing it inside a bubble, that bubble being the servers I play on in BF3 and the ones I played on in BC2. And there's something that has to considered: Even Demize of DICE admitted that in BC2, people fired at 3D spots behind cover before they would fire at soldiers in plain sight. The exact quote is:

And the entire post by Demize can be viewed at:
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...l#post19710950

It stands to reason that if it is confirmed that people would fire at 3D spots before they would at soldiers in plain sight, it's not a stretch to believe they might fire at 3D spots before they would attack objectives. And if that's not enough proof for you, just play Hardcore and after a few minutes you realize you can walk around the edges of the map to sneak to wherever you are going and you take fire from the other side of the map a lot less.

And yes, I posted right after Demize supporting his decision to remove the wallhack but leave 3D spotting in. However, after playing BF3 with non-wallhack 3D spotting, I realized people were still focusing on 3D spots over objectives and that making the spot disappear wasn't enough, it needed removed, not fixed. OR made squad only.

Again, I feel like this only affects the lowest skill brackets, in terms of it's affect on balance (which is the point I made) it doesn't change higher skill levels at all, it is of no benefit or harm. At higher level play you don't function like regular players. The difference between higher level players and lower levels players is that lower level players are reacting to the environment, to the gunfire, to the things being fed into them, to their awareness of the current situation, these players are benefitted by 3D spotting. A higher level player isn't reacting to what's going on in the moment, he's reacting to what's going on in the next moment. He's following what we like to call "flow" in the competitive community where we like to discuss higher level theory. Every single map, in every single game, in every single iterance of competitive gaming I've ever encountered has a dynamic flow, like water, where combat pushes and pulls. It's almost tidal in a way. Your knowledge of flow through your in game experience can eventually reach a level at which you already know an enemy is around x corner, not because you had absolutely anything in game that told you he was there, but because flow dictates that there is always somebody there. Think of it like that first 30 seconds of a map, but for the ENTIRE map.

Now, the difference between the rabble and the upper skill levels when they play together(though this is off topic) is that the rabble follow flow while the higher skill levels do not, they do everything in their power to disrupt it, playing high risk high reward tactics as opposed to being in the flow. 10 seconds of disrupted flow allows the wave to crash forwards, so to speak. So, while I believe that these features benefit the lower skillsets by raising the bottom skill level upwards closer to that of the average, I do not believe it casualises a game because changing the bottom skill level doesn't affect the "hardcore" or the "elite" (for want of better fucking words =/), because they're really not affected by the mechanics, the ceiling of skill doesn't get lower, the bottom just comes up a bit.

Audio spotting is also not a non-issue. If you fire an unsuppressed weapon, you are spotted on the minimap automatically. That's a very big deal. Fire a weapon, get spotted. Not really understanding how you can downplay that. People of all skills levels become aware of you when you get audio spotted.

Not sure I need to answer this, I think I answered it above, or you can at least understand what I'm saying from the above.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Owalpo

How can something be a issue if we know nothing about it? We don't have the beta or better the final game to know if 3D spotting is a issue. If it is a issue in another game in a far away land that does not mean it will be the same in PS2. They could have their own ideas and restrictions behind it that other games don't. One of those ideas could be not to put it in at all if it comes down to it.

I wouldn't really call BF3 a bad game. Base on it's sales, unique players, overall population, and any other statistics you can find.There have been better, but it's far from the worst. You can argue over opinions all day(Search youtube for music and check the comments as an example), but in the end stats and facts shows what is successful and what is not. Sure many may not find BF3 to be horrible, but does that make it bad? Nope.

*Que comment on how only casuals play the game and they don't matter in 5...4...3...2...1...*

There aren't too many variations on 3D spotting that would be better. Making it squad only is an idea, but we need to make sure that we speak out against empire-wide 3D spotting early and often so that they consider squad-only.

[Owalpo]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

There aren't too many variations on 3D spotting that would be better. Making it squad only is an idea, but we need to make sure that we speak out against empire-wide 3D spotting early and often so that they consider squad-only.

How about this:

• Squad only
• Range limit of spotting in open areas
• Limit the number of players that can be spotted at once so that there aren't hundreds of dots on screen
• A player I spot only shows up to someone else in my squad if they are looking in the general direction I am
• If everyone in the squad loses line of sight then the dot goes away
• If enemy hides from sight then it goes away
  
  With this it would be used more to make battle lines as your squad will know where they are coming from, but it won't turn you into a seeking missile going at the orange dot behind the rock.
  

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Again, I feel like this only affects the lowest skill brackets....snip for brevity...

You're talking about the "fairness" argument. Insofar at that goes, you have confirmed that it helps low skilled players against higher skilled players. We agree there, where I disagree is that it helps only a tiny portion, I think it helps more. As for higher skill players, your argument does have merit that they gain little benefit, but, since 3D spots are flying everywhere, they aren't even required to use their full skills, even though the result may indeed be the same since, as you say, they are the higher skilled players. It's kind of like the recoil argument, some people say skilled players will be able to control recoil, so what's the point of putting it in, but at least if we have it, they have to utilize their skills.

But, that was not the focus of my last post. In that one I was not focused on the skill portion, but the effect of 3D spotting on game pace. Players, especially campers, will be firing at people at extreme distances that they would normally not see, or ignore if they did see. To be perfectly honest with you, it is this part of it that bothers me more than any skill issues; the effect it has on game pace.

As for audio spotting, that has VERY little to do with skill and fairness issues, so in that respect I agree, but it does have everything to do with game pace. If you get the drop on someone inside a building, on the other side of a building, etc, and kill them, people within minimap range, whatever that is, are going to see you pop up, and then come and get you. Interestingly enough, audiospotting I believe has an answer as to why it exists: For whatever reason, in BF3, you cannot tell shot direction by sound. For that matter, it's difficult to even hear shots at all unless they are right in your ear, in which case you're dead anyway. That may be a simple sound design issue, OR it may be that all the things they did for immersion drowned out the ability to hear shots, forcing them to do this. I think it's the sound immersion personally. In BF2 it was relatively quiet if no one was firing, only if you were driving a tank or hitting commo rose was there a lot of sound.

But you know, we've already established that squad-only 3D spotting might help alleviate the matter. See, if it's squad only, then by definition it will be used as teamwork, and it won't increase firefight pacing by allowing every camper for 2 miles to shoot at you.

Also, what do you think about the idea of 3D spotting being some kind of electronic thing that can be jammed, or would require equipment to be set up in the combat area for it to work, or requires an AWACS type ship to fly in the area, etc?

Originally Posted by Owalpo

How about this:

• Squad only
• Range limit of spotting in open areas
• Limit the number of players that can be spotted at once so that there aren't hundreds of dots on screen
• A player I spot only shows up to someone else in my squad if they are looking in the general direction I am
• If everyone in the squad loses line of sight then the dot goes away
• If enemy hides from sight then it goes away
  
  With this it would be used more to make battle lines as your squad will know where they are coming from, but it won't turn you into a seeking missile going at the orange dot behind the rock.
  

Just making it squad only would be enough for me, as per above. If you agree with squad only then I think we're on to something!

[dai shan]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Again, I feel like this only affects the lowest skill brackets, in terms of it's affect on balance (which is the point I made) it doesn't change higher skill levels at all, it is of no benefit or harm. At higher level play you don't function like regular players. The difference between higher level players and lower levels players is that lower level players are reacting to the environment, to the gunfire, to the things being fed into them, to their awareness of the current situation, these players are benefitted by 3D spotting. A higher level player isn't reacting to what's going on in the moment, he's reacting to what's going on in the next moment. He's following what we like to call "flow" in the competitive community where we like to discuss higher level theory. Every single map, in every single game, in every single iterance of competitive gaming I've ever encountered has a dynamic flow, like water, where combat pushes and pulls. It's almost tidal in a way. Your knowledge of flow through your in game experience can eventually reach a level at which you already know an enemy is around x corner, not because you had absolutely anything in game that told you he was there, but because flow dictates that there is always somebody there. Think of it like that first 30 seconds of a map, but for the ENTIRE map.

Now, the difference between the rabble and the upper skill levels when they play together(though this is off topic) is that the rabble follow flow while the higher skill levels do not, they do everything in their power to disrupt it, ... [etc]

That's essentially the biggest bunch of self-inflating bullshit I've ever heard. When your argument boils down to "I'm a really good player so my opinion is obviously the correct one", I shake my fucking head.

There's something to what you're saying, but it's more or less completely un-related to the conversation in this thread, because every game has a "flow" yes, but that doesn't make the game good or bad, and talking about the "flow" at some abstract, nearly philosophical level is pretty near next to entirely non-productive, and in the end comes off to me as just an opportunity for you to try to brow-beat anyone with an opposing viewpoint into the ground, since you're an "elite" player.