[Multiplat] Battlefield 3

[Acert93]

Here is a Joystiq article from a guy who's played the (almost) final build.

He goes on to describe the change to the feel of the game... well worth a read. Looks like high damage bullets are out..

It appears he is wrong. Someone on Ars summarized some DICE tweets on this issue here.

There are posts to twitter from alan kertz from today where he goes in depth on the damage model. Their baseline for damage was the xm8 with the magnum perk, and that despite what the joystick guy thought, other than some minor tweaking of indivdual weapons the damage model hadn't changed since the beta version. Higher caliber weapons like the m60, scarh, g3 will take 3-4 hits to the chest depending on range, light caliber weapons like the 249 and various ars will take 5-6, which is pretty much spot on with what I was seeing in beta, bar abnormalities like the various pdws. There are also several more articles and youtube videos around from people that have played that same version that is used in the joystick article that contradict what he is saying.

I thought the Beta was fine. If they do any more bullet sponges they might as well call it Halofield or Gears of Battlefield.

Oy, I have been following threads online about this issue. Everything from guys wanting health doubled to SL getting more health because they are "useless" and cannot enter the battle The worst part is the arguments AGAINST flanking. Yeah the only skill worth rewarding is holding the crosshair on a target, never mind the art of surprise.

 

[patsu]

If the health bar is too short, random players may have a hard time because their teammates may not coordinate with them.

 

[nightshade]

IIRC previous BF games especially the PC ones had quite high health for players compared to BF3.

 

[Acert93]

If the health bar is too short, random players may have a hard time because their teammates may not coordinate with them.

? Having a short health bar in a team/class/objective oriented RPC game means the exact opposite to me (a lowly BF veteran since the beginning). It means those not dead set on lonewolfing will stick with a squad and spawn with a squad until they learn the ropes. Battlefield is modern warfare, and 12v12 on the consoles. Random players should spawn in their squad and try to gain the upper hand through elevation, cover, and concealment, ideally while staying close to their squad mates and flanking opponents so as to gain the upper hand.

There are plenty of bullet sponge games (on the Xbox: Halo and Gears come to mind). Halo is a great example of a game that encourages teamwork through that approach: if you flank good players (i.e. well spaced) and get a jump on them the battle turns into a symphony of jumping, grenades, etc. and the guys who stick together almost always win (3 guns on 1 guy kill faster). Then again Halo tends to have a lot of 4v4 - 6v6 games.

Eliminating the benefit of effective flanking and surprising large groups so that some random scrub who refuses to tag along with a squad doesn't make sense to me at all. I never seemed to have problems in CoD which has a very short bar and, by the way, is very popular. And I think that is the rub: some people want it to be anything but like COD in any way possible.

Oh well, the DICE tweets indicate Joystiq is wrong and the Beta played fine. But if they make BF3 into a bulletspong fest I guess there is always hardcore mode. With how whimpy nades are I really don't want BF to turn into Halo: Hey, I surprised 3 guys and am right behind them... oh wait, I cannot kill them because they can bunny hop, dolphin dive, and take so many shots that a single enemy has the time to turn and return fire, let alone 3. (All this encourages is open field bravado and a rush for more effective weapons ie sniping--I would rather all weapons be effective at their roles instead of everyone running to "power weapons" which, again, stinks of the smaller Halo/Gear games based on arena gameplay).

 

[RobertR1]

I saw no issues with the health/damage in the beta. It was fine. There are issues with hit detection and such which I assume will be fixed in the final game.

 

[Acert93]

IIRC previous BF games especially the PC ones had quite high health for players compared to BF3.

I dunno about that. I would have to, ahem, pull out my old charts (scary, I know... but that is what competitive clan gamers do) but in '42 a head shot with a rifle was a kill and iirc 2 to the body. Guys were also quite slow. The challenge was bullet drop and spray. DC was actually pretty brutal (iirc 3 shots with a CAR15 was a kill, slightly more for the M16--one of the big differences was that the ROF was high and the spread at proper range pretty fine). BF:V had some fairly effective weapons. I have noticed a downward trend since probably BF2 where with assault rifles players, as having body armor, did take more body shots than the previous titles iirc. BC1 was a mix---I really think it trended toward effective range for weapons. What I found with BF3 was the clips were of decent size + ROF was high so health, to me, is only part of the equation. In Halo you would look at not just the damage but the ROF. e.g. an AR took almost x sec of sustained hits for a kill. BF3, whatever the health bar is, seemed to have a high ROF. I know in past versions that dmg and rof were often both adjusted because it isn't just how much dmg at a range but the deviation and rof that make a big difference in how a gun feels.

I saw no issues with the health/damage in the beta. It was fine. There are issues with hit detection and such which I assume will be fixed in the final game.

I agree. The headshot issue for moving players was something I saw. But seeing as I was on the giving side of that equation I didn't mind so much. Guys running in the open battlefield ... ever hear about moving BEHIND your own line?

 

[patsu]

? Having a short health bar in a team/class/objective oriented RPC game means the exact opposite to me (a lowly BF veteran since the beginning). It means those not dead set on lonewolfing will stick with a squad and spawn with a squad until they learn the ropes.

Depending on how patient they are, people who hate the idea (especially new folks) may choose to leave the game instead of learning the ropes. Those who stick around will obviously improve their games.

Anyway, DICE has just introduced the new maps:
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/bat...n-battlefield-3-multiplayer-map-reveal.aspx##

* Tehran Highway
* Metro
* Firestorm
* Damavand Peak

... plus 5 more !

 

[tabs]

I suppose there's a fair chance that infantry mode will have longer health bars, because it did in BF2.

 

[patsu]

What're the differences between Infantry mode vs em... vehicle (?) mode ? I mean why adjust for one and not the other ? For that matter, why adjust at all ?

 

[tabs]

I have no idea why they did it, but they did. I suppose it could have to do with the time spent on foot between flags, so they wanted people to have a more chance of making it alive.. but I'm guessing here.

Damavand Peak looks freaking awesome. Base jumping! Yes please; that's always fun.

 

[Acert93]

Any info if MP maps could be played locally to test vehicles and such? Previous BC games required a quota to start your own game. I hope this changes.

 

[Richard]

All DICE needs to do for future betas is include a map that doesn't suck.

Caspian Border on the PC beta was so much more enjoyable than the diaper stain that was Operation Metro.

Meh, I prefer Metro tbh. Closer to Wolf:ET.

Anyway, they probably went with Metro first because it's closer to what the CoD crowd knows. If they hadn't we'd now be discussing how DICE missed an opportunity to bring in huge amount of players by having a map (mode) that the biggest player base does not know about. <shrug>

I'm glad to know that reviewer was drunk and that the game will still have the lethality of the beta. It's frutrating for a new player, especially with the unlock system but it's much more intense.

 

[Acert93]

Heh, yeah, reviewers. I saw some who were complaining FM4 felt like FM3 and they had all the assists on :eyeroll:

 

[NRP]

Anyway, they probably went with Metro first because it's closer to what the CoD crowd knows.

And it cost them 34,000+ preorders.

The CoD crowd wants CoD. DICE should have shown something different by playing to the franchise's strengths, which is straight-up large-scale infantry/vehicle/aircraft combat. The BC2 beta/demo map did this perfectly imo.

 

[tabs]

Ah, balls to BC2.. that game was a poor shadow of a true BF experience. It had been a long drought of BF, so it was heaps better than nothing, but BF2 will always be superior to it in my book, and BF3 looks to blow that out of the water. Good times ahead!

 

[patsu]

The CoD crowd wants CoD. DICE should have shown something different by playing to the franchise's strengths, which is straight-up large-scale infantry/vehicle/aircraft combat. The BC2 beta/demo map did this perfectly imo.

Perhaps they were not ready to commit to a complex map and game mode that early. BF3 seems more ambitious than BC2 ?

 

[NRP]

Ah, balls to BC2.. that game was a poor shadow of a true BF experience.

Perhaps it was on PC, but it was the first console version of BF that imo came close to replicating the PC BF2 experience. And the map they demoed (can't remember the name atm) what just pure win.

But I agree with you, BF3 seems like it will be better than BF2.

 

[tabs]

...and yet you're basing that off the beta that you said wasn't as good as the BC2 demo? If you can make that leap then so can others.

I'm not sure I'm down with the idea that those cancellations will even affect the end total of purchasers (if some of them were even anything to do with the state of the beta). If they really cancelled because they think the beta is representative, then as soon as the reviews are out, saying left right and center how much better the game is than the beta, then these folks will all be buying the game again anyway (and then some of those paying extra for the map pack they could've had for free). Remember they were interested enough to pre-order it, so it's not like they'll just forget about it immediately.

 

[chambers]

BC1 was a mix---I really think it trended toward effective range for weapons.

I really enjoyed BC1 and didn't like the way DICE went w/ BC2. It felt like they upped the damage and then all the unlocks felt like perks in COD. I prefer the rigid kit choices in BC1 and the bigger more vehicle oriented maps. I'm hoping most of the rush and conquest maps in BF3 will be large w/ plenty of vehicles.

 

[NRP]

...and yet you're basing that off the beta that you said wasn't as good as the BC2 demo? If you can make that leap then so can others.

To be clear, I had no problem with the beta; rather, my problem was with that god awful Metro map and the very un-Battlefield-like gameplay that resulted from it. I saw that map as their "me too" attempt to pander to CoD fans, and it failed imo.

My statement about BF3 relative to BF2 is based on the PC beta, which at least had Caspian Border. If Metro was all they showed, I might have cancelled my preorder too.