Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -

[Davepen]

There is more feedback gained from public testing than can ever be gained from inhouse testing. The sheer amount of PC configs alone would make public testing worthwhile.

But that depends on the type of feedback you're after.

They can get enough detail on client/server performance by just running the Metro map, and I imagine they are currently having issues on console with the large maps and/or jets, therefore they don't want to release that into the wild yet as they do not want to put off potential buyers on console with a buggy product.

 

[WingZero30]

Do you really think that we are the only people testing the came?!?!

Dude, just because testing isn't done in public, it doesn't mean it isn't done at all.....

Did they not say that from Alpha they made '100s' of changes. Now imagine if caspian border was indeed the beta map and againt got huge amount of feedback especially with regards to vehicles. That way DICE will have a broader overall idea of what to change with regard to user expectations.

Testing the game with few 100/1000s people won't result in as much scrutiny as with around 1 million players

 

[FrenchTart]

really mate,1920x1200,would the extra vram on that card not help that much.i know the 5870 is still a top card,i can tplay bf3 any lower than high on my res i will refuse lol.
Also will we get to play with a settings not just high med low like in the aplha

I did the exact same upgrade and aside from when I'm running eyefinity res, the difference is minimal.

 

[Davepen]

How many people who have both formats will be buying the 'superior' pc version though.

DICE have even commented on how crap the current consoles are ...

Anyone in their right mind, with a PC upto scratch, would obviously buy on PC.

But that is not the point.

The point is, there are A LOT of people out there without any idea about PC gaming, who will be playing this on console and only console. These people will make up a large amount of players and Dice have to keep them happy, even if it means having a few whining PC bitches (I'm a PC gamer, I know how whiney they are ) because they don't get the map they were expecting.

You have to remember, Dice do not owe us anything, we are lucky to get a chance to play the Beta, let alone the Alpha

 

[PapaLazaru]

Going with the Specs from the BETA page:

Low - HD3-mid 5000 series
Medium - HD6950
High - HD6970
Ultra - 2x6970/1x6990

I'm running 2x XFX 6870 Black Editions... and I'm hoping to run Ultra settings at 1920x1200...

500 series low? What is that based on? The nearest game to bench results on is BC2. This is what AnandTech state on maximum settings at 1920 x 1200. (Chase bench)

6970 - 68.7 FPS
5870 = 64.1 FPS
6950 = 61.8 FPS

I, like as lot of us on these forums and waiting for BF3 have a 5870.

Trust me, it will run it absolutly fine. There is barely ANY difference on BC2 to a 6970 and a 5870 is better than a 6950.

I'm running 2x XFX 6870 Black Editions... and I'm hoping to run Ultra settings at 1920x1200...

This is a good combo for the money. Cannot be beaten.

 

['Wes]

Where's Dg when you need him..

 

[Participant]

I'm not interested in anything until the game comes out. Why people want to play the alpha and beta and have an inferior experience is beyond me, I feel it somewhat reduces the *wow* impact that the game would have had if you'd waited for the final release.

 

[TallPaul_S]

Anyone in their right mind, with a PC upto scratch, would obviously buy on PC.

But that is not the point.

The point is, there are A LOT of people out there without any idea about PC gaming, who will be playing this on console and only console. These people will make up a large amount of players and Dice have to keep them happy.

Console sales (PS3 and 360 combined) will outnumber PC sales.

 

[RavenXXX2]

I honstly dunno wtf theyre upto, it seems totally stupid that they want to keep vehicles tightly guarded till launch knowing that theyre the one part of the game thats gonna get a ton of scrutiny, expecially Heli's and jets. They have the opportunity to get this ironed out for launch and theyre not taking it, totally stupid imo.

Playing 64 CQ on release should be fun, I can't envisage any stability problems at all, it's not as if they have not publicly tested it with vasts amounts of players on the scale of pub beta..... The BF2 demo got people hooked, if Dice are confident of their game they would release a demo with 64 CQ instead of having people dive in with their wallet first to experience BF3 64 CQ.

 

[WingZero30]

500 series low? What is that based on? The nearest game to bench results on is BC2. This is what AnandTech state on maximum settings at 1920 x 1200. (Chase bench)

6970 - 68.7 FPS
5870 = 64.1 FPS
6950 = 61.8 FPS

I, like as lot of us on these forums and waiting for BF3 have a 5870.

Trust me, it will run it absolutly fine. There is barely ANY difference on BC2 to a 6970 and a 5870 is better than a 6950.

This is what I am thinking aswell. I would imagine that vast number of people still have med-high cards such as 460,470, 480,5830,5850,5870 etc.

If the game required only the likes of 6950, 570 to play at high settings, I can see many people becoming unhappy who wished to play at those graphics level.

 

[gazzamcg]

Anyone in their right mind, with a PC upto scratch, would obviously buy on PC.

But that is not the point.

The point is, there are A LOT of people out there without any idea about PC gaming, who will be playing this on console and only console. These people will make up a large amount of players and Dice have to keep them happy.

Perhaps it is the point that you shouldn't have to compensate for either one in any stage of development.

If DICE muck this pc battlefield version on release, the first new battlefiled version for six years on the pc, all hell will break lose.

 

[TallPaul_S]

I'm not interested in anything until the game comes out. Why people want to play the alpha and beta and have an inferior experience is beyond me, I feel it somewhat reduces the *wow* impact that the game would have had if you'd waited for the final release.

The Beta is 99% the final game, the system specs released for the beta are also the official specs for the final game.

Any changes from beta to release will be for balancing/weapon damage etc.

 

[Gerard]

I'm not interested in anything until the game comes out. Why people want to play the alpha and beta and have an inferior experience is beyond me, I feel it somewhat reduces the *wow* impact that the game would have had if you'd waited for the final release.

Probably because theres no "WOW" factor about metro at all, its more of a "Yawn" factor.

 

['Wes]

I recommend you pre-order CoD.



































muahahaha!

 

['Wes]

Probably because theres no "WOW" factor about metro at all, its more of a "Yawn" factor.

I find Rush usually is.

 

[gazzamcg]

Console sales (PS3 and 360 combined) will outnumber PC sales.

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/...sold-more-than-ps3-360-versions-combined.html

 

[Gerard]

I find Rush usually is.

I find it can be ok at times, the odd game on Arica from time to time can be fun. 99% Conquest though for me

 

[Muzy]

Probably because theres no "WOW" factor about metro at all, its more of a "Yawn" factor.

well its at least somthing to warm up before the magical WOW on 28th OCT.

 

[McGray]

Rush now and again is ok but not what BF is about imo.

 

[RavenXXX2]

The Beta is 99% the final game, the system specs released for the beta are also the official specs for the final game.

Any changes from beta to release will be for balancing/weapon damage etc.

The Beta is not exactly a good test of your rigs performance in BF3 now is it, 32 players on a smallish map in rush mode does not compare to 64 players on a massive map with tons of vehicles, it's more 70% of the final game. I got a feeling some of those coming from the Beta thinking their rig is up to BF3 will get a shock when they hit a full on 64 CQ map with it all going off.