Looks like a dream for people with C4 lobbing it over the edge with no chance of getting shot!
Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -
- Thread starter [TFU] Thegoon84
- Start date
- Status
Looks like a dream for people with C4 lobbing it over the edge with no chance of getting shot!
I can imagine it being an aimbotter's dream actually haha!
So bored since beta has finished. Struggling to find a game to last me two weeks until release!
Was just getting used to flying the choppers too (spent most of the time gunning)!.
Chasing jets around and taking them out with Air-to-Air Heatseekers was fun
So bored since beta has finished. Struggling to find a game to last me two weeks until release!
Was just getting used to flying the choppers too (spent most of the time gunning)!.
Chasing jets around and taking them out with Air-to-Air Heatseekers was fun
You should even be able to see people coming by their flashlight, before they've turned a corner and be prepared for someone, whereas they're probably not. That'll give people a tactical incentive to deactivate the flashlight for stealth purposes.
Im still waiting to see the actual maps (overhead) for each mode, one thing im not even certain has been confirmed or not, is whether these maps will come in multiple shapes & sizes, just like BF2.
All maps were 16/32/64 player variations (iirc) and the vast majority of time the people i would play with would be on 32 player maps. Thats what almost all my memories of BF2 are from, 32P maps.
64s werent as popular, im not sure if that was because slot prices werent so reasonable (?), if they were too hard to populate compared to 32 which led to most people playing on heavily populated servers and 64's being ignored more, or if people just prefered the feel of the closer maps and less crowded feel of twice as many people fighting over the same 1-2 flags at a time.
I know if 64 player wasnt in the game there'd be an outcry of it being 'consolified' and dumbed down, it should be there, but im just wondering how many people used to play mainly on 64 player maps?
I cant recall much of 2142, it wasnt quite my cup of tea, i think i did that 50/50, but i suspect that i'd be quite happy to continue on 32/16v16 or maybe 48/24v24 as a nice sweet spot (not that its an option).
oh, on that night map... i hope we can shoot out the street lights on this too. I know some lights in metro werent possible to destroy a while back (never tried in beta) but it'd be really interesting if you could take a load of them out and create some darkened alleys, create some tension when moving around
People really need to get over the whole thing with flashlights. If you can't kill someone using it, your problem. I have no problem whatsoever, can't see why every one has a problem with it. Unless they're all just bad and want to find an excuse as to why they were pipped to the post at getting a kill. Old story is old
Calm down, it was tongue in cheek, your going to give yourself a heart attack
You do raise a good point, and I to would love to see the overviews of these maps for every game mode. In some respect, that kind of answers what you said in terms different shapes and sizes - each map is supposed to cater for all game modes, and should in theory reflect the total server slots in terms of the space available to "play" in within the map boundaries.
I was always on the 64 man servers for BF2 and BF2142, and they were always the best experience in my eyes.
BF3's 64 player map in the beta (Caspian) caused an outcry by a lot of the "Fanboys" and "Elitists" complaining that the flags were too close together. I'm not trying to be rude, but I think DICE deserve to give these sorts of people the old two finger salute. The map was balanced perfectly.
There was enough space for vehicles to roam around in.
There was enough space for air assets to keep away from the main fight.
The captures points were close enough that amid a huge vehicular warfare going on all around them, you were able to have your own, fairly sizable infantry engagements across all the capture points.
There was enough space for air assets to keep away from the main fight.
The captures points were close enough that amid a huge vehicular warfare going on all around them, you were able to have your own, fairly sizable infantry engagements across all the capture points.
The only area on the Caspian that needed changing in my opinion was the Antenna capture point (Echo), as it involved a very long run across open ground for infantry to reach, which often left the US to simply have it for most of the map and allow the ultra-cool gamers that are the campers to sit on the antenna for the majority of the round.
What will i need to upgrade to be able to play this on a 19in monitor? Currently got:
E6400 @ 3.0ghz
8800 GTS 512mb
4gb RAM
Got a feeling it will be everything
whats the res, CPU will be most likely be fine. Quadcore would give a really nice boost though. 8800GTS might struggle though a mate of mine uses 9800gtx on medium 1650x1050 i think.
res is only 1440x900, can push the cpu to 3.6 if i stop running passively. Want to play on decent settings without splashing out a huge amount
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,356
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I play on 19in and you need a quad core.
4870 was just about able to do 30fps most of the time with everything up high and no AA. I modded a couple things down and it was 50fps @1280x1024
You have enough ram but definitely the cpu I think and probably the GFX especially as its only half a gig. Try it on low or medium, could be ok but I think 3.6ghz isnt enough maybe if it were a 8500
4870 was just about able to do 30fps most of the time with everything up high and no AA. I modded a couple things down and it was 50fps @1280x1024
You have enough ram but definitely the cpu I think and probably the GFX especially as its only half a gig. Try it on low or medium, could be ok but I think 3.6ghz isnt enough maybe if it were a 8500
Thanks, time to search mm now!
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 2,124
- Location
- Snowdonia
It's Minas Tirith!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 7,655
- Location
- Tamworth
My other PC is running on a 19" widescreen at 1366 x 768. The PC spec is an AMD Phenom II Quad at 3.6, GTX 460 768MB and 4GB Ram. Most settings on high, no AA or ambient occlusion and the game runs very well. Frame rates in th 40's-70's.
I don't entirely disagree with your views on COD, I do find it a too arcadey to hold my attention for long periods, but to assume that people stick to it because it has become a brand is a bit excessive.
People stick by it because they enjoy it, which is surely what it's all about? Millions of players wouldn't play it for hours on end if they thought it was carp. If it gets stale, people get bored, they'll move on. The day will come when COD's reign eventually ends and something equally accessible will come through. Whatever you think of COD it must be doing something right. BF3 is likely to take at least some share of it's market, which can only be a good thing for competition. Once something else starts to come through the COD developers will either respond accordingly with improvements or it'll fade into obscurity.
EDIT: I think the COD/BF thing been done to death now anyway, and I dont want to argue as you seem like a sound bloke.
Last edited:
Nice of you to offer to do that.
But a word of warning, EA might get suspicious and ban you and any of the other accounts involved.
I doubt it, it's done via an option on an app they created. How could they ban for it?
But I've easily changed mine 3 times now, just to check it works fine.
Purely because you'll be logging in to many different accounts from the same IP.
Ah I get what you mean. That's true, maybe a few won't hurt. They shouldn't notice if it's not reported, there's so many EA accounts I doubt they will see if 5 logged from the same IP.
- Status