Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 3,839
- Location
- Nottingham
I keep getting ''Driver stopped responding'' in BF3 then it chucks me out, It had been fine for weeks untill last night. I'm on 295.73, Any idea's?
Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -
- Thread starter [TFU] Thegoon84
- Start date
- Status
Thing is though, is i grew up playing Codename Eagle at LAN parties, and after that El Alamein on BF1942, and after that Desert Combat with MadMacca the 50Klicks crew.
I'm a PC battlefield vet through and through. Just because my current PC isn't up to BF3, doesnt mean i enjoy the core Battlefield game any less than those who spent more on a PC.
And for somebody who complains about "dumbed down gameplay and crap linear maps" you seem to play an awful lot.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/RaVeN77-UK/stats/334298378/
As ever Raven, you talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
what difference would it make though ?
Ultimately the two groups would be playing different game modes. It would ultimately change nothing.
as ever the tecnique will be to have a buddy or two yourselves to cover your back while you reload. Revive you if you die, and resupply you with ammo.
And you can still spawn on a spawn beacon in TDM, in fact they become even more important as it enables the 4 of you in your squad to all stay in the same area.
Yeah, but a proper expansion instead of just 4 maps would give a better experience which was tailored from the ground up for that particular style of play. It would be like Valve introducing 4 huge maps with drivable vehicles into the new CS:GO: it might be a neat alternative game mode, but you need to do more than just throw in 4 maps to properly adapt it. People will rapidly get bored of just 4 maps and nothing else.
Surely you're more of a liability at that point though? You'd be more effective as a team member with an SMG or a shotgun, or god forbid the M320 or RPG/SMAW.
True, but given the size of the maps, the holes you can blow in walls and the amount of explosives flying around a spawn beacon is probably not going to last very long in the CQ DLC.
I had 2000+ hours in BF2 and now I've quit BF3 because it's that shallow and 90% of my mates and guys I know from BF2 have quit as well making the game really not worth playing at all. Game was designed for console, you're right at home with it.
why did it take you 300 hours to decide it was shallow ?
You've been moaning for months about how crap BF3 is because its not a true successor to BF2.
The difference between me and you is not that i play on the Xbox, its just that i'm not as fussy as you. I enjoy the big proper battlefield maps , but i enjoy playing Rush, TDM, also. I even enjoy the smaller maps like grand bazar and Seine Crossing on conquest too. I'm not really bothered what game mode i play, i'll enjoy it. The only one i don't enjoy is Squad Deathmatch as its just one big race to the IFV. And then when you get in it, its about who can hold it for the longest.
Most of your points about why this won't work are based upon assumptions of how this game mode will play.
"Theres no point playing as sniper"
"everybody will just play medic"
"TUGS and spawn beacons will just get blown up"
"it would be better if it was developed from the ground up"
We won't know any of this until we play it. It may well be that the game mode plays like crap and would have benefited from development time being devoted to it as opposed to just a DLC.
But i'll reserve judgement until i've played it
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 2,283
Have to agree with Raven on this. It's just not what it should have been. It's.... ok. But that's not good enough, really. I keep dropping back to BC2 when I want to actually have some fun. BF3 for graphics and that "new" feeling. I don't find BF3 fun, really. It's just too damned difficult most of the time. I've put a lot of time and effort into it but, even with a really good team beside you, it's just really hard to make headway a lot of the time. You get bogged down trying to take out a single tank or just getting raped by Venoms... meh. At least in BC2 if you had a couple of good engineers you could take out an aircraft pretty quickly and progress.
I disagree that BF3 was designed for a console, though. I think they've just tried to cater for that market as well as PC, which of course they *must* do to survive as a developer. But inevitably the game has suffered as a result.
I disagree that BF3 was designed for a console, though. I think they've just tried to cater for that market as well as PC, which of course they *must* do to survive as a developer. But inevitably the game has suffered as a result.
That much i agree on. DICE said that the PC was going to be the lead platform which led to PC players being very upset when it became apparent they only meant from a technical viewpoint.
Everything else trys to strike up a balance of the demands of casual gamers and BF veterans. And sometimes the casuals win, as is the case of the BF3 map design with all the flags close together in conquest.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 475
- Location
- Wiltshire
i played joint ops for 117 days since 2004 and i can safely say i dont think there will be another game that will keep me playing for aslong as that did, and this is a game that wasnt perfect had 1 expansion and shocking support and yet the best online game ive played.
and the one thing that made this game, battlefield, the early COD's and all truly great games so great was they were made by people who wanted to play a certain type of game with specific features and went out and made it, now all you have is companies like EA and Activision taking over those smaller companies and changing everything that made the franchise great in the first place.
and we'll buy these games in hope that it will meet our expectations and be as great as the game was before it. which i dont think will happen.
and the one thing that made this game, battlefield, the early COD's and all truly great games so great was they were made by people who wanted to play a certain type of game with specific features and went out and made it, now all you have is companies like EA and Activision taking over those smaller companies and changing everything that made the franchise great in the first place.
and we'll buy these games in hope that it will meet our expectations and be as great as the game was before it. which i dont think will happen.
Last edited:
Potentially true, but that's the other problem with how Dice have handled this: they've done a pants job of convincing people it'll be worth it. Given the problems we've had with getting information out of them, things promised for patches which haven't turned up, things which were blatantly badly implemented from day zero (like the IRNV), promising a boatload of regular DLC which now looks gone, etc. they should have been going all-out to convince us this'll be worth it and it'll work. So far we've got an interview and a video on how things can be broken down into tiny bits, and a short gameplay trailer which really only revealed what one map looks like and some of the weapons.
They know they've irritated a lot of their player base but they don't seem to be doing much to alleviate that. That's only going to make the negative impressions of the DLC worse. We don't even know how much the DLC will be or have an accurate release date for it. Usually I'd agree with your "I'll wait until I've played it" approach but to be honest I don't think they've convinced it's worth buying even to try it.
Agreed
There are 90 pages of negative comments on the News section all pretty much saying the same thing "you're turning this into COD and we don't want it" and "why are you trying to sell us DLC when you haven't even fixed the game yet"
But they just carry on blissfully unaware. Seemingly without care, or without the ability to do something about it.
Unreal Tournament was a PC shooter through and through. It was twitch game play at its best. They've drawn upon that, and another PC shooter classic - Counter Strike as their influence, but instead its just come across as "hey you guys, look at what we made, "Call of Battlefield 3"
There are 90 pages of negative comments on the News section all pretty much saying the same thing "you're turning this into COD and we don't want it" and "why are you trying to sell us DLC when you haven't even fixed the game yet"
But they just carry on blissfully unaware. Seemingly without care, or without the ability to do something about it.
Unreal Tournament was a PC shooter through and through. It was twitch game play at its best. They've drawn upon that, and another PC shooter classic - Counter Strike as their influence, but instead its just come across as "hey you guys, look at what we made, "Call of Battlefield 3"
279 hours, it was shallow from the start but playing with mates made it tolerable.
And yeah game was designed for console, maps designed better for 24 players and not 64, console UI, squad management, spawn menu, no VOIP for a team based game, no integrated teamwork features as seen in BF2, poor key binding and joystick support for a PC game, no spec mode or battlerecorder, all standard stuff that came with previous PC BF games.
Last edited:
I think most of the negative stuff you list is just down to poor development.
The game was rushed and was released un finished. the VOIP thing proves it more than anything else.
"Hey guys we need to add VOIP for the PC"
"how long will it take to program in game"
"err a month or so"
"can it be done any quicker"
"well i could throw together a web page that does VOIP and put it on the battle log page in a day or two"
"SOLD, let's do it"
It was just so rushed, hence the bleeding Commo Rose needing to be added in a day 1 PC patch. And still being revised in future patches even as late as Summer 2012.
The game was rushed and was released un finished. the VOIP thing proves it more than anything else.
"Hey guys we need to add VOIP for the PC"
"how long will it take to program in game"
"err a month or so"
"can it be done any quicker"
"well i could throw together a web page that does VOIP and put it on the battle log page in a day or two"
"SOLD, let's do it"
It was just so rushed, hence the bleeding Commo Rose needing to be added in a day 1 PC patch. And still being revised in future patches even as late as Summer 2012.
Personally i dont see the point of a dlc release based on cq maps, theese modes already exist in the form of tdm and sqdm in the main game. Ill buy it for the new weapons to use in the main game. But i can see it causing player losses when theese maps are added to server rotations, plus i think the new maps would end up like the mess that is metro conquest. Personally, id like to have seen a couple of the bfbc2 maps added to bf3, ie harvest day and heavy metal, theese were always too big for bc2. And due to their size and the distance between capture points, theyd be perfect for bf3.
Being a max of 16 players i can't see anybody adding it to their PC server rotation
If you have a 64 player conquest large server 50 players will have to be kicked when it changes maps. Heck even those with 32 player conquest servers will have half their players kicked on map change.
You will either have to run a server dedicated to it, or maybe run it in this game mode for a day and have it switch over in the small hours when nobody is on so its 16 players on the new maps when the day starts and the server is empty.
If you have a 64 player conquest large server 50 players will have to be kicked when it changes maps. Heck even those with 32 player conquest servers will have half their players kicked on map change.
You will either have to run a server dedicated to it, or maybe run it in this game mode for a day and have it switch over in the small hours when nobody is on so its 16 players on the new maps when the day starts and the server is empty.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
i don't get your point totally.i take onboard the 16 man business is too low therefore causing issues.
But why is it noob to want to play some cqc ? its noob to drive around splatting people in a tank as much as anything in hardcore i like this because it removes that constantly firing armoured beast.
Don't say go play cod. i want bf3 engine but without OP helicopters tanks and apc ruining the game for the other 70% of players not wearing a suit of metal armour.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 16,116
- Location
- Neptune
I think it's a fantastic game and if the direction BF3 is going means pushing out the likes of Raven'Who Moved My Cheese'XXX2 then I'm all for it. Won't be missed - i'll still be having shedloads of fun, as I expect millions of others will.
I'm with you on this , i rarely use vehicles as i don't find it "fun" i know other players do though like Raven whose spends pretty much all his games in helicopter or jet which is why your not looking forward to the DLC because it doesn't conform to your play style.
i like fast paced games which is why i prefer Rush and TDM i will be picking up this DLC but mainly for the extra weapons.
As much as i dislike vehicles you don't see me bitching about Amoured Warfare DLC which won't cater to me at all. Like others have said nobody forces you to buy the DLC so you still have all the original maps to play on if you don't want to play CQC.
i don't think moaning about the game not being fixed even solves anything the game will never be 100% perfect for everyone people will find faults with everything so instead of moaning just play the game for what it is a game!
- Status