Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -

Neil79 · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:17

Gerard said:
Streams over they showed precisely (draws breath) **** all.

Not a bit of wonder you don't get paid, military nub from e3 looked like Jeremy Paxman compared to you 2 gimps.

Well said I could do a much better job than those 2 gimps as could 90% of this forum!. Then again If i'm presenting a show I wont spend half the time wanting man love :rolleyes:

antonusklesk · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:18

I won't mind the 3D spotting compromise if it's Q>commorose>click-spotted rather than the Q-spamming.

I know it seems like next to no difference at all, but the extra clicking step required to spot through the commo-rose would make it much less annoying. There would be far fewer spots as it effectively removes the temptation to spam Q constantly and requires an 'actual' spot before the player would bring up the rose.

Gerard · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:25

And here is official info about 3d spotting:

Originally Posted by Demize99
So, a soldier in direct Line of Sight that is spotted will have a 3d red marker. If he moves behind cover or concealment, including vegetation, the 3d red marker will disappear. He will always be on the minimap. Vehicles are always fully 3D spotted, and LOS does not apply since they are larger more important targets with less threats (and it plain did not work to have jets flying around who couldn't see the tank you spotted for him to take out).

This lets you essentially "nudge" your buddy to tell him about a target, or point out a sniper on a hill you see but cannot engage (with your shotgun for example). But it prevents players from using 3D spotting as a wall hack.

Additionally, the primary motivator for the change is that 3D spots that you cannot see are not threats. We noticed that players would focus on 3D spots over everything else, meaning they would ignore people in line of sight. It's far less confusing when the 3D spot on a soldier can only be seen if you can see the soldier.

Neil79 · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:28

We shall see by the beta if it works but DICE/EA are incredible stubborn

agnes · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:30

So essentially if you can see the guy, you spot him...

Now, this is the same for BC2, BUT in BC2 the spot goes away once they go behind cover ect ect. But as usual, this gives away their position. And normally takes a good 5-10 seconds to go.

I just wish they left it out entirely to be honest. Makes the game so much more intense and not point and click towards the glowing things.

ags

Gerard · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:30

Neil79 said:
We shall see by the beta if it works but DICE/EA are incredible stubborn

Im a bit confused about the line saying "the spotted soldier will always be on the minimap". To what extent and how much of a duration, does he remain spotted till he dies, does the minimap still track his motion or just last known location? :confused:

Gerard · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:32

agnes said:
Makes the game so much more intense and not point and click towards the glowing things.

Even if they go behind vegitation it disappears, so you basically have to be able to have them in line of sight to crack shots off at them, which begs the question, why is it needed then.

Gerard · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:36

Gerard said:
Im a bit confused about the line saying "the spotted soldier will always be on the minimap". To what extent and how much of a duration, does he remain spotted till he dies, does the minimap still track his motion or just last known location?

Demiize99: I meant as long as the spot lasts he will appear on the minimap. You disappear after a timer, unless someone else spots you again, then the timer can be refreshed.

Gerard · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:38

More info :

Demize99:First, the 4 on 4 TDM setup is for Gamescom's lounge specifically. The full game will support 24 players in TDM by Design. In theory we could go bigger on PC of course, but we wanted to focus on a tight infantry TDM game. There are no vehicles in TDM.

Second, on Motion Sensors. First, you cannot throw them like the motion balls in BC2. You deploy them, they are larger (and easier to see) than BC2, they can be destroyed, they beep when they detect movement. A recon soldier can only have 1 deployed at a time. You can crouch or prone and move past a motion sensor without setting it off. Motion sensors will only show you briefly on the minimap (approximately 0.5sec).

You can, therefor, easily walk into range of a sensor, get detected, crouch, sneak away and either destroy the beacon or move and ambush anyone nearby who goes to investigate your position.

Neil79 · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:45

Why not just take the 3D spotting out and leave it on the mini map, typical DICE/EA bull about listening to the community. The vast majority don't want it

Squark · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:53

peterattheboro said:
Who cares it's using a game engine that's years old. Portal 2 uses a 7/8 year old engine and no one complained about that!.

lol

The Source engine has been overhauled by Valve so many times it's hardly the same engine. Your point is invalid.

rogueblade · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:53

So if you can 3d spot a vehicle from anywhere, what purpose does the Laser Designator serve? Will it let your missile actually lock the laser position? It better.

Number_25 · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:58

rogueblade said:
So if you can 3d spot a vehicle from anywhere, what purpose does the Laser Designator serve? Will it let your missile actually lock the laser position? It better.

Good that someone has brought this up.

Spotting should be cut, commo rose should be doing all the communication stuff.

Gerard · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:58

Flight ceiling is "really really high" according to this vid, if you go too high you start to lose power (about 17 mins in)

http://www.fpsguru.com/news/552/Battlefield-3-Gamescom-Live-Chat-Video.html

Lobovski · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:59

I'm presuming there will be a harcore mode or whatever for those that don't want 3-d spotting?

toString · 18 Aug 2011 at 17:59

Squark said:
lol

The Source engine has been overhauled by Valve so many times it's hardly the same engine. Your point is invalid.

I love it when people say that! Like it's the same engine but they just use better "skins" on the models.
Or when they call BF3 BC2.5 because it's based on the BC2 engine.

Do people really think developers should start with a blank page when they make a new game? The mind boggles.

Squark · 18 Aug 2011 at 18:02

toString said:
I love it when people say that! Like it's the same engine but they just use better "skins" on the models.
Or when they call BF3 BC2.5 because it's based on the BC2 engine.

Do people really think developers should start with a blank page when they make a new game? The mind boggles.

BF3 is a new engine though, just similar art style to the previous one.

LeJosh · 18 Aug 2011 at 18:04

toString said:
I love it when people say that! Like it's the same engine but they just use better "skins" on the models.
Or when they call BF3 BC2.5 because it's based on the BC2 engine.

Do people really think developers should start with a blank page when they make a new game? The mind boggles.

BF3 is a completely new engine and took them over 5 years to make, these things take a lot of time.

toString · 18 Aug 2011 at 18:09

Oh really? I was under the impression it was built on from frostbite 1.5! Well in that case, that is epic work by them to do it from a blank page!

Gerard · 18 Aug 2011 at 18:10

It wouldnt suprise me if some code from the original frostbite is still in there, source still has some code in it from the quake engine despite the fact its been rebuilt and overhauled several times.