EPTBattlefield 3 - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
lunick
23 Posts
| ||
|
Aduromors
United States279 Posts
On April 24 2011 03:02 vek wrote: Korea already has a Battlefield that supports 100 players per server. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Online I was so disappointed when we ended up with BFP4F instead of what Korea got  Browser-based BF2 with a slick new interface and 100 players? I would play the fuck out of this game if I could | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On April 23 2011 17:49 eviltomahawk wrote: Imagine Karkand with 64 players, infantry-only. Imagine all those grenades being thrown around the first flag at the hotel. Now imagine the same map with 128 players. Twice the grenades. I posted before but yeah 64 is probably good enough (128 would just mean everything is bigger, the feel of the game may be the same thing if the maps are bigger. Of course if all 128 players were right next to each other within viewing distance in a small map, that'd be a different story >.>). But about grenades, they should nerf or limit them in infantry. IMO the problem with infantry only servers is grenades. They're too strong and things becoming a nade fest. They should limit grenades to 1 or 2 in infantry maps (also make resuppliyng them require more ammo bags or make them not able to be resupplied at all except by crates [not by the support class since that's one source of nade spammage]). | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On April 30 2011 22:56 Goldfish wrote: I posted before but yeah 64 is probably good enough (128 would just mean everything is bigger, the feel of the game may be the same thing if the maps are bigger. Of course if all 128 players were right next to each other within viewing distance in a small map, that'd be a different story >.>). But about grenades, they should nerf or limit them in infantry. IMO the problem with infantry only servers is grenades. They're too strong and things becoming a nade fest. They should limit grenades to 1 or 2 in infantry maps (also make resuppliyng them require more ammo bags or make them not able to be resupplied at all except by crates [not by the support class since that's one source of nade spammage]). I agree. Too many grenades will definitely be a problem in all infantry maps. There will be no real reason not to spam the grenades, so they should be limited, and difficult to resupply. | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On April 30 2011 23:54 RoosterSamurai wrote: I agree. Too many grenades will definitely be a problem in all infantry maps. There will be no real reason not to spam the grenades, so they should be limited, and difficult to resupply. Yeah I think this is a good idea. If there was one problem with the battlefield series it's that grenades are too effective and too easy to spam. The most fun I had in 2142 was when the game was just released and no one had access to grenades yet. The fighting on the titans towards the end of the maps was really frantic, it was a heap of fun. After a couple of weeks that was all replaced by nade spam | ||
|
Genome852
United States979 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:45 Ideas wrote: just curious, but would you define the "battlefield feel"? I think I know what you mean though: bad company 2 seemed heavier and has a somewhat more realistic feel to it than BF2 did, which felt more arcadey than BC2 (faster-paced, bigger, things like parachuting and stuff). BFBC2 is much more "condensed" than BF2. I'm not referring to things being more or less arcadey, but more along how the games play out. You can see this even in how the games were designed. BC2 is fast-paced pretty much the entire time (especially in BC2 Vietnam, where you often spawn 2 feet away from an enemy), whereas BF2 has slow-paced moments and fast-paced moments. I believe the developers stated that they didn't include prone in BC2 because they wanted to promote more frantic gameplay. You can also see how larger maps in BC2 feel completely out of place, such as "Heavy Metal"... it's a map that would work great in BF2 but just doesn't fit with BC2. Everything in BF2 also feels like it's on a much larger scale than BC2, which feels closer to a CoD than a Battlefield game. | ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
Just saying, could be pretty climactic/cinematic like the final missions/extra mission in Modern Warfare games. | ||
|
undyinglight
United States611 Posts
| ||
|
ain
Germany786 Posts
| ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii87/someoneinahat/Battlefield3_4.gif) ![[image loading]](http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii87/someoneinahat/Battlefield3_3.gif) ![[image loading]](http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii87/someoneinahat/Battlefield3_2.gif) ![[image loading]](http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii87/someoneinahat/Battlefield3_1.gif) | ||
|
fuzzy_panda
New Zealand1681 Posts
also 128 players would be a terrible idea. imagine the amount of grenades, the size of the maps and the amount of random shit going on with 128 players on one server, not to mention the loading. they tried it with MAG (it even went up to 256) but from my mate who played it, he said it isn't nearly as epic as you'd imagine coz you cant see all those players at once. you'd still just see the few people around you. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
And holy fuck does it look awesome as hell. And person above me, it's confirmed that each player gets 1 grenade unless he uses a special kit which gives him 2. | ||
|
FliedLice
Germany7494 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.abload.de/img/boxanbx.png) | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On May 28 2011 23:40 FliedLice wrote: call me elitist and all but that turned me off a bit.. Microsoft pays out the ass to have every game look like it's being released only for xbox 360. Though to be honest, after seeing the above video showing pre-alpha footage, I feel kind of bad for anyone playing it on a console. They're going to miss out on all of those siqqq graphics. | ||
|
Westy
England808 Posts
On May 28 2011 17:28 fuzzy_panda wrote: not sure if this has been posted but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaFw7aC9GE also 128 players would be a terrible idea. imagine the amount of grenades, the size of the maps and the amount of random shit going on with 128 players on one server, not to mention the loading. they tried it with MAG (it even went up to 256) but from my mate who played it, he said it isn't nearly as epic as you'd imagine coz you cant see all those players at once. you'd still just see the few people around you. This game has the potential to be absolutely mind blowing if they don't screw up. Battlefield 2 had such an epic feel to the game, and it looks like they are trying to recreate it here. Although I was a bit annoyed when they kept mentioning controller rumble. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
XP not being supported DICE is the first to move on from ancient technology. About time. | ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i53.tinypic.com/15owak0.gif) | ||
|
Bloodash
Netherlands1384 Posts
| ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On May 29 2011 01:39 Bloodash wrote: holy shite if theres any reason to buy a new rig.... this will be it :o I'm happy as happy can be personally. Since I can run Witcher 2 maxed on my PC (Thank God for low resolution! 1024x768 master race) I know I can run this game on medium/high for sure. To add on that I'm saving up to upgrade my 6 year old processor/motherboard from a 2.5GHz dual core a 3.2GHz quadcore sometime by September/October, I should be flying for this. But make sure you guys get Windows 7 if you don't already! | ||
| ||
