-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 3 | Console Community Thread | Pleasant Entertainment
- Thread starter Dreamgazer
- Start date
Since only PS3 user have the new maps I jumped on an ATV and drove around the 4 maps with no enemies to give everyone a sense of scale and some details to each one. Pretty complex maps for sure.
Armored Shield
http://youtu.be/esNGA_TyMwo
Alborz Mountains
http://youtu.be/5l68vcxMVIQ
Death Valley
http://youtu.be/-HnhA4dKbGQ
Bandar Desert
http://youtu.be/PvhezkUYcwA
Armored Shield
http://youtu.be/esNGA_TyMwo
Alborz Mountains
http://youtu.be/5l68vcxMVIQ
Death Valley
http://youtu.be/-HnhA4dKbGQ
Bandar Desert
http://youtu.be/PvhezkUYcwA
The Faceless Master
Member
they're just there? i didn't do anything special to unlock them, i had them from the start.
nothing will be worse than that one Metro server where the admin was like "DON'T CAP A!"
Guess I just need to attempt it again. Last time I got fired at and panic bailed.
And yeah, Rush on the desert map is a nice idea but it just proves my point that giving attackers an advantage in destruction with no cover around the crate (why the hell is last set B construction able to be blown to hell even with the gunship? WHY!?) is crazy broken and that's what I mean by "the maps in BF3 are better designed" (at least in B2K and vanilla even if Vanilla gets crazy stupid with that defense lopsided camping)
There has to be a better balance between these two extremes.
Is it available for both seats? Because I didn't remember having it. What button is it to deploy them?
OdysseusVA
Banned
nvm
R1 is the default button for flares unless you changed it.
Fun round, but they needed to bring in the rest of the DOWG clan when 1) I finally [after 50 attempts] get an ATV kill [24 more to go... *sigh*] and 2) was pounding them with the gunship/AC-130 AFTER arming two sets by myself.
Now I kinda know how the public feels against GAF but not really since they were NO WHERE near as cordinated as GAF other than "protect A," and "STINGER the AC-130 because Seks will hammer the hell out of us
Edit: Okay, actually thinking about it they did do a little more than GAF in *cough*staying near the crate most of the game*cough* and that's what cost us the loss because anytime I armed it two seconds later at least five of them were coming to disarm before I could set up a defense. *and my team not coming to save me. sigh.*
In any case, I'd rank the new maps so far at:
Night Map (even with the gun ship) = Snow map (no gunship) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desert Map ?????????? other map that I don't think I've seen in Rush if it even is Rush.
That said, Rush isn't totally broken on these maps but I can see good teams (if they keep the AC-130 up) completely whopping the defense since the defense doesn't really get vehicles on these maps. :/
Now I kinda know how the public feels against GAF but not really since they were NO WHERE near as cordinated as GAF other than "protect A," and "STINGER the AC-130 because Seks will hammer the hell out of us
Edit: Okay, actually thinking about it they did do a little more than GAF in *cough*staying near the crate most of the game*cough* and that's what cost us the loss because anytime I armed it two seconds later at least five of them were coming to disarm before I could set up a defense. *and my team not coming to save me. sigh.*
In any case, I'd rank the new maps so far at:
Night Map (even with the gun ship) = Snow map (no gunship) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Desert Map ?????????? other map that I don't think I've seen in Rush if it even is Rush.
That said, Rush isn't totally broken on these maps but I can see good teams (if they keep the AC-130 up) completely whopping the defense since the defense doesn't really get vehicles on these maps. :/
I really need to head to bed but I hope my connection is good tomorrow evening (hahaha probably not until late night again) so I can get these ten mobile artillery (whatever that is) and other new vehicle kills along with winning a tank superiority round.
My initial impressions after I played on all the maps.
They're a great addition...for the PC.
If you ever felt that BF3 maps were too big for the console player count you're probably going to hate those.
I never had more than 20 kills in a single game and I usually ended on one of the three top spots on the scoreboard. Played on servers with the default ticket count and with custom tickets.
Personally I never felt that Firestorm, Kharg or Caspian were too big. On full games I never had trouble finding action. But for the first time since I started playing this game I felt like there were not enough players to make the game fun. If you end up stuck on a flag or base without vehicles (it will happen!)...prepare to walk/run a long time!
Alborz Moutain was the weakest one. Since it is based on mountainous terrain it makes covering ground both on foot and even on vehicles a pain in the ass. The only exception is the quad bike. I can see what they were trying to do there but I don't think it worked that well, and with the exception of the 2 flags closest to the spawn bases the other flags were almost on open terrain without any cover.
So far Death Valley and Bandar are the best ones IMO.
Also, what the fuck is wrong with that BfB clan? We played 4 or 5 games 3 gaffers against 7 or 8 of then, and usually they had at least a 2 player advantage overall and they still lost all those games by a huuuge margin...
I'll reserve my final judgement until we have player enough on the new maps, faced some good teams and even lost some games, but right now I rather play the vanilla and B2K maps.
They're a great addition...for the PC.
If you ever felt that BF3 maps were too big for the console player count you're probably going to hate those.
I never had more than 20 kills in a single game and I usually ended on one of the three top spots on the scoreboard. Played on servers with the default ticket count and with custom tickets.
Personally I never felt that Firestorm, Kharg or Caspian were too big. On full games I never had trouble finding action. But for the first time since I started playing this game I felt like there were not enough players to make the game fun. If you end up stuck on a flag or base without vehicles (it will happen!)...prepare to walk/run a long time!
Alborz Moutain was the weakest one. Since it is based on mountainous terrain it makes covering ground both on foot and even on vehicles a pain in the ass. The only exception is the quad bike. I can see what they were trying to do there but I don't think it worked that well, and with the exception of the 2 flags closest to the spawn bases the other flags were almost on open terrain without any cover.
So far Death Valley and Bandar are the best ones IMO.
Also, what the fuck is wrong with that BfB clan? We played 4 or 5 games 3 gaffers against 7 or 8 of then, and usually they had at least a 2 player advantage overall and they still lost all those games by a huuuge margin...
I'll reserve my final judgement until we have player enough on the new maps, faced some good teams and even lost some games, but right now I rather play the vanilla and B2K maps.
That's the same impression I got. These maps will be fantastic on PC because of the player count alone. I though rush would be better suited on consoles but the balance is horrible. I'll still be playing armored kill all week to get the spawn points down for each flag and to get better antiquated with the new vehicles. Just got a beta key for Planetside 2 and I'm really excited about that as well. It's gonna be a good week of games for me. Armored kill on PS3. Planetside 2 beta, and armored kill on PC next week. FREAKING AWESOMESAUCE.
I doubt it... :-(
Noisepurge
Member
This! Until that AC130 spawntime is atleast doubled it really makes defending really annoying on public servers. Can't even hide around the Mcoms since it has that heat-vision and shoots you from above!
Conquest was a lot better because the AC130 can be captured. Have yet to try out Tank Superiority.
These are great videos, thanks!
The Faceless Master
Member
shout outs to the squad of randoms that were sniping on the top of Alborz Mountain... during Tank Superiority... not even a SOFLAM? you guys rock!
Wow these maps look too big for consoles on conquest. Why do DICE keep giving consoles the same size maps that are deisgned for 32 players on PC? I really think consoles should not ahve more than 4 flags. Look at the Bandar Desert map, looks like it could be great on consoles if they took out flag E.
Played a bit more. This match is an example of the problems of Armored Kill on consoles.
A 30 minute game were I got only 10 kills and was at the top of the scoreboard. I spend the whole game running from one flag to the other on the quad and when I was lucky I killed someone trying to defend. Unfortunately most times no one would show up. And guess how I got those 4 deaths? All of then from the AC-130 when I was trying to cap the flag that controls it.
And I may not be tank king, but damn if I'm not a good driver!!! Tank Superiority is fun but I need some squadmates to help me...I even got some hate mail on this game!
A 30 minute game were I got only 10 kills and was at the top of the scoreboard. I spend the whole game running from one flag to the other on the quad and when I was lucky I killed someone trying to defend. Unfortunately most times no one would show up. And guess how I got those 4 deaths? All of then from the AC-130 when I was trying to cap the flag that controls it.
And I may not be tank king, but damn if I'm not a good driver!!! Tank Superiority is fun but I need some squadmates to help me...I even got some hate mail on this game!
Because the Console OS need bandwidth for stuff like: OMGZ TROPHIEZ!! , Friend Lists, system updates, etc,etc
Also its my birthday and im not gonna letDICE ruin it so im thinking on buying Premium ...
Thanks! Watching...
Theyre surely pushing the PS3 to its limits. Dat Pop-In.
Sony would have zero issues with a higher player cap.
Noisepurge
Member
yeah see MAG/Starhawk/Homefront, they all have 32 players at least.
If i remember correctly the consoles horsepower was the issue with more players. (meaning too much action, destruction, explosions going on, consoles freeze)
MutantCamel
Banned
Yes but in this case we're talking destructible environments, if a player blows up a wall in a corner of the map that information has to be transmitted to all players, that does not happen in other games. BF3 requires much more average bandwidth per player than MAG, or Starhawk or Homefront.
Hah. All I want is buildings with the crates to not be blown to smithereens, explosives can't make that room unattackable/undefendable, campers can't really "camp" for too long and can be flushed out if pushed.
Meanwhile any other building can be blown to hell for tactical advantages. I just want the defense to not have to worry about suicide rushes and people cheesing the crate from afar with no attacking ability (or punching the crate to death, sup me spraying B on the nightmap with the AC-130 with little to no ability for the defense to disarm outside of hoping to take me out in those 30 seconds?). Meanwhile the defense can't "dig in" to where it's impossible to take a building.
Rush with the AC-130 isn't that bad. I'd agree to doubling the spawn time but on Death Valley it isn't too bad outside of being able to blow the area to hell.
Haven't been on Desert Shield yet. But Bandar Desert is pure trash with the AC-130 on Rush, yeah.
Edit: And yeah the pop-in is atrocious. Riding fullspeed on the ATV is pop-in city. Might as well take the grass out because no one is going to lay in the grass.
OgTheClever
Member
Even on PC, a slow 1mbit broadband connection would be more than enough. It uses less than 50MB an hour on average. The player cap on console is far more likely due to memory or performance limitations.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
It's due to bandwidth limitations. MS and Sony want people to be able to play on dial up, if they increased the minimum bandwidth necessary to play on Live, there would be higher player counts.
OgTheClever
Member
Are you sure about that? PSN states that broadband is required:
On the main web page: http://uk.playstation.com/psn/. And I'm pretty sure anything below 512kbps can't be classed as broadband, which would still be enough for BF3.
Red Dolphin
Member
That's interesting. I assumed it would be a lot more.
Ah that SUCKS. I refuse to get Battlefield 4 on current consoles unless they can raise the player count. I never had a problem with 24 players in BC2 but certain maps in BF3 are clearly designed with many more players in mind and are often boring at times.
I'm praying BF4 will be released on PS4/720 and these limits aren't an issue.
I'm really considering getting BF3 on PC now but i've invested so much time and money into the 360 version and play co-op with my fiance that I'm not sure I want to. Also my reflexes with mouse and keyboard suck.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
As someone who owns both the PC and PS3 versions, I still prefer the PS3 version because I believe the game was designed as a console game. Also, I prefer having one controller for infantry and vehicles. Finally, aimbots are still a problem.
Having said all that, I still think DICE has to get the player counts up on console versions.
Having said all that, I still think DICE has to get the player counts up on console versions.
Dreamgazer
Member
My impression:
1)The m-com placements are just stupid on some of the maps:
Every other BF rush map in history has allowed player to keep a good view or easy access between 2 m-coms. Not here. It's like dice expects every defender to also be on an ATV or something.
One set on Alborz mountain has one m-com in a narrow passage way, while the other on the other side of the mountain. There is no mid point where you can possibly see both or easily run to both. It's guard one or the other. The retarded part is that the only flat surface to place a beacon at is the bottom of the mountain or the middle of the main road.
The last set of Alborz mountain has one m-com in a tower and one m-com on the ground.
Fine, easily view for both...
Except the tower one can be entered by both air or ground passages, the m-com room only has one entrance and defenders can only get up there if they climb the stairs.
WTF DESIGNED THAT?
It literally screams "HEY-YO, IF YOU DON'T CAMP HERE IMMEDIATELY THERE'S NO CHANCE YOU'LL EVER GET BACK UP HERE AGAIN."
2) No, Sekoku. BF3 map designs still sucks, and attackers are op because of the half-assed destruction that you are so fond of defending:
a)This whole "can destroy some, but not anything important bs" is STILL what screw things up. Especially for that one death valley m-com that is surrounded by two indestructible oil containers. The containers are blocking defender's views and is inevitably making the area into a mini-camp spot like the bazaar set 1. If they weren't there, then defenders can easily take watch from a longer distance, instead of all sticking in there to wait for ac-130 bombardment.
Remember Atacama set 1, arica set 1, etc etc? Those are all "omg open m-coms that were can be easily defended.
Yet we can't do that here cause BS needs to block my view (also see 1 above).
b)Indestructible buildings should be indestructible and immune to explosive damage.
Yet you can still get hurt from the AC-130's spread from inside.
c) I am freaking tired of these "mini m-com rooms with 2 entrance" bs Dice.
3)Class/gadget Balance has gone to fuck.
Assault is now semi-useless outside of attacking.
Recon is now semi-useless because: 1) AC-130 parachute drop is faster in every way, 2) Some area don't even have a flat surface or above head-covers to optimally place radio beacons . I mean, unless you want to put them in super obvious locations.
Everyone other than me is going to run engineer anyway.
4)Vehicle are unbalanced.
Armored Shield: The enemy has an AC-130, 2 tanks and an anti-air vehicle. Your mission is to take it out with 1 chopper 1 tank and hopefully lots of stingers. Oh, and defend.
1)The m-com placements are just stupid on some of the maps:
Every other BF rush map in history has allowed player to keep a good view or easy access between 2 m-coms. Not here. It's like dice expects every defender to also be on an ATV or something.
One set on Alborz mountain has one m-com in a narrow passage way, while the other on the other side of the mountain. There is no mid point where you can possibly see both or easily run to both. It's guard one or the other. The retarded part is that the only flat surface to place a beacon at is the bottom of the mountain or the middle of the main road.
The last set of Alborz mountain has one m-com in a tower and one m-com on the ground.
Fine, easily view for both...
Except the tower one can be entered by both air or ground passages, the m-com room only has one entrance and defenders can only get up there if they climb the stairs.
WTF DESIGNED THAT?
It literally screams "HEY-YO, IF YOU DON'T CAMP HERE IMMEDIATELY THERE'S NO CHANCE YOU'LL EVER GET BACK UP HERE AGAIN."
2) No, Sekoku. BF3 map designs still sucks, and attackers are op because of the half-assed destruction that you are so fond of defending:
a)This whole "can destroy some, but not anything important bs" is STILL what screw things up. Especially for that one death valley m-com that is surrounded by two indestructible oil containers. The containers are blocking defender's views and is inevitably making the area into a mini-camp spot like the bazaar set 1. If they weren't there, then defenders can easily take watch from a longer distance, instead of all sticking in there to wait for ac-130 bombardment.
Remember Atacama set 1, arica set 1, etc etc? Those are all "omg open m-coms that were can be easily defended.
Yet we can't do that here cause BS needs to block my view (also see 1 above).
b)Indestructible buildings should be indestructible and immune to explosive damage.
Yet you can still get hurt from the AC-130's spread from inside.
c) I am freaking tired of these "mini m-com rooms with 2 entrance" bs Dice.
3)Class/gadget Balance has gone to fuck.
Assault is now semi-useless outside of attacking.
Recon is now semi-useless because: 1) AC-130 parachute drop is faster in every way, 2) Some area don't even have a flat surface or above head-covers to optimally place radio beacons . I mean, unless you want to put them in super obvious locations.
Everyone other than me is going to run engineer anyway.
4)Vehicle are unbalanced.
Armored Shield: The enemy has an AC-130, 2 tanks and an anti-air vehicle. Your mission is to take it out with 1 chopper 1 tank and hopefully lots of stingers. Oh, and defend.
DICE have known from launch that there only have 24 players, and thus they should design maps around that. Not this bullshit thing they got going where they treat every platform the same, they are not. PC and consoles should be seperate as the game fundamentally changes when you have 64 players and when you have 24 players.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
I hate the AC-130 on rush. Just wait until the AC-130 gets behind the defense and spawn.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Agreed. It respawns too fast, it is too deadly to ignore, and dealing with it exposes you to armored invasion. Pretty much impossible to stop if the opposing team has someone in a jet defending the gunship.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Looking at the impressions, AK might as well be PC only.
AlmostMilk
Member
So are the maps too big for 24 players or is there still a decent amount of combat?
xclaw
Member
They're a little to large. Encounters are usually less than 4v4 unless for some fluke reason everyone converges on the same point. At least in conquest.
AlmostMilk
Member
So as compared to Caspian Border, how much combat are we talking? I think there is too little combat in Caspian.
xclaw
Member
In the few hours I played last night, there is more combat in Caspian than the AK maps on Conquest.
Disagree. Carl Gustav from across the map is bullshit and I'd rather camp an area than have to worry about rocket trails and sniping a person that is no where near the crate able to harm it. Maybe taking the harm out is the only thing that's needed but I'd rather have attackers get close than stay away. Same with the defense.
Oversight or bug or intentional, who the hell knows.
I'll agree with this. The AC-130 shouldn't be paradropping people in Rush. And should have a longer spawn time.
Dreamgazer
Member
We're not talking about crate damage. We're talking about m-com placement.
Attackers ALWAYS have to get close, that's the point of rush.
The problem is that defenders need to have some room to defend instead of piling around the m-com. DICE wanting to make every m-com a 2 way street is just stupid.
We are when we're talking destruction and over-all balance on attack/defense.
Good that you and I agree, but me and you have to disagree on destruction on certain elements for attack/defense purposes.
Agreed. I hate how B Metro third set is IMPOSSIBLE to take unless you resort to throwing rockets (and if the defense resorts to throwing rockets, good fucking luck).
That's what I mean by the "defense is too overpowered now." It's less "punching through" that you want and more "they need to limit explosives and limit classes on maps for the sake of less bananas balance.
If I had it my way:
Engineer would be GONE on Metro, Bazaar. GONE. No choice ability on it.
Grenades would be 1/2(perk) with the respawn speed being unaffected/slow from the respawn box like the 40mm grenades in BC2 (before putting two boxes down, anyway) to prevent explosive spam.
Armored Kill wise:
AC-130 would stay in Rush but AC-130 destroyed spawn would be 2-5 minutes before it appears again (or once per set but that kinda doesn't allow people to use it for long with the current Stinger issue). Spawn on AC-130 is GONE. It breaks Rush attack because the attackers have EASY access to paradrop into the back of the defenses base and if no one is noticing it's too late.
Noisepurge
Member
After more matches under my belt, Conquest is fun and works, Tank Superiority is really fun!
But i agree, atleast that desert map is too large on Conquest, too quiet and you can hardly rack up points. in TS -mode its much better as all chaos ensues around the controlpoint.
And yes, dont play Rush in these maps
But i agree, atleast that desert map is too large on Conquest, too quiet and you can hardly rack up points. in TS -mode its much better as all chaos ensues around the controlpoint.
And yes, dont play Rush in these maps