Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 23:47. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

  • "chrisking8613" started this thread

Posts: 2

Date of registration
: Feb 8th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

1

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 8:23am

Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conquest?:[

Hello everyone, I've owned and played BF3 on my PS3 for over 3 months now and love it. However, I can't help but notice that the game seems too big for consoles (especially in conquest) for the amount of players allowed. If you think about it, there's only 12 players per side, and some maps in conquest start off with 2 jets, 3 tanks, 2 light vehicles, and a helicopter right from the beginning. There are a few maps that I feel are much more balanced such as seine Crossing, Grand Bazaar, and Noshahr Canals, but I was just curious if anyone else felt the same way when playing conquest (on consoles)? -I only point towards consoles because I heard that the PC support 24 on 24 which seems much more stable for the larger maps in BF3-

Suiizide

Resident Pro

(744)

Posts: 2,784

Date of registration
: Dec 30th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

2

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 8:49am

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

PC is actually up to 32 v 32.
I know what you mean about the maps being big, but it allows for huge scores in capturing flags if you play it right. I like it. The mix is right. Some very CQC, fast action stuff (Op Metro, Grand Bazaar), some medium range combat maps (Noshar Canals, Damavand Peak) and some wide open full blown Conquest (Op Firestorm, Caspian Border).

Sig

The T-90 is a challenge, the BTR-90 is going to kill everyone in a 100 meter radius and go flying off a hill into a helicopter only to drive off while the corpse of the Cobra it just went through is being dragged through the beach on Oman.
The game will include a fully automatic An-94 launcher, literally firing Abakans at 600 RPM.
clicky
I expect rep.
If J3ST3R is dead, I think I just heard the entity that is grammar let out a sigh of relief...
To say nothing of the inordinate expense incurred by adding functionality to the gun that I may not ever use.
IKEA is the problem! Its all Desksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesks but oh, oh the second you say you want a table they chuckle and say "A table? You mean a kitchen table? How about a bedside table? Oh! Oh you must mean a dining room table!" and I'm like "NO! NO I JUST WANT A STANDARD, BLACK, BORING TABLE!" and they look at me then smile and go "You mean this? £170..." :(
Also, why does the RANDOM thread have a topic?

Why do fish have legs?
Fucking dutch.


Posts: 82

Date of registration
: Dec 27th 2011

Platform: 360

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

3

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 9:25am

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

I agree. I think the BC maps were designed better for smaller teams. They had a tendency to direct combat to certain areas, which helped keep the maps from feeling too big. Even though Heavy Metal was huge, it was like a bottleneck between those two mountain ranges, so it directed most of the combat to the B objective in the center. Harvest Day was also giant, but the four objectives were organized in a square shape with an open field in the center. This created a tendency for a lot of conflict to occur in the center as people tried to cross to other objectives.

On some of the bigger maps in BF3, the fighting is not directed well. Caspian is a good example. The objectives look randomly thrown together. You can run around the whole game capturing objectives without running into another person. I think a lot of the maps work fine with 24 players, but most of them were clearly designed for much larger teams.

I love BF3, but I think if Dice made BC3, it could be a big improvement for console play.

Posts: 85

Date of registration
: Jan 18th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 9:36am

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

On PC where you have Large version of maps with 64 players they sometime seemde crowded. But most of the time there is multiple directions of attack and that makes it fun.

Not to mention if you play with more than 40 players on smaller maps like Damavand or Caspian :)

I like Caspian though for its undirected flow which allows flanking and make transport vehicles really good.
But hill top is masacre every time.

Posts: 193

Date of registration
: Jan 27th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: New Zealand

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 9:56am

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

I'm on Xbox and completely agree. Once you put two of your team in a helo, one in a jet, and allow for the usual two hiding out in the hills as snipers, it gets fairly lonely and impossible at times on the big maps.
Given I rarely use vehicles I just end up wasting time firing rockets at tanks and end up coming off second best. Stingers are a complete waste of time as well for the guy on the ground trying to fight off the choppers. Conquest is really just vehicle warfare on the Xbox.
And with half your squad in a vehicle, half the time you can't spawn on them so it's a long LONG run back just to die at the hands of a camper again lol

As such I've gone right off Conquest lately, and focusing on the smaller maps of TDM, more suited keeping fewer players in contact with each other. Rush is probably a better choice also than Conquest, as the players are more focused into conflict.
Squad Death match I found good fun as well, but don't always find a local server for it.

Aenonar

Data Analyzer

(2,796)

Posts: 7,863

Date of registration
: Dec 16th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 20

  • Send private message

6

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 10:25am

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

Rough numbers of players needed to make a map feel decently "populated" across the map

Sort of conquest-conquest large numbers...

Metro: 24-40 max
Caspian: 40-64
Firestorm: 40-64
Bazaar: 32-48
Damavand: 32-48
Tehran: 32-48
Kharg: 40-64
Seine: 32-48
Canals: 32-48
Oman: 40-64
Sharqi: 32-48
Karkand: 40-64

Don't know why they've limited consoles to that low... Perhaps because of the controller.. But it's definitely not enough for most maps to get decent all round action across the map :s

Rush is definitely better for getting more action... Playing rush 64 player = near impossible to get anything armed... ;o

Quoted

(14:06:57) Riesig: I should stop now. People might get sig material again

Suiizide

Resident Pro

(744)

Posts: 2,784

Date of registration
: Dec 30th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 11:10am

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

On the conquest small maps, the game is really fine. Caspian can get a little lonely at times though.

Sig

The T-90 is a challenge, the BTR-90 is going to kill everyone in a 100 meter radius and go flying off a hill into a helicopter only to drive off while the corpse of the Cobra it just went through is being dragged through the beach on Oman.
The game will include a fully automatic An-94 launcher, literally firing Abakans at 600 RPM.
clicky
I expect rep.
If J3ST3R is dead, I think I just heard the entity that is grammar let out a sigh of relief...
To say nothing of the inordinate expense incurred by adding functionality to the gun that I may not ever use.
IKEA is the problem! Its all Desksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesks but oh, oh the second you say you want a table they chuckle and say "A table? You mean a kitchen table? How about a bedside table? Oh! Oh you must mean a dining room table!" and I'm like "NO! NO I JUST WANT A STANDARD, BLACK, BORING TABLE!" and they look at me then smile and go "You mean this? £170..." :(
Also, why does the RANDOM thread have a topic?

Why do fish have legs?
Fucking dutch.


Posts: 82

Date of registration
: Dec 27th 2011

Platform: 360

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

8

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 11:54am

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

Quoted from ""Aenonar""

Don't know why they've limited consoles to that low...


Rumor has it the decision is not up to Dice, but Microsoft and Sony. I heard they put bandwidth limits on games, and they won't allow more than 24 players per game at the moment. I read a while back some of the developers tried playing on the console with 80 players, and the game ran reasonably well, so the player limit is not likely an issue with the processing power of consoles.

Suiizide

Resident Pro

(744)

Posts: 2,784

Date of registration
: Dec 30th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

9

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 12:05pm

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

MAG ran 256 players, but as it was essentially CoD on larger maps, the bandwidth was considerably lower.

Sig

The T-90 is a challenge, the BTR-90 is going to kill everyone in a 100 meter radius and go flying off a hill into a helicopter only to drive off while the corpse of the Cobra it just went through is being dragged through the beach on Oman.
The game will include a fully automatic An-94 launcher, literally firing Abakans at 600 RPM.
clicky
I expect rep.
If J3ST3R is dead, I think I just heard the entity that is grammar let out a sigh of relief...
To say nothing of the inordinate expense incurred by adding functionality to the gun that I may not ever use.
IKEA is the problem! Its all Desksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesksdesks but oh, oh the second you say you want a table they chuckle and say "A table? You mean a kitchen table? How about a bedside table? Oh! Oh you must mean a dining room table!" and I'm like "NO! NO I JUST WANT A STANDARD, BLACK, BORING TABLE!" and they look at me then smile and go "You mean this? £170..." :(
Also, why does the RANDOM thread have a topic?

Why do fish have legs?
Fucking dutch.


Posts: 114

Date of registration
: Jan 16th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

10

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 4:22pm

Re: Do you feel like BF3 WASN'T made for consoles on conques

I own BF3 on Xbox 360 and PC. I have a very high-end PC, and honestly, I upgraded it just for BF3. Battlefield is my favorite games series from my favorite genre. Since BF3 was released, I've literally played nothing else. I have a bunch of gamer friends, but they are all console gamers (Xbox 360). I've gone back and forth on the PC vs. Consoles thing for years now, and everytime I play on consoles, I generally have not such a great experience. I hate having to pay for a service every month that only does one thing right every time: Sell me more stuff.

Back on topic, I've played BF3 on Xbox and I've played it a TON on PC. While the Xbox version is quite a great game, it's not even the same game as the PC version. I agree that on consoles, some of the maps are too big for only 24 players. You have to understand that the consoles can only do so much. They're still running on hardware that dates back 7+ years. I can also say that some of the maps were definitely not made for 64 players, either. Metro, Seine(sorta), Bazaar, Damavand are all maps that are usually impossible wins for one team, with 64 players. That being said, would I like the option, regardless of how well it plays? Absolutely. Sometimes I don't wanna play the team-oriented role and I just want absolute madness. I get on a Metro 64 server. There are plenty of servers that play these maps with 48, 40, 32, 24 and 16 players, but sometimes I want the option, and I'm glad to have it.