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

11

Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 8:42pm

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

Hey thanks to everyone who replied. it makes me feel better knowing that I'm not the only one who has felt the fatigue of running back and fourth on large maps, and It's good to know that 32on32 can be overwhelming at times(PC). Also, I agree with what people say about Rush, even though it's not my favorite game mode, it's still keep the teams organized for the most part and requires tactical advantage to be the victor, which works well on both consoles and the PC.

But as crazy as it sounds I was definitely drawn more towards BFBC2 when it first came out for consoles because it felt balanced throughout all the various game modes. And since we know that having more players is most likely not a hardware issue, if they ever decide to increase the player cap and return the C4 back to the Recon class (I know WTF RIGHT!) BF3 would be perfect.

Posts: 177

Date of registration
: Jan 19th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

12

Thursday, February 9th 2012, 2:58am

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

24 players sucks, but I agree with you guys who say that 64 players isn't the best ever. I dramatically prefer the conquest small maps, they tend to get rid of the more useless flags (such as the antenna on caspian) and focus the team better by doing so. I can't begin to describe how much better Seine Crossing is on CQ small without the stupid river dividing up the map, its so much more interesting and playable than the large version. I prefer Tehran highway and Grand Bazaar on CQ Large for the extra maneuvering room, but thats its.

Even on the big maps like firestorm I feel that 64 players is just too much. I like the 46-52 player range on those big maps, which allows some degree maneuvering but without lacking in targets. 48ish players also gets makes infantry heavy maps like Tehran and Bazaar considerably more playable than a full on 64 player game.

The Karkand maps seem better suited to the massive 64 player servers than the stock maps however, the numerous buildings and/or big spaces seem to work in their favor for that, even though it may take a while to run to the next flag.

Posts: 21

Date of registration
: Feb 7th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

13

Thursday, February 9th 2012, 3:00am

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

I only feel that way on Caspian Border. Sometimes Firestorm.

14

Sunday, February 12th 2012, 4:44am

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

I almost always play Conquest Large on the medium and larger maps with 4v4 to 12v12. I tend to find 32-64p games more crowded than I can find enjoyable: instead of picaresque firefights and engagements, they feel like nonstop fighting and honestly, a mess. But, I know some people would find my preference boring and I can appreciate that.

So personally, if I were to play on a console, I would LOVE the 24 player cap but have a natural and occasional curiosity to play in larger servers.

Posts: 8

Date of registration
: Jan 5th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Ontairo

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

15

Sunday, February 12th 2012, 7:21am

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

I think they just need more transport vehicles like buggies so you can to flags/fights quicker

InternationalGamer

Always trust a Tork!

(1,398)

Posts: 3,846

Date of registration
: Dec 24th 2011

Platform: PC

Location: ebenin ami

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

16

Sunday, February 12th 2012, 8:21pm

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

PS3 player here and I agree!

I think that the other game modes are just fine with 24 players, but on Conquest, 24 is just not enough!

Maps like Caspian Border, Kharg Island, Gulf of Oman can feel really empty, the smaller large maps still can manage, like Wake Island or Sharqi Peninsula.

For some reason, the emptiest feels to be Operation Firestorm, even though it's smaller than Kharg Island and Caspian Border. I guess it's the sheer amount of vehicles found in Operation Firestorm that leads to the emptiness. 2 Helicopters, 2 jets, 3 (maybe 4) tanks.

The issue with large maps on conquest is, you get into a tank and you can go from base to base for minutes without anything happening, then a Tank might come across and kill you and that's really boring, just roaming around to die in the end.

Of course, this doesn't happen all the time, these large maps can be fun, but can be empty too.

I think the bare minimum players to manage maps like Kharg Island, Operation Firestorm, Caspian and the other large maps needs to be 32 players without making the maps larger in any way or adding more vehicles. That means there will be 4 more troops in each team who aren't using any vehicles, which will make the experience much more fun.

Some PC players say 64 players is a mess and I can imagine that, my guesses are that 40 players is the optimum amount for the largest maps and 32 being the minimum to get rid of that emptiness.

However, the PS3 and XBox 360 are limited technical wise, that's why DICE couldn't do more players.
You might give examples like MAG on the PS3 which hosted 256 players or many other games supporting 32+ players. The issue is that none of those games have destructible environments (But honestly, the destructible environments is kind of a joke), vehicles and really good visuals combined at the same time.

DICE said something like that if the PS3 and XBox try to handle more than 24 players, the graphics drop greatly, I might be mistaken about this statement though. But I'm sure DICE said that the consoles were limited. Hell, the PS3 didn't even have enough RAM to support voice chat properly, until that update came along and freed some RAM for the voice chat. 360 wasn't cursed by this issue because it has RAM dedicated to the voice chat.

I hope DICE can somehow solve this and increase the maximum players to 32, even if it means losing a bit of the HD visuals, maybe something like Bad Company 2... but I doubt they will do this :(

Posts: 193

Date of registration
: Jan 27th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: New Zealand

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

17

Monday, February 13th 2012, 3:49am

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

I'd be happy with them just allowing me to spawn in mid air next to my team mates if they are in a 'full' vehicle. I can open a parachute if they are in a jet. Or spawn beside their full tank. It's the long run back to the battle that bugs me most. Especially if all the vehicles are out already and we have no closer flags. Even a random spawn option where the game could possibly put me anywhere would be a little more interesting, and less predictable for the snipers.
I see the big maps as vehicle wars really though.

However, in saying that, a recent conquest on Firestorm on Xbox I was MVP with 6 kills, 4 deaths and 3478 combat points. Second place was a heli with 14 kills, 2 deaths and 3430 points. I guess running from flag to flag worked for me that time haha. Only 554 vehicle points too in that score (as a tank passenger/ gunner hitching a ride )

(little wonder our score per minute will never be as high as the PC guys!) :)

Sokolovac

Administrator

(332)

Posts: 1,009

Date of registration
: Jan 7th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

18

Monday, February 13th 2012, 7:21am

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

TBH Anything less than 60 people feels empty to me, mind you i still dont like how small the maps are in bf3 as opposed to bf2, I measured that wake is 3 times smaller than it was in bf2.

I think they kind of screwed the pooch when it comes to making the game console friendly. (No offense console guys). I just miss being able to crawl past enemy lines without being scared of being spotted. It also doesnt have the same authenticity of bf2, in bf2 you would mostly be firing at people from distances of 50-100+ metres with assault rifles. It wasn't made for consoles, but it still caters to them which upsets me.
POI~

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

19

Monday, February 13th 2012, 8:57am

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

Quoted from ""Sokolovac""

I measured that wake is 3 times smaller than it was in bf2.


oO Really? Played BF1942 Wake a couple of weeks ago but didn't really notice such a major difference :s

Quoted

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

Sokolovac

Administrator

(332)

Posts: 1,009

Date of registration
: Jan 7th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Australia

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

20

Monday, February 13th 2012, 9:11am

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

It may also be a difference of walking speeds, also the carrier is a lot further away in bf2.
POI~