Other General Battlefield 3 discussion thread

My "nothing to do with competitive gameplay" was in regard to us 20-something year old-timers, not the mode. Also, that was not a generalisation of CS, more CoD and a myriad other FPS games that are currently available. I couldn't even attempt to argue an understanding CS these days, I haven't played it since Beta 1.4 on a dial-up modem.

A mode to suit whatever competitive needs should easily be set up using a custom config though to arrange that what you described earlier, no?

My point was that I would not like to see an expansion made where such a gametype would be the main point of it, goes rather against all the things that make battlefield what it is. I'm not quite getting things across well today, head feels like a bull elephant took a s**t in it.

 

Easier said than done unfortunately; ultimately it's all about map balance. Current maps aren't balanced for 5v5 although you get close with Squad Rush modes of various maps... there are a number of issues with just having the 1 MCOM and squads that are Assault-Revive-M320 only however.

As for you not wanting to see an expansion made which is 'against all the things that make battlefield what it is'... well it's a bit late for that isn't it? BF3 isn't really a true successor to BF2 as the EA UK (aka Mordor) forums will demonstrate (now there are some real oldtimers...). It's really a mix of BC2 and BF2 (and I do love playing it). You seem to be missing the point that a CS-style game mode would not necessarily need to be officially supported (and thereby somehow corrupt your idealised vision of what the BF series 'should be' lulz). Rather, if the community was given the tools (map creation/modding) to alter the engine as it saw fit, a separate entity could be created to satisfy the comp. demographic or even cater to a new one.

 

I've rediscovered the joy of jumping ontop of a tank, slapping on the c4, legging it and watching it blow.

In other BF3 news today, again accused of cheating because some numptee flew their heli low enough so I could smack the pilot in the chops with a tank shell.

 

Sending a tank shell into a heli is a beautiful thing.

From reddit:

 

Is SQR really that popular in competitive circles ._.?? I've never touched the mode mostly because I like to play larger scale games where complex emergent strategy can appear. I don't like the smaller scale/less objective oriented game modes in BF3 (SQDM, TDM, etc...). I came to BF in BC2, so I can't claim to know the nature of the game too well, but it seems like BF games try to focus on the larger scale cooperative/team aspect of playing. You definitely get a small scale team play aspect in the squad modes, but you don't really get the large "battlefield" cooperation you could get in something like conquest. You aren't a spec ops soldier in the game, you're a regular soldier who is a part of a smaller squad in a larger army carrying out a large scale operation. At least that's how *I* think the game was designed to be played.

This model breaks down of course since 99.9% of public servers have teams with no central authority, and each person (or squad if you're lucky) just goes about their own business. It's really awesome though when I see a team "individually cooperate" and get a large scale strategic movement to succeed. I usually see this in simple maps like metro where force movement is very linear and easy to predict. For instance, usually on metro, B is the central objective where all the action happens. If the team holding B is negligent, a small squad will make its way past the main battle lines and capture the objective behind B (whether that's A or C depends on which side holds B). Several things can happen at this point. The team attacking B can either choose to keep pressure up on the main front, or switch and pressure/hold the back. The team defending B can choose to either collapse on A/C in a pincer move, or surge forward toward the opposite objective (A/C) and try to take it. Both moves for both sides have their advantages and disadvantages, so it's interesting to see what combination happens.

Watching the majority of a team individually decide on the same course of action is really cool. If the entire defending team decides to take the rear objective back in a pincer move, and the attacking team decides they want to defend the rear objective to use in pressuring B, a large shootout can occur where both sides end up fighting a dual front battle. Nobody really thinks about that when they're playing and tries to strategize with the whole team, but it's what happens naturally in such a simple map. Moments like that are the moments that keep me coming back to battlefield. I never got to experience gameplay like that in any other game (except RO).

This is all just my perspective though :3.

 

It's the primary form of ladder/league competition, with 8v8 conquest taking second place (in BF3 at least). If you look at all the major tournaments, more than likely you'll be watching 4v4 SQR. Check out Rival gaming if you haven't already - rivalxfactor has some pretty awesome videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/rivaLxfactor/feed

I think one of the reasons why 16v16 and 32v32 is not really found in most ladders is a result of the difficulty of communicating with that many people at once. As you've eloquently illustrated in the above post, the large conquest modes are generally more about power ratios than 1-on-1 encounters, and there's an element of randomness and chaos introduced by the rotating spawns and inability to organise a team centrally (no commander ofc). I think most competitive renditions of any game will try and shy away from elements that take away from the centrally controlled, 'skillful', tactical way of playing - and the larger modes are in some ways unsuitable as a result. They are, on the other hand, highly enjoyable when you find a team with a sort of automatic understanding of the large scale strategy. As you said though, unless your VOIP squads make up a significant portion of the team it can be difficult to achieve randomer-cooperation with 99.9% of pub-servers.

 

BF3 may be closer to BC2 than BF2, but it's still a lot different to CS.

I just don't understand why every game has to copy the same old CS formula for it to be considered for competitive play. Maybe I'm biased as I have never, nor have any desire to play competitively, but it just seems like you're fighting an uphill battle considering the maps, classes, perks, vehicles etc. have not been balanced for 5v5.....you really have to change a hell of a lot of the game to make it work, at which point it really loses a lot of its appeal (at least for me, the Battlefield series is all about the combination of large scale battles, big maps and the mixture of infantry/vehicular combat). Hence my comment about sticking to CS, since all those aspects of the game are already much better balanced for 5v5 competitive play, you don't have to turn it into something it isn't

 

/facepalm

Not sure if you bothered to read the last few posts, but I can't be bothered to repost/rephrase so I'll just deal with the epic level of miscomprehension.

 

Leaked footage...

 

^pfff not a map I really care for tbh.

 

Hah...I did miss Dae's post and your subsequent reply which kinda explained it (I should probably reload the page more often). I guess I'll just have to deal with the fact competitive players would rather play a *******isation of the proper game

Oh dear....that kinda looks like COD gameplay, i.e. cluster**** :/

Not sure if want...

 

That new map actually looks pretty cool, although I forsee many corner campers, it seems like an interesting concept that could work out.

 

This map feels far too much like COD to me, do not want. Yeah ok, everyone loves Metro but personally I'd prefer more maps like Seine and Bazaar: some close quarters but with room to breathe. I'll reserve judgement until more info is available.

 

Indeed and I'm always surprised how low and how close some heli pilots think they're still safe at.

As for the new DLC, aye, looks too much like CoD to me. After playing several CoDs and making my first trip onto the battlefield with BF3 there's now way I want to return to the clusterf*ck maps.

Probably a good thing, I have to find time to play some of my other games afterall.

 

New operation!

 

Definitely a bad site for conquest, but if the map's set up correctly, rush could be amazingly strategic on CQ maps. This means having interesting ways to get at the m-com and not limiting players to 3 doors into the m-com room where everyone just gathers to shoot and frag in/out. I can't see 64 people running around a map like that though, too much frustration with always getting killed from behind or turning a corner into someone. That place would be heaven for people who love to set up traps and camp too :3.

If we're lucky, CQ maps will be set up like how metro is setup with one part of the map in a tight space, and the other part of the map in a relatively open but still restrictive space.

 

Looks like COD, FML

 

Love it

 

nchhabs why is it that you think taking all what is good from BF3 infantry combat, reviving, healing etc and changing the settings to turn BF3 into a CS mod would be good for competive play.

If the game needs to be altered that much then why not save all the hassle and just play css, as its already been made for what your after.

Battlefield has always been about the large scale battles 8v8 was dominant in BF2 at its height, however in BF3 there is no major support from EA and Dice in their own game.
Since their is no Spectator mode/battlerecorder/free cam etc all what is needed for comptive gaming to be watched, EA and Dice have no interest in competive gaming with this current title.

As for SR being the most popular in ladders, its pretty obvious as it only takes 4 people for a team, infantry combat is far better at 5v5 and 6v6 as its more teamwork based rather then gun and go.
8V8 is still very peopluar its just you need a larger more dedicated team to play but its the best part of BF.

 

Yeah, seems like these maps might be 16 players only? Sure it looks a tad COD-ish, but with some BF elements it might actually be a load of fun inf. only

I think unfortunately that you've misunderstood. I'm not saying DICE should alter the game as it currently exists. I'm saying the community should be given the tools to alter the competitive elements of the game just as Valve provided the CS/CSS community with a variety of tools which ended up with the creation of CS promod for CSS for example.

Tbh I'm very surprised this notion of modding tools/community content creation (of which one example is a competitive mod) is being resisted by casuals so much. Guess it's why DICE could get away with it in the first place.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the game (see: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/dracaXL/ for the retarded number of hours I've put into it) and I mostly play normal large gamemodes. However, as you said, in BF3 there's no major support from EA and DICE at the moment, and that's frustrating.