• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Battlefield 3 Unveiling at GDC 2011 (March 1st)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
A lot of people moan when I talk about merging BF with WW2OL campaign maps saying "but maps like that last for weeks, and I would have to log off before someone wins". Well, the thing is, you need to stop looking at it like you do a finite, contained, self enclosed 30 minute conquest round from BF or whatever COD games have. Instead, look at it this way - you have an hour, 2 hours, whatever at night to play? Well, instead of judging your win or loss based on who won that round, find an allied city/base that's under attack and help it stay under your team's control for your 2 hours. Did your team hold it while you were online? Well, guess what? You won, as far as you are concerned. Or join a strike force that's attacking an enemy city. Did you take it? Yes? Well, you won then....

Besides, UNLIKE ww2OL,in my dream version of a combined game, BF would always retain the option of short 30 minute conquest rounds on private servers so that you can have the best of both worlds.

but, but, but...my stats, my achievements, my rankings! this is partially whats wrong with modern FPS games.
 
There are varied and sundry differences:
1. No commander
2. 4 man max squads with the cheese ability to spawn on anyone in the squad
3. 32 player maximum
4. Tiny maps that herd everyone into each other at choke points
5. Autoknife with a measure of autoaim built in
6. Medics with light machine gun

I quit playing the game in disgust not long after buying it and even I know the above things...I'm sure others can come point out more.

I take it you haven't played harvest or heavy metal. Those maps are huge
 
I had no problems finding those games when the game came out. I dont know what it was like 3+ months after that. Its not like all 256 players are in the same spot at the same time all the time, it was more like 32 vs 32 with 8 bases around the perimeter, and then you bum rush the other bases once you locked down yours. Badass!

What I dont understand is that in BFBC2, getting a 32 person server with moderate ping (70 ms or less) and no lag feels like christmas. I dont remember BF2 having these issues, and that was 64 player with an inferior broadband connection.

I'm more referring to warping and not framerate issues in MAG. Even when I have a great ping in a 128vs.128 everyone on the map is warping all over the place and you are rubberbanding like crazy.
 
Hopefully theyve figured out how to make the controls not suck. One thing Call of Duty has always had over them.
 
Does MAG use servers provided by the game developer/owner whatever or do private individuals rent servers like they do for Battlefield, or what?
 
Does MAG use servers provided by the game developer/owner whatever or do private individuals rent servers like they do for Battlefield, or what?

Its developer dedicated servers. No server browser, its just select game mode and you are automatically queued and then the game starts.
 
I see a bunch in the browser, but when I hop in everyone has 150-250 pings and there is game altering lag. Usually around the 3rd or 4th server I try I find one thats decent and I can settle in for the night.

a) make sure you are only searching for North American Servers

I get good ping on server browser to england but it sucks when I join on accident

b) ping in game is the whole trip, so its twice what you are actually getting. Its always a little higher than the server browser though. I seriously havent had lag issues on BC2 since like, they let us see only our geographic region.

I play on cali servers sometimes, and can do alright. Denver, Dallas, VA, NY, Chicago all great. I stick to chicao if I have a choice because some nice HC servers are run there that I frequent as much as I can


c) also check your FPS with fraps. low fps in bc2 looks alot like lag
 
Last edited:
Yeah, its set to North America. Ping the browser would say 40, but then in game its 200-300, with noticeable lag. BTW, I'm not the only one experiencing it, as everyone on the server comments about it. I have had better luck just using the Recents and playing on servers that I know are good. I was thinking maybe its the influx of new players over the holidays because of the Steam sales, but who knows. Anyways, nothing to do with BF3.
 
Hopefully Battlefield 3 isn't going to become coloquially known as Bad Company 2.5.
Honestly though, is that such a bad thing? Granted, I'm admittedly new to the Battlefield games, and I don't have as much knowledge as some of you Battlefield "veterans"... but Bad Company 2 is fucking awesome. Here's the way I look at it: If BF3 is like BC2, but with larger maps, more players, and planes, then I will be happy. (Even then, BC2 does have a couple of very large maps... namely Harvest and Heavy Metal).

It's a shame that so many people are trying to compare it to Call of Duty. Battlefield is what made me realize why the multiplayer in CoD sucks so bad.

On another note, the lack of prone is wonderful. You don't have douchebags who rapidly bounce on and off the ground to try to dodge your bullets. Snipers don't have an unfair advantage - if you had 5 snipers on a hill while in prone, they would murder your whole team and you wouldn't be able to spot any of them. Not to mention, it just doesn't look right with deformed terrain.

Hopefully theyve figured out how to make the controls not suck. One thing Call of Duty has always had over them.
Huh?

Ping the browser would say 40, but then in game its 200-300, with noticeable lag.
The ping changes once you're in game because it's tied to your computer's performance. If you have a very beefy computer, you'll be lucky to have 100 ping. If your computer sucks, your ping might be upwards of 300. I learned this because some of my friends and I were playing BC2 at my house one day, and even though we were all using the same internet connection, my ping was drastically higher than that of my friends because my laptop sucks. Consequently, my friends had better pings because their computers had better video cards. I actually ended up being kicked from the server because I went over the limit of 350 ping, but my friends were able to remain in the game.

Edit: Zargon mentioned that ping in-game is actually round-trip, which makes of for a lot of it too.
 
Last edited:
The ping changes once you're in game because it's tied to your computer's performance. If you have a very beefy computer, you'll be lucky to have 100 ping. If your computer sucks, your ping might be upwards of 300. I learned this because some of my friends and I were playing BC2 at my house one day, and even though we were all using the same internet connection, my ping was drastically higher than that of my friends because my laptop sucks. Consequently, my friends had better pings because their computers had better video cards. I actually ended up being kicked from the server because I went over the limit of 350 ping, but my friends were able to remain in the game.

It shouldnt have been my machine...i7 950@4Ghz, 12GB RAM, GTX 460 FTW or 5870 (switching between the two). I would also expect it to always be in the same range, but hop onto another server and its sub 100. I do record often using Fraps at 1080p60, which effects my framerate, but other people on the server complain about it as well, and their in game pings are all high as well. Oh well, its not a deal breaker, just hope things are better in BF3.
 
Last edited:
Honestly though, is that such a bad thing? Granted, I'm admittedly new to the Battlefield games, and I don't have as much knowledge as some of you Battlefield "veterans"... but Bad Company 2 is fucking awesome. Here's the way I look at it: If BF3 is like BC2, but with larger maps, more players, and planes, then I will be happy. (Even then, BC2 does have a couple of very large maps... namely Harvest and Heavy Metal).

It's a shame that so many people are trying to compare it to Call of Duty. Battlefield is what made me realize why the multiplayer in CoD sucks so bad.

On another note, the lack of prone is wonderful. You don't have douchebags who rapidly bounce on and off the ground to try to dodge your bullets. Snipers don't have an unfair advantage - if you had 5 snipers on a hill while in prone, they would murder your whole team and you wouldn't be able to spot any of them. Not to mention, it just doesn't look right with deformed terrain.


Huh?


The ping changes once you're in game because it's tied to your computer's performance. If you have a very beefy computer, you'll be lucky to have 100 ping. If your computer sucks, your ping might be upwards of 300. I learned this because some of my friends and I were playing BC2 at my house one day, and even though we were all using the same internet connection, my ping was drastically higher than that of my friends because my laptop sucks. Consequently, my friends had better pings because their computers had better video cards. I actually ended up being kicked from the server because I went over the limit of 350 ping, but my friends were able to remain in the game.

Edit: Zargon mentioned that ping in-game is actually round-trip, which makes of for a lot of it too.
Was your laptop on a wireless connection?? THAT will raise your ping through the roof. I used to play on a wireless connection and the latency was TERRIBLE. I wired up to the exact same router and my ping went from like 300-500 to 80-100. It makes a huge difference.
 
You could always just get a decent Intel PCIe NIC for like $20 bucks and see if that takes care of a shitty onboard LAN having too many cpu cycles taken away.
 
Honestly though, is that such a bad thing? Granted, I'm admittedly new to the Battlefield games, and I don't have as much knowledge as some of you Battlefield "veterans"... but Bad Company 2 is fucking awesome. Here's the way I look at it: If BF3 is like BC2, but with larger maps, more players, and planes, then I will be happy. (Even then, BC2 does have a couple of very large maps... namely Harvest and Heavy Metal).

It's a shame that so many people are trying to compare it to Call of Duty. Battlefield is what made me realize why the multiplayer in CoD sucks so bad.

On another note, the lack of prone is wonderful. You don't have douchebags who rapidly bounce on and off the ground to try to dodge your bullets. Snipers don't have an unfair advantage - if you had 5 snipers on a hill while in prone, they would murder your whole team and you wouldn't be able to spot any of them. Not to mention, it just doesn't look right with deformed terrain.

Since you said you haven't played any other Battlefields, you truly don't know how awesome 1942 and 2 were. They play ENTIRELY different than Bad Company 2. Bad Company 2 is fairly fun but nothing close as fun as older Battlefields were. They play so different they really aren't comparable.
 
It shouldnt have been my machine...i7 950@4Ghz, 12GB RAM, GTX 460 FTW or 5870 (switching between the two). I would also expect it to always be in the same range, but hop onto another server and its sub 100.
Interesting. At this point I guess it might just be something to do with the server then. *Shrug*

Was your laptop on a wireless connection?? THAT will raise your ping through the roof. I used to play on a wireless connection and the latency was TERRIBLE. I wired up to the exact same router and my ping went from like 300-500 to 80-100. It makes a huge difference.
Nah, my laptop was definitely using wired. Speaking of, my main desktop actually uses a wireless PCI adapter, and my ping usually stays below 150. So it's not bad. It's a cheap wireless card too.

Since you said you haven't played any other Battlefields, you truly don't know how awesome 1942 and 2 were. They play ENTIRELY different than Bad Company 2. Bad Company 2 is fairly fun but nothing close as fun as older Battlefields were. They play so different they really aren't comparable.
Good deal then. I only played BF2 once, briefly at a LAN party, but I didn't get into it enough to really appreciate it. I'll have to pick it up sometime. All in all, I have good faith in DICE that Battlefield 3 will be an epic game. (Most likely with bugs at first, but it will be ironed out into something almost perfect).
 
Almost no faith in DICE on this one, but we'll see... I'll almost certainly buy it anyway based on the fact BF2 and BF2142 were phenomenal. BC2 was good but I quickly grew tired of it, albet after almost 40 hours in.
 
I hope this is not just beefed up BC2. BC2 is better than codmw2, codbo, etc. The scale was what made BF2 great. I am not thrilled about soldier customization or special armor, that kind of shit either.
 
I hope this is not just beefed up BC2. BC2 is better than codmw2, codbo, etc. The scale was what made BF2 great. I am not thrilled about soldier customization or special armor, that kind of shit either.

I just started playing BC2 online today..I was quite aggravated when I had to play for hours just to get enough points to unlock the shock paddles for the medic. Other than that, it's a lot of fun..would be more fun if I didn't suck at it 😛
 
I just started playing BC2 online today..I was quite aggravated when I had to play for hours just to get enough points to unlock the shock paddles for the medic. Other than that, it's a lot of fun..would be more fun if I didn't suck at it 😛

Ahh, I forgot that regular people starting out didn't get anything for any classes. I had all that stuff unlocked as I had played many other BF games before.
 
Back
Top