**OFFICIAL** AT Battlefield 3 FAQ and News Thread

[NikolaeVarius]

the people on the PC must be worse then those on the console because i dont have nearly as many of these lone wolf issues you guys seem to playing on the PS3

The tiny map sizes don't show lone wolves because there is nowhere to go.

Everyone can easily zerg rush points because they're all so close to each other.
Lone wolves are hard to see on most maps because they're mostly chokepoints that people HAVE to follow, or are tiny maps in the first place.

If you aren't with a squad and staying with them, you are a lone wolf. Simply being in a vehicle with a squad mate does not mean you are a team player. Unless the squad is constantly all playing together you're being a lone wolves that use each other for spawning. Do you spawn on a squad mate thinking "He, my squad and I, are going to work together to cap the undefended point" or do you spawn on him thinking "Cool, hes close to the defended cap point".

Also, complete and total lack of orders make it hard to see lone wolves, because you have no fucking idea what you squad is thinking. There is no centralized way to show your squad what you want to happen

 

[llee]

The patch will change the way helicopters are used in this game. Typical BB pilots won't be able to hover above the battlefield like they could before. They'll have to fly with a purpose and be more concious of their surroundings. On the bright side you won't have to fly under a bridge to shake javelins anymore

 

[Exterous]

P.S. Laser sights weren't put into the game to shine it into my eyes to let me know you're alive and well.

Agreed. They were put in the game to finally get the attention of that medic or support who can't be bothered to drop health/ammo packs for you

With 6 man squads in BF2, standard procedure(or what could be standard if procedure were standardized)

I do miss the larger squad size. I have a lot of fond memories of scooting around to the back base and hiding while my squad spawned on me. I'm not quite getting the same squad feeling in BF3

 

[SLU Aequitas]

agreed. They were put in the game to finally get the attention of zargon who can't be bothered to drop health/ammo packs for you

ftfy

 

[GullyFoyle]

New Battlefield Blog Post: Bringing Battlefield into Close Quarters

With Battlefield 3™: Close Quarters, we want to claim new territory and broaden the Battlefield 3 experience. In this episode of “Inside DICE”, Lead Designer Niklas Fegraeus talks about the inspiration for going indoors, and what possibilities and challenges this presented.

HD Destruction Video

Hi everyone. This is Niklas Fegraeus, Lead Designer on Battlefield 3: Close Quarters. Above is an early test video we recorded during a play test to judge the effect of our new destruction. But first things first:

In 2001, while making games for the Sega Dreamcast, I began a career as a clan player in Counter-Strike. This eventually became a semiprofessional part time job, as I got a sponsor, won several LAN tournaments and competed in the Cyber athlete Professional League.

Now, in 2012, my competitive mouse is put on the shelf, but I consider the experiences from those days invaluable to my role as game designer making Battlefield games.
Counter-Strike is a very tactical and precise art of close quarters shooting, so I can comfortably say I know a little about how those tight shooter experiences play, and how they should play.

Battlefield on the other hand, is a huge game in more ways than one. Even we developers sometimes have a hard time realizing its breadth. You can go from clearing a house of enemy soldiers through careful squad tactics to soaring through the sky in a jet fighter, frantically evading enemy anti-air weaponry, all in the same round.

I can still recall the thrill of that scale and freedom I had when I first tried the game. It was the BF1942 demo on Wake Island (before I joined the crew here at DICE) and I was raging over those damn fighter planes that kept dropping bombs on my head! However, rage and confusion turned to evil grin as I found the AA-guns and used them to good effect!
Three years later, I landed my dream job working at DICE on Battlefield 2! Having worked as Animator and Designer on Battlefield 2, it was especially satisfying to be Lead Designer on Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand and bring some of the most classic maps from Battlefield 2 into Battlefield 3.

When I finished up Back to Karkand, I already knew I needed to start on our next themed expansion pack for release in June. This time, I really wanted to expand Battlefield 3 and give players even more experiences to choose from. But I didn’t know how to approach it.
Then I remembered those nights at my sponsor’s Internet café, where I and my clan for hours on end practiced the best way to attack a well-defended room, using only a few grenades and the business end of our rifles.

Battlefield 3: Close Quarters Gameplay Premiere Trailer

There is something very unique about an indoor fire fight. You have to cover angles in new ways, use sound to track your enemies, navigate with much more careful precision and most importantly, you’re never safe. Danger is always no more than a few meters away. It’s a scenario that always makes me feel 100% in the fight. There is no dull moment, you’re always on your toes, on the edge.

The closest you come to this type of tight combat scenario in Battlefield 3 is on Operation Métro. We know this is one of our most popular maps, which tells us that our gameplay has what it takes to perform in such unique and frantic conditions.

I had an approach for our new expansion pack. Now, I just needed to refine it. I needed to find those elements that make the adrenaline levels go through the roof and keep you constantly on that edge. I want the player to feel like Hudson in Aliens, as he is watching the motion scanner bleep faster and faster, realizing that the safety he thought he had isn’t there anymore, and that death is already in the room.

I sat down and spoke with Jhony Ljungstedt, my art director, and had a discussion about how we could achieve this. After bouncing random ideas for a while, he told me that even though that explosive scene from “The Matrix” was rather old, seeing Neo and Trinity turn a lobby into rubble in slow motion did leave a huge impression, and hadn’t ever been properly done in a game. We both agreed and Jhony said he really wanted to be able to create that sensation.

“Imagine tearing a place down using only bullets, watching chunks being torn off the walls, littering the floors like a dropped bag of grey marbles” he said.

“I wanted everything to get shot to pieces.
Really, really small pieces”​

And that’s when it occurred to me. We have a golden opportunity here. When removing large and process heavy elements like tanks, and scaling down Battlefield to a tighter scale, we are given some extra Frostbite 2 oomph at our disposal. The engine has fantastic destructive capabilities, and with more CPU overhead, we could put it to the ultimate test.

I wanted to see if we could destroy things in greater detail. I wanted everything to get shot to pieces. Really, really small pieces. In short, I wanted destruction to go High Definition.

After a series of prototypes and testing, we had a working model and immediately put it into practice. A grey and boring test level became the scene for a big floating stairway, with supporting pillars surrounded by temporary walls, just so we wouldn’t fall into oblivion.
We had incorporated some early HD Destruction in this test level just for proof of concept. Then, we simply asked the testers: “Shoot at everything”. And they did. The place immediately got torn to pieces, as bullets ripped through the grey prototype materials, spreading chunks of it everywhere, literally creating a carpet of debris on the floor. Walls had big holes where there was once solid wood or plaster. You could create new angles and ways of attack, just by firing your normal gun. This was new to Battlefield, as you would normally need heavier hardware like RPG’s or tanks to blow up walls in the base game.

We immediately knew this was something really cool and would have a significant impact on both how you play and how you experience that play. HD Destruction immediately became a key factor in bringing the intensity of the Battlefield experience into close quarters combat, and looking at it now, in its complete implementation, it feels great to finally be able to show it to everyone.

While HD Destruction has a significant impact on how you experience the second-to-second gameplay, we also had to tackle the challenges of bringing our tried and tested game modes to the smaller scale. We understood quickly that Rush, being a large and progressive mode that takes you on a journey from M-COM to M-COM, simply wouldn’t fit physically. So instead, we turned our attention to Conquest. How could we tailor this essential Battlefield game mode to fit our new type of environment?

I spoke to my Game Designer Gustav Halling who, like me, has a history of competitive FPS gaming. We remembered Unreal Tournament from way back in 1999. It was the first time the world saw the game mode “Domination”, which is very similar to Conquest. There are some differences though, and the Domination type gameplay usually takes place on smaller maps, much like the ones we were creating.

Inspired by these memories, we used the spawning systems from Battlefield 3 Team Deathmatch and came up with a Conquest mode adapted for smaller spaces. We called it Conquest Domination, and it worked beautifully. In particular, flag defense is suddenly more important, and you get different tactical layers due to the subtle differences the new mode provides. It’s reminiscent of those tactics I practiced to perfection in my e-sports days. Listen for the footsteps, spray the wall, throw your grenade, cover one angle each and constantly communicate. The experience grows with our tried and tested squad play mechanics, and the intensity and pure challenge of trying to dominate these close quarters is something I’m convinced will put even the best squads to the test.

Designing a new experience isn’t easy. Many things were created and tested, many things didn’t fit, and there are millions of fans whose wishes you want to fulfill. Ultimately, it’s about finding a meaningful core idea, and realizing it with relentless attention to detail.

We wanted the thrill of fighting in close quarters. We wanted the adrenaline rush that comes from always being one second from potential death. We wanted the world around you to be both your best friend and mortal enemy, by protecting you in one moment and in the next, completely failing you by opening up new ways for the enemy to attack.

Often when I remove my headphones from a playtests on Close Quarters, I’m shaking like a leaf from all of the adrenaline. So personally, I am very happy and proud of where we are with our next expansion pack. Most of all, I’m happy with how versatile our game is, and how my team has helped broaden it further.

Niklas Fegraeus, Lead Designer Battlefield 3: Close Quarters

You’ve seen the Close Quarters trailer and HD Destruction Timelapse video. What are you most looking forward to in this expansion pack?

• Blowing a hole in a wall and shooting enemies on the other side
• Walking outside on the roof, shooting the glass in the ceiling and dropping down into the room below
• Room sweeping with my shotgun
• Creating my own HD Destruction timelapse video

View Results

The new game play mode is Conquest Domination. Le sigh..

 

[Sureshot324]

You realize that is the point behind battlefield right? No running right into the guns and respawning 100 meters away. You know its a long trek back, so you try to stay alive.

You need to play smart and work with your team. Keep squad leaders alive so you can spawn on them and not having to spawn a 10 minute walk away, and control key points that allow you to easily get around the map.

That is the entire point of the game. If you can't figure out why we like forcing you stay alive and not play a run and gun game like COD, well, I can see why you've never played BF2.

Denial of assets and infrastructure should be a HUGE part of the game. You're not having fun because the enemy is kicking your ass? Well, you're playing the damn game wrong. Get a squad, order them to attack a point, and work together, instead of only using your squad mates as mobile spawn points and nothing else.

This is exactly what BF3 lacks, an complete disincentive to work together. There is no reason to work together because so much is handed to you on a silver platter, there is so little reason to squad up and work with your squad and no tools are given to you to help with that. Everyone wants to run around and play like idiots instead of staying with your squad and playing like a team. And then, people complain that the game isn't fun because they can't lone wolf it easily, and take a jeep with no one in it, drive up 100m, and leave the rest of the team to dry. No one wants to work together, and they complain when the map forces you to work together so you dont have to take 10 minute long walks.

This is exactly why this game is like COD. If you took COD, and put in squads, absolutely nothing would change, and it would more or less be exactly liek BF3. The very existence of vehicles does not differentiate this game enough, when the teamwork required to get at those vehicles simply doesn't exist. It might as well be BF3's killstreaks because they're basically one man assets, instead of team assets.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I don't agree more spread out maps is the answer. Denial of assets is important, yes, but basic transportation on huge maps should NOT be included in that. In BF3 dying means you have to wait like 10 seconds until you respawn plus walk a fair distance. That's enough of a disincentive. You still have to think strategically on how you're going to approach and cap a point. Repeatedly rushing in and dying isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I don't agree more spread out maps is the answer. Denial of assets is important, yes, but basic transportation on huge maps should NOT be included in that. In BF3 dying means you have to wait like 10 seconds until you respawn plus walk a fair distance. That's enough of a disincentive. You still have to think strategically on how you're going to approach and cap a point. Repeatedly rushing in and dying isn't going to get you anywhere.

If maps were large enough, we could have a system where respawning on squad leader has a 15 second timer, but respawning at least 100m from where you died(ie, another flag) could be instant.

so, entire squad dies, instantly respawns at the nearest flag, squad leader requests a vehicle drop and instantly receives one because each squad gets their own drop timer. Profit? Could we massively increase map size with a system like that?

 

[Sureshot324]

If maps were large enough, we could have a system where respawning on squad leader has a 15 second timer, but respawning at least 100m from where you died(ie, another flag) could be instant.

so, entire squad dies, instantly respawns at the nearest flag, squad leader requests a vehicle drop and instantly receives one because each squad gets their own drop timer. Profit? Could we massively increase map size with a system like that?

Well that would negate NikolaeVarius's reason for wanting large maps (the need to keep someone in the squad alive near the point you're attacking), so what's your reason?

IMO your proposition doesn't give enough of a penalty for dying. You could die and instantly respawn at another point that needs defending. As far as the need to control the assets at points such as tanks, I don't see what that has to do with the size of the map.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Well that would negate NikolaeVarius's reason for wanting large maps (the need to keep someone in the squad alive near the point you're attacking), so what's your reason?

IMO your proposition doesn't give enough of a penalty for dying. You could die and instantly respawn at another point that needs defending. As far as the need to control the assets at points such as tanks, I don't see what that has to do with the size of the map.

No, you still have to keep your squad leader alive. When I say large maps, I mean LARGE maps...it would still be a 30 second drive between flags. But the key is that you not be forced to walk, because then that would be 90 seconds at least, and that I can understand is too slow. Maybe increase the per squad vehicle drop to 5 minutes instead of every 3 minutes, if there wasn't enough penalty.

With BF3's tiny maps, even, relatively, such as Firestorm, nearly all the vehicles spawn at the main base. With the flags already packed so tightly, how are they going to justify adding tank spawns to flags without increasing the map size? I mean, you CAN add vehicles, but as you do, if the map stays the same, it just becomes more and more of a vehicle rape game, which small map lovers often cite as a turn-off for large maps. With big distances between flags, people can sneak around, especially in light fast vehicles, but even moreso on foot if they choose to do so, without being seen and raped every time by a vehicle.

 

[SLU Aequitas]

No, you still have to keep your squad leader alive. When I say large maps, I mean LARGE maps...it would still be a 30 second drive between flags. But the key is that you not be forced to walk, because then that would be 90 seconds at least, and that I can understand is too slow. Maybe increase the per squad vehicle drop to 5 minutes instead of every 3 minutes, if there wasn't enough penalty.

With BF3's tiny maps, even, relatively, such as Firestorm, nearly all the vehicles spawn at the main base. With the flags already packed so tightly, how are they going to justify adding tank spawns to flags without increasing the map size? I mean, you CAN add vehicles, but as you do, if the map stays the same, it just becomes more and more of a vehicle rape game, which small map lovers often cite as a turn-off for large maps. With big distances between flags, people can sneak around, especially in light fast vehicles, but even moreso on foot if they choose to do so, without being seen and raped every time by a vehicle.

Basically, more like BF2. But on a larger scale.

I still have some hope for the armor DLC pushing the scale to be more like this. The thing I preferred was vehicle-oriented flags--in Caspian, you only have A and E spawning a sole tank + jeep, whereas in some BF2 maps you had multiple vehicles per flag, and deciding WHICH (and whether to hold at all) flag to hold made a significant difference in the overall strategy of your team.

 

[scooterlibby]

The new game play mode is Conquest Domination. Le sigh..

What were you hoping for? Didn't see your earlier posts about this.

The new destruction looks nifty.

 

[Lifted]

As BF3 is 50% off on Origin this weekend, I've been thinking about pulling the trigger on this one.

Is $30 a good deal for this game right now, or can it be found on sale often?

Would it run respectably on this system?
Core2 Duo 2.2
6750 1GB
6GB

Min specs say C2D 2.4, but maybe the 6750 could pick up the slack?

I had no problem with BF BC2 at 1920x1080 on this, but BF3 looks to be quite a bit beyond that one graphically.

 

[raasco]

As BF3 is 50% off on Origin this weekend, I've been thinking about pulling the trigger on this one.

Is $30 a good deal for this game right now, or can it be found on sale often?

Would it run respectably on this system?
Core2 Duo 2.2
6750 1GB
6GB

Min specs say C2D 2.4, but maybe the 6750 could pick up the slack?

I had no problem with BF BC2 at 1920x1080 on this, but BF3 looks to be quite a bit beyond that one graphically.

That would be pretty tough going for you. My friend tried playing with a older dual core@2.8ghz and would have texture and audio losses all the time at 1280x1024 resolution on medium settings. I'm letting him use a older phenom quad core and things have improved quite a bit. No more loss of audio or partial visuals and his HD4850 is tiding him over for the moment.

 

[Lifted]

That would be pretty tough going for you. My friend tried playing with a older dual core@2.8ghz and would have texture and audio losses all the time at 1280x1024 resolution on medium settings. I'm letting him use a older phenom quad core and things have improved quite a bit. No more loss of audio or partial visuals and his HD4850 is tiding him over for the moment.

Yikes, doesn't appear to be worth it at the moment.

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[imaheadcase]

The map designed for close quarters was a avid counterstrike player..you don't say!. lol

 

[GullyFoyle]

Originally Posted by GullyFoyle

The new game play mode is Conquest Domination. Le sigh..

What were you hoping for? Didn't see your earlier posts about this.

The new destruction looks nifty.

I've been a fan of Capture the Flag in Battlefield since 1942.

 

[destrekor]

Everyone complains about DLC and "activating chunks of original code at a later date" and rehashed/unoriginal expansions, and when we finally get a refreshing dip into the original approaches devs have had, it's all backlash. lol

They've got three expansions coming out, and it sounds like they are all set for this calendar year. Personally, even if I don't like the new features, they ARE expansions and you can continue playing with older content (and only older content).
Plus, it's new. It's not just new maps, it's new experiences. (yes, they might be slightly copied from other games, it's different for us here).

I can't say whether I'll like it or not, typically I find different things to like about a lot of what is offered in BF3 thus far.
We'll get out massive maps (hopefully good ones) and new features for those later, but this one is offering something to help draw in even more people, plus it's a refreshing change of pace imho. Play a lot of larger maps, and from time to time, get sucked into some crazy ass fights in some really close spaces. As long as it's not funnel of death syndrome, I'll be pleased in that regard (though I still enjoy those maps, if the teams are matched up well).

I'll probably be getting each expansion, just because it provides even more options in the event I feel like something different from what is currently available.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Well, picked up the back to Karkand expansion for cheap. What did they do to my Strike at Karkand. They took a map that was huge and had a great combination of building combat and wide open combat...and made it into this tiny tiny TINY ass map that has the shape of the Bf2 version.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I've been a fan of Capture the Flag in Battlefield since 1942.

Actually...yea...does anyone have any idea why there's never been CTF again? (Note: If it was in 2142 , BC1 or BF: V I would not know)

 

[imaheadcase]

Everyone complains about DLC and "activating chunks of original code at a later date" and rehashed/unoriginal expansions, and when we finally get a refreshing dip into the original approaches devs have had, it's all backlash. lol

They've got three expansions coming out, and it sounds like they are all set for this calendar year. Personally, even if I don't like the new features, they ARE expansions and you can continue playing with older content (and only older content).
Plus, it's new. It's not just new maps, it's new experiences. (yes, they might be slightly copied from other games, it's different for us here).


I'll probably be getting each expansion, just because it provides even more options in the event I feel like something different from what is currently available.

That is the problem, it alienates those who don't get the new stuff, it further splits up the players. More does not equal better.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Well, picked up the back to Karkand expansion for cheap. What did they do to my Strike at Karkand. They took a map that was huge and had a great combination of building combat and wide open combat...and made it into this tiny tiny TINY ass map that has the shape of the Bf2 version.

I'm not sure how you feel the map is so drastically different in BF3. It's still a big map, but it plays different in this game because of weapon handling and movement speed.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I'm not sure how you feel the map is so drastically different in BF3. It's still a big map, but it plays different in this game because of weapon handling and movement speed.

That map is tiny. Its too easy to move between points. Is the bridge even destructible, that was a key feature.

Though it might be because of the infinite sprint. There was a flow to the BF2 map that simply isn't present in this map because its too easy to move between points. There is very little penalty to being some random area of the map because its too easy to move to a point

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I'm not sure how you feel the map is so drastically different in BF3. It's still a big map, but it plays different in this game because of weapon handling and movement speed.

Karkand is mega compared to Metro and yet, you're right, weapon handling makes it play like a tiny map. I would never blame movement speed because I believe even BF2 should have unlimited sprint, and also, BF3 sprint is at best a top speed jog, it's just unlimited compared to BF2.

But those weapon handling changes make the huge difference. I've already conceded people want easy spray weapons that give kills at ranges extended far beyond BF2, but we need maps to increase exponentially in order to make up for that. DICE could easily cater to both sides, Metro for one, large maps for the other, but they need to stop kidding themselves that Firestorm is large enough. Or Oman. AND there's another thing about the BF3 "large" maps. They are all on flat ground!! There's no such thing as squads terrain masking their approach to ANYWHERE.

 

[GullyFoyle]

Actually...yea...does anyone have any idea why there's never been CTF again? (Note: If it was in 2142 , BC1 or BF: V I would not know)

Lars Gustavsson said

Hi Lars! What was the initial design goal you and the team set for Battlefield 3 multiplayer?
-- We thought a lot about Battlefield 2 and how Battlefield 3 would relate to it. The mindset at DICE during the development of Battlefield 2 was pretty much: “Play the game our way, or play something else”. Now, we have made a conscious effort to reverse that mentality. The goal with Battlefield 3 is to offer a vast variety of gameplay experiences and to be inviting to everyone. We’re not telling you how to play the game. You choose.

...

Where did the “play our way” mentality come from and how did the change come about?
-- I think it emanated from the pride in the unique game modes we created at DICE, like Conquest and Rush. We’re still super proud of them, but going into Battlefield 3 we had a frank discusion about our mindset. We discussed the strengths of Battlefield and ended up with a lot of interesting questions. Does teamplay have to be squad based, or can it be in a more general sense of playing together? Am I less of a gamer if I don’t want to play in squads? If I want Team Deathmatch? If I want infantry only gameplay? That discussion really was an eye-opener and has changed how we view ourselves and what we set out to do with Battlefield 3.

They dumped CTF during BF2 to focus on their own original game modes.
This early interview with Lars on BF3 sparked my hope that CTF could return.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Lars Gustavsson said


They dumped CTF during BF2 to focus on their own original game modes.
This early interview with Lars on BF3 sparked my hope that CTF could return.

Am I less of a gamer if I don’t want to play in squads?

Even teamkillers and people who sit their ogre in front of small doorways in MMORPGs are still gamers. This is therefore a ridiculous question that has a meaningless answer. The proper question is, am I less valuable to my teammates if I don't want to play in squads? The answer is a complete Yes.

The real puzzler is, they are working to provide deathmatch and other non-teamplay modes to people, why do they seem so willing to allow the non-teamplayers to sit and camp in Conquest, an inherent teamplay mode?

And Capture the Flag, that REQUIRES teamplay otherwise one team gets owned hard. I guess I answered my own question here. Anything that requires teamplay and can't be treated as a pseudo-deathmatch mode is tossed.