Screenfilling readable scans have popped up...

Thanks dude, 'preciate it

The only piece of reading that bothered me was his explanation of the Commander position and how it was good that, in BC2, you could call UAV's and the likes without a chain of command.
He didn't specifically say what they're doing but I get a feeling there won't even be a squad leader, even if he did say that they have a lot in store for how the player is suppose to play with his friends!

At GDC I'm personally more interested in more show and tell about the multiplayer in general. The singleplayer is what it is and this article more or less only mentions specific details about SP so I'm content with that for now.

Thanks for the scans. I'm pretty excited to see what they show off at GDC.

" The only piece of reading that bothered me was his explanation of the Commander position and how it was good that, in BC2, you could call UAV's and the likes without a chain of command. He didn't specifically say what they're doing but I get a feeling there won't even be a squad leader, even if he did say that they have a lot in store for how the player is suppose to play with his friends! "

"@boj4ngles:Top left corner on page 1. 64 for PC, 24 for consoles. "

Though I kinda understand why, BF3 has a lot more information being sent between clients than other games on consoles with more players. 

I finally have an excuse to build a new PC, been looking forward to this game since Battlefield 2.

reading now, thanks bud. 
 
edit: 

"This isnt just another new Battefield game, either. it's the long awaited true successor of the legendary PC exclusive that players still enjoy today." 

" @Afroman269: Why is it a complaint?  Because MAG had frickin 164 players and DICE, the company which perfected large scale online shooters is setting up 24.  When they said they were putting BF3 on the consoles (not BFBC3, but BF3), there was an automatic expectation that it was not going to be just another Bad Company sequel.  No, I'm allowed to be pissed, especially since DICE could simply have bumped the player count to 40 or so and that would have fixed it. "

Or perhaps MAG itself was dumbed down on the network side, to fit into the limitations that Sony had set.  Idk though, I'm just guessing!

Okay only because so many people are talking about Commander...
 
Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean).
 
If included in BF3 it should be entirely revamped, probably renamed, and hopefully just left out completely.  Yes, battlefield is strategic.  That's the whole point why it stands out amongst FPS.  But it's still an FPS.  It should incorporate strategy into the FPS framework, not the other way around.  Let the battle be on the field not on a grid.

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "

I keep reading coverstory as controversy, I think im losing it, or maybe not, is anyone up in arms about this particular cover story? Maybe someone really disliked the font they chose?

" @tariqari said:

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "

...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base? "

But mag didn't have heavy destruction and multiple vehicles whos network information need to be transmitted, without delay to all clients in realtime. It would suck if you blew up a wall, but the guy behind the wall couldn't be shot because the wall hasn't blown up on his client yet... And by the sounds of it, they have upped the destruction in BF3, so upping the playerlimit from BC2 would be quite a feat.

@tariqari:

Commander didn't suck, a good commander could win the battle, as long as the team were alert and roughly followed some instructions. Granted, you didn't see much of that, and I agree it needs to be revamped - but I don't think it should be removed.

" @tariqari said:

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "

...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base? "

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean)."

Those are the best scans I've seen posted on the net yet, the game's graphics are quite good and I hope Battlefield 3 will be the shooter to knock Call of Duty of its throne.

So if I go on their forums and start complaining to raise the console player count to at least 32 or 40 do you think it can happen? I mean I at least want to feel like the scale is bigger than bad company or else there's no point in getting it except for revamped visuals and animations. Pretty much just BC3...

" @boj4ngles:  but you've also got to take into account while a decent game mag looks like shit. thats probably why they were able to sustain such a high player count. "

" @Mikemcn: I thought it said controversy too, we're all going crazy I believe...some form of disbelief of BF3's release gone extreme :O "

" I keep reading coverstory as controversy, I think im losing it, or maybe not, is anyone up in arms about this particular cover story? Maybe someone really disliked the font they chose? "

" @Afroman269: Why is it a complaint?  Because MAG had frickin 164 players and DICE, the company which perfected large scale online shooters is setting up 24.  When they said they were putting BF3 on the consoles (not BFBC3, but BF3), there was an automatic expectation that it was not going to be just another Bad Company sequel.  No, I'm allowed to be pissed, especially since DICE could simply have bumped the player count to 40 or so and that would have fixed it. "

" @tariqari said:

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean)."

The commander hid in back because he was important.  He controlled the UAV placement (which no one was pounded by, since they only spotted in a small radius and were not offensive at all), artillery strikes (useful for softening the other team's defense or defending a flag), vehicle drops, and supply drops (back when you didn't regenerate health, these were very important; they often meant the difference between holding a point and losing it). "

"  Ok so, no commander because you want to give everyone those 'powers' , and the squad talk made me feel uneasy.. like its not structured and organized, just 4 player squads with no leader again.. 
 So Battlefield 3 is devoid of any form of leadership... yup im not gonna complain anymore, i'll just take it. dont wanna ask for a key asset of the Battlefield games (fucking leadership) and be told im 'bitching'

" @boj4ngles said:

" @Afroman269: Why is it a complaint?  Because MAG had frickin 164 players and DICE, the company which perfected large scale online shooters is setting up 24.  When they said they were putting BF3 on the consoles (not BFBC3, but BF3), there was an automatic expectation that it was not going to be just another Bad Company sequel.  No, I'm allowed to be pissed, especially since DICE could simply have bumped the player count to 40 or so and that would have fixed it. "

Dude, consoles use hardware that's nearly 5 years old and wasn't even top of the line at the time they were released. I wouldn't even be able run BF3 on a PC with similar hardware, let alone at anything higher than low settings with any more than a few players. You should be happy that the game will look decent and run with 24 players on the consoles. If you want 64 players with the level of visuals DICE is promising then you're going to have to build a PC. "

I keep misreading this as "Controversy" and coming here to see a fight.
Edit: Reading some of the thread now, I clearly was not the only one.

" Thanks for the scans. I was almost about to buy a copy just for this. That's why I'm almost certain these are against the forum rules. 

@IcySandman said:

" @Mikemcn: I thought it said controversy too, we're all going crazy I believe...some form of disbelief of BF3's release gone extreme :O "

You guys aren't the only ones. No clue why there's no space between  the words. "

" @Ahmad_Metallic:Where did they say they would only have 4-player squads? The only part I could find in the article about squads was basically "We're not ready to talk about that yet." "

" @easthill said:

" @Ahmad_Metallic:Where did they say they would only have 4-player squads? The only part I could find in the article about squads was basically "We're not ready to talk about that yet." "

when you tell him that 4-player squads are troublesome for alot of players and he says "yes, we're working on enhancing yada yada yada, we wanna make it more accessible and take it further, yada yada" that means they're still trying to please everyone and not give power to one man in the squad if there there 6+ man squads with squad leaders, which the PC crowds want, he would have said it without any of the diplomatic embellishments..  another indicator of that is them removing the Commander position because they want the players to feel equal with their access to things like UAV.. that shows you that they wanna give everyone a big dick ingame and not have any sort of leadership. "

" @Ahmad_Metallic said:

" @easthill said:

" @Ahmad_Metallic:Where did they say they would only have 4-player squads? The only part I could find in the article about squads was basically "We're not ready to talk about that yet." "

when you tell him that 4-player squads are troublesome for alot of players and he says "yes, we're working on enhancing yada yada yada, we wanna make it more accessible and take it further, yada yada" that means they're still trying to please everyone and not give power to one man in the squad if there there 6+ man squads with squad leaders, which the PC crowds want, he would have said it without any of the diplomatic embellishments..  another indicator of that is them removing the Commander position because they want the players to feel equal with their access to things like UAV.. that shows you that they wanna give everyone a big dick ingame and not have any sort of leadership. "

I never actually played BF2 (Never had a PC adequate for it, and now I don't even want to try getting into it) but I, too, realize that giving a UAV to anyone could potentially be pretty.. bad. I enjoy the thought of only someone who actually KNOWS how to use their things get those sorts of powers. It was one thing I enjoyed in 2142, having a directive and going there, full squad to take care of the objective. "

I think you've taking the quote a bit out of contest, though the wording in the article is a bit ambiguous.

"It was great to be able to squad ut in the pre-game lobby, but limiting it to the four people in one squad was troublesome for larger groups who wanted to play together. Are you changing your approach for Battlefield 3?"
Well, yes. It's actually a very crucial part of the game. We're thinking a lot about squads and team play - making that even more accessible."

That reads to me as they're revamping the squad-system, not confirming 4-player squads. I'm with you with wanting bigger squads, squad leaders and commanders, and in a 64-player game I think the game needs them, and I hope DICE realizes that too. However, I won't damn them until proven otherwise.

Another thing is that the article doesn't specify if they're talking about PC or consoles, and I would think the squad system need to be different from 24 players to 64 players.

" @MrKlorox said:

" Thanks for the scans. I was almost about to buy a copy just for this. That's why I'm almost certain these are against the forum rules. 

@IcySandman said:

" @Mikemcn: I thought it said controversy too, we're all going crazy I believe...some form of disbelief of BF3's release gone extreme :O "

You guys aren't the only ones. No clue why there's no space between  the words. "

I'm Swiss. Cut me some slack. My native tongue is Swiss German. That's not even regular German. It's German ran through a meat grinder made out of hard 'K's and a lot of 'umlaut' vocals. "

" @Ahmad_Metallic:

I think you've taking the quote a bit out of contest, though the wording in the article is a bit ambiguous.

"It was great to be able to squad ut in the pre-game lobby, but limiting it to the four people in one squad was troublesome for larger groups who wanted to play together. Are you changing your approach for Battlefield 3?"
Well, yes. It's actually a very crucial part of the game. We're thinking a lot about squads and team play - making that even more accessible."

That reads to me as they're revamping the squad-system, not confirming 4-player squads. I'm with you with wanting bigger squads, squad leaders and commanders, and in a 64-player game I think the game needs them, and I hope DICE realizes that too. However, I won't damn them until proven otherwise.

Another thing is that the article doesn't specify if they're talking about PC or consoles, and I would think the squad system need to be different from 24 players to 64 players.

"

" @Ahmad_Metallic:I'm with you on the commander issue, so that's a worry we very much share. I'm looking forward to them revealing the multi-player, hopefully it will lay all our worries to rest. :) "

Think he meant that only two players where able to utilize it in a single game.

It's true a lot of people used it, but I don't agree most were good at it - most weren't even competent. I can't count how many times I've seen a commander in the heli/jet-queue, or running around as a regular soldier with UAV at his own disposal. If they are to keep the commander, he needs a big overhaul. True you could mutiny the commander, but none ever cared enough to vote yes - which maybe is an indication that they didn't really care about him at all.

" @tariqari said:

"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "

...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base? "

" @Mikemcn said:

" I keep reading coverstory as controversy, I think im losing it, or maybe not, is anyone up in arms about this particular cover story? Maybe someone really disliked the font they chose? "

Nah, I did the same thing.  Or does that mean that I'm going insane as well? "

" @Ahmad_Metallic:

Think he meant that only two players where able to utilize it in a single game.

"