I recently re-purchased BF3 for 360 and am enjoying it tremendously again. I'm sure I'll burn out on it again in the near future but as of right now, it's a great game that makes me happy.

@Seppli said:

@Jethuty said:

@Seppli said:

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium more than doubles content for multiplayer, as well as expands gameplay options in both directions of scale - from close quarters to freakishly large maps. For less than you paid for the core game. You could say, Premium is the Battlefield game Battlefield fans always wanted - tons and tons of multiplayer content - no coop and no campaign.

Are you working for EA or something?

Cause im a longtime fan and i never wanted premium

I sure wanted a Season Pass. I pushed for a Battlefield DLC Season Pass on the EA/UK forums, before it even was a thing in the industry. There's a 16+ pages long thread somewhere on this very topic, where-in I argued its benefits for the BF community, over disingenuous scheme's like BF:BC 2's 'free DLC' (there was some awesome original content given, but little and late - and most was just held-back map/mode variations of existing content).

I sure wanted this level of post-launch support, by both the publisher/developer and the community - didn't you? Because back in the day, with multiple expansion/boosters and no 'Season Pass' type of deal, the community got so clustered, that most expansions became quickly unviable. In the binary world Regular and Premium, there's what I suppose to be more than a million Premium players - we are legion, and we play BF3 - all of BF3. That's a healthy environment for an online gaming community to thrive in.

"I sure wanted this level of post-launch support"

yes, but not premium.

are you sure you dont work for EA?

Battlefield 3 is a good game with huge design flaws, it was also trash when it launched, I love aspects of it but everything out side of infantry combat BC2 did better.

Also praising Premium is fucking stupid, I bought it because it was really the most affordable option, I still would prefer it was not an option and that the map packs were a better price, or just free.

@Leptok said:

Bf3 on pc seems to be dying. It seemed like maybe 300 in NA on yesterday.

Yeah, finding a lot of good varied servers isn't quite as easy anymore.

@Seppli: agreed about the visuals effects. The whole dirty lens look and ridiculous lens flare is fucking distracting at times. It's like the whole wet lens cover and dripping screen thing that was (and still is) completely overused for a while--I've even seen it in third-person games, which is over the damn line. And don't even get me started on the CoD jelly vision, gah!

@Sin4profit said:

@Seppli: probably a conflict of different interests, infantry and ground vehicles are fine in BF3 from the start, air vehicles are ruined by crippling it at their first level. Helis are at least do-able from the start but jets are (or were before i quite) terrible until you get rockets.

I'm coming from someone who enjoyed Battlefield 2, i think it would have been better to nerf the starting weapons in air vehicles until leveling them up rather then take them away completely.

That said, i will play the new content as it comes out to see if my opinion changes, but have no interest in BF4 if this is the direction they're sticking to.

Jets are not terrible. I'm getting pretty much all my kills with the main cannon, not with rockets or anything. If I get locked-on, I pretty much already fucked up. Jets are the only vehicle that are inherently fun to play, because the most effective way to play is direct fire and smart manouvering and vehicle mastery - where-as all other vehicles are much more exposed to constant 'lock-on versus cooldown warfare' and random death by draw of luck - jets are all about skill.

Master turning speeds, master HUD crosshairs for the main cannon in each jet, master smart evasive manouvers to shake incoming rockets and other nasties on your six - and you're good. To unlock flares, the first and most basic unlock, it takes about as much as shooting one infantryman with your main cannon. That's like taking candy from a baby. Fly a strafing run on a known sniper perch -> spot -> align effective crosshairs with 3D-spot -> shoot -> profit.

Battlefield has taught me one thing very well. Attitude wins battles. If you want to kill somebody, you need to shoot. If you want to hit somebody, you need to aim. Basic stuff really, but it helps - with Battlefield, and life. Do what you want to do, and then try and do it right.

@Seppli: probably a conflict of different interests, infantry and ground vehicles are fine in BF3 from the start, air vehicles are ruined by crippling it at their first level. Helis are at least do-able from the start but jets are (or were before i quite) terrible until you get rockets.

I'm coming from someone who enjoyed Battlefield 2, i think it would have been better to nerf the starting weapons in air vehicles until leveling them up rather then take them away completely.

That said, i will play the new content as it comes out to see if my opinion changes, but have no interest in BF4 if this is the direction they're sticking to.

i had way more fun in BFBC2 then i did in BF3, i haven't played it in atleast 3-6 months, AK really isn't all that great, only map i saw worth while was the snow map and even that made want to play BFBC2 lol

premium is almost 2x the price of the original game i bought so fuck that shit.

apart from caspian border and some B2K maps, BF3 maps are boring, BFBC2 maps had way more variety, tactical options.

the game play of BF3 is pretty good (guns,choppers) but the rest of the stuff is a turn off.

@Sin4profit said:

@Spoonman671: Considering i feel more at ease playing something like DCS: Black Shark, or Arma 2 you're probably right.

I think Spoonman talks about your gamer's OCD ruining your enjoyment of BF3, not about your capacities as a player.

@Spoonman671: Considering i feel more at ease playing something like DCS: Black Shark, or Arma 2 you're probably right.

@Jethuty said:

@Seppli said:

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium more than doubles content for multiplayer, as well as expands gameplay options in both directions of scale - from close quarters to freakishly large maps. For less than you paid for the core game. You could say, Premium is the Battlefield game Battlefield fans always wanted - tons and tons of multiplayer content - no coop and no campaign.

Are you working for EA or something?

Cause im a longtime fan and i never wanted premium

I sure wanted a Season Pass. I pushed for a Battlefield DLC Season Pass on the EA/UK forums, before it even was a thing in the industry. There's a 16+ pages long thread somewhere on this very topic, where-in I argued its benefits for the BF community, over disingenuous scheme's like BF:BC 2's 'free DLC' (there was some awesome original content given, but little and late - and most was just held-back map/mode variations of existing content).

I sure wanted this level of post-launch support, by both the publisher/developer and the community - didn't you? Because back in the day, with multiple expansion/boosters and no 'Season Pass' type of deal, the community got so clustered, that most expansions became quickly unviable. In the binary world Regular and Premium, there's what I suppose to be more than a million Premium players - we are legion, and we play BF3 - all of BF3. That's a healthy environment for an online gaming community to thrive in.

I [emoticon for "hate"] chasing carrots to get basic features.

I bought the premium with hopes that it would inspire me to become interested in BF3 again but instead i played "Gun Race" (or whatever the hell they call it) said, "hey that's a lot of fun" - saw that i barely got any "XP points" from it, said, welp i'm never playing that again - continued off to redundantly grind with the jet in hopes of it ever being worth a damn - failing to do so and then saying, "fuck this game" and never playing it since.

I want to play the games, not game the games.

@Seppli said:

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium more than doubles content for multiplayer, as well as expands gameplay options in both directions of scale - from close quarters to freakishly large maps. For less than you paid for the core game. You could say, Premium is the Battlefield game Battlefield fans always wanted - tons and tons of multiplayer content - no coop and no campaign.

Are you working for EA or something?

Cause im a longtime fan and i never wanted premium

i liked bad company 2 a lot more. bf3 was disappointing in the long run.

@Jrinswand said:

OP, despite your saying that you hate BF3, I get no sense from that post that you actually hate BF3. It kind of sounds like you love BF3.

I love Battlefield in general. I love the BF3 consumer experience - how the game has evolved since release - as stated in the OP.

I hate many BF3 particulars...

• High contrast, low color saturation graphics.
• BF3 specific systems like suppression and automatic 2D-minimap audio spotting and blinding light.
• Indirect and co-dependency gadgets (Mortar, SOFLAM, MAV, Claymore, EOD - all lame)
• Lock-on warfare versus cooldown timer based defesive measures
• Too dominant and distracting visual effects, like sunglare, self-blinding muzzle flash/barrel smoke, vision blur, extremo vignetting etc.
• Lack of clear visual feedback from muzzle flash and tracer rounds and vapor trails
• Stealth options on every kit reducing overall visual and aural feedback quality tremendously, harming gameplay
• Vehicle customization going too far, resulting in a lack of a clear basic vehicular gameplay functionality and depth
• Sorely missing small arms fire damage on many a vehicle, like choppers and jeeps (anything but MBTs and IFVs really)
• HUD and GUI creating too much noise and clutter - it's more obstructive than it has to be

I'm mostly playing 64 player Conquest on B2K maps. I love it, but there's a missing link between Rush and Conquest - it's the push map principle - because such largescale sandbox freedom delivers a very inconsistent gameplay experience, and push map brings a much clearer direction to the somewhat chaotic and often somewhat non-confrontational tug-of-war of classic Conquest.

Push maps, as seen in games like Desert Combat and Novalogic's Joint Operations, exclusively allow teams to conquer objectives adjacent to their own, and none other - effortlessly giving the whole sandbox chaos a much needed nudge towards a much more clearly defined tug-o-war frontline experience - turning Conquest into a much more confrontational and action packed affair. Consistent confrontation and action on maps even more sprawling tha the largest Battlefield map to date, that's what's possible with a Push Map concept in your back.

Love Conquest, love Rush - but at a 64+ player scale, I feel the 'Missing Link' between the two - namely something along the lines of Push Maps - is the ideal. That's not a really something I hate about BF3, but something I sorely miss. As far as I know, the Homefront guys came up with that, back when they were responsible for the hugely popular Desert Combat mod. Hopefully DICE hired some of 'em after they got closed down, and the 'Missing Link Mode' finds its way into BF4.

@Seppli said:

@Leptok said:

@Seppli

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium more than doubles content for multiplayer, as well as expands gameplay options in both directions of scale - from close quarters to freakishly large maps. For less than you paid for the core game. You could say, Premium is the Battlefield game Battlefield fans always wanted - tons and tons of multiplayer content - no coop and no campaign.

The game we wanted should have been the game we bought.

Well - it's an online game. Online games grow. And the game we bought was more than fine. Now? It's pretty damn close to perfect, outside of personal preferences. Way to be snarky, without backing it up with any substance

Not trying to argue or anything here, I'm just stating my random opinion that nobody here cares about. I find it hard to pay more than 60 dollars, which is a lot, just to get new maps and a few new weapons. I understand that online games need to change and evolve, or else they will just get stale, but I've never like the idea of "map packs". Maybe it's just because I've played TF2 for 4 years, where they've added so much content that in some areas it barely resembles the original game, all just for the price of admission (which, nowadays, is $0.)

Yeah, Premium makes sense when in the end it is saving you money, but the fact that there needs to be a premium just rubs me the wrong way. "Close Quarters: 4 Maps and 10 Weapons for the low price of $15 dollars!" is dumb in my opinion. But, like I said, this is just my opinion. I'm not looking to get in an argument.

PS: I love Battlefield 3 and play it a ton, but I'm not going to buy Premium, and Armored Kill (if I decide to get it) will probably be the only pack that I get.

I will say that on the GB BF3 server in its heyday (ie the 2 weeks before Skyrim came out), it was pretty awesome, lots of good team players.

I [emoticon for "hate"] chasing carrots to get basic features.

I bought the premium with hopes that it would inspire me to become interested in BF3 again but instead i played "Gun Race" (or whatever the hell they call it) said, "hey that's a lot of fun" - saw that i barely got any "XP points" from it, said, welp i'm never playing that again - continued off to redundantly grind with the jet in hopes of it ever being worth a damn - failing to do so and then saying, "fuck this game" and never playing it since.

I want to play the games, not game the games.

@vaportra1l said:

I love BF3, I just hate a good amount of the people who play it. At least with CQ you can just fuck off and do whatever and get points. It just sucks when I try to play some of the big maps and the dudes on my squad are all hiding in the bushes on the edge of the map, not playing the objective.

PTFO or GTFO - too true. Currently playing loads of Guild Wars 2's sPvP, which is a simplest 3 objective capture and hold conquest scenario on all maps (each with a neat twist and spades of subtle depth) - and still after decades of online gaming - it's surprising to me how a majority of players seems to neither know nor care for 'playing the objective', and winning the game the game at hand.

Hell - I've seen the gaming equivalent of a dude drowning in an inch of water too many times to have even a sliver of confidence in humanity left in me. So flippin' sad.

I am very happy with BF3 and dont regret my Premium purchase. However i just found out that the AC-130 is not pilotable in Armored kill... BULL SHIT! other then that im also pretty damn happy with BF3 as a whole i feel DICE has done a good job supporting it.

Quickly as for the low server numbers, it is true the game is nowhere near as popular as it was a few months ago, but with that said i can usually find a server with a large number of people. and when the new DLC comes out next week expect a influx in players, this time more people might stay because these are the type of maps more "hardcore" BF players wanted not close quarters. also Hardcore servers have kind of always been a bit of a nitch thing in my experience. Even when the game was brand new there were way more soft core (normal) servers then hardcore.

I love BF3, I just hate a good amount of the people who play it. At least with CQ you can just fuck off and do whatever and get points. It just sucks when I try to play some of the big maps and the dudes on my squad are all hiding in the bushes on the edge of the map, not playing the objective.

@Akrid said:

@Seppli said:

@Akrid said:

@Chavtheworld: 18th.

Battlelog says 24th/25th, not sure which. Check the news section.

Oh wow, yeah it is 25th for non-premium PC... 18th is for non-premium PS3.

Man, EA really knows how to split their audience. Totally ridiculous schedule just because Sony bought their timetable.

Well... I hope people are still playing!

Not at all interested in Armored Kill. As crazy as it sounds, this is not what I want out of Battlefield. I like the smaller maps, with a focus on infantry combat and maybe one or two vehicles. I can't even remember the last time I played a map like Operation Firestorm or Caspian Border.

OP, despite your saying that you hate BF3, I get no sense from that post that you actually hate BF3. It kind of sounds like you love BF3.

@Seppli said:

@Akrid said:

@Chavtheworld: 18th.

Battlelog says 24th/25th, not sure which. Check the news section.

Oh wow, yeah it is 25th for non-premium PC... 18th is for non-premium PS3.

Man, EA really knows how to split their audience. Totally ridiculous schedule just because Sony bought their timetable.

@Leptok said:

Really I just have a problem with the scumbag nickel and dime stuff they do, and the whole battlelog browser thing has and always will be terrible. Just another layer for them to fuck up/have bugs.

• A. Opinions.
• B. You are wrong about Nickel 'n Dime - Premium's a one-time fee buys all (& perks - at a discount) and it's awesome. People who don't want it wholesale, get to cherry-pick.
• C. You are wrong about Battlelog - it is awesome for a plentora of reasons - not the least of which is the ease with which EA/DICE can iterate upon it, and add more functionality and polish.

In my opinion, you are factually wrong about both the Premium deal, as well as Battlelog.

@Akrid said:

@Chavtheworld: 18th.

Battlelog says 24th/25th, not sure which. Check the news section.

@Chavtheworld: 18th.

@Seppli: Am I right in thinking Armoured Kill is 25th for non-Premium? It's the only expansion pack I want.

Really I just have a problem with the scumbag nickel and dime stuff they do, and the whole battlelog browser thing has and always will be terrible. Just another layer for them to fuck up/have bugs.

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium edition is out soon, is $70 for everything BF3. Might be worth looking into if you don't already have the base game. If you do, I imagine premium will get cheaper once that edition launches.@Leptok said:

@Seppli

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium more than doubles content for multiplayer, as well as expands gameplay options in both directions of scale - from close quarters to freakishly large maps. For less than you paid for the core game. You could say, Premium is the Battlefield game Battlefield fans always wanted - tons and tons of multiplayer content - no coop and no campaign.

The game we wanted should have been the game we bought.

Every Battlefield game bar Vietnam has had expansion packs, BF3 is no different

@Leptok said:

@Seppli

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium more than doubles content for multiplayer, as well as expands gameplay options in both directions of scale - from close quarters to freakishly large maps. For less than you paid for the core game. You could say, Premium is the Battlefield game Battlefield fans always wanted - tons and tons of multiplayer content - no coop and no campaign.

The game we wanted should have been the game we bought.

Well - it's an online game. Online games grow. And the game we bought was more than fine. Now? It's pretty damn close to perfect.

@Leptok said:

@Seppli

@Leptok said:

Bf3 on pc seems to be dying. It seemed like maybe 300 in NA on yesterday.

Those numbers. They're painfully wrong. And you know it.

No, that's what showed up in the Battlelog server browser with no filters at about 2pm cst.

There's your problem. Filters don't work properly if you don't narrow them down. Be more specific and enjoy a loads and loads of active servers filled to the brim with players. Armored Kill comes on the 11th, and it's sure to bump activity tremendously.

@Leptok said:

@Seppli

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium more than doubles content for multiplayer, as well as expands gameplay options in both directions of scale - from close quarters to freakishly large maps. For less than you paid for the core game. You could say, Premium is the Battlefield game Battlefield fans always wanted - tons and tons of multiplayer content - no coop and no campaign.

The game we wanted should have been the game we bought.

Well - it's an online game. Online games grow. And the game we bought was more than fine. Now? It's pretty damn close to perfect, outside of personal preferences. Way to be snarky, without backing it up with any substance.

@Leptok said:

@Seppli

@Leptok said:

Bf3 on pc seems to be dying. It seemed like maybe 300 in NA on yesterday.

Those numbers. They're painfully wrong. And you know it.

No, that's what showed up in the Battlelog server browser with no filters at about 2pm cst.

There's your problem. Filters don't work properly if you don't narrow them down. Be more specific and enjoy a loads and loads of active servers filled to the brim with players. Armored Kill comes on the 11th, and it's sure to bump activity tremendously.

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium more than doubles content for multiplayer, as well as expands gameplay options in both directions of scale - from close quarters to freakishly large maps. For less than you paid for the core game. You could say, Premium is the Battlefield game Battlefield fans always wanted - tons and tons of multiplayer content - no coop and no campaign.

@Mikemcn said:

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Premium more than doubles content for multiplayer, as well as expands gameplay options in both directions of scale - from close quarters to freakishly large maps. For less than you paid for the core game. You could say, Premium is the Battlefield game Battlefield fans always wanted - tons and tons of multiplayer content - no coop and no campaign.

No filter except region I mean. I was trying to find a 64 player hardcore rush server.

@Leptok said:

Bf3 on pc seems to be dying. It seemed like maybe 300 in NA on yesterday.

Those numbers. They're painfully wrong. And you know it.

@Leptok said:

Bf3 on pc seems to be dying. It seemed like maybe 300 in NA on yesterday.

Those numbers. They're painfully wrong. And you know it.

I've traded in BF3 along time ago. Now I'm looking forward to Medal Of Honer: Firefighter.

I meant warfighter, it looks like a close quarters BF3 game. I still will probably check the game out when its released.

100 bucks for battlefield is too much for battlefield. I couldn't justify paying for premium.

Bf3 on pc seems to be dying. It seemed like maybe 300 in NA on yesterday.

As some of you might well know, I kinda hate Battlefield 3.

Armored Kill is around the corner, and watching the launch trailer gave me shivers all over again. I know it's all still there, the stuff I don't particularly care for, but hot damn do I love the consumer experience I have with the game since I got Premium - it has become a sustained source of awesome and excitement - great entertainment. While launch was admittedly rocky, and the selection of maps and modes were far from my favorite in Battlefield history, the game has come a long way since, and has still so much more to offer, before it has run its course. It's well on its way to becoming the best Battlefield consumer experience to date.

Hats off to EA/DICE, for designing a living breathing game - Battlefield as a service - and keep it fresh with ever new content to play, gradually approaching 'endless replayability and absolute value' - because truely, when Battlefield 3 is all wrapped up content-wise, I could see me playing just Battlefield 3 for the rest of my life, and never run out of fun things to do. By the time one aspect of the game grows stale, another aspect of the game feels all fresh again. And all that without ressources from the modding community.

Battlelog too plays into this, and despite me using it in the most rudimentary of ways - as a stats-site, and to post and read in the forums every now and then - there's something to be said for such a centralized online presence. Everything of relevance about the game is right there. Between Battlelog and BF3 Premium - this is definitely the way to go for EA/DICE and the Battlefield franchise. Premium sustained content and community support, that's the Battlefield consumer experience I always wanted, and now finally it's here.

All what's left to do, is to get better at it. Better and more frequent community events. Better communications and feedback. Cool stuff like 'Test Servers' for new maps and modes for example. Get experimental and involve the playerbase directly into the iterative creation process within the lifecycle of a Battlefield game. Come up with special live events, like a Paintball weekend, with nothing but paintball decals instead of destruction. Screw with physics for super floaty jumps. Triple lifepools and cause explosions on knife attacks in a knife & pistol only event. ATV king of the hill checkpoint races. Scout Chopper deathmatches. Live entertainment.

Battlefield as a consumer experience has gotten way better, and even if I hate Battlefield 3 - I do love Battlefield 3. This paradox wierds me out in a good way, because it gets me excited for Battlefield all over again! Go get.