EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.

Read Full Article
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
There's also online passes, which Battlefield 3 uses, which should be paying for the official servers. If they're getting rid of the official servers, what is that online pass money being used for? It certainly isn't going towards keeping the servers up if the players are the ones fronting the cost for that.
 

twistedheat15

New member
Sep 29, 2010
740
0
0
Once I found out most of the servers were player ran, I knew the game was going to hell. Now people are getting booted for using guns the admin doesn't like, or just because they're winning. My younger bro played in a match and got on a kill streak going around 30-5 with his team winning, so admin on other team killed him then made'em respawn on his team. Bro just team killed till he was booted and its sad how many of the servers are like this now. I'd take the annoying douches of CoD over whats battlefield become.
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
As long as people continue to buy the games, why does EA care what you or anyone else thinks?
 

Greyhamster

New member
Nov 26, 2010
79
0
0
I get kicked out of half the matches I play because I rank first. I get kicked (and banned) for using: Lmg's, shotguns, sniper rifles and RPG's. If I used the m320 I'd probably have been kicked for that. I've been kicked a few times for no reason at all.

I liked the custom server thing, and it's fun to just play conquest on Seine crossing for a long time, but it's not worth putting up with idiotic rules. The weapons I love most are shotguns, yet I am regularly getting kicked for them.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
As a primarily PC gamer I find these complaints rather bizarre.

However, I can see where they're coming from. In that past I've gotten rather annoyed at having to sift through lists of crazy modded servers (500% health! All rocket launchers! Instant vehicle spawns! Melee only! All sniper, 1%hp) in search a proper balanced game.
 

mindlesspuppet

New member
Jun 16, 2004
780
0
0
Dennis Scimeca said:
EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.

Read Full Article
Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works. Player owned servers are nothing new, nor are games that relay on them exclusively.

Some players will change the rules: some may hate it, others will love it. For those that hate it, well I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding a vanilla game. Websites with a gaming audience often run servers, so there's no need to worry about some rager being ban happy.

I have to side with EA and Dice on this. I think they are trying to bring a more PC experience to console with this, and by all means it should be for the better, and that's a problem?

The ability to modify and run/own a server is why Quake still has people playing it.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
I'm mixed. On the one hand the ability to have player run servers, and specifically a transition to player run servers when the online life of a game is ending, is something people have been asking for for half a decade and a frequent criticism of consolitis and general online gaming when it's not included.

On the other hand, if they're online passing then they should be running some proper servers too. Especially since it's not a very old game
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
mindlesspuppet said:
Dennis Scimeca said:
EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.

Read Full Article
Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works. Player owned servers are nothing new, nor are games that relay on them exclusively.

Some players will change the rules: some may hate it, others will love it. For those that hate it, well I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding a vanilla game. Websites with a gaming audience often run servers, so there's no need to worry about some rager being ban happy.

I have to side with EA and Dice on this. I think they are trying to bring a more PC experience to console with this, and by all means it should be for the better, and that's a problem?

The ability to modify and run/own a server is why Quake still has people playing it.
Here's the difference: EA claims that the "Online Pass" system is necessary to fund official servers. They take money for that purpose.
 

bjj hero

New member
Feb 4, 2009
3,180
0
0
mindlesspuppet said:
Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works. Player owned servers are nothing new, nor are games that relay on them exclusively.

Some players will change the rules: some may hate it, others will love it. For those that hate it, well I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding a vanilla game. Websites with a gaming audience often run servers, so there's no need to worry about some rager being ban happy.

I have to side with EA and Dice on this. I think they are trying to bring a more PC experience to console with this, and by all means it should be for the better, and that's a problem?

The ability to modify and run/own a server is why Quake still has people playing it.
I started as a PC gamer, I used to play action quake on quake2 and a 56k modem till the early hours of the morning. It took me a while to find some good local servers but it was great.

I now play BF3 on the 360 (I have a young family and cannot justify spending on a gaming rig, maybe when the boys older). It is a different beast on a console, you get used to things being standard. This shift in servers is a real pain in the arse.

I dont have the same free time as I used to and if I have an hour or half an hour to kill I could drop onto a CQ server and get a few rounds in, now I spend most of the time sifting through servers trying to find one with normal tickets. I dont even get to see my ping, just the stupid bars so I cannot even work it to my advantage.

Ive been banned for being top, killed and swapped teams with no warning (while piloting a full helicopter that resultantly crashed), banned for using, most weapons, vehicles, kamikaze attacks, run and gunning, sniping... It seems quite random although linked to winning.

It is a real miss step for consoles. There needs to be a better way to find "vanilla" BF at the moment, its a different market than the PC. Consoles, until now, let you drop in to the game you wanted to play, 1 click. Not so in BF anymore.
 

Hitchmeister

New member
Nov 24, 2009
453
0
0
I think EA only deserves about 60% of the blame for this one. If there weren't so many players willing to rent a server to impose their own rule-set on other players, EA would be stuck with providing standard vanilla servers. But all the servers they put up get rented out. Now it seems reasonable to me to have a set number of standard vanilla servers that will always be available, clearly identified for people who want to be sure of getting the standard "fair" game. But doing that would probably make the custom servers less popular and less likely to be rented. Should EA cost themselves money for the sake of players who have demonstrated eagerness to screw each other over?

Maybe. But the players need to share some of the blame for creating this situation.
 

mindlesspuppet

New member
Jun 16, 2004
780
0
0
bjj hero said:
I started as a PC gamer, I used to play action quake on quake2 and a 56k modem till the early hours of the morning. It took me a while to find some good local servers but it was great.

I now play BF3 on the 360 (I have a young family and cannot justify spending on a gaming rig, maybe when the boys older). It is a different beast on a console, you get used to things being standard. This shift in servers is a real pain in the arse.

I dont have the same free time as I used to and if I have an hour or half an hour to kill I could drop onto a CQ server and get a few rounds in, now I spend most of the time sifting through servers trying to find one with normal tickets. I dont even get to see my ping, just the stupid bars so I cannot even work it to my advantage.

Ive been banned for being top, killed and swapped teams with no warning (while piloting a full helicopter that resultantly crashed), banned for using, most weapons, vehicles, kamikaze attacks, run and gunning, sniping... It seems quite random although linked to winning.
Made a lot of good points here. It sounds as if the issue isn't so much the servers themselves as it is the interface for finding one that is best suited for the individual.

bjj hero said:
It is a real miss step for consoles. There needs to be a better way to find "vanilla" BF at the moment, its a different market than the PC. Consoles, until now, let you drop in to the game you wanted to play, 1 click. Not so in BF anymore.
To be fair, it wasn't long ago that consoles didn't even have online play. I think this is only a first step and the issues that you and others are having will get ironed out. Unfortunately, the first step tends to be the most harsh with these sort of things.

For the time being, could always write your favorite gaming site and try to encourage them to buy a server or a dozen.



RvLeshrac said:
Here's the difference: EA claims that the "Online Pass" system is necessary to fund official servers. They take money for that purpose.
Yeah, except everyone knows EA has Online Passes just to punish people for buy/selling used games.
 

CD-R

New member
Mar 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
Does the console version not have the ability to set a favorites list of servers like the PC version? Seriously this doesn't seem like that hard of a problem to get around.

Hitchmeister said:
I think EA only deserves about 60% of the blame for this one. If there weren't so many players willing to rent a server to impose their own rule-set on other players, EA would be stuck with providing standard vanilla servers. But all the servers they put up get rented out. Now it seems reasonable to me to have a set number of standard vanilla servers that will always be available, clearly identified for people who want to be sure of getting the standard "fair" game. But doing that would probably make the custom servers less popular and less likely to be rented. Should EA cost themselves money for the sake of players who have demonstrated eagerness to screw each other over?

Maybe. But the players need to share some of the blame for creating this situation.
Maybe EA should introduce some sort of review and rating system for players to leave feedback on servers they play on. If an admin is able to consistently maintain a positive player rating EA could offer the server renter a discount on the rental fee. This would discourage server admins from acting like ass hats and thus people avoiding privately run servers.
 

Scow2

New member
Aug 3, 2009
801
0
0
While there's a problem with Battlefield right now (I'm hoping EA's being honest about them renting out the DICE servers and intending to get more online), I think the author is too reactive in the opposite direction. Private servers for consoles is a great addition(Not everyone likes playing by the same rules). And general servers for PC are also great (Not everyone likes server-wading)

The big problem is the inability to restrict yourself to official vanilla servers for "quick matches", and the ability for players to spoof Non-DICE servers (Is there no name checking system at all?). That, and the lack of official DICE servers.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
I'm kind of mystified by the complaints, but I really don't know how the filter/favorites/history works on the consoles. What should happen is you do a little work up front, and then whenever you want a quick game you check your list to see what's handy.
If the interface for finding a match is so damn clunky you have to start from scratch every time, then ok, I can see that getting old fast, if there's even history though...
For those console gamers who might not recognize it, this newfound thing that's confusing you is called choice in who you play with and how you play. You shouldn't be afraid of it, it's actually your friend. In fact, it's one of the the big reasons us elitist PC gaming jerkasses use to convince ourselves we're superior to you.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
As someone who hates game servers that have custom rules such as:

-Dont use LMGs
-Dont use Rocket Launchers
-Snipers only
-and many more

I was not very pleased by the removal of Official servers.
 

Kungfu_Teddybear

Member
Legacy
Apr 28, 2020
2,714
0
1
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
From someone who plays Battlefield 3 on PC: I completely agree. I have nothing against player owned servers. It's nice to find a server suited to personal playing preferences, like the server I played on that banned the USAS 12 before it was nerfed (I really hated that fucking gun) and had a rule that if a team captured all 3 flags they had to fall back to B so there was no base-raping, it was great. But taking away the official Dice servers so that you had to play on a player owned customized server, even if you didn't want to and just wanted to play using the vanilla rules, is just a complete dick move. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that drove a chunk of console players away from the game.
 

cjbos81

New member
Apr 8, 2009
279
0
0
I got so frustrated last week trying to find a DICE server, I downloaded the "killzone 3" multiplayer trial to play instead.

I'm very close to actually not playing BF3 again.

Especially with games like "MAX PAYNE 3" now available , and "GRFS" on the way.