EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

unbreakable212

New member
Feb 4, 2012
55
0
0
I'm not sure what it's like on the PC version, but on the xbox it's gone wild. If your doing well when an admin is on the other team expect to be killed and respawned on their team. Even joined a server where the admin was just killing everyone on the opposing team as soon as they spawned.

Also many limitations on guns you can use, many servers will boot you if you kill someone with an RPG/SMAW or shotguns. Admins seem to have gone a bit power crazy.
 

miketehmage

New member
Jul 22, 2009
396
0
0
I think this is a good idea. The lack of admins on consoles is something I've sorely missed when I switched from pc.

I agree that some do abuse their power, but if you don't like it just switch server. Which I know can be a pain in the arse. But when you finally find that nice dedicated server run by GOOD admins. It's fantastic, and you'll realise that matchmaking pales in comparison.
 

melikeyshootey

New member
Apr 27, 2011
31
0
0
I'm glad I stopped playing BF3 before this happened. EA needs to get their shit together. With this, with ME3, with their online passes, with every god-damn thing the've done the past 2 years. No wonder they are the #1 worst company in America.

Anyway, this would only be acceptable if they still maintained a fair amount of their default servers, and there was an option to ban certain guns (USAS-12) in certain servers.
 

natster43

New member
Jul 10, 2009
2,459
0
0
Apparently I have only played on well ran servers. I have not had any problems on the 360 with people being asshats with the player ran servers. It still sucks that DICE decided to not have any official servers.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Err...most or at least much of the time, the posts saying to not use shotguns aren't to simply "not use any shotguns," but to not use any exploits, like the Masterkey glitch that is not an intended feature of the game and constitutes cheating

Pretty big distinction there, author.

And you didn't even mention the hosts that will boot players just for being skilled at the game, which, according to some people and my own captcha, "run amok."

Edit: Though, I should clarify, I have NEVER once been booted on the 360 for destroying the other team, or booted at all, and have only met an admin once (who was a pretty cool dude).
 

Aeonknight

New member
Apr 8, 2011
751
0
0
Terminate421 said:
This is why you look for a server named "original" or something along the lines. Just look for the original rules and take that. Seriously, people ***** and moan about this game more than MW3.

I don't angry over battlefield being hated or complained about. It's little things that apparently are a big deal that make me angry.

Besides, some guns are overpowered or cheap, that is why they are banned in player owned servers.

Capcha: get over it
What's funny is the only server I've been on that's had any real changes to original rules was one Rush server where the attackers had 200 tickets instead of the usual what... 80ish? And you know what? It was still fun. I wasn't banned for using a specific gun or beating the admin in jet dogfighting... and what's more is you can favorite the "good servers" that you come across.

So what's the problem again? The official servers have gone down seemingly overnight and it has had 0 influence on my experience.

But hey, it's the Escapist. They'll take anything EA does as some massive slight that is destroying gaming forever.
 

NvrPhazed

New member
Dec 8, 2010
72
0
0
I don't want to have to quote everyone who is missing the point, but what the author and most of the reasonable people are saying is that player run servers aren't bad, but not being able to have an option to join a vanilla game easily (either by having an only vanilla option or having the DICE server names exclusive [seriously WTF EA that is SO EASY]) detracts the value of the game because you have to spend extra time sifting through servers like its COD2 all over again instead of immediately and easily dropping in and out. Online Pass and renting of the servers is a different beast and does not matter to this situation since DICE has their dedicated servers back now. Admin behavior is also irrelevant because if you want to play vanilla, there are no powers to be abused. If you want to be on player servers, then just quit and find a better server.


Sum up: PLAYER SERVERS ARE GOOD BUT HAVE A VANILLA BUTTON OR A SYMBOL SIGNIFYING THAT IT IS ACTUALLY A VANILLA SERVER.
 

oliver.begg

New member
Oct 7, 2010
140
0
0
um is it only the states and Europe that get [dice] servers cos thats the way its been since launch for me in oceania and its worked out fine.

it sounds like the people running your servers are dicks.


and as to console not being PC, i would say that PC isn't console but that hasn't stoped EA and Activison trying to make PC console so drink a cup of concrete and harden the F*** up
 

Sovereignty

New member
Jan 25, 2010
584
0
0
I stopped reading when this clearly flame-bait article mentioned how console players were SOOOOO different from PC players.

As a recently converted PC gamer (I have Battlefield 3 for the 360 and for my PC.) I can say that I as a gamer was missing a large chunk of the experience by limiting myself to consoles. I'm not saying that consoles are worthless, it's horribly underrated just how the ease of use of a console is compared to the often times complicated and potentially headache causing install of a game.

It's pure sensationalism to assume that ALL the servers rented by players will suddenly be high ticket, single map games where everyone is banned for using a shotgun. It's not like this on the PC, and it hasn't been like this on the 360. The truth of the matter is letting the community put up and manage servers is BETTER than giving that task to the publisher and/or developer.

Now instead of being pigeonholed into what the mob wants, we get a bit of everything. Are there more 2000% ticket caspian border servers than anything? Sure, but you know why? Because that's what most people will actually go and play.

It certainly does NOT mean that there are no random map normal conquest games. And it also means that now if you don't like it, you can in effect do something about it, all for the price of two months in WoW.

I really don't see how there's a negative other than that players still can't host servers on their own machines for free. If anything for consoles at least there is finally a viable option for server renting to pave the way.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Zhukov said:
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.
My history with the FPS genre started on the PC. When I played Team Fortress, there were two servers I favored because they included the map Frontlin in the rotation. But then, at the time, there were entire cultures built around this exact concept. People who have only played PC games certainly have no cause to be annoyed by such a thing because such a thing is normal.

Prior to BF3, the whole concept of "Server" was relatively nebulous. You joined games and game modes. You did not join servers. Hell, the same was largely true of BF3 at launch. You could certainly pick to join a server but since there was nothing to distinguish them, the feature was only used in instances where quick match failed.

I personally appreciate that the servers are different. I like that there are servers I can join where I don't have to play maps that I hate. But that doesn't mean that the maneuver is beyond reproach. It simply offsets the cost of maintaing those servers to the players. Sure, such has long been standard on the PC but such a move on consoles is customer hostile thinly disguised as a feature. I don't begrudge the move - hell I even benefited from it. I just think it was handled in a particularly scummy way.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
MagmaMan said:
If only more people were playing Bad Company 2, this shit they are pulling off with 3 made me sell it. Ah well, back to War for Cybertron
That's no better, it is a good game, and if you manage to get a good Online game you can have a blast, but at least 6 out of 10 games you have will be glitched to fuck. On PC it is worse, but dear god even on Console im seeing Scouts with the Whirlwind and Warcry ability!

OT: Yeh, this doesn't affect me at all seen as thought Battlefield isn't a game i own, and by the looks of it never will.

Now if everyone will excuse me, I'm going to clean up Arkham City.
 

UrieHusky

New member
Sep 16, 2011
260
0
0
I was playing the other day for roughly 6 hours to relax, just shooting choppers out of the sky.

I cycled through about.. 8 servers? 7 of them banned shotguns, the 8th banned sub machine guns.
I personally don't use those types of guns but seriously.. it's insanity. I don't really mind the inflated tickets, because I find the matches are a little too short for my liking, I'll just be getting into the swing of thing and then the end of match music begins playing =/ but I can definitely see how it's an issue for other people.

Anyway.. I dunno I don't personally think this is massively terrible since it's 6 months down the line and the PC is simply the better platform for FPS games in my opinion (I've played it on my PS3 and a high end PC, found it a better experience in every way on PC but mine has no hope of handling it so console for me)

So yeah, I'm presuming this is a console specific issue? if it's not please disregard my stupidity XD
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
chadachada123 said:
Err...most or at least much of the time, the posts saying to not use shotguns aren't to simply "not use any shotguns," but to not use any exploits, like the Masterkey glitch that is not an intended feature of the game and constitutes cheating
It depends on the server of course. Plenty of them run with vanilla rules. I've seen plenty that ban the use of a variety of weapons and combinations. Semi-auto sniper rifles is common (even though their use offers no advantage in sniping and simply makes it somewhat equivalent to using an assault rifle if outfitted properly) as is Shotguns with Frag rounds (in spite of the fact that various nerfs have made that combination exceedingly difficult to get a kill with. Needing to connect with four rounds on a weapon with absurd recoil and terrible accuracy is a rather difficult task). Hell, I've been admin killed because I was using a weapon in a scenario they didn't like.

It isn't common. It is easily avoided. But here's the catch: I didn't need to avoid such things or even worry about them. If I wanted to use an M3A1 with frag rounds, the thing that ought to stop me is that the combination isn't going to be useful. Not some arbitrary limitation.

Of course the other side of that equation is that at least there is some feeble mechanism to control bug exploits. The m26 one is fairly uncommon largely thanks to admin policing for example.

I don't think the move is entirely bad by any stretch. But part of the reason I play games on a console is because sometimes I don't want to search for servers and such. Sometimes I want to mash a button and play. If I wanted control, I'd be playing the game on my PC.
 

porpoise hork

Fly Fatass!! Fly!!!
Dec 26, 2008
297
0
0
I have absolutely no issue with player run servers. Some of the most fun and best games I have ever played were on them. It's been this way for years on PC, but what I do object to is them having the ability to name them the same as a default server. Either block the default name system from player rented servers or force an identifier into the name so we the players can tell right off that it's a private run server.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
twistedheat15 said:
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.
Wtf you serious?

Wow. I'm glad I traded in MW3 + BF3 and picked up Dark Souls and Deus Ex instead. Those online shooters are more stress than fun.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Irridium said:
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.
That's the fun of this whole thing. Remember when the argument was servers weren't cheap? And then...Yeah.
 

Semitendon

New member
Aug 4, 2009
359
0
0
I couldn't agree with the article more.

BF3 was my multiplayer of choice. . . and then they changed it to the new "shitty" setting.

I tried to play for a few days after they rented out the servers, but it was too tedious. I don't want to play by some shit-head 12 year olds bajillion lives or limited weapons rules. There is no system to filter out rented servers other than a visual inspection of each servers title, which as the article points out, is easily faked.

After scrolling through server after server, I don't have an exact count but the remaining normal servers must be less than 5%. Which leaves precious few options, and loads of crap to search through.

So my choices are:

1. Play a game controlled by idiots, with rules that are stupid, arbitrary, or unfair.

2. Spend the majority of my time looking for a normal game, and then hope like hell I can join, or if I do join, that nothing goes wrong because it means more time looking if it all goes south.

3. Play something else. ( I chose this option)

So far, I have not put BF3 into my xbox for about 3 or 4 weeks, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
Ok, I'm not even a battlefield player and this pisses me off.

I say its time to declare war on EA. Break open the weapons! Step to the rigging! put the kettle on!
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
As someone who got to watch the progression of CounterStrike and the direction its servers went, I can sympathize. Too many server owners turned out to be the whiners about campers and high powered weapons, and thus forbade either in their server. I could have started my own server, but what chance did I have to get players, as with that game people wanted to find populated games, and most gamers usually go to just what shows up first in the list, either without paying attention to the rules, or just not caring.
However, I look at this as a clear opportunity to give console players more choices for their buck. In the past, consoles had fewer choices as far as what tweaks or mods their games could undergo to the game rules. Now we see more customization becoming available to console players, and the one of the first reactions is that customization is going to be bad and will ruin the game. Oh well. If you are such a purist and want to keep playing vanilla, pony up the $30 to rent your own server. If you are so certain that your gaming friends are with you on this, then you should have no worries. Want more players? Advertise your server on message boards and Reddit. Of course you run the risk of getting griefers and the like, but risk is part of anything that you feel should be worth getting.
If you feel you can't afford $30 to rent a server, then your gaming lifestyle isn't as strong as you like to portray it as, and therefore your opinion lacks a lot of foundation. A lot of gaming servers are supported by groups of people chipping in to maintain the server. Forever Alone doesn't win you accolades in the 'I want it this way!' column. Either you do have a lot of gaming friends willing to support the chance to play vanilla Battlefield 3, or you take the time to figure that maybe the good fight you felt should be fought isn't so good anymore. After all, it's not like your single player game is being affected.