The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

[Mad Ad]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

Well my feeling is those that dont have the hardware to run it should stick to smaller servers.

I remember seeing an interview about why they cut it from 128 (it was going to be 128 originally) but they calculated the max faces in different parts of the battlefield and some maps were simply too high (think sharqui was mentioned) for the deemed 'average' pc in 2005 so they nerfed it to 64

However id like to think pcs are somewhat more powerful now (remember old moore?) and since then computing power has more than doubled, likely doubled again by the estimated 2011 release date so surely we can deal with 128 (at least) by then?

[=98=]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

Well my feeling is those that dont have the hardware to run it should stick to smaller servers.

That's an opinionated decision and one that reflects your current setup and position. I sound like a broken record, but unless you plan to operate in a niche market, your product must support the 95th percentile of potential customers.

So this means making the game accessible and optimised for the average of that 95th percentile and not focusing on really high end machines. This was done by Crytek and they reaped what they sowed, poor sales and extreme piracy driven by insecurity due to the fact people didn't know whether they could run it or not. See my point?

However id like to think pcs are somewhat more powerful now (remember old moore?) and since 2006 computing power has more than doubled, likely doubled again by the 2011 release date so surely we can deal with 128 (at least)?

Moore's law can also be directly transferred to software in terms of complexity. The frostbite engine is a lot more power hungry and complex and thus can be seen to rise in direct correlation with the power of hardware used. Therefore, in theory, it would be surprising (although not impossible) to see anything really above 64 players.

Although, I see no reason why the option isn't made available to modders and custom servers, but in order to legally advertise the game for specs stated above, only officially support up to 64 players.

I'm coming from a more realistic and probable corner here :p

[Mad Ad]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

well it is a wishes thread for a game 2 years off, do we have to be strictly realistic regarding todays hardware? :)

and i accept frostbite may take more mhz per fps but at this stage of the cycle things like aggressive lod and optimising for many distant players can be addressed if it is seen to be something some players want

and as far as product optimisation, 95th percentile, crysis etc, its not like itll impose a burden on every player, only ones that want to join servers that size. Its an option, nobodys forcing people to join a 128.

They could even go so far as putting a disclaimer check box 'warning gameplay may degrade on servers above ..... size', and even include recommended server sizes on the low/med/high/ultra profiles as well as just graphics.

Either way, i would feel saddened if after 2 more years I find we were still stuck to 64, thats no progression.

[old sch00l]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

I really hope they do trade in flavor of player count, aswell as destructable objects. Terrain deformation over complete structural damage, as noticing some 1943 comments about the usfullness of a completly desroyed building :p

[Stev0esque]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

Either way, i would feel saddened if after 2 more years I find we were still stuck to 64, thats no progression.

well, its better than the 24 player we have been getting recently :nod:

[old sch00l]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

Destuct for crouch, good luck.

[old sch00l]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

well, kinda no luck involved

[=98=]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

They could even go so far as putting a disclaimer check box 'warning gameplay may degrade on servers above ..... size', and even include recommended server sizes on the low/med/high/ultra profiles as well as just graphics.

Also, it's unlikely server hardware is going to powerful enough to power these 128 player servers, especially when you consider that they tend to run multiple instances of a game on a single server.

[imported_Xeq]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

Also, it's unlikely server hardware is going to powerful enough to power these 128 player servers, especially when you consider that they tend to run multiple instances of a game on a single server.

Servers can handle 128 players. Dice developer said on forums that he tested frostbite with 80 players locally with no problems except lower framerate. he also said that they are running 14 games (if I remember) on one machine. Thats 336 players. And he also said that the only reason why they dont have more players is the bandwith restriction on consoles. BF3 is pc game, they can make maps with more players in mind. Also if there will be servers for rent as its with bf2 there is nothing in the way.

EDIT:

We are actually running about ~12 game servers on each physical server, meaning that each physical server can handle about ~300 players. We could easily switch so we had less game servers running 32 or more players but then every client would need to receive much more data over the network which might break the rules microsoft and sony have put up.

In other words consoles suck

[Mad Ad]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

Also, it's unlikely server hardware is going to powerful enough to power these 128 player servers, especially when you consider that they tend to run multiple instances of a game on a single server.

Youve answered your own point there. Yes they do run multiple instances on single servers. So run 1x 128 instead of 2x64s. Doesnt make a lot of difference with pay per slot pricing, perhaps a little more bandwidth to each player.


And what with MAG looking to pump up the console gaming benchmark to 256 players then we have some catching up to do.

[BLNKY]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

And what with MAG looking to pump up the console gaming benchmark to 256 players then we have some catching up to do.

We could...but should we? Are you looking for a higher player "density" or correspondingly larger maps? For the former, at some point it just becomes too chaotic (in my opinion) and turns into Quake. I believe that the computing power/bandwidth could be better used in other areas (but maybe a flexible server that could allow for tweaking, so a server admin could go for many players or high destructability, would be a nice solution).

I have been trying to think of new game modes that could be "borrowed" from other games (that haven't been done before in BF/BF mods). Any suggestions? I love "Bombing Run" in UT2004 but I don't think that's a good match for BF.

[Mad Ad]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

Squad king of the hill?

As for the question, I guess both really, some dense tight city maps and some large expansive maps - like zatar, cleansweep etc, those would be great with 128, wake would need a little adjusting tho :)

Like i said, its an option, anyone can join servers with lower size caps ... at some point it may well prove to be too chaotic but at 64 we arent there yet. And if that did happen we would just see the community gathering around smaller servers- they would choose their own level.

[BLNKY]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

Squad king of the hill?

That could actually be quite awesome. Great suggestion. :thumbsup:

I do hope for more vehicle variants of each map as well, like the El Alamein Day 2, Day 3 maps in Desert Combat, where the most powerful vehicles were removed - that allowed other vehicles as well as infantry to play a greater role. It should be a quick/cheap way to add more variation to the game. As mentioned in the BF2 forum, having a transport vehicles only alternative would e.g. be a great.

[LaikaSB]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

I hope BF3 is everything BF2 was, minus the claymores and plus destructible environments. Oh, way less fog and some new game modes would be nice as well.

[Minmaster]

Re: The BF3 Speculation/Wishes Thread

I hope BF3 is everything BF2 was...

oh hell naw i hope not. that game has a lot of issues. just take from it what worked and leave everything out. and that's more than just claymores, which i think you can now prone past. btw, is BF3 supposed to have same settings as BF2? maybe it's more into the future or something.

somehow they need to tweak air power. how can they make it realistic and not dominate like it did in BF2? land vehicles were also susceptible to air power so they need to strengthen it too, maybe better countermeasures? but give every vehicle a weakness that an infantry - anti vehicle can handle, such as a rear shot to the tank to 1 hit kill.

things like hitboxes and prone deviations will probably not be a problem with the new engine. i also hope all of the engine related issues from the past are gone. things like looping gun sound and scope zoom bug.