Global Conflict

There's one major issue with trying to do a BF3 campaign and that is the server. I'm not sure we can simply switch our server back and forth between BF3 and BF4. Having to get a new server just for BF3 would definitely make it a no go unless we get a bunch of donations for it.

Well, I have to say I'm pretty burnt out of BF4 campaigns. We've had 5 BF4 campaigns so far, and at least for me they were an ongoing grind (copious amounts of alcohol did help a bit). I know I can't be the only one feeling that way.

I realize both games have a lot of issues, but what I was hoping for was a chance to mix things up a bit. Play something similar but at the same time different: different maps (arguably better ones); different play style; different experiences. As for the servers, you need to get 2 new ones either way and BF3 servers are in fact cheaper.

Peace out etc.

LoRdG0nZo wrote: I also think that a lot of people here are looking back on BF3 with rose-tinted glasses

That's all this is. Same as stonie and myself and probably others wishing BF2 or BF42 was back. By the end of BF3C6 people were burnt out of BF3, and the grumbles were starting in BF3C5. We're at the same point in BF4, except BF4 had a vastly shakier launch and we had more competition as a community to try to recruit to how we play the game, so things are accelerated. By the end of BF2 the same grumbling was there too.

BF3 has just as many problems as BF4. Different problems, sure, but problems nonetheless. BF4 has better team management tools for our purposes with commander and spectator modes. BF4 also has a lot of really annoying crap that we had to actively suppress because it's broken. BF3 has slightly better vehicle-infantry balance and less stupid stuff, but also carries the risk of gun glitch and worse suppression mechanics on top of the aforementioned lack of good team management tools and less players to try to fill the server with. And putting hope into this venice unleashed stuff would still require a lot of technical setup on the back end that we do not have at this point, probably with a lot of manual massaging.

On top of that, the background setup for what was assumed to be a BF4 campaign is basically half way done. Once officers are finalized basically all that is left is sorting forums/abc/ts and doing a draft. Swapping games at this point, even if the same generals were willing to make the swap, invalidates weeks of setup.

I gladly celebrated uninstalling BF3. I did the same with BF4 so I could put games I actually enjoy playing on my SSD. And even if I did have the time or interest in either game to actually participate in some meaningful fashion in a campaign more than showing up for maybe 1 or 2 battles total, I wouldn't feel good reinstalling either. The only major difference between the two is the stink is slightly different. Just as bad, but different.

TF2 campaign, please.

TF2 campaign would be a great "lets kill time before BF5" idea. Like, we should really do that between BF4 and BF5.

BF3 gun glitch will ruin all of your fond memories of this game. It's not worth it. We even had gun glitch in a 10v10 black ops once. I suspect our global nature breaks something in the server and there's nothing we can do about it (maybe it's fields and his russian BF3). I loved BF3 until the gun glitch systematically ruined everything.

I think we should play out our next BF4 campaign, see how it feels, and then take stock. There's nothing wrong with some down time if people are burnt out.

matsif wrote:

LoRdG0nZo wrote: I also think that a lot of people here are looking back on BF3 with rose-tinted glasses

That's all this is.

As if you're not looking on BF4 through the same glasses.
for the last 2 years I hear the same thing over and over
"BF4 is finally in a playable state", "We should wait and see how it plays out after the patch that comes out next month" ... "BF4 is more popular" ... these are some poor excuses to play it. I'd imagine something more along the lines of "its more fun, it has better maps, the gunfights are better" as in its actually a good and fun way to pass the time.
Why play a game that isn't fun to play? because its "finally in a playable state"???

I like that we're at least considering it.

If we keep going with BF4 the numbers will just keep decreasing week after week until we're forced to change game. The problem isn't that the game is not working properly, it is, and it has been improving a lot since launch, but the maps are still utter crap, the overall air balance for organized play like this is completely broken and people are just simply getting bored of it. Name a single map that is somewhat interesting in BF4.

I'd gladly come back to play with everyone again but I just don't have fun with organized 32's in BF4 and and I think I'm not alone on this one.

Also did anyone try Venice Unleashed during this?

As if you're not looking on BF4 through the same glasses.

No he isn't. BF4 also sucks.

But BF3 is unplayable. We can't spend community money on servers that we know won't work. If the gun glitch wasn't there, I would go back in a heartbeat, even if only for a swansong campaign. But it is there. No amount of BF4 sucking will change this fundamental fact.

Loa, I didn't get to play VU, but I read through that thread and found this:

BUGS SO FAR:

>Chat while dead should be available while it isn't
>INVISIBLE ENEMIES
>Soldiers in deathcams disappear
>Gun model and hands in first person view is invisible at times
>When client freq doesn't match with that of servers', client is meant to restart. While sometimes it does, at other times, it just goes to an infinite loading screen.

I really want VU to work, because if they can get 128 player servers turned on, WOW AWESOME

StarfisherEcho wrote:

As if you're not looking on BF4 through the same glasses.

No he isn't. BF4 also sucks.

But BF3 is unplayable. We can't spend community money on servers that we know won't work. If the gun glitch wasn't there, I would go back in a heartbeat, even if only for a swansong campaign. But it is there. No amount of BF4 sucking will change this fundamental fact.

Loa, I didn't get to play VU, but I read through that thread and found this:

BUGS SO FAR:

>Chat while dead should be available while it isn't
>INVISIBLE ENEMIES
>Soldiers in deathcams disappear
>Gun model and hands in first person view is invisible at times
>When client freq doesn't match with that of servers', client is meant to restart. While sometimes it does, at other times, it just goes to an infinite loading screen.

I really want VU to work, because if they can get 128 player servers turned on, WOW AWESOME

I think the best thing about VU is that you can modify maps, where flags are etc., change the amount of specific vehicles and add vehicles that aren't there in the original version of the map. We could definitely fiddle around with all these options and balance maps our way.

But I guess that's not gonna happen anytime soon, maybe we could at least contact them and see what they say, get some keys and try it out?

So we're all gonna play BF2, right?

BF '42

ArmA3, anyone?

Why would we play BF 1942 when BF2 exists?

Isn't BF2 all just air rape?

If so, LET'S PLAY THE HELL OUT OF IT