Recommended Posts

Patch has finally come through and i actually quite like it.

It's not nerfed the tanks as much as i thought it had going by all the complainers (When will i learn not to listen eh?) and the rest of the balancing seems to be pretty much spot on.

Gonna have to knuckle down and play it a bit more before i can possibly comment more thoroughly but so far so good.

I urge anyone who is unhappy with the way bf3 turned out to contribute to this thread:

http://forums.electr...-photoshop.html

vent your anger over the crap that is bf3 and also over the demise of the series.

it'll make you feel better.

No thanks. Don't want to join a bunch of whiny cry babies. If they don't like the latest iteration of BF then they can all go find something else to do and leave me and my fellow BF players to enjoy the game as many many others do.

  • Like 1

Battlefield 3 unlock everything DLC costs $40

Battlefield 3 players who feel the game's unlockables take a little too long to earn can now fast-forward the process for a price. Now available on the Xbox Live Marketplace, the Ultimate Shortcut Bundle costs gamers 3,200 Microsoft points ($40), and gives players instant access to all of the game's progression-based unlockables.

The Ultimate Shortcut Bundle includes all vehicle upgrades, all class-unique weapons and gadgets, and all co-op weapons, giving players a total of 119 upgrades. Normally, those perks would need to be earned by playing as the different classes, using vehicles, and completing the game's co-op campaign mode.

For those who only want some of the unlockables, EA has broken them out into their own packs, including the Kit Shortcut Bundle (all class unlocks) for 2,000 Microsoft points ($25), the Vehicle Shortcut Bundle for 1,440 Microsoft points ($18), and the Co-op Weapons Shortcut for 400 Microsoft points ($5). Getting even more granular, individual class' unlocks are available for 560 Microsoft points ($7) each, while the Air Vehicle and Ground Vehicle Shortcuts are 800 Microsoft points ($10) each.

Latest patch for DICE's modern day shooter lets players lease virtual battlefields for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC.

Console and PC gamers eager to secure their own piece of DICE's Battlefield 3 can now do so, with the launch of dedicated server rental for the modern day shooter.

As detailed on Battlefield's website, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC gamers can secure a server for 120 Microsoft Points ($1.50) per day, 560 Microsoft points ($7) per week, 2,000 Microsoft points ($25) per 30 days, or 4,800 Microsoft points ($60) for 90 days.

Server renters can tailor the shooter experience in a number of ways to their liking. Renters can determine which maps and game modes will be included in rotation, kick and ban players at will, and designate VIPs: players who can skip to the top of queues.

The rentable servers arrived as part of a larger Battlefield 3 patch that found its way to the PC and PlayStation 3 versions of the game last week. This update brought a long list of fixes and tweaks to the shooter, which can be perused in full at the Battlefield blog.

http://youtu.be/mwV5X82iHVM

Patch has finally come through and i actually quite like it.

It's not nerfed the tanks as much as i thought it had going by all the complainers (When will i learn not to listen eh?) and the rest of the balancing seems to be pretty much spot on.

Gonna have to knuckle down and play it a bit more before i can possibly comment more thoroughly but so far so good.

No thanks. Don't want to join a bunch of whiny cry babies. If they don't like the latest iteration of BF then they can all go find something else to do and leave me and my fellow BF players to enjoy the game as many many others do.

Thanks for contributing to the almighty telemetry, enjoy your console garbage. Some of us actually care about the series and don't want to see it ruined.

The last decent game was 2142, every game after including the f2p games have been pretty bad.

Thanks for contributing to the almighty telemetry, enjoy your console garbage. Some of us actually care about the series and don't want to see it ruined.

The last decent game was 2142, every game after including the f2p games have been pretty bad.

there is really no need to personally attack someone for sharing an opinion... but everyone else does so i guess you might as well.

Tanks weren't meant to be the unstoppable killing machines that they were (in public games). I don't see a problem with taking their resilience down a notch for balance sake.

lol, tanks were far from "unstoppable killing machines". A single engineer can easily kill a tank.

OK, so new 360 patch thoughts...

Recoil is a lot higher and I like it...means you can't just spray and pray with any gun...

Tanks don't seem much weaker IMO...tho I avn't played with them much yet...I'll give some feedback on that in a few days once I;ve had a longer play.

Jets seem easier to fly (or might have just been having a good day in them)

Heli's seem like they take less damage if you hit the ground with your skids but more if you hit the ground going sideways or clip stuff...which I like...again more realistic.

Mini map doesn't have the hybrid view like the PC has tho it is a bit more detailed I think...

and some official DICE RUSH servers now have heli's which is an odd but kinda good change.

also 1750 ticket metro CQ is a mess.

on 360? I really wish we could have more tickets like waht the PC has then what we get on 360 which is i think 250. right?

They allow people to rent and customize servers for the consoles now. But I still don't know why anyone would want a game with that many tickets and only 12v12. That's gotta be a long long long game.

They allow people to rent and customize servers for the consoles now. But I still don't know why anyone would want a game with that many tickets and only 12v12. That's gotta be a long long long game.

I see what your saying, but sometimes when i've found the right game with the right players and we've got some great team work mon the go, i never want the game to end. I can imagine it'd be annoying if it was one of them games where it's 'all men for themselves'.

on 360? I really wish we could have more tickets like waht the PC has then what we get on 360 which is i think 250. right?

Dice/EA default is 250, the there are loads of 24/7 metro CQ only high ticket servers.

They allow people to rent and customize servers for the consoles now. But I still don't know why anyone would want a game with that many tickets and only 12v12. That's gotta be a long long long game.

took 90mins on the end game scoreboard

The update shows up for me on 360 but I can't download it. Anyone else have this issue?

Nope worked fine for me and all my mates...just give it a try again later.

lol, tanks were far from "unstoppable killing machines". A single engineer can easily kill a tank.

Again, this. If people know what they are doing, tanks are hardly killing machines. I say this as someone who has been on the receiving end plenty of times of some C4 from a sniper or from the repair tool of an enemy engineer. Tanks are without a doubt fairly easy to take out when up close. One of the many things that separates a good tank driver from a bad one is making sure you keep the enemy far enough away so they do not have the opportunity to get up close and personal and deploy any of the easier means to take you out fairly easily. Even with being aware of this fact, it still happens fairly often. But a good squad will send one or two people out as "bait" while the other ones circle around to take out the tank from the back. This is also a good example of why having a great gunner in the tank really makes a huge difference. A good tank team will usually do it so the driver covers what ever they are looking at, while the gunner is covering the opposite direction. A gunner should only be looking and firing in the same direction as the driver when it is necessary to do so.

So the last thing I will say about all of this all is the funny thing is, I actually happen to fully agree that someone camping in a tank is incredibly annoying. IMO they ruin the game and are not playing it the way it is meant to be played. What I absolutely do not agree with is when someone makes a generalization that all people that use tanks camp because some people choose to do so. Especially when it is expressed as fact rather than an opinion, and especially when it is deliberatly said to offend either a certain person or people who happen to enjoy that aspect of the game. That is then taking to a whole other level just for the sake of getting under peoples skin.

Also to knock an aspect of the game play, in this case a tank which falls under the umbrella of vehicles, that literally is one of the key reasons the series is what it is, is just ignorant at best. Vehicles are what truly differentiate Battlefield from the competition and IMHO is what has helped it stand the test of time. When someone says Battlefield, almost immediately someone says vehicles. They are literally synonymous with each other. So if for whatever reason you really dislike the fact that vehicles are part of the game, this game is not for you. Time to go back to a game like CoD that caters to what you prefer. Absolutely no need to sit in a thread about the game and knock anyone who enjoys what is one of the biggest aspects of said game. It would be like going into a thread for Left 4 Dead and saying Zombies are stupid and anyone who likes shooting zombies does not know how to play the game.

Finally, the reason I defend using a tank so vehemently is this...

post-34384-0-98674900-1333549574.jpg

I have stated so many times now that I have played BF since its inception. I also make it clear I use a tank whenever I can and I am a tank ######. However I am equally comfortable on foot. It is just my preference to play in the tank. And I am good at using a tank because I have put in a whole, whole lot of hours using one. I can drive in reverse just as good, if not better, as driving normally. I know pressing 1 and 2 frequently to change weapons is imperative to being a good tank driver. I can go on and on, but really the truth of the matter is, practice makes perfect, and I have had a whole lot of practice in tanks. So to say I am cheap because I am actually good does bother me, as I know I am good because I put in the time to be good.

Not only that, I simply never camp when using a tank. First off, I only play Conquest. To me, that is Battlefield. None of these other modes existed when I first started playing 1942, it was always Conquest. As such, that is the one and only mode I play. Most of the time when I play the other modes it has been my experience that people seem to only be concerned about their KD Ratio and hardly doing any objectives. So for both of those reasons I tend to stay away from the other modes. I can absolutely imagine that if someone is using a tank in a non-Conquest Mode, those people would have a tendency to camp just for their KD ratio. But I also was under the impression vehicles hardly exist in those modes, which is actually a good thing if it is true.

So yeah, that is my last little tangent about tanks and vehicles overall. I truly cannot see how one would even bother playing the game if they dislike the vehicle aspect of it all. Vehicles are synonymous with Battlefield. So much so that talking smack about the people who choose to use the vehicles in the Official thread about the game can only be done out of spite and/or because one likes to start drama for the sake of it. Either way, I do not think that is the way to go about things, so I do apologize to everyone for stooping to the level I did a few days ago and in turn derailing the thread, as that was no better than what prompted me to respond that way to begin with. In fact it was worse as I was fighting fire with fire. I should have either wrote the response I just wrote now and have been done with it, and or better yet, just ignore it and not feed the troll and let those of us who enjoy the game for what it is continue discussing it.

I actually hope to check out the new patch sooner than later. Just have had zero time to play anything lately, but really want to check it out asap.

  • Like 1

it now 800 tickets? if so I have found it, might get my mates on in a bit.

That's the one, had some good battles on it yestaday with 800 tickets, game lasted about 50 minutes and it was full.

During the night, the server seems to stay empty. I guess no one likes the map much.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Hello, Also known for https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jan/29/adware-internet.   Regards, Aryeh Goretsky    
    • Hello, I have used a few TEAM Group SSDs, USB flash drives, and Micro SDXC cards in the past. They all seemed to work fine. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
    • "just $100 per TB"? Just? Are we trying to make this seem like the new normal? Kinda weird to make it sound like that is not a ridiculously expensive asking price.
    • The reviews you refer to mean nothing. Where there is no journalism there is no reason to call the gaming media's opinion pieces "reviews". For GP games there is indeed a metric for success - increasing subscriptions. Which turns in revenue. The only circumstance in which subs do not rise when great is being released is a Game Pass system where the company is close to fully saturated with customers in a subscription. However, in that case as the theory goes you spend aplenty in all kind of games - from shady live service cash cows and customer offending agitprop crap in purple colours to robust and entertaining single player games. And keep a solid level of profitability. Ignoring the simply innocuous but mid games MGS has released primarily of the second kind.
    • Report: Microsoft to use AWS to help GitHub deal with a major surge in demand by Pradeep Viswanathan Thanks to the surge of coding AI agents, GitHub's usage has skyrocketed over the past 12 months. To meet this demand, GitHub started with a plan in October 2025 to increase capacity by 10x. However, by early this year, the company realized that it needed 30x scale. This rapid growth has caused severe strain on the platform's reliability, resulting in several small outages over the past few months. In April, GitHub published a long blog post explaining the steps it is taking to resolve these reliability issues. In the post, the company also confirmed that it is working toward a multi-cloud architecture for better resilience. Today, Business Insider reported that GitHub is turning to Amazon Web Services to help deal with a major surge in AI-driven coding activity. It is important to note that GitHub is still in the process of moving completely to the Azure cloud. The current plan is to move the platform fully to Azure by 2027 so that it can scale better as per developer demand. Therefore, the current decision to utilize AWS might be part of a short-term plan to meet immediate demand. A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed that GitHub is using multiple cloud providers with the following statement: For Microsoft, the decision highlights the operational pressure behind the AI boom. GitHub has to stay reliable for developers at a time when rivals such as Codex, Cursor, Claude Code, and other AI coding tools are gaining attention. And the decision to use AWS for computing capacity seems practical given the circumstances.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      vjlex earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Reacting Well
      Dys Topia earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Conversation Starter
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      Console General earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Twozo Technologies earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      106
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      88
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!