Rooster90

BF3 is a shooter that immerses you almost completely. From the visuals, to how everybody's character moves and interacts (and speaks), the sound that envelopes the virtual battlefield... it's a sensory experience the first few times you play. I thought BC2 did a pretty decent job, but this... this is something else. The first time I saw/heard a rocket whiz past me I literally ducked my head! There's no silly big stream of smoke or loud rocket travel. You just hear a crack in the distance and before you know it... WHOOSH!- -BOOM! Also unlike BC2, not every round you shoot is a tracer round. If you're being shot at you have to rely on the dust kicking up around you, your vision narrowing, and the crackles, snaps, and whizzes around you. Man I'm going gaga over just remembering the alpha... so pumped for this game!!!

Idk, they're pretty close. BF3 isn't done justice in pictures. Plus the massive amounts of stat-tracking going on in the background with 64 player games is pretty impressive. And the sound of BF3... man, there isn't a game out there that even comes close to BF3's sound design. Absolutely phenomenal.

"BF2 Project Reality is still a great game and will probably continue to be popular until a PR mod comes out for BF3" No mod tools for BF3 bud. I think you mean the PR standalone game that they're developing. Also yeah, I'd like to hear the same answers that Batwing had, how it compares to ACE, etc. Never really played anything PvP in ArmA that played well.

Yes, the American military standard is Day/Month/Year. (Written as: 01SEPT2011) So that either leads me to believe that A. American PMCs have their own drones operating in the region or B. the unit that wrote that was lax on the dating.

Mine is Thronewolf, however I'll primarily be playing with my main clan, B-Team. We're an open community as well, so if anybody wants to play with us just ask. We run Mumble VOIP.

Definitely can't go wrong with a Mackie! Best live sound mixers out there. Whether it's brand new or 20 years old those babies will never stop working! The sound is nothing special and I wouldn't mix an album on them, but for live sound purposes and sheer durability, it's money well spent.

^^ technical hoopla. All that matters is what you see. It's all subjective to each person's eyes. Yeah, my monitor is an old LCD and just about anything looks better. But his 24" Samsung LED looks particularly better than any other monitor I've seen recently. But I must say, this 19" Gateway LCD has served me well. Over 10 years old and no dead pixels. It was 800 dollars well spent back when all of this was fairly new. Man, I remember this was one of the biggest monitors in the store back then. XD 1680x1050 was an unheard of resolution. But, it's age is starting to show among newer, better technology. I'll likely be getting this monitor in the near future to play BF3 on. By far one of the best reviewed monitors in it's price range. Only downside is it's 24" instead of 27". http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236102

I'm assuming you're getting this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001431 Just remember, response times aren't everything. If it's 3ms or below, you aren't really going to notice anything significant. It's about picture quality as well. People may give a lot of technical hoopla about LED backlights not being any more effective. But there's a reason it's popular. Every time I see a friend using one of their LED monitors, I have a wave of jealousy. Everything is always so much more vibrant and crisp. But I must admit, 300 for a 27" is a great price. May have to look into that monitor a bit more....

Correct. But most tournament clans grind the game until they've unlocked everything before entering into any ladders anyway. And there are obviously higher profile/sponsored tournaments (As in, ones with large prizes, hosted in one location) that will have special servers set up with special options. But that goes for any game.

Already discussed about in this thread: http://www.legionofspartans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8823

Yeah, just as I suspected. Same as BC2. Luckily, the RSP's they offered were reasonably priced and ran lag-free. Not the cheapest, but not horribly overpriced either. My clan is getting a machine that will host our Mumble and a 50+ player server and another smaller server for clan matches for about $100 a month. Not bad. Two encouraging highlights though: "Ranked vs Unranked One of the biggest choices which a server administrator has to make is, whether to run the server in Ranked or Unranked mode. In Ranked mode, player progression is tracked on EAs master servers. Weapons are unlocked by playing the game. Player progression is also visible on Battlelog. The server administrators will have to abide by the Battlefield Rules of Engagement. In Unranked mode, player progression is not tracked on the master servers. Server administrators have free reign on such servers – no Battlefield Rules of Engagement to heed. They can control in detail which weapons are available to the players, etc. This mode is suited to playing clan matches, tournaments, or to those players who just like the fairness of everyone having the same range of weapons available to them." "Server administration interface BF3 will support a Remote Administration interface similar to that of BFBC2. The basic protocol will be the same, but commands differing a bit. There is a plethora of tools available that can talk to the remote admin interface. We are in contact with several of the developers who created tools for BFBC2, and will aid them in adding support for BF3. If you have developed a BFBC2 remote admin tool which is popular (used on >100 game servers), send me a PM. The protocol itself is still under constant revision. Expect the protocol to be published by the time that the retail game is released."

Hmm, Canadian site. Any idea how much shipping is to ship to the US?

I'm pretty sure what he was talking about is available to everybody. Like BC2, I think with BF3 you'll only be able to rent "BF3-approved" servers so you won't be able to host on a machine of your choosing. But I think they're putting in a lot more effort to give server-owners more tools and options than with BC2. My team had to get a lot of third-party software and mods to do some pretty basic things in BC2 for a while.

I second this as well. I use the same RAM, just the 1333 clocked instead of 1600. Got it for about 20 bucks cheaper than this, but thats still a really good price for that RAM. Highly recommended. Would've gotten this for sure if they were that price at the time of my purchase (They were around 120 4-5 months ago)

300 bucks isn't cheap for 240 GB, even if it is an SSD. I'm paying over a dollar per GB, not including taxes and shipping. I don't even have all of my games installed and I already use about 300GB of space. I don't really feel like going through the hassle of splitting my Steam library over 2 drives, which I'm not even sure you can do that. I'd like to know where that 300 dollar drive is listed though, it's 340 on Newegg.

It's 6 GB. No need to be an dick about it, I don't have time to read every single thread and post here. On top of that, Halil is asking for current, but AFFORDABLE options. I'm not saying those 24 GB deals aren't good, but A. Nobody needs to spend that much on RAM and B. Nobody will ever need that much RAM for a very long time. 6 GB is more than enough to run anything up and coming this fall. Hell, most people would be perfectly fine with 4. I run 8, but only because there was a sale on it.

The i5 2500K is a solid choice. However... I simply can't stress enough that the i7 2600K is absolutely worth it's price as well. If there's anything you should blow the big bucks on, its your CPU and GPU. Some good cases: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119196 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119233 (Or any of the HAF series) GPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127594 (really can't go wrong on this one. Ask noobiachi) RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231352 (for this price, definitely a snag) EDIT: Not all "top of the line" stuff, but it's all current and all have very good price/performance ratios.

Well, the way I see it we wont see a major leap in gaming/graphics technology that pushes this hardware until the next generation of consoles (more precisely, the next Playstation). It's sad, but it's just the way things are right now. It's where the money is. Sure, there are fringe titles here and there that continue to push the limits (Metro 2033, ArmA 3, etc) but for the most part everything is made with the idea of keeping console compatibility in mind. Even BF3, a stunning achievement, isn't really that big of a leap from BC2. They just took lessons learned from the two BC's, primarily console games, and scaled it for PC and optimized it much better. Being future-proofed is always a good thing, but I think the average gamer has the ability to lower their graphical standards to meet a budget. I can always add a third stick if I really felt I needed it. But I also played games on low/medium settings and very low resolutions (like, 1024x768 and below) with FPS averaging around 30 for many, many years and was totally content. I personally don't notice any significant difference after 50-60 fps. Not trying to sidetrack the conversation or anything. This post is very informative and well-written. I'm merely playing devil's advocate (as I love to do XD) and ask whether any of this is completely necessary.

And yet, I'll likely never notice the difference for any of this. XD I have 8GB of 1333 DDR3 (4GB x 2) and I've yet to ever even reach much past half capacity. I think the most important question is: will the average gamer ever even notice a difference? Especially with the added price tag of a third stick? Is the price worth the gains in performance (if any)? I know "enthusiasts" scoff at this, but most of us want a practical solution at a cheap price.

It's still pretty unbalanced imo. A coordinated squad can help carry a team to the final objective, but when an overwhelming majority (around 80% or more) of players over a 2 week period never even made it to the last set of objectives, let alone destroy them, that's a map design flaw. I was always playing with a full squad of friends throughout the Alpha (all veterans in the fps and Battlefield genre) and we could rarely carry the team. However, there were two factors/bugs that probably exacerbated this problem: the squad leader system was bugged and wouldn't designate a leader, and when it did designate you couldn't spawn on your SL most of the time. If the Attacking team's squads would've been able to spawn on their respective SL's and keep the pressure on the objectives, it would give SL's incentive to keep safe, but close distances to the frontlines. I don't think it would fix entirely the balance of the map as defenders are able to spawn on their SL's too, but it would've helped. Then again, I don't seem myself playing too much "Rush" if I can help it. Way too similar to Battlefield: Bad Chokepoints 2.

Some alpha gameplay. Better representative than trailers and off-screen cams. www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0AjWh3fjXQ

I'll be getting it like every other CS. No matter how bad I am at those games, I get it regardless. It's a humbling game for any FPS player. I've actually been going back and playing CS:S a lot lately.

And BF3 is only 46 dollars (49 after taxes). I know secrets.... trollface.jpg

^Newest trailer. Looks good, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope for it. I'm sure it'll be fine and fun, but releasing this game so close to BF3 is a huge mistake. It's stopping me from buying it and I know I'll only play it for that month until BF3 comes out, and I'll be playing that for the next few years. Keeping my eye on it though.

YES! Finally part 2 came out! Been waiting so long for this.