DICE promises Battlefield 3 support, B4 features

DICE has shared more details on Battlefield 4, including what will happen to B3, and some fan requested features for the sequel.

67

Following yesterday's announcement of a Battlefield 4 beta code being included with the Medal of Honor Warfighter LE, fans had lingering questions. DICE has taken to answering a few of them, including the fate of Battlefield 3 and requested features they're trying to slip into B4.

An official thread on Reddit (via OXM) shares the details. The team promises continued support for Battlefield 3, and that DICE has a separate team working on Battlefield 4. The beta is set to hit in fall 2013, with the game (obviously) coming sometime shortly afterwards. "Starting work on Battlefield 4 does not mean that we will be abandoning Battlefield 3," the post states. If you want to get in on the beta, you'll have other opportunities besides Warfighter. But that game is the only way to "guarantee" beta access right now.

As for Battlefield 4 itself, DICE has noted a few common fan requests and is trying to implement them in Battlefield 4. These include a better VOIP solution, battle record, spectator mode, and better eSports support. The company also addresses concerns about the short time frame for this sequel. "I truly believe that we're in one of the best positions to be creating our next title," the post states. "Frostbite 2 has matured, we've been gathering fan feedback like crazy, Battlefield 3 continues to expand with features which we can learn from, and we've got more data about how people play than ever."

Editor-In-Chief
From The Chatty
  • reply
    July 18, 2012 10:30 AM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, DICE promises Battlefield 3 support, B4 features.

    DICE has shared more details on Battlefield 4, including what will happen to B3, and some fan requested features for the sequel.

    • DM7 legacy 10 years
      reply
      July 18, 2012 10:45 AM

      Give me the ability to talk to my squad without grouping up externally and I will be happy. :(

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 10:46 AM

      i sure hope they are waiting for next gen consoles so we aren't held back by such old hardware

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 10:49 AM

      LAN SUPPORT.

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 11:10 AM

        this is EA, come on now

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 11:32 AM

        lol, who needs LAN support these days?

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 11:50 AM

          There are definitely people who still LAN.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 12:20 PM

            Who? Usually when you LAN (in BF's case) it excludes you from internet play. Who gets 20 + people Lanning anymore.

            If Starcraft 2 can cut LAN, every game can cut LAN from here on out. IMHO.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 1:08 PM

              you don't do it personally so no one else should, right?

              the 400 pc lan party that's happening at PAX prime next month sold out in a few hours. the intel lan party i staff at is able to sell out it's ~400 seats with just a few weeks notice.

              the last dreamhack, just a few weeks ago, had 12,000 some people in the BYOC.

              yeah, no one lans anymore.

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 1:38 PM

                Shhhh!

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 3:17 PM

                Seriously, these are nerd gatherings en mass, in actuality, nerds don't gather in groups because theres not enough games that support it anymore. I admit I used to LAN it up with 20-30 people, maybe 2-3x a year. That was 12 years ago.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 4:57 PM

                  just last month, i went to 3 lans (2 large lans, 1 small get together lan with a few friends). i'm doing doing pax next month, and two to four more possibles by the end of the year.

                  there's plenty of games that support it, it's the few AAA titles that most shackers focus on that don't support it.

                  and there's always quake 3, unreal tourneys, etc, to fire up. they're still damn fun games. carball in ut2k4 can always get a bunch of people going.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 5:04 PM

                  Myself and friends LAN pretty regularly, because you know, its more social than sitting at home. We just play over the internet if there is no LAN mode though, haha

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 1:34 PM

              lol

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 3:46 PM

              Fuck you! LAN play is awesome, even if it's only coop!

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 10:52 AM

      After the way they supported BF3, I'm glad they are stating their intentions this far out to do barely anything new with 4, in game VOIP is something they should be "testing" by adding it to BF3, assholes. And zero plans again for added longevity with user created maps and content, most likely opting for the ship a handful of maps to make $15 DLC packs every 4 months if lucky. Gonna be way easier to skip this one.

      • DM7 legacy 10 years
        reply
        July 18, 2012 10:57 AM

        Yeah, I think I will skip this one as well. :/

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 11:07 AM

        In game VOIP should be last on their list. Useless in game feature that is accomplished much better with better applications running outside.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 11:18 AM

          assuming you only ever play with friends and no one else with pre-arranged VOIP setups...

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 11:19 AM

            This. VOIP should have been in BF3 at launch, I'm still baffled as to why it's not there.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 11:39 AM

            How many people here in a pub game on XBL or even going back to as far as BF2, mute anyone that that don't know. I know it's the first thing I do.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 12:20 PM

              I love to join pub servers and meet strangers over VOIP... did it all the time in TF2.

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 5:05 PM

                Same here. A lot of people on PC TF2 are pretty decent.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 12:53 PM

              I mute people if they're a jackass/annoying, I don't blanket turn off VOIP in pub games. Every game should have their own VOIP in game to encourage communication. You wouldn't make the same argument for text chat and XFire.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 11:39 AM

          In game VOIP that's done well is vastly superior to any external applications.

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 11:12 AM

        ...skipping also...

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 11:18 AM

        I have no idea why every BF/DICE hater has an issue with the Premium business model (aside from uncharted territory like Premium slots in server queues - that is admittedly kinda weird). $15 for 4-5 maps is the exact right price. BF3 is going to be alive and kicking for quite a while.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 11:20 AM

          Bingo. We now have the Hall of Duty maps, mixed in with a bit of Battlefield gameplay. The maps work quite well for 64P (unlike Metro) and they are plenty busy.

          Cannot wait to go back outside for vehicle madness.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 11:21 AM

          Because a (e)generation ago, we'd just make our own maps

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 11:24 AM

            Yep, BF2 was the last Battlefield game for me. I still play the mods for it!

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 11:31 AM

            No argument here. I've unfortunately come to the conclusion that ship has sailed and is never coming back. :(

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 11:34 AM

            And most of the mods/maps that were user created for that game were garbage. Even POE2 sucked and that had a strong legacy.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 11:34 AM

              Don't even get me started on those realism mods.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 11:51 AM

              Incorrect

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 11:52 AM

                Name some popular / well designed user made maps in BF2. I played a ton, some good some bad. The main problem is that you will never get stats ranking on a user made map, therefore the community will be DOA.

                You would need a full blown TC mod to get people to jump off the rankings train.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 11:53 AM

                  well you see IDGAF about rankings, so there you go

                  • reply
                    July 18, 2012 12:07 PM

                    Cool. I'm with you. I'm not that concerned about points...however...I'm speaking from experience running a server for BF2. Despite what people say, I saw exactly how the community behaves when it comes to ranks. If the map can't get ranked, they aren't really interested. It has to be a full blown total conversion to get people to jump.

                    Its the sad truth man, but unlocks changed everything.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 11:36 AM

            Tribes 1 mapmaker in the house :(

            That was so much fun, making those maps. I miss those days. :( :( :(

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 11:36 AM

            and 99% of them sucked, and everyone just settled on 2-3 to play anyway.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 11:37 AM

              Who cares? Free content at high frequency. It's not on some ridiculous DICE schedule. Ignore the 99% of bad or subpar maps and you're still playing more than DICE released for BF3 total.

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 12:26 PM

                I care, which is why I'll pay $15 for 4-5 professionally made maps.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 12:28 PM

                  exactly. professional quality maps deserve compensation. The price point is debatable, but I'm not against paying for a few maps if they are really good.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 12:31 PM

                  I paid launch price for nine 64 player conquest maps, five of which were terrible and unsuitable for that mode. It's no guarantee that the "professional" maps are going to be the best in any game.

                  In my opinion they should be running a constant beta to test their upcoming DLC maps one at a time and tweaking them based on feedback. Most of the maps they've released thus far could be a whole lot better in terms of balance. People just accept it faults and all because it's all there is and will be.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 12:55 PM

                  Because the studio made them doesn't make them good maps. If you've been around since the Quake days. You'd see a number of dev studios learned a lot from amateur map makers in terms of map flow, gameplay mechanics and architecture experimentation.

                  The FPS scene would have been fucking dull without it.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 12:53 PM

              That percentage of yours is off. And that's also not the point. Most custom-made maps ended up better than what devs produce. As goes with a number of Source games, which has tons of great community map-makers out in the public. I'm thankful some companies still allow modification of their games. We wouldn't have a number of the popular games we currently have if it wasn't for mods. It always just starts out as a small map experiment and then a full mod happens.

              Most of them are breaths of fresh air. I'd rather have an open playground than one fed through a fucking tube at monetary intervals.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 11:25 AM

          I agree, and think people latch on to the 'Premium' name and just assume the worst. $50 or whatever for all expansions seems fine to me. There are some issues with the way they handle their expansions, but the price isn't one of them.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 11:28 AM

          Because you are beholden to their schedule and what they think is best, what the community wants and decides to create to keep the game alive is no longer possible.

          I would still be playing this game if armored kill or just some more "battlefield" sized maps were released for the game. But now after all this time away, I doubt I'd even bother coming back for that, even if it were free and not $15. Quite a contrast to the games I played for years non stop due almost entirely to community support.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 11:51 AM

            And for the record I have no problem with their premium service. I just think it's shitty that it's the only option for more Battlefield maps (and I mean actual Battlefield maps, not this Call of Duty garbage they most recently added). I'd feel the same way if any MP game I really liked shared the same content model, imagine a TF2 with infrequent paid for map packs compared to the 1000s of custom ones available. Sure only a fraction of those are great, but the best bubble to the top and thanks to community testing and feedback they are sometimes better than "official" ones.

            It's sad when a console only game like Halo is doing more for additional content and community features with Forge than Battlefield has done in years since DICE stopped releasing tools.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 12:41 PM

          People like being archaic and think of the good ol mod days which aren't coming back anytime soon besides from smaller companies like Bohemia. EA obviously isn't going to support that model with all the $$ DLC CoD brings in. Either way, premium should be viewed as a good deal to anyone that still plays BF3 on a normal basis that plans on playing more into the future since you save $ compared to buying DLC one at a time. Digital retailers like GMG also offer % discount codes all the time which knock down the Premium price even more.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 1:44 PM

          A pay wall for maps in a multiplayer game splits the community. Maps should be free and shitty fluff stuff should be buyable.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 1:52 PM

            That's a really good point most people forget about. Yet since CoD and I'm sure you'll get a reply along these lines, the counter always is the people who wouldn't pay for the content have stopped playing the game anyway.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 1:58 PM

              they could also counter with the fact that old school expansion packs did the exact same thing but somehow didn't generate the same concern (even though the expansions were at least 2x the cost of a map pack today). Q3 Team Arena? All the BF1942 expansions?

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 2:03 PM

                You know, I never did buy Team Arena or the BF42 expansions because of custom maps and mods. I had way more content than I could get to already.

                And while I regret missing some of those RTR Shackbattles, we still continued to play vanilla BF1942 for years most of the time because more people had it.

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 2:08 PM

                Those also didn't have the frequency of what you get today. So the wait in those periods did build a lot better but those also didn't sell very well. Q3:TA was pretty much a joke.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 2:32 PM

                  they didn't have the frequency because you needed more content to justify a $30-40 product and boxed retail release, but then you get the content out later than is ideal. That said RTR came out 6 months after 1942 and another 6 months after that. I suspect the number of people who want new content 2-4 months after release is much greater than the number of people still playing and interested in new content 6-12 months after release.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 2:35 PM

                  they didn't have the frequency because you needed more content to justify a $30-40 product and boxed retail release, but then you get the content out later than is ideal. That said RTR came out 6 months after 1942 and another 6 months after that. I suspect (and I'm reasonably sure even though the EEDAR data is fuzzy in my mind) the number of people who want new content 2-4 months after release is much greater than the number of people still playing and interested in new content 6-12 months after release. You guys may hate it but there're a ton of people who love the idea of a new map pack every couple months after release.

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 3:57 PM

                Expansions are very different from DLC. Expansions drastically change the way the game is played by adding new gameplay elements and features along with new maps. Expansions really feel like an extension of the game you've been playing where as map packs just feel like added content. And if the maps they're charging are just rehashed maps from previous games there's a little less to be excited about.

                So yes the price is generally more, there's a lot more in the package that makes it worth the purchase.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 5:12 PM

                  that's all well and good, it doesn't really change the nature of the "fragmenting the community" complaint which has become one lynchpin for DLC hate despite somehow not being as bad an issue with traditional expansion packs of old (when the overall community was even smaller so fragmenting it would be even worse)

                  • reply
                    July 18, 2012 8:22 PM

                    Very true.

                    It may just be the timing, or the amount of DLC that gets released. Then there is all the pre purchase content to gamble on. You buy the game for 60 then you're paying another 50 bucks for all the DLC content at a "discount". That's over a hundred bucks for a single game and half of what you've paid for you have no idea what it will be, when you'll get it, if it will be any good, or what the publishers will add into it or not. For example Forza's Porsche pack isn't part of premium purchase content.

                    Perhaps the Halo 2 approach is best. Bungie released their maps for about 20 bucks long after the game had been out, and then later made it a free download as time passed. I don't think it works with the CoD every year a new game model though.

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 11:27 AM

      Whatever happened to the whole "Bad company" series? I fucking loved BF2:BC on the 360.

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 11:39 AM

        Honestly, what is the difference between BC2 and BF3?

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 11:43 AM

          BC2 was all about rush and the maps were better designed for that game mode. BF3 is more interested in conquest, and the rush conversions are of mixed quality. Also, the environments in BC2 were more natural and the destruction was more impressive and comprehensive. I prefer everything in BC2 except the gunplay, which feels better in BF3.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 11:50 AM

            Buildings went down in BC2 a lot more, but the destruction was a lot more generic and cookie cutter looking. I personally wish that BF3's building collapsed more often but the destruction is REALLY good looking and organic feeling. I found BF3's rush maps to be a lote better than BC2, but to each their own.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 11:57 AM

              I think we know who is into "baby features" itt.

              PS: IT'S YOU

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 11:59 AM

                lol. I feel like most of the requests in this thread are people with reminiscing about a bygone era. Those days are done. No one cares about LAN anymore, offline bots isn't that popular anymore, and custom maps will never build a community because they cannot be ranked.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 12:01 PM

                  Why can't they be ranked? DICE could easily roll the best and most popular or requested community maps into the game for everyone.

                  • reply
                    July 18, 2012 12:10 PM

                    They could, but people won't play on the unranked versions in the first place to test them out and get a feel for whats popular.

                    • reply
                      July 18, 2012 12:16 PM

                      If they had let server operators unlock everything from the start in unranked mode instead of adding that feature (and a much requested one) into a patch many months later, things would be different. I know I wouldn't have touched ranked mode, especially because of the bullshit vehicle unlocks. It wasn't fun.

                      • reply
                        July 18, 2012 12:34 PM

                        Having unlocks free ruin's the unlock economy mentality. That's not going to happen.

                        • reply
                          July 18, 2012 12:46 PM

                          When you just want to hop into the game you paid for and have fun without grinding out hours for this weapon or that unlock, there's nothing being ruined there. Choice beats all. Do you remember how many people gave up on the game in the first month because they couldn't put the hours in to unlock and keep up and stopped having fun? I'd say a stronger and happier playerbase with access to the content they want if they so choose is more important than some artificial unlock economy.

                          DICE must have thought so as well, but by the time they finally got around to implementing the variable to unlock everything the damage was done and those people had moved on.

                          • reply
                            July 18, 2012 12:56 PM

                            I don't get this at all. Unlocks are just fine when designed properly. Case in point. I've put a ton of hours in to BF3, it the unlock cap. Want to know the gun I use exclusively? The basic m16.

                            • reply
                              July 18, 2012 12:58 PM

                              You are right, you don't get it. Vehicle unlocks were the big deciders but people getting raped by weapons they didn't know existed and wanted to try is also a factor.

                    • reply
                      July 18, 2012 12:17 PM

                      Also, that's straight up bullshit. People starved for new maps would be playing them, ranked or unranked if they were possible at all.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 1:27 PM

                  you are talking like one of those people who is completely fine with the de-evolution of MP gaming communities and philosophy, to the point of promoting it. thats cool and all, but i wish you would get a virus on your computer and never ever be able to talk publicly on the internet for the rest of your life. i dont mean that in a harsh or bad way, just saying.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 12:10 PM

            Bad Company 2's destruction made buildings as a functional part of map balance almost worthless. When you can just level all the buildings around there is almost no cover and absolutely no verticality which has a huge impact on how you play the game. I get that BF3's destruction isn't as appealing in terms of the aesthetics and realism, as far as keeping the gameplay consistent and more varied it's much better than Bad Company 2. You can still punch holes in most walls to create new paths, but you're not going to lose the ability to climb up to upper floors for tactical advantages.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 12:17 PM

              Exactly, this was one of the reasons they dialed it down. Once the community matured in BC2, people knew how to drop a building in a few strokes.

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 1:22 PM

                Yea, Arica Harbor, Port Valdez, etc. Who cares about the 1st two MCOMs on Arica when you can just knock buildings out with tanks from a far or on the 2nd mcom set in Valdez? I understand the BF3 design decision to not allow using C4/explosives on Mcoms or to allow too much destructibility.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 1:25 PM

                  It was all the more satisfying when you could put up a defense good enough to stop that from happening, or prolonging the inevitable when mortars and long range tanking were involved.

                  • reply
                    July 18, 2012 1:27 PM

                    Yup

                  • reply
                    July 18, 2012 1:49 PM

                    That doesn't mean it's not wholly unfair though. Just because something is unbalanced doesn't mean it's impossible, and just because it's possible doesn't mean it's fair or balanced and shouldn't be adjusted.

                    • reply
                      July 18, 2012 1:54 PM

                      Well in that game and on those maps specifically, from what I remember the balance usually was the first points were easiest to take and final ones were hardest with the middles being somewhere in between.

                    • reply
                      July 18, 2012 3:06 PM

                      Who cares if the first points are hard to hold when there are four more pairs of points to defend? Whether it was intentional or not, I think a good rush map is balanced so that the points become increasingly more difficult to capture and you're not stuck replaying the same scenario forever. If you put up a strong, but losing defense, it's not wasted effort because the enemy will have fewer tickets to take the next point.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 1:06 PM

              If your shit was getting torn down quickly that was on you and your team. You can easily counter that shit and even then not every point was a destroyable building. The issue as with most class-based games is everyone always has terrible class make-up's.

              • reply
                July 18, 2012 1:53 PM

                You obviously didn't play on the (in my opinion really shitty) high ticket count servers that dominated the server browser after a few months. When each team has like 500 or 1000 tickets, the matches last so long that pretty much anything that can be destroyed will be about halfway through. The amount of indestructible buildings was much too low frankly.

                It's not a big deal if the games are short, but when was the last time you saw a vanilla server three months after a Battlefield or a Call of Duty launched? You have to look really hard to find them and if you do find any it's maybe one or two, and they may be far away from you.

                • reply
                  July 18, 2012 1:55 PM

                  I never play on high ticket servers. That bullshit is boring.

                  • reply
                    July 18, 2012 2:27 PM

                    I don't like it either, but it's massively popular and it ends up being the only real option a lot of the time.

                  • reply
                    July 18, 2012 2:39 PM

                    high ticket servers weren't too common in bc2 since the main mode everyone played was a mix of rush & cq, with more emphasis on rush. Its in BF3 I notice a lot of servers with super inflated ticket counts, mostly done in order to keep their server populated. There's a ton of servers including the shack one that sit permanently at empty due to shitty seeding

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 3:49 PM

              It was kind of impressive to see a town flattened honestly. It took a lot of work to accomplish.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 12:11 PM

          I personally enjoyed BC2 more, but primarily because of the map selection. The destruction was also more over the top and prevalent which I enjoyed.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 1:04 PM

          The maps, the squads and overall aggressive nature of it. The building and environment destruction is great in it. It's too bad a lot of what Dice did to make it better came too late. I still play it today and it's a great game even if you have to get used to Dice's awful mouse and character movement. Hardcore is fun too.

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 12:27 PM

        You are not alone. But if i had BF3 for a PC it would be a blast. Sadly i have it for consoles where the huge ass maps are annoying. BC2 did it better for the player limit on consoles. And "i think" BF3 maps size goes better with PC team limits.

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 11:33 AM

      How about letting us host our own servers, not this server rental bullshit.

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 11:40 AM

        Not going to happen, they have been doing that since BF2. Won't be changing if you want ranks.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 12:00 PM

          The entire ranking/unlock system needs to vanish from FPS games.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 12:04 PM

            It's all they have now to keep some people interested. I agree though, does nothing for me.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 12:08 PM

            A lot of people. Love it. So its going not going anywhere.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 1:30 PM

            i just wish it was not just a different name for "leveling". im totally fine with ranks and ratings and stuff, thats cool and lets you benchmark yourself. but the unlocking thing is what is so bad. this coming from a guy with 200 some hours in BF3, and with premium (though admittedly I have not played since CQC came out, mainly due to busy life etc).

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 1:38 PM

            Shit's gay.

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 11:37 AM

      Offline BOTS, a la Black Ops. Do you fucking speak them?

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 11:44 AM

        Why are all of these requests in this thread for baby features?

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 12:28 PM

          Because some people prefer a certain featureset as and you said higher up, - maybe it is a bygone era, but it was a goddamn awesome era. :)

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 12:32 PM

            Fair enough, I really loved 42, Vietnam, and BF2. But in a world were AAA games cost a bazillion dollars and man hours are precious, I'd rather have them spend time DM7's recommended change vs offline bots for a game that is multiplayer focused.

            • reply
              July 18, 2012 12:48 PM

              If it's down to a budget, you're right, the most popular features win. That doesn't make it any more of a shame that "niche" features like offline bot play etc are knocked off the list.

              In an era where it's all about "monetising the product" and "franchise synergy" the older/old-school gamers seem to be left behind somewhat. I hope somewhere around the corner, there's a revival for the small but equally fun features, because they're what keep some people coming back long after the buzz of a new game has died.

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 2:04 PM

      Not falling for this bullshit again..... never buying a dice game again. BF3 was a great game only when all the stars aligned properly everything worked... and after I bought a new sound card because the stupid fucking games online component was not compatible with my onboard sound as fucking stupid as that sounds.

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 2:07 PM

      Am I the only one that wishes we could modify our soldier builds outside of the fucking server we're playing on? Do it Battlelog! Sometimes I'll spend 5 minutes figuring shit out while my squad is getting slaughtered.

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 2:11 PM

        That would be great, a feature worth begging for. To set and save preset loudouts outside the game and equip them easily while. It's bad enough you can only change something when you're dead and in a hurry to get back into the action, and that the soldier / camo customization stuff never seems to stick still.

      • reply
        July 18, 2012 2:14 PM

        Oh hey, look: http://battlefieldo.com/threads/battlefield-3-customization-editor.5114/

        It's not in Battlelog but could be worth checking out. I'm always wary of running some 3rd party .exe these days though.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 4:03 PM

          Nice find! I'm definitely going to try this.

        • reply
          July 18, 2012 6:00 PM

          BOOM!
          Let's hope he's right! It's long overdue.

          Per the author of that mod on page 2:
          So, I've got some news.
          DICE is gonna add the ability to change your loadout into Battlelog.
          They're gonna add this within the next game client update, which I presume is the same day when the next DLC will come out.

          This mean that my app will be pretty much useless. I don't think I'll continue working on it, but I doubt I'll completely delete the project (probably I'll continue it privately).



          • reply
            July 18, 2012 6:10 PM

            He should probably keep working on it considering how poorly dice implements their changes.

          • reply
            July 18, 2012 6:10 PM

            Yeah I hunted down the PDF after that, think it was from gamescom? Anyway it's planned for the future and says the game needs to be updated for it to work and it obviously wasn't bundled with the CQ update.

            Wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being for premium members only.

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 2:48 PM

      Betafield 3... getting you ready for Battlefield 4.

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 6:48 PM

      We need a new Bf for better VOIP solution, battle record, spectator mode, and better eSports support?

      Cant a patch do that for us now? Bring on BF4 I say, but please give us this stuff with a patch.

    • reply
      July 18, 2012 9:47 PM

      I dont want to seem too ambitious here, but how about:
      - its easy to get into a match, same team, and squad with a friend!

    • reply
      July 20, 2012 3:07 PM

      I think I'll wait six month after BF4 releases, and just play BF5 in 2014.

      Thanks for nothing DICE

    • reply
      July 21, 2012 12:03 PM

      I seriously have Battle Field and Call of Duty fatigue. I don't give a damn about either franchise's sequels anymore.

      Maybe I'll go to a one every 2nd or 3rd release personal schedule.

    • reply
      March 16, 2013 2:48 AM

      Offline with bots thx.

Hello, Meet Lola