Frag Infinity Tournament, Inc. - FITES LAN Party - www.fites.net
LAN Party Forums => General Discussion => Started by: Short_Fuse on November 12, 2011, 07:39:55 PM
-
Guys,
I also posted this in the " other lan parties " section of the forum. Although I'd like to vent and say that I'm pissed that BF3 has no LAN support. I was sure they would. I remember someone telling me months ago that BF3 would have LAN support.
In this video (which starts out in German..but goes to english..wait 4 or 5 seconds for that part)
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/17197-battlefield-3-wont-have-lan-support-at-launch-maybe-later/ (http://www.neoseeker.com/news/17197-battlefield-3-wont-have-lan-support-at-launch-maybe-later/)
DICE general manager Karl Troedsson says they have no specific plans for it as of yet, and it won't be supported at launch (October 25). A bit of a downer for the e-sports community especially, however, he implies if fans demand it, they may put it in post-launch.
so maybe there is hope ? Should there be a big ass website put together specifically for " demandbf3lan.com "..or something similar ??
just a thought.
Short Fuse
-
A little late with this one, but better late than never I suppose.
Big ol' thread at http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/5373259.page (http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/5373259.page) was started back in March and discussion around here started before that.
-
I think I am one of the few that actually didn't purchase it. I for some reason didn't get into the Battle Field series but I had bought the other ones to play at LANs and bought BC2 when it went on sale to play with the others.
But I have trouble getting behind a game company that is actively hostile towards it's customers.
-
I'm torn about it. I wouldnt exactly call it "hostile" not sure why the lack of dedicated servers makes them hostile. They made a terrific game (bugs aside) and really catered to the pc crowd on it. This is NOT a consolized POS.
But when you're going against the cash cow that is the Call of Duty franchise you need to make as much money as possible. You know this game cost 100x more to develop than MW3. CoD goes a CTRL+C/CTRL+V to make their games. Its common sense that they get kickbacks from the hosting companies who host these servers. Its ongoing revenue for them. Which for them is a great idea.
What I would have really LOVED to see would for them to let us purchase the dedicated server files. A 32 man server for 18 months will run you almost >$600. I would have loved for them to give us the option to purchase the files for $200, even $300. In the end it still costs less.
People who host their own servers are certainly in the minority. <1% probably of the whole community. And as a business person I can understand their reasoning. As a gamer it upsets me.
As far as the LAN community goes though.... just one word.... ADAPT.
-
As far as the LAN community goes though.... just one word.... ADAPT.
That's the problem, how is a LAN party supposed to adapt to a server that is on the net/cloud when the connection said cloud is not adequate to support 32 simultaneous connections let alone 64? Honestly, that's kind of a cop-out for a LAN gamer to say that. If all game companies go this route...the only way to adapt is to not have LANs....and that is NOT acceptable.
-
As far as the LAN community goes though.... just one word.... ADAPT.
That's the problem, how is a LAN party supposed to adapt to a server that is on the net/cloud when the connection said cloud is not adequate to support 32 simultaneous connections let alone 64? Honestly, that's kind of a cop-out for a LAN gamer to say that. If all game companies go this route...the only way to adapt is to not have LANs....and that is NOT acceptable.
An internet server CAN be done at a LAN party. It just takes some work.
Thats not to say I'm not disappointed about a lack of a dedicated LAN server.
-
I'm torn about it. I wouldnt exactly call it "hostile" not sure why the lack of dedicated servers makes them hostile.
I didn't say that at all. You made that up. Have you seen any of the threads about poor customer support/service? Closing chat sessions and not helping people.
-
I do agree with the idea that people should adapt and adjust to change and I have absolutely no problem with that, but when the service offered is either all or nothing and doesn't give an inch for end-user customization, that's where I have a problem.
Right now we have the option to play on servers that EA/DICE allows. Or not play at all. Their way or the highway. You can't adapt to that, you just do it or not. I could and would more than tolerate a middle-ground solution, but we're not even allowed that. That's just silly. This is why I won't pay full price for the game. Give LAN servers or put the game on sale for a weekend, otherwise I can deal with not playing it.
Besides, what about the people in that official EA thread that occasionally chime in about getting nothing but Crapty pings because of where they live in the world? Their statement can only be taken at face value, but going by their testimony, LAN servers would be like the second coming of christ for them. Why not make them happy as well?
-
I'm torn about it. I wouldnt exactly call it "hostile" not sure why the lack of dedicated servers makes them hostile.
I didn't say that at all. You made that up. Have you seen any of the threads about poor customer support/service? Closing chat sessions and not helping people.
Relax dude. I didn't make anything up, I merely misunderstood your reasoning when you called them hostile in a thread that focuses on the servers. My sincerest apologies. I guess Im too busy enjoying the game to have noticed those stories/ threads that you now clarified you were referring to.
-
I do agree with the idea that people should adapt and adjust to change and I have absolutely no problem with that, but when the service offered is either all or nothing and doesn't give an inch for end-user customization, that's where I have a problem.
Right now we have the option to play on servers that EA/DICE allows. Or not play at all. Their way or the highway. You can't adapt to that, you just do it or not. I could and would more than tolerate a middle-ground solution, but we're not even allowed that. That's just silly. This is why I won't pay full price for the game. Give LAN servers or put the game on sale for a weekend, otherwise I can deal with not playing it.
Besides, what about the people in that official EA thread that occasionally chime in about getting nothing but Crapty pings because of where they live in the world? Their statement can only be taken at face value, but going by their testimony, LAN servers would be like the second coming of christ for them. Why not make them happy as well?
Dont get me wrong. I share everyones sentiments about no LAN support if for no other reason than I'm upset that I have to pay for something I have the means to do myself. Even a few posts up, and on the EA forum thread you guys started I threw out the idea of letting us purchse the server files. That sounds like common ground to me.
However the above sentence of yours that I highlighted really is the exact definition of "adapt". Theres a difference between not being able to adapt and just not wanting to. Your explanation is the latter.
The people you spoke of with the terrible pings. How would dedicated servers help them? They could host their own and do what? Only play with a house full of people? In battlefield? How often do you get to gether with even 15-31 of your other friends to play a video game? And if they hosted their own server and made it public then everyone else in the world would be getting just as crappy pings to them making the dedicated server useless again.
But theres a deeper issue here. We have a game that is actively trying to take on Call of Duty. A game that has actually set the entire gaming industry back at least 5 years. They are the ones who initially took away our dedicated servers, and pretty much put an end to community developed mods. They're he ones who have copy and pasted code year in and year out. I will support any game that is trying to take them on head to head. Call of Duty's pockets are deeper than the Grand Canyon. I tried to find an actual number of how much it cost to develop BF3. I couldnt. But who do you think has the better cost:sales ratio? MW3 who CTRL+V'ed their way into their last game or BF3 who designed a brand new engine that actually makes use of our high end hardware, and offers a much more in depth experience?
MW3 sold 6.5 million copies on launch day and so far has gross sales of more than 3/4 of a BILLION.
<sarcasm> huge thanks to all of you who helped with that </sarcasm>
BF3 can only dream of brining in that amount of money. With the kick backs from the hosting companies it will get them that much closer.
What am I saying? It comes down to money. When the profit margins from the BF series get to the expected level maybe theyll give us the servers back, or at least sell it to us. Who knows? We can only speculate on that. That will then determine just what kind of company they are. Heres to hoping BC3/BF4 will give us the servers back.
In the mean time.... BF3 FTW, and middlefingeryou MW3.
-
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1606/9210860.jpg)
Cry harder bro
-
Besides not having dedicated servers BF3 is in everyway better then BF2. My personal fav is CS:S!!!!
-
My personal fav is CS:S!!!!
Troll is trolling.
-
My personal fav is CS:S!!!!
Troll is trolling.
:)
-
It's a good thing I figured out that UNDERclocking my video cards solves my lock up issue when playing BF3 :)
-
Less is more...
-
So how exactly are we playing BF3 this year? Are we going to get crushed by whatever decrepit pipe comes into the hotel?
-
We're sponsored by Comcast and have two modems coming for a total of 100 mb down and 20 mb up or something along those lines. I believe the plan is to dedicate all BF3 play to one of those two modems to ensure the most stable connection possible.
-
Comcast does a great job and brings pipes bigger than Spicy McHaggis
-
It's an aggregate total of about 230 down, 22 up ;)
But the goal is to have all BF3 traffic going out one pipe so as to avoid retarded punkbuster bans and other BF3-remote-server-why-can't-I-have-a-local-dedicated-server-bullmularkey.
We'll also be utilizing sticky connections since this is a dual-WAN setup as described here: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,44012.0.html (http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,44012.0.html) to hopefully avoid headaches and frustration.
-
It's an aggregate total of about 230 down, 22 up ;)
But the goal is to have all BF3 traffic going out one pipe so as to avoid retarded punkbuster bans and other BF3-remote-server-why-can't-I-have-a-local-dedicated-server-bullmularkey.
We'll also be utilizing sticky connections since this is a dual-WAN setup as described here: [url]http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,44012.0.html[/url] ([url]http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,44012.0.html[/url]) to hopefully avoid headaches and frustration.
I haven't experimented with dual WAN's other than in a lab as I dont have have the equipment/connections. But in theory your 2nd post (the thread's 3rd), was the only way that I could foresee it working 100% without issues 100% of the time.
I was going to try this at our past local LAN. A crude test was to tether with my phone on a laptop. Then enable Internet Connection Sharing to the wired NIC and hook a pfsense WAN up to it. This way I'd have one WAN going out to fios, and one WAN using my phone. I was then going to run wireshark to gather the information on ports and filter BF3 traffic. Create an alias for all the known BF/PB ports and create a rule to filter them out to fios. Then create a NOT rule with the same information and send it out the tethered LAN.
Unfortunately, I never got a chance to do it while replacing a failing RAID card, and having issues with our UT3 and CSS servers (thanks fearon). I still want to try it though. I can post my findings if you like.
The sticky connections works but in theorycan still fail. You had more time testing it than I, so I believe that failure rate (if there even was one) has to be so low that its not an issue for you.
But based off this from the Sticky Connection description:
This 'sticky connection' will exist as long as there are states that refer to this connection. Once the states expire, so will the sticky connection.
If you havent already I'd set the "Firewall Optimzation Option" in the advanced settings to either high-latency or conservative. Which ever option holds connections longer. Both descriptions elude to holding connections longer than default. Downside is obviously a larger state table, hope theres enough RAM.
I <3 pfsense. Its been my savior at work and at home! It certainly is more than capable of getting this job done. I'm curious as to what hardware you guys run it on. I've run it on several different machines from P2 400mhz/256MB RAM up to now a C2D 2.3ghz/2GB RAM. It scales so well. I thought I read somewhere that v2.1 will have full multi-core support. That will be awesome! As of now that 2nd core is hardly being used :(
-
Using both the firewall rules to push all BF3 traffic out one WAN as well as the sticky connections is a belt and suspenders approach. I've already set the firewall optimization to "Conservative" to hold onto the states for as long as possible. All we can do is all we can do and hope for the best.
-
Sweet. I have complete faith there will be no issues
Mind sharing the port list you came up with? Would save me alot of time when I go to test this.
*edit* double negative fail.
-
I don't own the game myself (for reasons well documented already) so I can't do any wiresharking, so I'll use the port list at http://findports.com/document.php?tag=battlefield-3 (http://findports.com/document.php?tag=battlefield-3) for general BF3 traffic as well as the specific IP for our server (http://www.fites.net/general-discussion/bf3-pub-server-is-up-please-use!/ (http://www.fites.net/general-discussion/bf3-pub-server-is-up-please-use!/)).