Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

No of players on multiplayer (BF3 V COD)

Options
  • 12-02-2013 2:20pm
    #1
    mozattack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭


    Hi there,

    Are these graphs accurate?

    http://www.gamestat.co.uk/

    More BF3 players online to COD? Seems strange to me.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    The Freeman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭The Freeman


    as its pc only i would imagine so, it it was consoles stats it would be a completely different story.


  • Options
    #3
    ktulu123
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 3,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭ktulu123


    Most PC gamers realize they can play a better game with battlefield. Call of Duty is the better(I hate it) game on the consoles so more will play that.

    Edit: They also seem to get their call of duty fix from Metro :(


  • Options
    #4
    mozattack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭mozattack


    Anyone know the numbers on console for COD (purely out of interest)?


  • Options
    #5
    mozattack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭mozattack


    ktulu123 wrote: »
    Most PC gamers realize they can play a better game with battlefield. Call of Duty is the better(I hate it) game on the consoles so more will play that.

    Edit: They also seem to get their call of duty fix from Metro :(

    Re Metro, I think it is a great map and I am not sure why it gets so much hate? Maybe 'cos there are people playing it 24/7 and if that is the case, fair enough, but as a map I think it brings a lot to BF3 for variation.

    Variation is the key word here.

    Close quarters, well that is another story... :mad:


  • Options
    #6
    Spear
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 25,261 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    mozattack wrote: »
    Variation is the key word here.

    Variation is not a word that comes to mind with a map that falls just short of being a single long corridor. It also excludes classes from being propely used, just as engineers and their anti-tank capacity, or recon and their sniping/MAV aspects. It is the anathema of everything that BF stands for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    darrenw5094
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭darrenw5094


    Spear wrote: »
    Variation is not a word that comes to mind with a map that falls just short of being a single long corridor. It also excludes classes from being propely used, just as engineers and their anti-tank capacity, or recon and their sniping/MAV aspects. It is the anathema of everything that BF stands for.

    Still needs team work though, not for the Rambo solo guys.

    Snipers still have a big role in the map.:mad: And the MAv can be usefull too.


  • Options
    #8
    mozattack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭mozattack


    Spear wrote: »
    Variation is not a word that comes to mind with a map that falls just short of being a single long corridor. It also excludes classes from being propely used, just as engineers and their anti-tank capacity, or recon and their sniping/MAV aspects. It is the anathema of everything that BF stands for.

    Have to agree to disagree here.

    I think the word "variation" is out of context. I don't mean there is variation within that map (actually rush is varied), I am saying by having a map like Metro there is a variation to other maps like Gulf of Oman, Caspian etc.

    Also since when is not having Snipers with their beloved 12x scope sitting on a crane on a map not a good thing BTW?


  • Options
    #9
    muppetkiller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,199 ✭✭✭muppetkiller


    I'd say the low numbers for COD are simply down to Hackers. I've totally given up on COD because of this. (Black Ops 2 was rubbish too though)

    Battlefield is a much more adult focused game I think and PC Gamers tend to be older due to the costs of setting up a Gaming PC.


  • Options
    #10
    Snowie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,048 ✭✭✭✭Snowie


    look at cods social networking to battlefields

    Battle feild get 5k to 20k cod get 1k useually less cod made the mistake of not bothering to communicate with there gamers bf3 did.


  • Options
    #11
    PhlegmyMoses
    Registered Users Posts: 11,906 ✭✭✭✭PhlegmyMoses


    ktulu123 wrote: »
    Most PC gamers realize they can play a better game with battlefield. Call of Duty is the better(I hate it) game on the consoles so more will play that.

    Edit: They also seem to get their call of duty fix from Metro :(

    Battlefield is still miles better on consoles. COD is an awful game.

    Also, Metro is one of the best tactical maps in the game on consoles. Takes a lot of skill and teamwork to break out of a flag trap and lots of concentration and discipline to lock an area down. They key to winning Metro is to not blitz the third flag until you've held two down for a while.

    Can imagine that it's a cluster**** with 64 players, though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    ktulu123
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 3,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭ktulu123


    I have had some good wins on metro in past alright. But I just think it goes against what battlefield is all about for me. I love the big open maps & sprawling battlefields. I also think tighter maps like the new aftermath ones can be great.

    64 player metro is a disaster! :P


  • Options
    #13
    Dcully
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 14,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dcully


    Tactics and metro in the same breath? sorry i dont get that :)
    Then again maybe with a small player count its ok.


  • Options
    #14
    Nuri Sahin
    Site Banned Posts: 26,456 ✭✭✭✭Nuri Sahin


    ktulu123 wrote: »
    I have had some good wins on metro in past alright. But I just think it goes against what battlefield is all about for me. I love the big open maps & sprawling battlefields. I also think tighter maps like the new aftermath ones can be great.

    64 player metro is a disaster! :P

    Despite being a COD player originally, and while I do prefer the proper Battlefield experience despite player count being limited on console at present, I honestly don't mind maps like Metrotbh. Bit of a variety is the spice of life and all that. I don't get however how people seemingly play it 24/7 though but I suppose that goes for any of the popular 24/7 high ticket maps.

    Wouldn't like to experience 64 man Metro anyway. 12 vs 12 can be a bit OTT on console at times it feels like even.


  • Options
    #15
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Also, Metro is one of the best tactical maps in the game on consoles. Takes a lot of skill and teamwork to break out of a flag trap and lots of concentration and discipline to lock an area down. They key to winning Metro is to not blitz the third flag until you've held two down for a while.

    metro *can* be fun but it more often tends to be f*cked up more often then not. Even if you can find a server that hasnt had a huge ticket multiplier on it or banned weapons (hell I was on a server the other night where they banned smoke for gods sake) you still running a very tight rope between fun intense gun battle and clusterf*ck.

    Though I will agree a big part of doing well is holding just two flags rather then trying for all 3, the chokes around flag B are much easier to hold (especially when attacking russians, when attacking americans their spawn can be surprisingly easy to hold, especially on a 64 man server)


  • Options
    #16
    GottaGetGatt
    Registered Users Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭GottaGetGatt


    At this moment there is
    PC online 50 261
    PS3 online 58 039
    360 online 29 408


    These are from http://bf3stats.com/ and would be very accurate


  • Options
    #17
    Not The Real Scarecrow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,649 ✭✭✭Not The Real Scarecrow


    Nuri Sahin wrote: »

    Wouldn't like to experience 64 man Metro anyway. 12 vs 12 can be a bit OTT on console at times it feels like even.

    Its actually no where near as bad with more players. I think all the chaos ends up making it harder to spawn trap as its harder to contain 32 people for a long period of time.Wouldn't fancy coming up against a well organised clan though, I'd say it'd be a complete nightmare. Saying that it is fairly mental though.


Advertisement