Inside DICE: The Making of Caspian Border

Back in 2010, our multiplayer design pod was facing a dozen level concepts up on the wall. The previous day we had narrowed it down from 29 pitches, and these were the ones that had made the cut. I picked the one with the beautiful countryside — a serene landscape of trees, open fields and expansive gentle slopes. The pitch simply read “Rolling Hills”. This would be a fun level to toy with – and this is the story of how it turned into the classic Battlefield 3 map Caspian Border.

Caspian Border started out with the working title “Forest” during production of Battlefield 3. It was to be a throwback to the classic open Conquest Head On maps from Battlefield 1942. The ambition from the outset was clear and simple: A massive playground for players of all types and tastes.

We wanted players to be able to choose between all the major vehicle and aircraft classes across an open layout, or alternatively have the option to choose infantry combat inside more tightly constructed areas. It was to be all-out epic ground and air warfare, scaling up to 64 players on PC.

When I started considering layouts for the map, one of the early influences that I studied was Operation Kursk from Battlefield 1942. With its open terrain, forested cover and vehicle-focused appeal, it seemed like a good starting point for a retake of the classic Battlefield gameplay. The early prototypes we play tested thus featured (similarly to the classic Operation Kursk) two bases at each extreme, roads along the outside borders leading to the enemy territory, and flags centered in the middle where the two opposing teams were expected to collide.

One of the earliest test versions of “Forest” – very basic terrain and layout with some vehicles plopped down to start basic play testing.

Setting Forest up
When designing layouts for any multiplayer level, the challenge for the level designer often centers on adding the right amount of symmetry and asymmetry into the design – you want something that ultimately plays balanced, but with interesting contrasts depending on who you have chosen to fight for.

My original plan was to implement a four-flag set up – equal distances to each team’s home base ensuring a certain amount of symmetry – and to introduce strategic or tactical subtleties by way of unique terrain features specific to the American or the Russian halves of the map. Furthermore, the map was to be split along the north/south axis by a river, with the eastern half being more prone to lighter vehicles and infantry, and the western half encouraging tank vs. tank combat across the hilly terrain.


“One of my main concerns was

forcing vehicles to interact with infantry”


On any Battlefield level, different types of players need to have different fighting areas that will appeal to them – the bases or terrain around the flags naturally designed to match those combat scenarios. But considering how some of the flags were clearly vehicle-focused, and some were more prone to infantry, one of my main concerns when building Caspian Border was to come up with a layout that forced vehicles to interact with infantry, and vice versa.

Collaborating with senior designer Alan Kertz and the level artist for Caspian Border, Johannes Fors, we eventually came up with a layout proposal that did just that – infantry fighting would occur in proximity of the central flags, while the flags on the other side of the river would be dominated by vehicles.

The final flag layout for Caspian Border ensured that there was a good mix of infantry and vehicle focus on this sprawling map.

Making ends meet
After a lot of tinkering with the possibilities, there was now a layout that I felt comfortable with. But there were still many loose ends when it came to the art direction. The primary concern was the lack of good visual contrast between the natural areas, lack of identity for the actual bases, as well as the lack of main visual guidelines for players to orient themselves. To break the level up, our talented crew of level artists decided upon a border crossing theme, which in turn gave us a solid border checkpoint theme that would become the centerpiece of the map. The highway running from north to south functioned as a visual landmark cutting across the map, momentarily parallel to the river but eventually crossing over and leading to the area that now houses the Gas Station base.

Slowly but steadily, Caspian Border was beginning to take its present form. Given the traditional Battlefield gameplay we were bringing back for Battlefield 3, it had been decided that we would be unveiling a hands-on version of 64-player Conquest for the first time at GamesCom 2011 in Germany. Caspian Border was to be the showcase level.

As we continued play testing the map internally – we were playing the map on a daily basis during August to get the level ready in time for the show – I felt the infantry areas were in danger of being overwhelmed by the sheer amount of vehicles across the open terrain. To balance things up I opted to add a third flag in the center of the map, giving us two mixed vehicle/infantry flags (Checkpoint and Hilltop) along with one infantry-only flag (Forest) that was still reasonably close to the more vehicle-centric bases on the other side of the river (Gas Station to the North and Antenna to the South).

Thus we arrived to the base layout that we see today on Caspian Border for the PC – one that we felt lived up to our expectations for a large scale Conquest gameplay. But this very same layout, when play tested for 24 player Conquest matches on the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3, felt less intense than its PC counterpart – the original expanse of terrain was now roamed by fewer players, so the fighting felt too spread out.

I analyzed several flag configuration options, and ultimately concluded that eliminating the Antenna flag from this set up allowed us to reduce the amount of contested flags (and hence player spread) while still conserving the essential northwest/south axis of fighting going from the Gas Station (typically held by the Russians), past the Hilltop and Forest neutral flags, all the way to the Checkpoint area (usually controlled by the US).

A comparison between the different flag layouts on PC and console, and how they both retain the same fighting axis.

Delivering all game modes on Caspian Border
All nine maps we shipped with Battlefield 3 were set up with our six different game modes. In practice, this meant 54 different level setups, and a whole lot of work for the three multiplayer level designers in the project. We approached the different maps by first establishing the creative vision of the level around a dominant game mode – Rush or Conquest – while keeping the necessary considerations for the other game modes at the back of our minds, and eventually making the game mode specific adaptations to make sure they played well in any game mode.

Caspian Border was unequivocally a Conquest focused map, conceived to play to the strengths of open, freeform, sandbox-style gameplay – as opposed to Rush’s inherently more linear take on Battlefield. The first layout that I attempted for Rush had the attackers beginning where the RU base currently sits, moving on towards a base at the Hilltop, and culminating with a final attack on the set of M-COM stations by Checkpoint. In our play tests, though, this set-up proved underwhelming.

The hilly slopes around the northern Airstrip (the Russian HQ in Conquest) were not adequate for tank on tank combat, and the distance from Hilltop to Checkpoint was too short to really allow for interesting tactics for both sides. I decided to invert the layout instead – the US base would be the starting point, with the attackers taking over Checkpoint, before moving towards Gas Station, and culminating on a climactic push uphill towards Airstrip. We added helicopters for the attackers, plus ground assault jets for each team, and voilà – Rush was a thrill once again!

The final Rush layout shows the linear progression as the fighting proceeds northwards from the US HQ.

The Team Deathmatch game mode followed a similar pattern where I tried different failed set ups before settling on the one that we shipped the game with. We first play tested Team Deathmatch on the area surrounding the Checkpoint and Hilltop bases, but it didn’t lend itself well to multiple spawn zones (I wrote about the spawn zone system for Team Deathmatch in my previous Battlefield blog entry) as well as the combined Forest/Hilltop area, which was too open to present enough tactical options for players. Curiously enough, the setup around Gas Station had been completely overlooked at first, but it turned out it played great once the environments had been iterated by our artists. The natural four-zone layout of the area made it a very fitting setup for Team Deathmatch. As it stands now, the blend of open fields and forested areas with destructible buildings in the center makes it one of my favorite Team Deathmatch layouts in the game.

The finishing touches
Team Deathmatch is one of the areas that benefitted the most from our continuing post-release patch efforts. After we shipped the game last autumn, we looked hard at the feedback from the community across the different game modes. As part of the initiative to improve the Deathmatch spawning experience, I made an effort to further tweak many of the original spawning positions – a lot of the spawns were moved from their original locations close to the buildings in the center to safer locations at the periphery of the playable area. Players spawn further away from the action now, but this allows them to come into the fight on their terms after having enough time to read the battle.

Along with the aforementioned Team Deathmatch changes, avid gamers probably noticed a little surprise that came with the Karkand patch – the tall communications antenna that comprises one of the visual landmarks of the level would now tumble down when nearing the end of any Conquest match. We had always envisioned this hulking piece of destructible scenery as the climax of a prospective end-game outro cinematic (think Battlefield: Bad Company 2) but that cinematic feature was eventually cut. So we decided to try to get the event into the round itself instead. Unfortunately, when our deadline loomed we were unable to solve the technical complications of triggering such a complex animated object while the match was still taking place.

That said – being pummeled to death by a collapsing monster antenna simply had no substitute. By the time the first big patch came up, we had fortunately been able iron out all the kinks, and the antenna would no longer be just a prop.

Have you ever had this antenna fall on your head at the end of a round?

Speaking of big structures – I am interested to know what you think about interacting with large structures during Battlefield matches. The collapsible Antenna is admittedly only a scripted event, and one that is played too late to really impact the gameplay. But what if it was to be triggered by players, at any point during a match? Is that something you think would improve upon the Battlefield gameplay? Would you like to be able to interact with structures more often? Make your voice heard in the poll below!

Diego Jimenez
Multiplayer Level Designer

The map was dubbed Caspian Border just in time for GamesCom 2011, where it made a huge impact with our 64-player Conquest setup. Click for full size.

  • Post a comment
    You must be logged in to comment. Log in
  • Lieutenant00 08.18.13 at 07:47

    Lol, Im # 25,175. Then you have those unreliable COD queers voting no.

  • tuoVout 02.02.13 at 07:10

    Do you enjoy interacting with massive destructible structures that impact the course of the match?

    Yes! It adds a lot of interesting gameplay possibilities and looks cool. (98%, 23,982 Votes)
    No, it adds too much randomness and takes focus from the actual fighting. (2%, 608 Votes)

    LOL you can clearly see the TRUE Battlefield fans. I think im number 23,982

  • KarakasCZE 01.18.13 at 21:03

    For me it will be better with ends like in BattlefieldBafdCompany2 and some maps like BFBC2 with little houses to destroy and mazbe PanamaCanal map please…
    Your very big FAN-Karakas

  • Aka_jaha 10.31.12 at 08:46

    What if you could put the tower up your ass? Would it hurt?

  • kolsa_hurja95 09.24.12 at 15:08

    n make destruction look so friking realistic

  • retypeNick 08.30.12 at 19:47

    Caspian Border, the best there is.

  • Barolo2465 08.28.12 at 21:48

    Imagine if you can control the direction in which the tower falls down.

  • UNCL3 RIK 24 08.28.12 at 15:29

    please in the next patch allow players to blow the supports for the antenna on Caspian Border w/ c4 packs or a couple tank shells would be kinda cool keeping in mind that it can’t be done right from the start of the match

  • FlushedInk 08.28.12 at 10:34

    More huge destructible structures! That being said, caspian border would be so much better if you could blow up the antenna.

  • [lt]HardBall 08.26.12 at 18:46

    i like the more destructible things,like buildings or a huge antenna what you can blow up with c4 on the wright time hell yeh,hoooooah

  • L0rdMetzger 08.24.12 at 02:21

    I want a woodland colored tanks on Caspian Border. No army would drive with desert colored tanks.

  • WiLsOn635 08.23.12 at 23:29

    yeh its a brilliant map i know its a bit late but nice work dice

  • PixelPilot 08.23.12 at 22:20

    Love Caspian Border it’s a magnificent map.
    I remember not so long ago spawning into the game only to have the massive Antenna crash right down on top of me before I even got my bearings. Flattened. Love it.

  • moh3dasy 08.23.12 at 18:19

    Yes ,I would like to be able to interact with structures more often in AFTERMATH maybe !!!

  • X-akos-IV 08.20.12 at 11:50

    It was a very interesting post!! Thank you!! :)

  • Peters21 08.18.12 at 03:07

    I believe you should incorporate larger destructible objects into the game, but not ones that slow the flow of infantry. I believe that for 2 reasons. 1 it can help even out the game (blowing a hole in a bridge that is an armour highway can really turn the tides) or just make it more fair. 2 its just awesome when that antennae falls. I remember 1 time it was a match of 3 v 12 and the ruskies had us penned in at our spawn with four tanks. Eventually these 4 tanks pull back into a line formation far away from our spawn. all of the sudden i hear my buddy say “88mm HEAT round coming in. Watch those tanks.”. I turned and i watched as the antennae fell and killed these four tanks sitting in a row. what that means is that antennae has a higher k/d than i do.

    Antennae k/d: 8
    mine: 1

  • XXXX__RICH__XXXX 08.17.12 at 20:12

    Hey DICE.
    When looking at the two maps for PC and PS3/XBOX, then i really cant see why you have opted to remove the Antenna flag on the PS3/XBOX version of the map.
    This part of the map is NEVER used, witch is pretty sad, since it is a great space on the map. It would also create some great tank battles on the open field surrounding the antenna flag, when each side was trying to cap it with there tanks.
    So in my mind it was a BIG mistake to remove the antenna flag form the PS3/XBOX version and im not just saying this because i want more stuff/flags….but because as it is now.
    Then you got a quarter of the map not being used AT ALL. Why not use it…..its already there, you dont have to change anything, just put in a flag….;0)

    Really hope you guys reads this. :0)

  • Bogeyx 08.17.12 at 17:01

    If this Structures can make players to change their playstyle and forces them to adapt, it would be a great unique gameplay.

  • 01Caedo 08.17.12 at 15:07

    DICE you should definitely do this. Not only will it be a unique game play feature to the battlefield franchise but the possibility of altering the battle by interacting with structures can add a great dynamic and organic feeling to the game-play. I imagine something like blowing up a bridge or simply block the path of a road with rubble or a giant tree to disable enemy armor from entering a certain point on the map. It will force players to use strategy on a larger scale and in real time.

  • myfatbanana 08.16.12 at 22:52

    yeah it would be nice to take out structures and change the way players have to move threw the map like taking out bridges

  • ChillBroSwaggins 08.16.12 at 19:51

    YES YES YES. Make more interactive structures. That would be a huge addition to the cinematic quality of each match.

  • busewils 08.16.12 at 15:21

    The primary reason battlefield is so good is the epic scale of the maps with the great team-based gameplay. But I think there should be a long jungle map like Valparaiso in BFBC2 and Laguna Presa with the same layout from rush brought to the players in an “invasion / D-day”-experience in both conquest and rush. Also a small island group would be nice (with an aircraft carrier [US] and an island with a russian naval base). These islands should be connected by destroyable bridges (both pedestrian and vehicle) for changing gameplay. I would really like to see this in BF3 or in a next battlefield game!

  • xX Burnz 007 Xx 08.15.12 at 16:14

    I have been reading other posts about triggered events or weather effects. They all sound great. imagine a fire that starts and smoke begins to billed up or a storm rolls in with a downpour.. now some soliders may want to use IR scopes (granted they be fixed to work again) and change the strategy.

    • ChillBroSwaggins 08.16.12 at 19:52

      I agree 100%. That would add an awesome dynamic with the need to adjust your equipment and gadget loadout! Especially if it was a randomly triggered effect.

  • thesoef 08.15.12 at 03:12

    I want destruction 2.0 back to destroy everything. In bf bc2 you could destroy everything in the map even small bridges ! So bf3 is a step backwards

  • CRAZYJ508 08.14.12 at 16:59

    i have a playstation 3 and id just like to say that i think this game is so boring online i barley find anyone on conquest and thers only like three objectives and i think amored kill is going to make this worse than what it already is

  • Webke 08.14.12 at 13:29

    You should add the destruction of bridges again to the game. that was a great option on bf2.
    also, please focuse more again on vechicle game play and PC-orientated.
    you do not need to compete with Call of Duty; Battlefield is a totally different game; please let it stay that way…

  • Wonderllama 08.14.12 at 09:42

    I really wish there was an even smaller Conquest Assault version of this map for consoles. Remove the default spawn locations, add Antenna back in, add more ground vehicles, and remove aircraft. Without those long distances from the spawns, there would be more people on the flags for more action.

    It would be like the Conquest variant on Gulf of Oman. Everybody is grounded, there would be a lot more kills for everyone! Please consider this

  • Grenno 08.14.12 at 04:48

    C4′ing the bridge on Karkand in BF2 was one of the best things about that map. It brought about a great tactical advantage if you were the attacking team to be able to hold them off and prevent vehicles from rolling over. But this could also be helpful for the defensive side too. That was great!! It’s such a shame you don’t have similar destruction options in bf3. And if you are considering introducing them, that is a great idea!!!!

  • KJGAM7298 08.14.12 at 01:39

    I Kinda wish they would add the US Army in BF3 and have some new vehicles. Vehecles like the UH-60 Blackhawk, AH-64 Apache. Also USAF jets like the F15E Strike Eagle and F16C Fighting Falcon. Ground vehicles can stay unchanged except for some. Have the M3 Bradley (Unlike in BFBC2 it should be Amphibious like in real life) & LAV III (different designation for the LAV-25) for the IFV spot (LAV-AD still the mobile AA) & M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle replaces the AAV-7A1 Amtrac (armed with a 7.62 LMG and a grenade launcher). Then again the new M1128 Mobile Gun System in Armored kill is only used by the US Army and the AC-130 and A-10 is only used by the USAF

  • KJGAM7298 08.14.12 at 01:21

    They obviously didn’t have enough imagination in levels. And seriously they went with the whole US vs RU cliche.

  • LewiisF 08.13.12 at 21:56

    I think the simplest way to implement such large scale destructive structures would be to apply these initially to the Rush game mode. Say for example, a large bridge lined with cars. The attacking teams m-com stations to destroy would be load bearing beams of the bridge so the final piece can be the bridge falling at the end of the game. and other such instances.

  • LT_FRAZIER_USA 08.13.12 at 09:19

    I think that some 20 story buildings should be able to fully collapse. If a person strategically places C4 on the lower support pillars of a large building it should collapse. Although it shouldn’t be too easy to collapse these buildings I think 10-20 pillars to destroy would make it a good worthwhile task. Also would it be possible to have destroyed vehicles not disappear? If the destroyed vehicles would stay there the entire match then your teammates would see the vehicle graveyard as an area to avoid which would make people try to find a better flanking route. Also I think a sniper DLC would be awesome. I can imagine a large desert map with two small cities and a large open area which is a definite kill zone for advancing infantry compared to a sniper in cover. A great add on for that DLC would be a range finder for sniper scopes and the addition of wind to affect bullet trajectory. One last opinion of mine to consider is bringing back Project Reality I loved how realistic it was so that a run and gun style of play was nearly impossible to be efficient at. I think I recall a DICE employee stating that most of the game’s engagements happen within 20 meters but in real combat most engagements are over 100 meters because it is smart to attack the enemy from the furthest possible vantage point. The first person to engage the enemy from long distance has a drastic advantage because he has the element of surprise and can easily keep the enemy pinned down if done correctly. I hope you guys consider these options for future projects.

    • bkelley04 08.13.12 at 19:50

      Translation of second half. “Hey battlefield, I’m not that great at this game except for sniping. But even when I snipe I dont do so well. I think it would be really fun if you made a game mode where pursuing the objective was nearly futile, killing skilled players who use the other classes is really easy, and I get a really good kd with absolutely no form of retaliation! Thanks battlefield!”

      • GJoBON 08.13.12 at 22:12

        sounds like you’re a little bitch with a little brain sparsely populated with little ideas.
        keep crying or get better at the game, little bitch.

        • LT_FRAZIER_USA 08.14.12 at 18:18

          First of all I am good at the game. I only have one service star with the recon class while my others have at least 5. I believe that recon is still underpowered unless your quick scoping on hardcore which isn’t technically sniping. If you are so smart why not say your ideas? I have a college degree and in the military so I’m about 90% percent sure my education is greater than yours. Grow up and learn to consider other people’s opinions before making yourself sound like a retard. Since so many people like to camp and not go after the objective in the vanilla game modes, I think it would be great to have a mode dedicated to snipers because they would then stick to that mode and actually be productive if the mode just went by who had the most kills/headshots.

      • LT_FRAZIER_USA 08.14.12 at 18:35

        Sniping is underpowered in this game and it is my least used class so I have to use the other three classes to be productive (look me up on battlelog and prove to yourself that you are immature and idiotic to make assumptions with no evidence). Snipers could be very useful in the game if they were one hit kills like in BC2 because it is easy to cover your teammates to arm an MCOM or defend it from the enemy. I believe that bolt action snipers should kill moving targets in one hit because the bullets tear diagonally through someone running which causes more internal damage. I am usually one of the main players on my team who PTFOs but even I like the art of sniping sometimes especially in a game that actually uses bullet drop and needs compensation from the time the bullet leaves the muzzle and hits the target. Also, if there were a sniper dominated game mode then that game mode is where the snipers would go which means I wouldn’t have to put up with a squad full of snipers on conquest who do nothing for the objective besides giving me an extra kilometer to run from a useless spawn point that they only use to spawn themselves. Lastly I’d like to make note of bkelley04 and GJoBON bringing your call of duty immaturity to a grown up game. Don’t shoot down ideas that you either don’t understand or are too self conceded to consider.

    • GJoBON 08.13.12 at 22:14

      sounds way too good to be true. let’s see what ARMA 3 and BF4 will bring to the table

  • SizedContractor 08.12.12 at 20:05

    I am extremly disappointed over the fact that destruction went backwards in Battlefield 3, you can’t collaps buildings in the same way, C4 hardly makes a dent on the ground when you trigger it, very few buildings can be harmed at all, you can’t show down trees with a simple machinegun and so on!

    The full on destruction in Bad Company 2 was so amazing and it made Battlefield complete. To go into a fight with vehichles and heavy weapons, with only one objective – Victory, and see the battlefield turn into ruins while you hunt your enemies. Nothing can top that. To collapse a whole building just to get that one enemy, to run in the woods, fleeing from an attack helicopter, while seeing the woods turn into a plain field due to the rage of the bloodthirsty pilot and gunner.

    Give us destruction back DICE, please!

  • jezumcrow 08.12.12 at 16:49

    Oddly enough, you could blow up bridges in Bad Company (the original) – but not in B3. Bummed that you can’t blow holes in buildings on the new Close Quarters maps as well…..seems odd to go backwards on “full” destruction. HOWEVER – nothing comes close to the awesomeness of Battlefield. Period.

  • JekeTeMata 08.12.12 at 12:29

    I’m sorry but I can’t agree with you, if you want to put special rules to the server MAKE IT UNRANKED!! I’m so fed up of abuser admins that kick you out for any silly reason they can mind up.

    Last kick I got was “choose a server in your own country” clear case of xenophobia, since i had less than 30 ping and I don’t even know wich country he was referring since I’m spanish but playing from Poland, anyway I can understand a kick if I have big ping but I had 30PING ffs!!

    Also the kicks for using determined weapons RPG/SMAW vs Infantry, once I got kicked for using SKS WTF!! weapons are there for everyone and RANKED servers should be unrestricted.

    If you want to be a looser who plays with his HOUSERULES DO IT ON UNRANKED FFS!!

    I agree noobish admins are screwing this game.

    PS: Can DICE tell us what the hell about the premium stuff in august, half month passed already!!

    • Ally_24670884 08.12.12 at 17:05

      So why bother paying then? Nobody would be a server if that was the case. You got to have business sense to understand that. NOBODY is going to pay to have an unranked server, that is sheer stupidity. You must understand the demands of your customers and to set up paying servers as unranked only is business suicide.

      It is a quite clear requirement for both DICE/EA and players:

      1. DICE MUST provide their own servers for everyone to use, especially those who do not want to pay for their own servers and for these who do not want additional rules. Non paying players have no right to dictate who people spend their money, simple as that.

      2. DICE MUST provide paying servers for those who WANT to have privately owned servers but they must also provide more parameters for the admin. I strongly disagree with any server that prevents the use of certain weapons as that cannot be policed and these servers generally are a waste of time to play on. There needs to be start off parameters which automatically ban certain weapons and certain skill levels so as we do not waste our time joining these servers. I am personally against banning any weapons but some people pay for the privileged. So long as people are willing to pay, I have no doubt DICE/EA will accommodate for that.

      • JekeTeMata 08.12.12 at 18:05

        You got the point there I have to admit it.

  • KiloStrike11 08.12.12 at 00:35

    DICE ADMINs SUCK……DICE – ADMINs FUCK THE WHOLE GAME UP. Summing it all Up: If your a good player and the admin sucks or isn’t getting his/her way, then you’ll be kicked 99% of the time (exaggeration = maybe). What the hell were you guys thinking when thought it would be wise to allow some fucking idiot have total control over a “RANKED MATCHED GAME”. Dice you need to be in control of “RANKED MATCHED GAMES” not some fuckin idiot who sucks at the game. I guarantee that a majority will agree with this post. So fix it!!! PLEASE!!!.

    • Ally_24670884 08.12.12 at 01:09

      Did you pay for the server from which you were kicked out? NO, so you have no say. Why not pay money and buy your own server, THEN YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU LIKE :) It’s simple, EA know if they put kick restrictions on servers nobody will buy them, including the skilled players. You pay, you say, simple as.

      There should be pre joining controls in place, that I do agree with, where the admin should be allowed to set parameters to prevent who he doesn’t want joining from doing so. Therefore, you will not be kicked if you are within the parameters and therefore less admin abuse :) Job done all happy.

      Pre joining with perhaps

      1. KDR levels
      2. Max kills per minute
      3. Skill level

      this would solve most peoples problems from preventing the pro from joining to the noob the other way. Job done, groaning over. Alas, the sooner we all accept EA have no wish to please their customers the better it is all round :)

      • KiloStrike11 08.12.12 at 02:09

        Your response is the typical “PAWN of DICE” response. “You didn’t pay for the server so so… so ya!”.. Moron, Dice is using people so that DICE doesn’t have to pay for servers to constantly run and so what do we get in return.. Well we get what I mentioned earlier, “Admins kicking skilled players”. How about DICE opens up more DICE servers so I have a larger selection to choose from. And if I get that larger selection you can bet your ass that I’ll choose DICE servers over dip shits who spend their money on servers so DICE doesn’t have to.

      • JekeTeMata 08.12.12 at 12:27

        I’m sorry but I can’t agree with you, if you want to put special rules to the server MAKE IT UNRANKED!! I’m so fed up of abuser admins that kick you out for any silly reason they can mind up.

        Last kick I got was “choose a server in your own country” clear case of xenophobia, since i had less than 30 ping and I don’t even know wich country he was referring since I’m spanish but playing from Poland, anyway I can understand a kick if I have big ping but I had 30PING ffs!!

        Also the kicks for using determined weapons RPG/SMAW vs Infantry, once I got kicked for using SKS WTF!! weapons are there for everyone and RANKED servers should be unrestricted.

        If you want to be a looser who plays with his HOUSERULES DO IT ON UNRANKED FFS!!

        I agree noobish admins are screwing this game.

        PS: Can DICE tell us what the hell about the premium stuff in august, half month passed already!!

      • plyst1 08.28.12 at 01:56

        You could argue this point. But i was kicked from a Canals server for shooting down the annoying Little Bird Whores who do nothing but spawn camp with a T 90A… I shot down an admin probably 20 times or more…. And I get kicked for making an impact and trying to help my team win? thats BS

  • KiloStrike11 08.12.12 at 00:33

    DICE – ADMINs SUCKS……DICE – Allowing ADMINs total control FUCKS THE WHOLE GAME UP. Summing it all Up: If your a good player and the admin sucks or isn’t getting his way, then you’ll be kicked 99% of the time. What the hell were you guys thinking when thought it would be wise to allow some fucking idiot have total control over a “RANKED MATCHED GAME”. Dice you need to be in control of “RANKED MATCHED GAMES” not some fuckin idiot who sucks at the game. I guarantee that a majority will agree with this post. So fix it!!! PLEASE!!!.

  • KiloStrike11 08.12.12 at 00:32

    DICE ADMINs SUCKS……DICE ADMINs FUCKS THE WHOLE GAME UP. Summing it all Up: If your a good player and the admin sucks or isn’t getting his way, then you’ll be kicked 99% of the time. What the hell were you guys thinking when thought it would be wise to allow some fucking idiot have total control over a “RANKED MATCHED GAME”. Dice you need to be in control of “RANKED MATCHED GAMES” not some fuckin idiot who sucks at the game. I guarantee that a majority will agree with this post. So fix it!!! PLEASE!!!.

  • cubeline82 08.11.12 at 15:36

    FIX Support Weapon Recoil M27IAR !!! THIS is leason For You About Weapons

  • XxSnowman_185xX 08.11.12 at 12:35

    thanks dice loved reading please post more!

  • JekeTeMata 08.11.12 at 09:22

    Stop bringing bullshit and tell us about the august bonus content drop for premium members, or better, tell us the truth, you don’t even know what to give!

  • kev92715 08.11.12 at 02:53

    TV station on Sharqui Peninsula. Make that thing fall. Last MCOM goes off and have that thing fall into the map. Imagine all the last minute scrambling to get the hell out of it and its path to prevent one death. Also on Davamand peak, have that mine collapse when the last MCOM goes off or last ticket bleeds.

    In fact, bring back the BC2 animations for all maps, but have them play while players are still in 1st person.

    • Joao611 08.11.12 at 20:41

      YES, that would be epic! I still remember the rush on the Titan game mode of BF2142 to get out of the Titan after the enem team had succeeded to destroy it’s hull! I want that back!

      • optyk 08.11.12 at 22:41

        ^ This.

        Running off the Titan after the Core was finally blown was very fun, especially when the opposing team was jumping too, land first and shoot them as they parachute down for an extra kill or two before the round ended..hehe

  • Jaba01 08.10.12 at 23:51

    Voted for “no” cuz it would suck.

  • hector2670 08.10.12 at 21:52


  • ASLayerAODsk 08.10.12 at 19:22

    oh..and when a chopper is firing rockets at me and they are exploding at my feet…its like i have magnet boots on and i go nowhere..yet..when im takes 200 years to climb up off the ground…how about a little balance? :P

  • Neckbone78 08.10.12 at 19:11

    re: “The collapsible Antenna is admittedly only a scripted event, and one that is played too late to really impact the gameplay. But what if it was to be triggered by players, at any point during a match?”

    How about making it a variable event? By which I mean, instead of happening at the end, it happens at random times instead. ie: sometimes it happens at the beginning and impacts gameplay, sometimes nearer to the end and isn’t as much of a factor.

    The problem with letting us knock it down is that it would be taken down at the start of every map and we wouldn’t have any variation at all.

  • HollaOjOj 08.10.12 at 17:10

    “massive destructible structures” what? Destruction is worst than in BFBC2, we can’t destroy all the buldings on the map. What massive destruction. The Radio tower shouldn’t be script it should be real time destruction.

  • Jcstodds 08.10.12 at 15:23

    Would LOVE to have more “scripted events” that players could control. Even if it is things like blowing up bridges, bringing down bigger buildings (to create more close quarter encounters), blocking roads etc…

    • jezumcrow 08.10.12 at 19:06

      Oddly enough, you could blow up bridges in Bad Company (the original) – but not in B3. Bummed that you can’t blow holes in buildings on the new Close Quarters maps as well…..seems odd to go backwards on “full” destruction. HOWEVER – nothing comes close to the awesomeness of Battlefield. Period.

  • Vozone 08.10.12 at 15:21

    Before actually playing caspian border i always thought the antenna would fall as a result of player actions, we would have to go around putting c4 on the base of the cables which would make the tower unstable until it would fall. The cables we took out would influence the direction the tower would fall.

    It would be cool to have more of these events (with more control to the player as to how they occur) that would affect the flow of the game. For example the tower in CB should become an obstacle to tanks reducing their movement options. In urban environments it would be cool to demolish buildings in a way that would close off certain routes, but it would also be great if we could influence which routes the debris would close off instead of being always the same – it would add a whole new dynamic to the flow of players in the map.

  • InorganicFiber7 08.10.12 at 14:32

    i think they ask that because of aftermath…Iran maps with earthqauke moments…so do we like big destructible structeres falling down because of the earthqauke.. ofcourse would be awesome!
    and it will be also cool that after the earthqauke some streets been blocked and that some of the blocked streets only infantry can go through and not vehicles and that cus of the trimmer still some houses callapse and that after the earthqauke the whole map different looks… like Montes…
    this place looks real different without any f*ckin buildings… let it change like that in the AM DLC maps ;) DECLASSIFIED

  • KennyBall 08.10.12 at 12:00

    It would also be awesome to add some Bomber planes and 4-8 vs 4-8 jet-maps. Could also add an Co-pilot plane on the bigger maps, more realistic damage to the weapons both air and ground, 4X heat seekers and faster reload on counter-weapons, It would deffently be cool to Shot down the antenna on field and yes, WE LOVE THE DESTRUCTION, if im bored one day i can go to an empty server and destroy all possible things in there.

  • Smasher4ya 08.10.12 at 10:03

    Nice! Can we get mod tools now? or you think we are too stupid to use them? i wanna give it a go for my own map. THANKS!!

  • jackbauer2030 08.10.12 at 09:37

    me gusta !!! dice give us more !

  • mynutswhere 08.10.12 at 09:28

    Cool story bro! Tell it again!

  • Goth667 08.10.12 at 09:13

    Very nice insight.
    Depending on the match there was more than just 1 Time I wish I had been able to get the big Tower down.
    I love how you can take down the little Tower on the Hill, it provides cover for infantry or allows you to hinder enemies. I would love to see it fall to the other side though to stop some vehicles.
    Even better if you could Block the 2 ways up the hill for vehicles by destroying the surroundings.

    I admit I stop PTFO just to watch the big tower fall XD

  • Nevil909 08.10.12 at 07:56

    Excellent article!
    It’s always nice to see stuff of your precious work while they’re still early in development!Keep this trend alive please!
    Interacting with the environment for strategic purposes is always something interesting and expected from my end,like the alpha or beta stage of Op.Metro,where you could blow holes on the ground and dig in!Epic!I was sad to see this feature removed,despite reasons you may have had to do so.
    Now,i think there are a bunch of ways you can make a map more cool and intense!Earthquakes is one but not the only one.For example,on Op.Metro you ‘nailed’ it when the jet bombs the entrance to the tunnels in Rush mode,perfect!This kind of events should be all over the place!Another example is if we could actually see the CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashing on Scrapmetal.I’m not being literal here,I know Cl.Quarters is too small for such events but I’m just trying to make a point and visualize it for you.
    Finally,day-night cycle and random weather patterns is a ‘must’ in my opinion.I know it’s easier said than done but I trust you have many cards up your sleeve DICE!

    So,more scripted & unscripted events would only add to the game i love so much!
    Thanks for that!

  • luv1138 08.10.12 at 07:02

    Why can we(console players) have the extra flag by the antenna?

    By eliminating the Antenna flag from this set up allowed us to reduce the amount of contested flags (and hence player spread) while still conserving the essential northwest/south axis of fighting going from the Gas Station

    I answered my own questions ;)

  • ISAF Mobius 18 08.10.12 at 06:47

    I always liked the idea of having interactive environments, giving a team or teams the ability to change how the game plays or even set up for traps and ambushes. Like having a tree fall and block a road or a large tower creating a bridge for infintry, maybe even a landslide to trap and entomb the enemy. I think this is a good idea giving a team the option to turn the tables or maybe just have fun.

  • TheLastElite 08.10.12 at 05:02

    Dice you failed when you grouped all the flags together…

  • miniblodge 08.10.12 at 03:41

    i think the tower should have fell more into the map or fall in different direction each game of maybe 4 set directions 0r make it so if you blow up a wire with lets say a tank shell it would become unstable and then let physics take over when i first started playing caspian i sat there for the entire game trying to make fall over i tried everything and i see new guys try it all the time

  • DPr 08.10.12 at 03:06

    I wish there were smaller infantry maps with a lot of FULLY destructible buildings, like Bad Company 2′s Cold War or Arica Harbor. Atacama Desert was a perfect map for infantry and vehicles, mixing longer range and open areas with smaller areas good for infantry and the same goes for Port Valdez. Bad Company 1 had the best maps of all though. Harvest Day and Oasis were perfect examples of maps going from open vehicular warfare to smaller infantry based fighting. There were some that open and very well designed and some that were smaller that were perfect for good infantry fire fights. Please bring back these old maps.

  • Byohzrd 08.10.12 at 02:03

    This is by far my favorite poll.
    If DICE does not react to these overwhelming numbers then we will see the truth within all the speculation. I think that DICE cares about the player’s “wants” but this will be a litmus test to see if they have the ability to deliver the content that the majority of player base is asking for.

    I agree with the poster below that destructible bridges with a alternate low path would add a very worth while game play element. It would not be enough to cut off vehicle flow but enough to slow it down or at least create a “trapping” opportunity for foot-mobiles.

  • Spanks McKenzie 08.10.12 at 01:51

    The Blackhawk helicopter needs to be reinstated into the game. I also believe that it be nice to be able to destroy bridges like in Bad Company 2. This would give a different dynamic to vehicle warfare and would be able to slow down some of the onslaught of tanks and vehicles coming into a base at once.

  • PR1MUSINTERPARES 08.10.12 at 00:55

    I love the fact during Beta that you could actually climb the tower from its inside. It took a lot of time but was worth it.

  • Allther 08.09.12 at 23:45

    Maybe you guys should try out a little gamemode i’d like to call destruction, where it’s all about leveling the other enemies side of the map as much as possible. think of it like gaza where two opponents meet right at the border but with a time limit and you win based on the % of the houses you have left. so this gamemode is about total destruction and also contains alot of defensive gameplay from both of the teams.

    example: team a destroyed 60 % while the other team (team b) destroyed 61% of the enemies structures (houses, artillery, communications etc.)
    obviously team b has won the round.

    And please not any more conquest. I know it’s an easy gamemode to make since you’ve been doing it for years but it gets really repetitive.

    otherwise i salute you guys for making a really awesome game!

    • babeatthous 08.09.12 at 23:58

      The battlefield just got better on battlefield 3, u can’t get rid of conquest. Keep it keep rush add a new. Mode

  • The Shwassassin 08.09.12 at 23:27

    I really like the idea of dynamic maps that can be altered via player activity that can change the gameplay.
    One great example was in Team Fortress Classic – there was this prison level that had an tunnel that could be opened/closed with a special demoman charge. If the path would open, those trying to capture the flag had a good escape route. Also, after a flag capture, the team that their flag stolen were subject to a poison gas attack. That was pretty cool too.

    I would love to see something like that. Have a bridge that one team has to defend to maintain an advantage (could be a draw bridge or a destructible bridge).
    Another cool idea is adding a new game mode that has a objective that can be moved around by the players. I would love to see that.

  • Indefragable 08.09.12 at 22:57

    The first few times I saw the gigantic Antenna collapsing, I thought a jet/tank had just been bored and shot it down; there was ginormous building destruction in BC2 and so I thought it was just a part of the game.

    One round, there was a pair of particularly annoying snipers who jet-bailed to get to the top of the antenna. They clearly were experienced glitchers seeing as how they knew how to find the spots on the antenna where they could fire freely w/o being able to be hit in return (it happens in reverse when you lie beside some rocks/AC units on tops of buildings: even though on your screen you are a good 6-12 inches to the side of the object and should be able to fire into the clear, the game instead registers it as if you are firing point-blank into the side of the rock…but that’s another issue….). I worked my way up to the base of the tower and placed 6 C4 charges on the base of the tower and then got into the perfect position to watch those smug a**holes catch an express elevator to hell…only to see nothing happen!

    Of course I now know that the giant Antenna collapsing is simply an animation and not a tangible playable element of the game…but my point is, IT SHOULD BE!!! Even with the “MAV jockey” glitch fixed, anywhere the game allows a sniper to get to…he will get to it. All you need is an air vehicle or a spawn beacon in the open nearby.

    An effective and fun-as-hell way to counter these go-anywhere snipers would be the destructive removal of their spots (preferably with C4). It would serve tactical purposes to eliminate these locations, such as the large construction cranes, the gigantic Antenna on Caspian Border, the central flame derrick on Operation Firestorm, etc… After all, the guard towers in maps can be destroyed…why not the larger objects? It sure would be fun if the scenario I described above worked!

  • pacheddu 08.09.12 at 22:14

    It’s very interesting to read about the “Making of BF3″.
    i hope that you’ll release more of this special.

  • TheDiaperButtKid 08.09.12 at 22:12

    Please address the inability to defend against aircraft at all flags on the map – especially for the conquest small version. Planes can rape everything on the ground and never have to worry about taking damage. It is frustrating as hell to be under good cover and some plane rains down death from 500m in the sky [They should not be able to see you!]. Stingers/Iglas are useless – You get one shot at a plane and 95% of the time they flare it off. The placement of a VADS at various locations on the map would be fantastic. Pilots would then need brains to stay alive.

  • Blake_Snowflake 08.09.12 at 22:05

    I’m digging these behind the scenes articles and I think Caspian Border is definitely one of the better designed maps in BF3. If we could just get those post-game cinemetics and the accompanying post-game chatpossibility back. Perhaps in BF4?

  • {Rorschach} 08.09.12 at 21:41

    I’d love to see Terahn highway revamped so that the overpass highway would now be destructable. Whether this took place due to events that happened in match or simply from a bunch of tank rounds/AT missiles/C4. I could see something like this having a big effect on the flag that is under the elevated highway. It could even fall/collapse such that new paths for vehicles were made so that there would then be additional routes to the different cap points.

  • XDogsOfWarX 08.09.12 at 21:07

    If we were given the chance to destroy certain parts of the map, there would be a race to who gets to blow the thing up first.And if they were to be periodically released, there would be a line of kids waiting to be the one to do it.So it would affect the game play in a negative way.
    Overall, I am happy with the amount of destruction in the current BF3 state.If the maps were 100% destructible, there would be people in tanks camping by spawn trying to get cheap kills by taking out buildings.The maps would also be flattened by mid match.I like being able to take cover behind those non-destructible buildings once in a while.
    So, no.I guess.There would most likely be multiple squads camping waiting to be the one to destroy the item.This would affect the game in a negative way.

    • plyst1 08.28.12 at 02:04

      Only for a little bit once the sticker shock of being able to flatten a map wears off its back to the usual pew pew’s for the kids

  • Sonicboom53 08.09.12 at 21:03

    If the antenna in Caspian Boarder was destructible by players, I would say instead of having it fall in one direction towards Checkpoint all the time, have it to where if the players destroys the base of certain support cables, it would fall accordingly. For example, if the players destroy the majority of cables from the outer edge of the map, it would fall inward towards Forest or the river. But also know that it should take a good amount to destroy these. I’d say about 3 or 4 C4 packs to each cable would be okay. You don’t want it to be destroyed at the beginning of the match! Keep the scripted event at the end of the round if possible. Just in case nobody bothers to destroy it.

  • AvengedHenry 08.09.12 at 20:42

    Day to night cycle on all maps and I’d be happy about that, maybe throw in some random rain shower. But imagine tehran highway being playable when sun is about to rise, or many other day maps at break of day and then Night.

  • Humphreys Beard 08.09.12 at 20:37

    Destruction in an environment increase the play-ability and re-play-ability of a map. It introduces new tactics and keeps the game fresh, since no two matches are hardly ever the same with a destructible environmental.

  • RanCorX2 08.09.12 at 20:31

    scripted antenna destruction has to be the lamest part of bf3 mp, pointless.


  • JValorDV 08.09.12 at 20:22

    More destruction, both scripted and unscripted, would be fantastic for two key reasons: it would easily bring in new players, and it would keep people playing.

    Dice has heavily advertised the destruction in BF3, including the much smaller-scale destruction in Close Quarters. This is obviously because it draws in more players. Destruction is one of the things that now sets Battlefield apart from its competitors. When I play other games and my vehicle is stopped by a wooden fence or lamppost, I can’t help but scoff and roll my eyes. An interactive environment truly draws in the player, and few games can stand up to BF3′s.

    Aside from its aesthetic value, destruction (and more of it) will keep people playing more. Maps that offer more destruction also offer more replay value. When the crumbling of buildings can directly affect gameplay, every single playthrough becomes unique. It also offers a much greater range of options for the player. Rather than storm the front door when I know a building is occupied, I can use C4 to blow open a new entryway and take my enemies by surprise. Though most “only in Battlefield” moments involve vehicles, destruction also offers such moments.

    The big question is implementation. BF3 currently does not have a great deal of destructibility, likely because of gameplay concerns (wouldn’t want a flattened map after a few minutes of gameplay) and limited time in development. I lean in favor of more destructibility wherever possible, even if it is merely aesthetic. Larger scale moments, similar to the collapsing mast, also have their place. It always amazes me how the entire server goes quiet when it falls because everyone pauses to look. While I would prefer that such things could be initiated by the players, a scripted event is much better than nothing.

    So, while I have my complaints about BF3, it is easily one of my favorite games ever. I hope you guys make it even better by adding more destruction in your future DLCs.

  • rocksdead2003 08.09.12 at 20:18

    Just another idea, there is nothing worse than getting spawn trapped. Metro has one of the hardest maps to try and sneak by the enemy team who is spawn killing you…a triggered event at some point in the game could give the losing team a one time advantage to try and reclaim some flags. Imagine you are trapped around A and the earthquake everyone is talking about takes place and new entry points open up around the A side of the building. Or right before you go up the stairs to A from your spawn, the earthquake opened up some tunnels, gaining you access to the subway tunnels.

    Or I will just wait for BF4 haha. Screw that, BRING ON ARMORED KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • rocksdead2003 08.09.12 at 20:10

    It seems like BF:BC2 had way more destructible elements, especially the houses and buildings, than BF3. While some buildings can be destroyed in BF3, I find it annoying that most are indestructible. Why are all the staircases in the little garages tank and C4 proof? (across from D in Caspian, or at B in Kharg Island) All the walls come down but the building supports and that staircase keep it form falling in on anyone. Not to mention all the walls but the one on the front side of the staircase are destructible.
    I can drive a tank through cement walls sometimes, yet I those aluminum looking buildings support beams are impenetrable. I understand the need to have some buildings stay where they are, but a lot of useless buildings seemed to made of titanium.
    I think natural events sound cool, like the earthquake idea, but i can see it getting old. I rather see more man-made destruction, especially blowing up the antenna in Caspian (make that directional would be the best, not just the same cinematic we see now, especially since no one goes over there in console versions anyway).
    Just my two cents.

  • YourMothersPink 08.09.12 at 19:57

    The fighting in all conquest maps for console is two spread out and slow / dull. Main problem is lack of atv’s/transportation to get from base to base, hoofing it from D to A is not fun. bad company never had this problem.

  • jaypatel51286 08.09.12 at 19:57

    And I forgot !! It never rains anywhere ?? Whats the matter with that ??

    • CopeML 08.10.12 at 06:48

      Just imagine the raindrops dripping down your scope, kinda like tears of happiness, yeah!?

  • jaypatel51286 08.09.12 at 19:55

    I agree with lot of people thinking of a massive supernatural calamities acting on the strategy. The best example would be earthquakes. You can turn up the map into something completely amazing! For example, an earthquake could definitely bring down the rooms on the top of the hilltop. I am sure, there would be many soldiers hiding there to defend it. Also, there are many snipers there at times to defend forest ! This way, it would change the gameplay ! Also, you can break the bridge between the gas station and hilltop !! It would be an awesome way to restrict or slow down tanks there !! And I am not saying to do this all the time.. Do it randomly. That way you keep an excitement in long (500%) gameplays ! Forests could catch fire from gas station blasting !! Storms could deflect the sniper shots, so as to make it difficult for them to defend, and give other team a chance to take over the place !! Means, uncertainity is what makes this interesting, and I believe battlefield has done a very good job in this, and I hope to see more of these soon !! Awesome work guys !!

    On final note, the amazing thing about battlefield 3 is that both gamers and designers wants this to be an amazing success !! Very rare combination these days !

  • N-Shifter 08.09.12 at 19:49

    As already mentioned, random weather effects and day/night versions of maps would be a much appreciated feature.
    Great job by the way, loving the game!

  • Tornadiz 08.09.12 at 19:36

    Yeah, a few triggers would be so awesome!!!
    The Earthquake idea from someone below is great…
    But i could also imagine the Plateau at Hilltop collapse into the River… something like this…
    And something like that has to be in midgame, because it gives you even more Chances.
    I mean, the normal gameplay is highly various, but when such a thing would happen, you would have to get a whole new strategie and that makes the game a lot more interesting!!!


    THE POLL SHOWS IT!!!!!!!!!

  • ASLayerAODsk 08.09.12 at 19:30

    and how come the fires NEVER spread?? ever. :P

  • luiscardoza 08.09.12 at 19:28

    I think they should add 2 more M-coms on this map in Rush mode. It’s funny that this big map, I believe is the only map with 6 M-coms. Every other map has 8 and Noshahr Canals has 10 M-coms. I would add the 2 extra M-coms at the antenna station so in order it would be Check point station, Antenna station, Gas station, and last 2 at the Airport station. Also Damavand Peak which is my Favorite map. I think can use another 2 M-coms it’s also a big map. The last 2 M-coms are inside that cave/tunnel but then you have much more space at the other side of that cave/tunnel. I don’t know much about how much work goes into setting up these additional M-com’s but its doesn’t sound too complex. If it’s not I think you guys should take this into consideration. I’m sure a lot of BF3 fans out there would agree with me. Thank you!

  • ASLayerAODsk 08.09.12 at 19:26

    how about weather effects? day/night? wind? ya know..things that REALLY happen…:P earthquakes would be nice too….opening up crevasses….taking down random sections of the maps….even map points…nothing is immune..its war. :)

  • xX Burnz 007 Xx 08.09.12 at 19:15

    I think having more structure you can blow would be great. But on the other hand in long matches i imagine the whole place would be leveled with no places to hide. But perhaps making in-game match events depending on who is winning. Something may happen when the us/russia hits 50% tickets. like the tower coming down.. or as GUTZ said and earthquake happens.. or some main building collapses. altering how you play the last half part of the match.

  • CommanderRealWar 08.09.12 at 19:11

    While I would like more massive, destructible structures; DICE, I would really like map creation tools for BF3.

  • GUTZnPAPERCUTZ 08.09.12 at 19:02

    I would LOVE more map destruction pieces during the game! Triggered by us or sequence is fine with me, just more of it would ad chaos to the Battlefield in a good way ;). Think of “Aftermath”, and during the matches have like a Tremor Happen and a huge building falls across a road or path making both sides figure out a different route or they find a Crack in the ground that is now a “secret Pathway” that you can take to get to the objective! :)

  • AJBOOMER1 08.09.12 at 19:01

    I love this map on all modes hands down its great.

  • sxeCyka 08.09.12 at 18:49

    Though it is much harsher, I completely agree with ASLayerAODsk.

    DICE, I sincerely love your games, but I was underwhelmed with the level of destruction in BF3 compared to BC2. Perhaps I’m not as aware, not knowing the programming that goes into it, but I miss the more macro destruction features, compared to having all the current micro destruction such as in Close Quarters. Micro destruction doesn’t have as much of an impact on strategy/gameplay as macro does.

    • KneeFight 08.09.12 at 19:41

      Completely agree. I’m not positive if it’s even possible due to different programming/engine..etc.. but macro destruction is by far more enjoyable. At the end of a BF:BC2 game you can really tell where intense fighting has occurred. Huge craters in the ground, almost every building reduced to rubble (instead of the odd structure seen in BF3), trees totally leveled. It’s pretty fantastic. Although BC2 has better destruction, and possibly better map design (it’s a tough call), you have to admit BF3′s gameplay mechanics are much better than BC2′s.
      BF3 has a lot going for it, and I love it, but it would definitely be a better game if it had even the same level of destruction as BC2.

  • ASLayerAODsk 08.09.12 at 18:43

    I think the destruction on BF3 is pretty below par, in fact WAY below par, on ALL maps. Not ONLY can you ONLY haul down specific buildings, some you cant take down at all and they become completely undestructable and according to what they advertised, ‘the most destructive game ever’ or something along that lines…its not even close. Also even with the new addon CQ, they advertise HD destruction? what exactly IS that? a 1/4 of a pillar more can be blown up? I gotta sit down from the excitment on that one :P *sarcasm*. CB is a good map to blowing up all the trees but you cant even c4 the bridge either, or blow holes in the road to make it more difficult for vehicles to manuever, or anything. its all just really pretty destruction and none practical, look at Metro, if it was truely destructable, would those bottlenecks at the stairs/escalators be possible in the least?

    Dice your idea of destruction is a joke. Live up to what you advertised. So far, you haven’t even come close. We should be able to c4 the cables on CB and blow that antenna down any way we choose, of course physics would play a part in HOW it falls…but it should be the gamers choice…not some scripted junk. BF3 should be a step forward from BC2, not a step back, as it is currently, at least in destruction for the most part, and many agree. Drywall walls shouldnt hold up to c4, ever.

  • sxeCyka 08.09.12 at 18:42

    IS THAT EVEN A QUESTION?!?! lol. YES the more interaction with scenery, the better! To be honest, I miss all of those houses from BFBC2 that could collapse. Sure that still exists to a degree in BF3, but they are much more isolated. Bring back entire streets of fully collapsable buildings!

    But I digressed.

    Quite simply, interactive destruction/functions is what brought me to this franchise. Please, by all means, include as much as possible!

  • Colonel-Gaddafi8 08.09.12 at 18:42

    sounds good Colonel Gaddafi loves it he cant wait to shoot some people lol
    nice one guys !

  • Mystic Zuka 08.09.12 at 18:40

    Who says players cant take down the antenna I’ve brought it down multiple times with tv missiles, it just takes one and down it goes

  • SixxZeroOne 08.09.12 at 18:39

    this is for sure one of the greatest maps!! I spent hours trying to blow this thing up realizing eventually it will just fall on it own! Instead I just blow the water tower up beside the gas station :)

  • SkyS1gn 08.09.12 at 18:39

    “I am interested to know what you think about interacting with large structures during Battlefield matches. The collapsible Antenna is admittedly only a scripted event, and one that is played too late to really impact the gameplay. But what if it was to be triggered by players, at any point during a match? Is that something you think would improve upon the Battlefield gameplay? Would you like to be able to interact with structures more often? Make your voice heard in the poll below!”

    This is definitely the point of Aftermath DLC :D
    This article was good, we want like this about other maps with more pre pre pre alpha alpha pictures (videos!!!) from the early stage maps :P or maybe how you guys re-imagined the karkand maps :)

  • RedSamurai_ 08.09.12 at 18:38

    Of course players would like more interaction with the enviroment. Destruction 2.0 is already prefect, but who doesn’t want more ways to blow the shit out of other players?

    The rocket salvos that are present on several maps like OP and DP always seems a little useless to me. I wish players could use them somehow. Maybe the player could aim and fire them, even if only once. The fuel lines in kharg lines near the second set of mcoms to destroy should be able to be damaged which then explode and hurt friend or foe alike.

  • SGT Angry 08.09.12 at 18:37

    It would be great if the MCOM positions were objectives like taking out the antenna. IE, seeing the antenna come down is the payoff you get for planting and protecting the explosives. Seeing that thing come down (or similar events) would be a nice reward AND would be something nice to look at while you’re waiting to RUSH the next objective. Think of “Enemy Territory” (the free release) – it’s not exactly like RUSH in that every objective was different, but you needed to accomplish something to move on, and there was usually some specific theme (IE Gold Rush) that made it more interesting than just simply blowing up something – although that was used quite a bit!

  • Znidy_SEAL 08.09.12 at 18:34

    I think that events that can change gameplay during the matches would certainly revision tactics for both teams. For example, you take down the Antenna on Caspian Border and something instantly happens: no God damn Recon campers on it! That’s a first one. Second one, the debris gives some extra cover for tanks, but kicks the maneuvering from US base to Checkpoint down to zero because of the debris. So yes, big destruction certainly changes gameplay. And as I remember, from one trailer, the Overpass on Tehran Highway was supposed to be destructible at one point and we still don’t know why it was taken out of the game, as the collapse of the Overpass would make an awesome cut-scene, even if it was a final scene, similar to Bad Company 2 :)

    • CopeML 08.10.12 at 06:35

      Had the same thought too on Tehran, beutefely mastered but largely ignored ignored by players on conquest due to its short and narrow attack path, personaly on this map I had more expectations for more building drops especially the random ones on the sides that could be inhabited for better snipering. The sides dropping on bazaar are nice, however finding a few ways to open up into the center could make for a interesting game changer.

  • PJMAN2952 08.09.12 at 18:34

    We really need more players on XBOX. Maps like Armor Kill is going to be a pain because we will mostly waste time by searching for people. Why can’t we have 64 players like the PC instead of 24 players?

    • SmoothBlue755 08.09.12 at 18:37

      Bandwidth limitations that sony and microsoft implement with their systems to make sure everybody has a balanced experienced. Due to the limitations the consoles can only have 24 players

    • sou_swodaem2 08.09.12 at 18:41

      the reason is because the xbox cant really handle that amount of players. you have to look at it this way, the xbox is NOT a PC, yes it was build like one, but it isnt exactly powerful. did you know the 360 only has half a gigabyte of ram? and also, the only console that could actually handle up to 64 players or more is the PS3, MAG in example. the PS3 is a very powerful machine, far more than the xbox. but the reason people say that 360 games are better is because even on multiplatform games companies usually make te game for the xbox or PC first then port for the PS3. because making the game on the PS3 and porting it to others costs more.

  • ThirteenJerico 08.09.12 at 18:33

    One of the greatest things from BFBC2 was how the battle changed as the environment was manipulated via HE ordinance. While still present in BF3, I feel as though destruction is on a less complete scale with this game. More total destruction of the environments and the objects within them would be appreciated to the utmost.

  • TheChinX 08.09.12 at 18:33

    Ha! I honestly thought the antenna WAS brought down by peoples actions. I always see jets and choppers fire rockets at it to bring it down. Now that I know that it’s a scripted event it’s not so awesome anymore… However if you could bring big scale destruction like that into future expansions of BF3 I’ll forgive you! :D

  • Transformer991 08.09.12 at 18:32

    Interaction would be awesome. It would make the game more realistic, causing chaos and turning around the tactics for both sides. The more destruction the better, bring it on Dice.

  • Ao2 Falcon 08.09.12 at 18:28

    I agree with Envy… more interaction would set this game further apart and make players have to change tactics… I miss blowing up bridges as we did in BF2.. I’d definitely like to see more destruction.

  • B1U3B1RD 08.09.12 at 18:27

    You know what that second pic looks like? It looks like map creator in the “test” mode. Hey dice, release that thing!! so many players would love to have a map editor!!

  • Laban-Seigmann 08.09.12 at 18:26

    Making the antenna a destructible building would be awesome, imagine the kills the pilots will get from taking out the snipers on it. I kind of miss the Destruction 2.0 like we had in BC2, there are too few collapsing buildings ingame at the moment.

    • Onoku 08.09.12 at 18:30

      I agree. I was so amped for the destruction in bf3, but ended up disappointed that it actually seemed less destructible.

  • bluemwhitew 08.09.12 at 18:24

    Oh, the months I spent spamming the support cables with C4 to try and bring the antenna down…

  • EnvY MK II 08.09.12 at 18:24

    I’d love to see more interaction with structures. I could imagine bridges being destroyed in such a manager changing up gameplay and tactics halfway through a match or other awesome instances.

  • Xenoliath 08.09.12 at 18:21

    Interesting; I had always wondered (as a regular player of the Xbox 360 version of the game) why the Antenna was not a flag position of its own despite having clear roads towards it and structures surrounding. Makes sense given the player count.

  • gamer_uk2223 08.09.12 at 18:13

    nice article. i would love to interact with large structures much more i always said to myself if only that tall piller would drop down earlier on caspian border or if only players could cause impact on that structure to make it fall i would love to see that brought into the game maybe in aftermath?