Well sorry for not being paid to run this website and for having a life of my own. But at least you understood this time, great improvement.

I'm already playing Battlefield 5! GET ON THE BALL DRIFTWOOD.

Not sure if serious. They crushed a ton of bugs in the last few weeks of BF3's development. Did you play the beta? :D

But yes.. probably the final month. The open beta is more of a stress test.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The game was fairly polished (compared to the beta) on day 1 on the PC. Which is what asdfg is talking about.

As far as frequent patches go. I wish they were more frequent. They made us wait until your patches were certified. It really slowed down the process of refining the games balance.

The beta is likely going to be very similar to the E3 build. I expect it to be Shanghai again.

They already had a closed alpha. You're right though. They should have sold an open beta to people and still shipped a buggy product ;)

Far too many people.I'm sorry, but this is really, really wrong. Firstly, the desperately between a 2.0 and 3.0 KDR isn't going to be covered by 150ms of ping. You're making that leap either by skill and tactics or not at all. Secondly, in a game that where latency is punished properly, no one in their right mind would be playing with a 100+ millisecond ping. There's no reason for you to be playing on high latency servers. Thirdly, Battlefield (and most modern games, unfortunately) has horrific anti-lag netcode that actually rewards latency. So those 100-200 pingers clogging up all of the servers are actually an advantage, if anything, because the game starts behaving less and less predictably for players with normal pings.

In any game playing with latency isn't doing anything but stripping the predictability away from the game. Learning to play well at a high latency isn't really the same set of skills as simply playing the game well. And it's detrimental to all other players. The days where low pingers had an unfair advantage are long, long gone. In those days we were all on dial-up except for a few "low ping bastards." The role latency on the player population has virtually reversed itself.

Win/Loss ratio compared to quit percentage, compared to weapons used and accuracy, compared to KDR, etc. You can get a "whole picture" of a players performance pretty easily by looking at all of the numbers.

What would improve the game dramatically is if servers automatically kicked people with high pings. People should not want to play with high latency. Instead of rewarding them and encouraging them to muck up all of the US servers, we should be encouraging them to play on servers in their own territory. I can ping 100ms across the friggin Atlantic Ocean. There are very few excuses for people to be playing on servers THAT far away from home! Daytime BF3 is horrible thanks to all of the European/Asian/Russian players that play on US servers.

Mixed feelings. If you want to actually be good, you have to be completely aware of your performance. Including KDR. I don't care how good of a team player you are. If you've got a negative KDR you're feeding the opposite team tickets. You're not actually helping. But I hear your complaint. I don't really understand why it happens. I mean, is your KDR really worth bragging about if your most used weapon is a nube tube and all you play is Metro? We've seen plenty of that!

I obsess over my stats. All of them. I would hate to see it go personally.

Battlefield could. Servers would have to enforce it. Those scripts exist. No one does it anyway.