BF3 console server browser

http://mp1st.com/2011/10/23/bf3-server-browser-on-co...

Not what I expected for ping choice. What levels do the bars represent? 0-50 or 50-100 etc etc. ?

I was expecting numbers.
.

What could be simpler than numbers? Why do they do this kind of thing? I guess it's meant to be like signal strength on wireless connections but why dumb it down? What could be simpler than numbers?

Ps. I hope they give us numbers on the PC but I expect that'll be asking too much!

Not everyone knows what pings are etc.

This is a game that also appeals to casual gamers.

I fail to see what is wrong with the icons.

Not everyone knows what latency/ping is, no, you are right.

The icon used is not the worst they could do but numbers would still be better. Underlying the symbols used, there are numbers. These can give a far better idea of response times, provide an indication of where you are likely to be gaming and are thus a good for diagnostics if things are going wrong.

Ever since BF1942, DICE have failed to provide a decent game browser with reliable ping info. BF2's latency info is totally unreliable despite giving you figures. It's way out.

If a game is reporting less than 30ms, you know you should expect a nice smooth experience and that it's highly likely the hosting server is UK based. 40 - 60ms and you might be in France, Germany etc. Around 60ms and you're in northern Scandinavia maybe. Granted, latency isn't everything in terms of network reliability but it's a pretty useful indication of where to avoid playing.

So, yes the little wifi signal thing ought to show a player where they are more likely to obtain a good experience (full signal strength) but what info is behind that? What are the characteristics? I think I recall back in BF1942, you could at any time press the tab button to bring up the score and see your own ping, dynamically changing as well as others. That's useful info and not exactly beyond most players of this kind of game's experience and capability to grasp what it's telling them. Now, the console crowd... Might be a different story though there are likely plenty like mrnelster who might find a bit more info useful.

I have never experienced a server browser, as I have always been one of the console crowd. But what you've just described SPOOK is exactly what I was expecting, not hoping for.

Many consolers are casual in relation to how much time they can set aside for gaming (like me). But when I play I want to be competitive. Bars are a halfway house and don't really help if you have to remember what each extra one removes in latency terms.
.

But you are forgetting that majority just don't care.

All they (and me) want is to be able to quickly join a game and have a laugh for 10-15 minutes here and there. I don't care enough to get serious about it, I don't care enough to worry if the ping is 30ms or 50ms.

In reply to a post by wrtpeeps:

But you are forgetting that majority just don't care.

All they (and me) want is to be able to quickly join a game and have a laugh for 10-15 minutes here and there. I don't care enough to get serious about it, I don't care enough to worry if the ping is 30ms or 50ms.

That's fine but you probably aren't the majority, at least NOT for the PC crowd. I made that distinction earlier but I do understand your point about casual console gaming which is fair enough.

The majority of people with an average connection probably don't.

Most of those who have trouble do care, and if they knew that a server browser would improve their experience, why wouldn't they want the detail?
.