Hey guys. I saw on a website yesterday that the release date in the UK is 4th November. Does anyone know if this is official now?
Only asking as I need to book a week off work.

Mmmm yes, doctors and homesick and such.....

Any chance we might be seeing Eddy Raja? It was never confirmed he was dead, as there was no evident body Also, directly from the Uncharted Wiki: "In the first page of Nates's Journal it has the name of four villians (Atoq Navarro, Gabriel Roman, Eddy Raja, and Harry Flynn). Atoq's and Gabriel's are crossed out. It's believed that the crossed out names are because they are dead. Eddy's is not crossed out, but is marked: "Angry Eddy (R.I.P.) ".

I think it would be awesome to see him as one of the main characters in UC3. :p

I wouldn't count on seeing Eddy again unless this is a prequel.

This probably also didn't need a thread of its own... can we maybe get a merge with the existing U3 topic?

Quite right, Turtle. Our search funtion isn't perfect, but please use it before posting a new thread.

Sorry, a little new to the forums!

That's okay. No harm done.
The forum gods gifted me the all powerful Merge tool so that it might stay my ban hammer's wrath.
Also, I am Batman.



Back to topic though, I'm with Turtle on seeing Eddy again. I know absence of a corpse always leaves the possibility of a return, but you have to admit that he looked pretty dead in U1. Bitten in the jugular by a zombie, then chucked off a cliff. That's hard to come back from.

Maybe we'll get an Eddy Raja skeleton skin for the MP, I actually never saw that video, I only remember Eddy being dragged down by one of those weird Vampire thingies

Goldzor finally?

CobaltMonkey wrote:

That's okay. No harm done.
The forum gods gifted me the all powerful Merge tool so that it might stay my ban hammer's wrath.
Also, I am Batman.



Back to topic though, I'm with Turtle on seeing Eddy again. I know absence of a corpse always leaves the possibility of a return, but you have to admit that he looked pretty dead in U1. Bitten in the jugular by a zombie, then chucked off a cliff. That's hard to come back from.

he could come back as a zombie

s1lv3r4554551n wrote:

Goldzor finally?

oh totally

idk about the rest of you guys but I'm personally hoping that in U3 they let you join mid game during all of the modes, except maybe elimination, its just ridiculous why the didn't have this in U2 because I don't like to leave matches halfway through them because I know my team will be down one person for the rest of the game but if you could join mid game I wouldn't mind leaving because my team is sure to get another team member in a few seconds

Vrals597 wrote:

s1lv3r4554551n wrote:

Goldzor finally?

oh totally

idk about the rest of you guys but I'm personally hoping that in U3 they let you join mid game during all of the modes, except maybe elimination, its just ridiculous why the didn't have this in U2 because I don't like to leave matches halfway through them because I know my team will be down one person for the rest of the game but if you could join mid game I wouldn't mind leaving because my team is sure to get another team member in a few seconds

I really support this idea as well. Also, I would love to see some type of spectator mode so that you could just watch a match. Potentially just a random one or one that friends are in. This is one reason why cinema's are nice, but if one could just watch a real-time match that would be great as well.

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

Raistlin wrote:

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

That's a great point Cam. Thinking about it a bit more I think this makes more sense than just leaving it open for the whole match.

Oh and Happy Birthday man!

Raistlin wrote:

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

Though you do make some good points, Raist, I just have to ask you one thing, I have no intention of attacking your views or anything like that but, does getting to the top spot matter that much? I personally find that taking games a little too competitively can take away from the fun of games, although I myself will totally sometimes secretly compete with my friends to see how well I can do compared to them, though it is usually nothing too big, I think my main reason for my idea was because I remember during my WoW days there were plenty of times in the Battlegrounds, the Player versus Player portion of the game, you could join whenever and that meant that on a number of occasions one team would dominate in the beginning and the other team would dominate later, just kept it interesting for me plus I'd like to know if, say a plunder match, that if one of the guys of my team leaves that it isn't an instant doomsayer for us, tends to be that way for me in plunder because nobody on my teams never seem to be good enough to pull a win off of something like that, unless I'm with a bunch of guys from the nation, of course

Raistlin wrote:

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

5-10 seconds is asking a bit too much of the host. I'd say a minute. Games going on for a minute or two can still be swayed in either direction for a win. I just don't see how 5-10 would have helped if match making didn't find anyone to before the match started begin with.

Raistlin wrote:

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

In some instances it does work though.. For instance AC brotherhood would be terrible without it. And it's pretty convenient during COD as well, so i've noticed...

s1lv3r4554551n wrote:

Raistlin wrote:

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

5-10 seconds is asking a bit too much of the host. I'd say a minute. Games going on for a minute or two can still be swayed in either direction for a win. I just don't see how 5-10 would have helped if match making didn't find anyone to before the match started begin with.

I agree with that. I mean how often does someone get dropped in the 1st 5-10 seconds. I'd say 1st minute or 2

Vrals597 wrote:

Raistlin wrote:

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

Though you do make some good points, Raist, I just have to ask you one thing, I have no intention of attacking your views or anything like that but, does getting to the top spot matter that much? I personally find that taking games a little too competitively can take away from the fun of games, although I myself will totally sometimes secretly compete with my friends to see how well I can do compared to them, though it is usually nothing too big, I think my main reason for my idea was because I remember during my WoW days there were plenty of times in the Battlegrounds, the Player versus Player portion of the game, you could join whenever and that meant that on a number of occasions one team would dominate in the beginning and the other team would dominate later, just kept it interesting for me plus I'd like to know if, say a plunder match, that if one of the guys of my team leaves that it isn't an instant doomsayer for us, tends to be that way for me in plunder because nobody on my teams never seem to be good enough to pull a win off of something like that, unless I'm with a bunch of guys from the nation, of course

I generally base how well I'm doing based on where I finish. I find I get satisfaction in doing well or the best out of a match. So I would classify that with being competitive with myself. I want to improve. To keep doing better.
Take KZ 3 right now. When I first checked my K/D I was at 1.08. Now I'm up to 1.3. Because I'm running solo (not with my clan mates or friends) I won't rage if we lose. It sucks, sure. But I just shrug it off. However, if I run anything lower than an even match 5 - 5/ 7 - 7 etc I get annoyed with myself. Not anyone else.
I wanted to clarify my competitiveness. Only if I go against people I find I dislike or are trashtalking for no reason will I get very competitive and intense. Aside from that, I jut want to push myself. With games, I don't want to come in halfway through. I like seeing the pre-game lobby and knowing who I'm running with and who I'll be going against potentially. I also don't want to have a game flow changed halfway through just because the team luckily got one or two beast players with 8.0 K/D ratios. If its going to happen, let it happen from the start and then let the game play out. Once its set, let it be set. Especially if its a free for all deathmatch. If you come in halfway, 90% of the time you won't do as well as you could if you started from the top. After that game, some people will inevitably leave that lobby as well. So, I just don't like it.

nobody wrote:

s1lv3r4554551n wrote:

Raistlin wrote:

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

5-10 seconds is asking a bit too much of the host. I'd say a minute. Games going on for a minute or two can still be swayed in either direction for a win. I just don't see how 5-10 would have helped if match making didn't find anyone to before the match started begin with.

I agree with that. I mean how often does someone get dropped in the 1st 5-10 seconds. I'd say 1st minute or 2

I'll compromise to 30 seconds in But to me, its not about people being dropped or quitting out, its about new people entering. And I know that other people are rediculously more competitive than I am so coming in on a team already losing - they'll just quit right out anyway.

I am with the idea of allowing players to join a game in progress.
But, they should include an option whereas you may choose if matchmaking finds those kinds of games or just games from scratch.

I don't want players to be forced into an already lost game if they don't wish for it themselves, but on the other hand: if I'm in a plunder game and we lose 1 or 2 guys then you know you are pretty much going to lose that one.

The idea is good, just need to execute it well.

Raistlin wrote:

Vrals597 wrote:

Raistlin wrote:

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

Though you do make some good points, Raist, I just have to ask you one thing, I have no intention of attacking your views or anything like that but, does getting to the top spot matter that much? I personally find that taking games a little too competitively can take away from the fun of games, although I myself will totally sometimes secretly compete with my friends to see how well I can do compared to them, though it is usually nothing too big, I think my main reason for my idea was because I remember during my WoW days there were plenty of times in the Battlegrounds, the Player versus Player portion of the game, you could join whenever and that meant that on a number of occasions one team would dominate in the beginning and the other team would dominate later, just kept it interesting for me plus I'd like to know if, say a plunder match, that if one of the guys of my team leaves that it isn't an instant doomsayer for us, tends to be that way for me in plunder because nobody on my teams never seem to be good enough to pull a win off of something like that, unless I'm with a bunch of guys from the nation, of course

I generally base how well I'm doing based on where I finish. I find I get satisfaction in doing well or the best out of a match. So I would classify that with being competitive with myself. I want to improve. To keep doing better.
Take KZ 3 right now. When I first checked my K/D I was at 1.08. Now I'm up to 1.3. Because I'm running solo (not with my clan mates or friends) I won't rage if we lose. It sucks, sure. But I just shrug it off. However, if I run anything lower than an even match 5 - 5/ 7 - 7 etc I get annoyed with myself. Not anyone else.
I wanted to clarify my competitiveness. Only if I go against people I find I dislike or are trashtalking for no reason will I get very competitive and intense. Aside from that, I jut want to push myself. With games, I don't want to come in halfway through. I like seeing the pre-game lobby and knowing who I'm running with and who I'll be going against potentially. I also don't want to have a game flow changed halfway through just because the team luckily got one or two beast players with 8.0 K/D ratios. If its going to happen, let it happen from the start and then let the game play out. Once its set, let it be set. Especially if its a free for all deathmatch. If you come in halfway, 90% of the time you won't do as well as you could if you started from the top. After that game, some people will inevitably leave that lobby as well. So, I just don't like it.

nobody wrote:

s1lv3r4554551n wrote:

Raistlin wrote:

They had join half way through matches and in my opinion, I don't support it. When the match started I want to know who I'm up against. I dont like the numbers changing throughout the game.

Now, to be flexible, if a team is short handed a'la 5 vs 4 I think it will be ok if late join is enabled within the first 5 - 10 seconds. Because once that time happens the flow of the match has started with the main players involved.

R2 had this as well.Thankfully they patched it out fairly quickly. I HATED coming in partway through a match to see my team was already down. Or to see that because I came in late I wouldn't be able to get to the top spot because I started too far back. Let late join be enabled for a few seconds at the beginning for everyone, then cut it off IMO.

5-10 seconds is asking a bit too much of the host. I'd say a minute. Games going on for a minute or two can still be swayed in either direction for a win. I just don't see how 5-10 would have helped if match making didn't find anyone to before the match started begin with.

I agree with that. I mean how often does someone get dropped in the 1st 5-10 seconds. I'd say 1st minute or 2

I'll compromise to 30 seconds in But to me, its not about people being dropped or quitting out, its about new people entering. And I know that other people are rediculously more competitive than I am so coming in on a team already losing - they'll just quit right out anyway.

I can totally hear where you are coming from, Raist, I can be pretty competitive with myself and have expectations for myself, though they are only to go at least even in a game, I can also agree with you on the trash talking, I'll do anything short of being a glitcher to get them to shut up, even go through an entire of hammer ammo to get them down, though I haven't done that in months lol

Well what sucks more? Playing with one man (or female) short or getting a noob?

For the record there are no people with an 8 K/D and more than a few thousand kills. People like that just make a second account to dick around on then get serious and go back to their main (assuming the matchmaking is level based). No one plays people their level fairly and gets that kind of a score consistently.

s1lv3r4554551n wrote:

Well what sucks more? Playing with one man (or female) short or getting a noob?

For the record there are no people with an 8 K/D and more than a few thousand kills. People like that just make a second account to dick around on then get serious and go back to their main (assuming the matchmaking is level based). No one plays people their level fairly and gets that kind of a score consistently.

8.0 K/D used as exaggeration

The thing is K/D means nothing so lets ignore that point now. You didn't want a very skilled player coming into the game late but if it is based on chance what kind of player joins (it doesn't have to be) then there's an equal chance theoretically that a completely new player will join, giving you more points throughout the game.

s1lv3r4554551n wrote:

The thing is K/D means nothing so lets ignore that point now. You didn't want a very skilled player coming into the game late but if it is based on chance what kind of player joins (it doesn't have to be) then there's an equal chance theoretically that a completely new player will join, giving you more points throughout the game.

You are correct. In which case it wouldn't be fair for them either. Either way someone is getting the short end of the stick. Lose/lose.