I'll have to disagree with that. Planes > Anything that isn't a plane. What frustrates me is the fact that a good pilot can kill a soldier in an AA gun without even entering its range. That makes no freakin' sense. Let's make a gun that's meant to destroy planes, but make it so that a pilot can kill said soldier in AA without even entering it's range. And the fact that the Transport boats are pretty much made of paper mache, which is not helped by the fact that not only is it the size of a bus, it handles like one too. I'd love to take a group of three or four guys in one but I know for a fact that the longer I allow the enemies planes to get into the air, the lower my chances are of survival. So I'm pretty much one of those assholes who simply take a transport boat and drive off, but what other choice do I have? Wait for it to fill and let an enemy just sink us? Unlikely.
The Jeep and Tank-mounted guns will tear planes up. And if the plane is flying low enough for a bombing run, any decent tank driver will pluck them out of the sky. The biggest thing for the AA is to keep yourself hidden until your intended target is paying attention to another nearby target, then hop in quickly and light them up as they pass / fly away. You have to keep in mind good pilots will check the minimap and see which AA guns are manned, and actively avoid those. If you're not in an AA till they get close, there's little they'll be able to do against you.
Yes, there are good pilots that are hard to kill, just as there are good hard-to-kill tank drivers. If it were always easy to take down people in those vehicles, people wouldn't bother spending the time to get "good" at using them ;-)
Personally I think the planes in 1943 are the easiest air vehicles to kill in any BF game I've ever played. And I've played almost all of them (except BF:Vietnam).
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Once in 1942 I took down a plane on foot with a rocket launcher. I was very satisfied.
But I really can't wait for the PC demo even though I'll probably get a single digit framerate. And they need to raise the firerate on the UAV helicopter. Shooting one rocket every twenty seconds is boring
Once in 1942 I took down a plane on foot with a rocket launcher. I was very satisfied.
Holy hell. Nice shooting.
Mechanical on
0
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Not really. Dumbass was flying fifteen feet above ground, and went right over my head. He was already trailing smoke something awful, so it was just a matter of timing.
The biggest unbalanced factors in Battlefield 2 were the inaccuracy of weapons and jets.
In 2142 and BadCompany there were no jets. Just choppers ("Fighters" in 2142) and they didn't have bombs which were the worst thing about Jets.
The choppers and attack fighters were exponentially easier to handle.
You missed quite a lot. Battlefield 2 suffered a lot of problems because everything hard countered each other. There was no soft counters. I made this chart to make it easier to explain.
The only thing that could counter an Airplane was another Airplane. Which the games came all down to who had the best pilots on their team. A team with the best pilots controlled the game. You might say "But Waffen, what about the AA Vehicles and SAM Sites?" Good pilots knew where every SAM Site was in a map. If they pinged in that area they would more than likely chaff, 180 around and dive bomb you. It took four missiles from a SAM to bring down a plane. The most you'd hit him with is two before dying. Then all he would have to do is fly around base twice to get repaired and continue raping. After getting tired of the plane crap I switched to the non jet maps only (Sharqi, Karkaand and Mashtuur City mainly)
The other major problem was net code and hit boxes. BF2 was a lag sensitive game. A ping greater than 100 in this game meant you were at a terrible disadvantage. You couldn't hit crap. Speaking of that, I did mention hit boxes. Don't even get me started on those. I had a sniper once bunny hop, 360, and then dolphin dive into the ground. I loaded a full 30 bullets into him, yet not a single shot counted. As soon as I ran out of F2000 rounds I switched to my 9mm. Shot at him some more, ran out. He stops his nonsense, and rapid fire SVDs me down. At that point I just exited the game.
At the risk of turning into a balancing discussion, the air power was quite counterable in BF2. And not with just other planes. AA sites and mobile AAs were quite uesful if used wisely. Most people though just jumped in one and started scanning the sky expecting to just to pull the trigger and take down the plane in their sites wherever it was. People would get frustrated because it didn't work like that. Counterintuitively you actually had to stand outside the static AAs, and the mobile one sometimes, so you wouldn't show up on the plane's HUD. When a good shot would present itself you hopped in the AA and fired off a couple shots. You would of course have to repeat this a few times as you often would not get them in one attack. They of course would probably be looking for you after the first time so you might have to move someplace else if they decide to make a run on where you shot at them from. This worked real well with a buddy who could man another AA when they went looking for you.
The Mobile AA could be used the same way. You basically had to sneak around and attack from unexpected angles. Most pilots use a kind of "race track" when they are bombing to minimize unnecessary turns to rearm. Figuring this out you can anticipate where they will be often and ambush them. Also it usually only takes two good missles with the AA to take a plane down (you occasionaly did need three). I know as I always make sure I have at least two missles ready before reload when I use mobile AAs. Also even taking most of there health down will cause many pilots to waste time making multiple passes over the airfield to repair some. And it obviously makes it easier for other people to shoot them down as well.
With choppers, two people with two jeeps working together could take out a chopper in seconds. Again you just had to be smart about how you approached it.
Of course the real problem is that few people bothered to take the time to do any of the above. And I think that was because there was no incentive to do so other than your own personal satisfaction. You could spend much of the round doing the above and come out with maybe a kill or two. The same points you could get with a blindly thrown grenade (And if the pilot is a dick he might bail and give you no points at all). The same also applies to the other vehicles in BF2. Going one on one with a tank using an AT kit doesn't get you anything other than a kill despite the fact it is much more challenging. This is why you see some games where almost every one on a team "ignores" the tanks until they start to get too distracting (ie. getting too many kills) and people begin to break down and start choosing kits with AT capability until they kill the tanks. Then they go back to whatever they were doing before. It's done more out of desperation than anything else.
BC2 does some things to aleviate this by giving you a good number of points for killing vehicles and even just assisted hits. I still see people ignore rampaging tanks to go snipe (I confess I have done this from time to time too ) but at least you are rewarded for it when you decide to take a tank on all by your lonesome.
I personally would like to see a scaling system that gives you points based on how many points the other person has up to that point. So if that person is on a big kill streak, or tearing it up in a vehicle, they become worth a ton of points if killed. Almost like a bounty system. So the more damage you do the more people are going to come after you as they actually have a real incentive to try to take you out. At least other than the more ethereal "for the team" kind of reason.
All of the above is regarding pubbing of course and not competition play which is a whole other discussion.
I personally would like to see a scaling system that gives you points based on how many points the other person has up to that point. So if that person is on a big kill streak, or tearing it up in a vehicle, they become worth a ton of points if killed. Almost like a bounty system. So the more damage you do the more people are going to come after you as they actually have a real incentive to try to take you out. At least other than the more ethereal "for the team" kind of reason.
Actually... I'm surprised this hasn't already been done elsewhere. Or has it? Seems like a pretty good idea.
Ayulin on
0
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
I know the PS3 deserves all the attention it can get after the last few years of neglect, good to see it's hitting its stride because for me, growing up on a PS1, the Playstation brand is synopsis with gaming.
Mr Fox on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Psh, Playstation. Back in my day, we played all our videogames on "the Nintendo," even if it was actually a Sega Genesis. Kids these days! :P
(Watch as some ancient Magnavox Odyssey geezer comes in and tells it like it is.)
So I hear conquest maps now only have 3 capture points instead of 5. Hopefully that isn't true. That's one of the reasons I hated domination in COD, you would capture your side, they would capture theirs, and then you would fight forever over the point in the middle. No flanking, no tactics, just rush rush rush. I love flanking around the slaughterhouse in 1943 and taking two flags while no one is watching.
I love the staged maps in BC1. The maps can still be huge, but when they stage them via capture points it keeps the battle moving and its harder to get lost.
The absolute best mod I've ever played for Battlefield 2 is Project Reality. It's like a milsim version of the game, and has a surprisingly awesome community.
Best things about BC1 for me were sniping and using the JDAM creatively. Hitting helicopters in flight, targeting emplaced MGs to keep hitting the defenders around it.
But the power tool was a lot of fun too. Taking out enemy armor when it got too close, knocking out the wall of a building, running up and drilling the camper on the top floor right through the forehead.
Strangely, I never got into the scout class with the C4. Maybe in BC2.
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
So a question for anyone playing the beta, have they balanced SMGs? In the first BC everyone was a specialist because they had excellent anti vehicle capabilities and could outshoot the assault class 9 out of ten time even if you got the jump on them. The assault class was practically useless.
After playing the beta I still have no idea how people play these kind of games on a console. Even gamepad aside the incredible lack of options versus a similiar PC game makes the console version incredibly irratating. No choice in servers, no idea what your ping is, can't see what other squads are on the field, limited comms, and other little annoyances.
As much as I like the game, if it only came out on the consoles I wouldn't buy it for those reasons.
But if you don't have a comp to run it, or you hate to have to tweak anything, then I guess you go with the console version.
Apostate on
0
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
I'm sorry but jets in BF2 were not well balanced. The fact alone that you have to jump through so many hoops just to make AA remotely useful goes to show how unbalanced it was. Part of the problem is that AA in BF2 is 95% luck based since you have to get a lock and pray that they're too stupid to drop flares (they're not) or that someone else made them drop flares already. There's also the fact that the draw distance was weird so planes could easily disappear. BF2142 did it right in my opinion, because gunships were super powerful but you could actually be shot down if you weren't careful. BF2 also really pissed me off with the fact that an attack chopper can take two tank shells before going down. If they're stupid enough to get hit by a tank shell once, they deserve to get killed. There's no reason to baby the second most powerful vehicle in the game.
Also, the mod Forgotten Hope 2 has a really awesome scoring system that takes into account what weapon you used to kill someone and the difficulty of killing that person. For example, if you just kill some hapless infantryman while you're sitting snug in a Tiger II you get one or two points, but if some guy with a bazooka kills a Tiger II they get something like ten points. It'd be nice to see something like that in this or BF3.
After playing the beta I still have no idea how people play these kind of games on a console. Even gamepad aside the incredible lack of options versus a similiar PC game makes the console version incredibly irratating. No choice in servers, no idea what your ping is, can't see what other squads are on the field, limited comms, and other little annoyances.
Using a gamepad for an FPS isn't a problem for me, my main thing is mods. I love mods. I'll wait for more info on the differences I guess and see which one has more friends playing.
I have my fingers crossed so that the Project Reality guys jump on this as soon as possible.
That's assuming DICE releases some sort of SDK / Toolkit for BF:BC2. Which I'm sure they'll get to riiiight after they finish all that DLC they've been cooking up for post-release ;-)
I had totally forgot about that. I'm still gonna get this, MW2 left me with a sour taste in my mouth, good thing I didn't buy it. (Friend let's me login to his Steam account and play.)
PC Enhanced Features
Up to 32 Players on PC (24 on consoles) - Play with up to 32 players online in the biggest multiplayer Maps in Battlefield. Each with a different tactical and gameplay focus set across a variety of environments.
This doesn't mean they'd be able to do much with BF:BC2 though, because DICE would need to release a proper SDK / Toolkit for the PR team to really do anything.
Why doesn't EA upgrade consoles to 32? Fuels of War had 50 and Killzone had over 50 if I remember correctly.
Quite possibly because of all the stuff that's going on in-game. Killzone 2 supported 32 players, and while they were fairly decent sized maps at that player count, everything was mostly static. Can't comment on Frontline: Fuel of War, but from what I can remember hearing, that game wasn't exactly a watershed moment for multiplayer console performance.
With nearly fully destructible environments, a ton of vehicles, 24 players, and lots of explosions / effects, I have no doubt this game will be pushing consoles to their limits. It will probably be doing the same thing for the PC, just at a higher resolution with more players (hence the fairly hefty system requirements).
Plus, they're probably saving 64 people servers so that people will get BF3, when they get around to officially announcing it
Spoit on
0
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
I thought they already technically DID announce it, but it was a cursory "Yeah it's in development, but all we will acknowledge right now is its existence."
I just received a gift card for Christmas, and I don't know what to spend it on. I'm definitely thinking this game, the limited edition, but the question is PC or 360? I played the first one on the 360, I still have the PA Battlefield profile, but it sounds like a number of us here are now interested in picking it up on the computer. So which version are you all planning to purchase?
I am worried about my system specs a little, though. I have a C2D E6600, 4GB DDR2 memory, and the 8800 GTX. DICE recommends this, however:
The best team in BF2 would be all anti-tank with jackhammers. All 32 players on the team.
AT is the best class by far. Use the guided rockets to snipe bitches and the jackhammer chews through entire squads. Especially since the hitboxes don't mean shit to them.
Posts
The Jeep and Tank-mounted guns will tear planes up. And if the plane is flying low enough for a bombing run, any decent tank driver will pluck them out of the sky. The biggest thing for the AA is to keep yourself hidden until your intended target is paying attention to another nearby target, then hop in quickly and light them up as they pass / fly away. You have to keep in mind good pilots will check the minimap and see which AA guns are manned, and actively avoid those. If you're not in an AA till they get close, there's little they'll be able to do against you.
Yes, there are good pilots that are hard to kill, just as there are good hard-to-kill tank drivers. If it were always easy to take down people in those vehicles, people wouldn't bother spending the time to get "good" at using them ;-)
Personally I think the planes in 1943 are the easiest air vehicles to kill in any BF game I've ever played. And I've played almost all of them (except BF:Vietnam).
Really want an xbox demo.
Have to content myself with getting BC1 for now.
But I really can't wait for the PC demo even though I'll probably get a single digit framerate. And they need to raise the firerate on the UAV helicopter. Shooting one rocket every twenty seconds is boring
Holy hell. Nice shooting.
is there gonna be a 360 beta for this, or just ps3 and pc?
At the risk of turning into a balancing discussion, the air power was quite counterable in BF2. And not with just other planes. AA sites and mobile AAs were quite uesful if used wisely. Most people though just jumped in one and started scanning the sky expecting to just to pull the trigger and take down the plane in their sites wherever it was. People would get frustrated because it didn't work like that. Counterintuitively you actually had to stand outside the static AAs, and the mobile one sometimes, so you wouldn't show up on the plane's HUD. When a good shot would present itself you hopped in the AA and fired off a couple shots. You would of course have to repeat this a few times as you often would not get them in one attack. They of course would probably be looking for you after the first time so you might have to move someplace else if they decide to make a run on where you shot at them from. This worked real well with a buddy who could man another AA when they went looking for you.
The Mobile AA could be used the same way. You basically had to sneak around and attack from unexpected angles. Most pilots use a kind of "race track" when they are bombing to minimize unnecessary turns to rearm. Figuring this out you can anticipate where they will be often and ambush them. Also it usually only takes two good missles with the AA to take a plane down (you occasionaly did need three). I know as I always make sure I have at least two missles ready before reload when I use mobile AAs. Also even taking most of there health down will cause many pilots to waste time making multiple passes over the airfield to repair some. And it obviously makes it easier for other people to shoot them down as well.
With choppers, two people with two jeeps working together could take out a chopper in seconds. Again you just had to be smart about how you approached it.
Of course the real problem is that few people bothered to take the time to do any of the above. And I think that was because there was no incentive to do so other than your own personal satisfaction. You could spend much of the round doing the above and come out with maybe a kill or two. The same points you could get with a blindly thrown grenade (And if the pilot is a dick he might bail and give you no points at all). The same also applies to the other vehicles in BF2. Going one on one with a tank using an AT kit doesn't get you anything other than a kill despite the fact it is much more challenging. This is why you see some games where almost every one on a team "ignores" the tanks until they start to get too distracting (ie. getting too many kills) and people begin to break down and start choosing kits with AT capability until they kill the tanks. Then they go back to whatever they were doing before. It's done more out of desperation than anything else.
BC2 does some things to aleviate this by giving you a good number of points for killing vehicles and even just assisted hits. I still see people ignore rampaging tanks to go snipe (I confess I have done this from time to time too
I personally would like to see a scaling system that gives you points based on how many points the other person has up to that point. So if that person is on a big kill streak, or tearing it up in a vehicle, they become worth a ton of points if killed. Almost like a bounty system. So the more damage you do the more people are going to come after you as they actually have a real incentive to try to take you out. At least other than the more ethereal "for the team" kind of reason.
All of the above is regarding pubbing of course and not competition play which is a whole other discussion.
Actually... I'm surprised this hasn't already been done elsewhere. Or has it? Seems like a pretty good idea.
The official stance is 'No plans for a 360 beta at this time"
But there is supposed to be a multiplayer demo for all platforms shortly before release
EA has been really into the PS3 recently with Dante's Inferno and this :P
Just don't forget about us 360 users
(Watch as some ancient Magnavox Odyssey geezer comes in and tells it like it is.)
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Wil Bad Company 2 be moddable on PC?
But the power tool was a lot of fun too. Taking out enemy armor when it got too close, knocking out the wall of a building, running up and drilling the camper on the top floor right through the forehead.
Strangely, I never got into the scout class with the C4. Maybe in BC2.
For some reason it gave me motion sickness in the last game. And I never get motion sickness in FPS games.
I dunno if I'll go PC or 360 for this.
After playing the beta I still have no idea how people play these kind of games on a console. Even gamepad aside the incredible lack of options versus a similiar PC game makes the console version incredibly irratating. No choice in servers, no idea what your ping is, can't see what other squads are on the field, limited comms, and other little annoyances.
As much as I like the game, if it only came out on the consoles I wouldn't buy it for those reasons.
But if you don't have a comp to run it, or you hate to have to tweak anything, then I guess you go with the console version.
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/squad-deathmatch-battlefield-bad/60101
sorry, don't know how to embed gametrailers
Also, the mod Forgotten Hope 2 has a really awesome scoring system that takes into account what weapon you used to kill someone and the difficulty of killing that person. For example, if you just kill some hapless infantryman while you're sitting snug in a Tiger II you get one or two points, but if some guy with a bazooka kills a Tiger II they get something like ten points. It'd be nice to see something like that in this or BF3.
Using a gamepad for an FPS isn't a problem for me, my main thing is mods. I love mods. I'll wait for more info on the differences I guess and see which one has more friends playing.
That's assuming DICE releases some sort of SDK / Toolkit for BF:BC2. Which I'm sure they'll get to riiiight after they finish all that DLC they've been cooking up for post-release ;-)
I had totally forgot about that. I'm still gonna get this, MW2 left me with a sour taste in my mouth, good thing I didn't buy it. (Friend let's me login to his Steam account and play.)
God, I hope so. PR with Frostbite would just be awesome.
I checked the PR forums. It's not going to happen. Apparently BC2 only allows about 24 players, which is far too little for PR needs.
Actually its 32 players for the PC version. From DICE's BF Blog...
This doesn't mean they'd be able to do much with BF:BC2 though, because DICE would need to release a proper SDK / Toolkit for the PR team to really do anything.
Quite possibly because of all the stuff that's going on in-game. Killzone 2 supported 32 players, and while they were fairly decent sized maps at that player count, everything was mostly static. Can't comment on Frontline: Fuel of War, but from what I can remember hearing, that game wasn't exactly a watershed moment for multiplayer console performance.
With nearly fully destructible environments, a ton of vehicles, 24 players, and lots of explosions / effects, I have no doubt this game will be pushing consoles to their limits. It will probably be doing the same thing for the PC, just at a higher resolution with more players (hence the fairly hefty system requirements).
I am worried about my system specs a little, though. I have a C2D E6600, 4GB DDR2 memory, and the 8800 GTX. DICE recommends this, however:
Processor: Quadcore
Main memory: 2GB
Graphics card: GeForce GTX 260
Graphics memory: 512MB
I'm thinking it should be okay, though.
AT is the best class by far. Use the guided rockets to snipe bitches and the jackhammer chews through entire squads. Especially since the hitboxes don't mean shit to them.