If you enjoy poor balance decisions, bad map design, muddled class design, weapons that are a mass of mediocrity with a few overpowered exceptions and the worst net code since 1994 then sir I would say that your tastes are objectively bad.
EDIT this is getting perilously off-topic but CoD is an arcade shooter. The BF series has always marketed itself as a squad-focused team objective game. BC2 rewards lone-wolf play to such an absurd degree that your best bet is to have your team camp out wookie hill so as to not drain spawn tickets too quickly while you move about mining MCOM stations.
After a certain point, the deficiencies add up to provide an overwhelming conclusion. Which is why I listed as many as I could. If it were one or two things, a matter of movement or animations or whatever, I'd totally let it slide. But there are so many problems, so pervasively in every aspect of the game, from mechanics to design to the engineering.
The only thing I agree with and seems obvious is that BFBC2 was an inferior experience on PC compared to the previous BF games. It was not highly optimized for PC, and if that's your thing I could see you being disappointed. I bought it on 360 because my brand new gaming PC barely ran it any better.
the points system actively promotes individual play and lone wolfing
You mean the points system that generally ends with a medic having a ton of points?
It also looks and runs better than CODBLOPS on my PC.
Just for the record, I didn't say that. Scarab did.
And I don't think any of you know what the word objective even means. I don't have half of the problems that you all describe. And you are exaggerating the ones that I do experience. If you're complaining about netcode then you haven't played Black Ops or MW2. You say everything is imbalanced and then complain that grenades don't work and that helis are too easy to shoot down. Those are balance decisions. One of the reasons CoD is despised by many is because of how overpowered grenades are. You'd be complaining a lot more if they were just as powerful in BC2. The enjoyment I get out of the game far outweighs what complaints I have.
the points system actively promotes individual play and lone wolfing
You mean the points system that generally ends with a medic having a ton of points?
It also looks and runs better than CODBLOPS on my PC.
The point system heavily rewarded the dread Carl Gustav or being that asshole grenade-spamming assault person of questionable paternal origins
This is, to me, the most annoying thing about the game- I hate seeing a guy shooting at him for 6-7 seconds because the class I'm playing has rather inaccurate guns, he just turns and swaps to the 40mm grenade and kills me with one shot.
No it's terrible. Well, not totally hopeless because there's some meat on those bones. But it has atrocious performance on PC
It really doesn't, considering the insane amount of information generated by the users and sent from them to the server and back again. Destruction is a whole heap of different variables with physics applied to them. That's why the game is so CPU intensive, it requires a fucktonne of calculation just to walk around in the middle of a multiplayer match.
Sorry for buying a game that tries to advance gameplay mechanics beyond that of 2007.
enemies are bullet sponges to a degree not seen in arcade shooters
Aim more. I can kill people in under a second on Normal mode with no upgrades. The key is going for upper body shots, not shamming bullets at the waist like you can do in CoD.
bullet drop was a dumb, stupid idea and poorly implemented
You mean that bullet drop that is applied to literally every bullet in the game but is completely neglible if you're not using a 12x scope? If that wasn't there, the game would be even more of a useless sniperfest than it already is.
the netcode is a warcrime and DICE should be sent to The Hague
To be fair, I doubt it's actually the netcode and is probably a side effect of making certain ISPs host the game servers on a limited number of machines.
the vehicles range from grotesquely overpowered (blackhawk, tanks) to pointless and actually hazardous (hind, all APCs)
The Blackhawk is a piece of shit. Using the guns is pot luck, the amount of muzzle flash makes accurate sustained fire on anything impossible. The heli itself is incredibly slow at turning and has zero offensive capabilities for the driver. Tanks are great if you're facing an inpompetant team to can't aim rockets or mortars of hide a bush with a bunch of C4. Or use another tank. Seriously, tanks will last all of 3 seconds against two people with rocket launchers. The Hind D is not useless at all. It's got an incredibly long lasting armour and a 30mm gun on it that can wipe out enemies from almost a mile away, if you can see them. Just don't fly in a straight line and you can stay in the air all match, making life a living hell for the enemy team. APCs are the exact same as tanks. Some offensive capabilites, but plenty of space for dudes. It's an Armoured Personnel Carrier. Not a fortresss.
not to mention they are all made utterly obsolete by three kinds of homing launcher, which have been patched twice to make them easier to use when they were offensively easy in the first place
Sounds like you should use vehicle smoke to get rid of those nasty tracer darts. And learn to actually move your vehicle and dodge the AT4.
the maps are mediocre to terrible (for example, on isla innocentes the wookiee hill, or the same one on port valdez)
The maps aren't terrible, it's the playerbase. If no-one played sniper and camped the whole match on the highest point a cover they can find, the game would play ten times better.
the weapons themselves are all pointless when the medic LMGs are orders of magnitude more useful than anything else
At killing infantry in the open, maybe. Medics can't carry explosives beyond frag grenades. You're going to need a different class when a tank shows up. Plus,LMGs have the side effect of taking a fucking millenium to reload. With assault, you can use up your AR ammo, use up your attachment ammo, use up your pitol ammo and give yourself more ammo. It's much better for infantry combat.
even post patch neft, smoke doesn't work, grenades don't work, knifing someone still hasn't been fixed, spotting doesn't work
Smoke works fine, grenades work if you can actually use them because they aren't fucking nukes like in CoD. Knifing is fine if the opponent is standing still, you're a dickbag for trying to do it in his face anyway. Just use a gun. I will agree that it would be nice to have a working knife, but it's not essential. Spotting works fine, stop mashing the button.
any class other than engineer has major weaknesses and imbalances
Because it's called game balance? If the engineer has no weaknesses, then it is unbalanced, which it is not. The only thing unblanaced about it is the Carl Gustav, the anti-infantry rocket launcher.
the levelling system promotes narrow, focused play rather than allowing a broad range of play styles, in that you are rewarded more for sticking with one gun for a longer period
I thought the idea of unlocking new guns was to use them?
and the points system actively promotes individual play and lone wolfing, which in a team game is dumb
You do fucking realize that the points system is built around team play? You get almost as many points for an assist as a kill and half as many for spotting.
The additions they made to the game, along with the streamlining and smoothing of the mechanics for console play, have harmed the game and washed it down to a sort of milky, pale ooze of mediocrity.
I'm not even close to bothered enough to argue every point, and I'll freely admit a lot of my points were opinions. But not snap judgements, they're based on a storied history of playing Battlefield games at the lowest levels to clan play.
Perhaps the way to express it is to say that Bad Company 2 is a good game, but a bad Battlefield game. I think it changed too much from the really exquisite formula of the older titles. Mainly because of the destruction 2.0 stuff which cascades down to all aspects of the game mechanics.
I dunno. I didn't like it. It has a lot of bugs. And poor netcode. Maybe it's just not for me. And I gave it a try. I stuck with it for a couple of months and really wanted to like it.
No it's terrible. Well, not totally hopeless because there's some meat on those bones. But it has atrocious performance on PC, enemies are bullet sponges to a degree not seen in arcade shooters, bullet drop was a dumb, stupid idea and poorly implemented, the destruction 2.0 stuff is hit and miss, in that some buildings you expect to be destructible are not and some are impervious to damage altogether, the netcode is a warcrime and DICE should be sent to The Hague, the vehicles range from grotesquely overpowered (blackhawk, tanks) to pointless and actually hazardous (hind, all APCs), not to mention they are all made utterly obsolete by three kinds of homing launcher, which have been patched twice to make them easier to use when they were offensively easy in the first place, the maps are mediocre to terrible (for example, on isla innocentes the wookiee hill, or the same one on port valdez), the weapons themselves are all pointless when the medic LMGs are orders of magnitude more useful than anything else, even post patch neft, smoke doesn't work, grenades don't work, knifing someone still hasn't been fixed, spotting doesn't work, sniping is useless and actually weakens your own team, any class other than engineer has major weaknesses and imbalances, the levelling system promotes narrow, focused play rather than allowing a broad range of play styles, in that you are rewarded more for sticking with one gun for a longer period, and the points system actively promotes individual play and lone wolfing, which in a team game is dumb, not to mention there is not a single aspect of Bad Company 2 that is superior to Battlefield 2, other than the visuals. The additions they made to the game, along with the streamlining and smoothing of the mechanics for console play, have harmed the game and washed it down to a sort of milky, pale ooze of mediocrity.
Aw yes, someone walked right into it.
When I used "BC2 is pretty great" as my counterpoint you could have seen I was trying to say something along the words of:
That's just your opinion man.
Warcry addressed many of your points, but I'm just saying if people would stop crying that BC2 sucks because it isn't BF2, then we'd be off a lot better. Like, this is dangerously close to NMA territory.
Players have evolved, for better or for worse, but if you'd transfer BC2's playerbase to BF2, I don't think we'd be talking about a different experience.
No it's terrible. Well, not totally hopeless because there's some meat on those bones. But it has atrocious performance on PC, enemies are bullet sponges to a degree not seen in arcade shooters, bullet drop was a dumb, stupid idea and poorly implemented, the destruction 2.0 stuff is hit and miss, in that some buildings you expect to be destructible are not and some are impervious to damage altogether, the netcode is a warcrime and DICE should be sent to The Hague, the vehicles range from grotesquely overpowered (blackhawk, tanks) to pointless and actually hazardous (hind, all APCs), not to mention they are all made utterly obsolete by three kinds of homing launcher, which have been patched twice to make them easier to use when they were offensively easy in the first place, the maps are mediocre to terrible (for example, on isla innocentes the wookiee hill, or the same one on port valdez), the weapons themselves are all pointless when the medic LMGs are orders of magnitude more useful than anything else, even post patch neft, smoke doesn't work, grenades don't work, knifing someone still hasn't been fixed, spotting doesn't work, sniping is useless and actually weakens your own team, any class other than engineer has major weaknesses and imbalances, the levelling system promotes narrow, focused play rather than allowing a broad range of play styles, in that you are rewarded more for sticking with one gun for a longer period, and the points system actively promotes individual play and lone wolfing, which in a team game is dumb, not to mention there is not a single aspect of Bad Company 2 that is superior to Battlefield 2, other than the visuals. The additions they made to the game, along with the streamlining and smoothing of the mechanics for console play, have harmed the game and washed it down to a sort of milky, pale ooze of mediocrity.
It's funny, I thought you said "objectively" bad but I think you meant "subjectively".
I was going to say that when he first stated that it was objectively bad, but I would have included that he may also have meant comparatively.
His gripes with the game are personal thus not objective.
You earn way more points as a medic healing/reviving people than you do running around killing people. One of the complaints of BC2 is that you can earn way more points from not killing people than from killing people.
No game is perfect. BF2 isnt, BC2 isnt, BF3 wont be. Theres always something for people to hate, and theres no sense bickering about which game is better when its personal taste.
EDIT: I should have realized there was another page, as I would have seen Warcry's post directly answering yours.
The only thing I would say is that BF2 is from 2005, not 2007 so a change in game in 6 years seems doesnt seem unreasonable.
but a bad Battlefield game. I think it changed too much from the really exquisite formula of the older titles.
That's the point. In the latest Game Informer magazine they specifically address the changes the made in BC because they wanted to make it different than the old Battlefield game.
It's not like Battlefield specifically because they didn't want it to be. That's why Battlefield 3 is coming out.
but a bad Battlefield game. I think it changed too much from the really exquisite formula of the older titles.
That's the point. In the latest Game Informer magazine they specifically address the changes the made in BC because they wanted to make it different than the old Battlefield game.
It's not like Battlefield specifically because they didn't want it to be. That's why Battlefield 3 is coming out.
Well, bad is subjective.
Objectively it is a different Battlefield game, but that alone does not make the game bad.
No it's terrible. Well, not totally hopeless because there's some meat on those bones. But it has atrocious performance on PC
It really doesn't, considering the insane amount of information generated by the users and sent from them to the server and back again. Destruction is a whole heap of different variables with physics applied to them. That's why the game is so CPU intensive, it requires a fucktonne of calculation just to walk around in the middle of a multiplayer match.
Sorry for buying a game that tries to advance gameplay mechanics beyond that of 2007.
enemies are bullet sponges to a degree not seen in arcade shooters
Aim more. I can kill people in under a second on Normal mode with no upgrades. The key is going for upper body shots, not shamming bullets at the waist like you can do in CoD.
bullet drop was a dumb, stupid idea and poorly implemented
You mean that bullet drop that is applied to literally every bullet in the game but is completely neglible if you're not using a 12x scope? If that wasn't there, the game would be even more of a useless sniperfest than it already is.
the netcode is a warcrime and DICE should be sent to The Hague
To be fair, I doubt it's actually the netcode and is probably a side effect of making certain ISPs host the game servers on a limited number of machines.
the vehicles range from grotesquely overpowered (blackhawk, tanks) to pointless and actually hazardous (hind, all APCs)
The Blackhawk is a piece of shit. Using the guns is pot luck, the amount of muzzle flash makes accurate sustained fire on anything impossible. The heli itself is incredibly slow at turning and has zero offensive capabilities for the driver. Tanks are great if you're facing an inpompetant team to can't aim rockets or mortars of hide a bush with a bunch of C4. Or use another tank. Seriously, tanks will last all of 3 seconds against two people with rocket launchers. The Hind D is not useless at all. It's got an incredibly long lasting armour and a 30mm gun on it that can wipe out enemies from almost a mile away, if you can see them. Just don't fly in a straight line and you can stay in the air all match, making life a living hell for the enemy team. APCs are the exact same as tanks. Some offensive capabilites, but plenty of space for dudes. It's an Armoured Personnel Carrier. Not a fortresss.
not to mention they are all made utterly obsolete by three kinds of homing launcher, which have been patched twice to make them easier to use when they were offensively easy in the first place
Sounds like you should use vehicle smoke to get rid of those nasty tracer darts. And learn to actually move your vehicle and dodge the AT4.
the maps are mediocre to terrible (for example, on isla innocentes the wookiee hill, or the same one on port valdez)
The maps aren't terrible, it's the playerbase. If no-one played sniper and camped the whole match on the highest point a cover they can find, the game would play ten times better.
the weapons themselves are all pointless when the medic LMGs are orders of magnitude more useful than anything else
At killing infantry in the open, maybe. Medics can't carry explosives beyond frag grenades. You're going to need a different class when a tank shows up. Plus,LMGs have the side effect of taking a fucking millenium to reload. With assault, you can use up your AR ammo, use up your attachment ammo, use up your pitol ammo and give yourself more ammo. It's much better for infantry combat.
even post patch neft, smoke doesn't work, grenades don't work, knifing someone still hasn't been fixed, spotting doesn't work
Smoke works fine, grenades work if you can actually use them because they aren't fucking nukes like in CoD. Knifing is fine if the opponent is standing still, you're a dickbag for trying to do it in his face anyway. Just use a gun. I will agree that it would be nice to have a working knife, but it's not essential. Spotting works fine, stop mashing the button.
any class other than engineer has major weaknesses and imbalances
Because it's called game balance? If the engineer has no weaknesses, then it is unbalanced, which it is not. The only thing unblanaced about it is the Carl Gustav, the anti-infantry rocket launcher.
the levelling system promotes narrow, focused play rather than allowing a broad range of play styles, in that you are rewarded more for sticking with one gun for a longer period
I thought the idea of unlocking new guns was to use them?
and the points system actively promotes individual play and lone wolfing, which in a team game is dumb
You do fucking realize that the points system is built around team play? You get almost as many points for an assist as a kill and half as many for spotting.
The additions they made to the game, along with the streamlining and smoothing of the mechanics for console play, have harmed the game and washed it down to a sort of milky, pale ooze of mediocrity.
but a bad Battlefield game. I think it changed too much from the really exquisite formula of the older titles.
That's the point. In the latest Game Informer magazine they specifically address the changes the made in BC because they wanted to make it different than the old Battlefield game.
It's not like Battlefield specifically because they didn't want it to be. That's why Battlefield 3 is coming out.
Well, bad is subjective.
Objectively it is a different Battlefield game, but that alone does not make the game bad.
You really can't excuse all a game's faults by blaming it on the playerbase. Games get the players they get because they promote certain behaviour.
But there's nothing in the game that would encourage, say, being a sniper Recon, going to the hill on Port Valdez Rush, and becoming a sniping wookie. You don't get as many points as you would throwing health or ammo, you don't win the match unless somebody else arms the charges, and it's very probable that you aren't even getting that many kills. The only reason you might do such a thing is because you might get a positive kill/death ratio, or you enjoy sniping. Neither of which are promoted by the game, outside of it showing you your K/D spread.
Well for some points of course, but for example the sniping bit. Sniping in BC2 is hard, can only be addressed by making it easier or somehow promoting people to be better snipers. Don't see how they can fix that.
But then again, I don't think it's BC2's fault that all people want to be snipers now, blame it on other games that have made it really easy in the past, and other games that have made people really care about their K/D that they'd rather sit all the way back being useless, and going 3-0 on a 30 minute match.
You really can't excuse all a game's faults by blaming it on the playerbase. Games get the players they get because they promote certain behaviour.
But there's nothing in the game that would encourage, say, being a sniper Recon, going to the hill on Port Valdez Rush, and becoming a sniping wookie. You don't get as many points as you would throwing health or ammo, you don't win the match unless somebody else arms the charges, and it's very probable that you aren't even getting that many kills. The only reason you might do such a thing is because you might get a positive kill/death ratio, or you enjoy sniping. Neither of which are promoted by the game, outside of it showing you your K/D spread.
Sniping has been around in FPS's since time immemorial. No developer can feign ignorance about a players affinity to use long-range classes as an excuse to ignore the actual game going on around them in this day and age. Failure to adequately compensate for that is an oversight. Mortar strikes and spotting are both steps in the right direction, but obviously more needs to be done if they want to keep the sniper in the game and not make it into a crutch class that hampers everyone else's enjoyment.
Snipers need the ability to paint targets somehow, work with vehicles to take out specific targets. I am not feeling creative enough to describe it right now, but something to make them more worthwhile then assholes killing random dudes across the map.
Laser pointer? Maintain a constant lock with it for ten seconds (alerting the driver during this time) and allow missiles to home? "Tag" bullets with an extremely fast velocity and no drop that act like spotting, but last longer and help in some other way?
I'm looking forward to seeing how they handle any sort of UAV, myself. A much more spotting-oriented stealth-glider type thing could be neat. Not to say that I wouldn't miss flying an RC around at ground level spamming missiles and phys-killing mobs of enemy infantry while firing my infinite machine gun with reckless abandon.
Antithesis on
0
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
Sniping is easymode. Always has been, always will. Bullet drop is stupidly implemented (hurr gravity affects some calibers more than others durr), and as far as bullet drop being negligible for anything but a 12x scope, hahahahaha no. Try some shots at range and you'll find that you do indeed have to adjust. Yeah, I countersnipe with a RDS UMP. It works fine. Emulating warcry's "aim more" response, I'll go with "try taking non-trivial shots once in a while". umad?
The maps are bad because they encourage me sitting on the hill on e.g. Isla Innocentes and keeping your entire fucking team spawnlocked with a GOL. Re: knife, "you shouldn't be stabbing people in the face" is not a valid reason for the knife not fucking working. I mean, heaven forbid you use a melee weapon in melee range, right?
Bullet sponges and the atrocious netcode are closely related, either one exacerbating the other. Doesn't mean it's any less of a problem. It's a fucking problem when I'm 30 km from the server I'm playing on (I might as well be sitting next to it since I'm in Sweden), I can only imagine how utterly shit it must be for someone a fair distance away that isn't on primo Scandinavian tubes.
When it comes down to it, a lot of the "rebuttals" in warcry's post are the typical "it's the players not the game waaaaah" excuses that are so popular with fanboys everywhere.
Oh and one more thing re: LMGs - reloading isn't a big deal when you have three times the ammo capacity of most other weapons
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
Let me just say this about snipers.
They're fine, in certain roles. No, 'sniping' is not a role. For instance, one sniper on attackers can help root out the defender's snipers. Mortars can be extemely useful in defending an armed MCOM. The problem with sniping while on attackers is that sniping promotes being static, when the way to win is to constantly push against the enemy with a wall of men and grenades. With more than two snipers, you reduce the manpower needed for a successful rush. If a team pushes with all sixteen players, no matter the angle of attack, they will always prevail. You can charge straight up the middle of the first point on Arica Harbour on foot as a team of sixteen and win the base. The beauty of the squad spawning system is that as long as one man is left alive, the rush can continue unimpeded. When each squad has a sniper sitting back at home base, it impedes progress. Snipers that move up and stay with the squad are an invaluable tool. Sadly, they are very rare and few have the skill to play the role properly.
Warcry on
0
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
>two unsquadded snipers on defense
>not impeding their team in any way
>attackers can't leave their spawn because they have clear (and easy) shots
>forces attackers to have snipers
>attacking team goes nowhere
>all because of shitty map design
Pic related; it's my face (more so when I snipe defensively)
I've not had any performance problems related to the PC itself (although I do have a beast of a machine). The only issue I have is the occasional 'blackout' whereby the screen goes totally black, except I still see anything that's been spotted (think black screen with blue and orange triangles on it). Still not sure exactly what's causing that.
enemies are bullet sponges to a degree not seen in arcade shooters
Depending on range/gun/ammo/my aim then I can agree that sometimes it is frustrating, but I suspect the latter variable causes most problems - I still have the habit of tracking centre of mass rather than letting the muzzle drift up towards the head.
bullet drop was a dumb, stupid idea and poorly implemented
Well the first statement is just personal opinion - *why* was it a stupid idea? If the maps were larger I would like to see more bullet drop on non-sniper kits to stop the counter-sniping with an uzi thing, but otherwise? Meh, not a huge issue.
the destruction 2.0 stuff is hit and miss, in that some buildings you expect to be destructible are not and some are impervious to damage altogether
*shrug* it's a welcome step forward and I can see for gameplay and CPU overhead reasons why they would not want everything to be destructible.
the netcode is a warcrime and DICE should be sent to The Hague,
Yeh, the hyperbole is not really helping.
the vehicles range from grotesquely overpowered (blackhawk, tanks) to pointless and actually hazardous (hind, all APCs)
Weird, you have almost the exact opposite opinion as me - I find the tanks relatively harmless unless engaged in tank-sniping, the blackhawk 99% of the time I can take out with an AT-4 - occasionally there is a good pilot/gunners/engi group in one and that can be tough, but if there is more than one engi with an AT-4 it can usually be dealt with. On the other hand I consider the apache and the hind to be a fucking menace that can cause me no end of grief.
APCs/Humvees are rolling coffins though.
the maps are mediocre to terrible (for example, on isla innocentes the wookiee hill, or the same one on port valdez)
Haven't had much issue with the maps, depending on the number of people in the match, and I have yet to see an FPS with a sniper class that hasn't resulted in them all gravitating to specific areas.
the weapons themselves are all pointless when the medic LMGs are orders of magnitude more useful than anything else, even post patch neft
Disagree. M60 used to be a beast, not anymore. In CQC I will win against an LMG if I have an SMG, and it's 50/50 if I have an assault rifle (but that's because I am shite).
smoke doesn't work
In what way? I fire them, they go pop, I get a cloud of smoke. Am I missing something?
grenades don't work
As above. Fire/throw nade, pause, it explodes, something dies or not depending on how close they were.
knifing someone still hasn't been fixed
Yup agree. I don't find it gamebreaking though. YMMV.
spotting doesn't work
Agree here - I've been frustrated many times by spotting, with the reticle/sights *squarely* on the target only to have him not spotted - and the time taken can mean I then miss the shot as well.
sniping is useless and actually weakens your own team
Yes and no. Selfish hill-humpers will weaken your team. Assault-recon types are an asset. Talented snipers (a couple anyway) are also an asset.
there is not a single aspect of Bad Company 2 that is superior to Battlefield 2, other than the visuals.
I dunno, I kind of like no dolphin-diving.
trevellian on
0
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
Removing prone is the single greatest thing BC2 did for FPS gaming
thankfully dice are correcting that in BF3 so that they can go back to being the worst developer ever
Senshi on
0
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
Yes, because I want to get behind lower cover than crouching affords me, and I just want to stop getting hit and maybe find a way to make a return volley, Dice are total satanists. Oh don't get me wrong, I did dive to the ground a lot as support, but only because Mg's in BF2 weren't extremely accurate. Didn't find much else reason for proning other than to get behind low cover and firing Mg's. Sure, I might have thrown myself to the ground in an open spot by a flag, but honestly it only made it a bit less easy to hit me.
No prone does make all the guns with bipods flapping in the breeze look silly.
There's an easy fix for dolphin-diving, just hard-code the game to not allow you to go prone while in mid-air.
I have no issues with someone using prone to drop behind cover when fired upon, or to improve their aim with an LMG or Rifle.
BC2 is still my favorite FPS, really looking forward to BF3.
And as far as K/D ratio goes, my total is 2511/3302 or 0.76. I'm the guy that runs in like an idiot to be a forward spawn point or a distraction for the rest of the team to get to the objective. I die a lot, and I have no problem with that. It's fun
I have never, ever seen a game where attackers are locked down because of 1, 2 or 5 snipers on defenders.
Pistols, ARs and LMGs don't have bullet drop.
They do, but like I said, it's negligible. It only appears like there's more drop on snipers because of the high magnification. Either way, trying to snipe with an AR or LMG is doomed to fail most times due to bullet spread, not drop.
Oh yeah I know that, damage drop is really high and stuff, but I was just seeing some complaints against bullet drop, when in reality it only seems to affect sniper rifles, vehicles and mounted guns.
Posts
EDIT this is getting perilously off-topic but CoD is an arcade shooter. The BF series has always marketed itself as a squad-focused team objective game. BC2 rewards lone-wolf play to such an absurd degree that your best bet is to have your team camp out wookie hill so as to not drain spawn tickets too quickly while you move about mining MCOM stations.
It also looks and runs better than CODBLOPS on my PC.
Use a better gun and you'll have no problem.
my twitter | my youtube
And I don't think any of you know what the word objective even means. I don't have half of the problems that you all describe. And you are exaggerating the ones that I do experience. If you're complaining about netcode then you haven't played Black Ops or MW2. You say everything is imbalanced and then complain that grenades don't work and that helis are too easy to shoot down. Those are balance decisions. One of the reasons CoD is despised by many is because of how overpowered grenades are. You'd be complaining a lot more if they were just as powerful in BC2. The enjoyment I get out of the game far outweighs what complaints I have.
The point system heavily rewarded the dread Carl Gustav or being that asshole grenade-spamming assault person of questionable paternal origins
This is, to me, the most annoying thing about the game- I hate seeing a guy shooting at him for 6-7 seconds because the class I'm playing has rather inaccurate guns, he just turns and swaps to the 40mm grenade and kills me with one shot.
It really doesn't, considering the insane amount of information generated by the users and sent from them to the server and back again. Destruction is a whole heap of different variables with physics applied to them. That's why the game is so CPU intensive, it requires a fucktonne of calculation just to walk around in the middle of a multiplayer match.
Sorry for buying a game that tries to advance gameplay mechanics beyond that of 2007.
Aim more. I can kill people in under a second on Normal mode with no upgrades. The key is going for upper body shots, not shamming bullets at the waist like you can do in CoD.
You mean that bullet drop that is applied to literally every bullet in the game but is completely neglible if you're not using a 12x scope? If that wasn't there, the game would be even more of a useless sniperfest than it already is.
I have never experienced this. If you mean you expect a steel girder to come tumbling down because you hit it with a grenade, tough titties.
To be fair, I doubt it's actually the netcode and is probably a side effect of making certain ISPs host the game servers on a limited number of machines.
The Blackhawk is a piece of shit. Using the guns is pot luck, the amount of muzzle flash makes accurate sustained fire on anything impossible. The heli itself is incredibly slow at turning and has zero offensive capabilities for the driver. Tanks are great if you're facing an inpompetant team to can't aim rockets or mortars of hide a bush with a bunch of C4. Or use another tank. Seriously, tanks will last all of 3 seconds against two people with rocket launchers. The Hind D is not useless at all. It's got an incredibly long lasting armour and a 30mm gun on it that can wipe out enemies from almost a mile away, if you can see them. Just don't fly in a straight line and you can stay in the air all match, making life a living hell for the enemy team. APCs are the exact same as tanks. Some offensive capabilites, but plenty of space for dudes. It's an Armoured Personnel Carrier. Not a fortresss.
Sounds like you should use vehicle smoke to get rid of those nasty tracer darts. And learn to actually move your vehicle and dodge the AT4.
The maps aren't terrible, it's the playerbase. If no-one played sniper and camped the whole match on the highest point a cover they can find, the game would play ten times better.
At killing infantry in the open, maybe. Medics can't carry explosives beyond frag grenades. You're going to need a different class when a tank shows up. Plus,LMGs have the side effect of taking a fucking millenium to reload. With assault, you can use up your AR ammo, use up your attachment ammo, use up your pitol ammo and give yourself more ammo. It's much better for infantry combat.
Smoke works fine, grenades work if you can actually use them because they aren't fucking nukes like in CoD. Knifing is fine if the opponent is standing still, you're a dickbag for trying to do it in his face anyway. Just use a gun. I will agree that it would be nice to have a working knife, but it's not essential. Spotting works fine, stop mashing the button.
Once again, a problem with the playerbase. Sniping is not the god mode that it is in other games, get over the idea.
Because it's called game balance? If the engineer has no weaknesses, then it is unbalanced, which it is not. The only thing unblanaced about it is the Carl Gustav, the anti-infantry rocket launcher.
I thought the idea of unlocking new guns was to use them?
You do fucking realize that the points system is built around team play? You get almost as many points for an assist as a kill and half as many for spotting.
Literally a matter of opinion.
Once more, more opinions.
Perhaps the way to express it is to say that Bad Company 2 is a good game, but a bad Battlefield game. I think it changed too much from the really exquisite formula of the older titles. Mainly because of the destruction 2.0 stuff which cascades down to all aspects of the game mechanics.
I dunno. I didn't like it. It has a lot of bugs. And poor netcode. Maybe it's just not for me. And I gave it a try. I stuck with it for a couple of months and really wanted to like it.
Aw yes, someone walked right into it.
When I used "BC2 is pretty great" as my counterpoint you could have seen I was trying to say something along the words of:
That's just your opinion man.
Warcry addressed many of your points, but I'm just saying if people would stop crying that BC2 sucks because it isn't BF2, then we'd be off a lot better. Like, this is dangerously close to NMA territory.
Players have evolved, for better or for worse, but if you'd transfer BC2's playerbase to BF2, I don't think we'd be talking about a different experience.
I was going to say that when he first stated that it was objectively bad, but I would have included that he may also have meant comparatively.
His gripes with the game are personal thus not objective.
You earn way more points as a medic healing/reviving people than you do running around killing people. One of the complaints of BC2 is that you can earn way more points from not killing people than from killing people.
No game is perfect. BF2 isnt, BC2 isnt, BF3 wont be. Theres always something for people to hate, and theres no sense bickering about which game is better when its personal taste.
EDIT: I should have realized there was another page, as I would have seen Warcry's post directly answering yours.
The only thing I would say is that BF2 is from 2005, not 2007 so a change in game in 6 years seems doesnt seem unreasonable.
That's the point. In the latest Game Informer magazine they specifically address the changes the made in BC because they wanted to make it different than the old Battlefield game.
It's not like Battlefield specifically because they didn't want it to be. That's why Battlefield 3 is coming out.
Well, bad is subjective.
Objectively it is a different Battlefield game, but that alone does not make the game bad.
Of course, you can hit the girder with a missile or crash a helicopter into it and it still doesn't go anywhere.
The worst thing that BC2 did was still the revive system, BF2 handled it more intelligently.
*slowclap*
Well said and I totally agree on all points. :^:
Yeah, I didn't mean the bad part.
But there's nothing in the game that would encourage, say, being a sniper Recon, going to the hill on Port Valdez Rush, and becoming a sniping wookie. You don't get as many points as you would throwing health or ammo, you don't win the match unless somebody else arms the charges, and it's very probable that you aren't even getting that many kills. The only reason you might do such a thing is because you might get a positive kill/death ratio, or you enjoy sniping. Neither of which are promoted by the game, outside of it showing you your K/D spread.
My Steam
But then again, I don't think it's BC2's fault that all people want to be snipers now, blame it on other games that have made it really easy in the past, and other games that have made people really care about their K/D that they'd rather sit all the way back being useless, and going 3-0 on a 30 minute match.
Sniping has been around in FPS's since time immemorial. No developer can feign ignorance about a players affinity to use long-range classes as an excuse to ignore the actual game going on around them in this day and age. Failure to adequately compensate for that is an oversight. Mortar strikes and spotting are both steps in the right direction, but obviously more needs to be done if they want to keep the sniper in the game and not make it into a crutch class that hampers everyone else's enjoyment.
I'm looking forward to seeing how they handle any sort of UAV, myself. A much more spotting-oriented stealth-glider type thing could be neat. Not to say that I wouldn't miss flying an RC around at ground level spamming missiles and phys-killing mobs of enemy infantry while firing my infinite machine gun with reckless abandon.
The maps are bad because they encourage me sitting on the hill on e.g. Isla Innocentes and keeping your entire fucking team spawnlocked with a GOL. Re: knife, "you shouldn't be stabbing people in the face" is not a valid reason for the knife not fucking working. I mean, heaven forbid you use a melee weapon in melee range, right?
Bullet sponges and the atrocious netcode are closely related, either one exacerbating the other. Doesn't mean it's any less of a problem. It's a fucking problem when I'm 30 km from the server I'm playing on (I might as well be sitting next to it since I'm in Sweden), I can only imagine how utterly shit it must be for someone a fair distance away that isn't on primo Scandinavian tubes.
When it comes down to it, a lot of the "rebuttals" in warcry's post are the typical "it's the players not the game waaaaah" excuses that are so popular with fanboys everywhere.
Oh and one more thing re: LMGs - reloading isn't a big deal when you have three times the ammo capacity of most other weapons
Twitter
They're fine, in certain roles. No, 'sniping' is not a role. For instance, one sniper on attackers can help root out the defender's snipers. Mortars can be extemely useful in defending an armed MCOM. The problem with sniping while on attackers is that sniping promotes being static, when the way to win is to constantly push against the enemy with a wall of men and grenades. With more than two snipers, you reduce the manpower needed for a successful rush. If a team pushes with all sixteen players, no matter the angle of attack, they will always prevail. You can charge straight up the middle of the first point on Arica Harbour on foot as a team of sixteen and win the base. The beauty of the squad spawning system is that as long as one man is left alive, the rush can continue unimpeded. When each squad has a sniper sitting back at home base, it impedes progress. Snipers that move up and stay with the squad are an invaluable tool. Sadly, they are very rare and few have the skill to play the role properly.
>not impeding their team in any way
>attackers can't leave their spawn because they have clear (and easy) shots
>forces attackers to have snipers
>attacking team goes nowhere
>all because of shitty map design
Pic related; it's my face (more so when I snipe defensively)
"RNG says...rolling....rolling....you die! Otherguy gets to win this time"
I've not had any performance problems related to the PC itself (although I do have a beast of a machine). The only issue I have is the occasional 'blackout' whereby the screen goes totally black, except I still see anything that's been spotted (think black screen with blue and orange triangles on it). Still not sure exactly what's causing that.
Depending on range/gun/ammo/my aim then I can agree that sometimes it is frustrating, but I suspect the latter variable causes most problems - I still have the habit of tracking centre of mass rather than letting the muzzle drift up towards the head.
Well the first statement is just personal opinion - *why* was it a stupid idea? If the maps were larger I would like to see more bullet drop on non-sniper kits to stop the counter-sniping with an uzi thing, but otherwise? Meh, not a huge issue.
*shrug* it's a welcome step forward and I can see for gameplay and CPU overhead reasons why they would not want everything to be destructible.
Yeh, the hyperbole is not really helping.
Weird, you have almost the exact opposite opinion as me - I find the tanks relatively harmless unless engaged in tank-sniping, the blackhawk 99% of the time I can take out with an AT-4 - occasionally there is a good pilot/gunners/engi group in one and that can be tough, but if there is more than one engi with an AT-4 it can usually be dealt with. On the other hand I consider the apache and the hind to be a fucking menace that can cause me no end of grief.
APCs/Humvees are rolling coffins though.
Haven't had much issue with the maps, depending on the number of people in the match, and I have yet to see an FPS with a sniper class that hasn't resulted in them all gravitating to specific areas.
Disagree. M60 used to be a beast, not anymore. In CQC I will win against an LMG if I have an SMG, and it's 50/50 if I have an assault rifle (but that's because I am shite).
In what way? I fire them, they go pop, I get a cloud of smoke. Am I missing something?
As above. Fire/throw nade, pause, it explodes, something dies or not depending on how close they were.
Yup agree. I don't find it gamebreaking though. YMMV.
Agree here - I've been frustrated many times by spotting, with the reticle/sights *squarely* on the target only to have him not spotted - and the time taken can mean I then miss the shot as well.
Yes and no. Selfish hill-humpers will weaken your team. Assault-recon types are an asset. Talented snipers (a couple anyway) are also an asset.
I dunno, I kind of like no dolphin-diving.
thankfully dice are correcting that in BF3 so that they can go back to being the worst developer ever
Pistols, ARs and LMGs don't have bullet drop.
There's an easy fix for dolphin-diving, just hard-code the game to not allow you to go prone while in mid-air.
I have no issues with someone using prone to drop behind cover when fired upon, or to improve their aim with an LMG or Rifle.
BC2 is still my favorite FPS, really looking forward to BF3.
And as far as K/D ratio goes, my total is 2511/3302 or 0.76. I'm the guy that runs in like an idiot to be a forward spawn point or a distraction for the rest of the team to get to the objective. I die a lot, and I have no problem with that. It's fun
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
They do, but like I said, it's negligible. It only appears like there's more drop on snipers because of the high magnification. Either way, trying to snipe with an AR or LMG is doomed to fail most times due to bullet spread, not drop.
Unleash the weapon charts!
Bullet drop doesn't mean jack if you're outside effective range anyway.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433