BF2S Forums Devs, please exclude the "dive & shoot" in the next patch.

C-J... wrote:

It´s the most unrealistic and laughable part of an already unrealistic and arkadish game.

Throwing your self on the ground when facing an opponant in close quarters, and more often than not shooting before you even landed, and the worst part... the aim isn´t wobbly AT friggin ALL.

Try using a scope, jog forward, throw yourself on the ground as fast as you can while shooting at a moving target. Do you aim aswell as normal?

NO!

Does your weapon/aim go ballistic when you hit the ground due to the mere impact?

HELL YEAH!

Has any soldier in the history done this, and been successful?

NO!

Only someone mentally challenged would even try this.
When you face an enemy in an open area, you shoot as fast as you can - standing up. Some people might try to go crouched if the distance is too far, in order to be stedier on the hand, but noone dives to the friggin ground, that would leave them helpless and they would´nt be able to aim for a good second & a half after hitting the ground = they would DIE.

Dive for cover is one thing, diving in order to aim better in close range is just ridiculous.

Long range I get, but short range.

RIDICULOUS!

You don't understand the concept of game design.
Arcade vs Realism

In this case Arcade is preferred over realism...
Realistic gameplay can destroy a game more than it can make it enjoyable.  Even though there are some realistic qualities in BF2 it can not be entirely real.
Hindering the payer too much makes the game not enjoyable.  BF2 is suppose to not be 100% realistic.

As for players abusing certain aspects beyond intended gameplay, they have tried patching it but not as well as they should have. 
There are a lot of sloppy designs that can be argued about:

They didn't program a delay time from prown to crouch.  Only from prown to stand.
They didn't catch that if you double tap prown in the air you can still dolphin dive.
They didn't thoroughly separate jumping from throwing which makes C4 throwing still possible.
They didn't create a proper clipping for the tank.  If you drive over a mine in between the treads, even though the tank never physically touches the mine, it will still detonate.
I can go on forever...

Just play the game and try to enjoy it.  If you don't like it then find a different game.
If you want 100% realistic gameplay go download Project Reality or go play America's Army.

Last edited by Icleos (2007-07-03 11:03:21)

BF2 is pretty fine the way it is now.

BunnyHopping and Dolphine Diving got removed cause they gave unfair advantages to Spec-Ops&Assault and Support respectively.

But going prone like that doesn't give anyone a particular advantage so keep it.

golgoj4 wrote:

Its not a new realization dummy. And im not the one with a problem. I still kill plenty of people. Maybe its you who has the problem?

aside from the occasional missile through the jeep and the F-35,i have no complaints with the game.

golgoj4 wrote:

.cat. wrote:

C-J... wrote:

It´s the most unrealistic and laughable part of an already unrealistic and arkadish game.

Throwing your self on the ground when facing an opponant in close quarters, and more often than not shooting before you even landed, and the worst part... the aim isn´t wobbly AT friggin ALL.

Try using a scope, jog forward, throw yourself on the ground as fast as you can while shooting at a moving target. Do you aim aswell as normal?

NO!

Does your weapon/aim go ballistic when you hit the ground due to the mere impact?

HELL YEAH!

Has any soldier in the history done this, and been successful?

NO!

Only someone mentally challenged would even try this.
When you face an enemy in an open area, you shoot as fast as you can - standing up. Some people might try to go crouched if the distance is too far, in order to be stedier on the hand, but noone dives to the friggin ground, that would leave them helpless and they would´nt be able to aim for a good second & a half after hitting the ground = they would DIE.

Dive for cover is one thing, diving in order to aim better in close range is just ridiculous.

Long range I get, but short range.

RIDICULOUS!

I guess a Jet still flying after being hit by 1 A-A missle, A helo being hit by a rocket and able to fly, a tank still moving after being hit by an AT Rocket, a jeep surviving a AT rocket, a human being being shot once in the nads and living, being killed by a knife with a slice to a toe WOW RIDICULOUS...
Get over it, its a game and its called balancing for game play.
If you dont like it dont play it. I would speculate that youre just another one of those players that is not very good at this game and has to whine about every aspect of the game because you suck ass at it.

Question.

How is creating a glitch balanced gameplay? If the animation doesn't the players actions, HOW THE FUCK IS THAT BALANCED. Whoever does it first essentially has an invisible hit box for the time it takes for them to go prone. If thats your definition of balance, then you sir are a tard. I keep hearing all these comments on how bf2 is an Arcade shooter. Fine, fix the fucking glitches and make it that. All of you people in this thread who dont want it gone, well i guess I know who takes advantage of any and all glitches.

Get over the fact that you don't want your most important asset of prone glitching removed because god forbid you have to shoot back without some gimmick.

Yeah no devs come here, but it nice to know im not the only one who thinks its a gaping hole in play mechanics , used mainly by  medic whores and pk spammers who cant actually play.

I prove my point... Another player that sucks at the game has to chime in something that doesnt make sense. Btw, player movement is not a glitch. If you knew the BF series you would understand that there are some advantages in infantry movement. In Viet it was dropping prone and sparying the m60. BF42 it was aim and super strafing(if you didnt know this prior; If you kept firing at the same spot of someone kneeling, or going prone behind objects you would still hit their hitboxes due to bad coding).  In BF2 its anyway possible to hit a target due to bad hitboxes and not a Glitch.

I find it funny you expect players to stand upright, not move while in a fire fight. We should petition the armed forces to implement that theory into real world battle scenarios. I dont know why im wasting my time responing to this. oh well... my $.02

ThomasMorgan wrote:

Actually, the most unrealistic part, in my opinion, is respawning 15 seconds after you die.

...but a game really wouldn't be that much fun if it was a perfect simulation, now would it?  That's why we're all safe and sound in our homes...and not enlisted.

Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats great.

I guess we would all be dead privates too.

Tripp wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/ … hakeit.gif

lol

SargeV1.4 wrote:

just ignore this retard. Look at what his kind have done to BF2. Giving him attention leads to nothing but trouble.

QFT
thanks to people like him came patch 1.2

BF2 is supposed to be as realistic as possible, without taking away the "fun" of an arkade-shooter.

Exactly HOW would this game be less fun if they ade it more realistic, in the sense that you can´t throw yourself and shoot in midair, and then keep shooting when you land, and all of this with your aim being as still as if you were laying down with bipods out?

Which takes me to another question.. the sights are 100% still at all time, not even the best marksmen in the world can keep them absoluteky still if they arent laying down... and even then it would move slightly.

MORE REALISM FFS!!


This is a childsgame, and I´m 30 years old. I do want AAO with vehicles, that would be amazing.

I'm fairly certain anyone who whines about any tactic in BF2 has used said tactic at least a dozen times.

Play counter-strike if you want spray and pray. I like that my bullets go where i'm aiming even if I have to hurl myself at the ground. It's not like a prone person is a hard target at 2m anyway.

C-J... wrote:

It´s the most unrealistic and laughable part of an already unrealistic and arkadish game.

Throwing your self on the ground when facing an opponant in close quarters, and more often than not shooting before you even landed, and the worst part... the aim isn´t wobbly AT friggin ALL.

Try using a scope, jog forward, throw yourself on the ground as fast as you can while shooting at a moving target. Do you aim aswell as normal?

NO!

Does your weapon/aim go ballistic when you hit the ground due to the mere impact?

HELL YEAH!

Has any soldier in the history done this, and been successful?

NO!

Only someone mentally challenged would even try this.
When you face an enemy in an open area, you shoot as fast as you can - standing up. Some people might try to go crouched if the distance is too far, in order to be stedier on the hand, but noone dives to the friggin ground, that would leave them helpless and they would´nt be able to aim for a good second & a half after hitting the ground = they would DIE.

Dive for cover is one thing, diving in order to aim better in close range is just ridiculous.

Long range I get, but short range.

RIDICULOUS!

go back and play counterstrike you fucking prick

It's threads like this that made BF2 a worse game, it was FUN when you could do what SteikeTa mentioned, FUN.

Now it's annoying when I get up from being prone and I cant fire my gun, so I just stand there like a retard and get shot. DO NOT WANT.

BF2 is not supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to be a fun game, with arcade type aspects. If you want realism, join the fecking army or the marines and stop your smurf whining.

C-J... wrote:

It´s the most unrealistic and laughable part of an already unrealistic and arkadish game.

Throwing your self on the ground when facing an opponant in close quarters, and more often than not shooting before you even landed, and the worst part... the aim isn´t wobbly AT friggin ALL.

Try using a scope, jog forward, throw yourself on the ground as fast as you can while shooting at a moving target. Do you aim aswell as normal?

NO!

Does your weapon/aim go ballistic when you hit the ground due to the mere impact?

HELL YEAH!

Has any soldier in the history done this, and been successful?

NO!

Only someone mentally challenged would even try this.
When you face an enemy in an open area, you shoot as fast as you can - standing up. Some people might try to go crouched if the distance is too far, in order to be stedier on the hand, but noone dives to the friggin ground, that would leave them helpless and they would´nt be able to aim for a good second & a half after hitting the ground = they would DIE.

Dive for cover is one thing, diving in order to aim better in close range is just ridiculous.

Long range I get, but short range.

RIDICULOUS!

Don't worry OP. Some people see things they way we do.

And those some people are called "people over 14 years old"