BF2S Forums [Battlefield: Bad Company 2] Official Thread

Finray wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Also now that I've played, I don't think prone is necessary.

You're incredibly incredibly wrong.

prone is shit, takes away the speed of the game

Finray wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Well I've had the BF-BC2 beta for two days now. My initial impression was "ewwwwwww" when I saw the graphics.

Playing on ultra-low? Otherwise you're just blind.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

The gameplay is very fast paced, but when you have 24 or more players it's impossible. It's just a dead lock every time until there's nothing left on the battlefield, literally.

When I played BF2 I felt this way, but this game is MUCH more focused towards more players.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Theres a few things I didn't like too much, like the chopper control, seemed way too simple and dumb. It should be more like BF2's system.

It's exactly the same as BF2s system.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Also now that I've played, I don't think prone is necessary.

You're incredibly incredibly wrong.

I'm with finray...

The graphics are amazing for a 32player game.

Helicopter control is the same as BF2 only more complicated since helicopters act like they have mass and weight now.

Prone would kind of ruin gameplay imo.. yes it would be more realistic etc. but with this kind of graphics proners have it WAY too easy, hiding in rubble, every bush etc. noone would set foot outside for the fear of campers and snipers...

the fact that the front line barely moves on a full server is really a tribute to DICE for making balanced maps... most games in my experience end near the middle or harbor area of a match, which is balanced....

the fact that the front line barely moves on a full server is really a tribute to DICE for making balanced maps... most games in my experience end near the middle or harbor area of a match, which is balanced....

Not really, that means most games end with the defenders winning. It's easier to defend than attack but that's natural anyway. What I don't like is being on a poor attacking team who after some time of stalemate you get loads of people just switching to the Sniper kit and just taking pot shots at each other. You see it happening in some games and it's an insta-quit for me from the server once too many snipers get on the field.

But what pisses me off the most is lack of being able to choose your server/squad. I don't understand why the only console games I've played with a server browser is Killzone 2 and Warhawk. The rest have shitty matchmaking. Can't we have both at least. But why is there also autosearch for squads? (unless you want to join a friend)

The amount of times I've been in stupid servers and had to keep going until a decent one was found, or the amount of times I'm put in stupid squads with no option to try and join another it's annoying afterwards. Even in the shitty Sniper stalemates you get sometimes, all you need is one good attacking squad to change things up, but instead all I'm put in are squads full of shitty Snipers hundreds of meters away from the action. God I hate matchmaking.

But not as much as I hate lag, slow framerates and bunnyhoppers... which looks to be much worse on the PC than the PS3. Especially lag... so I guess for now I'll put up with the automatic match/squad finding feature...

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-02-07 08:03:41)

They're not really a problem because the weapons are quite powerful at close range and have high rates of fire, infact I don't think I've ever been killed by one. Just that I'd rather not have them there because it looks gay and ruins any immersion.

When people say they don't like things it's not always because they're losing to it, or getting killed by it. That's retarded. I don't like it because it's fucking gay, it's that simple

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-02-07 08:25:11)

Mekstizzle wrote:

the fact that the front line barely moves on a full server is really a tribute to DICE for making balanced maps... most games in my experience end near the middle or harbor area of a match, which is balanced....

Not really, that means most games end with the defenders winning. It's easier to defend than attack but that's natural anyway. What I don't like is being on a poor attacking team who after some time of stalemate you get loads of people just switching to the Sniper kit and just taking pot shots at each other. You see it happening in some games and it's an insta-quit for me from the server once too many snipers get on the field.

But what pisses me off the most is lack of being able to choose your server/squad. I don't understand why the only console games I've played with a server browser is Killzone 2 and Warhawk. The rest have shitty matchmaking. Can't we have both at least. But why is there also autosearch for squads? (unless you want to join a friend)

The amount of times I've been in stupid servers and had to keep going until a decent one was found, or the amount of times I'm put in stupid squads with no option to try and join another it's annoying afterwards. Even in the shitty Sniper stalemates you get sometimes, all you need is one good attacking squad to change things up, but instead all I'm put in are squads full of shitty Snipers hundreds of meters away from the action. God I hate matchmaking.

But not as much as I hate lag, slow framerates and bunnyhoppers... which looks to be much worse on the PC than the PS3. Especially lag... so I guess for now I'll put up with the automatic match/squad finding feature...

What, you haven't played much have you...

You have a server browser and of course a Squad management tab like in BF2

Mekstizzle wrote:

I was talking about the PS3 version

All console FPSs use that "play now" matchmaking.. don't like it? get a PC...

Mekstizzle wrote:

For fuck sake... http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/15042/facepalm.gif

If you can't be bothered to read people's posts, or understand what they are saying. Don't act all smartass. Fuck. If you don't properly understand English go to some Danish forum.

Chill bro'

No, I just hate bunnyhoppers. They're not hard to deal with. It's just annoying. In the same way that alot of things aren't hard but are still annoying... I don't understand why you guys don't seem to grasp that concept.

I mean... I haven't even experienced them that much in the game, I only brought it up when I was talking about what I think are some of the differences I've noticed in the gameplay of the PC and Console versions of the game. Then some guy rolls in with "hurr durr you suck" and I just felt like saying no it's not quite that.

Then you guys continue with your "hurr durr you suck"

Do I really give a shit though, no not really.

jmsprovan wrote:

Letting C4 destroy the MCOMs was the worst idea ever, noone ever bothers arming them now. Its just Quadbike, speed to MCOM, C4, Explode - every match now.

It gets old fast

There fixing it so explosives do less damage and hopefully they'll fix it so there not destroyed when you destroy the building their in. I just experienced my first game with lag in it and ive played like 20 hours.

Last edited by dill13 (2010-02-07 13:18:55)

War Man wrote:

Also finray the controls are differen

W increases throttle
S decreases throttle / downward thrust
A turns body left
D turns body right

Up arrow / mouse up dips nose
Down arrow / mouse down lifts nose
Left arrow / mouse left rolls left
Right arrow / mouse right rolls right


I don't see what's different?

dill13 wrote:

jmsprovan wrote:

Letting C4 destroy the MCOMs was the worst idea ever, noone ever bothers arming them now. Its just Quadbike, speed to MCOM, C4, Explode - every match now.

It gets old fast

There fixing it so explosives do less damage and hopefully they'll fix it so there not destroyed when you destroy the building their in. I just experienced my first game with lag in it and ive played like 20 hours.

how do you possibly think they won't be destroyed when the building collapses on them... if not they would be impossible to get to...

Spark wrote:

dill13 wrote:

jmsprovan wrote:

Letting C4 destroy the MCOMs was the worst idea ever, noone ever bothers arming them now. Its just Quadbike, speed to MCOM, C4, Explode - every match now.

It gets old fast

There fixing it so explosives do less damage and hopefully they'll fix it so there not destroyed when you destroy the building their in. I just experienced my first game with lag in it and ive played like 20 hours.

how do you possibly think they won't be destroyed when the building collapses on them... if not they would be impossible to get to...

then make the buildings non-collapsible till the mcom station is destroyed.

Mekstizzle wrote:

No, I just hate bunnyhoppers. They're not hard to deal with. It's just annoying. In the same way that alot of things aren't hard but are still annoying... I don't understand why you guys don't seem to grasp that concept.

I mean... I haven't even experienced them that much in the game, I only brought it up when I was talking about what I think are some of the differences I've noticed in the gameplay of the PC and Console versions of the game. Then some guy rolls in with "hurr durr you suck" and I just felt like saying no it's not quite that.

Then you guys continue with your "hurr durr you suck"

Do I really give a shit though, no not really.

I've been browsing through youtube vids of BF:BC - looks great. Obviously as a BF2 die-hard, bunnyhopping will be missed... I don't really understand why you would hate them if they are easy to deal with... You shoot them? Job done. This whining about bunnyhopping (now its basically limited to 2 jumps right) is completely irrelevent. It looks to be a great combination of COD/BF2/2142 features with less focus on who grabs the chopper/jets and more on infantry. Loving it.

Think I'm gonna be back for the real deal in March. Bring on some good 'ol CQC sniping haha. N00b snipers beware!