BF2S Forums What would you do different/change

Fucking Chat Window

Glad they've added a queuing system. Now if they fixed the retarded chat box and occasional rubber-banding I will be happy

Nerf AA. Not because it's OP, but because every single fucking person in the server is engineer with either AT or AA.

Also the AA vehicles are too strong (armor wise, the weapons should stay the same for balance.) They need to be more like a glass cannon, not a concrete bunker with wheels.

UnkleRukus wrote:

Nerf AA. Not because it's OP, but because every single fucking person in the server is engineer with either AT or AA.

Also the AA vehicles are too strong (armor wise, the weapons should stay the same for balance.) They need to be more like a glass cannon, not a concrete bunker with wheels.

I agree!   I have spent most of my game time flying and the single thing that gives me the most trouble is the mobile AA  the only option is to avoid the area of the map it is in since unless I can sneak up on it I dont have much of a chance of taking it out with either AGM or rockets as it will rip me apart before I can get close enough to use either.  im fine with the offensive capabilities they just need to be a bit easier to take down.   

the stingers are no problem for me unless there are 3 or more people launching them at a time I dont even bother using flares I just evade and soak up the damage if they do hit me and use the extinguisher to negate the damage while I fly off to heal on the edge of the map. the extinguisher is way more useful then the flares

no weapon unlocks/attachments/customisation.
no vehicle perks.
fire/hire map designers as appropriate.
prioritisation of gameplay over aesthetics (as it stands right now the visual glitter and pollution is detrimental to the game, not enhancing).

all of the above are pretty major game-breaking/ruining problems for me. bf2 this isn't.

did you really miss the fact you couldn't stick 6 different types of scope on the ak-47, m16 or rpk in bf2? i don't see what it adds. this sort of 'ultra customization' was ushered in with attention-deficit console games, really, in order to dangle a proverbial carrot in front of the not-so-proverbial donkey playing the game and to encourage them to play more. i preferred the bf2 style of there being long waits between weapon unlocks (ergo: you learn to properly use the weapons you're given) and with the weapons just being as-is and without bonus bullshit. it tampers with game balance and generally effects the overall style of gameplay; often times you are beat in an encounter now because your opponent had xyz scope/upgrade that was simply top-trumps in that situation. i don't see what's wrong with stock scopes - plus in bf2 certain guns/kits had red-dot sights and whatever. i'm of the opinion that if you want a long-range zoom or long-range ability... play sniper. and call me old fashioned, but i think night-vision should be for - oh, you know - night maps.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-02 22:51:23)

why is offering players choice a good thing? why this new (and totally unquestioned) idea that 'more is more'? that more choice and freedom and that answering to the whims of the players is a good thing? whatever happened to 'less is more' - did i miss the memo going around informing all aspects of design that this was misguidedly traditional; just simply too archaic? the problem is that when you start pandering to the 'masses' (safety quotation marks) then you start satisfying the inane desire of a bunch of, on the large, fucking morons. if you want choice in your gameplay, there are 4 kits with varying styles of gameplay and many different classes of weapons to play with. half of the guns in this game, though, are simply redundant. do you use every one of the guns you have 'unlocked'? your stats say otherwise. same for the scopes: everybody using the 2/3 scope combinations that own (to an imba and laughable degree), the rest just thrown away, a discarded novelty object that was only included for the initial 5-minute 'coooool!' factor. waste of time. could be focussing their efforts on creating maps that actually play well, or gameplay mechanics that really enrich the experience.

i simply don't see why all this choice is desirable. for 10 years fps games did fine without this 'DLC / unlocks' design ethos. call of duty 1/2 had specific classes and properly designated and excellently balanced roles; team fortress classic refined the concept of a class to near perfect balance; nobody complained that their rocket launcher didn't have a flash-light and suppressor in unreal tournament or quake. i don't like the idea that you have a gun that you're supposed to learn to use effectively, which then has another level of customisation (and accustomisation to) that adds pointless complexity and contigency to firefights.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-02 22:59:12)

shifty i think i'm being fair, though, when i say that you're in a very small enthusiast 5% minority that get off to military hardware. you like to see all the different accessories because it's like your favourite army picturebooks realised in new vivid, interactive detail. on the level of aesthetics and coolness, sure, it's all there... on the level of gameplay, competition, actual gaming (relying on verb form)... it adds nothing. it's the equivalent of encrusting your knights and bishops with diamante on a chess table: pretty and distracting, but an discomforting pain to use for a long period of time when you actually just want to get on with your moves.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-02 23:02:20)

are you seriously saying that i can't ask for more/better designed maps to play on at the same time as calling for less gun accessories? as in, you see that as a conflicting interest, or contradiction? are you retarded? are you seriously telling me that only having the iron-sights in bf2 "limited replayability"? because the vast majority of players on this forum got 1,000+ hours out of those "limited" and boring guns. having red-dot lasers and night-vision is 'empowering' and lets me distinguish myself from the masses? rofl, please read what you are typing. every single sentence in that post was grade-a Dumb.

but this is partly my point... re: your comment about certain set-ups being more effective on certain maps / in certain scenarios. this is just shifting the focus of the gameplay and the onus of skill away from the individual player's aim/reflexes/skill, and onto a set of variables that are predefined, i.e. the kit load-out. i fundamentally disagree with that. in bf2, like the iron-sights or not, you had to learn how to use that weapon to the best of your ability. in bf3, i mostly get the feeling that i'm winning a firefight because i just had a better scope in a trade-off firefight. it certainly makes the game more interesting but i question its ultimate effect on the very fundamental concepts of balance; it disturbs the even playing field. and that's not even to mention the accessories like the hand-grip and long-barrel, which of course will give you the kill over someone that doesn't have the same thing in any CQC or long-range shootout respectively.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-02 23:15:49)

i don't really see a problem with the engineer class in bf2 lacking a long-range personal weapon-- it's the engineer ffs, it's for close range shotguns, laying mines to fuck with other engineers, and for vehicles. i take your point that in bf2 it was sometimes frustrating to be beaten by another class because of a rock-paper-scissors moment (e.g. sniper running into support in an alley...) but that's the nature of the game, and isn't really unfair. in bf3 that point doesn't even hold, though, because every class archetype can basically wield every type of weapon for all encounters. the scopes really aren't necessary; you can shoot short, medium and long-range with any class! you should just be forced to actually learn to use the fucking guns... iron-sight, no zoom, no infra-red, no add-on taking away the recoil... learn to use it! acquire skill! i like a game to be challenging, rather than flattering ("ooh my score is amazing, i must be great at this game!").

oh, and a repercussion of the current gameplay-style is that the stats are pretty much meaningless. anyone with an iota of fps skill can unlock the night-vision scope and rape with chamo hacks on an urban map. anyone can get the thermal imaging for tank and cruise around one-hitting everyone. it's very hard to gauge actual ability in this game because, let's face it, most of the people with impressive stats are just working a niche of game-provided advantage. this is also deceptive and seditious, though, because people will be hesitant to criticize a game and its mechanics when it is basically boosting their ego and letting them believe it's their own ability that is leading them to do so well. i can go 5:1 K/D in every round that i use the night-vision on my SAW or M419... i just know that it has shit to do with how 'pr0' i am at bf3. it's all scope.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-02 23:31:02)

Uzique wrote:

are you seriously saying that i can't ask for more/better designed maps to play on at the same time as calling for less gun accessories? as in, you see that as a conflicting interest, or contradiction? are you retarded? are you seriously telling me that only having the iron-sights in bf2 "limited replayability"? because the vast majority of players on this forum got 1,000+ hours out of those "limited" and boring guns. having red-dot lasers and night-vision is 'empowering' and lets me distinguish myself from the masses? rofl, please read what you are typing. every single sentence in that post was grade-a Dumb.

why did you even come back and why did you leave? I was glad you were gone, you were, and still are, such a condescending prick.

DICE is letting people play with the guns they want to use, and with the sights they're best at using. I see no problem. Some people don't have issues playing with iron sights, some people find it better to use a red dot, others, like myself, might have impaired vision and enjoy the ACOG and other zoom attachements that actually let us SEE what we're shooting at.

How can you say I get off on military hardware when all I'm doing is praising DICE on a good job of customization selection.

Yeah, I want more BF2 maps as well, but the gun attachments are there, and they're great. Since when do gun attachements make a person distinguished and prestigious? It only lets a player adapt to their play-style.

Uzique logic, there should only be one kit, allowing more kits is just people trying to be special and distinguished when they use submachine guns instead of assault rifles.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Uzique wrote:

are you seriously saying that i can't ask for more/better designed maps to play on at the same time as calling for less gun accessories? as in, you see that as a conflicting interest, or contradiction? are you retarded? are you seriously telling me that only having the iron-sights in bf2 "limited replayability"? because the vast majority of players on this forum got 1,000+ hours out of those "limited" and boring guns. having red-dot lasers and night-vision is 'empowering' and lets me distinguish myself from the masses? rofl, please read what you are typing. every single sentence in that post was grade-a Dumb.

why did you even come back and why did you leave? I was glad you were gone, you were, and still are, such a condescending prick.

DICE is letting people play with the guns they want to use, and with the sights they're best at using. I see no problem. Some people don't have issues playing with iron sights, some people find it better to use a red dot, others, like myself, might have impaired vision and enjoy the ACOG and other zoom attachements that actually let us SEE what we're shooting at.

How can you say I get off on military hardware when all I'm doing is praising DICE on a good job of customization selection.

Yeah, I want more BF2 maps as well, but the gun attachments are there, and they're great. Since when do gun attachements make a person distinguished and prestigious? It only lets a player adapt to their play-style.

Uzique logic, there should only be one kit, allowing more kits is just people trying to be special and distinguished when they use submachine guns instead of assault rifles.

:facepalm:

i'm going to patronize you if you can't even read, shifty. oh dear. i'm not even going to address your post because a dog could have done a better job at comprehending the ongoing discussion we're having here. be quiet, adults are talking.