Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

[Kylee!]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

After reading that novel of a post, I think I agree with Chris.

Although I wouldn't be as stubborn haha, I'll still enjoy BC2 regardless. I'll hope for the best in BF3.

[Minmaster]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

me too... i just never invested time in BF2 aircrafts to be any good...

Yeah... yeah... OK.

not sure what you're trying to say, but if you're insinuating that i lied, according to my stats, i have spent less than 4 hours total in BF2 aircraft (3 of thouse hours in a transport). i have no idea how much time you've spent in them, but i doubt you were that good when you were at 4 hrs. :hmm:

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

Thats twice Ive lost my post. This overly complicated posting mechanism is irritating. On my screen right now I see 6 different buttons to write a post.

Anyway, I dont think youre lying. I think you cant be objective, though. Youre an infantry player through and through, so I believe your perception of what worked in BF2 and what didnt came from being mostly at the receiving end of the barrel/bomb/missile/rocket. It seems like you expect the vehicles in the game to be a non-issue or minimal-issue while youre playing as infantry.

[Minmaster]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

not really, if i didn't like the power of vehicles in BF, i wouldn't be playing BF. just remember that majority of the players are players like me, ground pounding, and yes often on the receiving end of those. plus i find access to aircraft in BF2 just straight out ridiculous most of the times. it's nearly impossible to get in one due to demand and the waiting game is something i had enough of in 1942 that i refuse to partake in it again in BF2.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

not really, if i didn't like the power of vehicles in BF, i wouldn't be playing BF.

People wouldnt be complaining about BF2 nearly as much if this line was true for everyone. Karkand IO wouldnt be the most popular choice of a map either. Unfortunately most of BF players would rather have buggies than everything else.

plus i find access to aircraft in BF2 just straight out ridiculous most of the times. it's nearly impossible to get in one due to demand and the waiting game is something i had enough of in 1942 that i refuse to partake in it again in BF2.

This a gross overexaggeration. My overall vehicle/infantry time is split ~50/50. If I see the jet/tank occupied by a player who has a doubledigit kill count and 0 deaths, I move on. If its occupied by a player with a terrible KDR, him going down is a matter of minutes. Theres no waiting game if you utilize proper methods for saving time.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

This thread got this far because that's what you get when you debate instead of flaming.

On derailed topic now:

Chris, we agreed to disagree last time, I'm just going to state my thoughts on this so both sides are clear to the spectators; I know i won't change your opinion, nor am I trying to do it.

I see vehicles as an asset that can completely turn the tides of a battle by themselves; but I believe balance lies in them having a hell of a time to turn the tide of a battle, ie: it shouldn't be a matter of just pouring hours and hours learning to pilot; there should be sensible danger to every vehicle pilot out there. We are discussing the game as out of the box, on official patches, on ranked servers. Let's not involve mods, since mods have nothing to do with the original game. I for one, am not buying BC2 to see what mods come out, I didn't buy BF2 and 2142 for the mods; I bought it for the game.

In BF2 there is never any real danger for an above average pilot; in fact, they pretty much can go head on against an anti air stinger and come out victorius; no vehicle should guarantee 100:0 kills in a single round. This is why it's hard to take you guys into account; you are a very small sample of the player population; there aren't 32 jets on each side, ther are at most; 2. Why should two people be allowed to completely obliterate the other side with no real risk against them? for a pub game, there shouldn't be neccessary a whole 32 coordinated effort to take them down.

I do agree that for mods, if they found this balance; it's cool, kudos to them for fixing what's wrongon a retail package; but I don't think it's realistic to ask people to dismiss the problems inherent to the game design or programming. Like I said, I didn't buy BF2 so I could play PoE 2, I wanted to play the vanilla flavor so to speak.

the problem in vanilla BF2, is that the whole aerial side has too much of an advantage over ground forces; there aren't enough antiair stations to cover the entire field; you admit this yourself: a single man in the stinger can't take down a plane; when in real life, single men with a portable stinger can down planes; there is a reason there is intel, that they send the troops to clean the way for the air support to do bombing runs.
Even without the real life comparison, once you get to that point, when you are good enough to dogfight with the best, do you even need to use the damn flares? It's a compounded problem, from the physic defying acrobatics, to the poor tracking of ground-air missiles but you can't deny this: it's no fun to be raped by a player that is in a position of NO RISK while flying a plane.

you say that the appeal it's not the highest K/D ratio, but the "fun" in the piloting skills; well it's fun for one people out of 64, why should the developer cather to the tastes and needs of a very small population? It's elitist, you are dismissing the other 63 people that are playing too, and this is what that small "vehicle expert players" you mention uses as an excuse to do it; that you get less fun at the expense of all the others.

Don't tell me that vehicles don't own in the right hands in 2142 and now in BC2; the only difference is that over time infantry is getting a fighting chance; you still can't down a tank with just one rocket, planting a tracer dart on a chopper is difficult even if the piilot makes a couple of mistakes; but nothing is decided with just a good tank or chopper pilot anymore, we are all having fun; those who choose to move on and invest time will find it a very rewarding experience too. You are getting what you are asking for, your position is that of "my way or no way" and you are getting no way, but also throwing a fit and dismissing all the other paying playing members of the community.

you can be a cynic and say that they are holding a carrot in front of our eyes, you'd be right in a way, giving points for everything is indeed rail roading players into doing teamwork in pubs, but hey, it's an improvement; vehicles are getting wasted because even noob players will give it a go to get the extra points, before you only got points for a kill, and the satisfaction of helping your team, but on pubs, on the real game; the one that people see in the back on the package, you won't find that kind of disposition from strangers; and as far as I know, it never said on the back:
"Buy this game, get in a good clan so you can truly experience it, pub play is real crappy but never fear, in a couple of years there might be a decent mod that solves all the problems this game has!"

In BC2 the balance is almost perfect; you can get good and you'll be unstoppable, but if you go head on against another good player, you don't have a guaranteed win with a vehicle; i say this because in my opinion, getting in a vehicle is effectively that, just you becoming a bigger target, that's the exchange; want the tool to tip the scales in your favor? Cool, now all the server wants you dead, sweat for that first place. Vehicles are not a joke or a gimmick.

I'll make another post, to be continued...

[Vreki]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

Good post, wont change a thing. But you already knew that :)

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

for example, AT mines this time around.

You no longer get a nice skull and crossbones, engineers can't remove them or pick them up once they are deployed, they are friendly-fire compatible, but once they are on the floor, they'll won't go away even if the engie that deployed them dies. So as a tank player, you have to count on your teamm ates to get rid of them, or be VERY careful everywhere. The tank turret takes forever to turn around, so that's why you HAVE TO have a gunner, to take out C4 planters, or spot the turrets for you; and it's never a single player that takes you down, this time around once somebody sees you spotting the tank, they'll join in; you could also plant a tracer dart and some engie out there will try to take care of your tank; or a mortar strike from a recon, I've seen even concentrated grenade spam on enemy tanks if no engie is around; it's not a single player against a tank, no one asked for that; one on one, the tank will come out on top.
But on vanilla BF2, tough not on recent patches, you could have 32 on the tank, and if there were no engies, the tank would prevail; on BC2, even if no engies are around, the 16 vs the tank can win, and the tank will take some of them with it; in a fair trade.

I suppose you didn't play the console version of BC2? of the demo I mean. There you could experience what is the most likely build we'll get for PC at launch, the chopper controls way differently, more like BF2. But, and this is a big BUT; This time around, there is genuine danger to the Chopper couple, because you can no longer solo the chopper, as it should be. You can single handedly turn the tide of battle at that stage in rush mode; but there is always the danger, there is risk, you can swoop down and run over enemies, yes, but you expose yourself while doing so. Were the choppers in any real danger in BF2 while flying low? We are assuming non noobs for this scenario. Both cases end the same:

Experienced pilots vs noob troops = Chopper always wins and dominates.
Noob pilots vs experienced troops = Troops win
Exp pilots vs exp troops = can go either way with fair advantage for the pilots; like it should.

anything else is, in my opinion, elite players moaning they can no longer dominate with no risk; because if you are only arguing that piloting or driving is no longer fun FOR YOU, then either adapt to the new gameplay or refuse to do it. And we don't see those players that you mention moving on the new game, becasue they don't want to adapt, so it's no fun FOR THEM.

Your credentials are big; but they make you look like an elitist, because you are implying we don't know better, we don't know what's fun, what's best for us. I don't have a problem with a goodplayer outscoring, outgunning or outplaying me, nowadays I'm more average than good; but what I can't tolerate, is a player bashing a game with the argument that it is not suffiecntly like a previous game in the franchise, and then claiming said bashing is from the general fanbase.

i have no interest in the "competitive" potential of a given multiplayer game, save for fighting ones; so that doesn't influence my descitions when buying a game; I play everything, and try to appreciate it on the technical side first, then from the potential entertainment it might provide. Doesn't mean I like everything. RE4 and 5 I don't consider true RE games, 5 is slightly more action oriented than 4; i liked Outbreak very much and consider it one of the better installments of the franchise, sadly limited by hardware issues, both from the internet at the time it came out, and the console it ran off. the greatest MGS imo is the first one, I liked all of them but I did feel the series started to get really tired on the third one, i liked the story of sons of liberty much more than the first one, but it fell pray to being more of the same with just the added gimmick of putting enemies to sleep. snake Eater was more action oriented, most cinematic of all four, in presentation overall and FMV. Guns of the Patriots had some rather big plot tumors, changed the control scheme completely; and it was fun, but had way too much fan service that didn't really add anything, still I enjoyed the gameplay.

that was a series that always was true to its roots, the basic premise is: confrontation is more problematic than sneaking around; but each installment varied wildly in its implementation, from the added grip bar, first person shooting, more vehicles to ride, camo options, gadgets to use, CQC; we went from the ocasional codec sequence in one, to excessive use in the second, to more cinematics on the third, to insane sections of both on the fourth. but it always provided the same experience; all for the sake of the story presentation, kojima didn't care what you wanted, he'd do what he needed to present a story the way he needed it; the true constant in that series is that there is a Snake, there is one metal gear, there is one Ocelot, and you play to see who Ocelot screws over next.

Same with BF, the constants are: there is infantry, there are vehicles, anybody can ride a vehicle, there are flags and there is shooting. the developers only need to keep that to provide the BF experience, you may like that experience or not, if you don't then you don't play that particular game, as simple as that; you can't say the developer doesn't know what it's doing, or that what it's doing is wrong because it doesn't completely satisfy a very small sector of the gaming population. your current stance is that of "vehicles aren't well done, whole game sucks". To YOU maybe, but that's basically the same as saying the gam'es creator doesn't know what it's doing, or doesn't know how to do it's job.

As a footnote and to close this up: I did play RE4, got to maybe half of it, saw it was well done, but didn't like the story and the direction the series took, I'm still waiting for a PS3 remake of RE1 through 3; i liked RE5 a whole lot, but i don't think of it as a true RE sequel, only played it to the end because it had been 4 games with no Chris Redfield in them, since code veronica, wich was a true RE game, that didn't feel like a RE game, and outbreak, a game that was a true RE game, that played nothing like a RE game, but felt a true RE game.

BC2 is a funny BF game, that feels like a BF game, plays like a BF game, but is not a true BF game. go figure. The best part? It's NOT Battlefield 2.
It's a series that is moving forward.

[imported_Macstar]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

is simply astounding. The games are products marketed by a business that needs to make money to survive. DICE doesn't exist to please you. For example, a lot of people are upset that BF3 might be cross-platform and feel "betrayed" by DICE. Why should they spend more time developing a PC only game? Why would they want to make LESS money than if they made the game for multiple platforms?

Or take how BC2 isn't an exact copy of BF2. They took out prone because they thought it would improve gameplay. Most people won't be bothered by it and certainly won't "boycott" the game for it. If you like BF2 so much, just keep playing it, but DICE is going to make a game that is enjoyable by more people, not just the vocal minority.

If was the CEO of DICE I would make the best decision for the company not what pleased a small demographic. DICE doesn't OWE any of you anything. If you don't like it, it's fine to voice your opinion, but don't expect DICE to make large just sacrifices because the PC community "deserves" anything. It's just another consumer in a large market.

edit: IBTL

BTW no prone has nothing to do with "wanting to improve gameplay" it has to do with an issue where players would be able to prone inside of blown out buildings or pieces of them due to collision. Its not like they didn't want to add it, they just couldn't make it work.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

Chris, we agreed to disagree last time, I'm just going to state my thoughts on this so both sides are clear to the spectators; I know i won't change your opinion, nor am I trying to do it.

You claim we agreed to disagree when you assumed you knew my position and I had to correct you. Can you see a flaw here? I still have the "great schematics" drawn in the best design software that is MSPaint. I know exactly what my position was and I didnt want them to turn into choppers. This is also the reason why I was literally p!ssed at how horrible VTOLs were in Crysis. Looked great, few terrible.

I see vehicles as an asset that can completely turn the tides of a battle by themselves; but I believe balance lies in them having a hell of a time to turn the tide of a battle, ie: it shouldn't be a matter of just pouring hours and hours learning to pilot; there should be sensible danger to every vehicle pilot out there.

And you believe in BF2 you didnt have to pour in hours to use the vehicles well? A newbie in a tank didnt even reach a 1:1 KDR, a newbie in a chopper ended up in the sea, a newbie in the jet maybe got a lucky shot off with his bombs before he ended up the respawn screen. The major problem in BF2 was that vehicles were so much fun to use, that the potential and ability of someone sinking 100+ hours into the game was vastly superior to the large grey mass of people who sunk maybe an hour into STA. And that hour consisted of popping in and out at the sign of a passing jet.

What you are suggesting is that a player with less than an hour in an STA site would be able to take down a pilot face to face, a pilot who has hundreds and hundred of hours invested in the game. The solution here would be to not to make vehicles impotent, but to create a true rock-paper-scissor balance. One eats the other, other eats the third. You dont have to use artificial limitations in terms of worse handling, less damage. What has separated BF franchise from every other all aspect combat game? The immersion.

We are discussing the game as out of the box, on official patches, on ranked servers. Let's not involve mods, since mods have nothing to do with the original game. I for one, am not buying BC2 to see what mods come out, I didn't buy BF2 and 2142 for the mods; I bought it for the game.

Youre missing the point. The point is, that if a mod team can fix all issues completely while keeping the Battlefield feel (unlike Project Reality, for instance, which is a completely different experience), then a studio of professionals should in theory be able to do so aswell. Instead, they cater to only one group. Like I said, sure you can "own" in vehicles in BF2142, but have you seen a single BF2 vehicular player from the TBF2 community transition to it? I havent. If you think they dislike the challenge, then youre wrong. Theyve moved on to other games just fine. Those who invested over a thousand worth of hours into just armor/air, were doing just fine in a full infantry game like COD4. It has nothing to do with being or not being able to adapt. Sure, you have no issues with the game because youre mostly groundpounding. Now reverse that and add some sympathy.

In BF2 there is never any real danger for an above average pilot; in fact, they pretty much can go head on against an anti air stinger and come out victorius; no vehicle should guarantee 100:0 kills in a single round.

If you have a player in a superior vehicle with 1000 hours under his belt going against someone with 5 hours max in an air defense, solo, head to head, then I do not expect the game to cater to someone who has had less time spent in mastering his craft. Because the problem with BF2 was that the air defense was not fun to use, not from stats or gameplay point of view. If you think they were impotent- 3 players can completely lock down most of all maps in BF2. When did you ever see teamwork in anti air? In POE2, localized air defense was purely skill based (not point and click), anti aircraft turrets, coupled with a few pickup Stinger kits and one "point and click" area denial anti air vehicle and one skill Shilka (anti air with only machine guns). They were all extremely powerful. And jets were just as powerful as in BF2 (with one exception). What did this lead to? Point and click anti air weapons were only being able to be at some parts of the map, covering a push, and they literally served as area denial weapons. Localized air defense around the flags once again provided powerful defense around the flags. They were all extremely voulnerable to ground attacks. And ground attacks were even deadlier than in Vanilla BF2. Result? Every aspect of the game countered every other aspect in a true Rock-Paper-Scissor type of balance. Those counters which obviously werent as fun to use as the things they countered, were perfectly balanced by providing serious counters with specific limitations based on their efficiency. (low range, high ramage; high range, vulnerability)

Sure, if your teams armor and air sucked, you were rolled and raped. If enemy air was good but your ground and anti-air was better, they got raped. And this perfect balance was achieved by the same high splash damage bombs, same immensely powerful tanks, same sharp, accurate, with resistence in control to mimic the perception you have of the vehicle, as in vanilla BF2, preserving the same vehicular gameplay.

Yet, as time progressed, DICEs answer was to make vehicles to be NOT a part of the Battlefield anymore. Just vehicles you "can drive". Do you see a tank rolling into the hotzone in BFBC2 providing that balance altering factor to a stalemate? It did in BF2. Youre supposed to go "holy ****, a TANK IS COMING!", and not "let me just take my sniper kit so I can C4 it while it tries to kill me at close range".

This is why it's hard to take you guys into account; you are a very small sample of the player population; there aren't 32 jets on each side, ther are at most; 2. Why should two people be allowed to completely obliterate the other side with no real risk against them? for a pub game, there shouldn't be neccessary a whole 32 coordinated effort to take them down.

Asking 2-3 people to make a coordinated effort to taking down a much superior threat makes no sense to you? I went toe to toe against a sniper in the STA mobile platform in BFBC2. Guess who lost? I shelled him through and through with its drivers primary. I saw tanks standing in the main base, for Christs sake. If Im capping a flag, and I have a support of armor behind my squad, and the enemy has none. A number of them should immediately switch over to Anti-Armor kits or lose the fight in seconds.

I do agree that for mods, if they found this balance; it's cool, kudos to them for fixing what's wrongon a retail package; but I don't think it's realistic to ask people to dismiss the problems inherent to the game design or programming. Like I said, I didn't buy BF2 so I could play PoE 2, I wanted to play the vanilla flavor so to speak.

What is unrealistic is if you want to make the vehicles a nonfactor in the game just because you only play infantry. Im telling you that its extremely possible to create a system where vehicles still pack a serious punch, obliterate infantry with ease, yet make it so that a coordinated effort either makes them a nonfactor, or simply counters it. To demonstrate a point to you- in BF2 infantry/armor maps like Mashtuur and Karkand, a Medic would rather keep reviving and healing and spamming grenades, than to switch over to AT kit immediately. I found myself too many a times in Hotel flag, checking the scoreboard to see that Im the only AT in a 32 player team, while we were being pummeled by the Abrams and the LAV25. Its these kind of moments which show just how easy BF2 infantry wanted the game to be taylored for them.

As a vehicle player, I would always want a vehicle to be full of immersion, make me feel badass and become a severely effective force if I sunk enough work into mastering the craft. I dont want to be teethless when most of the opposition can use a point and click weapon without any sacrifices to make me a nonfactor once they just saw me.

In comparison, you talk about fairness and balance. I can go to a COD4 pub server and obliterate the entire opposing team with inpunity, most of the time. And COD4 is the landmark of gameplay balance. You think thats fair that I get to win the round for my team singlehandedly?

the problem in vanilla BF2, is that the whole aerial side has too much of an advantage over ground forces; there aren't enough antiair stations to cover the entire field

I made a chart for Oman where 3 guys could cover close to 90% of the landmass.

; you admit this yourself: a single man in the stinger can't take down a plane; when in real life, single men with a portable stinger can down planes; there is a reason there is intel, that they send the troops to clean the way for the air support to do bombing runs.

A single man in a plane can use high altitude drops to take out hundreds of Stinger wielding men. Dont bring real life balance into the argument. In real life, weapons pack a punch, vehicles are badass. This is quite the contrary to what BF has been about lately.

Even without the real life comparison, once you get to that point, when you are good enough to dogfight with the best, do you even need to use the damn flares? It's a compounded problem, from the physic defying acrobatics, to the poor tracking of ground-air missiles but you can't deny this: it's no fun to be raped by a player that is in a position of NO RISK while flying a plane.

You cant ditch STA missiles once they have a lock on you. No matter what acrobatics you use. This is the third time youve shown youre unable to participate with me on air subject.

you say that the appeal it's not the highest K/D ratio, but the "fun" in the piloting skills; well it's fun for one people out of 64, why should the developer cather to the tastes and needs of a very small population?

Yeah, I mean, lets just make the vehicles into teethless stupid transportation vehicles so everyone would groundpound. You can make the game fun and "productive" for everyone. People have been proving it time and time again. DICE hasnt.

It's elitist, you are dismissing the other 63 people that are playing too, and this is what that small "vehicle expert players" you mention uses as an excuse to do it; that you get less fun at the expense of all the others.

Actually, Im only dismissing about 30 people, when we take the DPV-s, tanks, apcs, jets, attack and transport helicopters into account. Thats half of the group. Interestingly, my stats are 50/50 on total vehicle time and total time on the ground. Theres a pattern here. Im arguing with people whos similar stats show 5:1 or even 8:1 in favour ot groundpounding. Youre speaking purely from a point of view of a victim. At least you come off as one to me. Without any intention of offending you.

Don't tell me that vehicles don't own in the right hands in 2142 and now in BC2

Can a player master the craft to get 50:1 KDR in the vehicle? Absolutely. But Ive already mentioned that youre investing time into using that vehicle as a pointfarming trick. Something you accuse vehicle users in BF2! I started flying jets in BF2 because they were ridiculously fun. Not because I planned to invest 300 hours into them just so I could start progressing in my stats.

; the only difference is that over time infantry is getting a fighting chance; you still can't down a tank with just one rocket

Yeah, except that I cant down you with one shot from the cannon either.

, planting a tracer dart on a chopper is difficult even if the piilot makes a couple of mistakes; but nothing is decided with just a good tank or chopper pilot anymore, we are all having fun

No. you are having fun, because you get to finally ignore them and just shoot **** up with your gun.

; those who choose to move on and invest time will find it a very rewarding experience too.

I dont want to invest time into something just for the sake of scoring a lot of points. I want to spend a lot of time in something because its awesome.

You are getting what you are asking for, your position is that of "my way or no way" and you are getting no way, but also throwing a fit and dismissing all the other paying playing members of the community.

Im not throwing a fit. Im debating a point of view, not asking for DICE to "fix it, or I aint on the boat". And I already told you that there are ways to make the game fun for everyone, and not the group which has shown that they are the LEAST capable of adapting to change.

it never said on the back:
"Buy this game, get in a good clan so you can truly experience it, pub play is real crappy but never fear, in a couple of years there might be a decent mod that solves all the problems this game has!"

It never said "play the best infantry combat with ****ty vehicles, for high score, so you can ***** and moan for years about stats resets" either.

In BC2 the balance is almost perfect; you can get good and you'll be unstoppable, but if you go head on against another good player, you don't have a guaranteed win with a vehicle; i say this because in my opinion, getting in a vehicle is effectively that, just you becoming a bigger target, that's the exchange; want the tool to tip the scales in your favor? Cool, now all the server wants you dead, sweat for that first place. Vehicles are not a joke or a gimmick.

A player of equal skill with another player, facing each other, one has a vehicle and the other does not. Which one should win? In your point of view, they both should be at 50/50. Thats not balance. Thats equality.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

Just this one right now; don't now how to quote it without quoting everything else:

"In comparison, you talk about fairness and balance. I can go to a COD4 pub server and obliterate the entire opposing team with inpunity, most of the time. And COD4 is the landmark of gameplay balance. You think thats fair that I get to win the round for my team singlehandedly? "

COD4's only objective is kill a lot of people; in that particular game, even in the demolition modes; a great K/D ratio is more useful since you'd get streaks, and with the streaks the free kills from the chopper and carpet bombing.

From the rest; you can't say a guy with 5 hours in the AA stinger is a noob, Even if you sat in the damn thing for whole rounds, you will never have a similar time spent on them vs time spent in a vehicle. And we are never going to see each other eye to eye on this; I believe firmly that gameplay should be tailored for pubbing on principle; clans by themselves are not the majority of players. the very fact any kit can hop in any vehicle and be able to drive it it fact that the game revolves around pubbing and is much more enjoyable when played clan vs clan; but it shouldn't be designed with clan play in mind first, when it's basis are for pubbers.

Project Reality is a step forward to that clan dedicated realistic warfare mode; where you can't pilot unless you are a pilot kit and you become a nonfactor when on foot. In that scenario yes, I can believe you a dedicated squad can lock down zones of the map; but not the whole map -I'm talking vanilla BF2.

I'm telling you, I have no problem with vehicles being a heavy factor into the equation, but they should be weighed with a lot of risk vs the reward; it's not really difficult if you dedicate yourself to it, to get good in a relatively short ammount of time. That's why I sustain that vehicles should be very difficult to use effectively, since they have this great potential to turn the tide of a game. I'm not saying they should be reduced to "toothless" assets, or that they should become a non-factor, just that they should have a lot of risk involved.

And don't try to kid me, name one single pilot in BF2 that doesn't choose to invest on the jets for the points; if the case was just the fun of flying they'd just drop a bomb hre and there. All of you like to brag, to one extent or the other, how awesome you are cos you dominated a game. Even that is ****ing fine with me, but it should be goddamn difficult for you to get that 100:0, no matter how many hours you have in that plane, every minute should have you sweating to get rid of lock ons from both ground and air; as the game stands, AA is useless for pubbers.

I'm not even suggesting that AA should be lock on in one second-fire and forget and get an automatic kill. As things are right now, you can fire the flares, practically turn a 180° snipe the AA with the damn plane, and go your merry way. A guy in the AA should make you cry for teammates to go take care of the guy in the turret, and distract you from everything else until he's taken care of.

They send planes to take care of bases, other planes and assets, but never directly against an AA emplacement; why do you think is that?

Here we have one game where a single plane can destroy both AA turrets in a DAMN AIRCRAFT CARRIER BY ITSELF HOW IS THAT OK?

Here : "Exp pilots vs exp troops = can go either way with fair advantage for the pilots; like it should." What does it say? with advantage to the pilots, not guaranteed win. A single player on your same skill level should make you sweat it, against two tou should be seriously worried, and if more join in, you should be guaranteed to come down. As it stands right now, you could have the whole 32 player team on you, and you would still take 10 or so of them with you, and 15 seconds later you'd have respawn at base with a fresh new plane to go out and get another 20 kills before the team can coordinate again to take you down, assuming armor and infantry let them.

Ok, so what about this compromise on design; controls are left as they are, but they increase tracking time for the stinger by one whole minute, and they add 500 meters to the range of the carrier guns and stingers, plus some flak cannons in all of the maps with aircraft. TV missiles get a reduction in the time you can control them of 2 seconds before becoming dumb. Plus around 20% more speed on the stinger missiles, and we don't touch a damn thing on the control scheme of choppers and jets; we'll assume all planes become balanced with this among them for all practical purposes.
We don't change a thing on the damage the gatling gun does, nor reduce its range, nor we change how the planes handle.

Would you still consider them awesome?

Hell, even a small change like in BC2, that the choppers don't repair themselves on the helipad, let's make jets have to take down on the runway, and have an engineer repair them, I'd ask for them having to be rearmed too by an assault for missiles and bombs. And we don't touch a thing on the handling.
Is that a good enough compromise? You get your flying fun, we get a fighting chance.

[Kingkat54]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

COD4's only objective is kill a lot of people; in that particular game, even in the demolition modes; a great K/D ratio is more useful since you'd get streaks, and with the streaks the free kills from the chopper and carpet bombing.
Lordsethonan (thanks for the quote)

This is the only item I find that truly spells out the main differences of the 2 systems. COD is a kill as many as you can find game,and you'll get treats!
Even with my limited skills, I can uber-pawn with spray-n-pray and noob tube. Fun, but not tactical at all.
The BFBC2 is different. While you can run-n-gun, your K/D ratio doesn't gain much to winning the mission. I've seen top K/D scores wind up on the losing side many times. Its why I enjoy this game, even more than BF2. A little more balanced.
IMHO, the reason this thread has lasted so long.................what else have we to do until Tuesday,..........??????

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

Play BF2142? *shrugs* I'm gonna try to get my gold medals, I slacked off for two years :P

[Kylee!]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

For the first time in my entire internet life I will place the appropriate "TL;DR."

[Kingkat54]

Re: Sense of Entitlement on these Forums...

From what I have read so far..........and a few of you do have a lot to say, .............(its good reads).............I am getting a sense that THIS game has gotten closer to what many gamers have wanted for a while.
A better balance between infantry and armor, air wings.............a real true "paper-scissors-rock" kind of application for weps systems. Although the SP looks kind of quick, ( I admit I watched one of the spoiler vids........ ) and linear, it does give you the needed experience of what the game play might be for MP.
This thread is great. I have enjoyed the give and take opinions here. As long as its informative, and civil, lets keep talking.