We were hacked. Several times over the past two weeks, in fact.
While all passwords are encrypted and salted, it's recommended that you change your password here when you can.
Imagine how BF3 would have been without destruction though...
Probably 200 Players online, Maps 3 times the size of BF2's 64 man... Perhaps a small price to pay, I think that's what Bf2ers wanted.
Same on BF2, but I was happy to be able to play with 64 players in FH2, PoE2 and PR.
The problem with BF2 is you have certain amount of players per flag and it's the same on the 16, 32 or 64 version of a map. What the point of increasing the number of players if you also increase the number of flags?
I found that as I got better in BF2142 I stopped playing 64 player maps so much and played 48 and 32 much more often.
Bigger isn't always better.
well there aren't that many full 64 man servers anyways nowadays, i find myself playing more on the smaller servers and the one thing i don't like is that rounds take way too long and it sometimes you walk for minutes before seeing any action.
And glad some people are coming back. Hopefully when things get really going you'll stick around.
Crunch
this
don't get me wrong I think 64 players would be good in some situations but I just don't think BF2 had the proper balance and mechanics to do it in an enjoyable way, I still have nightmares about Karkand 64man
2142 it was a lot better though, but I still stuck to 32 man or 48 man servers, simply because the gameplay was more fun
Guys, while you were busy being in the heat of the action with 32+ players, I was busy capping flags and choosing the size of engagement myself. BF has been about the ability to choose and being able to make rational decisions to either increase your results, or fill any role you want to. On 64 player servers, you could have battles which were exactly like those on 16/32/48 servers.
A bunch of destruction and the best graphics doesn't equal a good game. These displays of what their engine can do vs making a good game is getting a bit old is all.
BF2 maps with 64 players almost always felt crowded on most maps though. 32-48 on 64 man was much different and always provided better gameplay to me. Totally agree with MrChris on this one; pugging on on full 64 man servers goes to crap really quickly.
Many times a hear "UAV TAKES THE STRATEGY AWAY" nothing takes the strategy away from bf2 as much as 64 people on most maps.
64 players is great, no doubt about that and its a great option to have in there, but I rarely if ever enjoyed 64 player rounds in BF2 as much as I did on a 32 or 48 man server, might have just been me but meh
and yer I stayed away from Karkand only and **** like that, was a freaking nightmare first time I went on one of those lol
64 players isnt always good. the maps have to be made to accomodate 64 players. on expanse maps, 64 players are epic... highway tampa for example...
i think it has to be a big vehicular maps because if they are tight bottlenecky maps like camp g or karkand, they get spammy real quick and not as epic.
On the other hand, it also prevents snipers form camping the flags
So you get one or two snipers max camping a flag. The rest of the team is using the tanks, jeeps, choppers, capping flags, destroying commander assets, etc...
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment