Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

[QWFreak]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

Very true, I do not understand why unlock weapons are not available across all 3 platforms - vBF2, SF and EF. This is not a reason why one should give up a good game like SF. But I genuinely wish that EA/DICE would consider making a change to this arrangement. I really love to have the SCAR-L in SF.

You see, now I have to go to play vBF2 in order to experience my new unlock weapons. In fact, I do not like vBF2 that much because of the exploits, tank whoring not to mention plane whoring as well. I have found out 1 quite weird phenomenon: it is more reasonably easier to kill in SF than in vBF2. What I am trying to say is that I very often get shot by "invisible" sniper NOT EVEN showing up on Commander's radar relayed to us. I am saying in the straightest way, there are cheaters in vBF2 and I will not comprimise with cheaters and the only way I do that if give up playing vBF2 as a whole.

It is true that the number of SF servers, populated ones I mean are dropping, and vBF2 ranked servers are holding at 700+ level during the week and slightly more at weekends. If players are drifting to vBF2 more than SF I think it is all because they like playing with exploits and cheaters.

[kran1um]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

I really like SF, as you stated before more of the 'experienced' players are reverting to SF to get away from the exploits and newbies and the same ole' , same ole'. I did this and found Warlord my top map played. But many people are all about stats and forget about the fun gameplay. I've played over 800 hrs and just now figured out that the Night Maps aren't as bad as everyone says. Yeah, you aren't used to them so put it on the shelf, and yeah, it will hurt your precious stats because you don't know the map. I see everyday people get frustrated because someone killed them instead of them killing you and calling you a cheat or a hax. Sometimes it just fun to start shooting at the firing of a muzzle flash because your night vision timer ran out and hitting.. Night maps take skill. After 800 hours of gameplay I've also noticed alot of people have none; and also noticed alot if not all of the people don't like change, why do you think there are massive tk's at the airfield?

[QWFreak]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

The problem with night maps is not the map itself nor is it about the NG timer. It is the "sensitivity" of the simulated Night Google. A small amount of light source results in very high brightness. You have to switched on / off from time to time and it is pretty annoying.

So despite I insist on playing SF and I am loyal to support it, I find the night maps completely out of wack. Fortunately, there are only a few of them.

I am just told about the MSXSecurity issue and going to start a new thread.

[Gav]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

This is the first time ever, I am told that for such a grand system you have there, BF:SF lags. Quite a surprised in the bad sense. I have always been hoping that after a major upgrade in the future to a system close to what you have, both BF2 SF and EF will be as smooth as like 60+ frames per second. Now I think not quite so.

I don't know what's causing the lag he talked about, but my system specs are similar to his (actually not quite as good as his): Athlon64 3700, 7800GT 256MB, 2GB dual channel. I built this system a couple of months ago, and I never notice lag now, wherever I am, whatever I'm doing, and whatever is going on around me.

My previous system was barely min-spec and I frequently noticed lag (and yes, subjectively, I thought it was worse on SF than vanilla, although I never checked framerates to quantify that). I used to run most settings on Low, with a couple on Medium. Now the rig has everything maxed and never even hints at a stutter. I just browse for servers with a ping under 100ms and it's all good.

I don't know what specs you're running now, but a major upgrade to something like these specs should end your lag problems in BF2.

[WWJN]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

cause people alredy have one y waist more mone to get the other

[QWFreak]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

I don't know what's causing the lag he talked about, but my system specs are similar to his (actually not quite as good as his): Athlon64 3700, 7800GT 256MB, 2GB dual channel. I built this system a couple of months ago, and I never notice lag now, wherever I am, whatever I'm doing, and whatever is going on around me.

My previous system was barely min-spec and I frequently noticed lag (and yes, subjectively, I thought it was worse on SF than vanilla, although I never checked framerates to quantify that). I used to run most settings on Low, with a couple on Medium. Now the rig has everything maxed and never even hints at a stutter. I just browse for servers with a ping under 100ms and it's all good.

I don't know what specs you're running now, but a major upgrade to something like these specs should end your lag problems in BF2.

And by the way, have you tried using higher resolution settings. For all nVidia's chips, there is a "weird" capability that at lower resolutions, the card performs less effecient than at higher resolutions.

I have just found out by sheer incidence that @ 1024x768@75 my GF 5900XT performs equally well when it runs @ 800x600@120 which I have been using since I bought the game. The frame rate does not drop that's one thing, I have better image quality that's what I am most pleased about.

[bloodbrood]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

Because SF sucks. It was also a waste of money. I wont even bother explaining why.

(My first and last post on the SF forum)

[Sgt Ricco]

sf

the game has good intentions but i dont always love it
except when i am pulling mission impossible stuff like ziplining down to the water hiting a guy on jet ski with my pistol. jumping on the jet ski and out running a noob pilot in a heli jumping out knifing a guy taking his grapling hook jumping onto a building taking out the sniper on the building and then using his zip line down to the base and then taking it. but only then is it worth it

[imported_BabySpinach]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

Old people can't handle the dark. Plain and simple.

[kwef]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

^^^

I agree lol

[NUTZ_J98]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

Because SF sucks. It was also a waste of money. I wont even bother explaining why.

(My first and last post on the SF forum)

Please explain because I dont see any reason that it is a waste of money unless you are a jet addict.

[smythBSD]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

I have mixed feelings on SF. Parts of the game were implemented poorly or even ridiculously, but there are some positive aspects to SF for those who might be thinking of buying it.

First off, in my honest opinion, "Special Forces" is a stupid idea for an expansion pack to a combined arms game like Battlefield 2. BF2 is all about vehicles and basic army grunts; when I read the phrase "special forces" I immediately think of games like Metal Gear Solid or Splinter Cell, where one or very small teams of men are able to accomplish goals that a normal army could not (like assassination missions, or missions where extreme stealth is required). That would basically mean, if Special Forces were implemented properly, there would be no attack helicopters, no tanks, no artillery, and all of the soldiers would be using the same basic equipment. A much better idea for a BF2 expansion would have been a seemless tie-in to the original game with all of the vanilla-type vehicles, new armies with completely new equipment/weaponry (no recycling of the MEC guns, for example) that fight the original BF2 armies, new vehicle types, more urban maps, and a new gamemode besides Conquest. Basically a very large Euro Force booster.

But none of my thoughts matter, the game was coded, released, marketted, and sold as is and there is nothing that can undo it. So in keeping with the above posters, I will rate the pros and cons of the game.

Pros:
- For the people that can't stand air-spam, there are NO jets in SF and the attack helos are much more difficult to use effectively, so you won't see as much damage being done by them when compared to the vanilla attack helos.

- Urban maps, specifically Warlord and Ghost Town. There are still tanks/helos on Ghost Town, but the map has so many close-quarters areas that the vehicles don't really pose a threat. Warlord is strictly a ground map, and again has many CQB moments. IMHO, both of those are better than Strike at Karkand.

- The Grapple Hook/Zip Line are pretty cool additions that actually serve a purpose and are not just gimmicks to get you to buy the game. With these, any rooftop can become accessible as a perch for sniping/hiding/launching assaults. However, giving the Zip Line to the sniper class serves as a con because it serves them no good to go from a higher elevation to a lower elevation.

- More and new transport vehicles. The ATV is a godsend to those people like me who hate walking the Boston Marathon from the SAS' initial spawns to the Palace on Warlord. There are so many of them that you are always supplied with a means to get somewhere in a hurry.

Now for the Cons...
- Night vision maps are implemented poorly. As others have said, the NV goggles react too dramatically to even the softest light source, causing you to have to spastically go from ON/OFF just to be able to see. This is aside from the fact that many players just do not like playing on dark maps or having to use NV. Just think of how many times you bought the NV goggles in Counter-Strike.

- Resource hog. My system is able to handle the lag, but not everyone has an ubercomputer, which cuts into a few other cons down the list.

- Lack of diversity between the armies. With the exception of the SAS, which use nearly all of the tier 2 unlocks, all of the armies use either recycled MEC weapons or in the case of the Navy SEALs, use leftovers from the USMC. This partially ties in with the whole "Special Forces" not being a good idea for this type of game, since real-life special operations personel would probably be using carbines, SMGs, silenced weapons, and in some circumstances sniper rifles only. But regardless, there is not a whole lot that is different between the armies of vanilla and the armies of SF. Like someone said before, the least the developers could have done was research more weapons to fit the various roles that weren't repeats of the guns they already have in the game.

- Lack of additional support/content. This is a no brainer, and a great way to kill an expansion that many people paid nearly as much on as the original game.

- Lack of cohesion between SF and BF2. Server owners/renters need to obtain an additional server to run SF if they are already running BF2/EF because SF is a stand alone product. Last I checked, servers aren't cheap. For the regular player, this means if you want to play on an SF server after having loaded regular BF2, you have to wait an additional 5-6 minutes for your computer to boot out of vanilla and load up SF. This works the other way around as well, unfortunately.

- Few (and dropping) number of servers that feature SF maps, and those that do are usually empty. With the release of EF and the near-future release of AF, the servers running SF will be even harder to find. This ties in with the other cons, since the game turns off both the server providers and the players themselves.

- The Iron Gator is a horrible map. It is ridiculously imbalanced in favor of the Navy SEAL team, because there is only one water way into the carrier (a bottleneck that can be spammed with indestructible claymores), and the deck is usually camped with AT kits, the Apache, and a guy in the Essex Phalanx gun. It is probably the worst map in all of BF2, and I would advise anyone who even remotely values having fair games with balanced sides to steer clear of this one.

- Both attack helicopters have performance issues and frustrating handling characteristics. It is much more fun to fly in any of the vanilla attack helos.

- You cannot use tier 2 unlocks in SF, which is I'm sure the main reason a lot of players bought SF for.

Now I'm sure there are other issues I haven't touched upon, but those are the ones that have impacted me the most. If there was any chance of redeeming this potentially-fun game, DICE would probably have to

- fix all the bugs/glitches specific to the maps/vehicles of SF
- more/varying weapon content for the armies
- remove the artillery from SF since it does not fit in with the theme of the game
- more day maps
- snipers get the grappling hook instead of the zipline

But sadly, it appears EA has deemed this a dead expansion.

[Degenetron]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

Because

SF servers are usually more sluggish and laggy than vanilla bf2.
Cant use all unlocks
Night maps suck(imo)

[Emoticon]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

I hate SF it feels cheaper, like a crappy mod compared to the actual game. It just doesnt feel polished at all.

[Degenetron]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

I hate SF it feels cheaper, like a crappy mod compared to the actual game. It just doesnt feel polished at all.

I agree, some of the SF maps just seem thrown together to me.