Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

[imported_wOoZiE]

Re: ---(()))--- Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

i used to be able to take a few hits from the side or behind, and run for cover, then give some fire back, now its thud thud dead
player [PKM] mogduck

stealth is the same, you sneak using cover to flank them and snatch a base then guess what
thud thud dead
player [PKM] mogduck or worse still the new improved
player [claymore] mogduck (left waiting for you at their flag)

@ Modmaven - BF2 didnt used to be so much kill, die, kill, die... its just since most of the weapons got upgraded, and BF1942 was never like that

So....you would like to shoot at some1 like 6 times and hitting them just to have them turn around and rape your ass? If I shoot at some1 and hit them I want them to drop. Especially if i see them first.

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

Re: ---(()))--- Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

like i said earlier, you could take a few shots and sprint to cover, then give some fire back or call a med (or heal yourself), now its just death

So, you're saying that the resolution of a firefight should depend on whether or not you're a medic or a medic is around? By your logic, if they make all of the guns weaker, the medics could run around unopposed because they would self heal in the middle of an engagement (dont forget that dropping a medpack and picking it up regenerates health too 100% instantly).

To make things even worse, there would be stalemates because no one would be able to kill the other person -- at which point a tank would roll up and clear out the opposing team.

You've been watching too much Black Hawk Down.

Every game is about who sees who first. If you're a good player, you will be able to anticipate enemy troops movements and be ready when the time comes. Reflexes are also a very important part of the equation.

If you move in the middle of the street, you will get dropped. If you move alongside cover -- or move from cover to cover, you will have a much higher rate of survival.

Game mechanics should not change because certain players aren't able to keep up :)

Oh, and I also took the liberty of removing those pointless dashes and parenthesis in your title...

[mogduck]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

no woozie thats taking it to the other extreme, somewhere in the middle of what you said and what its like now, that would be perfect - my point again is this:
the weapons are too accurate, when they patched to 1.2, instead of making the few uber weapons (that were spoiling things) less powerful, they made all the other weapons more powerful to match - and in came the running along happy to instantly dead scenerio

i am able to keep up spetsnaz, like i said, im still a very good asset to any team, there were never any stalemates before v1.2, and there were no 'instant' deaths either

and thanks for removing the pointless dashesand parenthesis, im sure it was also pointless removing them ( whatever keeps you all powerful mods happy )

[IntensivCareBear]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

i like how the guns are more accurate after 1.21, reduces the effectiveness of just sprinting around, which morons used to do, knowing that guns lacked the power and accuracy to kill them.

now if some idiot sprints across a street in karkand, i can mow him down, rather than waste a clip and not hit him once.

yeah, and there sure as hell were stalemates and instant deaths before 1.2, they were there since BF1942 and in all its mods... yeesh people blame everything on patches.

really though, 1.2 improved the game, as spetsnaz said. before, some guns were overpowered, after 1.2 all are powerful and accurate, evening the playing field just about perfectly.

the only thing disturbing urban combat from perfection now is the claymore whoring, which must be addressed if DICE does not wish to have 90 percent of the people in a karkand server as bunny hopping claymore dispensers.

[Mayflower]

Re: ---(()))--- Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

battlefield 2 now consists of - kill, get killed, kill, get killed, kil.... etc
couldnt agree more
i love this game

lol rofl good one , counldnt agree more with ya

[Roger Smith]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

battlefield 2 now consists of - kill, get killed, kill, get killed, kil.... etc dice or EA (or whoever) messed up IMO.
ya if you/your team is ****ty. it can also consist of kill, kill, kill, etc. if you have skill.

this is mainly due to the last 2 patches
um, no. bad players died just as much before as ever. now there is just a reason to be sniper/mg.

yes there were a few 'overpowered' uber weapons
um am i missing something, no there wasnt, and there still isnt.

which the sensible thing would have been to decrease their 'power', but no, they increased the power on everything.
go back to cs man.

so now, all weapons seem to kill instantly, and its a game of whoever sees who first is the winner.
seeing doesnt kill.

im not someone just complaining because im a poor player, i regard myself as pretty decent and quite valuable to any team.
then you shouldnt have a problem with balanced kits.

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

the only thing disturbing urban combat from perfection now is the claymore whoring, which must be addressed if DICE does not wish to have 90 percent of the people in a karkand server as bunny hopping claymore dispensers.

Bunny hopping is out, but I still see what you're saying.

Yes, claymores are a big problem for CQB maps like Karkand. Example: put two claymores at the flag in Hotel. One at the base of the steps and one at the base of the ladder. Becuase the only way an engie can disable a claymore is from the back, he wont be able to get behind the two claymores. The result is a flag that is impossible to cap without losing some people. And if there is another sniper, he'll place his claymores deeper in the flag zone so you'll need a minimum of 5 people just get to the point where 1 person is capping the flag.

So, in other words, if a weapon cannot be fought against (ie: a claymore), then the weapon is a big problem for the game. This is why the M203 was such a problem before... it was impossible to fight against and had a massive destructive power.

But when it comes to things like who shot who first, that's the essense of FPS games. If you see someone first and dont kill them, we have a problem.

[mogduck]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

@ roger smith

um, no. bad players died just as much before as ever
i never said people die more, im talking about the 'instadeath' which has come about from guns being made more powerful

um am i missing something, no there wasnt, and there still isnt
yes there were, the 'noob cannon' aka 'noob tube' assault gun the AK medic gun was also rediculously easy to kill with - then the special forces unlocks were crazy (did you actually play before 1.2?)

go back to cs
ive never played cs (and what a remarkably useful reply that was - well done)

seeing doesnt kill
read inbetween the lines (making stupid comments achieves nothing other than making you sound stupid) i obviously meant that the person who sees the other first, then fires first and gets an instakill (unless they are completely useless at aiming)

then you shouldnt have a problem with balanced kits
i dont have a problem, my point is that i dont like dying instantly (unless its a head shot) i like to use skill and gameplay, rather than hoping i see someone before they see me

if you dont like what im saying, then thats your opinion (you wont change my mind) i just hope someone from EA/dice sees my comments (i have emailed them about it too)

[shiremct]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

mogduck is 100% right. You all want more lethality. "I want 1-shot sniper kills to the chest" "I want more power for my G3" "Make guns kill in 1-2 shots always" etc etc.

I remember the more pleasant days when it firefights were much more prolonged. We all want to play out the kind of battle scenes you see in movies and read about in the news, not one-shot twitch reflex whack-a-mole.
Yea, I am being a little overly dramatic, but when combat was less lethal i guess ill say for lack of a better explanation, I think it encouraged teamwork and gave a more cinematic feel to the firefights. As the ease to kill increases, the easier it is for one player to own up all by himself with his leet CS point-click skills. Before a player was more inclined to stay in a squad and with teammates because combat was a little more erradic, now its just twitch-point-click rinse and repeat.
Can you honestly tell me that teamwork has increased since patch 1.2? All I have seen is a doubling or so of lonewolfing players.

Of course some of you want constant kill kill kill action but others of us want a little more cinematic and semi-tactical feel. Any no, you wont change my mind either.

[SO19Visionaries]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

yawn why does eveyone think their opinion is valued, your opinion has been stated a million times before and therefore not valued.

[PBJTime]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

mogduck is 100% right. You all want more lethality. "I want 1-shot sniper kills to the chest" "I want more power for my G3" "Make guns kill in 1-2 shots always" etc etc.

I remember the more pleasant days when it firefights were much more prolonged. We all want to play out the kind of battle scenes you see in movies and read about in the news, not one-shot twitch reflex whack-a-mole.
Yea, I am being a little overly dramatic, but when combat was less lethal i guess ill say for lack of a better explanation, I think it encouraged teamwork and gave a more cinematic feel to the firefights. As the ease to kill increases, the easier it is for one player to own up all by himself with his leet CS point-click skills. Before a player was more inclined to stay in a squad and with teammates because combat was a little more erradic, now its just twitch-point-click rinse and repeat.
Can you honestly tell me that teamwork has increased since patch 1.2? All I have seen is a doubling or so of lonewolfing players.

Of course some of you want constant kill kill kill action but others of us want a little more cinematic and semi-tactical feel. Any no, you wont change my mind either.

Weaker weapons and prolonged firefights will only make it easier for the inevitable artillery strike.

Seriously, I think the weapons are just about right now. 3-4 shots for a kill for most weapons seems reasonable to me.

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

I remember the more pleasant days when it firefights were much more prolonged.

These days never existed. Firefights have never existed in BF2. Either the M203 came around, someon lobbing grenades came around or artillery came around. You made an innaccurate statement there.

We all want to play out the kind of battle scenes you see in movies and read about in the news, not one-shot twitch reflex whack-a-mole.
Yea, I am being a little overly dramatic, but when combat was less lethal i guess ill say for lack of a better explanation, I think it encouraged teamwork and gave a more cinematic feel to the firefights.

Like I said above, someone's been watching too much Black Hawk Down :)

You can't have cinematic gameplay because simulating a real battle assumes that the people fighting are afraid of dying and a human life is valued. This is why someone would rather take cover than take that risk of hopping and throwing grenades at a fortified position.

As mentioned above, whenever you have these "firefights", they last about 10 seconds at most -- at which point someone runs up and starts chucking grenades or artillery hits.

As the ease to kill increases, the easier it is for one player to own up all by himself with his leet CS point-click skills. Before a player was more inclined to stay in a squad and with teammates because combat was a little more erradic, now its just twitch-point-click rinse and repeat.

Wrong again. That's what you think. Again, as mentioned, if you are unable to keep up with the rest of us, gameplay mechanics should not change.

I think alot before every round and plan my routes of attack. I travel very carefully and.. well.. I'm not going to get into all that now. I made a seperate thread for this earlier. The point is, alot of thought goes into my game and that is why I'm always at the top of the list.

You're not supposed to have 3 seconds to get to cover. You have a split second, that's it. I move in such a way that I can react:

- Take cover (split second)
- Think of what to do (1 second max)
- Act

Can you honestly tell me that teamwork has increased since patch 1.2? All I have seen is a doubling or so of lonewolfing players.

Teamwork was never a strong aspect of BF2, or any vanilla BF game for that matter. Games like Americas Army have strong teamwork values, while this game will never have this. It's an arcade shooter.

I have noticed absolutely no difference in teamwork between the previous patch and this one. Absolutely n-o-n-e. People still play like they did before -- just with different weapons

Of course some of you want constant kill kill kill action but others of us want a little more cinematic and semi-tactical feel. Any no, you wont change my mind either.

What you want is what you want, no one can change that. However, being stubborn about an idea that is impractical is not the way to dictate how the game plays for many people. Cinematic gameplay is for single player.

You might think its cool when you see those videos of Marines in Fallujah sitting on rooftops for hours at a time, all bunched up -- but that's the real world. Even Americas Army (a game I suggest you try) cannot full implement the cinematic/realism gameplay and that's the entire basis for the game!

Or, of course, you can try mods like Project Reality. The community there is small and dedicated, so the teamwork is strong.

Whatever you choose, know one thing ... you have never been in a combat zone so do not try to assume how a battle plays out. Watching movies is fun, but you cannot relate that to games.

My entire game is extremely tactical. If I get shot, I will hunt down who shot me. I will cover very specific corners and will, on occasion, set up ambushes that actually work. I will cover corners, cover spawn points, and at times setup a perimeter with the guys I play with. I move tactically, utilizing every piece of cover along the way. I anticipate where the enemy will go by the flow of the battle. If that's not tactical, I do not know what is.

To make your game more enjoyable, try coming with solutions to the problems as opposed to complaining about them. When I was getting hit with the 203 before it was fixed, I never complained .. yet I very very very rarely used it. Instead, I came up with ways to defeat the problem in move on which made my game a helluva lot more fun.

You can utilize military tactics in this game, you just need to understand them first. If you do not understand the basis of a military tactic, you have no dynamic by which to implement it.

yawn why does eveyone think their opinion is valued, your opinion has been stated a million times before and therefore not valued.

Why did you even post? We're discussing a game we love to play. Go poop in someone elses cheerios.

[Chowley]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

battlefield 2 now consists of - kill, get killed, kill, get killed, kil.... etc dice or EA (or whoever) messed up IMO. this is mainly due to the last 2 patches, yes there were a few 'overpowered' uber weapons, which the sensible thing would have been to decrease their 'power', but no, they increased the power on everything.

so now, all weapons seem to kill instantly, and its a game of whoever sees who first is the winner.

ive loved bf2 since it came out, and i played bf1942 way too much, (i still love the concept of the game)

alas though, this is just my opinion, but i hope someone from EA/dice listens, and before you start, im not someone just complaining because im a poor player, i regard myself as pretty decent and quite valuable to any team.

*don't be rude

Ya its unusual to do a lot of killing in an FPS. :p

Although I am really sick of the game, I have no drive to play the game anymore. Not really sure why, I think the complete lack of quality that is EF has darkened its future or something and more idiots seem to be playing these days.

:cry: :cry:

[Roger Smith]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

yes there were, the 'noob cannon' aka 'noob tube' assault gun the AK medic gun was also rediculously easy to kill with - then the special forces unlocks were crazy (did you actually play before 1.2?)
um, those weapons havent changed much at all. the difference is a slight blast radius shrink and a pause before detonation, the gl is pretty much the same. the ak is the same and the sf unlocks are just about the same aswell. yes i played since release.

ive never played cs
my point is that cs guns arent lethel, and thats what you want in bf2

read inbetween the lines
no you read between the lines, seeing doesnt kill, killing does. i can see you all i want without aiming and firing. weapons are supposed to kill.

i dont have a problem, my point is that i dont like dying instantly
then dont go running out into the open, you shouldnt have a problem dieing instantly if you are killing them first.

if you dont like what im saying, then thats your opinion
lol, you are mad because the mgs and snipers are more effective, because no other weapons have been altered to be extreamly effective.

[Chowley]

Re: Battlefield 2 - thoughts from a FRUSTRATED player

ive never played cs
my point is that cs guns arent lethel, and thats what you want in bf2

CS guns are far more lethal than in BF2. Its all a hell of a lot more precise and skill based. Play in a good clan and you need to be getting a lot of one shot kills or even on a good pub server. If your on about Source im not so sure on that but I cant remember it had changed much just more spray friendly.