By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has a Metacritic score of 90

JaggedSac said:
Battlefield 2 is a very fun game. Definitely need a good squad to enjoy it.

I can see the issues people have with unlocking things, mainly because of gameplay balance issues. Players starting out actually have two empty slots for enhancements, while people who play longer can have more damaging bullets, better armor, better scopes, mortar strikes, etc. At least give starting players something to put there. If there was a team comprised of all new players and another team comprised of veterans, the team of new players is at an immediate disadvantage regardless of skill level. If I were playing the game with a more competitive viewpoint, I might care more, but I really don't. But, having said that, I can definitely see the issue with game play changing unlockables.

Yes, but you're looking it at the micro standpoint (1 on 1 head on engagements like in CoD). DICE has a game balancing mechanism, that tries to have each team with the same ratio of high and low ranks. While if a high and low rank just blidnly run straight toward each other and shoot the low rank will have the disdvantage (at least in terms of number of specializations), you don't, and shouldn't really just run forward and try to get headshots. You should be flanking and trying to engage enemies on your own terms.

 

By having the unlock system DICE encourages:

1) Low rank players to acquire points by means other than killing. In fact, it is in their benefit, as killing doesn't acquire as many points as throwing ammo boxes at large crowds do.

2) Encourages low rank players to not simply try to fight a fair head on fight determined by gun statstics, but tactics.



Around the Network
Akvod said:
JaggedSac said:
Battlefield 2 is a very fun game. Definitely need a good squad to enjoy it.

I can see the issues people have with unlocking things, mainly because of gameplay balance issues. Players starting out actually have two empty slots for enhancements, while people who play longer can have more damaging bullets, better armor, better scopes, mortar strikes, etc. At least give starting players something to put there. If there was a team comprised of all new players and another team comprised of veterans, the team of new players is at an immediate disadvantage regardless of skill level. If I were playing the game with a more competitive viewpoint, I might care more, but I really don't. But, having said that, I can definitely see the issue with game play changing unlockables.

Yes, but you're looking it at the micro standpoint (1 on 1 head on engagements like in CoD). DICE has a game balancing mechanism, that tries to have each team with the same ratio of high and low ranks. While if a high and low rank just blidnly run straight toward each other and shoot the low rank will have the disdvantage (at least in terms of number of specializations), you don't, and shouldn't really just run forward and try to get headshots. You should be flanking and trying to engage enemies on your own terms.

 

By having the unlock system DICE encourages:

1) Low rank players to acquire points by means other than killing. In fact, it is in their benefit, as killing doesn't acquire as many points as throwing ammo boxes at large crowds do.

2) Encourages low rank players to not simply try to fight a fair head on fight determined by gun statstics, but tactics.

That is exactly the problem with levelling systems.

Let me outline it plain and simple. This is the PC, not the consoles. If I want a lot of tactics and strategy I have Warcraft, Starcraft, Total War, Dawn of War, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc. to give me that. I love those games. However when I go into an FPS game I want to play the way I want to play. Yeah I play support classes sometimes, they are fun, but the fact you are forced to play support because otherwise you can get killed is one of the worst design ideas ever to hit gaming, seriously, EVER.

If you really want tactics, go play Total War, it does it far better than this anyhow.



mirgro said:
Akvod said:
JaggedSac said:
Battlefield 2 is a very fun game. Definitely need a good squad to enjoy it.

I can see the issues people have with unlocking things, mainly because of gameplay balance issues. Players starting out actually have two empty slots for enhancements, while people who play longer can have more damaging bullets, better armor, better scopes, mortar strikes, etc. At least give starting players something to put there. If there was a team comprised of all new players and another team comprised of veterans, the team of new players is at an immediate disadvantage regardless of skill level. If I were playing the game with a more competitive viewpoint, I might care more, but I really don't. But, having said that, I can definitely see the issue with game play changing unlockables.

Yes, but you're looking it at the micro standpoint (1 on 1 head on engagements like in CoD). DICE has a game balancing mechanism, that tries to have each team with the same ratio of high and low ranks. While if a high and low rank just blidnly run straight toward each other and shoot the low rank will have the disdvantage (at least in terms of number of specializations), you don't, and shouldn't really just run forward and try to get headshots. You should be flanking and trying to engage enemies on your own terms.

 

By having the unlock system DICE encourages:

1) Low rank players to acquire points by means other than killing. In fact, it is in their benefit, as killing doesn't acquire as many points as throwing ammo boxes at large crowds do.

2) Encourages low rank players to not simply try to fight a fair head on fight determined by gun statstics, but tactics.

That is exactly the problem with levelling systems.

Let me outline it plain and simple. This is the PC, not the consoles. If I want a lot of tactics and strategy I have Warcraft, Starcraft, Total War, Dawn of War, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc. to give me that. I love those games. However when I go into an FPS game I want to play the way I want to play. Yeah I play support classes sometimes, they are fun, but the fact you are forced to play support because otherwise you can get killed is one of the worst design ideas ever to hit gaming, seriously, EVER.

If you really want tactics, go play Total War, it does it far better than this anyhow.

uh, Engineers kill people just fine and they are very important to vehicle combat, and medics have heavy machine guns which are ridiculous at short range, it's not like I'd die vs Assault just because I'm another class. This game is very much about guns, tanks, helis, heals, and repair, it's everything, like a more realistic TF or TF2, which are also among the best FPS out there, unlike shitty ass MW2.



mirgro said:
Akvod said:
JaggedSac said:
Battlefield 2 is a very fun game. Definitely need a good squad to enjoy it.

I can see the issues people have with unlocking things, mainly because of gameplay balance issues. Players starting out actually have two empty slots for enhancements, while people who play longer can have more damaging bullets, better armor, better scopes, mortar strikes, etc. At least give starting players something to put there. If there was a team comprised of all new players and another team comprised of veterans, the team of new players is at an immediate disadvantage regardless of skill level. If I were playing the game with a more competitive viewpoint, I might care more, but I really don't. But, having said that, I can definitely see the issue with game play changing unlockables.

Yes, but you're looking it at the micro standpoint (1 on 1 head on engagements like in CoD). DICE has a game balancing mechanism, that tries to have each team with the same ratio of high and low ranks. While if a high and low rank just blidnly run straight toward each other and shoot the low rank will have the disdvantage (at least in terms of number of specializations), you don't, and shouldn't really just run forward and try to get headshots. You should be flanking and trying to engage enemies on your own terms.

 

By having the unlock system DICE encourages:

1) Low rank players to acquire points by means other than killing. In fact, it is in their benefit, as killing doesn't acquire as many points as throwing ammo boxes at large crowds do.

2) Encourages low rank players to not simply try to fight a fair head on fight determined by gun statstics, but tactics.

That is exactly the problem with levelling systems.

Let me outline it plain and simple. This is the PC, not the consoles. If I want a lot of tactics and strategy I have Warcraft, Starcraft, Total War, Dawn of War, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc. to give me that. I love those games. However when I go into an FPS game I want to play the way I want to play. Yeah I play support classes sometimes, they are fun, but the fact you are forced to play support because otherwise you can get killed is one of the worst design ideas ever to hit gaming, seriously, EVER.

If you really want tactics, go play Total War, it does it far better than this anyhow.

If you want to play run and gun, play Halo or CoD. I will play MAG, Bad Company 2, and maybe Killzone 2.

 

I honestly don't know why you despise any form of tactic or strategy in a FPS. Such things aren't exclusive to RTSs or RPGs. They exist in ALL games. Chess, checkers, racing games, shooting games, Tetris, etc. All of them are about winning through strategy, and that is what makes a game IMO. At least 2 players, trying to win within the limitations imposed on them by rules. That's strategy.

A game that deemphasizes strategy, deemphasizes its very existence and defition as a game.



Akvod said:
mirgro said:
Akvod said:
JaggedSac said:
Battlefield 2 is a very fun game. Definitely need a good squad to enjoy it.

I can see the issues people have with unlocking things, mainly because of gameplay balance issues. Players starting out actually have two empty slots for enhancements, while people who play longer can have more damaging bullets, better armor, better scopes, mortar strikes, etc. At least give starting players something to put there. If there was a team comprised of all new players and another team comprised of veterans, the team of new players is at an immediate disadvantage regardless of skill level. If I were playing the game with a more competitive viewpoint, I might care more, but I really don't. But, having said that, I can definitely see the issue with game play changing unlockables.

Yes, but you're looking it at the micro standpoint (1 on 1 head on engagements like in CoD). DICE has a game balancing mechanism, that tries to have each team with the same ratio of high and low ranks. While if a high and low rank just blidnly run straight toward each other and shoot the low rank will have the disdvantage (at least in terms of number of specializations), you don't, and shouldn't really just run forward and try to get headshots. You should be flanking and trying to engage enemies on your own terms.

 

By having the unlock system DICE encourages:

1) Low rank players to acquire points by means other than killing. In fact, it is in their benefit, as killing doesn't acquire as many points as throwing ammo boxes at large crowds do.

2) Encourages low rank players to not simply try to fight a fair head on fight determined by gun statstics, but tactics.

That is exactly the problem with levelling systems.

Let me outline it plain and simple. This is the PC, not the consoles. If I want a lot of tactics and strategy I have Warcraft, Starcraft, Total War, Dawn of War, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc. to give me that. I love those games. However when I go into an FPS game I want to play the way I want to play. Yeah I play support classes sometimes, they are fun, but the fact you are forced to play support because otherwise you can get killed is one of the worst design ideas ever to hit gaming, seriously, EVER.

If you really want tactics, go play Total War, it does it far better than this anyhow.

If you want to play run and gun, play Halo or CoD. I will play MAG, Bad Company 2, and maybe Killzone 2.

 

I honestly don't know why you despise any form of tactic or strategy in a FPS. Such things aren't exclusive to RTSs or RPGs. They exist in ALL games. Chess, checkers, racing games, shooting games, Tetris, etc. All of them are about winning through strategy, and that is what makes a game IMO. At least 2 players, trying to win within the limitations imposed on them by rules. That's strategy.

A game that deemphasizes strategy, deemphasizes its very existence and defition as a game.

I say just play pong if you don't want tactics, shit is still addicting to this day.



Around the Network
Akvod said:
mirgro said:

That is exactly the problem with levelling systems.

Let me outline it plain and simple. This is the PC, not the consoles. If I want a lot of tactics and strategy I have Warcraft, Starcraft, Total War, Dawn of War, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc. to give me that. I love those games. However when I go into an FPS game I want to play the way I want to play. Yeah I play support classes sometimes, they are fun, but the fact you are forced to play support because otherwise you can get killed is one of the worst design ideas ever to hit gaming, seriously, EVER.

If you really want tactics, go play Total War, it does it far better than this anyhow.

If you want to play run and gun, play Halo or CoD. I will play MAG, Bad Company 2, and maybe Killzone 2.

 

I honestly don't know why you despise any form of tactic or strategy in a FPS. Such things aren't exclusive to RTSs or RPGs. They exist in ALL games. Chess, checkers, racing games, shooting games, Tetris, etc. All of them are about winning through strategy, and that is what makes a game IMO. At least 2 players, trying to win within the limitations imposed on them by rules. That's strategy.

A game that deemphasizes strategy, deemphasizes its very existence and defition as a game.

You don't get it do you. As you pointed out, the lower level people can't really go head to head in a fair gith with a higher leveled one. They need to do some stuff to do so. Also don't bother mentioning Halo or Cod which are pathetic excuses for FPS games. I have been playing squad games since Tribes and I can tell you that levelling added absolutely zero "tactics." so please stop kidding yourself, it's not the startegy and tactics, it's the leveling which forces it upon the lower levels. Yeah I can kill the higher level guy if I catch him off guard, but that's not a fair fight there.

Squad games without levelling are perfectly fine, as in Tribes or TF, the ones with levelling are really quite annoying and bad.



mirgro said:
Akvod said:
mirgro said:
 

That is exactly the problem with levelling systems.

Let me outline it plain and simple. This is the PC, not the consoles. If I want a lot of tactics and strategy I have Warcraft, Starcraft, Total War, Dawn of War, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc. to give me that. I love those games. However when I go into an FPS game I want to play the way I want to play. Yeah I play support classes sometimes, they are fun, but the fact you are forced to play support because otherwise you can get killed is one of the worst design ideas ever to hit gaming, seriously, EVER.

If you really want tactics, go play Total War, it does it far better than this anyhow.

If you want to play run and gun, play Halo or CoD. I will play MAG, Bad Company 2, and maybe Killzone 2.

 

I honestly don't know why you despise any form of tactic or strategy in a FPS. Such things aren't exclusive to RTSs or RPGs. They exist in ALL games. Chess, checkers, racing games, shooting games, Tetris, etc. All of them are about winning through strategy, and that is what makes a game IMO. At least 2 players, trying to win within the limitations imposed on them by rules. That's strategy.

A game that deemphasizes strategy, deemphasizes its very existence and defition as a game.

You don't get it do you. As you pointed out, the lower level people can't really go head to head in a fair gith with a higher leveled one. They need to do some stuff to do so. Also don't bother mentioning Halo or Cod which are pathetic excuses for FPS games. I have been playing squad games since Tribes and I can tell you that levelling added absolutely zero "tactics." so please stop kidding yourself, it's not the startegy and tactics, it's the leveling which forces it upon the lower levels. Yeah I can kill the higher level guy if I catch him off guard, but that's not a fair fight there.

Squad games without levelling are perfectly fine, as in Tribes or TF, the ones with levelling are really quite annoying and bad.

I was raping people 15 ranks higher with my rank 1 gun just fine when I started, all it takes is skills and head shots. game is more about vehicles(hence engis) and medics imo though, which is fine by me since you can't win TF or Tribes without medics or good engis.



mirgro said:

Yeah I can kill the higher level guy if I catch him off guard, but that's not a fair fight there.

Squad games without levelling are perfectly fine, as in Tribes or TF, the ones with levelling are really quite annoying and bad.

Wow, you're an gentleman.

You keep saying they're bad, but can you tell us why? The only reason I get from you is that you can't kill a person head on. But that's not even true. You get the specializations fairly quickly, and the weapons are balanced, no one weapon is better than the other. the AK weapon you start out with has a very high rate of fire with decent damage compared to the F2000. It's very great for close/medium range, and in burst fire can take out guys pretty far. The M16A2, the last gun you unlock, isn't that great for close quarters, and is better for medium/long range. the MG3, the final gun you unlock as a medic, isn't that great, while I see some people using the PKM, and I'm using the 2nd unlocked gun the M24 SAW.

And like I posted earlier, if you're really worried about spending forever to level up, don't worry. I think DICE was too generous and makes leveling up so easy that it's almost like it doesn't exist. Subsequently, as a result, the game has become more run and gun like you wanted than I would have liked (KylieDog jokingly suggested that a game give zero exp to the losing team. I think that should be the case to make players focus whole heartidely on completing the objectives and winning, not protecting K/D ratio).

 

Look how easy and quick leveling up is:



Akvod said:
mirgro said:

Yeah I can kill the higher level guy if I catch him off guard, but that's not a fair fight there.

Squad games without levelling are perfectly fine, as in Tribes or TF, the ones with levelling are really quite annoying and bad.

Wow, you're an gentleman.

You keep saying they're bad, but can you tell us why? The only reason I get from you is that you can't kill a person head on. But that's not even true. You get the specializations fairly quickly, and the weapons are balanced, no one weapon is better than the other. the AK weapon you start out with has a very high rate of fire with decent damage compared to the F2000. It's very great for close/medium range, and in burst fire can take out guys pretty far. The M16A2, the last gun you unlock, isn't that great for close quarters, and is better for medium/long range. the MG3, the final gun you unlock as a medic, isn't that great, while I see some people using the PKM, and I'm using the 2nd unlocked gun the M24 SAW.

And like I posted earlier, if you're really worried about spending forever to level up, don't worry. I think DICE was too generous and makes leveling up so easy that it's almost like it doesn't exist. Subsequently, as a result, the game has become more run and gun like you wanted than I would have liked (KylieDog jokingly suggested that a game give zero exp to the losing team. I think that should be the case to make players focus whole heartidely on completing the objectives and winning, not protecting K/D ratio).

 

Look how easy and quick leveling up is:

 

You are not understanding. I am fully aware of the fact that in a bunch of games the last guns are not necessarily the best. That has been the case since there ever were more "exclusive guns" even in Counter-Strike where the machine gun that costs over 5k is worse than the AK. The point is, why should there be any form of levelling up to get those if I wanted them? I mean hell, if I wanted the Machine ugn right away I just join an instan $16k server and it's that simple? Can I do that in BC2? No? Bad game.



mirgro said:
Akvod said:
mirgro said:

Yeah I can kill the higher level guy if I catch him off guard, but that's not a fair fight there.

Squad games without levelling are perfectly fine, as in Tribes or TF, the ones with levelling are really quite annoying and bad.

Wow, you're an gentleman.

You keep saying they're bad, but can you tell us why? The only reason I get from you is that you can't kill a person head on. But that's not even true. You get the specializations fairly quickly, and the weapons are balanced, no one weapon is better than the other. the AK weapon you start out with has a very high rate of fire with decent damage compared to the F2000. It's very great for close/medium range, and in burst fire can take out guys pretty far. The M16A2, the last gun you unlock, isn't that great for close quarters, and is better for medium/long range. the MG3, the final gun you unlock as a medic, isn't that great, while I see some people using the PKM, and I'm using the 2nd unlocked gun the M24 SAW.

And like I posted earlier, if you're really worried about spending forever to level up, don't worry. I think DICE was too generous and makes leveling up so easy that it's almost like it doesn't exist. Subsequently, as a result, the game has become more run and gun like you wanted than I would have liked (KylieDog jokingly suggested that a game give zero exp to the losing team. I think that should be the case to make players focus whole heartidely on completing the objectives and winning, not protecting K/D ratio).

 

Look how easy and quick leveling up is:

 

You are not understanding. I am fully aware of the fact that in a bunch of games the last guns are not necessarily the best. That has been the case since there ever were more "exclusive guns" even in Counter-Strike where the machine gun that costs over 5k is worse than the AK. The point is, why should there be any form of levelling up to get those if I wanted them? I mean hell, if I wanted the Machine ugn right away I just join an instan $16k server and it's that simple? Can I do that in BC2? No? Bad game.

Because without any form of leveling we have people like you who despise support roles and teamwork, and just run around and gunning, while ignoring the M-COM station that gives a 100 points. DICE and me have a pessimistic and cynical view on players, and you just reinforce that sentiment. We have players like you who just want to grab any gun they want and run straight at people, instead of coordinating to flank, to get objectives, to throw medkits, repair tanks, etc.

 

You yourself have said it. You just want to shoot. I don't want BC2 to become what CoD has become. A shallow game that's actually more reminscent to bad quality MMOs that simply give people a false sense of accomplishment for low effort. I don't want to just run in a straight line and aim for the head. That's not a game, it has no strategy, only twitching.

DICE forces players like you to actually care about your team mates by depriving you of the weapons you so desperately whine for by giving you points for good behavior and requiring points to unlock weapons. It's simple reinforcement, and if even throwing a medkit in the middle of a crowd and raking in thousands of points like that video demonstrated is too hard for you, go play your precious WoW and don't come back. Players like you are only a liability to the game, and I wholeheartedly am glad you don't like the game, as you'll only ruin it by joining the community.