The Faceless Master
Member
mainline BC2 still has lots of players, but the Vietnam expansion is pretty dead on 360 and PS3, probably because of the way the servers are segregated.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 |OT2| See, Spot, Run
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
Dreamgazer
Member
Indeed. Vietnam probably would have done better if it was a standalone game like 1943 (which has plenty of players still...)
No it wouldn't and you know why. The maps.
Also 1943 is filled with grizzled Veterans now. Surprised to see there is some life in it despite that. Guess EA giving it away for free on PS3 made a surge.
Dreamgazer
Member
I thought of the maps and limited weapon selection at first also, but I honestly don't think that's the main cause of it.
As for 1943 being filled with vets...I play 1-2 rounds of the game every 2 weeks or so.
Other than the air domination mode, I honestly don't see that many vets *cough* competent players. The game was also pretty popular before Dice gave it out for PSN, mainly because the demo allowed people to play Wake forever (they took it down on US PSN for a time, but it was always available for HK/JPN PSN.)
Noisepurge
Member
i see the logic in that all the Battlefield hardcore players used to play BC2, and got the Vietnam expansion immediately and played that too. Then BF3 came along, 99% of the hardcore moved to that game, leaving BC2 for dead.
Now the people that play BC2 are more of the casual crowd who dont mind playing the older game, and don't even need the expansion. (plus some sourpusses that claim BF3 is worse, like Sekoku, or Waypoetic, or Dreamgazer!)
Now the people that play BC2 are more of the casual crowd who dont mind playing the older game, and don't even need the expansion. (plus some sourpusses that claim BF3 is worse, like Sekoku, or Waypoetic, or Dreamgazer!)
Message me if you ever want to play and I am on. I still like to play that game. It's kind of a pain to get used to the button layouts after playing BF3 all the time. It's still fairly easy to find full rounds. 1943 was popular even during the heyday of BC2 and leading up to BF3.
Now the people that play BC2 are more of the casual crowd who dont mind playing the older game, and don't even need the expansion. (plus some sourpusses that claim BF3 is worse, like Sek, or Waypoetic, or Dreamgazer!)
When did I ever claim BF3 was worse? I claimed DICE made smart balance decisions in Rush, HOWEVER they knee-jerked those decisions too far and I can see Dreamgazers point of "no alt routes" being an issue in most of the Rush maps as well. However I've claimed that unlike BC2 the rounds aren't decided in two minutes if someone abuses C4 to give their team an advantage to where BF3 is better in that aspect.
They both have their pros and cons. But BF3's cons outweigh it's good by a slight bit.
The Faceless Master
Member
DICE balanced Rush mode right into an obscure distant second place with all of their changes. I wouldn't be surprised. It was in third place, behind TDM.
Wait a second, you're trying to fool me again aren't you?.jpg
You and I both know you love Rush mode over Babby mode.
Don't lie.
The Faceless Master
Member
There's a reason that so many people abandoned Rush mode...Wait a second, you're trying to fool me again aren't you?.jpg
You and I both know you love Rush mode over Babby mode.
And I'm not saying that I agree, but I understand.
...Because they're no good at it and need C4 for easy wins. *bah-dum-psh*
Honestly, there's only like two-three sets in two maps that I hate going against. Grand Bazaar first set B. Metro Third Set B. Seine isn't bad if you know you're supposed to attack B over A first set and then the rest follows. Norshal can be annoying with the cheesemobile but isn't bad if you can safely ignore it. The rest of the maps are balanced for both sides.
The Faceless Master
Member
It's not even about C4, it's about the threat of damage from long range projectiles that made defenders spread out instead of just camping the objectives.
Except that didn't help the defense at all, really. The way to get them to spread out is to make the crates not be in rooms/three wall areas that can't have the walls be taken down. See A Caspian Border second set versus Bazaar First set B or B Metro Third set. Those later two have no cover to blow to where the attackers can make the defense not camp there (unless they prone, obviously) while the former does. Meanwhile, it's open air to where the attackers can bail from a helicopter above it to arm. Whereas in Metro there is no such flanking ability.
It's more DICE knee-jerked the balance in Rush and while good intentions and I prefer a less lopsided balance, they didn't make the maps in mind for this new balance. It's not the defenses fault that they're able to camp easy, it's fully DICE's for making the crates be in those rooms with no ability to "punch through."
I dunno, it's effective in BC1 (AND 2) when the tickets are low as a last-ditch desperation move. Unfortunately, unlike BC1 (where there is still some people that abuse it) BC2 was "throw rockets at a building that collapses, then C4 instead of arm/holding the other one" to where unless the defense abused the map and destruction (like I did in making "lines"/AKA: Gardening plants and the like) the attackers had basically the keys to the win kingdom in throwing Carl Gustav's into buildings and crates to blow them up. It was lopsided and unfair to the defense.
So DICE rebalanced by making areas around the crates in BF3 not destroyable. A good idea, but like Faceless said: It promotes camping, because they put the crates inside buildings instead of open-air where the defense has to camp and spread out a little while having some thought where the crates can't be seen from all sides in the open-air and at the same time can't be camped from all sides. Maybe one side at most.
The Faceless Master
Member
invincible spawn is IMBA, Tanks should be free to shoot from their spawn, but they shouldn't be free of enemies being able to get to them.
Dreamgazer
Member
What's this? Seks promoting more destruction/ability to "punch through" in BF3? I am mind blown here. Oh man that bazaar argument, I'm sure I typed that up somewhere before...hmm...
---------------------
Anyway, two things I would like to comment on:
1)Lack of explosive damage on M-coms make C4-Mcom defense too easy. Although it's not "unbalanced", it can makes half decent teams extra hard to beat.
Of course, this only matters if the enemies even get to your m-com in the first place. Which gets us to...
2) To a certain degree I feel the lack of destruction + linearity of certain maps have made BF3 players too careless on defense. In BC2, there's usually a large open field between each set. There's very little incentive for people to push toward the attacker's base, other than to steal a vehicle, since the terrain/cover/team advantage is always near the m-com. In BF3, however, a lot of maps are just of choke points after choke points after choke points (ex: seinen first set, most of metro.) So for some reason or another, people have this false sense of security and desire pushes way up (that or I'm too much of a conservative pussy.) Which is fine and dandy in a perfect world where people never get through....but we don't live in that perfect world.
Someone get through, spawn his whole squad in, arm the m-com. Then you'll find the rest of your team miles away from the objective shitting themselves.
I mean I seriously wish people camp in Bazaar/Seinen 1st B. Cause we both know if done right (2 motion sensors, 2 beacon, sets of explosive.), those places are nearly impenetrable. Yet the reality I find is that most people rather not do that. Most people don't want a K/D, SPM suicide, and they're not going to want to be near the m-com when most of their teammates are racking up points at the front line. So this goes back to what I been preaching about since BC2 - "you need a good mixing of player types". Now a days I can honestly predict when gaffers will lose based on the combination of player types + map we have...
This problem is probably driven worst due to the popularity of conquest in BF3, since in conquest can push to the front line with very minimal consequences to the overall game. If something sneak through, at worst you just go back and cap your home base flag.
3)Additional side comment: there are some great conquest players in bf3 who do absolutely horrible in k/d, points, and many other things in rush (not necessarily speaking of gaffers.) Certain mindset/skills just doesn't seem to transfer over between the two game mode it seems.
Noisepurge
Member
I did the harsh thing and just sold BC2 when BF3 hit i still have BC1 though because of the good singleplayer campaign.
i still have BC1 though because of the good singleplayer campaign.Except unlike you, I don't promote it for EVERYTHING. See, I admit that:
And conversely, you can C4 those "lack of cover" areas and then have a HUGE advantage in Rush defense. Come on, son. You saw it the last time we played BC2. You saw it in the year we played BC2. You saw me and Calion both abuse C4 to "garden" trees in Nelson Bay and NO ONE wanted to cross. Why? Because there was NO COVER and it was a barren wasteland. So what is left for the attackers to do? Throw rockets at buildings and objectives.
Which is only where the lack of destruction around objectives fails. Because, again: DICE didn't fully think their nerf through in the knee-jerk reaction to the issue. This isn't me going "DERP WE NEED COMPLETE DESTRUCTION." This is more me going "yeah, putting crates in four walled/roofed areas is a bad idea unless two-three of those walls can be blown down.
And... who's fault is that? The players more than DICE's. What is your point here?
Oh, that you want to basically camp an objective and not let the enemy in. Which goes back to me admitting that DICE should fix this issue. Right.
GAF's main problem is:
-They play engineer 24/7
-They play assault 24/7
-They play engineer/assault 24/7
I have rarely seen anyone go recon besides me and you, and even further rarely seen anyone go support besides me in general. And when they do, they play them poorly. I've had times where I don't notice someone needs ammo in the heat of battle, but generally I'm rushing around and resupplying people that aren't supports (esp. on Metro once I lead the charge up to the enemy base after they start to snipe and we wreck them) more than I am shooting, but no one wants to do that. Hell, no one wants to set attack/defend orders despite that being +10 points for the flipping leader! Even Faceless won't do it which is insane. Does no one want free points as command leader!?
"Engineer 24/7 erryday" is the issue. Sure, the penalty of the enemy taking a flag is that you can go back and get it or spawn at base and get it. But conversely let's go with "this isn't a perfect world" and the converse is that you lose all flags because you didn't attempt to defend the bases evenly. This is the same issue that Faceless talks about with "BC2 made Rush defense spread out," except like there it's a bit bullshit and more the players fault that they didn't spread their defense out.
I'll go on record and say that GAF will also generally defend the first two flags (enemy base side and middle) in Conquest on consoles 9/10 of the time. I've only seen maybe 1 person ('Jas) go back to a blinking base/OUR FLIPPING HOME BASE at times before others will notice and lay off an attack. It's crazy.
But whatever. My issue with Rush is that DICE has made "impenetrable fortresses" that need to be fixed, more so than the lack of destruction. Because, once again: I'm completely fine with the lack of destruction. I don't mind losing it if it means the attackers and defense has to... *gasp* PTFO instead of C'nTFO. You can't throw C4 into Bazaar first set B because they made C4 drop like a piano. You can't aim (well you can but you have to L2/R1 hold at the same time) grenades like BC2 to flush people out. And even then if you get close you have a chokepoint of the door in the "back alley" area because while you can punch the first wall off, you can't punch the other wall off and so the defense has two areas they can lock down and throw rockets toward to shut the attackers out. There-in the issue more than the lack of destruction and why DICE needs to just stop putting crates in buildings that can collapse AND buildings that can't have their outer areas destroyed and leave the building standing like BC1.
ETA:
Sure, and that shit is annoying but that's lack of foresight more than an issue. I do think C4 on objectives as defense should cause harm to where that tactic is gone, but really you can throw a grenade at the crate to destroy the C4. Issue is that it breaks stealth and basically makes you a Christmas tree. So really, the issue here is you can't remove the C4 via stealth. Similar to the issue that you can't destroy the AT mines in BC2 if someone lays them around the crates because DICE did not think things through during the run-up to launch and balancing modes at times.
Hell, this is the same company that decided tactical flashlights being ON by default or hell BEING IN THE FUCKING GAME is a-okay. So who the fuck knows what they're thinking at times.
Dreamgazer
Member
I never prmoted it for everything. Which for some reaon is what you believe my argument to be:
-------------------------------------
Read the whole paragrah, the point of 2) is to talk about players sucking on defense, not about destruction.
I am complaining about the players. What is your problem? (no mentioning of DICE or destruction in my discussion point #2
Yes. Until then, we're still just talking about the players.
In general, I think engineer 24/7 is no longer true. People are mixing up the classes a bit more now. Although yes, it does seem like alot of people are just not familar with the advance tactics to support and recon. Some gaffers still screw up on blowing the C4 too early, not using the mortar effectively, putting beacons in board open day light or not 3d spotting with the mav. That will come with time.
Although it's probably also because meppi doesn't play on ps3 anymore >.>
(no offense man, but you are the ideal spokesperson for engineer 24/7)
To quote myself again, I never disagreed with that part:
Certain C4s can be placed "into" structures on certain sets where they are basically not affected by any nearby grenade blast. Such as Metro 2nd set A. And yes, the problem with the C4 issue is the fact that you can't remove it stealthly. Since even if you were to remove it, any good defending support is sure nearby to get you.
With the exception of one, which is the construction areas and oil pipe stuff, BC2 was highly destructible. And it really showed why DICE needed to reign in the destruction on Rush. Helicopters raining death down on buildings and collapsing them and then basically splash damaging buildings to get people hiding in the rubble was stupid as hell.
Because the engine isn't the Geomod engine where you can put enough C4 in an area and punch through a solid mountain, dude.
Then DICE needs to fix the clipping issues there, eh?
None taken, I can assure you.
One reason I played so much engineer was because I couldn't take the game serious with the shit controls, even though some want to pretend to be better than others and act like it's the better of the two versions...
So I went with what I liked and even went USAS for a long time as well as go engineer 24/7 because sukoku couldn't stop whining and bitching about it.
What does it even matter what class you play when you're doing your job quite well?
I can't vow for my teammates who might be running engineer as well, yet never even repair a vehicle or jump out of a tank to give your driver the advantage due to shooting a regular RPG at the tank he's fighting even though that might mean I'll die a lot more in the process.
Same with taking down birds. Someone has to do it when our team barely looks upwards.
Also, it hugely depends on what maps I'm playing.
Same as in BC2, which I believe this thread was originally about...
On a vehicle heavy map, I'll go engineer and on an infantry map I'll go attack-recon.
In BF3 I haven't found my comfort zone yet with the sniper class since it's now much more focussed on laying prone on a rock somewhere and that's just not how I like or ever want to play the game.
I do play a lot more Assault and Support compared to before on PS3 simply because in certain games and game types it is needed.
I barely touched rush on PS3 again for the same reasons I've mentioned before.
but I'm starting to enjoy the game type a lot more now that I actually get to aim where I want to shoot in a split second.
In rush, going engineer 24/7 just isn't an option if you play to win games and not just boost your k/d ratio like too many players do already.
Dreamgazer
Member
One? what about last set nelson bay B? Arica 4th set trailer, 2nd set garagae, atcama metal boats and last set A/B? and all those Tin/aluminum walls?
Except it makes no sense that I can do it to one piece of wall but not the other. For example, Dpeak rush set 1 and 2 are both bases surrounded by white walls. You can blow through all the wall of set 2, but not a single wall in set 1. They're the same freaking type of wall. I mean you can possibly argue it's a balance thing.....excpet set 1 is obviously much easier to camp.
To quote you:
TheSeks said:
I mena, Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
This type of thing also discourages people from using the destructive environment.
Like the 3 piece of walls in front of norshar last set B (or is it A?). Most people have no idea that wall can be blown for a much easier short cut/avoidance of choke point.
It also doesn't make sense as to why some environment require multiple c4 attempts before they have visual indications of being destructable. It's like a freaking guessing game when I'm trying to make a shortcut (Only 1 of the 3 piece of walls on norshar last set is destructable, and it takes 2 c4 attempts to blow it open.)
There's certain exceptions on maps, yeah. But it isn't global, hence the broken nature of Rush for the strong majority of the matches. Even if you wanted to point out Nelson Bay B, I'd point out that the AT4 could easily hit that rocket once you were good at guiding the rocket. So uh... still able to cheese the crate, dude.
Sure, but DICE didn't expect people to camp there I wager. Who the hell knows, it's DICE's mysterious decisions with balancing that this thing is an issue.
And I don't have an issue with that. I do, however have an issue where the defense has no ability to defend because the destruction goes wholesale and they have no ability to get close to the crate. Vice-versa with the attackers. That's my point: DICE knee-jerked and nerfed the damage. Which while good intentions is also bad on the same hand because the defense/attackers BOTH can't get a good position/grip on the crates depending on what the other team does first.
But on the same coin: BC2's C4/destruction abuse gave neither side a chance depending on which side was the one abusing destruction.
So... really... DICE can't win for lose on that mode. I'd suggest a BC1 building taking apart but no collapse for the crates. Every other building can collapse within reason and DICE has certain (NO LANES) routes that the defense and attackers both can use because those routes can't be destroyed.
But then again this is the same company that allows the attackers to get on the hanger roof via helicopter and sit there and snipe on Norshal Rush with the defense having to counter snipe up there with no ability to get up there to clear them out, so who the hell knows what is going through their mind at times.
Dreamgazer
Member
The point of the indestructable wall statment that you quote is that I have no problem with indestructable walls and that I am not advocating total destruction of everything.
And here we reach the same conclusion, once again.
The Faceless Master
Member
i set orders all the time, i just have to notice that i'm the squad leader first.
this right here is my biggest pet peeve
all of those can be RPG'd and/or C4'd from various angles, which means... defense can't just all camp.
this right here is my biggest pet peeve
all of those can be RPG'd and/or C4'd from various angles, which means... defense can't just all camp.
i swear i said this months ago...
Dreamgazer
Member
So since you guys seem to think BC2 is better anyway, I suggest we all boot that up now and play some games together
Majority of people(especially vehicle lovers) prefer BF3 more so.
Not to mention, we play on PS3.
__
0-0-\
\ - /
The Faceless Master
Member
they need to stop letting me steal the Hind on Atacama.
I love when you do that for me. GUN-RUNNER.
Just got the PC version for free from Origin. Finally installed it and updated it but whenever I try to run it, a blank white square pops up(as well as the BC2 icon on the taskbar) but then they both disappear and nothing happens. i thought it maybe was Windows 8 but even running in compatibility mode does nothing. Also BC2 seems to be working with W8 anyways.
Edit- I had forgotten to restart after installing video drivers which solved the issue. The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is that I have to run this game on low settings or else the map doesn't load yet I could run BF3 on medium. Also can't play due to punkbuster always kicking me
Edit- I had forgotten to restart after installing video drivers which solved the issue. The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is that I have to run this game on low settings or else the map doesn't load yet I could run BF3 on medium. Also can't play due to punkbuster always kicking me
OldJadedGamer
Banned
I know I'm LTTP with this one but got bored and finished up every achievement in the game. All single player and multiplayer ones, Onslaught mode, SPECACT, and Vietnam. 72/72
endlessflood
Member
Sorry to dust this thread off, but I have a question that I was hoping some of the GAF BFBC2 community could help with. For BFBC2 there was a behind the scenes video made showing the voice actors at work in the recording booth, but for the life of me I can't track it down again. Does anyone remember the video? All I can find is one for BFBC and that's not it.
Dreamgazer
Member
The op has all the quick and easy tips you need.
Just ask away if you need anything specific
Kill times are a bit longer and the guns are a bit clunkier. It's fun as hell, but you'd be lucky to gun down more than one person at once, unlike BF3.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Remember, no more sleeping on the job. a.k.a, prone is not available in BC2
It takes longer to kill, there's no prone, and there's no silly training wheels for all the guns.
Only improvement BF3 did was the infantry combat/controls. However I do miss being able to knife/crouch through a window like BC1/2 was able to do.
xm8c. Use it.
Bad Company 2 server and mod tools.
Thought I should probably put this here. Seeing as how I can't make threads.
http://www.mordorhq.com/content.php...bandoned-Bad-Company-2-returns-with-Mod-Tools
Thought I should probably put this here. Seeing as how I can't make threads.
http://www.mordorhq.com/content.php...bandoned-Bad-Company-2-returns-with-Mod-Tools
Dreamgazer
Member
HURRAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
I'm sure you're happy.
*PC version is just as dead as console versions*
#rip #icant
Dreamgazer
Member
PC or PS3? Because last time I tried PS3 it had like 12 player games which wasn't really "alive."
I know rock still plays it (he stopped playing BF3 ages ago) so there's probably still people left, but I dunno about populated servers. It's probably like BC1 where there's 8-14 players but never a full 24 player game.
Dreamgazer
Member
PC
PS3 still has full servers on weekends. However, the last time I played, everyone was recon with a 4x scope VSS hiding in bushes.
I really should get around to building that PC but I'm waiting for next-gen specs to see where I need to be so I don't have to run the ratrace of parts for a bit.
I have a PC copy of BC2 sitting right here staring at me so it wouldn't be a big deal to get on that with you.
I have a PC copy of BC2 sitting right here staring at me so it wouldn't be a big deal to get on that with you.
SirIgbyCeaser
Banned
Hey Does anyone want to play with me? I'm having a hard time finding people who use headsets on PS3. The game is fantastic, and intense, I wish I bought it at launch, I would have fucking loved to be in a clan.
PSNID:GungamStyle
PSNID:GungamStyle
SniperHunter
Banned
I have bad company 1 :/ I enjoyed it on pc, feel like getting the pc ver
Dorimukyasuto
Member
Will add you.
Just found the game for $5.98 in Target Clearance. Totally new to the franchise and all I can say is wow. The game is excellent. The online is fun too, no one uses mics though.