Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does the game still use that nifty ticket system?

Only in Conquest mode.

Cairnius wrote:I haven't heard anyone talking about these sorts of issues before, so I wonder if you're not having personal issues with the game, Kan, and thus more speaking to your experience versus issuing valid judgments about the game as a whole.

My personal issue is that the game blows chunks, and that people seem to think it's a "Battlefield" game.
Once again, it's not. It's MW2 with vehicles.

Vehicles don't imbalance Bad Company 2 at all. I can't recall a single instance where a vehicle dominated a match in either Rush or Conquest modes. If you're playing with even mildly-experienced BC2 gamers, people will spawn Engineer and take out those vehicles as soon as they become a problem, or mine the hell out of the vehicle choke point such that teams start to eschew the vehicles. Even UAV's aren't a problem anymore - just spot them for your team, and watch how quickly they fall out of the sky.

Bullhonky that you can "mine vehicle choke points".
There are practically no maps with actual vehicle choke points that don't rely on static AT weaponry(which by your logic, only scrubs rely on) or your own vehicles to enforce them as vehicle choke points.
Engineers, as you pointed out, will die fast if they don't have some kind of concealed locations to work from.
Snipers with spotting scopes negate the concealment factor, as do UAVs.

The greatest potential for vehicle domination can be the gunships, as heavy weapons positions can be difficult to maintain position on with snipers and heavy weapons fire sighting in on a HMG position as soon as the gunner opens up, but even that hasn't been a problem for me or anyone I know in hundreds of online matches.

Then you're playing a completely different game than me, I'd guess.

If your teams are depending on static AT weapons to deal with vehicles then no offense, but your teams deserve to get run over. BF is about flexibility and adaptation. Everyone has access to the Engineer class, and everyone dies at a decent clip - so spawn Engineer and deal with the vehicles. Or make sure someone stays Engineer and when he goes down provides someone else with a quick kit swap.

Yeah, because it's so easy in pick-up games to have people actually shut the feth up and listen to what needs to be done, rather than having a team full of snipers on offense?
The static AT weapons are there to help set up choke points. If a tank's getting painted by the static AT in a narrow corridor, they usually divert into a wider area--where you've(assuming you're playing with a group of friends) got a tank and Engineers waiting to open it up.
Add in that some AT weapons are less effective than others, tanks with sniper cover, tanks with drivers with varying perks, etc and you can't rely wholly on Engineers to do the dirty work.

There are very few places where vehicles can be "hidden" and still be combat effective. I've only noticed it being a problem on Port Valdez during the demo where a tank can park up on Sniper Hill and rain shells down on the A objective, but I rarely see this anymore since the game went live.

It all depends on if the defenders actually get their vehicles or not.
Plenty of teams that I've seen, playing in groups or not, go out of their way and let the defenders flit around with their vehicles for a bit until they've got people at the spawn hiding out waiting for the respawns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:Only in Conquest mode.

Rush has it also, just for the Attackers.

Blowing up tanks with engineer is easy :\ and most of all, fun stuff. Anti-tank weapons work from more then 10 feet you know.

Your probably just playing it wrong, if you think it's like MW2 your already doing something wrong anyway.

Soladrin wrote:Blowing up tanks with engineer is easy :\ and most of all, fun stuff. Anti-tank weapons work from more then 10 feet you know.

Your probably just playing it wrong, if you think it's like MW2 you're already doing something wrong anyway.

Or you're just being a Bad Company "fanboy". The only difference between Bad Company and MW is destructible buildings!11!!
That's not enough of a difference that it invalidates my point of "MW2 with vehicles!". If it had what made BF1942+BF2 so fun(read: a form of tactics in deploying vehicles alongside infantry cover for the Allies, infantry being covered by vehicles for the Axis/Russians)--I'd be so much more enthusiastic.

As it is: Battlefield has been so dumbed down from its roots with the two Bad Company games that it's absurd.

Ok, I give up, you go ahead and believe that.

Kanluwen wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Blowing up tanks with engineer is easy :\ and most of all, fun stuff. Anti-tank weapons work from more then 10 feet you know.

Your probably just playing it wrong, if you think it's like MW2 you're already doing something wrong anyway.

Or you're just being a Bad Company "fanboy". The only difference between Bad Company and MW is destructible buildings!11!!
That's not enough of a difference that it invalidates my point of "MW2 with vehicles!". If it had what made BF1942+BF2 so fun(read: a form of tactics in deploying vehicles alongside infantry cover for the Allies, infantry being covered by vehicles for the Axis/Russians)--I'd be so much more enthusiastic.

As it is: Battlefield has been so dumbed down from its roots with the two Bad Company games that it's absurd.

I like to think that Bad Company is the over the top brother with the safety helmet that looks up to its bigger brother, the other games.

I miss BF42 lots all of the sudden.

I played Bf42 Desert Combat mod most I think... though just 42 is about the same I guess.

BrookM wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Blowing up tanks with engineer is easy :\ and most of all, fun stuff. Anti-tank weapons work from more then 10 feet you know.

Your probably just playing it wrong, if you think it's like MW2 you're already doing something wrong anyway.

Or you're just being a Bad Company "fanboy". The only difference between Bad Company and MW is destructible buildings!11!!
That's not enough of a difference that it invalidates my point of "MW2 with vehicles!". If it had what made BF1942+BF2 so fun(read: a form of tactics in deploying vehicles alongside infantry cover for the Allies, infantry being covered by vehicles for the Axis/Russians)--I'd be so much more enthusiastic.

As it is: Battlefield has been so dumbed down from its roots with the two Bad Company games that it's absurd.

I like to think that Bad Company is the over the top brother with the safety helmet that looks up to its bigger brother, the other games.

I miss BF42 lots all of the sudden.

Pretty accurate description.

Don't get me wrong, it's fun every once in awhile(just like MW2).
It's just not a game that I can get that into like I could BF2/2142/1942. There's just something that feels like it's missing that the others had.
Hell, I was even able to get really into Secret Weapons--and that game was so ridiculously over the top it makes BC look normal.

Kanluwen wrote:

BrookM wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Blowing up tanks with engineer is easy :\ and most of all, fun stuff. Anti-tank weapons work from more then 10 feet you know.

Your probably just playing it wrong, if you think it's like MW2 you're already doing something wrong anyway.

Or you're just being a Bad Company "fanboy". The only difference between Bad Company and MW is destructible buildings!11!!
That's not enough of a difference that it invalidates my point of "MW2 with vehicles!". If it had what made BF1942+BF2 so fun(read: a form of tactics in deploying vehicles alongside infantry cover for the Allies, infantry being covered by vehicles for the Axis/Russians)--I'd be so much more enthusiastic.

As it is: Battlefield has been so dumbed down from its roots with the two Bad Company games that it's absurd.

I like to think that Bad Company is the over the top brother with the safety helmet that looks up to its bigger brother, the other games.

I miss BF42 lots all of the sudden.

Pretty accurate description.

Don't get me wrong, it's fun every once in awhile(just like MW2).
It's just not a game that I can get that into like I could BF2/2142/1942. There's just something that feels like it's missing that the others had.
Hell, I was even able to get really into Secret Weapons--and that game was so ridiculously over the top it makes BC look normal.

Ah, that was good stuff. Those expansions actually had some sweet things to add to the mix.

Kanluwen wrote:My personal issue is that the game blows chunks, and that people seem to think it's a "Battlefield" game.
Once again, it's not. It's MW2 with vehicles.

See, when you issue these blanket statements I think you lose credibility with the audience. If you're expected a Battlefield game developed primarily for consoles to reflect the structure of Battlefield games developed for PC, you're setting ridiculous expectations from the get-go such that your feedback loses value.

Calling BC2 "MW2 with vehicles" really makes me question how long you play these games and how deep you get into them. MW2 is a twitchy shooter on rails, even in the multiplayer. The tight maps funnel gameplay in a fashion that I found predictable and boring. Perk structure allowed for completely unbalanced builds. Lone wolves of high skill carried entire teams.

BC2 has much more space to run around in, the specialization and gear unlocks flavor classes but don't necessarily define playstyles, and teamwork wins the day. I can't tell you how many times my squad of four, using tight comms and playing tactically off the behavior of our other, usually idiotic teammates, can win games against full teams of 12 on the other side.

The two games have completely different playstyles, and that's patently obvious every gamer I know who's played both these games...other than you.

Kanluwen wrote:Bullhonky that you can "mine vehicle choke points". There are practically no maps with actual vehicle choke points that don't rely on static AT weaponry(which by your logic, only scrubs rely on) or your own vehicles to enforce them as vehicle choke points. Engineers, as you pointed out, will die fast if they don't have some kind of concealed locations to work from.
Snipers with spotting scopes negate the concealment factor, as do UAVs.

So...just because you haven't found those choke points, they must not exist?

Engineer + extra explosives specialization = lots of AT mines which are persistent after death. You can more than adequately mine every potential vehicle approach to a position, in concert with an Assault class dropping ammo boxes and providing smoke cover, in no time at all. You gotta think out of the box, man.

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, because it's so easy in pick-up games to have people actually shut the feth up and listen to what needs to be done, rather than having a team full of snipers on offense? The static AT weapons are there to help set up choke points. If a tank's getting painted by the static AT in a narrow corridor, they usually divert into a wider area--where you've(assuming you're playing with a group of friends) got a tank and Engineers waiting to open it up. Add in that some AT weapons are less effective than others, tanks with sniper cover, tanks with drivers with varying perks, etc and you can't rely wholly on Engineers to do the dirty work.

I think we're getting to the truth, here. You don't like BC2 because you don't have a squad to play it with, perhaps? Who said anything about depending on other people on your team? My squadmates will pick up my Engineer kit because I tell them I died and dropped it right behind them. Screw the other guys.

I think you need to start using smoke more often, Kan. BC2 players don't know how to handle it.

Kanluwen wrote:It all depends on if the defenders actually get their vehicles or not. Plenty of teams that I've seen, playing in groups or not, go out of their way and let the defenders flit around with their vehicles for a bit until they've got people at the spawn hiding out waiting for the respawns.

Again, I think your experiences with BC2 have been marred by playing with sub-par teammates. I rarely have this happen to my teams. If the enemy gets into our backfield and tries jacking our vehicles, one of my squad has them spotted for our team or has sensor buoys back there in no time. Do you go out of your way to mark enemies for your teammates? Sometimes it's more valuable than actually trying to kill anyone. Screw your score, it's all about the "W" column.

One good squad wins games in BC2. You don't need to actually communicate with your teammates to get them to do what you want them to do - just show them where the enemy is.

I have 4800 sensor marks via the spotter scope and deployable sensors, and 2700 designations with the tracer dart--which includes an absolutely gorgeous peg on a UAV going full-tilt. I know how to mark enemies, trust me. The problem is when you have a team made of halfwits who do nothing with the information you've fed them.

And you know what? You're right, it is playing with sub-par teammates.
Because the fething game splits your squad/party up in public games when the opposing team starts off with less people, and then as the game goes on your spots that would be filled with competent people you've played with before are suddenly filled with 12 year olds who're more interested in yelling obscenities than actually shutting the feth up and listening to the rest of the team.

So like I said:
The game's setup blows chunks, and it is nothing more than MW2 with vehicles. Just like MW2, it's all about who twitches first whether in vehicles, sniping, or with assault weapons(hell--especially with assault weapons. Watch how Engineers play sometime. They just open up with their carbines)--just with the difference of open spaces!

My God, someone call the Nobel Prize Committee--Bad Company's really onto something!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and vehicle choke points?
Like I said--THEY DO NOT EXIST ON CERTAIN MAPS.
Port Valdez, for example, has no choke points that cannot be avoided easily.

You're relying on the other team to be made up of morons who can't spot mines or take out Engineers. That's not often the case.

Cairnius, nice try, but this guy won't take no for answer, he is convinced that he is right and theres no way to put him off.

Uh, of course I am right.
It's my opinion that I'm right, and my experience with the game has put me off of it.

You are aware that opinions are just that, right?

You have been stating the entire time that BFBC2 =~ MW2

I've played through the SP campaign in BFBC2, and last night I just played my first MP game (More on this in a bit)

My impression of Single Player - I'm on the fence. On one side, I like the cinematic style, and it definately makes you feel like you're actually making an impact on the events in the story. On the other side I'm disappointed by the same style. It feels more like I'm playing MW2 than a Battlefield game. What happened to being one guy in the middle of crazy-huge battles where you run around the map taking vehicles and aircraft for destructive joyrides with player or PC teammates? And what happened to singleplayer skirmishes? I loved how if you were bored and you didn't feel like playing online, or your Internet was down, you could just load up a map, pick a team, choose a class, and run around mowing down NPCs. Gone are those days unfortunately. I'm one of those folks who enjoys an FPS with a very casual setup, like the old BF games. So this was kind of an unfortunate "EA-ism"

That said, it's not a -bad- game. Campaign was, as I said, more engaging this way than previous titles. Gameplay in general is still a blast. I love how everything can be kaboomed. Craters added by shells, exploding vehicles, and grenades are a great touch and add some tactical depth. Gotta cover a lot of open ground? Get a couple MBTs to shell the crap out of the area before you advance so you have some cover in the craters they leave. Sniper or MG in a house keeping you pinned? Call up armour or someone with AT weapons to blow it up. It's easily a more cooperative game when you've got all of these different elements to put into your strategies.

Multiplayer is solid and easy to navigate. And even if you're one guy against a team of 2 or 3, you can give them a run for their money if you know what you're doing. As I said, last night I played my first MP game on BFBC2. It was Trainyard, and I was alone against two (and temporarily 3) people for about an hour. I stuck to using plenty of armour and actually kept them darting around to keep holding their points. And the clear reflex of "OH !" as a T90 came rolling toward them whenever we'd cross paths was priceless. Add to that plenty of chances to flank their attempts to deply Abrams and Bradley tanks to counter my hit & run Guerilla tactics in that game and it actually made for a good match. Punkbuster is a nice touch as well. Not having to constantly drop games to get away from aimbot noobs is a great feeling, and I've found that the added sense of security built a much more welcoming community than MW2.

Basically, my feelings on this game are mostly pretty good. The MP feels like the same great big hilarious fragfest it's always been. I hope it never changes. But the lack of the choice for those casual weeknights where you just feel like running some single player shenannigans definately loses some points with me. The graphics are good, and even turned up to max settings they used less than half my card's memory, and the game was -never- choppy, no matter how crazy things got. And my machine is 2 years old. Heavily upgraded, but still 2 years old.

Overall, a good game. Far better than MW2, but still not as good as older Battlefield titles in my opinion. Worth it's pricetag, but the content doesn't surpass it.

After reading all the above posts i might have to add to something

concerning the Mcom stations being in destructible housing:

if you look at the map and the 4 defenses, each one starts easy then expand to get harder... and if you see some maps (port valedaz comes to mind) it goes something like
1st base > 1 destructible house, 1 in the ditch (easy to defend and one easy to attack)
2nd base > both destructible houses but easier to defend then 1st base due to better cover and chokepoints
3rd base > both in undestructible buildings (once again the defense positions/vehicles own
4th base > pretty much like 3rd base...

all this effort is to balance out the attacking defense (of course this is an example and your opinion may vary) and, it all does come down to your team mates, ive played games where i have defended the easiest bases due to sniper heavy enemies or just new comers, ive also been butrapped by teams with good skill + extreme momentum.

that reason (and many) is why i like the game, its always different... some similar but different!

There are some maps that the attackers never actually seem to win. I don't know why, but the one where the attackers start out with a black hawk and several boats while the defenders sit on a little island has never seen the attacker win when I played.

I don't see battlefield as an arcade shooter with bullet drop and different parts of the body taking different damage upon a hit. Also, there are upgrades that can lessen damage even if these are not visible in the game.

The vehicles are fun. And I will express my amazement at one thing in the OP's first post.

OMFG YOU SNIPED A FETHING PILOT!! I used to pop caps in the cockpits in BF2, but have yet to do so in BFBC2. I give you mad props and bow to you.

The only amazing thing I've done with a heli is ram a UAV with an apache gunship.