Bad Company 2

Inscrit depuis 6791 Jours

Posté par GriftGFX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-8lJUv8g&feature=sub

Wait, I'm confused. Two of the previously announced 8 maps are part of this day one DLC bullshit? But then they say there are "ten maps" -- can someone find me a list of ten distinct maps for this game? Their math seems really fuzzy.

"Later in March another map pack will be released containing Arica Harbor for Conquest and Laguna Presa for Rush"
weird.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7360 Jours

Yeah, I don't think DICE understands what a map is.

En réponse à

Nietzsche

Inscrit depuis 6713 Jours

The game only comes with 8 maps?

Still gonna buy it day one, but damn that doesn't seem like much. Especially when some of them are only for the crap awful game mode rush. Conquest is really the only game mode I'm interested in. Deathmatch maybe but I have high doubts about that working in a battlefield game.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7119 Jours

Bah, I like conquest, but I LOVE rush. It's the attack/defend thing. Conquest is more ADD, but does force you to make decisions- do I sit on this point, or help take another? Rush is cool because as people learn the maps, they devise the best ways to defend it( ideally). Then you have to adapt because the attackers know it as well. Makes for some sweet strategies and forces team play a lot more...

En réponse à

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Slabs

Inscrit depuis 7390 Jours

BFBC2 "Day One DLC" = Mass Effect 2 "Cerberus Network"

Not a great policy but it shouldn't really concern anyone purchasing a new copy.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7119 Jours

Doesn't bother me. I almost always buy new copies. If I like a game, I want the Developer to get the money, not Gamestop...

En réponse à

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Nietzsche

Inscrit depuis 6713 Jours

The thing for me is that being on a team that isn't about teamwork doesn't kill the experience in Conquest nearly as much as Rush. On paper Rush is a cool idea, but then I always end up on a team of three fucking snipers. That shit really gets old fast.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7119 Jours

Yeah, especially when you have to respawn on noob hill everytime...

En réponse à

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Inscrit depuis 6791 Jours

Posté par Nietzsche

The game only comes with 8 maps?

Still gonna buy it day one, but damn that doesn't seem like much. Especially when some of them are only for the crap awful game mode rush. Conquest is really the only game mode I'm interested in. Deathmatch maybe but I have high doubts about that working in a battlefield game.

You say Rush is "crap awful game mode" and at the same time you'd like deathmatch?!...Clearly Batlefield is not the game for you, i'm sorry.

squad up with some friends and play inteligently and you'll have more fun playing Rush that in any other online shooter, period.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7360 Jours

I enjoy rush but conquest is still about a billion times better. Conquest is super dynamic, and rewards team work just as well. Deathmatch isn't pure DM either, it's multi-team and there's a single piece of armor which should keep things pretty frantic, though I can't imagine the vehicle will ever last long. Squad rush (infantry only rush) should be pretty cool too though. At least now that they've addressed how little health M-COM's previously had, rush will actually be playable. After I started using C4 and aggressively going after M-COM's, it's ridiculous how many ace pins I started wracking up.

I still do not appreciate their shitty math when it comes to the map count. New layouts should definitely not be treated like entirely new maps.

Posté par mt_sabao

You say Rush is "crap awful game mode" and at the same time you'd like deathmatch?!...Clearly Batlefield is not the game for you, i'm sorry.

squad up with some friends and play inteligently and you'll have more fun playing Rush that in any other online shooter, period.

Yeah, no. Rush is good but it's not that special. I can think of a few online shooters that you can easily have just as much (if not more) fun playing, starting with Battlefield 2. But really, conquest is a much better mode and much more "Battlefield" than rush will ever be. Enemy Territory (yes, Quake Wars) even has a more interesting objective game type than rush, shame about the rest of the game though.

And squad dm looks great.

That said, a bunch of lone wolf losers can ruin any gametype in Battlefield if they try hard enough. That's not a problem unique to rush or even this game in general. Oh, how many times I've played 2fort and been on a team of snipers!

En réponse à

I enjoy rush but conquest is still about a billion times better. Conquest is super dynamic, and rewards team work just as well. Deathmatch isn't pure DM either, it's multi-team and there's a single piece of armor which should keep things pretty frantic, though I can't imagine the vehicle will ever last long. Squad rush (infantry only rush) should be pretty cool too though. At least now that they've addressed how little health M-COM's previously had, rush will actually be playable. After I started using C4 and aggressively going after M-COM's, it's ridiculous how many ace pins I started wracking up.

I still do not appreciate their shitty math when it comes to the map count. New layouts should definitely not be treated like entirely new maps.

[quote=mt_sabao]

You say Rush is "crap awful game mode" and at the same time you'd like deathmatch?!...Clearly Batlefield is not the game for you, i'm sorry.

squad up with some friends and play inteligently and you'll have more fun playing Rush that in any other online shooter, period.[/quote]

Yeah, no. Rush is good but it's not that special. I can think of a few online shooters that you can easily have just as much (if not more) fun playing, starting with Battlefield 2. But really, conquest is a much better mode and much more "Battlefield" than rush will ever be. Enemy Territory (yes, Quake Wars) even has a more interesting objective game type than rush, shame about the rest of the game though.

And squad dm looks great.

That said, a bunch of lone wolf losers can ruin any gametype in Battlefield if they try hard enough. That's not a problem unique to rush or even this game in general. Oh, how many times I've played 2fort and been on a team of snipers!

Inscrit depuis 6791 Jours

Posté par GriftGFX

I enjoy rush but conquest is still about a billion times better. Conquest is super dynamic, and rewards team work just as well. Deathmatch isn't pure DM either, it's multi-team and there's a single piece of armor which should keep things pretty frantic, though I can't imagine the vehicle will ever last long. Squad rush (infantry only rush) should be pretty cool too though. At least now that they've addressed how little health M-COM's previously had. I still do not appreciate their shitty math when it comes to the map count. New layouts should definitely not be treated like entirely new maps.

Yes, in the end is a matter of taste, but calling it a crap awful mode is tottaly not having a clue.

En réponse à

Doomsong83

Inscrit depuis 5770 Jours

Posté par Nietzsche

The thing for me is that being on a team that isn't about teamwork doesn't kill the experience in Conquest nearly as much as Rush. On paper Rush is a cool idea, but then I always end up on a team of three fucking snipers. That shit really gets old fast.

True but when you get in a game and everyone is doing their bleeting jobs and you see everything come together as an M-Com crumbles, Rush is awesome.

En réponse à

Steam: Doomsong83

Inscrit depuis 7360 Jours

Posté par mt_sabao

Yes, in the end is a matter of taste, but calling it a crap awful mode is tottaly not having a clue.

It was totally broken in the beta. Now that they've buffed the M-COM health it might actually be decent.

Posté par Doomsong83

True but when you get in a game and everyone is doing their bleeting jobs and you see everything come together as an M-Com crumbles, Rush is awesome.

My problem is that after I started using the S20K and C4 with the assault kit (+2x C4 perk), it hardly mattered how good my team was. I would generally take down at least half of the M-COM's myself, by myself. That's never, ever going to happen in conquest.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 6791 Jours

Posté par GriftGFX

My problem is that after I started using the S20K and C4 with the assault kit (+2x C4 perk), it hardly mattered how good my team was. I would generally take down at least half of the M-COM's myself, by myself. That's never, ever going to happen in conquest.

but thats precisely because conquest is a much more simple objective oriented mode. rush is more ambitious, and thus harder to balance. In the 360 demo i didn't find it unbalanced at all. (true that in the demo only snipers had c4, and it was very hard for them to get to the m-coms)
same thing happened with titan mode back in 2142. loved it because it was a great mix of conquest and rush (sort of), but also lots of people complaining about balancing issues.

edit: also, BC1 had gold rush (exactly the same as rush in BC2, except you couldn't destroy buildings on them) and altough you could also c4, rocket, shoot the crates, you only saw this every now and again. never was a real unbalanced issue

En réponse à

Doomsong83

Inscrit depuis 5770 Jours

Posté par GriftGFX

My problem is that after I started using the S20K and C4 with the assault kit (+2x C4 perk), it hardly mattered how good my team was. I would generally take down at least half of the M-COM's myself, by myself. That's never, ever going to happen in conquest.

Well like you said before, they're tweaking it for release.

En réponse à

Steam: Doomsong83

Viginti_Tres

Inscrit depuis 6862 Jours

Posté par GriftGFX

It was totally broken in the beta. Now that they've buffed the M-COM health it might actually be decent.

My problem with the mode is the predictability of the matches. As an attacker you have to go a narrow path that allows 2, at best 3 different angles to attack the base. As a defender you end up looking for these areas and get yourself in the best position to shoot down the opposition on sight. Defending is boring and way too easy most of the time, attacking is frustrating when you play in an awful team.

In Conquest, even when your team is loosing, you get your small victories by capping flags against a bigger opposition. This aspect of the game is totally lost in Rush because you're facing an entire team on a small amount of space. Also Conquest is way more dynamic, you need to make decisions on the fly as balances shift during a match.

En réponse à

Viginti_Tres

Inscrit depuis 6862 Jours

http://www.thelostgamer.com/2010/02/25/battlefield...

TV advert for the game. Pure class.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 6791 Jours

Posté par Viginti_Tres

http://www.thelostgamer.com/2010/02/25/battlefield-bad-company-2-gets-tv-ad/

TV advert for the game. Pure class.

QOTSA, classy indeed! they sure have their promotion machine full steam. go dice!

En réponse à

Nietzsche

Inscrit depuis 6713 Jours

Posté par mt_sabao

Yes, in the end is a matter of taste, but calling it a crap awful mode is tottaly not having a clue.

OK I worded that poorly, but "not having a clue" is just as piss poor. What I meant was that the vast majority of the time Rush ends up being far more frustrating than fun due to who is on my team. I said Rush is a great idea on paper, it just doesn't end up being FUN very often unless I'm on a good squad, which is hard to find quite often.

In Conquest mode I find myself having far more fun even when put in a bad squad.

I just don't like how unbalanced Rush matches usually are. When it's all working out evenly rush is a great mode for sure, but if you say that you are in a ton of Rush mathces that work out in a balanced way then you are either A. a liar B. remembering the good more than the bad or C. one lucky ass mother fucker b/c I have a very different experience.

Seems like Rush is either far too easy to far too hard for my team to attack/defend. Seldom is it a close match.

En réponse à

[quote=mt_sabao]

Yes, in the end is a matter of taste, but calling it a crap awful mode is tottaly not having a clue.[/quote]

OK I worded that poorly, but "not having a clue" is just as piss poor. What I meant was that the vast majority of the time Rush ends up being far more frustrating than fun due to who is on my team. I said Rush is a great idea on paper, it just doesn't end up being FUN very often unless I'm on a good squad, which is hard to find quite often.

In Conquest mode I find myself having far more fun even when put in a bad squad.

I just don't like how unbalanced Rush matches usually are. When it's all working out evenly rush is a great mode for sure, but if you say that you are in a ton of Rush mathces that work out in a balanced way then you are either A. a liar B. remembering the good more than the bad or C. one lucky ass mother fucker b/c I have a very different experience.

Seems like Rush is either far too easy to far too hard for my team to attack/defend. Seldom is it a close match.

Inscrit depuis 7119 Jours

I actually have more good matches in Rush than bad. If I'm with a shit team then I wait till the match is over, and I back out...

En réponse à

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Inscrit depuis 7360 Jours

Posté par mt_sabao

but thats precisely because conquest is a much more simple objective oriented mode. rush is more ambitious, and thus harder to balance. In the 360 demo i didn't find it unbalanced at all. (true that in the demo only snipers had c4, and it was very hard for them to get to the m-coms)

I don't really think it's that ambitious. Have you ever played Enemy Territory? Now that's ambitious. Rush is still pretty simple. Attack/defend and arm/defuse--I've played that game about a million times. The only difference is that there's multiple sets of objectives and the map "changes," something familiar to people who have played ET, only in enemy territory some of that ground can still be pushed back and forth as in conquest. It's pretty brilliant really, it just never really caught on.. plus their vehicle gameplay sucked compared to this. I suspect that Splash Damage's new game (Brink) will be very simular. Every map will have different sets of objectives and they'll all play differently. I really look forward to that. Rush is just an expanded version of a very old concept.. and because the Battlefield is the same every time it gets pretty predictable and static too.

Every game of conquest is a lot more unique.

Posté par Viginti_Tres

My problem with the mode is the predictability of the matches. As an attacker you have to go a narrow path that allows 2, at best 3 different angles to attack the base. As a defender you end up looking for these areas and get yourself in the best position to shoot down the opposition on sight. Defending is boring and way too easy most of the time, attacking is frustrating when you play in an awful team.

Yup, narrow, linear maps. That's so Battlefield! ;P

Posté par mt_sabao

(true that in the demo only snipers had c4, and it was very hard for them to get to the m-coms)

With an autoshotty and six packs of C4, which is exactly how much it took to blow an M-COM in the beta and demo, you could blow through the objectives on attack if you knew what you were doing. It also almost always put me in first place on the server when I did. That's not because of how extremely awesome I am, it's because my kit was totally unbalanced for this gametype. Hell, considering how many ace pins I've received on losing teams on defense, I'd say it's just unbalanced in general. All of those points come from killing tanks though and I certainly don't want them to change that one bit. They could make rockets more effective against armor though. It's retarded that the only weak hit box appears to be the rear of the tank. Oh how I miss BF2 vehicle hit boxes.

The first set of objectives are ridiculously easy to take out with jihad-quads.. but they've tweaked most of this stuff anyway. Still. Conquest FTW.

En réponse à

[quote=mt_sabao]but thats precisely because  conquest is a much more simple objective oriented mode. rush is more ambitious, and thus harder to balance. In the 360 demo i didn't find it unbalanced at all. (true that in the demo only snipers had c4, and it was very hard for them to get to the m-coms)[/quote]

I don't really think it's that ambitious. Have you ever played Enemy Territory? Now that's ambitious. Rush is still pretty simple. Attack/defend and arm/defuse--I've played that game about a million times. The only difference is that there's multiple sets of objectives and the map "changes," something familiar to people who have played ET, only in enemy territory some of that ground can still be pushed back and forth as in conquest. It's pretty brilliant really, it just never really caught on.. plus their vehicle gameplay sucked compared to this. I suspect that Splash Damage's new game (Brink) will be very simular. Every map will have [i]different[/i] sets of objectives and they'll all play differently. I really look forward to that. Rush is just an expanded version of a very old concept.. and because the Battlefield is the same every time it gets pretty predictable and static too.

Every game of conquest is a lot more unique.

[quote=Viginti_Tres]My problem with the mode is the predictability of the matches. As an attacker you have to go a narrow path that allows 2, at best 3 different angles to attack the base. As a defender you end up looking for these areas and get yourself in the best position to shoot down the opposition on sight. Defending is boring and way too easy most of the time, attacking is frustrating when you play in an awful team.[/quote]

Yup, narrow, linear maps. That's so Battlefield! ;P

[quote=mt_sabao](true that in the demo only snipers had c4, and it was very hard for them to get to the m-coms)[/quote]

With an autoshotty and [i]six packs of C4[/i], which is exactly how much it took to blow an M-COM in the beta and demo, you could blow through the objectives on attack if you knew what you were doing. It also almost always put me in first place on the server when I did. That's not because of how extremely awesome I am, it's because my kit was totally unbalanced for this gametype. Hell, considering how many ace pins I've received on losing teams on defense, I'd say it's just unbalanced in general. All of those points come from killing tanks though and I certainly don't want them to change that one bit. They could make rockets more effective against armor though. It's retarded that the only weak hit box appears to be the rear of the tank. Oh how I miss BF2 vehicle hit boxes.

The first set of objectives are ridiculously easy to take out with jihad-quads.. but they've tweaked most of this stuff anyway. Still. Conquest FTW.

Inscrit depuis 7360 Jours

I think it might be a sign of the utter beating the PC gamer has been taking over the last couple of years what a relief the Battlefield Bad Company 2 PC trailer proves to be. I want to hug DICE’s leg and never let it go. The PC version of the game (and let’s remember, a sequel to a game that never even had a PC version) appears to have been optimised for us in a thousand ways. From the obvious (and yet so rare) reworking of the UI to properly support the mouse, to the significant superiority of the graphics, the PC version is looking like the definitive port. There’s multiple monitor support, retuned weapons to support twitch combat, DX11 support with remarkable lighting and shadows, and perhaps most of all, 32 player battles over the Xbox’s 24.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/25/joy-bad...

Bring it!

En réponse à