Do not rent Medal of honor.

COD4 was good. Not the bastion of perfection some make it out to be, Still good. WAW was a massive SMG fight.

MOH Beta. Sure it was a beta and I am not knocking it for glitches. But you could tell where it was going and they place was not very good.....More like Suck.....Like Detroit.....Or East-Europe.

No game will ever be near perfect; and yes, I do agree there, though if the SMG's didn't have the box magazine perk, and the MP40 had done 40-20 damage with little recoil, the game would've worked.

But yes, MoH Beta...I had a bad feeling about the game beforehand, and the Beta just confirmed it.

Kitsune- ive seen you say many times you think vehicles should be removed from BF. Not to be a dick, but that's such an ubsurd statement. BF games haver b always been about vehicle v use and many of us on here would probably agree this game could use MORE vehicles.simply put, if the vehicles bother you so much than maybe thee BF series isn't for you.

If there should be vehicles, they should be better balanced, or better ways to take them out. Somebody's stats shouldn't suffer because they have to fight people who have nothing better to do than ruin the game for everybody else by whoring an overpowered heap of metal.

Fuck Stats.

TheGM86 wrote:Fuck Stats.

You have your stats in your sig too....>_>

Also, it's not so much the vehicles I hate, as the attitude of the people using them.

DrBob276 wrote:

TheGM86 wrote:Fuck Stats.

You have your stats in your sig too....>_>

Also, it's not so much the vehicles I hate, as the attitude of the people using them.

I've been putting this off...since I am lazy. But you forced my hand.

LMAO! I may have to steal that sig!

As a person who played BF from 1942 and on (including all expansion packs), on PC, I just can't stay away from vehicular combat / large scale battles.

StormEye wrote:As a person who played BF from 1942 and on (including all expansion packs), on PC, I just can't stay away from vehicular combat / large scale battles.

Like I said, it's more of the attitude I feel from the users more than the vehicles themselves *cough* Kirby *cough* people in the top 100 that are chopper whores *cough*

I remember in BF2142, I was ranked as high as #3 in the world in Battle Walkers for a duration of time.

StormEye wrote:I remember in BF2142, I was ranked as high as #3 in the world in Battle Walkers for a duration of time.

*SLAPS*

No fish for a week!

Man a Walking tank is such a Cool looking Bad Idea. Like Chimps with Swords. It would look fucking awesome....but nothing good would come of it.

In BF2142, if the Walker sustains critical damage, and is moved without properly fixed first, it would start to topple over, and it is irrecoverable. It was hilarious to watch it fall.

Yeah I play BF 42 to Nam. Never got around to 2 or 2142. Now I am going to have to find a vid of that.

All heavy vehicles had shield activation available, which can deflect incoming rockets/shells for a duration of time.

The term Motion Mine commonly used in BC2 referring to the Sensors, are actually the proper term to call a moving mine in BF2142. Motion Mines would follow any vehicle who came too close to the mine and gave a chance for a mine to lock onto it. So light vehicles can zip past it, unless directly stepped upon, but heavy vehicles would have blaring alarm going on, that masked almost every other sound in game, including voice communication.

It also had THE MOST OP AR ever existed in BF history, called 'Krylov'. Everyone says Voss is the most OP but I disagree with it completely. Also, Krylov was a faction specific weapon too, which further enhanced the OP'ness. LoL

Man, so much things I need to narrate.

I'm glad I did not play said game, lol.

Actually I'm pretty sure you would have loved Air-Burst grenades.

The grenade launcher can be operated as a air-burst, and it was awesome for eliminating people who tend to bunch up together on a high places peeking their heads out, thinking they are perfectly safe.

That would be nice, but the vehicles would've probably drove me crazy (everybody says that BC2 vehicles actually aren't nearly as bad as vehicles in the other games)

Personally, I think vehicles need to have an ammo limit, and have big weapon caches in each factions spawn that refill vehicle ammo (but not infantry) in the same way an assaults ammo box would. I think it's ridiculous that an apache/havoc can fire volley after volley of rockets for 20 minutes straight without stopping.

ante87 wrote:Personally, I think vehicles need to have an ammo limit, and have big weapon caches in each factions spawn that refill vehicle ammo (but not infantry) in the same way an assaults ammo box would. I think it's ridiculous that an apache/havoc can fire volley after volley of rockets for 20 minutes straight without stopping.

YES! YES! and YES! An ammo limit or MUCH less rounds before a reload, or for tanks, a much longer reload time for the main cannon.

I completely agree with you Ante.

Vehicles had ammo limit in BF2142, and before.

Also, in BF21142, heavy vehicles were sitting ducks against a proper team.

Motion mine - already explained.
EMP mine - It is not movable, but it stuns the vehicle for a long time.
EMP grenade - Stuns the vehicle, and is carried by support who can keep throwing them by replenishing ammo with his own ammo box.

StormEye wrote:All heavy vehicles had shield activation available, which can deflect incoming rockets/shells for a duration of time.

The term Motion Mine commonly used in BC2 referring to the Sensors, are actually the proper term to call a moving mine in BF2142. Motion Mines would follow any vehicle who came too close to the mine and gave a chance for a mine to lock onto it. So light vehicles can zip past it, unless directly stepped upon, but heavy vehicles would have blaring alarm going on, that masked almost every other sound in game, including voice communication.

It also had THE MOST OP AR ever existed in BF history, called 'Krylov'. Everyone says Voss is the most OP but I disagree with it completely. Also, Krylov was a faction specific weapon too, which further enhanced the OP'ness. LoL

Man, so much things I need to narrate.

I agree, even though I am a Krylov whore. I hated Voss users with Defib+Rockets. That thing was an AR with SMG blood.

I much enjoyed using the Baur though. Only single fire.
For those who haven't played.
The tank had no machine gun, only for the gunner. Tanks were sniping artillery, get close to a mech and you die.

And in BF2 at least, every vehicle had ammo (for heavy/light weapons) and cooldown (for light weapons). The only vehicle that was blazingly OP was the jet. You can't cry here about vehicles before you experience good old fashioned BF2 jet rape. Especially stolen jet rape. You have NO IDEA.

I did like 2142. If you were a Recon you could use the carbine and ninja around with RDX (C4) and Active Camo. It was the Assaults with Medic equipment, and Supports with awesome gadgets and a machinegun/shotgun.

And, Storm, explain to them the Pilum.

Ahhh~ the Pilum

It is an anti-tank rifle carried around by the Engineers. There are three types of Anti-Vehicle projectiles.

Standard Rocket - There are two versions, one for each faction. They basically work the same way except EU one had a better spreaded rocket, which fired four in a box, iirc, so it was easier to target infantry if you wanted to use it that way. But blast damage was not that great, unlike what you experience with RL in BC2 now. When it is aimed at a vehicle, alarm goes off for the driver.

Anti-Air - Just think of it as a Stinger from MW2, but it has EMP warhead. Alarm also goes off for the pilot.

Pilum - Its not a sniper rifle, like M95 or something. It is a rocket that travels in relatively straight line. It has no blast radius, but it can take out enemy tank in a single shot if you hit them squarely on the back flat on. You can also run in between Walker's legs and fire a single shot into its weak point located in the crotch, for instant kill. For those brave / experienced players, it can be used as a anti-personnel weapon by directly hitting enemies, and it has no blast radius so you can use it in close range. Though, it is not a perfectly accurate weapon, like most weapons in the previous BF games (inaccuracy was present) so shooting at a human sized target at long range was not advisable. Though shooting at tank at long range was more than do'able and FUN!!!

Looks like I might have been trolled on the EA forums. I am going to rent the game and see if you can play online just to double check for you guys.

Bob I don't know what you're talking about for the attitude of vehicle players. I've never encountered anyone bragging about their skills in BC2 at all, much less vehicle skills. Kirby can be pompous sometimes, but he's also a really good player without a vehicle. One game I was in he showed up like halfway through on Arica Harbor conquest and ended up the MVP by around 1000 points using only the N2000.

And if you toned down or removed the vehicles Battlefield wouldn't work for many of the maps. If the attackers got no vehicles for Arica Harbor rush it would be a joke.

You're in the mindset where any player better than another player should be able to kill them because they're a better player. But the reality is that Battlefield isn't that kind of game. The focus is supposed to be winning rather than killing the most guys and dying the least times. Therefor when you see a tank, the proper mindset should be "I think I'll suicide and spawn back with a rocket launcher because this Assault class isn't helping my team as much as that would" rather than "Arghh I can't kill that noob because he's hiding in a tank!"

The games before this were much more team and class focused.

BC1 classes:
Assault: assault rifle for anti infantry, 40mm grenade for blowing up walls. Kind of jack of all trades class/anti infantry. Has an injector needle to replenish health, (health doesn't regen)

Spec Ops: Has an SMG that dominates COMPLETELY everything but shotguns in close range. Don't even try to beat an SMG with anything but a shotgun in close range. Also has C4 and the tracer dart.

Demolition: Shotgun (useless at long range and no slugs in this game), rocket launcher, mines. Pretty much only good for anti vehicle or extreme close quarters. Also shotguns were beast in that game because they could still pull of one hit kills in close range even though the amount of health each player had was roughly doubled or maybe tripled compared to BC2.

Medic: Pretty much the same. LMG and health kits, reviving doesn't exist. I think they had mortar strike and the repair drill too, I can't remember.

Recon: Sniper rifle and only class with a sidearm. Motion mines automatically spotted players on your screen and they had a
JDAM, which is the mortar goggles from BC2 only it calls in a guideable missile which can one hit kill any vehicle.

As you can see fights in BC1 were more like rock paper scissor than a skill test. This is the mindset of a lot of BF fans and probably why most people will disagree with you about vehicles.

Yes, because that's how all games should be. If somebody is better they should win. How would you feel if you entered an art contest, and your painting/statue/etc. was clearly the best, and some retard came and drooled on the table, the judges said that was a work of art, and that made them the best, because they felt sorry for them. That's how games today are becoming. If I'm the best, I should win a gunfight. Also, biggest problem with the BF series, this:









This hit detection, server lag, unbalanced weapons like the AN-94 and M416, revive (and revive griefing), shitty scoring system (let's reward one guy for doing nothing, and this guy gets jack shit for doing all the work, like pilots) OP vehicles, have assured that I will NEVER, EVER touch another product made by DICE again....ever.

That's the same way Battlefield is, lag aside. Except the better player team wins over the other team. Not exactly the same as your art analogy. My point is that Battlefield focuses on skills of innovation, using your resources (vehicles), the right weapons against the right defenses, and tactics rather than just shooting better than the other guy. Like I said previously, before this Battlefield fights were even less "fair" because the person with the more appropriate class had a huge advantage over you.

So no, the better person doesn't ever lose in Battlefield. They may lose a fight because the enemy has a vehicle or better class for the situation, but the true skill of Battlefield is more about adapting and countering your opponent over a long term rather than just always being able to kill them no matter what.

As a CoD player, I'm sure this is not to your liking but it's the way a lot of its fanbase probably likes it. With BC2 they did change to make fights more "right here right now" skill based, which is probably why you can stand the game at all.

I like it the way it is. I'm not a fantastic shot in Battlefield, and I'm not a high rank, but I like the game because I can still come out on top of players who are better shots by coming up with a better strategy or tactic.

But yes I do admit DICE did a shitty job with server management in the beginning, rubber knife is terrible, and all those other glitches. I don't think the An-94 is that overpowered. I tried using it once and couldn't really do much with it so I can't talk though.

Well, maybe that's so. I might just have to stick to CoD, because I really don't like losing because of stuff like that. Even though I can't really say CoD takes much skill to play either.