Any news on the Patch Release for X360?

How could you crash a chopper though?! They're almost invincible. Slam them into trees, rocks, cliffs, whatever, they survive. They should be like older games, where nicking the rotor on something means you're doomed. I used to play games that if you ran out of gas because it was leaking, you would fall, and the only way to land the chopper so you wouldn't die, was to press a button to release the rotor. Too early, you fall to your death. Too late, you still smash into the ground, and explode.

Tanks!? Skill!? What skill!? Directions for tank use:

1.) Point barrel at target.
2.) Lead target accordingly and raise barrel depending on elevation.
3.) Pull RT; if shell lands within 10 feet of person, they die.
4.) Enjoy your free points! Repeat steps 1-3.

The tank's gunner seat is practically a sniper rifle. Just point at anybody, and they're dead, especially if at least one bullet is a headshot. It's ridiculous. The Bradley is even easier to use. 2 shots from the main gun to kill (direct) or one headshot (easier to pull off than you think), or just spray around somebody/group, and they all die.

If somebody couldn't get 3 kills in a vehicle before dying, I would seriously facepalm for them.

There's no where near the level of casual-ness in BFBC2.


In CoD the game rewards you for camping instead of playing the objective. Nothing recoils, everything kills instantly and kill streaks dominate everything.


Also it uses fucking hitscan. This isn't 2002, and it makes everything too easy to use at any range.

Which, because everything has such a high degree of power, really blurs the distinction between weapons.

Oh wait, assault rifles recoil even less and have the M203, which kills everything on the same side of the map it lands on.

I've seen several people flip the chopper on takeoff. Everybody has, you know this.

"Any idiot" doesn't know how to lead a target and take distance into account, and even with warhead on, you have to land a shell VERY close to someone to kill them.

Hit detection on the gunner seats in tanks is fucking terrible. Anyone outside of 50 feet takes forever to kill.

JDM_Jev wrote:There's no where near the level of casual-ness in BFBC2.


In CoD the game rewards you for camping instead of playing the objective. Nothing recoils, everything kills instantly and kill streaks dominate everything.


Also it uses fucking hitscan. This isn't 2002, and it makes everything too easy to use at any range.

Which, because everything has such a high degree of power, really blurs the distinction between weapons.

Oh wait, assault rifles recoil even less and have the M203, which kills everything on the same side of the map it lands on.

Call of Duty 4 and WaW actually featured significant recoil on weapons, some even on par with BC2 (WaW especially). Just look at the M16/AN-94, which are extremely cheap and easy to use; they have less recoil than even CoD weapons, on a bigger, more open map, and kill just about as fast. MW2 was a piece of shit that featured the recoiless weapons and such. Hitscan, IMO, is actually a good idea, because it allows no bullshit like dying at the same time, and hit detection is far better 9/10 times.

The distinction between weapons was easily there in CoD4 (minus the MP5), and WaW, but like I said, MW2 was the fluke and it had BS.

As for the noobtubes, they are MUCH weaker in this one. Have you even watched any gameplay? A noobtube round landed about 3 feet away from somebody (on several occasions) and didn't quite kill them. Now you have to pretty much hit them directly, or shoot a wall right next to them. It's been tailored to serve it's purpose for finishing off people trying to hide FAR more in this game, from what I've seen. Also, ironic that you say noobtubes are bad, but you seem to like the Carl Gustav, which is infinitely worse than CoD noobtubes. Bigger blast radius, and can kill through walls, as well as destroy them. >_>

ante87 wrote:I've seen several people flip the chopper on takeoff. Everybody has, you know this.

"Any idiot" doesn't know how to lead a target and take distance into account, and even with warhead on, you have to land a shell VERY close to someone to kill them.

Hit detection on the gunner seats in tanks is fucking terrible. Anyone outside of 50 feet takes forever to kill.

I honestly, have NEVER crashed a chopper into the ground. I have NEVER flipped a chopper into the water. The only time I hit a mountain, was because I was lagging, and I survived.

Most people are already injured by the gunner, or behind a wall, and for whatever reason, tank rounds like to kill through walls. If they're close enough to be hard to hit, you can usually just smash them, or kill them by shooting their own AT mines (if they're an Engineer).

I never noticed this. I snipe people from so far way that I can only see the red arrow above them with ease. Just aim for their head, especially with Warheads. Dead, almost instantly. It's practically a fully automatic sniper rifle.

I want this shit to stop.
stay away form this board if all your going to do is bash this game. you are this boards version of a troll. you come here everyday to talk shit about it and it's old. stop playing or stop posting about it. there I said it.

The Carl Gustav has more splash total



Modern Warfare explosives have a much higher lethal splash radius.

Guy #1-you suck
guy #2-no you suck
Guy #1-you suck
guy #2-no you suck
Guy #1-you suck
guy #2-no you suck
Guy #1-you suck
guy #2-no you suck

this Is what this topic has turned into.

I want to know what game Kitsune is playing cause it don't sound like BC2.

The only COD4 guns that had recoil that mattered are the AK-47 and LMGs, mosly the M60. It wasn't as savere as people make it out to be.

No, Terry. JDM and the Floop's Flooglies gang go into the CoD board and troll all the time, so I'm merely striking back.

And most of the time, you're injured. Noobtubes have been addressed, and they have been severely nerfed, just like what's going to happen to the Carl G.

The game I've been playing is BC2, and I'm trying to make a point; it's still too easy, until they patch it.

No, but it was just enough to keep the game balanced, which is all there should be for that type of game.

If it's so fucking easy, why are so many people I play against complete shit? Why do so many randoms have trouble killing anything with tanks, the choppers, the AN-94, whatever? Regardless of what you think, there's a high degree of skill required to succeed in BC2. Vehicles aren't auto-win killing machines. You have to have a lot of skill to do anything worth a damn in tanks, including have baller ass aim with the main gun. The gunner seat is a .50 caliber HMG, what do you expect? It to not kill people? It's a fucking tank. Furthermore, tanks are laughably easy to destroy. Any window-licking engineer can blow a tank up. That's called...balance.

I really think you have no semblance of touch with reality.

Most people are retarded, that's why it's so easy. They're so bad, they can't even grasp an easy game. BC2 has probably the dumbest community I've ever seen for the most part, which is sad, because I thought CoD4 had the dumbest or Halo, but they take the cake. Also, even though it's a tank, why is it that the .50 MG is more powerful and easy to use than the main turret itself? The game makes no sense at all. Ever.

I have touch with reality. It's that the game is completely broken. Hopefully the patch coming out will fix it.

The .50 MG, like in real life, is designed to kill/suppress INFANTRY. The main gun is designed to kill ARMOR. It's not rocket science.

By your logic, if weapons were so overpowered and the game was so imbalanced, we should constantly be dying to people in tanks, in choppers, with AN-94s or every other assault rifle, but that's not really the case. I can readily take down choppers, tanks, or AN-94 users.

We all know BC2 isn't perfect and has some issues, primarily with its netcode/lag (which is why you can shoot someone and they don't take damage and kill you with 100% health), but that's true of a lot of games on Xbox Live. Sitting here bawling about how imbalanced it is, though, is pretty ridiculous. As a whole, the game has great balance.

Yeah, and it makes sense, however, that the main cannon would be more effective against infantry, considering how powerful the main cannon is. Tanks should have ammo, and the cannon shouldn't be wasted on infantry, for the same reason you realistically wouldn't; it's a waste of ammo. When you have an endless stockpile of tank shells to mindlessly lob, that's out of the question.

I only seem to get killed by vehicles, explosives, and AN-94 users.

I estimate that 50-75% of my deaths are to vehicles and explosives, half of the other 25% to imbecile Recons using Magnum ammo and 12x scope somewhere, and the other half of that to the AN-94/M60. That's unbalanced for a reason. It's like saying the MP40 w/ Juggernaut from WaW was balanced and so was the M16 from CoD4. They are used (and abused) for a reason.

The game is horrifically unbalanced, more so than any other game. I enjoyed playing MW2 more than this game, and I absolutely hated that game. I wanted to shoot the disc to pieces if I didn't have to trade it in to get credit for MW2, then bury them a pile of manure. BC2 has horrible coding, and is completely unbalanced and broken, not to mention it has two gamemodes, and deciding between the two is like deciding whether you want a shot in your leg or your arm, because either sucks:

A.) Put up with C4 and AT mines from idiots who are too crappy to actually arm and guard the objectives, then play offense, and try to beat your teammates to actually getting points.

or

B.) Spawn camp, then entire game. Because that's all Conquest is. It's a boosters playlist. Just camp the enemy spawn ASAP, and you automatically win.

Kitsune hates battlefield games for being battlefield games.



waaaahhhh i died to a vehicle imbalanced waaaaahhh

News flash: they got rid of the co-axial gunner, which is where 70% of the kills with a tank came from in previous BF titles. And the one you can choose is a steaming pile of shit.

Rockets deal more damage, we have more vehicle counters to use. Hell, there's a spec that make explosives deal even more damage to tanks, and they take much more damage to shots from the side compared to previous BF titles where the only weak point was the back.

As for choppers, the only broken thing about them is their maneuverability. The rockets are weaker than previous titles, so is the gunner seat. No CPU rocket either so it's less-efficient at taking out other vehicles.

The only difference with them now is that there's no lock-on ground-to-air launchers. Because if there were they'd be useless.

Why should I have to fight/use vehicles in the first place? Using one basically means you admit that you're not good enough to fight other people on foot in 1v1 fights, so you have to have a huge advantage to win. Attack choppers also need to take damage from bullets, even if it's 5 bullets per 1 damage or something.

You don't get it, the tank rolling over the fucking map should actually be threatening.


Vehicles are a huge part of Battlefield games. I'm sorry not everything works out like Call of Duty. Usually you use these vehicles to win, instead of insisting that they're broken, carrying on on foot, dying once and complaining.

And I agree that helicopters should take bullet damage. I have no idea why they got rid of that and added a parachute after BC1.

Vehicles are a device for inferior players to feel that they are good at something, and I really don't feel like they belong in any game unless you have extreme counters for them, or everything kills them, like in Halo, and only good drivers can do well. Call of Duty had it right getting rid of them. So much in BC2 is OP. Why do you think I use my pistol so much? I feel like an asshole using just about any weapon.

Call of Duty had it wrong, tanks were broken as shit in WaW.


Vehicles belong in a Battlefield game, they're weak as shit in BC2 anyway. I don't see any possible further nerfs to them.

It takes teamwork to keep one alive against a single engineer. They just need animations/delays for getting in-and-out.

Tanks were easy to kill in WaW; people were just too stupid to use Satchel Charge, Flak Jacket, and Ex. Cond. 2 satchels, grenade = tank instantly died. But people cried because they were too dumb to switch and get rid of it. In this game, you can be an Engineer, and against a good tank crew it doesn't mean jack shit, because they'lll simply repair and kill you, unless you have good teammates, which you usually don't.

Vehicles are still broken as hell; White Pass and Nelson Bay are really fun maps. Why? Because they have no vehicles, and in White Pass conquest, there's only 1 vehicles per team, in a crowded streets. It's a powerhouse, but it can be swarmed from lots of directions easily. That map is one of the few that are actually balanced in that respect.

How does that method of countering a tank not-apply to Battlefield? One Ex. Mk2 C4 to a tank = bye bye.

And like I said before, one guy shouldn't be able to one-man a tank that's well supported ever.

Why? Because this is a team-based game. If everybody was running around lone-wolfing vehicles it'd be a stupid shitty game with no teamwork like Call of Duty.

What you said about tanks in White Pass applies to every other map in the game except Atacama Desert. There are always ways to flank tanks, except if they're sitting in the middle of a mile-long stretch of open desert.


But we'd have to lower the health a good 400%, get rid of recoil and add hitscan for it to truly be a Call of Duty game.

No, tanks are usually in an easy area that they, or the gunner can see you from a mile away. In WaW, there were lots of ways to sneak up to tanks, and the turrets turned 2 miles an hour, as well as the fact that they were VERY slow. In this game, they drive really fast, turn really fast, and are like a real tank. Well, sometimes realism isn't good. I don't know why CoD and this game both NEVER decide whether they are realistic or not. Realistic vehicles, but Medics can revive you after you take a shot to the head from an M95 by defibbing you. That makes total sense.

I personally like CoD more. It's much more unforgiving. Get caught in the open by anybody with a good aim, and you die, just the way it should be. BC2 was like that when the game first came out, and I liked it, but they removed it, guess they didn't want it to be a good game, apparently. Halo uses hitscan too, at close range, and projectiles afar, which is pretty good, because it insures good hit detection, and it doesn't lag the game by having too many projectiles, like it does in BF sometimes.

The only balanced vehicle is the Blackhawk. It requires 3 or more people to be effective, but is devestating in the right hands. That takes GOOD teamwork, and piloting, and gunning. If one person doesn't have the right spec or do their job right, you die, which is the way it should be. I hate forgiveness in games these days. CoD is one of the few left that are unforgiving at all. Take 2-5 shots, and you're dead. Die once in S&D, you lose. Run past a claymore not paying attention, you die. It turns a lot of people off, but it's only those that are either unintelligent, or not very perceptive.

What's so bad about a game that isn't team-based? I personally hate my team, 9/10 times, and playing with my friends either boils down to:

A.) I'm useless
B.) The match ends too easily.
C.) Both

Call of Duty is NOT more forgiving. It coddles you for the one time you live long enough to kill more than 1 enemy in a life, based on a system that rewards camping and being a fucking coward. There are no gun battles, only the instances where you drag your gun sights up to your nose, fire 4 shots (well actually it's Call of Duty so 99% of people have shit aim even with the massive aim assist so it takes a full magazine), get 2 hit markers and that's actually considered a kill.

That's embarrassing.


And I personally like teamwork in my Battlefield game because that's what makes a Battlefield game. If you want a game that doesn't involve teamwork go play something else, don't whine about how Dice should completely bail on the idea of having an actual war going on in games.

And the superpower weapons on-release in console BC2 was an acknowledged programming error absent from the PC version. Personally I like the game better without it, you can move around without fear of someone randomly instant-killing you while sitting in a corner.


Also you can't use hitscan and projectile at the same time. Projectile just has no real travel time at close-range, while there's a noticeable travel speed at mid-long.

Hitscan is the incredibly dated idea that bullets arrive at their destination within an instant of the weapon being fired. That should have been taken out of FPS multiplayer games in 2006 but people are totally willing to have Activision shit in their mouth in the form of a mod pack for Call of Duty games every year, simply because it means they wouldn't have to get good at video games.

Or at least that's my reasoning behind why anyone could possibly consider purchasing a $60 expansion pack every year.

Kotick is the fucking anti-christ of video games.

While I FULLY agree, that I hate absolutlely HATE Kotick, I disagree with the rest.

2 hitmarkers will only happen at very close range with most weapons to get a kill, unless you are using a couple of weapons in CoD4. The M14/M60 with stopping power, and both had lots of recoil compared to the rest of the weapons, so they were balanced. BC2 is very forgiving. Just point in a random direction and start mashing the back button until you spot somebody, then just shoot them with ANYTHING, from ANY distance without even trying. Most likely, they're in the open, so they're dead anyways. Even more so if you're using a CG or a vehicle. I don't know why you're complaining about 2, when you're most used weapon usually gives you one hit marker, and more than 2 kills; rather ironic, I think. Pump action shotguns are OP as hell too, in this game, two hitmarkers, any distance, you win; they beat snipers, they beat AR's, they are the God guns.

BC2 also is forgiving in the sense that it forgives you for poor decisions. Get shot a couple of times? You'll probably live. CoD, you're dead in significantly more bullets, and having a faster reflex time doesn't matter half of the time in BC2, as long as you're lucky enough to get a headshot while hipfiring, you can win, even though you're about to die. Not to mention classes that get infinite ammo, so you can just spray away, and not worry about running out, or Engineers, with their very OP launchers (almost as bad, if not on par with pump shotguns), Medics can heal whenever the fuck they want, so they can just camp on the box, and have an instant advantage (as well as being discouraged to do anything other than camp and revive whore), and Recons are the worst class in the game, overall, because the BA are inferior to pump shotguns, mortar strikes are nearly worthless against vehicles, and not as good as an Engineers launcher against infantry, and their motion mine is completely worthless in HC, and only decent in Core, considering you can throw a grenade as an Assault, and figure out where enemies are, as well as having an unlimited supply of them.

CoD actually rewards you on level for what you did to. You get a kill, it counts as a kill. You die, it counts as a death, and the scoreboard means, jack-shit, 9/10 times. BC2, has a fucked up scoreboard, as well as considering the person at the top of the board the "best" player. So, apparently, when I arm and destroy two objectives by myself, with a pistol, as a Recon, go 20-5 get 3rd-4th, and I've been helping the entire game, I'm not as good as a Medic, revive whoring Recons 1,000 miles away from the objective and healing them to get points, then the guy switches to an Assault with an M14 and C4s one of the M-COMS and doesn't destroy it, and goes 2-10 but he's supposedly better, and the game is basically telling me to eat shit and die because I'm not good enough, that gets on my nerves really fast. I know for a fact, that the guy was worthless the ENTIRE game, but he's apparently better, according to DICE. I take that as an insult, frankly.

Yet another thing I like about Call of Duty, is that when you lose, you only get half points, so you are penalized a bit for losing. While I personally think that when you lose, you should pay 1.5x your score/EXP for the round (Ex. You get 2,000, you lose, you pay 3,000, so you lose 1,000 EXP), and should lose items that you paid for or earned, that's not going to happen, because developers are too nice. BF just gives you whatever you got, and to me, that's a BIG no-no. If your team loses, you deserve to be punished for failure, so you'll learn not to. I'm tired of idiot teammates and embarrassingly bad opponents.

But really, I think we've hijacked this topic long enough. I'm sorry I've got so offensive, but I've been in a bad mood today, and I've been getting really excited.

I'm sorry JEV, I should've just dropped it.

Hey I found free money I might end up picking Black Ops anyway since nobody is going to play anything else for a while.


I enjoyed Call of Duty for a long time, it's just that the lack of sequel innovation and emphasis on being a selfish player just pisses me off. I prefer teamwork and new shit personally, even if we have some bugs in BC2 I wouldn't trade the fun of playing with you guys for anything gaming-related.

I heard it was scheduled to be released the day CoD: BO comes out, but then it was pushed back because of bugs and glitches with the patch.

Can you just stay the fuck out of the Battlefield forums, Kitsune?

You're clearly insane and have severe personal issues, so please stop taking it out on all of us here. Stop transferring your problems to a game.

THis topic has taken some bad turns and I don;t see anythig else of value happening here so it's going on lock down.