|
Post by turdferguson on May 26, 2010 1:29:12 GMT -5
So I played a game today that sums up Battlefield lately for me.
I joined a rush game as a defender on the first base, and I started out trying to have some fun with a shotgun. We lost the first base in about 30 seconds. I spawned at the second base and tried again; I got the same result.
On the next three bases, I switched to a practical setup and spent all of my time trying to defuse, defend, and play the objective. By the end, my (many) deaths were about 30% by defending, 20% by being shot as I spawned, 20% by getting stuck on something in the map (this was mostly lag), and 30% by my own lack of skill (also known as lag). I died getting stuck trying to escape from a door, was revived, and got stuck on it again trying to escape the second time.
We lost badly, I did poorly (although well point-wise), and I had a hell of a good time. Looking back at my team, they were either sniping with bolt action rifles or worse than me.
So I came to the conclusion that, for a well known (purported) "team game," people are incredibly uninterested in any kind of teamwork (a surprisingly realistic feature). And I am tired of trying to carry a team in every game that I join. I will be the first to say that I am not good enough, and we lose every time.
The next game, despite my respect for my elite sniper "teammates," I realized that I can't beat both them and the other team. I picked an SV-98 with a 12X scope, and hit some pretty elite shots myself.
We lost.
Don't care.
|
|
|
Post by SheWolf on May 26, 2010 10:14:28 GMT -5
great post. pretty much sums up the main problem this game has right now.
my solution: each time i want to play i rally three friends and we play together in one squad. even though our individual "skill" is not that great (i can barely keep my k/d to 1/1) 4 coordinated players at once WILL tip the game in the favor of ones team, despite an insane number of nitwits tactical loitering on their sniperspots. unfortunately you can't always find three people right away that have got spare time simultanously..
|
|
|
Post by cheshire on May 26, 2010 10:46:41 GMT -5
I believe this is the only answer short of playing with friends. Being "that squad" that is dominating a rush game by arming/defusing every MCOMM over and over can be fantastically fun. If you're playing alone, save yourself the extreme aggravation and don't worry about anything outside your immediate zone of influence.
I utterly identify with three of your four virtues (flaws?), though I refuse to give in to the fourth, hypocrisy. My recon uses the SAIGA or 870 and counter snipes with shotguns. My medic uses handguns with the M1 Garand as a primary (Mostly so I'm not tempted to actually use my primary for anything but headshotting sessile snipers).
I guess in short, I take the game seriously while with my squad, and as a joke when I'm alone. Remember, killing two people with a single Carl Gustav is "Double Skill" and a great stress relief while watching your team lose MCOM stations at 90 second intervals.
|
|
|
Post by turdferguson on May 26, 2010 20:40:52 GMT -5
That's a good point, but I don't have any friends that play battlefield. Besides, for me, playing a game with friends means passing the controller to my roommate. Unfortunately he is stuck on MW2 still, and I won't touch that game anymore. So maybe I'll look into Red Dead Redemption. Until then, I won't take this game too seriously. It is, after all, a game.
As a side note, getting in touch with my elite sniper side was a one night thing. I'm going back to my SVU.
|
|
|
Post by w4gasm on May 27, 2010 0:30:35 GMT -5
I think this can happen because BBC2 doesn't balance teams like it should. Its fairly often that i get thrown into a game with sadly stacked teams. For example:
Just the other day I joined a rush game on port Valdez on defense and spawned behind the concrete fort. The first thing i saw was 3 enemies... 2 of them fired and killed me immediately. I was alive for like 1.5 seconds. They were dominating our base as the attacking team and yet they hadnt set the bomb on B yet... Seemed odd so i checked out the teams and the attacking team had (im not kidding) 5 level 50's and the remainder were lvl 40 or higher. They were just tactical loitering and ignoring the objective. I was the highest on my team as a lvl 31 with no-one else above 24.
I left immediately after that first death. One of the guys on the other team actually had the NERVE to send out a mass text to the defending team.... saying "to all those on the defending team i just played i would like to say that you suck for leaving and you should have manned up and fought!'
Poor guy... cant believe no one wanted to play a tactical loitering team composed of all level 43+ players.
|
|
xeros612
True Bro
Play to win, keep it legit.
Posts: 255
|
Post by xeros612 on May 28, 2010 0:10:41 GMT -5
It's really getting that bad, sadly. I'm spending far more time on the PC playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and alternating between Dark Sector and Netflix on the 360 nowadays because I simply can't stand how bad the Bad Company 2 community has become. Nearly nobody wants to even attempt to play the damned game for anything more than padding their little K/D ratios. Now, my K/D isn't great, but I assure you before somebody decides to counter my argument with that little info that my "lacking K/D" isn't the reason for this, it's the fact that I'm playing an objective-based game, and everybody's trying to Recon kit their way through it like they're on Deathmatch, because god forbid anyone try to play the game as if it were anything more than a simple "kill everything that moves and isn't on your team" gametype, and use the objective as anything more than a way to make the match, and therefore the potential kills, last longer.
When I do have my 3 man squad together(we've yet to grab a fourth, and even the other two in it have troubles getting online), we're almost always the best on our entire team, and usually get the Gold Squad pin if the enemy team isn't too busy wrecking the Recon-tards on our team to let us have the pin. The problem is, even being the best squad on the team, if not the lobby as a whole, we still end up losing because nobody wants to arm or disarm MCOMMs, and would sooner toss C4 all around the MCOMM and/or building it's in when they're defending than keep people off it or disarming the bomb.
Couple that bit of incompetency with peoples' inability to play the medic kit right, either opting to do nothing but revive people just to let them die seconds afterward because they're in the line of fire or to hop on the other end of the spectrum and do nothing but M60 spam, people who use the engineer kit for nothing but CG-ing infantry, and the metric crap-ton of shotguns with Slug ammo sniping that seem to have popped up since the patch went live and you get a piss-poor experience.
|
|
|
Post by ][nquisitor Mateo on May 29, 2010 1:20:36 GMT -5
You will get bored of stalker eventually, even with mods.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on May 29, 2010 7:30:33 GMT -5
You will get bored of stalker eventually, even with mods. You're talking crazy talk!
|
|
xeros612
True Bro
Play to win, keep it legit.
Posts: 255
|
Post by xeros612 on May 30, 2010 14:06:05 GMT -5
You will get bored of stalker eventually, even with mods. I don't know about that, what with 226 hours of playtime put into the series, and no loss of interest whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroKelvin^ on May 30, 2010 15:38:03 GMT -5
and there is the Stalker Lost Alpha mod coming soon
|
|
|
Post by raxcoswell on May 31, 2010 6:16:43 GMT -5
That's a good point, but I don't have any friends that play battlefield. Besides, for me, playing a game with friends means passing the controller to my roommate. Unfortunately he is stuck on MW2 still, and I won't touch that game anymore. So maybe I'll look into Red Dead Redemption. Until then, I won't take this game too seriously. It is, after all, a game. As a side note, getting in touch with my elite sniper side was a one night thing. I'm going back to my SVU. Red Dead is a fun game but gameplay wise it is very basic. It will be frustrating for you online I would guess. It still shoots exactly the same as GTA 3. Lock on takes most of the human input away, and horrible third person aiming does the rest. That said I can't play Battlefield when the people I play with aren't around.
|
|
|
Post by turdferguson on May 31, 2010 10:42:47 GMT -5
Red Dead is a fun game... Yeah I'm hoping so. It looks like fun. Maybe, but most games are for me. If it's fun, then it's worth it. Den, I would ask you about Red Dead data, but I'm guessing that it is simple enough to figure out myself.
|
|
rpsx
True Bro
Posts: 10,016
|
Post by rpsx on Jun 1, 2010 20:09:27 GMT -5
just had to pipe in - team balancing in bfbc2 i think is the #1 problem with the game, and it's not a small one at that. i only play ps3, so not sure how pc team balancing fares. but, as far as i can tell, it is non-existant on ps3. i got into battlefield because 1943 was fun, and there, team balancing worked like a charm. there could be a cycle of stupidly matched teams, where one overwhelms the other. but, next map, the teams were very well balanced. i kept seeing balancing optimization in the pc change lists, but never noticed any improvements on the console.
for me, without real proper team balancing the game is broken. love it, still. play it a lot. but, it really is a downer when teams are unbalanced - and that goes for when i am on the over-ranked side, or the under-ranked side... it is boring either way. in fact, it's almost more boring when you overwhelm the other team. especially when they are actually down by a number of players (i had this happen once when maps were changed even! at the end of the round, the opposite team had 4 less players. new map loads - same! clearly, there is no team balancing at all). even the option to switch side voluntarily would be welcome. anything!
|
|
|
Post by cvek on Jun 2, 2010 4:45:49 GMT -5
Definitely agree with rpsx above.
Do we have any idea about how team balancing is actually working in BFBC2? As far as I can tell every match I join is on a side getting completely creamed. All matches appear incredibly unbalanced. I wonder if it's because ppl quit out of matches if they are losing, so the losing side never really develops strong squads?
|
|
|
Post by spifnar on Jun 3, 2010 9:56:34 GMT -5
When people are allowed to switch teams midgame, the teams will always be imbalanced.
Those that really want to win will move to the winning side. Or they'll drop if they can't.
Dropping is what causes so many people to join a losing game. Example:
Player A drops cause his side is losing, and he can't switch Player B gets his slot, sees that they're losing badly, and drops Player C (see player B) etc etc etc Game ends after 10 people have cycled through loser-side slots
|
|
|
Post by cvek on Jun 4, 2010 3:52:12 GMT -5
So perhaps a small points deduction for leaving a match early?
The above analysis would imply that if a signigicant # of ppl are doing this from a single players perspective they are:
Joining game Seeing that the team is losing. Joining another game Seeing that their team is losing... etc..
A points penalty at every game dropped in the first few minutes would help put a stop to this.
|
|
|
Post by cheshire on Jun 4, 2010 10:37:26 GMT -5
So perhaps a small points deduction for leaving a match early? The above analysis would imply that if a signigicant # of ppl are doing this from a single players perspective they are: Joining game Seeing that the team is losing. Joining another game Seeing that their team is losing... etc.. A points penalty at every game dropped in the first few minutes would help put a stop to this. While this would help to prevent people from leaving games, I think you're treating a symptom and not a problem. The game already has draconian auto-balancing features ("Hello locked squad of people with the same clan tag. Um... half of you go over here nao"), it would be a simple matter to have that system move players based on player level, skill level, win %, KDR, etc to balance the teams, instead of the utterly random system it currently seems to use. That said, I never find myself angry at my team unless I myself am doing badly, and I try to own up to that instead of raging or rage-quitting. The only really reprehensible side of this are those servers who intentionally stack teams. There's a San Fran server out there with an admin who actively moves the top several players from the other team onto his team at the end of every round, something we noticed only by accident. Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Jun 5, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
I only play BFBC2 when at least one of my mates is on, and usually all four of us are on. So it works out well for us. I would have probably quit long ago otherwise, this game is incredibly frustrating trying to win alone.
|
|
|
Post by willynator on Aug 1, 2010 7:39:34 GMT -5
It's really getting that bad, sadly. I'm spending far more time on the PC playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and alternating between Dark Sector and Netflix on the 360 nowadays because I simply can't stand how bad the Bad Company 2 community has become. Nearly nobody wants to even attempt to play the gosh darn golly gee whized game for anything more than padding their little K/D ratios. Now, my K/D isn't great, but I assure you before somebody decides to counter my argument with that little info that my "lacking K/D" isn't the reason for this, it's the fact that I'm playing an objective-based game, and everybody's trying to Recon kit their way through it like they're on Deathmatch, because god forbid anyone try to play the game as if it were anything more than a simple "kill everything that moves and isn't on your team" gametype, and use the objective as anything more than a way to make the match, and therefore the potential kills, last longer. When I do have my 3 man squad together(we've yet to grab a fourth, and even the other two in it have troubles getting online), we're almost always the best on our entire team, and usually get the Gold Squad pin if the enemy team isn't too busy wrecking the Recon-tards on our team to let us have the pin. The problem is, even being the best squad on the team, if not the lobby as a whole, we still end up losing because nobody wants to arm or disarm MCOMMs, and would sooner toss C4 all around the MCOMM and/or building it's in when they're defending than keep people off it or disarming the bomb. Couple that bit of incompetency with peoples' inability to play the medic kit right, either opting to do nothing but revive people just to let them die seconds afterward because they're in the line of fire or to hop on the other end of the spectrum and do nothing but M60 spam, people who use the engineer kit for nothing but CG-ing infantry, and the metric crap-ton of shotguns with Slug ammo sniping that seem to have popped up since the patch went live and you get a piss-poor experience. I feel the exact same way. The other plays retardation and refusal to play the objectives annoys me. I'm tired of entering games having to carry the team. For some weird reason I can't stop doing it though, I just can't go over to sniping and NOT contribute at all to the team. I keep on playing engineer which I hate because everyone else is inept of taking down helicopters, tanks etc what the hell guys? Wish all of these stupid people would go away, just play the gosh darn golly gee whiz objective.. EDIT I just can't stand it any longer. I despise playing this game without any friends using VOIP. It's retarded how bad people are. How you always end up with a bunch of noobs who just don't understand anything. I'm still the #1 player generally but it's so frickin boring to be the #1 player realising it's mainly because the rest of the entire team SUCKS. Screw this game it's so boring since they barely encourage the objective based gameplay when defending 50 points for defuse? And yet when on offence where you get about 250 for destroying the objective...people still dont attack.
|
|
|
Post by blablabity on Aug 1, 2010 18:06:18 GMT -5
willy, if you happen to be on PS3, add Blablabity. I am generally playing with my clan. We play together, use mics, and always come out on top.
|
|
|
Post by willynator on Aug 3, 2010 16:20:31 GMT -5
I'm on PC i'm afraid I would too otherwise, thanks for the offer matey!! :-)
|
|
|
Post by klokateer on Oct 20, 2010 8:41:46 GMT -5
I don't know whether I agree with the sentiments expressed above or not.
Everyone keeps saying this is a teamwork based game, but that stacked teams are unbalanced. You can't have teamwork without unbalancing the game unless both teams are doing it. On public servers, that's about as rare as it gets.
If you want balanced play, you're going to have to find it on the competitive level or DICE can add no team switching during matches. I am positive a lot of people would assume DICE wants to close their game off toward the "FPS Clan" player base if they did that. Since FPS Clans were around long before DICE was, I doubt that is going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by turdferguson on Oct 25, 2010 23:47:13 GMT -5
Well, whether you agree with my sentiments or not, I wrote them five months ago and haven't played since. So it's likely that things have changed, although I am not going back to this game. And even if things haven't changed, I've progressed into complete apathy toward this game; I'm amazed that people are still reading this thread.
|
|