Add IWI please, another former Top40 2ndLt with >200k points.
Search
Search results: 18 found, showing up to 50
Sorry dude, but there's only word for that...MACsgotagun wrote:
Here is a good post about the matter ,and it's not a rant about the ground AA. The new heat seekers completely killed the air to air combat aspect of the game .I know ground pounders will probably flame at this but they just don't get why we want to fly around and have dog fights I guess. http://forum.eagames.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=17993
Most jets and bombers on the servers I played were very rarely engaged in dogfights but rather busy bombing the shit out of foot troopers or vehicles. Simple reason: If one run can easily kill 6 (a squad that captured a flag maybe) or a run can lead to one, perhaps 2 kills (bomber) with a lot of hard work, I doubt any honest person would say they'd prefer the latter.
So what are we actually debating here?
I have to admit I like it. It's definitely to be preferred over the basic anti-tank weapons and if you expect not to be engaged in CQB too often you should also prefer it ot the DAO. The laser pointer targeting is pretty helpful and if you're aiming closely, you'll even do a lot of damage. Plus: The magazine has a capacity of 50 rounds (3 mags available all in all) which gives you an advantage if your enemy emptied his magazine.asbad wrote:
What about the p90, anyone?
Good work! I like it a lot, though I have to admit I share the doubts of the other guys about what awards are "most achieveable" as I don't intend to go for some of those at all.
If you want official info go check an official site. Someone as smart as you obviously are should understand the basic idea behind all that.bingobones wrote:
omg do u people not read? they r not official...they came out last week!!!!Goose_MP[TBG] wrote:
BF2tracker.com has the official requirements from the chinese EA site - with a nice translation as well.
Thanks for all your feedback. So, in the end, its all up to "might be or might not be". Think I'll just stop thinking about it.
It is quite likely that this patch is the official version and EA/DICE have a security hole among their employees or beta testers or whom ever. Yet seeing IndianScout confessing in public that he is already using it would be reason enough for me to do it also. Because, in the end, we can still all run around in circles and point at each other
Go see [1] and [2] please.
[1] http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=13760
[2] http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=13755
[1] http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=13760
[2] http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=13755
Yeah, my fault, I had a different number in mind.The_Mob_Returns wrote:
I only see 225 in that photo. and yeah that is possible.
Well then, be so kind to tell me how, 'cause I have no idea and neither did people who - different from me - have their expert command badge and enjoy being commander. I assume you've read my first post which clearly states that it was nothing but a usual round of Dragon Valley on a full 64-player-server.BUDFORCE wrote:
yeah its possible
Not even anywhere near that. I uploaded the screenshot (made with Fraps) to Imageshack:mjw wrote:
of course its possible, it just depends on how many points the individual members of his team got. For example if there were 2 guys in chopper who got like 100+ points each and a few people below them with 60-80 points then the commander could easily get 133 in a round.
C'mon guys, don't let me down on this. Is a commander score of 133 on Dragon Valley possible and realistic? I never play commander on this map but have never seen a score as high as that before with others either.
Hm, maybe I need some adjustments but that statement about mines only says that one can't trigger them with grenades or C4, but it does not comment on being shot by tanks or APCs. If "explosives" aren't doing any damage any longer it does not necessarily say that vehicles aren't able to destroy them.
Correct me if I misunderstood something there.
Correct me if I misunderstood something there.
Just curious: Has anyone ever witnessed a commander score for the winning team of 266 points on a completely filled ranked 64-player server? I saw that today and I'm reluctant to believe that everything about this score is alright. There was some action, meaning USMC took a number of flags which where recapped by the PLA every once in a while and the whole match didn't last longer than, say, 15 minutes.
Indeed and it gives some relief. Thanks a lot Indian.IndianScout wrote:
ok wording has changed to
ยง Using Vehicles removed from battlefield for purposes of artificially inflating points
that sounds alot better
Add evoX(Ger) (formerly Top70, wiped with > 190.000) and stefankeicher please.
Well, seriously: I prefer checking my stats on this site to checking them in BFHQ - a lot. I have all relevant information in one place and obviously it's a lot more reliable and faster than BFHQ...chuyskywalker wrote:
Getting around that is pretty easy, however, as I did it myself in the past. They've made it a good deal tougher to use that service. All in all, they should just drop BFHQ and buy my site out as the official and provide the XML feed as is.
Who cares to check their stats in game anyway?
Therefore, where can I sign that petition to make BF2S.com the official stats site?
If so, I have to wonder why EA does not lock out all of these peers which do not use the new feed like this BF2s.com does for example - or perhaps even threaten them with legal action. Configuring a server to deny requests from certain IP-numbers or -blocks is not that much of a challenge I'd say.Quetzalcoatl69 wrote:
Congratulations to them for probably being part of the problem.