I guess CD Keys for 2142, on the Beta, but I know for a fact they do not work on vanilla BF2 or SF (have not tried with POE, but I think it is not mod dependent).
Search
Search results: 33 found, showing up to 50
It is an amazing mod, better than the expansions in many senses. It has several elements that require team work to be used.
The variety of maps and goals is also very good, and definitely some very much needed fresh air for a stale BF2 experience.
Also, big one for me, it does NOT crash to desktop. What else can you ask for?
The variety of maps and goals is also very good, and definitely some very much needed fresh air for a stale BF2 experience.
Also, big one for me, it does NOT crash to desktop. What else can you ask for?
Kudos to the POE team. This mod is far superior to the booster packs, by far.
Did I mention it is stable and does not crash to desktop either?
Great work, I had not play in quite a bit, and I almost did not go to bed last night.
Did I mention it is stable and does not crash to desktop either?
Great work, I had not play in quite a bit, and I almost did not go to bed last night.
Funny, after voting I saw the results, and I could not believe it.
I don't think the purpose of delaying the patches is to make the player community angry, actually I think the delays are aimed to the opposite. In fact, 1.3 should have been delayed more, and we would not be angry.
EA should have put their efforts on stability rather than on "features". I am pretty sure the advent of 1.3 caused the sales of BF2 to drop substantially.
I hope 1.4 will restore things to is proper state, but that is a long shot.
I don't think the purpose of delaying the patches is to make the player community angry, actually I think the delays are aimed to the opposite. In fact, 1.3 should have been delayed more, and we would not be angry.
EA should have put their efforts on stability rather than on "features". I am pretty sure the advent of 1.3 caused the sales of BF2 to drop substantially.
I hope 1.4 will restore things to is proper state, but that is a long shot.
Interesting topic.
In one hand, we have 1.3 plagued with bugs, which for some make the game unplayable, both from the technical and the enjoyment perspectives.
On the other hand, we want to have a new release, 1.4, that is stable and has no major bugs, that is, nothing as broken as 1.3.
I will have to err on the side of caution, and tag along with the people that prefer to wait for a proper patch as opposed to a timely one. Lately I play BF2 very seldomly, and for less time, mostly because I lose all impulse to play after the first CTD. last thing I would want is another broken patch which will extend the pain for yet another uncertainty period.
Let's hope 1.4 does reverse most of the stupid issues brought by all those unnecesary "features" added with 1.3, and that the new "features" added with 1.4 do not cause as much grief as its doomed predecessors.
In one hand, we have 1.3 plagued with bugs, which for some make the game unplayable, both from the technical and the enjoyment perspectives.
On the other hand, we want to have a new release, 1.4, that is stable and has no major bugs, that is, nothing as broken as 1.3.
I will have to err on the side of caution, and tag along with the people that prefer to wait for a proper patch as opposed to a timely one. Lately I play BF2 very seldomly, and for less time, mostly because I lose all impulse to play after the first CTD. last thing I would want is another broken patch which will extend the pain for yet another uncertainty period.
Let's hope 1.4 does reverse most of the stupid issues brought by all those unnecesary "features" added with 1.3, and that the new "features" added with 1.4 do not cause as much grief as its doomed predecessors.
More SAWs or 50 cals (I am not even considering all those funny requests for TV missiles and the such) won't really cut it. IMHO, both the RIBs and the Transport choppers need some time of support and team coordination. Coordinated attacks are very sucessful when the boats or transports do have support. Most people do shoot the threatening combat chopper instead of the BH chock ful of troops by it.Ghost_of_Viking wrote:
the two weakest things in bf2, every other vehicle has SOME kind of purpose, some way of defending their selfes... except for these two... etc ...
Now that armor will be increased for transport choppers I expect them to regain some of their former glory and people may learn to ride them again.
1. I agree in principle about the balance issues. Maps that mix J-10s with F35Bs are a slaughter. The only semi-successful technique I have been able to pull with the F-35Bs is high altitude dive bombing. Yet, I find the F-35B a fun experience, and the thrill of attempting to evade the J-10s much exhilarating.Aardcore wrote:
EA needs to fix the balance issues with the F35 being a piece of junk in the air. This is supposed to be next-gen American avionic technology and it's being schooled 3rd world country machines? UNCOOL. I dunno how many times I've fired missiles at a J10 and F35 missiles just seem to avoid them while a J10 firing a missile just heads directly for the target like flares don't do shit.
Balance issues, that's what BF2 jets need, yet EA hasn't done anything about it. Oh well. There's always 1.5 right?
2. There have been many instances throughout history where American planes were not the best out there, yet American pilots managed to surpass those odds. Funnily enough, during the cold war many of the planes made in America were over designed because of the suspicion that Soviet and Chinese planes were way better than what they ended up being. Having said that, BF2 takes very extended licenses between reality and actual game balance. If you want to complain about a gap in planes, go look at the watered down A-10 in Armored Fury. Not even close to the real thing in ANY aspect, yet, the planes in AF are pretty well balanced (unlike the F-35B issue in vanilla BF2). Although it was a downer for me to see that the A-10 was extremely fragile and under-armed, I was happy to see that balance wise it looked OK.
3. The issue with the missiles, the J-10 and the F-35B has to do with the turning ratio and other performance issues in between the planes at different heights. The J-10 has the best empirically tested stats of all planes, plus some magical resilience to air to air missile fire. The F-35B is at the other end of the spectrum, being notorious for having a very poor turn ratio and taking missile fire very badly.
Adding more jets would be hard to handle.
1. These maps have not been designed to handle that many airplanes. I am pretty sure servers can handle so much load on fast moving vehicles.
2. Infantry/Vehicles would be at a serious disadvantage, pilots would pile up kills very quickly.
3. Teamkills will not stop. Asses that do teamkill you for a plane will still kill you for a plane.
Now, I think handling the imbalance issues of F-35 vs. J-10 would not be solved by adding more F-35Bs, it would get worse. Adding F35Bs would just give the J-10 pilots more easy targets.
1. These maps have not been designed to handle that many airplanes. I am pretty sure servers can handle so much load on fast moving vehicles.
2. Infantry/Vehicles would be at a serious disadvantage, pilots would pile up kills very quickly.
3. Teamkills will not stop. Asses that do teamkill you for a plane will still kill you for a plane.
Now, I think handling the imbalance issues of F-35 vs. J-10 would not be solved by adding more F-35Bs, it would get worse. Adding F35Bs would just give the J-10 pilots more easy targets.
I have never been able to take on a flag on my own with a plane, but I have helped to neutralize or capture while in a plane by sheer luck. Done it twice on Wake and four or five times in AF maps.Mj.Blindfisch wrote:
... Btw,did you guys know that in BF1942 you could capture flags with a plane? ...
Stability issue fixes sound good, if they actually work as advertised.
I am also happy that they added armor to the transport choppers, perhaps people will no see the increased survivabiliy as a good enough incentive to hop in the chopper. I used to do a good deal of BH transporting, but it totally died the moment the choppers armor was reduced simultaneously with the increase in AA tracking capabilities.
As for the new map, I think it is good for people that have no expansions. Personally, I have more maps than I can actually play on, plus, most games are concentrated on 4 or 5. The new map looks like it will make it to the top, so that is Ok.
As for the "cartillery", I will have to see what does it still do.
I am also happy that they added armor to the transport choppers, perhaps people will no see the increased survivabiliy as a good enough incentive to hop in the chopper. I used to do a good deal of BH transporting, but it totally died the moment the choppers armor was reduced simultaneously with the increase in AA tracking capabilities.
As for the new map, I think it is good for people that have no expansions. Personally, I have more maps than I can actually play on, plus, most games are concentrated on 4 or 5. The new map looks like it will make it to the top, so that is Ok.
As for the "cartillery", I will have to see what does it still do.
I voted "Yes, it has it uses" B U T I don't think we would want DICE/EA implementing this before current issues are fixed.
I voted that they are less optimal than the vanilla ones. The reasons are simple:
1. Vanilla bombers have Laser Guided Missiles.
2. Vanilla bombers have Air to Air capability.
3. Vanilla bombers guns are as effective as AF bombers, but there is a lot more infantry on vanilla maps, making the machine gun strafes a lot more effective.
4. Vanilla bombers have only to fear other planes (if the pilot is decent) because of their speed. AF bombers can be shot down with AA cannon fire alone and APCs will be able to track and shoot down an AF bomber as well.
Now, why are then, all bombers in AF so effective?
1. There is no substantial Air to Air threat. No missiles will lock on you, so decent piloting will get you out of most Air combat situations. The difficulty of air to air combat in AF due to the lack of missiles makes for very meager rewards of shooting an enemy plane. The time it takes to track, follow and shoot down a decent pilot is enough to do a full bombing run and a reload in most cases. I will pursue air to air combat only on a plane that is already smoking. I have done full sets of games with no deaths as a bomber pilot in AF. There is very little risk involved if you limit your bombing runs to high altitude bombing. Although you are slow, most planes will take two missiles and still fly, so you are OK as long as you do maintain your top speed, and keep out of straight paths where AA cannons will be able to track you.
2. Because of the amount of vehicles, AF is a target rich environment. Most bombing runs are decided on the amount of probable targets alone. In Vanilla, your radar targets are scarcer.
3. The front guns are very good against light armored vehicles and infantry. Also, they rip little birds apart quite well if you have a good vector of approach. They can take other planes, BUT, you need a very very good first strafe or you might be in for a long air fight if you want to down your enemy.
4. Low speeds allow for very maneuverable aircraft. The Frogfoot, however, has a tendency not to be able to pull down from a steep climb, which is the only maneuverability issue I have found (pull up to do a loop if in this situation). Note that the low speed also allows for easier landings, which is the best way to fix an aircraft if you are good at landings. A-10 seems to be the best overall craft of all three, however there is a little thing about the Fatan that makes it my favorite (perhaps the map where it appears).
1. Vanilla bombers have Laser Guided Missiles.
2. Vanilla bombers have Air to Air capability.
3. Vanilla bombers guns are as effective as AF bombers, but there is a lot more infantry on vanilla maps, making the machine gun strafes a lot more effective.
4. Vanilla bombers have only to fear other planes (if the pilot is decent) because of their speed. AF bombers can be shot down with AA cannon fire alone and APCs will be able to track and shoot down an AF bomber as well.
Now, why are then, all bombers in AF so effective?
1. There is no substantial Air to Air threat. No missiles will lock on you, so decent piloting will get you out of most Air combat situations. The difficulty of air to air combat in AF due to the lack of missiles makes for very meager rewards of shooting an enemy plane. The time it takes to track, follow and shoot down a decent pilot is enough to do a full bombing run and a reload in most cases. I will pursue air to air combat only on a plane that is already smoking. I have done full sets of games with no deaths as a bomber pilot in AF. There is very little risk involved if you limit your bombing runs to high altitude bombing. Although you are slow, most planes will take two missiles and still fly, so you are OK as long as you do maintain your top speed, and keep out of straight paths where AA cannons will be able to track you.
2. Because of the amount of vehicles, AF is a target rich environment. Most bombing runs are decided on the amount of probable targets alone. In Vanilla, your radar targets are scarcer.
3. The front guns are very good against light armored vehicles and infantry. Also, they rip little birds apart quite well if you have a good vector of approach. They can take other planes, BUT, you need a very very good first strafe or you might be in for a long air fight if you want to down your enemy.
4. Low speeds allow for very maneuverable aircraft. The Frogfoot, however, has a tendency not to be able to pull down from a steep climb, which is the only maneuverability issue I have found (pull up to do a loop if in this situation). Note that the low speed also allows for easier landings, which is the best way to fix an aircraft if you are good at landings. A-10 seems to be the best overall craft of all three, however there is a little thing about the Fatan that makes it my favorite (perhaps the map where it appears).
The only fix I saw applied to this on 1.3 was the inability of flying aircraft to remain flying when they have no pilot.Stubbee wrote:
If youwere refering to the highlighted 2 items. This has nothing to do with locking on to enemy aircraft.
Unless I've really missed something here, where does it say the problem was 'fixed'?etc ...
- Fixed the bug where helicopters abandoned in the air would continue flying.
etc ...
Now, the engine will lose power the moment you switch places, whereas in the past it was possible to keep the helicopter airborne in circular pattern for quite a bit while you were alone on the gunner seat.
I think this is what people refer to when they say the issue was "fixed" on 1.3.
In my opinion, it just makes using the minigun by a single ocuppant non practical. However the TV shots can still be done pretty accurately as the time it takes to do so is not enough for the power loss to affect your flight path seriously.
Funnily enough, most people complain about Helo soloing, because it is really common, but I have heard very little complaints about F-15 soloing, which is IMHO much more devastating (try out a single player game with bombers and you will see what I mean).
Nice guide. Note though that in my opinion, MEC has the advantage most of the time, your guide depicts MEC position as being weaker. A couple extra notes:General Breetai wrote:
A small guide to iron gator. etc ...
- If MEC is to succeed, the AA gun needs to go, which in my opinion is quite easy. First approach I would try is to have rocket infantry shoot it down from the shore. Second, many HIND gunners have learned to TV the thing having the chopper outside AA range which is very easy and works like a charm (single shot blow). APC fire will also keep the AA in check, however, IMHO the other options work better from the safety standpoint, since the distance for the APC to be able to AIM properly puts it at risk, and the wavy movement makes aiming moderately difficult. Once the AA is out, successful chopper deployment is very straight forward. *** One note about blowing the AA. Have in mind that MEC will take possession of the AA after capturing certain flags, so you will lose points if you blow the AA when this is happening. ***
- Assaults on the far side of the carrier work very well, even with an active AA gun. A single well organized squad can do HALO jumps from the transport chopper here, or low flight to that side of the Deck. A properly coordinated team would have at least two squad leaders jump first, which brings a minimum potential of 12 soldiers on deck.
- APC support is crucial if you are even attempting to take the carrier using boats. I don't like this avenue of approach, but it seems to work relatively well on a successful blitz at the start or when chopper fire is keeping infantry busy on the main deck.
- In my opinion, All MEC has to do to win is to take control of both flags on the Deck and keep the SEALs under the flight deck. Once this is done, the only serious threat to MEC is the SEALs chopper if it is still airborne. Having the Deck and a decent chopper crew, it is very easy to maintain the positions while thwarting the SEALs advances. The amount of ways up from the lower decks into the bridge and flight decks are limited, and thus simple to cover.
- By the same topic, SEALs should probably avoid losing the deck and the bridge at the same time. The AA should be manned and repaired at all times. A smart engineer will know that most enemies do aim at the AA mini-gun tower instead of the missile array, so exiting the AA will most of the time keep you from harm if the tower blows because exiting puts you by the missile array. Have the commander throw as many repair crates as possible around the AA gun and exit to repair when damaged. At some point, this was one of the ways I attempted the Engineering badge due to the amount of repair points I got from keeping the AA active.
- If you are manning the AA, you have the responsibility of keeping an eye on the far end of the carrier. I have stopped countless HALO paratroopers. Also, drawing fire from the APC and combat chopper is a sure way to help your team. Although in general I am opposed to fighting commanders, I think manning the AA gun is probably one of the things that a commander can do in Iron Gator.
- Speaking of commanders, I do try and keep the Satellite unit up always. The UAV has a lower priority. The reason for this is that the Satellite is a lot more useful for pinpointing sneak attacks than the UAV. In fact. the UAV can be very confusing for some when placed on top of the carrier. People do run paranoid for a guy that can be several decks above or below, but appears near on the UAV view. As a MEC SF soldier, I would then attempt to destroy the AA, then the Satellite then the UAV.
- Sniper fire is relatively hard to draw on this map. Being below deck, you will have very close quarters that do not justify the long ranges of the sniper rifle. On deck, you are way too vulnerable to chopper fire. There are probably a few situations where sniper fire is called for, i.e. supporting an attack on a main deck flag, but in general, this map does not lend itself for this type of fighting. If explosives are set not to kill friendlies, they might come in Handy for defensive purposes. There are tons of locations to place these babies.
- One strategy that has worked pretty good for me, is to pair a good APC with an engineer in a Jet-Ski. I ride around the APC being a tough target for rockets, while the APC does its stuff. It requires a lot of rockets to manage destroying an APC in this situation, making the couple vulnerable only to chopper fire.
Wow, did not mean to rant that long. Anyway, Iron Gator can be great or totally suck, depending on balance. Too much balance or too little balance make for very very long games.
Undecided - It depends entirely on the success or failure of patch 1.4 for me.
Agree totally. I rather have seven more days of testing/rechecking than another half baked release. Last thing needed after all this wait is a non-working or buggy new patch.dubbs wrote:
I am glad that DICE is taking a longer time to fix the patch. If they released it now with bugs in it, next week all of you who are complaining would be talking about how much DICE sucks at creating patches. At least they are listening to the community. We want bugs fixed, if this takes a while, so be it, but at least they are trying to fix the bugs.
Unfortunately, you are in bad shape. Neither the single player or the CoOp modes allow for AF maps with planes. However, the suggestion of running Clean Sweep is good, the bombing is not all that different from the A10 to the F15, in the basics at least. Not the same maps, but the technique is not too different, in my opinion, if you can bomb precisely with the F15/Su you will be able to handle the AF bombers very well (lower speeds overall).
Let me know if you happen to find a tweak that allows for this, I have tried in vain to find one so far.
Let me know if you happen to find a tweak that allows for this, I have tried in vain to find one so far.
1. I have not been able to deploy grappling or zip from a blackhawk, or any other vehicle. If you manage to do so, it is probably due to collision detection issues on the network side i.e. lag on either end.
2. Assuming you could manage to put your zip line through any vehicle (the line should not deploy across vehicle bodies), you will very likely die the moment you jump into the line. A common kill tactic in Ghost Town is to fly choppers through zip lines while people are running them. I am not sure if this is 100% true as server side collision is non existent on BF2, but they die regardless of the position on the zip line. The zip line appears deployed after the case. Perhaps someone with a couple friends could attempt to use the zip line after the case and see what happens.
If anyone has different experiences, please let me know, I would be very pleased to find I am wrong about these two statements.
2. Assuming you could manage to put your zip line through any vehicle (the line should not deploy across vehicle bodies), you will very likely die the moment you jump into the line. A common kill tactic in Ghost Town is to fly choppers through zip lines while people are running them. I am not sure if this is 100% true as server side collision is non existent on BF2, but they die regardless of the position on the zip line. The zip line appears deployed after the case. Perhaps someone with a couple friends could attempt to use the zip line after the case and see what happens.
If anyone has different experiences, please let me know, I would be very pleased to find I am wrong about these two statements.
IMHO, Iron Gator is a great map or a terrible map depending on the player types but the number of players is also important. 64 people will make for a very messy game most of the time. If the SEALS are semi coordinated on the first attack wave they would make it very unlikely for a MEC party to succesfully take over the carrier due to the fact that they have enough personnel in place to keep all accesses properly defended. MEC has a limited amount of transports to rush in, and coordinating the incursion is a lot harder than coordinating the defense. The only way to keep Iron Gator from being a massacre to either side is by not having enough people to secure all points at all times. This makes possible both for MEC to get to the carrier and for the SEALS to restore control while MEC forces attempt to capture a new position.
Yeah, being an ass an killing the gunner should be considered a ban-inducing offense.
Any teamkill aimed at misusing or abusing vehicles (whoring) should be an automatic ban.
Soloing in itself is not bad, as I said before, as long as you do it when you cannot do otherwise.
Any teamkill aimed at misusing or abusing vehicles (whoring) should be an automatic ban.
Soloing in itself is not bad, as I said before, as long as you do it when you cannot do otherwise.
I think you are absolutely wrong. It might be that you are playing in the wrong servers or with the wrong people. Perhaps you are not playing with the latest patches (now the chopper won't fly without a pilot).Leln wrote:
a good solo-gunner is always better than 2 people in a heli. A solo-gunner do not have to wait for the gunner to fire the tvg missile. At the time(1 sek) it takes the pilot to spot the opposing heli, the soloheli-player have already fired the tvg. If you are good at solo-flying, you do not miss whit the tvg. A solo-player can also use the mg to take down cars and inf. The only time 2 persons is better in a chopper is, after my opinion, is raping when the other team only have one flag left. Plz do not make the gamer any easier. Let the skies belong to the good soloflyers.
Amen. (sorry for my imperfect English)
In any case, a good pilot with a good gunner will ALWAYS be better than a top-notch soloer. Find some friends or look for a gunner that uses VOIP or Teamspeak (worse come to worse you can always use MSN or a similar comm tool for two people).
I take it you might have not played SF a lot. There, piloting is very hard due to the amount of buildings, trees, height variations etc... It ain't sharqui. Not having a gunner makes it extremely difficult to get proper kills and soloing is hard because you are very likely to crash against something.
Don't get me wrong, I do soloing (see my post above) but only when I cannot find ANY gunner at all.
By the same token, though a different thing, I will always strive to get a gunner for the bombers. A good gunner/bomber pair in airplanes are a killer combo.
It is probably not the last patch, per se, but it is probably the last significant patch there will be before a new incarnation of BF.
I will judge the continuity of BF2 based on the quality of the patch (all indicates that it is more feature based than fix based, so I have very low hopes of seeing critical issues fixed).
I will judge the continuity of BF2 based on the quality of the patch (all indicates that it is more feature based than fix based, so I have very low hopes of seeing critical issues fixed).
Helo soloing in itself is not a bad thing. What is bad is when you do it with plenty of gunners on the ground.
I will solo whenever the chopper is available and there is not a readily available gunner, which varies a lot from map to map. I even turn back after take off if someone yells for a pick up. Soloing is not replacement for a proper gunner.
Now, if your gunner sucks, just play as if he was not there. The dumb rockets are good enough for a decent pilot to wreak havoc, and any lucky shots the gunner gets will still be good for you.
Now with the fix added where choppers with no pilot will go down, the soloing cannot be abused as easily, so the more reason why I think it is not something people should consider an issue.
I will solo whenever the chopper is available and there is not a readily available gunner, which varies a lot from map to map. I even turn back after take off if someone yells for a pick up. Soloing is not replacement for a proper gunner.
Now, if your gunner sucks, just play as if he was not there. The dumb rockets are good enough for a decent pilot to wreak havoc, and any lucky shots the gunner gets will still be good for you.
Now with the fix added where choppers with no pilot will go down, the soloing cannot be abused as easily, so the more reason why I think it is not something people should consider an issue.
I agree with the fact that the only reason to put all these unstable "features" or unrequested items is to sell some more units.
I think, however, that in the long run that is not such a good idea. Many players have manifested their interest in alternatives to the BF series due to the bugs present.
I would be amazed to see DICE/EA doing the right thing, I don't think that is financially viable for them anymore. 1.4 will probably be the last I see from them before BF2142, and then again, I am seriously considering not buying that one because of all this annoyances.
I think, however, that in the long run that is not such a good idea. Many players have manifested their interest in alternatives to the BF series due to the bugs present.
I would be amazed to see DICE/EA doing the right thing, I don't think that is financially viable for them anymore. 1.4 will probably be the last I see from them before BF2142, and then again, I am seriously considering not buying that one because of all this annoyances.
All points made about having non armored vehicles (or light armored vehicles) are valid.
However, the last thing you want is DICE/EA fiddling with the code to accomodate such a request.
In the light of past "features" causing more issues than anything else, I would rather deal with no vehicles at all.
This is one of the problems where people start tweaking things to do what they were not intended to do in the first place. There are plenty games out there that do the infantry only thing, very well. BF2 Infantry and maps were designed from the get go to be useful in an environment where vehicles were present.
I think asking for a tweak to this will be responded with a half-baked solution. Actually, I think that is just what happened with 1.4, just removing the vehicles and making people sprint more.
However, the last thing you want is DICE/EA fiddling with the code to accomodate such a request.
In the light of past "features" causing more issues than anything else, I would rather deal with no vehicles at all.
This is one of the problems where people start tweaking things to do what they were not intended to do in the first place. There are plenty games out there that do the infantry only thing, very well. BF2 Infantry and maps were designed from the get go to be useful in an environment where vehicles were present.
I think asking for a tweak to this will be responded with a half-baked solution. Actually, I think that is just what happened with 1.4, just removing the vehicles and making people sprint more.
I can't imagine anything but Great Wall being playable without vehicles. Even then, whovever holds the complex first will probably own the rest of the game.
I would get AF and SF.
EF I like, but there are not enough servers with people in them, so it might not be money well spent. Also EF tends to be dominated by pilots in the maps with planes, so it can be boring to be on them if you are not piloting or the pilot counterpart is too good (which is common).
The map I really like, particulary when you are lucky enough to find a packed server is "Great Wall". That map is lots of fun in my opinion. No air units, and plenty of infantry fight opportunities inside the walled complex.
AF is fun because of the vehicle variety. The A-10 type of bombers (Fantan, Su) are not particulary powerful, but the lack of serious Air-Air fights makes them very unlikely to be shot down if you fly safe. Also the little birds (recon choppers) are a blast to fly, very useful if you have a tight squad. The maps are Ok too.
SF is lots of fun, but also lacks servers. Very interesting maps here, and lots of hard fighting.
All in all, I think you are a little late for SF and EF as those seem to be on decline, but SF is very complete and different enough to make it worth your money.
EF I like, but there are not enough servers with people in them, so it might not be money well spent. Also EF tends to be dominated by pilots in the maps with planes, so it can be boring to be on them if you are not piloting or the pilot counterpart is too good (which is common).
The map I really like, particulary when you are lucky enough to find a packed server is "Great Wall". That map is lots of fun in my opinion. No air units, and plenty of infantry fight opportunities inside the walled complex.
AF is fun because of the vehicle variety. The A-10 type of bombers (Fantan, Su) are not particulary powerful, but the lack of serious Air-Air fights makes them very unlikely to be shot down if you fly safe. Also the little birds (recon choppers) are a blast to fly, very useful if you have a tight squad. The maps are Ok too.
SF is lots of fun, but also lacks servers. Very interesting maps here, and lots of hard fighting.
All in all, I think you are a little late for SF and EF as those seem to be on decline, but SF is very complete and different enough to make it worth your money.
With the sniper kit it depends on the situation. For the most part I prefer targets that will go down in one shot, which basically means that I will follow the target for as long as I feel is necessary to get the shot I expect. That varies from a fraction of a second to 10 seconds for slow moving/jerky targets. Not every time I have the head in the sights, particulary when the target is moving, when the time between the decision to shoot and the actual shot are separated by enough time to make or break a head shot. Vary rarely will I attempt to shoot at targets moving at wide angles from my firing line, as the deviation makes it very uncertain for a hit and you will give away your position without a kill.
Have in mind that this rule is only for high power sniper rifles. For SVD types, I will take a lot more risk as the rate of fire permits more shots in a smaller period. Here I will attempt head shots only on static targets, and timed body shots for the rest.
Now, when sniping without the sniper kit, I will stress the first shot wait time to attempt a good chest/head shot and then rip a timed succession for the core chest area, thus spending 2-3 seconds at least lining up the shot. This I will do with all the rifles and handguns AND the PKM ( I have yet to try my hand with the other squad support weapons with this style). The MP7 is Ok for this as long as you keep your shots spaced enough. In general, knowing how to space the shots with the weapon at hand is the key for long range shots. Note the L85A1 is not as precise as the scope would suggest, but it is still the best way to snipe without being a sniper. If you have a very precise weapon (G36C/G36E), let it rip, you will probably hit and kill on the first 4-5 shots as long as you space your shots (or use proper bursting).
Having a mouse that can change speeds also modifies the time you spend following targets. You can aquire or reaquire targets much better when you can alter the speed of the mouse movement.
Have in mind that this rule is only for high power sniper rifles. For SVD types, I will take a lot more risk as the rate of fire permits more shots in a smaller period. Here I will attempt head shots only on static targets, and timed body shots for the rest.
Now, when sniping without the sniper kit, I will stress the first shot wait time to attempt a good chest/head shot and then rip a timed succession for the core chest area, thus spending 2-3 seconds at least lining up the shot. This I will do with all the rifles and handguns AND the PKM ( I have yet to try my hand with the other squad support weapons with this style). The MP7 is Ok for this as long as you keep your shots spaced enough. In general, knowing how to space the shots with the weapon at hand is the key for long range shots. Note the L85A1 is not as precise as the scope would suggest, but it is still the best way to snipe without being a sniper. If you have a very precise weapon (G36C/G36E), let it rip, you will probably hit and kill on the first 4-5 shots as long as you space your shots (or use proper bursting).
Having a mouse that can change speeds also modifies the time you spend following targets. You can aquire or reaquire targets much better when you can alter the speed of the mouse movement.
I voted no, but strictly speaking, I think BF2 is over the hill. By that I mean that I don't see anything new coming for it before BF 2142 (got that right?) and the player population is diminishing, in my opinion.
Also, I don't think any of the major bugs will ever be fixed (DICE seems fixated in adding useless "features") so people bothered by those issues will drift sooner than later.
Also, I don't think any of the major bugs will ever be fixed (DICE seems fixated in adding useless "features") so people bothered by those issues will drift sooner than later.
I like the A-10, even though I think the A-10 is probably the worst plane in the BF2 series. However, the lack of Air-to-Air strong weapons make it very easy to use and very effective. If you had to put the A-10 in a map with ANY air to air missiles, they would fall off the sky all the time.
In fact, any decent ground AA knows that it is way easier to shoot down an AF bomber with the regular cannon/gun than with missiles. Two hits of the USA main gun and about 30 rounds of the MEC/Chinese AA will rip a bomber apart, whereas two - three missiles are very hard to connect (the lock time is slow).
A combination of both regular guns and missiles is lethal every time.
Now, the reason why the A-10 seems a tad better than its counterparts would have to be handling. Empirically, I feel that I can turn and maneuver much more easy using the A-10 than its counterparts.
I also think that the A-10 bombs were just plain easy to develop. I would have preferred to have the powerful cannon and dumb rockets. That would have required a lot more skill from the pilot perspective, and would have been fair to the poor amor-men down in the ground.
In fact, any decent ground AA knows that it is way easier to shoot down an AF bomber with the regular cannon/gun than with missiles. Two hits of the USA main gun and about 30 rounds of the MEC/Chinese AA will rip a bomber apart, whereas two - three missiles are very hard to connect (the lock time is slow).
A combination of both regular guns and missiles is lethal every time.
Now, the reason why the A-10 seems a tad better than its counterparts would have to be handling. Empirically, I feel that I can turn and maneuver much more easy using the A-10 than its counterparts.
I also think that the A-10 bombs were just plain easy to develop. I would have preferred to have the powerful cannon and dumb rockets. That would have required a lot more skill from the pilot perspective, and would have been fair to the poor amor-men down in the ground.
I think all transport choppers need proper guns. The do not need to be as damaging as the original BlackHawk miniguns, which were monstrous, but you need to be able to hit something while flying.
The only way I have been able to use the BH miniguns since they were nerfed, has been by flying the chopper myself to a particular spot, and then manning the gun while the chopper is landed.
Now, the main complain about the BH was that is was too powerful and had no real counter part. Giving all transport choppers decent guns should address the issue.
The only way I have been able to use the BH miniguns since they were nerfed, has been by flying the chopper myself to a particular spot, and then manning the gun while the chopper is landed.
Now, the main complain about the BH was that is was too powerful and had no real counter part. Giving all transport choppers decent guns should address the issue.
First, I really don't mind having Infantry only, though I would probably will not be playing in those servers, at least no intentionally. I am pretty sure there will be no way to tell if a map is Infantry only, and I will probably find out just after joining (same as it happened when they added the "No friendly explosives" option, where I had to blow up a friendly - or not - to find out).
Now, that being said, the Engineers and ATs will certainly be less attractive. You will probably have 50% or more of the population being medics and support. Snipers will be on the rise, and I expect to see a ton of claymore work, now that you are guaranteed that no vehicle will blow your claymores without consequence. I find it hard to think why would you not want to be medic all the time, with the G36E being so accurate. Between the heals, revives and superior assault rifle, medics will rule the battlefield.
Sad as it is, I am pretty sure (as someone mentioned in another posting) that EA/DICE is wasting a bunch of resources to implement this "feature" when they should be concentrating on fixing real known issues. On the first beta incarnation this feature had some disastrous consequences that made the "Vehicle Drop" feature look good (too much health, too little damage, invincible medics etc...). I find it extremely hard to make balanced games on maps that were designed with vehicles in them. No major 64 map that was designed with vehicles in mind will be bearable without them.
Now, that being said, the Engineers and ATs will certainly be less attractive. You will probably have 50% or more of the population being medics and support. Snipers will be on the rise, and I expect to see a ton of claymore work, now that you are guaranteed that no vehicle will blow your claymores without consequence. I find it hard to think why would you not want to be medic all the time, with the G36E being so accurate. Between the heals, revives and superior assault rifle, medics will rule the battlefield.
Sad as it is, I am pretty sure (as someone mentioned in another posting) that EA/DICE is wasting a bunch of resources to implement this "feature" when they should be concentrating on fixing real known issues. On the first beta incarnation this feature had some disastrous consequences that made the "Vehicle Drop" feature look good (too much health, too little damage, invincible medics etc...). I find it extremely hard to make balanced games on maps that were designed with vehicles in them. No major 64 map that was designed with vehicles in mind will be bearable without them.