BF2S Forums [Battlefield: Bad Company 2] Official Thread

FloppY_ wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

I HATE snipers.

Last night i was playing as a defender and it was a full 12v12 match and everyone on my team was a sniper. Literally, everyone! And there i was running round as an engineer trying to blow the tanks up with an RPG...

The game lasted about 7 minutes... going through every single crate after the first 2 minutes... does not describe my mood!

Console only gets 24players ?

Yeah

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

Win a Rush round. Times collected: 24
Be the best player. Times collected: 28

Xbox console players are terrible . I'm still often the only person attacking/defending. Just before, I destroyed the last 2 crates on the map literally singlehandedly. I kept checking the map, I was the only person there.

Fixed as ps3 players are shitty as well.

dill13 wrote:

If the rest of the maps are like the one in the pc beta i wish they would have left it at that for pc.
Edit: Although 24 is still to many for the pc map.

Yeah I think the 24 limit is just fine.

Like TF2, the maps are designed for that many players. I've not played the PC version but I imagine if it's anything like TF2, the bump up to 32 players from 24 adds nothing but spam, stalemates, and makes it impossible for the attacking team.

Is it like that? Or are the affects of the extra 8 players less noticable?

dill13 wrote:

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

dill13 wrote:

If the rest of the maps are like the one in the pc beta i wish they would have left it at that for pc.
Edit: Although 24 is still to many for the pc map.

Yeah I think the 24 limit is just fine.

Like TF2, the maps are designed for that many players. I've not played the PC version but I imagine if it's anything like TF2, the bump up to 32 players from 24 adds nothing but spam, stalemates, and makes it impossible for the attacking team.

Is it like that? Or are the affects of the extra 8 players less noticable?

Its pretty bad at 32 from the little ive played of it cause theres only 2 ways to attack and usally no cover cause it all gets cut down. so you have 5 plus snipers firing at you so your screwed on attack unless your in a tank.

Which is why attackers should of gotten transport chopper

dill13 wrote:

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

dill13 wrote:

If the rest of the maps are like the one in the pc beta i wish they would have left it at that for pc.
Edit: Although 24 is still to many for the pc map.

Yeah I think the 24 limit is just fine.

Like TF2, the maps are designed for that many players. I've not played the PC version but I imagine if it's anything like TF2, the bump up to 32 players from 24 adds nothing but spam, stalemates, and makes it impossible for the attacking team.

Is it like that? Or are the affects of the extra 8 players less noticable?

Its pretty bad at 32 from the little ive played of it cause theres only 2 ways to attack and usally no cover cause it all gets cut down. so you have 5 plus snipers firing at you so your screwed on attack unless your in a tank.

thats why you akways rush with +C4 upgrade and take A/B first thing either the rush way or the jihad way , zen itza piza cake

Rod Foxx wrote:

I don't have any problem with the 32 player limit. TBH i prefer to play on full servers rather than low 20's or less, it makes the game more intense.

Sisco10 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Rod Foxx wrote:

I don't have any problem with the 32 player limit. TBH i prefer to play on full servers rather than low 20's or less, it makes the game more intense.

Its actually kinda great. Chaos of battle. The frontlines are mixed, you have to be aware and make good use of cover.

But beware, if they should turn on friendly fire. Shits gonna hit the fan.

Hopefully FF will be forced off on ranked non-Shitcore servers.

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

I think the removal of friendly fire is one of the best changes they've made. Friendly fire does nothing but annoy people, ruin gameplay, and annoy people.

Still managed to get a team kill though.

I think that you accidentally MCOM as a defender.

You can still kill your own MCOM's, so be careful. It's kinda shit if it happens but it prevents defenders from planting 9001 C4s on them so that the attacks die the second they set up us the bomb.

So, is this game good?

Finray wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

So, is this game good?

Yeah it's quite good. If it ran at over 30 FPS then it'd be even better.

I'm not trying to brag, but I think I've got a pretty decent computer.. and it runs kinda crap, even at a low resolution.

You really need a quad-core. The game is really taxing on the CPU, and having a quad-core makes it run like 20 times more smoothly.

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Finray wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

So, is this game good?

Yeah it's quite good. If it ran at over 30 FPS then it'd be even better.

I'm not trying to brag, but I think I've got a pretty decent computer.. and it runs kinda crap, even at a low resolution.

You really need a quad-core. The game is really taxing on the CPU, and having a quad-core makes it run like 20 times more smoothly.

Yeh.

My e8500+5870 eats shit.

Bevo wrote:

Dunno what you run finny but my quad core and 9800gtx run 1920x1200 on all medium above 40fps, probably a bit more.

I'm on a tiddly E5200, even with a 3.2Ghz OC it's still a bit laggy.

What CPU you on?

Bevo wrote:

Finray wrote:

Bevo wrote:

Dunno what you run finny but my quad core and 9800gtx run 1920x1200 on all medium above 40fps, probably a bit more.

I'm on a tiddly E5200, even with a 3.2Ghz OC it's still a bit laggy.

What CPU you on?

2 Dual core AMD 285 2.61GHz

Meh that's about the same as mine.

I run max graphics, 8xAA, 16xAF 1280x1024.. even if I put it all on low with no AA or AF I get the same FPS