Pages: 1 … 98 99 100 101 102 … 683
I daresay i have more of a life than you do and I'd still like a game that takes talent to be good at instead of boring dumbed down everyone-equal-no-matter-how-long-you-play pussy shitJay wrote:
Jesus wept. All this post told me is that you need to get a life.
I wouldn't call what BF2 was skill but okay..:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
I daresay i have more of a life than you do and I'd still like a game that takes talent to be good at instead of boring dumbed down everyone-equal-no-matter-how-long-you-play pussy shitJay wrote:
Jesus wept. All this post told me is that you need to get a life.
up too the EA welfare patches it wasDoctor Strangelove wrote:
I wouldn't call what BF2 was skill but okay..:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
I daresay i have more of a life than you do and I'd still like a game that takes talent to be good at instead of boring dumbed down everyone-equal-no-matter-how-long-you-play pussy shitJay wrote:
Jesus wept. All this post told me is that you need to get a life.
Well I mean, it was really difficult to kill people with pre-patch jets, grenade-launchers, C4, and TV Missiles. Very fucking difficult..:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
up too the EA welfare patches it wasDoctor Strangelove wrote:
I wouldn't call what BF2 was skill but okay..:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
I daresay i have more of a life than you do and I'd still like a game that takes talent to be good at instead of boring dumbed down everyone-equal-no-matter-how-long-you-play pussy shit
No, what it does is level the playing field so that what comes through is actual raw skill versus memorizing maps and bullet drop etc. You can train a monkey to become an expert as long as he puts the time and effort in. The people who bitch about nerfs and game changes and other shit do so because they lack the ability to adapt. They've hit their comfort zone via brute force and don't want it to ever change after they reach that point. Nevermind that their 'skill' is based on exploits and repetitive experience.Adams_BJ wrote:
I don't think you should have to play 60 hours + to be good at a game, I just think you should be good at a game by being good at a game. If you suck, you should'nt be able to roll over anyone you want because the game is designed that way. If you come for a 1v1, the better should always win. Games are starting to go the way of everyone has a chance right from the start. It takes an important element out of the game I think. Controls shouldn't be so hard you need three arms to use, they should be accessible, with some elements that with the right ability you can get more out of it.
I believe that was my point.Jay wrote:
No, what it does is level the playing field so that what comes through is actual raw skill versus memorizing maps and bullet drop etc. You can train a monkey to become an expert as long as he puts the time and effort in. The people who bitch about nerfs and game changes and other shit do so because they lack the ability to adapt. They've hit their comfort zone via brute force and don't want it to ever change after they reach that point. Nevermind that their 'skill' is based on exploits and repetitive experience.Adams_BJ wrote:
I don't think you should have to play 60 hours + to be good at a game, I just think you should be good at a game by being good at a game. If you suck, you should'nt be able to roll over anyone you want because the game is designed that way. If you come for a 1v1, the better should always win. Games are starting to go the way of everyone has a chance right from the start. It takes an important element out of the game I think. Controls shouldn't be so hard you need three arms to use, they should be accessible, with some elements that with the right ability you can get more out of it.
People with real skill in anything can pick it up quickly, learn the nuances and adapt when faced with change. The rest are just fakers who have to dump thousands of hours in in order to be competitive. The first group don't bitch, they simply stop playing, adapt, or find another game. The second group are the ultra-conservative-whine-about-any-change-made-to-their-game types.
I know, I just needed someone to quoteAdams_BJ wrote:
I believe that was my point.
unless you had an account before your current one you started playing the beginning of 2006, the game had already been out for half a year (the period i was talking about 1.00-1.12) and was patched to 1.2 the first downfall patch give or take a few weeks before or after you started playing. You didn't even experience the period which i'm talking about and if you did it was when you were new, no wonder you liked 1.2 onward.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Well I mean, it was really difficult to kill people with pre-patch jets, grenade-launchers, C4, and TV Missiles. Very fucking difficult..:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
up too the EA welfare patches it wasDoctor Strangelove wrote:
I wouldn't call what BF2 was skill but okay.
I did play then, and I remember it very well..:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
unless you had an account before your current one you started playing the beginning of 2006, the game had already been out for half a year (the period i was talking about 1.00-1.12) and was patched to 1.2 the first downfall patch give or take a few weeks before or after you started playing. You didn't even experience the period which i'm talking about and if you did it was when you were new, no wonder you liked 1.2 onward.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Well I mean, it was really difficult to kill people with pre-patch jets, grenade-launchers, C4, and TV Missiles. Very fucking difficult..:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
up too the EA welfare patches it was
BF3 really could use more aircrafts per map. Some for the nubs and noobs, and just enough more for the skilled. That was actually one of the better things about 1943. Just enough planes and AA to take them out, so that the unskilled were constantly shot down, while the skilled who somehow did get shot down didn't have to wait long for a new plane to become available. AA was effective enough that a good AA gunner could keep a good pilot away from constantly raping an airfield. But at the same time, a skilled pilot had plenty of other places to make kills..:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
Because there was only 1-2 jets per team. Everyone can have a CG. Everyone uses the CG=Explosivefield3=fucking dumbIlocano wrote:
If jets are the top of the vehicle food chain and should be that way, why can't something like the CG also be at the top of the anti-infantry food chain since it was designed to be.
I like reloading by magazine count. It gets players out of the terrible habit of reloading after every two shots, and BF2 had tons of ammo lying around anyway.Dilbert_X wrote:
I think it would be fair that a tactical reload should be quicker than a reload when you've run dry.
Removing the round counter and auto-reload feature would be more realistic and require more skill.
Last edited by Drunk_Musketeer (2011-04-19 02:49:33)
With customized scopes, including RDS and variable magnification optics.Drunk_Musketeer wrote:
I don't care much how many planes on the map. I want an SVD
No. Just a plain old SVD. Stupid customisation crap.Ilocano wrote:
With customized scopes, including RDS and variable magnification optics.Drunk_Musketeer wrote:
I don't care much how many planes on the map. I want an SVD
just a silencerRDMC wrote:
No. Just a plain old SVD. Stupid customisation crap.Ilocano wrote:
With customized scopes, including RDS and variable magnification optics.Drunk_Musketeer wrote:
I don't care much how many planes on the map. I want an SVD
Since when did silencers matter much in BF2?thepilot91 wrote:
just a silencerRDMC wrote:
No. Just a plain old SVD. Stupid customisation crap.Ilocano wrote:
With customized scopes, including RDS and variable magnification optics.
heheheheJay wrote:
The bitches simply need to be ignored
skill is developed by putting more time into somethingJay wrote:
No, what it does is level the playing field so that what comes through is actual raw skill versus memorizing maps and bullet drop etc. You can train a monkey to become an expert as long as he puts the time and effort in. The people who bitch about nerfs and game changes and other shit do so because they lack the ability to adapt. They've hit their comfort zone via brute force and don't want it to ever change after they reach that point. Nevermind that their 'skill' is based on exploits and repetitive experience.Adams_BJ wrote:
I don't think you should have to play 60 hours + to be good at a game, I just think you should be good at a game by being good at a game. If you suck, you should'nt be able to roll over anyone you want because the game is designed that way. If you come for a 1v1, the better should always win. Games are starting to go the way of everyone has a chance right from the start. It takes an important element out of the game I think. Controls shouldn't be so hard you need three arms to use, they should be accessible, with some elements that with the right ability you can get more out of it.
People with real skill in anything can pick it up quickly, learn the nuances and adapt when faced with change. The rest are just fakers who have to dump thousands of hours in in order to be competitive. The first group don't bitch, they simply stop playing, adapt, or find another game. The second group are the ultra-conservative-whine-about-any-change-made-to-their-game types.
Pages: 1 … 98 99 100 101 102 … 683