• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Dear DICE...

X

XvMMvX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,668
Please add a Search & Destroy game mode to BF:BC2 so I do not have to play that shitty COD franchise anymore. You Could probably use the squad rush maps with slight modifications, just add a second objective and let there be six players on each team.

HC S&D on COD is my favorite game mode on any FPS, but I am stuck with the COD franchise in that regard....help me out on this.

K thx bai!
 
They also need a Capture the Flag mode that uses 3-flag conquest maps and has the "center" flag be the flag spawn, and the outer two flags(the ones closest to the bases) the kind that need to be capped(like conquest) in order for a flag cap(bringing the flag back from the center) to count. Kill someone carrying the flag; Flag drops. Flags can be carried in ground vehicles only, flags drop from vehicles. = My new favourite mode.
 
S+D is just a CS clone isn't it ? In that case you have an alternative, CS:S, unless there are other requirements which you are not stating.

Secondly, aren't the BF games multiplayer all about large terrain maps, like ones you take 5-10 mins to get from one side to the other not so ? S+D/Defusal only really works well with medium size maps (like those in CS/CoD) which takes less than 15 seconds to rotate from one site to the other. In some cases you can rotate in less than 10 or even 5 seconds. Sure Dice might be able to rework some maps but then they would be putting themselves into direct competition with the biggest team based MP FPS franchises of all time, CS and CoD, which is something I don't think they want.
 
Or....

You could have some self control and not play COD.
 
Drexion said:
Secondly, aren't the BF games multiplayer all about large terrain maps, like ones you take 5-10 mins to get from one side to the other not so ?
Click to expand...

BF is about massive maps, BC is about small/medium sized maps.

We need several new modes. S&D would be nice. I'm surprised CTF hasn't been added. VIP would be cool. Then again, they have other things they should fix before adding new modes lol..
 
WiLLiSTER said:
BF is about massive maps, BC is about small/medium sized maps.

We need several new modes. S&D would be nice. I'm surprised CTF hasn't been added. VIP would be cool. Then again, they have other things they should fix before adding new modes lol..
Click to expand...

I'd actually prefer they continue both franchises as I like the quick play of BC and if I'm in for a long game I can always switch to BF.
 
ummm this isn't DICE's website?
Click to expand...

Ummm...I was just trying to spur conversation, I think you knew that.

S+D is just a CS clone isn't it ? In that case you have an alternative, CS:S, unless there are other requirements which you are not stating.
Click to expand...

Never played CS:S, plus I prefer (keyword, please don't start a debate) to play FPS on my PS3 with my friends.

I just like the mechanics that Dive has designed for battle field from an FPS perspective. Much better than anything else I have played.
 
Thats my biggest gripe with BF BC2... Need more game types. CTF would be so much fun! What has black ops done to me :(
 
S&D was so lame, I could care less about it, forget MW2 and Black Ops

darklight_tr said:
I would prefer if BC2 added LAN servers.
Click to expand...

same or just the ability to start a server, I want to be able to host a 4v4 from my Xeon just for friends to play on, at that point stats don't really matter.
 
Since this is a dear dice thread, I would just like to say.

I WANT BF3 NOW! I CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG.

COD is just not cutting the mustard.
 
Dear DICE,

Please stop making Battlefield games. They aren't getting any better. They aren't going to get any better.

Thanks,
phide
 
darklight_tr said:
I would prefer if BC2 added LAN servers.
Click to expand...

These days are over.. And they aren't needed anymore. Since all major lans have internet access now. So they only reason to support it would be for pirates.. And ya that wont happen.. As it shouldn't..
 
Dion said:
These days are over.. And they aren't needed anymore. Since all major lans have internet access now. So they only reason to support it would be for pirates.. And ya that wont happen.. As it shouldn't..
Click to expand...

The point is to be able to host a game for the lan rather than having to connect to someone elses public server where other people may join. I know I, as well as my friends, would really appreciate this feature.
 
S&D for BF? LOL go back to your xbox.

CTF on the other hand.... I hope to hell that BF3 has it. It was so leet in BF42!!!!!
 
Spewn said:
Feel free to stop playing them :D
Click to expand...
Consider it done :)

Really though, my gripe is that BC2 tends to be heralded as the best multiplayer PC shooter of 2010. And that concerns me, because I look back at some of the greatest examples of multiplayer shooters on the PC in the past decade (and even further back) and I think, "wow, has it really gotten this bad?". BC2 definitely isn't the worst FPS I've played on the PC, but its reputation suggests that it's one of the best — and to me that's strange.

I can understand how our standards would lower out of sheer desperation for whatever's the least bit better than CoD 17 (or whatever), but damn...I didn't think things were really this bad.
 
XvMMvX said:
Please add a Search & Destroy game mode to BF:BC2 so I do not have to play that shitty COD franchise anymore. You Could probably use the squad rush maps with slight modifications, just add a second objective and let there be six players on each team.

HC S&D on COD is my favorite game mode on any FPS, but I am stuck with the COD franchise in that regard....help me out on this.

K thx bai!
Click to expand...

Dear Dice,
if you listen to XvMMvX i'll quit buying your games.




swear to god if they add that shit i'll personally blame you!


phide said:
Consider it done :)

Really though, my gripe is that BC2 tends to be heralded as the best multiplayer PC shooter of 2010. And that concerns me, because I look back at some of the greatest examples of multiplayer shooters on the PC in the past decade (and even further back) and I think, "wow, has it really gotten this bad?". BC2 definitely isn't the worst FPS I've played on the PC, but its reputation suggests that it's one of the best — and to me that's strange.

I can understand how our standards would lower out of sheer desperation for whatever's the least bit better than CoD 17 (or whatever), but damn...I didn't think things were really this bad.
Click to expand...


yes it has gotten this bad thanks to all the stupid ADD children out there crying about how it takes to damn long to learn a game or how it requires to much strategy to play a game. "like OMG my heads going to explode because i actually have to learn how to play a game and use team work to win, OMG!!!". for the game style that BC2 fills which is an arcade strategy FPS it is the best PC shooter of 2010 hands down. there hasn't been any other PC shooter that fills the non arcade strategy game style since BF2. the problem is people try to compare games to other games that arent even alike. you can compare COD to BC1/2 but you can't compare BC1/2 to a games like BF2 or Red Orchestra.
 
Last edited:
phide said:
Consider it done :)

Really though, my gripe is that BC2 tends to be heralded as the best multiplayer PC shooter of 2010. And that concerns me, because I look back at some of the greatest examples of multiplayer shooters on the PC in the past decade (and even further back) and I think, "wow, has it really gotten this bad?". BC2 definitely isn't the worst FPS I've played on the PC, but its reputation suggests that it's one of the best — and to me that's strange.

I can understand how our standards would lower out of sheer desperation for whatever's the least bit better than CoD 17 (or whatever), but damn...I didn't think things were really this bad.
Click to expand...


I'd have to say BC2 is my favorite multiplayer fps of 2010, and I fully agree, things have gotten that bad. I play it, and sometimes I enjoy it quite a bit, but other times I log off in frustration and hop on a CS server for half an hour to remind myself of how good things could be. Seriously, why is a latency below 100 almost non-existent, and why does it feel even worse than it should with these 150ms-200ms latencies that over half the server has on a server that is supposedly running dual intel quads with 48gigs of ram? Why is it common for 2 people to kill each other simultaneously? And that's just the netcode...

I've played some BF2 lately, and as good as that game was, it was by no means perfect. BF3 should have been out already, should have fixed a lot of the obvious flaws with BF2, updated the graphics/sounds, improved the netcode, and maybe added destructible environments. I suppose improved netcode doesn't ship as much boxes as adapting the game to compete more directly with the CoD franchise.

Thanks for getting me started...I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep now. :p
 
Counterstrike doesn't have bullet physics, destroyable environments, or vehicles. There's a lot more traffic over the network in BC2 so there's going to be more latency. That and there's more players so that makes it even worse.

You can't blame DICE for the netcode, I've only had a few bad instances of it, and I just leave the server and find another one. I've done some network programming with a simple asteroids game, and it had still had some lag on a LAN with 1-2ms pings. It's not as easy as you would think... I'm amazed networked games run as well as they do.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
the problem is people try to compare games to other games that arent even alike. you can compare COD to BC1/2 but you can't compare BC1/2 to a games like BF2 or Red Orchestra.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand. Why not?
 
Snowknight26 said:
Source servers can have more than 32 players.
Click to expand...

Right, but most CS clans play on small servers with 10-12 players... the more players you have, the more the latency is going to increase because the server is going to have to receive and send more data to/from all of the clients.
 
I've messed around with alot of the net settings in the HL2 engine, mostly for TF2, so I definitely appreciate how hard networking is to implement in games, and I'm also a programmer to some extent, and I know most guys working on these titles are fricken brilliant people. You do have a point that there is probably a good amount more network traffic in BC2, but I feel like breaking it down a little even if this isn't the best place and I'm not an expert (feel free to correct me).

I don't really see bullet drop/velocity adding to network traffic, almost at all. Where the bullet hits visually is determined client side, and where it actually hits is determined server side. To determine where it actually hits, the server has to know the weapon used (should be cached), the position of the player, and the direction he's aiming. Let me know if I'm missing something. Anyways, the rest is calculated server side, and the calculations are definitely more complex than they would be in CS, but the actual network traffic isn't any different.

As for collapsible buildings, we know that it is a pre-defined effect, so what is being sent across the network...the state of all destructible objects? Do they send the entire state of all buildings very often because that could be a lot of load. I would think they send updates to the initial state, and to confirm that the states are in sync every so often would they send something like a checksum? I suppose destructible environments have the potential to increase network traffic but by that much?

And about the team sizes, I feel like bf2 did much better than bc2 (other than the laggy hitboxes) even with 32vs32 instead of 16vs16.

I hate in game dying half a second after going around a wall. I know it happens in other games, never as bad and as consistently. Also I can't think of any other game where I'd beat someone to the draw on my screen and put 3 bullets into their head, but due to latency they actually got 3 of their own shots off that I didn't see, so we both end up dead. If I'm wrong about any of this stuff, I'd love to be corrected. I still like BC2 for what it is, I just hope they'll put more effort into some of my concerns for BF3.
 
phide said:
I'm not sure I understand. Why not?
Click to expand...

Because BC != BF. The Battlefield series is known for massive maps, 64+ players, and large scale, intense battles. BC is focused around smaller squad based play, therefore your maps are smaller, you have less people, they remove some of the vehicles, etc. They're not meant to be in the same category so they shouldn't be compared to one another. I can't comment on RO since I haven't played it since the first one back in like 06..
 
There's still a lot more going on in a BC2 match than a CS or Quake match. Building collapsing is an animation yes, but not the destructible environment (Like shooting holes in walls). Velocity/drop doesn't add a lot to traffic but it's still more than games like CS which are 100% hitscan.

And for 99% of the time I've played BC2 (150 somethin hours) it's been lag free with no major glitches. I shoot someone, they die. They shoot me, I die. Honestly I really haven't seen any of the stuff people are complaining about on a consistent basis. I've had it happen occasionally in a few servers, and I just leave and find another one. I don't blame it on DICE because I don't think they're incompetent.

You wanna see real network lag, go play some Planetside... and hit detection is 100% clientside. So if the guy shot you on his screen, you got hit. This also meant it was easy for hackers to write a simple hack that freezed all players on their screen, then they go run around and kill static targets. You're on the other side of the map and you die randomly cause some guy shot you on his screen.

Not saying the guys behind Planetside were incompetent either, that game was supporting 400 people on a single "continent" (Level / No loading screens on a continent). and thousands per server. And that was back in the day when some people were still on 56k or slow DSL.

I'm just saying, I don't blame the developers... It runs amazing for how complicated it is underneath. And I don't think you really appreciate that until you try to program something similar yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top