|
is the beta down for anyone else too?
|
So how long does the maintenance take?
|
On October 02 2011 15:48 Torte de Lini wrote:
How do you burn people with the robot? I can only arm bombs ):.
I also have a flying robot, but it doesnt work
EOD bot for arming / disarm bomb and repairing things
MAV not activated in beta
|
Servers starting to come back on.
|
On October 02 2011 12:42 Cedstick wrote:
It's not BF2. Disappointed. I should just re-install BF2 to see if people still play the vanilla version; the expansions fucking sucked -- at least the Special Forces one did. Didn't bother with the others after that.
People still play BF2. And i kinda agree with you.
|
Got back onto a server, only for it to crash after 5 minutes.
|
well.... theres a solid 4000xp gone forever
|
On October 02 2011 10:56 hellsan631 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2011 10:29 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 02 2011 10:11 askTeivospy wrote:On October 02 2011 09:47 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 02 2011 09:17 askTeivospy wrote:On October 02 2011 09:07 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 02 2011 09:03 askTeivospy wrote:
ugh no, id rather have CoD players on my team than tactical ghost recon metal gear solid idiots that just sit in bushes and push up way too slowly because they're in sTeAlTh mOdE
Its called "RUSH". I see your understand of what tactical means is shrouded and narrow. keep it up with your pretentious one liners, but BF infantry has always been about running and gunning and not tactics. The difference between CoD and BF is CoD you just run whereever you want. BF you run towards a single objective. *RUSH* edit- the server file thing sounds stupid, but I'm 100% sure they'll ban for that if not in BETA then in release. They obviously have a much newer build than we have so it might already be fixed anyways /shrug They're not pretentious. They're clear observations that you take things literal and without a grain of salt. Rush means X for you and Tactical means Y for you. When you can consider the possibility that your connation of words are way off, then maybe you won't be so snarky ._. Rush doesn't necessarily mean rushing and throwing yourselves at the objective. That's obvious because after activating the bomb, you have to hold the area. Hardly a form of rushing or anything related to that. yes it was pretentious, at least in my opinion but idc thats how i infer it Anyways my definition of running and gunning is what I assume most peoples is: run and gun with your closest battle buddies to achieve the objective my definition of tactical is probably different but practically speaking from what I see in game its spot on: playing slow and scared now if you're doing the "gunning" part correctly in the "run and gun" phrase then holding something off shouldn't be hard as long as you kill like 2 or 3 waves of defenders or delay them significantly EXAMPLE First you run to point A, clear it out so you can move to B, clear it out so you can move to C, clear it out so you can arm bombsite A, Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay kablAOW* First you prone move to point A and sit behind cover so you can plot your next move*, then you get up and move forward because someone armed bombsite A *Yes its prone to quick failing if your run and gun fails <- generally quick fail is because people are too slow following up behind you or you "assume" your back is safe because theres people behind you but you get shot since they're too busy being blinded by the tactical bush they're in Edit- conquest is completely different ofc but rush is e z like that. I don't really like rush because of it since thats all you have to do but its a nice break It's obvious that your opening statements are what I said: lack of varied definitions. Running and gunning involves literally what it is: running and gunning people down until you die, then you do it again. Since there are no lives in most modes of Call of Duty, you can die, respawn and try and get the highest score the fasted. Battlefield has a ticket system to tax people who play like that. Tactical doesn't mean slower and scared, it means slower (in comparison to running and gunning, for obvious reasons) to properly assert how you will approach a situation: minimize losses, effectively achieve the objective and cripple the opponent. That's why people keep saying Rush is being played wrong there is no communication which is clear. It's slower in killing people, it's the fastest in achieving the objective because you do it in one attempt (if properly executed). This is why your viewpoint is not only narrow, but a bit blind on the concepts of differentiating shooter games. We're not pretentious, you're just acting ignorant. Here's how Rush is done for me: Go to A, plant A have allies sit around the various entrances of Point A while the other half the team runs to B and plants B. Since the enemies will be trying to stop A as well as shooting those covering A (the attackers), those running to B will be more liberated and free to setup and cover B in case A is taken down or is successful. If you can kill 2+ people near an objective, you can open that area up for your team to advance. I really dislike it when my teammates are slow pokes, because they get pinned down too easily.
*wrong button*
Edit: I agree. Just watch Band of Brothers or The Pacific. If you need to do an assault, you had better move a lot and do it quickly. The more you stay in one place, the more you'll get pinned down.
It was the same in BC2: those "slow but tactical" players generally cost you the game. Those that kept advancing through enemy fire (thus drawing the attention of the enemy to them and not to other people advancing) generally kept a game going. Slow play will get you pinned down and ultimately killed by artilery.
|
On October 02 2011 15:48 Torte de Lini wrote:
How do you burn people with the robot? I can only arm bombs ):.
I also have a flying robot, but it doesnt work
You just use the robots repair when its next to an enemy and it kills them real fast
|
On October 02 2011 16:23 PigAntlers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2011 15:48 Torte de Lini wrote:
How do you burn people with the robot? I can only arm bombs ):.
I also have a flying robot, but it doesnt work You just use the robots repair when its next to an enemy and it kills them real fast
What's the button? R?
|
On October 02 2011 16:22 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2011 10:56 hellsan631 wrote:On October 02 2011 10:29 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 02 2011 10:11 askTeivospy wrote:On October 02 2011 09:47 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 02 2011 09:17 askTeivospy wrote:On October 02 2011 09:07 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 02 2011 09:03 askTeivospy wrote:
ugh no, id rather have CoD players on my team than tactical ghost recon metal gear solid idiots that just sit in bushes and push up way too slowly because they're in sTeAlTh mOdE
Its called "RUSH". I see your understand of what tactical means is shrouded and narrow. keep it up with your pretentious one liners, but BF infantry has always been about running and gunning and not tactics. The difference between CoD and BF is CoD you just run whereever you want. BF you run towards a single objective. *RUSH* edit- the server file thing sounds stupid, but I'm 100% sure they'll ban for that if not in BETA then in release. They obviously have a much newer build than we have so it might already be fixed anyways /shrug They're not pretentious. They're clear observations that you take things literal and without a grain of salt. Rush means X for you and Tactical means Y for you. When you can consider the possibility that your connation of words are way off, then maybe you won't be so snarky ._. Rush doesn't necessarily mean rushing and throwing yourselves at the objective. That's obvious because after activating the bomb, you have to hold the area. Hardly a form of rushing or anything related to that. yes it was pretentious, at least in my opinion but idc thats how i infer it Anyways my definition of running and gunning is what I assume most peoples is: run and gun with your closest battle buddies to achieve the objective my definition of tactical is probably different but practically speaking from what I see in game its spot on: playing slow and scared now if you're doing the "gunning" part correctly in the "run and gun" phrase then holding something off shouldn't be hard as long as you kill like 2 or 3 waves of defenders or delay them significantly EXAMPLE First you run to point A, clear it out so you can move to B, clear it out so you can move to C, clear it out so you can arm bombsite A, Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay kablAOW* First you prone move to point A and sit behind cover so you can plot your next move*, then you get up and move forward because someone armed bombsite A *Yes its prone to quick failing if your run and gun fails <- generally quick fail is because people are too slow following up behind you or you "assume" your back is safe because theres people behind you but you get shot since they're too busy being blinded by the tactical bush they're in Edit- conquest is completely different ofc but rush is e z like that. I don't really like rush because of it since thats all you have to do but its a nice break It's obvious that your opening statements are what I said: lack of varied definitions. Running and gunning involves literally what it is: running and gunning people down until you die, then you do it again. Since there are no lives in most modes of Call of Duty, you can die, respawn and try and get the highest score the fasted. Battlefield has a ticket system to tax people who play like that. Tactical doesn't mean slower and scared, it means slower (in comparison to running and gunning, for obvious reasons) to properly assert how you will approach a situation: minimize losses, effectively achieve the objective and cripple the opponent. That's why people keep saying Rush is being played wrong there is no communication which is clear. It's slower in killing people, it's the fastest in achieving the objective because you do it in one attempt (if properly executed). This is why your viewpoint is not only narrow, but a bit blind on the concepts of differentiating shooter games. We're not pretentious, you're just acting ignorant. Here's how Rush is done for me: Go to A, plant A have allies sit around the various entrances of Point A while the other half the team runs to B and plants B. Since the enemies will be trying to stop A as well as shooting those covering A (the attackers), those running to B will be more liberated and free to setup and cover B in case A is taken down or is successful. If you can kill 2+ people near an objective, you can open that area up for your team to advance. I really dislike it when my teammates are slow pokes, because they get pinned down too easily. *wrong button* Edit: I agree. Just watch Band of Brothers or The Pacific. If you need to do an assault, you had better move a lot and do it quickly. The more you stay in one place, the more you'll get pinned down. It was the same in BC2: those "slow but tactical" players generally cost you the game. Those that kept advancing through enemy fire (thus drawing the attention of the enemy to them and not to other people advancing) generally kept a game going. Slow play will get you pinned down and ultimately killed by artilery.
Except the tactical aren't slow.
I know, new concept.
|
On October 02 2011 11:21 rebuffering wrote:
man i saw a guy whos a lvl 40 lol how the fuck can you just keep playing metro without wanting to slit your wrists, im done with this beta, was preety fun for a day, but giving us one map, which is a terrible map, i just cant do it anymore, cant wait to try some new maps, or maybe, if they just let us play caspian and get a REAL feel for BF3 is supposed to be, id be happy. But right now, im lvl 15 or something, and i cant play another minute of metro. GG GL to you all.
I really, truly don't understand why people don't like Metro. Parts of maps being difficult for one side or another, or requiring a special focus is what makes games interesting. If you coast through a map without ever changing your playstyle or being pinned down, on the edge of your seat as you try to crawl forward through fire, you are not playing a good game. The tension is the best part.
Can someone explain to me what, if any legitimate complaints there are against the map? I'm rank 32, and have played both sides extensively.
|
BF3 is pretty decent but there is no way I'll buy it if I need to deal with Origin. It took me and my friends about an hour after downloading the beta to actually play as we dealt with Origin's bullshit and errors. That and the fact that it's basically Xbox Live on PC makes it very unattractive, EA should have just kept it on Steam if they wanted more customers.
|
So are the servers working or not lol
|
On October 02 2011 16:52 Phtes wrote:
So are the servers working or not lol
I'm currently playing so YES
|
On October 02 2011 15:43 Skullflower wrote:
You should be able to skip the screen that shows the person who just killed you so you can deploy again. That really annoys me after awhile T_T
Part of the reason that you wait until you respawn is to give assault class with pads a chance to bring you back to life.
|
Australia7069 Posts
On October 02 2011 16:51 sleeepy wrote:
BF3 is pretty decent but there is no way I'll buy it if I need to deal with Origin. It took me and my friends about an hour after downloading the beta to actually play as we dealt with Origin's bullshit and errors. That and the fact that it's basically Xbox Live on PC makes it very unattractive, EA should have just kept it on Steam if they wanted more customers.
A WHOLE HOUR
god forbid your precious time is wasted. At least dont pretend spending an hour installing a client (a 1 time thing, now its on your machine you dont need to do it again) is the reaon you wouldn't buy a game.
rofl.
|
Get more RAM, that way you can do other things while you fuss over Origin :3
Everyone knows complaining about Origin was before the beta was out.
|
On October 02 2011 17:16 Kiante wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2011 16:51 sleeepy wrote:
BF3 is pretty decent but there is no way I'll buy it if I need to deal with Origin. It took me and my friends about an hour after downloading the beta to actually play as we dealt with Origin's bullshit and errors. That and the fact that it's basically Xbox Live on PC makes it very unattractive, EA should have just kept it on Steam if they wanted more customers. A WHOLE HOUR god forbid your precious time is wasted. At least dont pretend spending an hour installing a client (a 1 time thing, now its on your machine you dont need to do it again) is the reaon you wouldn't buy a game. rofl.
Ummmm read please.
It took an hour to get it set up and join the same platoon or whatever, but we get errors and other usability issues constantly. And yes an hour is a big deal considering it would have taken 5 minutes with Steam. I'm sorry you're willing to settle for a sub-par service just to play an average shooter, you must be very bored.
|
On October 02 2011 17:21 sleeepy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2011 17:16 Kiante wrote:On October 02 2011 16:51 sleeepy wrote:
BF3 is pretty decent but there is no way I'll buy it if I need to deal with Origin. It took me and my friends about an hour after downloading the beta to actually play as we dealt with Origin's bullshit and errors. That and the fact that it's basically Xbox Live on PC makes it very unattractive, EA should have just kept it on Steam if they wanted more customers. A WHOLE HOUR god forbid your precious time is wasted. At least dont pretend spending an hour installing a client (a 1 time thing, now its on your machine you dont need to do it again) is the reaon you wouldn't buy a game. rofl. Ummmm read please. It took an hour to get it set up and join the same platoon or whatever, but we get errors and other usability issues constantly. And yes an hour is a big deal considering it would have taken 5 minutes with Steam. I'm sorry you're willing to settle for a sub-par service just to play an average shooter, you must be very bored.
What's it like being equally condescending as the person you are bad-mouthing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
