@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@Stew360 wrote:
@DuaneDibbleyI do care , Ratios and stats are good base comparaison factor to evaluate personal skills and efficiency but also to compare yours to others when others are allowed to exploits and or boost their KDr/ POINTS /min etc..etc.. Then these points of comparaison become useless and obsolete ..
This is why BF3 and 4 stats were a joke to meAhhh, I guess now things become a bit clearer. I am a liberal, non-religious (or rather anti-religious), as much freedom as possible, different strokes for different folks kind of guy. Or if you want to put it that way: do what ever you like as long as your having fun does not noticeably impact anyone elses freedom to do the same.
in that case, are you a proponent of restricting people to classes that can only use certain weapons/gadgets or allowing freedom to choose what weapon/gadgets you use like we can right now with the current class system?
@Psubond
Yes. To exactly the same extend as I would restrict the number of aces in deck of cards for poker. Or the number of tire changes for one formula one race (I guess there is such a limit) or how many goal keepers per team are allowed for a game of football/soccer.
@DuaneDibbleythanks for clarifying. then you are not for freedom on how to play
i haven't watched F1 in a few years but the only tire restrictions i remember is you have to run at least one set of each type unless it rained. that may or may not still be in place
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@Psubond
I'm sorry that you did not get the point I was trying to make in my post. Maybe read it again?
i asked if you were in favor of restricting people to classes and you said yes. what did i miss?
***edit** let me clarify. how would you set up loadouts?
@Psubond wrote:
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@Psubond
I'm sorry that you did not get the point I was trying to make in my post. Maybe read it again?i asked if you were in favor of restricting people to classes and you said yes. what did i miss?
***edit** let me clarify. how would you set up loadouts?
He's said what you thought he said. I think he is actually arguing for class number limits on servers as well, judging by the analogy with the number of goalkeepers.
Think only 3 snipers per team/kicked for using DMRs/no explosives servers and other things that combined with Metro/Locker 24/7 to make private servers inBF4 in particular generally poor gameplay experiences.
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@Psubond
I'm sorry that you did not get the point I was trying to make in my post. Maybe read it again?
Not sure if you just want to troll (in which case I will ignore you) or are you really failing to grasp the difference between the freedom to have fun and imposing certain RULES OF GAME. Just in case you are really not getting it, let me give you an example that is more Battlefield related (I neither play poker nor do I have any interest in either F1 nor football -- even if this might sound strange considering I am German 😉 ):
Just consider this: Do YOU consider it a sensible thing to do or a 'violation of your freedom' if we impose a limit of the number of tanks/helis? Would you rather think it is a good idea to allow for 64 tanks per side to be on the battlefield at once? Would this be a good idea or do you feel it is restricting your freedom?
There are good reasons to impose rules on a game. I will not explain to you in detail why classes with distinct roles are superior to specialists that can take an ammo crate and a med pen at the same time as this has been done before many times different threads already. The 'benefit' specialists bring is to discourage team play and encourage a lone wolf play style. Not what the vast majority of us want and definitely NOT Battlefield.
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@Psubond
I'm sorry that you did not get the point I was trying to make in my post. Maybe read it again?Not sure if you just want to troll (in which case I will ignore you) or are you really failing to grasp the difference between the freedom to have fun and imposing certain RULES OF GAME. Just in case you are really not getting it, let me give you an example that is more Battlefield related (I neither play poker nor do I have any interest in either F1 nor football -- even if this might sound strange considering I am German 😉 ):
Just consider this: Do YOU consider it a sensible thing to do or a 'violation of your freedom' if we impose a limit of the number of tanks/helis? Would you rather think it is a good idea to allow for 64 tanks per side to be on the battlefield at once? Would this be a good idea or do you feel it is restricting your freedom?
There are good reasons to impose rules on a game. I will not explain to you in detail why classes with distinct roles are superior to specialists that can take an ammo crate and a med pen at the same time as this has been done before many times different threads already. The 'benefit' specialists bring is to discourage team play and encourage a lone wolf play style. Not what the vast majority of us want and definitely NOT Battlefield.
I personally think that the specialists don't impact either way on teamplay - you can set them up how you like with regard to weapons and free gadget. In previous iterations of Battlefield, players did not have this freedom, but the lack of choice did not, in my experience, magically make randoms into better teamplayers.
Clueless, careless and undisciplined players gonna be clueless, careless and undisciplined players. Specialists haven't changed that. Both my EA accounts are in the top 5% in the world for healing dished out and for revives administered in BFV, and I wouldn't even consider myself a tryhard in this regard. I just throw healthpacks and revive if I can, while otherwise using the generally good CQB guns available to the medic class to do a bit of pewpew and die more often than I'd like.
The key to good teamplay is the ability to communicate and coordinate with your squad. I met my current community randomly by chatting away in voice (I may have been drunk at the time) after I moved back to Europe and had to start again - I left some good people behind in Japan, with whom it was no longer practical to play. If I play any BF game on my own, I have a really hard time and teamplay feels nonexistent, for the most part. When I can talk and communicate, it gets a lot better.
In other words, it is not the specialists that make the teamplay aspects of 2042 difficult; it is the lack of ability to coordinate with your squadmates. Battlefield 2042 needs VOIP.
In my view, the lack of VOIP might be understandable, provided DICE ever give a rationale for why it wasn't in the game at launch, but BF2042 has seriously suffered without it. I genuinely believe that it is one of those sine qua non technologies that make modern multiplayer gaming what it is. Had the game launched with it included, I suspect that there would be many, many fewer complaints about teamplay, particularly in regard to specialists.
DICE, where is the VOIP?
@Stew360 wrote:
They didnt gave us detail but they said before launch that VOIP couldnt make it for launch
True, but in the Washington Post review, the lack of launch VOIP was discussed. It was stated that it would be in the game in the "day 25" patch. This clearly hasn't happened, and the game really needs it.
