Re: BF3 wasnt a " Bad game " like COD arena But BF2042 is a true Combine arms BF

I agree with the general point here - BF2042 is nowhere near as bad as is often suggested. I actually rather enjoy it.

I also agree with the idea floated above that the game requires players to relearn certain core mechanics. It does not play exactly like BF4, and the return of helicopters and electronic warfare after BF1 and BFV add back a layer of complexity to the infantry experience.

As for the M16 being the meta weapon in BF3, I would disagree - I have 16,000 kills with the AN-94, it was easily the most flexible weapon with its superior range and accuracy over other assault rifles and decent enough RoF in closer quarters. If I knew I was going into sustained CQB, I'd take the ACW-R or MP7 any day.

Im with you Stew but I think it's a losing battle here on these forums now. I also enjoy your topics.   Very engaging. But people  have already made up their minds about this game especially here on these forums that come here everyday and it's really not fun anymore to be here reading about a game you like because all you see are hate/toxic posts.  

---

@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 me

---

Ahhh, 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.

And when it comes to Battlefield, this boils down to this: To me, it really does not matter how others play the game as long as their enjoyment does not interfere with mine. Other people playing Metro 24/7 does not have ANY influence of me playing CQ on Talah Market (one of my all time favorites) or Rush on Damavand Peak. Or Chainlink on Propaganda. Or ... Who am I to say how others should have fun. There are way to interfere with my fun, e.g. by having half of my team playing Recon, sitting in the base during a round Rush. Or getting killed by Nightbirds or the Ilya Muromets in BF1. Or by pilots in Fjell (a Infantry map completely ruined by the addition of planes). But others grinding kills on Metro is not interfering with my enjoyment of those older titles one bit.

But that is my POV on matters in general. I personally would wish others would see things the same. But that is unrealistic and you obviously are NOT in that category. I simply can't understand how it can negatively impact your enjoyment if others farm kills on Metro.

---

@Stew360 wrote:
@DuaneDibbleyIf stats and KD means nothing then they should be remooved from the game . But since poeoples care about it and are outraged by its absence in 2042 then poeoples shouldn't allowed to farm KDR in some exploitable senarios

---

Could you please go back to my post (it's right above this one) and check where I had said that K/D 'mean nothing'?

It definitely means something to a great number of players. That is one of the reasons they enjoy playing Metro CQ 64p 3200tx. To me K/D also means something as I want to see the K/D of OTHER players in the current match to being forced into maybe wrongly reporting players which got a suspiciously looking kill on me once or twice. Usually (until now) I would check their stats to see if they are really suspicious before reporting them. Right now, I have to immediately report them and then EA/Dice has to put effort in checking those players to see if my assumption was correct.

What I said is that their fun K/D boosting on other servers has ZERO impact on the fun you can have while playing on other servers. Or are you one of the persons that can only feel good if others are miserable? That would be very sad indeed.

---

@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@Stew360

I can't understand why someone cares if OTHER people kill farm to increase their K/D. This does not give them any benefit like better weapons or gadgets. The ONLY thing I would not agree with is if people kill farm to get unlocks faster as this will give them an advantage (depending on how much better the higher level weapons are in the game). But also only right after release, before everyone has unlocked everything. But that was it.

Why would I care if OTHER people farm kills or have a K/D of >5? I am an average player, maybe a bit above average and IIRC my average K/D was always less than 2. Maybe I am old (I am), but at least to me it mattered to win the match with my team and our squad to be 'best squad' in the end (which we were more often than not as we play together and communicate via TeamSpeak).

If others get pleasure of a high K/D and have the time to play rounds of Metro with 3200 tickets I do not care. And I don't understand why it hurts you if they do that. Let them -- it does not take away from YOUR fun. And that is, what this game (it is a game!) should be about.

---

Yessir I am kind of the same mindset, as long as somebody wasn't killing my own personal experience than I don't really care what they do. I never got into those Metro/Locker 24/7 servers because it just wasn't my idea of fun but to each their own. I preferred community run servers with popular map rotations not just one map over and over.

The only reason I ever checked my stats (which to be honest was almost never) was mostly out of curiosity the whole K/D ration thing is meh, whatever.

---

@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 me

---

Ahhh, 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.

• There is much to be said in favour of a clear social presence in a multiplayer (and therefore by definition, social) game.

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?