Originally Posted by theturbofd
Do you even know what an opinion is? If someone says one is better than the other then it's an opinion -_-
Are you really trying to say something can't factually be better or superior to something else?
Do you even know how their system works? Or even know that it's to help those with higher ping be on the same level as those with low ping? Why would anyone do that? Should I have to deal with crappy hit detection because someone has a high ping? Like I said COD's hit detection is way better because people with the low ping don't have to deal with that crap. Quake would like to talk to you. Then again this is my opinion.
Yes, I'm completely aware of how the system works. So what if a high ping player is on the same level as a low ping player? At least it's fair and in the situation where you're dying as you go behind cover, you know you would have died to a low ping player just as well. Not everyone has access to a low latency connection and can suffer from a high ping even on server fairly close to them so it's not exactly their fault. However, in the case of a game like BF2 with server side hit detection or a game like the recent Call of Duty games with massive amounts of lag compensation, people with high pings can actually be harder to hit as they're moving and aiming directly at them could mean your shots won't register. That's infinitely more frustrating because in that case, I should be getting the kill. I'm aware there are cases in BF3 and BF4 where that does happen, but not to the degree which it did in BF2 or does in a game like Black Ops 2. Keep in mind that it doesn't affect everyone the same, though, hence why I said it was debatable. In the end, very few games actually have decent hit-detection for everyone
Refer to the last sentence I wrote for number 5
Yeah, I kind of ignored that. For one, what else am I supposed to say when you're accusing me of being a blind hater for stating one of the biggest complaints from the fan-base in the most recent Call of Duty games (either that or it's because I've stated I'm simply bored with the gameplay, I don't even know anymore.. you have a habit of just saying silly things)? Also, you used that same exact excuse to rebuttal being called a Battlefield haters in another thread stating you can't possibly be a hater because you play Battlefield.. ya hypocrite.
I don't know if you even read what I wrote but I stated a small team on the roof can easily help you dominate the match. I didn't say the WHOLE team.
It's no where near well done. To do well on that map you basically have to have a team camp the roof and spam M320s, air bursts and RPGs. 2 ladders which are easily camped as well as 1 elevator are the only access points. So basically it's a race to the roof and anyone who has ever played it can easily tell you that.
You kind of did say the team. You'll probably say that you simply missed a word and whatever if you did, I was replying to what you said. My point still stands either way.. There's plenty of points around the flags that can't be seen from the roof. Even having just a good squad up there won't really sway the match. The verticality simply makes you have to think more and be more aware of your surroundings. That's good map design.
Like I said, me telling him COD is irrelevant is starting an argument? How about you guys get some new material instead of constantly bashing a successful game? Are you guys really that slow that you can't seem to come up with anything that doesn't have COD in it?
No one's bashing CoD. People are bringing up CoD saying that Battlefield is trying to be too much like it and when someone asked how, you
even agreed that it was and contributed to that argument.
Camo, Perks, quick scoping, and so far the really tiny domination map.
See? No one was bashing CoD unless you consider me saying it has terrible netcode bashing CoD which it is. If you consider it bashing CoD, though, then all you've done in this thread is bash BF4. Don't you have anything better to do than to bash BF4?
With that said, I'm done saying anything to you. You've proven time and time again that you're just trying to start arguments and that you're a massive hypocrite. You're not worth it. Go ahead and reply if you want to, but I won't see it.
Originally Posted by dmasteR
BattleField 3 used a client sided hit detection actually. Which is why the load on servers is extremely low compared to BC2. Not to mention anyone who knows how to reverse engineer (those who write cheats) can tell you it's client sided hit detection with no verification. Thus it's not hybrid at all.
BF4 also uses client side hit detection.
EDIT: BF1942/2142/BF2 used full server side hit detection. Not a hybrid method at all either.
It's been stated many times before by developers that BF3 and now BF4 use a hybrid hit detection as well as described fully how it works.
I've already stated that BF2 and 2142 used server side hit-detections I wasn't sure about 1942 so I didn't bring it up, but I was pretty sure it did as well. I've never stated otherwise.
Originally Posted by pokerapar88
I hate that trying to make the game more realistic with the dust... all the gray makes me think of 3d sturctures without textures. even before that the map is very grayish and dull.
I actually have to agree.
Although it wasn't the dust, but simply the color of the rubble itself. I do like the conquest configuration of the map much better when the building is standing.Edited by moocowman - 10/7/13 at 2:57pm