Lol you are missing the points completely, you are really starting to show how retarded you are now.

Firstly, I never said conquest is BAD so I don't know where you came up with that statement, probably just from your crappy reading skills. All I said was that I was disappointed they changed the formula a bit and that I PREFER the mechanices of traditional conquest seen in other BF games.

So you own BF modern combat, 1942 or 1943 (not 1944 you dumb shit) and BC2 but does that necessarily make you experienced? I own CoD1, CoD4 and Ive played MW2 but it does not mean I necessarily play it all the time making me totally knowledgable and experienced with the game. Your lack of real experience shows because you clearly have not played many conquest matches, if you had, you would actually realise in past BF games there are usually more flags and teams can actually win games by simply capturing and holding more flags than their opponents.

Im not asking you to care or not care about ticket bleeding lol? You were the one saying conquest "conquest has always bin like that man" and so I pretty politely brought up a pretty big change in the game mechanics of conquest, in the form of ticket bleeding. You were challenging me into telling you how conquest has changed and I have brought up a FACT backed up by global agreement on the forums. No need to cry.

I just said in my previous post, whether people like this new form of conquest or not is an entirely personal preference. Im not trying to change anyone's enjoyment or opinion of it. So again, you can stop crying about me trying to attack your new favourite mode or something. Im NOT.

Your point about having to actually kill in a shooter is pretty much making me facepalm as well. Did I ever say killing should be non existant in conquest? NO you idiot. Im saying since this is a mode which allows flag capturing, you may as well allow for flags to have more direct impact on deciding the winning team of each match. Conquest has gone from a nice balance of importance in killing and capturing/holding flags, to almost full importance on killing. As I said, there are several different game modes, each one can and should play differently. And IMO if you just want to shoot and kill, then there is also a death match mode supplied now.

And lol at you calling those people on the BF forums CoD fanboys. Maybe they do prefer CoD for all I know, but at least they demonstrate an understanding and experience of past BF games in comparison to BC2. And for you to actually call them CoD fanboys when I'd easily say you are more likely a bigger fanboy than them based on our "discussions" in the pasts, which does make me laugh.

/bored of wasting my time trying to discuss something with someone who obviously does not know what they, themself is talking about.

i played modern combat like every day for like 3 years striaght.. i played it so much it killed my ps2 and my disc lost its data.. no ps2 can read it and its not scratched to shit its like mint condition
ive palyed the pc versino for a few months (was my friends game) and i palyed my friends bc 1 a hell of a lto when it first cmae out then they added conquest n it sucked ass
bc2 added what bc1 was missing more action like the other battlefield gmaes had but you act like thats a bad thing
and your saying the gameplay has changed because the flags arent important thers pretty much t omuch kililng its like a deathmatch..every game i play i see ppl going for flags
the only ppl that ignore flags are the noob snipers and you really think its the ticket drianing speed that mkaes them snipe?
battlefield has always bin like a deathmatch with flags to catch and the mps were always fairly clsoe together.. the only game that wasnt follwonig suite of the other BF games is bc1
as for saying my experience is limited.. ive prob put more time into modern combat on ps2 alone then u have on all the battlefield games put together
and i dont know anything becasue im arguing the gamepalys the same all ur coming back with is "the ticket bleeidng isnt the same".. big whoop that doesnt change the gameplay for shit
ppl captured flags for points not to drain tickets tto act like flags are worthless for that reason to me just makes me lol

This post was edited by dragoneth on Mar 20 2010 11:24am

Lol you hated BC1 conquest and you like BC2 conquest yet you say "its always bin like that man". Well it obviously has not if you dislike one over the other as much as you have claimed. Good way to shoot yourself in the foot.

You have no idea how long I have been playing the BF series for, but if you want an idea, I've been playing since BF1942. Yes thats a 2 at the end, not 4 lol. And incase you are still confused, yes its not the same as 1943 which came out not so long ago.

Again for the millionth time...and Ill bold this since you can't fucking read or something, I NEVER SAID THERE WAS NOBODY CAPTURING FLAGS. Im saying the importance of capturing flags is a hell of a lot less than other BF games because of ticket bleeding. Now maybe noobs such as yourself don't realise the actual impact of that, but it means there is no longer a real urgency or requirement to capture flags. You can still go capture them sure, as most people DO, but its not necessary (to win games) because it does not drain tickets that quick.

Compared this to other BF games, there is a DEMAND for capturing flags, since you can easily lose games by not capturing enough flags, no matter how many you killed. Maps are also bigger and there are generally more flags to capture, requiring some kind of strategy. Can you say that about BC2? NO, if you say anything else then you have no idea what you are talking about. Why? Because ticket bleeding is signficantly decreased, maps are generally smaller and there are fewer flags, leading to just mindless, "Ill capture it since its just a few metres ahead of me" capturing mentality.

And your last sentence, from what I understood of your awful writing skills, people capture flags for points on BC2? If thats what you are say then AT FUCKING last you are finally starting to understand. In past BF games, capturing flags is a major source of draining tickets hence winning, on BC2 they are just there mostly for extra points/exp. Understand yet little retard boy? Try to read and actually follow what Im saying, before coming back at me...gods what are you? Like 21 or something? Its pretty shocking, your inability to follow a discussion and actually provide relevant points.

As for the point of yours I bolded, for gods sake man! How many times do I need to say it? I NEVER SAID BC2 CONQUEST IS THE WORST MODE EVER or close. I PREFER CONQUEST IN OTHER BF GAMES OVER BC2'S CONQUEST, but it does not mean I hate it. I still play it (conquest) everyday!

Stop trolling your own thread now seriously. Im done for good with this topic since Im just repeating myself over and over again, but it just won't get through into your complete dumbass brain.

you say my inability to understand yet you bold me saying " you act like thats a bad thing" and turn it into "worst fucking mode ever"
i type fast i make mistakes sorry dude if that bother you seriously you need t oget outside more its the internet ppl dont have to type properly if they dont want to
and even in the other battlefield games.. nobody gave a shit ticket drain u go around capturing flags and killing ppl for a highscore
atleast thats all i did.. and just about everybody i ever knew to play battlefield..you cal lme a noob for it but i mean if u really get techincal like that about games get a life dude.. look at how ur raging and insulting me
you never needed stratagy to win you could just run around solo and capture flags to win if u were good enough.. whats so strategic about that..
and as for the "Lol you hated BC1 conquest and you like BC2 conquest yet you say "its always bin like that man". Well it obviously has not if you dislike one over the other as much as you have claimed. Good way to shoot yourself in the foot."
i said they have all bin the same gameplay except bc1.. how is that shooting myself in the foot? obviously i will like games more then others doesnt everybody do that?.. honestly tho MC was the best BF ever made imo
the voting system for maps after each game or all map play lists.. premade kits with ammo boxes and health crates and a ranking system where u had to be good to maintain a high rank not this noob ass add up points and unlock shit

jesus, walls of text much?

"i said they have all bin the same gameplay except bc1.. how is that shooting myself in the foot?"
BF1942, BF1943, BFBC1 do not follow the same formula as BC2. I've heard BF2142 plays like the traditional BF's too. You've hammered one game of its extensive series and you are trying to pretend like you know how conquest has always been.

"you say my inability to understand yet you bold me saying " you act like thats a bad thing" and turn it into "worst fucking mode ever"
Yes because it is what you are trying to imply, its not rocket science...well it might be for you.

"in the other battlefield games.. nobody gave a shit ticket drain u go around capturing flags and killing ppl for a highscore
atleast thats all i did.. and just about everybody i ever knew to play battlefield"
All that tells me is that you and all your buddies were a bunch of massive noobs who had no idea what was actually going on and probably lost most games. Your BC2 stats also further suggest that mindless attitude to the BF games I hinted at. Call it having fun or whatever, I just see it as mostly being an idiot.

"you never needed stratagy to win you could just run around solo and capture flags to win if u were good enough.. whats so strategic about that.."
Because maps are pretty big, and there were generally more flags to capture, as well as greater importance on holding certain flags for positional advantage. From this, you can actually formulate some kind of strategy as to which flags to prioritise in capturing and holding, or which to avoid. Whilst in BC2 there is no longer ANY strategy at all needed.

"i type fast i make mistakes sorry dude if that bother you seriously you need t oget outside more its the internet ppl dont have to type properly if they dont want to"
No problem you are forgiven. Im used to seeing it from you so it does not actually bother me that much, until I am engaging in a form of discussion with you. Then it bothers me a bit because it means I can no longer speed read for my own convenience. I mostly pointed it out as a personal insult more than anything else lol

"you cal lme a noob for it but i mean if u really get techincal like that about games get a life dude.. look at how ur raging and insulting me"
No need to worry, I already have to attend school where I meet all my friends pretty much everyday, whether I want to or not...that has already forced me into maintaining a lifestyle outside of gaming. Im raging because Im upset at myself for even trying to discuss a topic with such a mis-informed idiot and Im insulting you..well because I feel like you deserve it. Plus your lack of analytical and evaluative skills is still pretty bad for someone your age, its a pretty handy real life skill to have

Ill go back to lurking now, you and that n33d guy have completely turned this into the worst gaming forum I regularly visit :/




Erm...at least theres a tiny spacing between some lines ^___^

This post was edited by Sencha on Mar 20 2010 01:36pm

lol
you act like im an idiot when you take what i say and "translate" it into whatever you wanna see
as for insulting my intelligence i seem to get by fine i did pretty good in school without even trying
math and science was always around 80 and my english was like 70 and i probly missed 2-3 days aweek never did homework
insult me all you want i just laugh at you man when you gotta resort to insulting people on the internet you just look like a nerd who takes the internet to serious

wow i just hopped on here and looks like there are walls of text arguments going on
anyways... hi

Lol I may be a nerd by whatever you constitute a nerd to be, but are you much different? Not only are you also trying to insult me, you also spent three years playing BF:modern combat everyday and you've skipped classes? (I hope for your sake it was not to just play MC lol) Erm wow...get a life too maybe? Its not an insult but what do you actually do with your life atm? Play games and smoke weed, maybe some worthless part-time job…anything else more constructive? Im sure you are a shining example of a young adult.

What exactly am I translating into whatever I want to see? Heres a breakdown of the last few pages:

- You said conquest has always been the way it has. I brought up the whole issue of significantly reduced ticket bleeding, generally much smaller maps and fewer flags. So conquest has not always been as it is in BC2. I've listed the changes, no matter how small or big they are, there have been changes which is the starting point of this entire argument. FACT.

- You act like you know how conquest has always been because you are sooo experienced with BF games. You’ve only played Modern combat a lot. You can't even remember the title of the other BF game (you called it 1944) and you said you don't like BC1 conquest so I doubt you would have played it for long. Your experience across the BF series is severly limited. FACT.

- I never once said BC2 conquest was bad or intentionally tried to make it sound bad, just merely disappointing for me personally but I still like it and play it. I never said people didn’t capture flags in BC2, just that the importance/urgency and reasoning for doing so is not the same. I never said killing is not important or whatever in BC2 conquest, just that in past BF games there is a nice balance of importance on capturing and killing. In BC2 the importance is entirely on killing and capturing is without doubt a lower priority. Thus making all your previous points in this discussion relatively pointless. FACT.

- Try actually playing other BF games online? You will find that teams who are better at killing but are not capturing points will most of the time lose to teams who have gone around capturing. Theres a very common strategy for noobs such as yourself which is; "capture AROUND the enemy army if they are bunched together, avoid contact". Is that the case with BC2? Nah, I've won plenty of conquest matches whilst the opposing team actually had more flags than us. FACT.

- You've been fighting a losing argument for far too long now thats why Im calling you an idiot. You've even semi agreed with me on some of my points such as the changes I have listed so I honestly don't see what you are trying to argue about. Just because you play like a noob who does not really understand the concept of conquest in past BF games does not mean everybody plays the same way as you. Some of us can actually put a bit of thought into our actions. FACT.

- Saying that, I am the bigger idiot for discussing this as long as I have but its partly because I have not seen so much nonsense ever being said about this great series, by someone as mis-informed as you. FACT.

This post was edited by Sencha on Mar 21 2010 11:14am

insulting me saying im mis informed becasue you act like i dont understand what your saying when i understand 100%
when you change your main point ex."nobody catches flags becasue they are worthless now" to "ticket drain is slower " and argue that im saying its not obviously u will take it as me being dumb cuz ur triyng to ignore the fact u changed ur main thesis
i was just saying the gameplay hasnt really changed ppl still capture flags and i rarely ever see a team with no flags win they are usually getting dominated but you just reply with a wall of text trying insult me over the internet
as for the -FACT... just cuz u say its fact doesnt mean it really is.. nice try tho
stop spamming my thread

This post was edited by dragoneth on Mar 21 2010 12:08pm