if they can't control the cheating I am not even gonna bother. Sucks to be EA Dice, but if they can't control it there is no point. I believe they can.

in reference to the posted video i was commenting on

these people really want a war with Russia... or do they want to leave the bread crumbs leading to Russia and not China?

Bounties would be a very bad thing, but the best counter is how many soldiers are actually dying?

Russia has a population of 130 million compared to United States 330 million.

until they can get a grip on the cheaters im out

2143 or Vietnam 2 would make it harder on me

if they went back to BF2 era with a good commander mode, and brought back maps like Karkland and Sharqi it would be tough!

i been playing Warzone since they announced massive targeting of cheaters, and like Plunder, but regular CoD multi is never gonna win me over.

i dunno, gulag is really nothing special. what is imo is plunder, teams of 3 and you can respawn on death, a teamkill forces you to drop somewhere else, and no circle.

they just added a solo royale with the circle where you can respawn as long as you have enough cash from the round which is also good.

i dont think i will be playing the 1 life and gulag matches anymore.

also for the prices and release schedule, i dont see me actually buying any call of duty games either, ha. the good thing is it has gotten me away from Battlefield, where the cheating is rampant and they are winning the cheaters war.

im glad they did the free weekend, i was on the fence about buying it but was encouraged when they mentioned their anti cheat efforts. CoD multiplayer was just how i remember it, twitchy arcade fun with limited tactics. spawns might come from any direction so getting shot in the back is common.

im a fan of crossplay support but i wonder how much reticle snapping to target helps the controller crowd, i seen many replays of players who never miss their shot with say the magnum. this does not make me angry as a cheater would, i think its funny so no big deal.

just read an article where PS4 players are disabling crossplay to purge their platform of PC players who cheat, which puts into question the staying power of this title as a multiplayer game, especially with a rumoured CoD 2020 out in fall. merry go round title, great if this is your favorite game but i am in between, i like the tactics in Battlefield but am put off by the cheating so much im not sure i will be onboard for the next version.

battlefield player here, love to see COD being proactive against cheaters.

i first seen this idea in titanfall 2, merging the cheaters into their own server which imo is the best course of action.

i have taken the oath, no more battlefield games until the cheaters are handled. unless its vietnam or 2143.

i was tempted to buy MW but i dunno, $40 is a bit steep during the plague and i already bought bannerlord. last COD i bought was BO1, and i heard a new version COD2020 is already around the corner reminding me why i dont like COD.

got this for $3

its pretty accurate to earn 1 level per hour of play.

i hit the level cap of 30 right when they released the new york DLC which i did not get, at least not yet

it is great fun, somewhat reminded me of stalker. its a loot game to the point of ridiculousness. what i really do not like is to get better and better gear and level up does not matter at all, the world levels up as well and thus there is really no point. at level 30 and current gear any mission an enemy can still kill you rather easily with a few shots. it made it all dumb to me.

possibly to cheat someone of their kills?

kills are odd in Royale, in BFV my current assignment includes get 25 kills in Firestorm which is taking a long while. in any other game mode that would be 3 matches tops.

loved Titanfall 2, and i played Apex one session, i am quite enjoying BFV and Firestorm is great, but i just love how they are mass banning the cheats in Apex. i am not confident they are doing anything to cheaters in BFV, maybe i will switch to Apex

looks awesome, im excited for this mode

for me, BFV is shaping up to be the best since BF2

never played much 1942, but i have played them all except the XBOX games (BC1 and 2),

my favorites were BF2, BFV(ietnam), and 2142

3, 4, and 1 were all good just those for me were better

seems like there was turmoil after BF2 when they removed the Commander and ruined squads

BF2, BFV, or 2142 were all awesome

BF5 is coming along well

Firestorm looks fantastic, the squad arty in Rush reminds me of BF2

i STILL miss the commander mode in all the best games

BC2 fans i dunno... it was BF2 for consoles

cant really comment on the new patch, still downloading the 4.4 gig patch. changing frontlines to 16 player kinda sucks as it is my favorite game mode.

conquest is boring imo, and grand operations is kind of meh... it is laggy and spammy. i am not sure if it is the aircraft, which i like being there but are missing in frontlines. personally i rarely use planes and tanks in any battlefield game i have played. i probably used the LAV in 2 the most.

the maps i think are great in frontlines, where they are broken down into sections that makes it more interesting than having to run around in circles in the other modes, in particular conquest. i want to see more tactics and less "flanking," if we can use that term because it usually feels more cheap than tactical.

in conquest, you always have that 1 guy who will cross the map to cap a flag when no one is there, or more likely a pilot who bails on an unprotected flag.

building is a great addition to the series. i also like that while support can hand out bullets, you have to replenish grenades from a depot near a flag.

i think much of the uproar over this game was people projecting onto the hype at launch. i think i got this the first time it hit $20 or maybe $30. there was base building when i started.

the game is great fun, albeit tedious at times. and the way they are adding content i am sure i will be playing it for years to come.

i think i heard a rumor that they will add VR at some point, which would be just about perfect.

i was motivated to post by the silly first comment about building the game on a lie... lol. if i remember right there was 1 video pre-release that suggested multiplayer or large space creatures that was not in launch.

i would counter this is a good example of people repeating what they have heard just for the sake of doing so.

it was always going to be an MMO, it was always going to have a cash store for optional support. but... my grief was with the "limited" edition ships and LTI being rather worthless and not collectable even if some of the impulse buys i made in 2013 implied that they were.

there will probably be between 2 and 5 million LTI ships in the game at launch, and the only one at this point that is rare is the Phoenix for whatever reason.

stardock has always seemed shady to me, and i am glad their entanglement in the star control IP is problematic. just another bad decision in a long line of them.

my thing... even if he called Haiti a shithole, how is that racist?

i googled Haiti statistics and was told anywhere in Haiti there is a high likelihood of being raped murdered or robbed...

Operation Mockingbird

where was all the hate when Bush II was president? oh yea he was a company man

i love the game and im also disappointed

3.0 was supposed to be a milestone that made the game playable, and its a slide show; i would say the article is correct that its more a headache to play than anything

my understanding is that the engine calls out the locations of all items no matter where they are on the server to the client and bogs it down. object culling is due in 3.1 (attached to march 2018) so we can hope this is the fix

if you play arena commander (or the last version 2.6.3 with a offline mods hack) the game is smooth as butter, so its unfortunate they force everyone online when its functioning so poorly, wrong foot forward. really to me it makes no sense, what they are getting from forcing everyone online im sure i dont know, but whatever it is i will assume is generating revenue

on the flip side i have never been more confident the game is not only technically possible but will make release, Amazon wants the same thing as starcitizen from the game engine, and while i can see its possible Chris made a bad call with cryengine i dont think Amazon would choose the same engine if the potential was not there and realistic (EDIT: if the game fails my guess is that Amazon would purchase the assets, Star Citizen will definitely be the flagship product for Lumberyard)

and feature creep lmao i always thought was a turd of an argument, nothing much has been added i would not expect to have been there from the kickstarter vision, Chris is just cranking it up to 10 across the board

just look at Battlefront 2, looks amazing but space and land battles are separated, cant jump in a ship on the battlefield and fly up and take part in a battle in orbit, or board a ship in orbit and fps battle there... thats Star Citizens turf, and if Chris Roberts fails i would guess thats off the table

who else is gonna make this happen?

(EDIT: the X series, EVE, and Elite are working on space + stations walkabout, which is similiar to Freelancer, Star Citizen is clearly a generation ahead of all these titles by including planetary landing and boarding, so it stands to reason at some point the tables will turn massively)

This comment was edited on Jan 10, 2018, 19:29.

Hopefully Star Control I and III will also become available for free in the near future.

would be great if they open sourced the games. star control 1 was a great game. 2 and 3... not so much.

its good to see these guys fighting for their ip, and im looking forward to Ghosts of the Precursors.

the whole deal reminds me why i dont like Stardock, werent they trying to make original ip and didnt have much luck? now they are trying to revive this old ip, with rights to only the name. they have taken many stances over the years i dont agree with (and they were wrong everytime).

so on the fence...

BF2 is fun and looks amazing, scratches the 2142 itch for me, but awkwardly steps away from Battlefield, as an example land and space battles being separate matches when i think it would be better to have it all together. i guess we would now be on star citizens turf from a technical perspective, and people might even complain if it played more like a skinned Battlefield 1 where you found hero kits on the battlefield and vehicles were spawn points.

what really is odd is stripping out the squad stuff from Battlefield when Star Wars lore is all about squads and groups of friends, a really strange direction that makes no sense, but i guess these changes likely serve their stupid star card system or its an attempt to distance themselves from Battlefield.

if you could cross Dice's Battlefield gameplay with Respawns Titanfall 2 progression and handling of DLC (free to everyone and selling cosmetics) BF2 would easily be a 10/10.

with a leftover giftcard and Prime 20% off preorder im in for $32, a good deal, i guess im just a bit concerned what happens after this shitstorm, will the game expand or contract? not to mention the EA merry-go-round means this game might be redundant in 1 year and Battlefront 3 might be the only one worth owning.

also wanted to mention: some circle jerker on r/starcitizen has a thread going about how thankful he/she is about starcitizen with regards to this debacle, i thought i might mention here: does starcitizen share some of the blame? people sinking $1000's into that game it only makes sense game makers want some of that action, amirite?

scratches the itch for me, grand strategy rts

the possibility of lots of DLC imo is a good thing for a game like this, dunno to expect as much as CK2 or not, but the mods for this game are about the same league as Skyrim, tons of stuff

top it off with multiplayer support and this game has lots going for it