Battlefield: Bad Company 2

[yaphax]

Originally Posted by purehybrid

Yep, and over time, they will come across the same number of good teammates and bad ones. They will come across the same number of enemy 'groups' also playing together, some good, some bad. It always evens out over a long enough period. Don't worry, I used to think the same way, until I had to do some research on ranking systems (elo being the most popular and widely recognised online atm).

If you normally play with a squad of friends, your squad is significant enough to change the outcome if they are good, meaning that it is possible to have good teammates that drag your stats up (and vice versa).

Think of the extreme case, where your group of friends you play with ARE the team. Obviously then your win/loss ratio is going to be skewed if your friends are better than average. The even-ing out effect only works if your teammates are random and therefore the skill level of teammates and enemies averages out.

On another note, I think ELO is inferior to other rating systems used in Chess now, because it takes too long to give a true indication of someone's skill (and therefore requires a large no. of games) particularly for someone who is getting better or worse quickly. Still the basic concept behind ELO is the most effective and is used in these alternative rating systems nonetheless, merely with other factors added in.

Back on topic: I like this game, but there are a couple of things that bug me:
1. Why unlocks and levelling up? I wanted to play an FPS not an RPG. It seems ridiculous to have these unlocks for people who happen to play longer. It just seems like a method that game developers have picked up on to increase the amount of time people will play their game, since they'd want to get the unlocks. Why not make it fairer for new players and just have everything unlocked at the start? Some of the unlocks are ridiculous, such as increased body armour... some people have lives and don't want to have to play for a long time :P

2. Grenade launcher lameness - please, i've had enough of this from MW2. Mind you its a lot better in bc2 than it was in mw2. Not sure how to fix it though since the grenade launcher probably should have its use for clearing out emplacements/buildings from a distance... relatively minor gripe

3. Why can't you strafe and sprint at the same time?? its a bit weird i feel...

[csimpson]

I've had a few very suspect deaths, but at the moment I'm just chalking it up to experienced players' intimate knowledge of the maps.

[DARREN]

Originally Posted by Tinian

Just on this; nonsense. You can be an awesome team player, but if the other 15 people play like retarded monkeys, you're unlikely to win anything.

Tinian is correct imho.
Purehybrid you are dreaming. WTF does win/loss have to do with being a team player? There are too many other factors involved to make any conclusion based on what you are saying!! I agree no one factor give you a foolproof indicator or being a teamplayer though.

[yaphax]

purehybrid is correct if your 15 teammates are random, because it will even out over time. you can't say that on average you're unlucky and have 15 bad teammates most of the time, because its equally likely for the other team as well (assuming a large sample size.)

However if people play with friends this changes the whole thing if your group of friends is better or worse than the average squad, because a good squad is significant enough to alter the outcome.

[purehybrid]

Originally Posted by Azrael

The question is whether 20hrs is long enough. I dont think it is.

Nor do I, as stated when I posted the stats. However, they are no more or less substantiated than the o/s/t stats due to how flawed the system awarding those points is.

Originally Posted by Azrael

The maths behind ELO rankings relies on the number of games played to be proportional to the number of players in the 'group' that you are in. Given that BC2 is not a localised game (as with an ELO ranking you normally gain it through local play and then it is extrapolated out) i dont think 20hrs/70 games is long enough.

There have been a bazillion (legit term) adaptations of Elo over the years, however at its base, elo has nothing to do with local or global groups. It is simply who you win against, and who you lose to.

Originally Posted by Azrael

Regardless of all of this though. The original precis was about there being good Recon players.

Assuming you mean the original point, as precis doesn't really make sense there.. but the original point was that you could use the o/s/t stats to quantify calling Goose a good team player, and Phill a bad team player. Which you cannot do. At all.

[purehybrid]

Originally Posted by DARREN

Tinian is correct.
Purehybrid you are dreaming. WTF does win/loss have to do with being a team player? There are too many other factors involved to make any conclusion based on what you are saying!!

Read the rest of the posts, and do some research. You will find, what I'm saying is correct within the limitations of the current system. Again I admit it would require an unreasonable amount of games played to be accurate enough to base the kind of statements Azrael is making, off them. To improve this, you would have to have a ranking system on the back end, that takes into account who you beat (with who on your team) and who you lose to (with who on your team)... which would essentially be an Elo system.

Originally Posted by yaphax

purehybrid is correct if your 15 teammates are random, because it will even out over time. you can't say that on average you're unlucky and have 15 bad teammates most of the time, because its equally likely for the other team as well (assuming a large sample size.)

Correct.

Originally Posted by yaphax

However if people play with friends this changes the whole thing if your group of friends is better or worse than the average squad, because a good squad is significant enough to alter the outcome.

Incorrect. As you will face the same number of better/worse squads on the same/opposing teams as well (assuming you are not the only group of players who plays together regularly, which I'd say is a safe assumption).

Unfortunately this is my last post for a while, as I have had a fair bit of work come in to keep me busy bbl!

[Vassili]

Honestly, there is no point trying to decipher win to loss ratios, and I think everyone is caring a bit too much. Hell, I was playing with a mate the other day, and a bunch of douchewaffles from the opposition decided to swap teams, making it 18-14 in our favour. Even though they were about to lose, we swapped over as it was the right thing to do.

Its pretty easy to get lots of wins and few losses with a combination of "switch teams" and "quit when losing".

[DARREN]

Originally Posted by yaphax

However if people play with friends this changes the whole thing if your group of friends is better or worse than the average squad, because a good squad is significant enough to alter the outcome.

This is the main reason I disagree. Just saying it evens out over time oversimiplifies it and although statisically it might make sense, statisitcs can be made to show what you want to show by leaving out relevant information.

Originally Posted by purehybrid

Read the rest of the posts, and do some research. You will find, what I'm saying is correct within the limitations of the current system.

I have read the above posts and while I do see your point (and it is a fair point) it is oversimplifying and assuming too much imho. You are trying to make a square peg fit a round hole - because you dont want to see whether a round hole would be the better fit.

Anyways enough of this bs. I am going to go play the game, rather than talk about it and everyones epeen.......................

[karnage112]

is there VOIP support in this? I dont think ive heard anyone speak once.

[shredR]

just purchased today.. look forward to playing when i get home from uni !

[AthlonMan]

Originally Posted by karnage112

is there VOIP support in this? I dont think ive heard anyone speak once.

I've heard one person speak. Surprising

[Azrael]

I have heard two people speak, and out of my massive sample size both were 5yo knobjockeys who were both attempting to sing at the top of their voice to some unintelligible rap song while clipping out their mics.

I turned it off and use Ventrilo with clan mates.

On another note, i was playing on Mature Aussie Gamers last night, with one of the mods highlighting how non-Mature he was and basically abusing the other team over the Announce function (the same text style/size/location as the MCOM planted/destroyed messages). Was really getting quite annoying with half the screen taken up by the drivel.

[Frostyknight]

not enjoying this at all so far
doesn't have the lunacy/funnies value that BF2 had (not enough vehicles/maps are too small) and also doesn't have the crisp close-quarters style that MW2 has done so well

it just doesn't 'feel good'... each to their own again. hopefully battlefield 3 is all i want it to be

[AthlonMan]

Originally Posted by Frostyknight

not enjoying this at all so far
doesn't have the lunacy/funnies value that BF2 had (not enough vehicles/maps are too small) and also doesn't have the crisp close-quarters style that MW2 has done so well

I realised how small the maps were last night I hadn't played a BF game (like 'really' played) since BF2. The maps are friggen tiny and you can guess why? Damn consoles.

[OhFoRkMe]

Originally Posted by AthlonMan

I realised how small the maps were last night I hadn't played a BF game (like 'really' played) since BF2. The maps are friggen tiny and you can guess why? Damn consoles.

I only realised some were small after receiving a M95 Shot to the head over half the bloody map. Damn you 12x Scope