Recommended Posts

Why people still prefer aiming with a lousy controller compared to a keyboard and my highly accurate Razer gaming mouse, I still can't understand

I can't either. Trying to aim and hit someone using a gamepad is often times more frustrating than it is fun. Especially if you or the target(or both of you) are moving. Then it only gets worse.

I can't either. Trying to aim and hit someone using a gamepad is often times more frustrating than it is fun. Especially if you or the target(or both of you) are moving. Then it only gets worse.

well i did get pretty good at it playing MW2 on my ps3... just takes practise.

But..it's like if it takes you 3 seconds to aim the crosshair to an enemy using the joystick, I can do it in a blink of an eye with a mouse biggrin.gif Oh well, never mind lol I think this debate is never ending anyway

LOL 3 seconds. If that were true for me, I wouldn't game on console for sure.

I have taken a break from getting platinum stars and started to use my old and very trusted friend the AN-94 Abakan. It tears through anything. The screenshots below says it all (3x Combat Excellence Pins ? 8 kills in a row)

973323169t.jpg

(click to make bigger)

Somebody recommend me a shotgun, all the ones I have tried suck.

Uh...yeah? You can't use mines effectively if you're on a hill 3 spawn zones back. Is there something wrong with using mines? It's sort of the entire purpose of the class.. And you didn't notice all the other badges such as marksman's head shots and nemesis pins?

What's with the negative attitude? Why do people post just to be rude? Oh, right...the internet. :unsure:

It's kind of funny, most people hate recon because they sit far back to preserve their KDR and everyone gets mad at them for not using motion mines. And yet I show a screen shot of me effectively playing the recon class to it's fullest and this guy some how finds a problem with that..? :wacko:

Uh...yeah? You can't use mines effectively if you're on a hill 3 spawn zones back. Is there something wrong with using mines? It's sort of the entire purpose of the class.. And you didn't notice all the other badges such as marksman's head shots and nemesis pins?

What's with the negative attitude? Why do people post just to be rude? :unsure:

stroke their virtual ego...

found a squad deathmatch server where no one went in the tank for 3-4 maps :) good times.

I have platinum with the 40mm grenade launcher. But but but but, I also have platinum with the XM8, M416, An-94, and M16, and 8 gold stars going on 9 with the AUG. It's justified. :whistle:
Started on my platinum with the AUG. And it is horrible inaccurate, and it just doesn?t seem to have the stopping power as the other assault guns. Basically it is a glorified stick :D
How to properly play the recon class:

bfbc2game20100502184918.th.jpg

As for shotguns, I've always liked the 870. It works good for me.

Indeed, that is how to properly play the recon class (Y) I only play it now and then, and I still run around like a headless chicken in a wookie suit. Those of the kind of scores I get playing assault (:wub: AN-94)
found a squad deathmatch server where no one went in the tank for 3-4 maps :) good times.
Probably the best game mode. SQDM is near on perfect, but they had to go and **** it up by putting a tank in there.

I'm not entirely sure the accuracy stat shown there is uh..well..accurate. If you notice it says I had 34 kills with the m24 out of 35, but I also have an explosive pin which is 4+ kills. So yeah.. and there's no way I shot anything near 205 rounds with the m24 as well. That would be emptying my ammo reserve at least 10 times. And I didn't. Killed a few with pistol kills as well but didn't get any pins for that.

Maybe overall accuracy? I really don't think that screen reflects very well weapon stats for the game.

27% accuracy with a sniper? Proper?biggrin.gif

Damn right. Yes he was scoring kills, but he was also dealing damage to enemies. It is much better to deal as much damage as you can and spot them. Than to chase one kill - which most snipers tend to do. Usually when I am sniping (on the rare occasion). As long as I deal some damage and they are spotted I leave them for my team mates near the area to finish off. And lets face it, as soon as someone gets spotted they don't last long at all.

Damn right. Yes he was scoring kills, but he was also dealing damage to enemies. It is much better to deal as much damage as you can and spot them. Than to chase one kill - which most snipers tend to do. Usually when I am sniping (on the rare occasion). As long as I deal some damage and they are spotted I leave them for my team mates near the area to finish off. And lets face it, as soon as someone gets spotted they don't last long at all.

As a sniper, I go for the spotting and one shot head shot.

I'm not entirely sure the accuracy stat shown there is uh..well..accurate. If you notice it says I had 34 kills with the m24 out of 35, but I also have an explosive pin which is 4+ kills. So yeah.. and there's no way I shot anything near 205 rounds with the m24 as well. That would be emptying my ammo reserve at least 10 times. And I didn't. Killed a few with pistol kills as well but didn't get any pins for that.

Maybe overall accuracy? I really don't think that screen reflects very well weapon stats for the game.

The most kills stat is calculated from the time you started to play on that server, and not in a specific round. So, from the time you've joined the server your most kills were made with the M24.

The most kills stat is calculated from the time you started to play on that server, and not in a specific round. So, from the time you've joined the server your most kills were made with the M24.

I don't think so. Cause if that was the case there'd be end round screens that would show my most kills as being with a weapon i didn't even use that round. Which has never happened.

On another note...: Any and all games completely dropping on the chance that EA's servers randomly die... Is the worst game design decision i have seen in a long time.

Had some brilliant games last night. Ran into a clan by the name of X-Ray. They were really good. I could just about hold my own in a 1v1. Really pushed us to play our best 100% of the time. No goofing around with tagging friends with tracer darts last night I tell you.

We lost every match against them (they made all the difference, the rest of their team were random pubbers) but still awesome games (Y)

Would also like to mention that someone I ran into a couple of weeks who decided to make sport of me, got banned yesterday for an aimbot :rofl: Muuhahahahahahahahaha :D

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Maradona if hydration breaks had existed in Mexico 86.
    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!