Pin of shame. Loser. It's not aimbot nor esp. it's keyboard and mouse, a simple point and click

Pin of shame L bozo

@@Shyvorix only shaming yourself cause its obvious cheats lol

@modzv3193 Lmao buddy, Ravic doesn't cheat. Dude has literally put tens of thousands of hours into the battlefield games. Not only has phenomenal gamesense built up over the years he's been doing fps games for around a decade and a half. Not to mention he actually has good hearing. I've pulled off shit he has done and so has other players I know. It ain't cheats, it's what happens when you practice and play for a while. You get good. You get really good. Lol. If he actually was cheating, he'd literally never miss.

@@modzv3193 If he were cheating how come he wasn't banned or kicked for active game cheats?

i want a Friday Night BF mode where its just pistols... i'd crank out those T1's all night long

Bro has to be like 8 inches away from his screen, i don't get how people can be so precise on such a small object like a head from 100m away

i think he already uploaded one lol

@@gameparty-yt7290 lol awkward and the best part is I've already watched half that video so I guess my brain is smooth as can be lol

Trust me, it’s bad. Almost every sidearm is better. Ravic’s sim is just so good it’s workable.

Never really felt like sidearms were used that much in that game on PC ( the game only lasted around a month for PC users before population dropped to nothing ). Besides the taser was much more amusing to use against people.

Last I checked the armor wasn't armor, it's just additional health and armor piercing rounds have zero effect on them. It's why I called them out as being a waste of memory/resource allocation in the game. The only purpose or reason I came across that warranted the existence of AP rounds for weapons was that they kept their damage through windows. Which is already pointless to begin with since AP round damage is already so low to not be useful against infantry why would you bother using it against infantry in a fast moving vehicle or one in the air especially when you have to switch to said ammo and the time that takes. Also the whole thing or situation was made even weirder when they made certain marksman rifles keep their damage through windows regardless of what ammo type they used.

@@Ravic Yep, all of this is true. I only used ap rounds in rare and specific situations back when I mained the GVT, like finishing an air vehicle that had less than 5hp. That was the only weapon I found that had the slightest use for ap rounds so I carried them in the second slot, but aside from that we can agree they are essentially useless.

You might have noticed the major editing or montage making was stopped around the early part of BF4. Because of the handicap Fraps gives I was finally giving in and switching to ShadowPlay so I could actually play at normal fps when in comp matches/scrims. Because of how ShadowPlay records ( H.264 ) and it doesn't allow you to set every frame as a keyframe or more specifically can't set every frame as an i-frame the recordings are an absolute pain in the arse to work with in AfterEffects which I'd normally do those kinds of montages/edits in entirely because of how much better it is at controlling time and each frame. Basically raw ShadowPlay clips make everything slower in AfterEffects, like frustratingly slow. The other reason I don't do them much anymore is because people aren't trustworthy. You have no idea how disheartening it is to see those content ID claims many years later on montages I spent so many hours editing to match the music. Music provided by people that at the time said I had full permission to use and that there would never be any claims on the video. So for me to really jump back into that I'd need more appropriate settings available in ShadowPlay or a better recording application that still uses the same type of pre-record buffer system ( so far still no alternatives that match it ). Then I'd need music/tracks that are decent and don't require a SUBSCRIPTION to license. Also keep in mind it kind of depends on the content or footage, I sniped a lot in BF3 and BF4 but I didn't really focus on that for most montages because often times people won't notice or realize the difference in skill ( reaction/accuracy ) if it's in the heavily edited form you normally find in a montage. Like the BC2 Take Me Home Video I specifically included sniper clips that focused on what everyone else did not focus on at the time ( headshots ) and didn't mess with their speed/timings. And in some cases it comes down to "I don't want to waste what might be a good track on a game that I don't really approve of ( BF1, BFV )". Anyways that is probably way more information than you wanted, basically with how YT is with copyright and claims I'm hesitant to do that kind of stuff these days.

ESDF for movement and everything else is one key to the right iirc

Deagle. Magnum shoots too slow

Just switching weapons by hitting the keys fast enough that it cancels animations and re-pulls the weapon.

It would have killed me.

Uh it's probably not even over ten frames, faster to just manually keyframe the position for each frame.

"Seems like you are suggesting that we shouldn't criticize this games lackluster map design because previous games also had bad maps?" - I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the maps were designed for their purpose, to make 128 player Conquest work and not be the meatgrinder chokepoint mess DICE reported running into when doing large player count tests in previous Battlefield games. I'm suggesting that people need to realize they are complaining about the wrong things. Because if the BF2042 base maps were bad then so were the BF3, BF4, BF1, and BFV maps, but people weren't claiming the sky was falling for those Battlefield games and their maps or map design even though they had far worse maps overall. These reworks, it's wasted development time and resources on a game the community won't ever fully accept ( until the next Battlefield is released ) when those resources could have been used elsewhere. Speaking of wasted resources you brought up the smaller map pool. Three things on that subject, one is a lot of the servers we frequently played in BF3 and BF4 or the ones we weren't banned from didn't play all the maps either, they'd play a small select pool of maps and in some cases it was less than the pool available in BF2042. Two is you sound like a lot of people who don't include any of the Portal maps as being part of the game in which case that means you can exclude any Premium Pass/DLC maps, etc. from previous Battlefield games when comparing as those are also addon content as well so then when comparing the map quantity and quality gap is quite small. Oh and all those maps, all that content in Portal was made from scratch, but I guess people don't realize that so they don't realize that was a large part of BF2042's development. Three, the base maps in BF2042 "had" significantly larger playable areas than previous Battlefield games, that is a lot more work and a lot more objects/assets than a large map with way smaller playable areas that you'd normally find in previous Battlefield titles. With regards to expecting improvement to map design over time I'm not sure how to put this but if we're talking about Battlefield the progression in that area has been declining since BF2/BF2142 era of Battlefield games. Like I haven't really seen real improvements across most FPS franchises when in comes to map design, they either rehash the same or old ideas or just make something that works well for a specific mode but awful for something else. Although a lot of the issues related to that come down to whether you put a focus in designing both the game and map around specific modes or if you try to make everything work. BF2042 was designed around Specialists and 128 player Conquest, same for the maps, the game itself was not designed for Hazard Zone, Breakthrough or anything else. They should have stuck with it or stayed the course instead of trying to force other game modes to work which in turn broke or just ruined what they original set out to create all to appease a few "vocal" Breakthrough players. Keep in mind at that at the end of basically all the recent Battlefield game's lifespan the only active or populated game mode you'd find in NA for PC was Conquest servers. BF1 would on rare occasions have 1 Grand Operations server up at night, BFV was in a similar boat except its Operations/Breakthough was even rarer at night, BF4 only had Conquest up as their high player count mode around the time we stopped playing. BF3 had Conquest and a lot of Mixed-Mode servers because that was the last Battlefield game where they designed maps for more than just one game mode so you'd have good Rush and good Conquest maps you could switch between. BC2 was similar to that but was carrying over it's more Rush focus that it inherited from BC1. Conquest and Conquest Assault are very core Battlefield modes going back further so it was impressive that when they rebooted the franchise on the Frostbite engine that they were able to make a completely new game mode work and function well and have it become a Battlefield game mode. But they've been drifting away from that since BF3 so I don't know why people have these expectations when we've already seen the decline starting much further back. Being a long time Battlefield 2 player and after the utter disappointment and lie that the supposed sequel BF3 was I've come to expect worse with each title and take what I can get. What some people might not realize is that they are not making games for them, they are making them for a newer or different generation or audience. Also I've had this discussion before with many others and the conclusion seems to be that those people don't care about the quality or the design of the content ( maps, weapons, gadgets, vehicles, soldiers ), the only care about the quantity. But that is another discussion altogether.

@@Ravic Can you elaborate (or point to an earlier post) on BF3 being a disappointment? I don't disagree but it's hard to find specifics spelled out about this series like you do.

@@xux DICE heavily advertised BF3 to the diehard PC platform audience as being this epic sequel to Battlefield 2 when in reality it wasn't anything like that. Features, mechanics, etc., it all came from what they had and what they worked on in BC2 which was the previous Battlefield game they had just produced, not Battlefield 2. When the community confronted DICE with glaring issues and differences in DICE/EA's own EA UK forums the DICE developers told everyone regarding BF3, "they were making the game they wanted to play, not the game we ( the Battlefield community ) wanted to play". To be fair DICE was never known for taking outside or community feedback and making real changes to their games even in the much older ones or BC1 or BC2 so it's not like we really should be surprised it was just frustrating to see how blunt they were regarding it and basically lying or tricking people into buying the game. Something else to keep in mind if you like a particular Battlefield game that saying of they don't make them like they used to, within the gaming industry that can sometimes mean they can't make them like they used to like specific versions for each platform ( example: Battlefield 2 for PC, BF2:Modern Combat for consoles, two completely separate games and developed by two separate teams ) or the industry/capitalism won't allow the same kind of development schedules or time-frames like they used to. Because I'm not just referring to Frostbite Battlefield games not being as well made as the older pre-Frostbite engine Battlefield games. I'm also referring to recent Frostbite Battlefield games being lesser or worse than earlier Frostbite Battlefield games because of how they are made now. BC1 and BC2 the game engine team creating and updating Frostbite was still within DICE or still a core team within Battlefield development. That changed with BF3 and it's affects on BF3 and later titles has been noticeable.

@@Ravic I understand your point the maps were designed around 128 player conquest but you saying that if the 2042 maps are bad so are ones from previous games doesn't in any way change that 2042's maps are bad. That is just a what about ism. I would also agree for the most part that the reworks only marginally improved the games maps and that time may have better spend else where. I believe its more than fair to discount the portal maps because they are not in rotation for many of the game modes such as 128 player conquest or breakthrough. They should have better utilized the portal maps by including them in more of the game mode map rotations. It's true that the maps in 2042 are larger so they took more time however this could have been entirely avoided if they didn't design the game around 128 players which I believe you have criticized in the past. For that reason I think it's more than reasonable to critique them on that basis. Also I fully agree with you that the overall games design should have been more focused and they should have stuck to what they were originally designed for.

@@Ravic Oh okay, haha. This reminds me of people asking for BC3 and it's, like, they made that game they just called it BF3. Do you think they could make another game like BF2 at least mechanically? A less is more, Je ne sais quoi Battlefield?

All the time, lmao he has plenty "hackusation" videos

Funnily enough the distances between objectives isn't a big deal when you have civilian transports and call-in jeeps available as an option. Besides, if there are multiple flags within a sector then you don't have a need to use said transports. Important to note that movement speeds in 2042 were already really fast compared to prior titles, so the need to shrink map sizes down was even less necessary. People online just want 2042 to be CoD MW2019 / MW2 (2022)'s Ground War mode, but don't want to admit that because they look down upon CoD as a franchise and think themselves better than it.

Terrible but fun

They buffed the one shot range a while back