I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Garabaldi

    #1

    I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

    Because it is SERIOUSLY detracting from Battlefield's gameplay.

    Don't get me wrong - I love the game. It is, without a doubt, the best multiplayer game money can buy. But, with all the ****ing and moaning done by the community, BF2 is becoming less like Battlefield and more like Counter-Strike.

    First, to all the people who complain about EA/DICE not caring about their customers. Not true, and it's absolutely ludacris to think that. No company in their right mind would blatantly disregard their customers as it is not wise business practice. I think it's fairly easy to see that DICE supports BF2 and cares about the customers. A patch is released every 2 months or so - offering a ton of gameplay changes and fixes - and while some of you guys may not exactly ENJOY the new features offered in the patches, you can't possibly say that DICE is doing a bad job. I mean, look at all the extra content we have gotten since it was released in June/July!

    Secondly, the changes/fixes included in the patch are a direct result of half the communitys bitching. DICE doesn't change the game to their liking - they change it for the vocal majority who bitch about balance.

    Battlefield 2 is not a game about balance. While it is nice to have an even playing field sometimes, it's not nearly as exciting. Some things NEED to be overpowered in order to create a tense, fun experience.

    Jets for example. I am well aware that Jets are a sore spot with many players who complain that they are unstoppable.

    Well that's the point! A jet isn't a personnel carrier, it's a freakin' jet! The reason why your team only gets 2-3 is because they are supposed to be a powerful force. Where's the excitement in EASILY taking down a jet?

    Blackhawks. Remember when they completely dominated Mashtuur? Shonghua? Now fast forward to the present, where the mini-guns can't put a dent in your soldiers helmet. THIS is a direct result of people complaining. Instead of trying to adapt or overcome the INTENDED more powerful obstacle, they bitched and moaned until it was gone.

    What I'm really trying to get at is this - BF2 is what it is today because of the community. DICE has listened to everyone's complaints, and, in turn, changed to game to appease them. DICE does not make the patches for their benefit.

    In the game of Battlefield, some things NEED to be unbalanced. Where is the fun of trying to avoid a helicopter or a plane? The thrill of ducking behind cover from the firing of a Blackhawk?

    Too many people approached this game as Counter-Strike. The vehicles are a major draw, and are intended to be powerful. Infantry combat is fun and all, but vehicles is what Battlfield is really about. A ground-pounder should not be able to easily take down a jet or helicopter. Too many people request changes to make the infantry combat better, and while I enjoy the occasional round of Karkand every now and then, appraching BF2 as an infantry based game is kill it!

    So, cheers DICE! Great job on creating such an ace game!

    End rant
  • datakillx99

    #2
    Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

    AMEN!

    NERF THE WHINERS!! :laugh:

    In warfare, the sides are NEVER even, one side always has an advantage whether it is technology, landscape, etc. People need to just learn to adapt to the combat situation. J10 spawnkilling you? Learn to use the Essex. Tank whoring on karkand? Learn to use AT and blow the crap outta that whore.

    War is about experience. Balance is no excuse.

    Datakill

    Comment

    • imported_Boots

      #3
      Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

      I could really care less about equalizing sh1t... I really miss the BH's gun and PKM, but the BH out of all nerfs thus far. Every gun and vehicle are not supposed to be equal and there should be a best; most games are like this and in real life, it is like this.

      Comment

      • TheEn|gma
        Member
        • Jun 2005
        • 5247

        #4
        Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

        Originally posted by datakillx99
        In warfare, the sides are NEVER even, one side always has an advantage whether it is technology, landscape, etc. People need to just learn to adapt to the combat situation. J10 spawnkilling you? Learn to use the Essex. Tank whoring on karkand? Learn to use AT and blow the crap outta that whore.

        War is about experience. Balance is no excuse.
        This is where I get into a personal rut with these type of points, I love realsim I play a lot of flight sims (Combat and otherwise) and I adore realism, however, with BF2 lets be honest its definatly unrealistic. You don't need me to name some of the features that are unrealsitic. I don't think you can compare "real" warfare to BF2 warfare, their at two different ends of the spectrum in my opinion.

        And your totally right, I can't stand medics who whine about a Tank/APC constantly killing you, theres a simple solution genius. BF2 is a computerised game of rock, paper, scissors.

        Comment

        • baggygreen

          #5
          Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

          Finally someone saying it just like it is. Scissors paper rock, one thing can be negated by other things working in concert.

          Comment

          • alecs36
            Member
            • Feb 2006
            • 1242

            #6
            Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

            /agree.

            Comment

            • White*Feather*67

              #7
              Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

              Everyone plays karkand because there are no planes, helicopters and tanks/apcs don't completly own you 24/7. To get a good score a little one on one skill is involved.

              The patches have decreased the amount of skill required in the game. Balancing the game makes it fun for everyone...well not for those who rely on j10 whoring etc etc

              Comment

              • TheEn|gma
                Member
                • Jun 2005
                • 5247

                #8
                Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

                Originally posted by White*Feather*67
                Everyone plays karkand because there are no planes, helicopters and tanks/apcs don't completly own you 24/7. To get a good score a little one on one skill is involved.
                This is true maybe its because a lot of the player base comes from more infantry based FPS, such as CoD2 or maybe CS, its just their natural hunting ground, I came to BF2 from JO:E so I was somewhat accustomed to the vechiles things, however as you can see from my stats karkand features quite highly.

                Comment

                • imported_Boots

                  #9
                  Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

                  Originally posted by White*Feather*67
                  Everyone plays karkand because there are no planes, helicopters and tanks/apcs don't completly own you 24/7. To get a good score a little one on one skill is involved.

                  The patches have decreased the amount of skill required in the game. Balancing the game makes it fun for everyone...well not for those who rely on j10 whoring etc etc
                  Yeah, I started playing Multiplayer Games in '98 with Rogue Spear, followed by Raven Shield, BF1942, and then BF2. I only started flying a month or two ago and only heli's... I can't really get the whole plane thing down, but I simply pwn on the ground. It doesn't matter to me that Air > Ground owns more, but it's not really an even fight... a huge friggin cannon moving that you cannot attack, plus bombs... who has the advantage?

                  Comment

                  • TheEn|gma
                    Member
                    • Jun 2005
                    • 5247

                    #10
                    Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

                    The way I look at it, if you just want infantry combat go play CoD or CS. If you want Jet only go but Lock-On. If want to Helo only go Comanche 4, BF2 is a median, and it does a pretty good job at satisfying most camps.

                    Comment

                    • imported_Rafterman
                      Member
                      • May 2005
                      • 1105

                      #11
                      Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

                      I completely agree. The balance stuff has gotten so rediculous that I don't even look forward to new weapons/vehicles b/c I know they'll be exactly the same as the old ones but with new skins.

                      Comment

                      • parish

                        #12
                        Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

                        One of the best posts I have ever read. Kudos the the OP.

                        Comment

                        • triumph

                          #13
                          Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

                          Regarding EA and not caring well EA has a poor history with support. For some C&C Generals – Zero Hour may ring a bell. I’ve heard people refer to the Medal of honor titles being poorly supported or maybe balanced but I can’t confirm anything. As for content so far wake island and a hummer from the sky? I can see why people will be ruffled over lack of free new content when BFV actually offered new toys and new maps to go along with them (historical accuracy for the most set aside of course). Seems more like the user base wants the old standards back on new content and with features like Co-op making a return it seems that some one wants people to keep playing the BF franchise and nothing else.

                          Is death from above, the side, behind, and maybe even below an interesting choice? I really don't think so. Quitting and uninstalling the game would be more interesting than getting raped because of lacking gameplay balance even though a players natural skill, talent, etc.... may make he or she a godlike shooter, tactician, driver, pilot, whatever.
                          A lesson in play balance anyone?
                          Tom Cadwell -
                          What is Play Balance?
                          Sid Meier once said, "A game is a collection of interesting choices". It follows that game elements being out of balance and thereby eliminating choices detracts from the gameplay. Ideally, a game should be a series of choices, ending with victory of defeat or some other end condition. Sometimes, some choices will become unquestionably the only choice, or definitely not a valid choice. If there is only one valid choice at some point, but the game hasn't ended, there is a play balance problem.

                          Nearly all situations commonly referred to as imbalances can be boiled down to a choice reduction. For instance, in a strategy game, if a particular unit is sufficiently over-effective for its cost, it could make another unit completely useless in most or all circumstances. Not only does this situation leave a player with one real choice (where's the choosing?), but it also leaves the player with numerous irrelevant distractions. These distractions actually detract from the gameplay further by obfuscating it and adding player frustration to the mix.
                          The above is more geared towards an RTS but it seems to apply well here too.
                          In the case of BF2 it seems to me that the only choice is death for a lot of the early days when playing on maps that aren't karkand because the proper counters didn't work and maps may have only offered one armored tool that could take on the airplanes which was also ineffective because of the missiles being buggered. It can be argued that players still may not have the tools for some maps to effectively counter air since the 1 way of countering air units is a static defense that is easily zeroed and another is an armor unit which is what a bomber is made to counter.

                          Some people will be frustrated about real issues, others may be frustrated with whatever and just making emotional outbursts instead of asking if some one knows of a proper counter, tactic, or choice that keeps the user playing the game. When players are frustrated to the point where they aren’t playing but instead sending a message to whomever maybe it is because they don’t have the tools to overcome or because a counter tool can’t counter very well which means it’s not a counter at all. So where is the fun in not being able to destroy that whatever with whatever while the guys who aren’t on the class to counter the whatever depend on whomever with what should be the counter or at least a tool to even the grounds and make the gameplay dependant on who is skilled. And the last time I looked those players who enjoy tourneys or ladders or clan matches enjoy games based upon skill in the pureist.

                          And I don’t see how anyone can say the game isn’t based around infantry when it supports 64 players and about 12 non car toys for a side will be on an vanilla map. Tanks, APCs, AA. 1 person. Helo, Bomber, 2 people. Transport Helo as an offensive weapon 2 or 3 people. Fighter jet 1 person.
                          Check out the maps. Do the math. And i'm not just talking about slots in general but more about how many players it takes to make the toy effective in an agressive manner (to kill stuff or get an objective done).

                          Seems like the main focus is on infantry and their squads AND the toys for some maps. Not just the toys. So it seems to me that the devs tried to get some sort of balance system into BF2 so players could make choices that will be effective against something so they may get some satisfaction if not a great deal from playing the game. If we are lucky and if people work as a team the game will become a dance of counters requiring skill, teamwork, effective communication, and so on which will hopefully result in a lot of pleased customers who will buy the next product.

                          BF2. Easy to learn, easy to master.
                          It’s all about rock paper counter balance here with a small side of the asymmetry(points on the map, a few odd maps, m16 3 round burst and the ak's full auto, and os on with things not being perfectly identical).

                          Not happy with the headroom or skill level required to be effective? It's sim, moddin or industry made subsitute time! I never saw any ads for an overwhelming challenge with BF2 marked on it. Has anyone found one?

                          Comment

                          • Living Ghost

                            #14
                            Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

                            The point is, DICE sucks at balancing. They mirror balance.

                            Balance should be through variety. Ok, so, that plane descimated everything. Don't Nerf it, up the other teams AA. Give the other team's plane faster lock on with faster and more accurate missiles.

                            Comment

                            • menace-uk-
                              Member
                              • Apr 2006
                              • 615

                              #15
                              Re: I think we all need to sto worrying about balance so much..

                              Originally posted by Garabaldi
                              Because it is SERIOUSLY detracting from Battlefield's gameplay.

                              Don't get me wrong - I love the game. It is, without a doubt, the best multiplayer game money can buy. But, with all the ****ing and moaning done by the community, BF2 is becoming less like Battlefield and more like Counter-Strike.

                              First, to all the people who complain about EA/DICE not caring about their customers. Not true, and it's absolutely ludacris to think that. No company in their right mind would blatantly disregard their customers as it is not wise business practice. I think it's fairly easy to see that DICE supports BF2 and cares about the customers. A patch is released every 2 months or so - offering a ton of gameplay changes and fixes - and while some of you guys may not exactly ENJOY the new features offered in the patches, you can't possibly say that DICE is doing a bad job. I mean, look at all the extra content we have gotten since it was released in June/July!

                              Secondly, the changes/fixes included in the patch are a direct result of half the communitys bitching. DICE doesn't change the game to their liking - they change it for the vocal majority who bitch about balance.

                              Battlefield 2 is not a game about balance. While it is nice to have an even playing field sometimes, it's not nearly as exciting. Some things NEED to be overpowered in order to create a tense, fun experience.

                              Jets for example. I am well aware that Jets are a sore spot with many players who complain that they are unstoppable.

                              Well that's the point! A jet isn't a personnel carrier, it's a freakin' jet! The reason why your team only gets 2-3 is because they are supposed to be a powerful force. Where's the excitement in EASILY taking down a jet?

                              Blackhawks. Remember when they completely dominated Mashtuur? Shonghua? Now fast forward to the present, where the mini-guns can't put a dent in your soldiers helmet. THIS is a direct result of people complaining. Instead of trying to adapt or overcome the INTENDED more powerful obstacle, they bitched and moaned until it was gone.

                              What I'm really trying to get at is this - BF2 is what it is today because of the community. DICE has listened to everyone's complaints, and, in turn, changed to game to appease them. DICE does not make the patches for their benefit.

                              In the game of Battlefield, some things NEED to be unbalanced. Where is the fun of trying to avoid a helicopter or a plane? The thrill of ducking behind cover from the firing of a Blackhawk?

                              Too many people approached this game as Counter-Strike. The vehicles are a major draw, and are intended to be powerful. Infantry combat is fun and all, but vehicles is what Battlfield is really about. A ground-pounder should not be able to easily take down a jet or helicopter. Too many people request changes to make the infantry combat better, and while I enjoy the occasional round of Karkand every now and then, appraching BF2 as an infantry based game is kill it!

                              So, cheers DICE! Great job on creating such an ace game!

                              End rant
                              What a load of B.O.L.L.O.C.K.S to start with after the next hotfix patch you wont see another patch for BF2:laugh:

                              Ok yes dice have given us lots of gameplay tweaks/fixes but they have done nothing with all the bugs BF2 have:laugh:

                              Sorry EA dont give a F.U.C.K about consumers

                              Comment

                              Working...