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

[Metasynaptic]

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

The post about choices is an interesting one.

With the old blackhawk, yes, it was a beast, yes it was hard to move around on mashtuur with it in the air... but if people BOTHERED to get 2 vodniks working as a team, the blackhawk didn't last long at all, even with multiple engineers inside.

Besides, having a squad of engineers and other guys in the blackhawk was a great representation of teamwork... now the blackhawk is a glorified taxi.

[imported_Sacramento]

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

War is about experience. Balance is no excuse.

NUFF SAID!!!

[imported_Boots]

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

Another thing I just thought of: You know who most of the whiners are, the people who make EA initate most of teh changes? The people who don't want to spend a few extra hours reading about teh numbers or tips to learn how guns work/how many bullets it takes to kill/how to bring down a blackhawk or J10 easily, etc... and you know who the nerf's really upset/affect most? The hardcore gamers who will take extra time, or who know how to deal with the overpowered whore, and most of all the people who learn ways to accept and live with overpowered'ness

[Garabaldi]

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

Point is that things should not be nerfed/'fixed' to make the infantry game better, as that is not what the Battlefield series is about.

The Blackhawk is a perfect exmaple. It used to dominate the skies, as it should, but, instead of using teamwork, and trying different strategies to try and overcome the obstacle, players just bitched and bitched until now, like somebody said, the Blackhawk is no more than a flying Hum Vee, without the gun.

It really makes the game a lot more enjoyable when you have to avoid certain things - for example, evading a Blackhawk's minigun fire. An infantryman should not simply be able to ignore the Blackhawk. and run out in the open without some chance of detection, and death.

[PrayingHands]

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

I still don't comprehend who these "whiners" are that EA/Dice listened to. I mean I have heard many different people complain about many different things, but half the time what was implemented was the exact opposite what I thought made a good game. I never complianed about any of it. But who are these n00bs that changed the game, why were they listened to, and where were they puuting these complaints to be heard by the right hand of EA/Dice???

I just don't understand, as half of the REAL complaints have never been addressed, and even the "whiners" have never really been satisfied. Who and why have all these series of changes been made. I have never, and still don't understand. I do understand I rarely put this disc that I once loved in.

Oh well.

[Sadistic_1]

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

I agree with the premise of the original post. The game is a battle of rock/paper/scissors but I still find it's missing the fun factor that Desert Combat provided.

-Being able to shoot down helo's and planes with a tank was entertaining and challenging. It also made sure the pilots made their attacks without coming in too low. Yes you can do it in BF2 but it sometimes takes 2 shots, which is completely ridiculous when you consider it's a tank shell hitting a light aircraft.

-Shoulder mounted STINGER's could and would take down any aircraft. They were very effective if several people used them in a local area

-No warning for tank and APC's when a RPG or SMAW was being fired at them. They'd take the hit and then figure out where it was coming from. Again, multiple players could easily dispatch a tank.

-C4 chucking was part of the game and while there were those that abused it like in BF2, they were few and far between.


BF2 is fun, and I still enjoy it, but it lacks the more arcade feel that came with Desert Combat. It's why I tend to avoid maps with jets. One good pilot can decide the game.

[Garabaldi]

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

I still don't comprehend who these "whiners" are that EA/Dice listened to. I mean I have heard many different people complain about many different things, but half the time what was implemented was the exact opposite what I thought made a good game. I never complianed about any of it. But who are these n00bs that changed the game, why were they listened to, and where were they puuting these complaints to be heard by the right hand of EA/Dice???

I just don't understand, as half of the REAL complaints have never been addressed, and even the "whiners" have never really been satisfied. Who and why have all these series of changes been made. I have never, and still don't understand. I do understand I rarely put this disc that I once loved in.

Oh well.

What sense does it make that DICE made specific gameplay changes so THEY could enjoy the game more? Why would they change the game to their liking? It makes no sense. DICE doesn't make the patches for themselves.

[USARANGER]

Re: 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

i love u man!!!!!! iv been trying to get that point across for SO LONG!!! if BF2 were perfectully balanced, it would suck.

[RVPilot]

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

I see it both ways. I agree with the OP in that the ORIGINAL release was properly balanced as one would expect in a combined arms conflict. IT was challenging and frustrating, yet fun. However the mentality behind the subsequent patches is a genuine mystery to me. They made no sense, angered more people than they pleased and failed to address the most critical issues regarding playability - not the least of which is the ability to identify friendly from foe. Rather than simply FIX the game, they completely altered it with each and every patch. Strategies developed under one patch were neutralized by the next. All this took place with a bare minimum of communication by EA with its fans and customers. I mean how much effort is required to post an occasional update on progress and issues being considered for early feedback?

I don't know, it might just be me, but every fiber of logic in my head tells me we are witnessing a repeat of the Star Wars Galaxies fiasco where Lucasarts alienated its entire fanbase with the release of one major overhaul rather than a series of genuine fixes of glitches in the original game. A few here in BF2 really love the latest patch. They love seeing jeeps used as aerial weapons, and their personal enjoyment is inversely proportional to the loss of enjoyment by those they hate, rather than in the gameplay itself. But the vast majority, whether posting on these forums or not, seem to sense a general decline in the playability and enjoyment in BF2 compounded with each patch. Visit any TS or Ventrillo server to get the real sense of satisfaction - or lack thereof.

Which begs the question: Exactly who did EA consider in the development of each patch? They did not have to look very hard for genuine feedback if they actually wanted it. Even filtered and adjusted for emotional rants, some very constructive information has been made public by the players in virtually every BF2 forum on the internet. On their OWN forums, EA representation is virtually nonexistent - leaving everyone to speculate, argue and pray that someone actually is watching and considering the issues being raised. In the process, the gang mentality has flourished and the community has developed fractures - becoming an "us versus them" battle between fans in the same community with differing opinions on each and every issue - like children left to their own devices without parental restraint.

If you ask me, the best you can say for EA at this stage is they have offered us the very WORST customer support possible while maintaining a consistent fan base in spite of themselves. But that loyalty is still primarily based on the game's as of yet unrealized POTENTIAL and not on its delivery on promises made from before the first release through today.

[HowieMandel]

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

yeah balance is no good, lets not complain about it anymore.

(rolls eyes)

[Paas]

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

Hmmmm... ok, well.

Although I don't agree with "ANY" of the thread starter's opinions; hell... that's about it. I don't agree.

I mean, I see where you're coming from. Yet, you're factoring in what Jets/Tanks etc. should be capable of without mentioning that infantry should be capable of.

{WP}Paas

[Lazza66]

Re: 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!

Extra content? 1 map is a pitiful offering. And as for the gameplay changes and fixes, just look at what happened with the claymores. Lets also look at the blackhawk fix, admittedly the cannons were overpowered, but they completely downgraded every aspect of the blackhawk. Then the fix for C4 chucking, simple - all players can no longer throw anything, hell I can't even throw a med pack across an alleyway now. Yes EA have done a BAD JOB.

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.

A minority of players may have bitched about squad hopping and other exploits. Forums are a biased sample of players wishes - as players with problems are more likely to post into them. Again this is EA's responsibility to find the true need for a change, and again they are doing a BAD JOB.

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.

The objective is the paper, scissors, rock formula to create balance. The problem is the paper is rotten and torn, the rock is tungsten steel coated with depleted uranium, and the scissors are rusted shut, if you get my analogy.

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?

Where's the excitement in throwing out a medkit, in repairing a UAV, in providing ammo? Hell you're right, lets drop all the unexciting content. We'll all fly jets at Mach 4 and drop nuclear warheads over the grunts, who will be very excited indeed.

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.

It's another example of EA doing a BAD JOB. They have noticed a minority of whiners, and unable to prioritise the need for any fix they have blundered into the wrong solution again.

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.

Again you are wrong, it is EA who patched the game, not the complainers. As I say it is up to EA to decide on the need for action / patching and again they do a BAD JOB. They HAVE NOT listened to everyones complaints, some of my suggestions for game logic (collision blame) etc., and some other great ideas have been ignored.

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?

No things don't NEED to be unbalanced. If balance was derived from realism I firmly believe there would be far less problems. But then people argue it's not a sim and doesn't need realism for balance, but that thinking has led us to the current bizarre situations such as a TOW doing max 12 damage to a BH, and max 19.5 (on fire) damage to a tank.

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!

Oh so it's fair enough a ground pounder can take out an 65 ton tank, but not a 10 ton chopper. I suppose it's also fair enough that an AA vehicle can't take out the jet either then. Lets improve this great balance by removing all SA/AA

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

End rant

Sickening, wipe your chin.

[Garabaldi]

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

Sickening, wipe your chin.

No need to get hostile.

Just posting my opinion - go ahead and post a rebuttle to every single one of my posts, but there is no need to be rude about it.

Sure - I welcome the patches and think DICE is doing a great job - you don't - does this mean that I need to make snide comments towards you?

I don't think so..

But anyway's..

Seems to me like everybody is arguing from the point of view from a ground pounder. A simple infantryman should not be able to easily take down a tank. You guys are basically saying that Infantry should = Tank/Plane.

No, Plane=Plane.

Sine half the community would rather enjoy a pure infantry based game, why not just remove all vehicles, and basically make the game Counterstrike set in a militaristic setting?

I mean, I see where you're coming from. Yet, you're factoring in what Jets/Tanks etc. should be capable of without mentioning that infantry should be capable of.

Simple!

Infantry = Infantry

Choppers = Choppers/AA

Jets = Jets/AA

etc etc..

DICE is simply make too many changes to appease the infantry loving player, while they are destroying what BF2 is all about. Large maps with vehicles.

Too bad every medic cires when a Jet kill them. Yep - A helicopter killing a long troop DEFINATELY means that helicopter is overpowered.

It has nothing to do with the fact that a ground tropp should never try and face a choipper head on without AA/AT rockets or another chopper!

[Lazza66]

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

No need to get hostile.

Just posting my opinion - go ahead and post a rebuttle to every single one of my posts, but there is no need to be rude about it.

Well, that pretty much sums up my opinion of your post.

Sure - I welcome the patches and think DICE is doing a great job - you don't - does this mean that I need to make snide comments towards you?

I wasn't looking forward to the patch. The squad changes were unecessary, and are cumbersome. The awards changes gave me 6 new medals pretty much instantly, but I didn't want them, I'd been working towards actually EARNING them, only to have EA hand me them on a silver platter, I've even been getting up to 2 of them at once they're so easy now. Commanders never actually give the vehicle drop to the grunts, they're too busy trying to balance them on a chimney somewhere. Server stability with 1.3 is at an all time low with servers crashing up to 4 times an hour.

Don't know which parts of that you might find appealing, I certainly don't like any of the 1.3 tweaks. I can also live without complaining about it (well except for the stability issue), but I can't live with others trying to claim it's all for the best, what rubbish.

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

Hmmm, ok. I've died dozens of times on Wake by jets coming straight at me and not having time for lock much less launch. Are you saying if I experience yet more of this the AA will get better?

What should I expect, longer range or quicker lock? How much more dying experience do I need under my belt before the AA will work?

[triumph]

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

Seems to me like everybody is arguing from the point of view from a ground pounder. A simple infantryman should not be able to easily take down a tank. You guys are basically saying that Infantry should = Tank/Plane.

No, Plane=Plane.

Sine half the community would rather enjoy a pure infantry based game, why not just remove all vehicles, and basically make the game Counterstrike set in a militaristic setting?
..........
DICE is simply make too many changes to appease the infantry loving player, while they are destroying what BF2 is all about. Large maps with vehicles.

Too bad every medic cires when a Jet kill them. Yep - A helicopter killing a long troop DEFINATELY means that helicopter is overpowered.

It has nothing to do with the fact that a ground tropp should never try and face a choipper head on without AA/AT rockets or another chopper!

1. One vs one in open ground infantry in general are not good counters against tanks or APCs. Throw in choke points and other terrain factors or a lack of awareness and the Spec ops, Eng., and AT kit seem to become good counters if used correctly. It's a where, who, when, and what class issue currently. However could be argued that exturnal views (Hitting C or the F10,11,12 keys) allow armor to have to much awareness so players don't need to communicate while using armor therfore promoting lonewolf and self interest gameplay styles. But overall if the infantry have the terrain advantage 1 AT infantry is a good counter to armor.

2. AA kits, airplanes, helos, oh my! Many players want a anti air kit like from BFV. Back in BFV armor, infantry, and well just about everything including air could wack the Stinger kit. The primary use of the stinger kit was to kill incoming and outgoing air units which forced air units to take evasive actions. It would also take two or more gooks on the SA-7 to take down a chopper or a plane holding one or two people with a good chance of killing before the air unit could escape to repair. I think that BF2 doesn't require a high level of skill to master most tools and not much more to learn how to severly exploit poor balance which is why i feel that airplanes that can be repaired and rearmmed with out having to land adds to non plane using players frustrations because of 3 key points-
A. The plane does not need to land and it does take some amount of skill to land, make a U turn after, before, or during rearming, and than take off again.
B. A plane that can be resupplyed in air means it can get back to bombing targets very quickly. In BFV a plane could not repair while in mid air from what i recall which made it a more overt and easyer target to seek and destroy after being hit once or twice by AA and trailing smoke.
C. Afterburners and map size make it so a plane can go from point A to B faster than ever which means players get attacked by something most of them can not counter quicker than ever.


With so much air superiority its no wonder players go to 24/7 mushy or karkywarky. I do realize that a idiotic player could ruin things for someone who wants to land making it a bad idea for pubby play due to tking or that vee on the run way but thats more of a people problem isn't it.
During the early days it was plane vs plane and that would work well if the planes didn't contain so many easily reloadible bombs. The AA tools (Missiles) didn't work very well and the result is what we see today in play.

3. So far from what i've been playing those large maps are enjoyible for the guy in the APC, tank, hummer, AA except for the armor takes damage from moving acrossed terrain. The more popular maps don't have so much of that such as karky, mushy, oman, etc..... and i don't think most of the changes to infantry v infantry kit balance has affected infantry vs ground armor balance to much. If anything the lack of doplhin dives and C4 jumping makes an armor users life easy. If anyone thinks so please do speak up with explicit detail! :)

4. As for the moans I think thats more about map balance issues or players not having enough tools to get out of no place quickly (Which should be gone now that you can drop a DPV/Buggie).

Lazza66- I think wake is just a poor map for BF2. I try to avoid it as if it was going to kill me out of game.

datakillx99- Might i remind you that this is a PC game? And if a game is not fun for a player who can become skilled or is skilled than no motive to play the game remains which means less copys sold or the next X game won't get as many sales. It is in the best interest for everyone to have a well balanced game when the game is dedicated to multiplayer and very similar factions. It is crazy to let the userbase become very frustrated with the game and not try to make up for that frustration.