Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

**zipp0r** · 06-30-2006, 10:32 AM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

i find flags get captured because:

a lone guy doesnt get spotted by your commander untill its too late.
a squad leader spawns 5 people in wave after wave and very few of your team help to defend.
a gang of tanks come along and your nearly always the wrong class to do anything about it and again very few of your team are there to help.

now i see you mention its hard to defend because one guy has a good aim?
well its partly that, but the defenders struggle to take out the attackers because the guns are nerfed really badly.
now in other games i have little trouble in taking out 5 people rushing me. why? because i can 2 bullet burst to their head and kill them quickly, they know they are likely to die so will fight around objects and have a good shooting battle, but will all die because if you can aim you can kill them.
in bf2 its a gang 5 rushing you, theyre not scared or anything cos the guns are crap and you die, even if some of them die, they are revived in an instant, undoing all your work.

many people say infantry battles in bf2 are pathetic and i agree with them, they are very poor.

**=IMO=THJones** · 06-30-2006, 10:59 AM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

why is all the whine served with BF2...well because those who came from the bf series and other games to BF2 expected very differnt things...and in addition there are differnt styles of player ranging from extreme realism players to extreme aracde players and all points in between..how do you please everyone? YOU CAN'T. So the game is smurfed and resmurfed and resmurfed so we can play musical my fav class sucks now. Still we play and wait for cheese to be served with our whine.

**Mr.Jones** · 06-30-2006, 11:07 AM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

I would have to disagree with the first post. There have been many times, I have out smarted my opp when I was out numbered. With the AT kit alone by my self(My dumb squad members either did not follow me or did not die to spawn on me as usual) but in the Hotel at Karkand, I mowed down three guys until I was finally killed(this was skill and out smarting the enemy, because they did not know where I was located at). Another time at the suburbs(as AT again) I destroyed an APC trying to recap the flag(by myself) which I have done numberous of times and killed the guy that tried to sneak up on me and went around and killed the sniper that got out of his burning APC just in time. It takes skill and experience to make your move not just one but two moves ahead to stay alive. There is not much skill in killing soldiers as they respawn(that account for 70% of my deaths

**imported_Jazza** · 06-30-2006, 11:15 AM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

Lovely post. As it is now the weapons just aren’t accurate enough (Someone from EA/DICE said himself that the guns are less accurate than the old musket rifles).

As it currently is (like you said) the first who can nade spam/bunny hop with the PKM wins. I have tried setting up ambushes by C4'ing flags, I have tried defending flags but it's hopeless when I cant hit someone who's less that 20M's away from me with my assault rifle.

The gun which I think needs the most improvement is the 2nd medics unlock (SA80 or something). It's supposedly the British's most accurate rifle (I’ve got no idea if it is) but once you have fired more than 3 shots good luck hitting anything.

When I lay down on top of a building with my machine gun/LMG my foes should run for cover as I rain down terror at them. But no, I will most likely be killed by an AT rocket or sniped by a PKM.

**Sars99** · 06-30-2006, 11:16 AM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

get in TS with a few mates and make sure ur both heading for the same way and u got each otehr covered. works a treat, esp if ur brain is working enough to realise that u have to drop ur point harvesting kit to pick up sum med's kit to heal a friendly all i nthe name of the squad.

**Chris_Redfield** · 06-30-2006, 11:21 AM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

Originally posted by =IMO=THJones

why is all the whine served with BF2...well because those who came from the bf series and other games to BF2 expected very differnt things...and in addition there are differnt styles of player ranging from extreme realism players to extreme aracde players and all points in between..how do you please everyone? YOU CAN'T. So the game is smurfed and resmurfed and resmurfed so we can play musical my fav class sucks now. Still we play and wait for cheese to be served with our whine.

Im actually content with BF2, seriously. I have to mental pressure. I enjoy playing the game relying totally on my reflexes. Im bad, 1:1 KDR, but I know that Im bad because I cant aim for ****. I also know that theres ONLY one way to get better and thats to get better. Im not whining, I enjoy this sometimes. Take this thread as a discussion, not a complaint.

As for Mr Jones. AT rockets dont count, those are firearms. Its great, that you can use it well. But infantry vs infantry with firearms, is what Im talking about.

While I understand why DICE has made it to be this way, so that newbies had a better chance, than people with superb aim, and its great, I also think that is somewhat bad because learning a proper shooting technique is a LOOOOONG process... Working against newbies.

**disfigured** · 06-30-2006, 11:26 AM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

Good post, well written....

I agree to a certain extent. I think your "lack of thinking" having no drawbacks is true, but it also doesn't hurt a player either. It's just a different style. Of course if you judge your performance every night by your kill/death ratio your certainly going to percieve that rushing head long and honing your aiming skills with out much thought process is successful. Which it probably is successful, for that aspect of the game.

I think playing BF2 like a twitchy shooter can be successful way of playing. I don't think it's entirely the only way to play and be successful.

In my expereince BF is much more user freindly for the newer players, since it really isn't a twitchy shooter. 1 year from it's release could you join and have any kind of success in a CS server, on your the first night? Yes . But on a server full of experienced players? Probably not.

Yet in BF2 if your careful and a little sneaky you can blind side the best "aimer"/"headshot artist", even on your first night. CQC in BF2 has a low learning curve IMO. Which is good because it's more realistic, and BF2 attempts to mimic reality, yet not simulate it. I have yet to see anyone "own" people in BF2 like a twitchy shooter. It simply isn't set up for that. 2 against 1 your going down 80% of the time, unless the two players are still looking down at their keys. 3 against 1, forget it, your dead. You may get all 3 and be alive, but that is rare in this game.

When I played RogueSpear, towards the end and against inexpereinced players I was able to rip through 3 and 4 players at a time. . That's not bragging , it's just the nature of that game. If you took fire from some one that was missing, you could turn and pull off a head shot in a blink of an eye. It's possible in BF2, but not the norm.

I also think being a successful twitchy player in BF2 relies on other players doing the same. If there are no targets rushing back at you throwing caution to the wind, then there's far less opportunity to create a good enviroment for this type of play. Have you ever actually tried to take a spawn where the other team wasn't concentrating on doing the same thing as your squad? It's not easy. If another squad isn't trying to fight their way past your squad and take your spawn, and instead is simply concentrating on defense, you'll find mindless rushing becomes less and less triumphant. Especially if they split up roles and work at it strategically. For instance, if you play a city map with only 16 people it becomes and entirely different game.

I can defend Construction Station @ Kubra on my own against a two man force with a fair ammount of success. No matter what vehicles they approach in or if they are on foot. I can see all routes in and there's lots of places to hide and fire from. Mostly with AT, I can knock off helo's hovering, or weaken inbound vehicles. It may take me a few spawns to fend them off, but if the don't get hidden and inside quickly before I respawn, I do a pretty good job. And I've only got 180 hours in. It can be done.

Do I wish like you (I'm assuming), that the weapons and the game physics were slowed down so the engagments were longer and had to be more strategic. Absolutely. IMO we've got a hell of program here, and turning it into CS with vehicles would be a shame.

This whole cry of "I didn't kill the guy the second I saw him and fired", is rather childish. Because what they hope for only makes them die just as much as they kill. As if no one else is going to take advantage of the same "ubering" of weapons on the opposing side. That's an deadend path in the escalating of weapons that IMO.

I'd rather be alive longer, and not able to fire a froze rope at an enemy then dead every other 20 seconds. If the average spawn time is 10 seconds and engagments are less the 30 seconds, your only "ingame" a 2/3rds of the time, and for what? So you could have big time K/D total at the end of the game? I'd rather go 10/7, but actually be playing the game for longer periods of time, then have the opportunity to go 30/21 but be watching the spawn clock count down much more often.

Nerf everything is my mantra if anything is going to be adjusted. It's not too bad right now. The city maps can tend to get too twitchy, but that's the nature of those maps and it's partially because of the demograhic that plays the game too. Adolescents with the attention span of ferrets on expresso.

Originally posted by Jazza

As it currently is (like you said) the first who can nade spam/bunny hop with the PKM wins. I have tried setting up ambushes by C4'ing flags, I have tried defending flags but it's hopeless when I cant hit someone who's less that 20M's away from me with my assault rifle.

I feel your pain, and agree with your assesment some what, but disagree with your solution. It's not as if the weapon your attempting to defend with isn't going to be equally improved for the other army. They simply don't do that because too many players would gravitate to that single weapon in that army. I don't see how making weapons better would allow for better defenses. It would only escalate the problem now. What ever you improve it's always going to be comming straight back at you in one form or another. I think the better route is to nerf the weapons. Nerfed weapons favor the person in the better postition, not the rusher.

I think the lack of team work is a huge issue too. I know it sucks having players not on the same page as you, but to make the weapons more powerful for any single individual when a team solution is present that no one uses, changes the structure of the game itself. Possibly letting a good thing slip away forever.

Originally posted by Jazza

When I lay down on top of a building with my machine gun/LMG my foes should run for cover as I rain down terror at them. But no, I will most likely be killed by an AT rocket or sniped by a PKM.

I agree here, and it's obvious your assesment is dead on. It's proven by all the people using a class in a role that doesn't even come close to it's description. Support. Should be just that. Not an alternative to assault that with some fancy macros and other things making it in some ways an even better alternative to assault.

But again making it more deadly would only prompt the programmers to create a counter for it. Now your back in the same boat but the engagments are even shorter now. A nerfing would make Support weaker yes, but it would allow it to stay set up longer taking advantage of the volumous rounds (maybe give it more zoom ). More would miss from long range, but only a sniper could take you out, if it was impossible for other weapons to hit you, because of an all around nerfing.

Or at least that's my belief. I think it's natural to see a problem with the game and try and solve it by empowering what one feels as a disadvantage to one's self.

There's also the problem with other situations a weapon is used in when it's cranked up to solve one situation.Take the J-10 for example. I'm no flyer but from what I've read it's a mismatch. What would cranking up the other jets do? Solve the J-10 problem? Sure. But now you've got more planes airbourne that are much more deadly to ground forces who were already at the mercy of jets.

To me it seems there's an aweful lot of space, structures and enviroments that are simply being unsued in BF2 because of the the uber weapons. All forms of cover and strategy become less and less a factor as the weapons escalate. I suppose it's a matter of taste, but to me BF2 is a good midway point right now between twitchy shooters and an attempt at a simulation. Going the other way, back towards a twitchy shooter, is a backward step in the evolution of shooters, and a waste of the programing and enviroments in BF2.

**evilzucchini** · 06-30-2006, 01:15 PM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

How can you even tell if you have been outsmarted or not? Certianly, there would be some situations where it would be just plain obvious. But how do you know that you weren't set up when some guy who you didn't even see mows you down?

My friend and I work together all the time. I rarely play without him on vent with me. Usually it is us and at least one other guy.

We set up moves all the time and mow down our opponents with them. It is never like we sit in one spot and ambush people. . . but we will definitely take up points to coverage as much area when capping a flag or one will sit back and cover the other's ass.

I imagine in many of those situations, if I spot someone and he is at the flag and takes you down, it appears that he just beat you because he had a faster trigger finger when, in fact, we thought to leave a man outside to watch everything and it was the spot that gave him the edge.

We are constantly thinking about how to work with each other to achieve our goals and I play extremely better when he is there because we think about how to use our two man edge to our advantage.

Even one on one there are ways to outsmart an opponent. One of my favorite kills was when I was on the roof of the building over looking the Mosque check point (the building in which you spawn). I was cleaning up and there was a sniper up there. He ran around the stair well and had placed a claymore there. Knowing that he was a sniper and would be doing this, I just circled the other way, pulled my knife out and stabbed him in the face when he came around the corner. He had no idea what hit him.

I also always set up other players by rounding corners as if I am running away only to abush them with a knife the second they round the corner. Works wonders.

If you don't think that this game rewards tactics, teamwork and thinking then you are playing the game wrong. Either that, or your aim is so poor that no matter what you do you would still get owned.

**disfigured** · 06-30-2006, 01:38 PM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

Exactly Zuchhinni

It's some people's bread and butter. Tell me the best snipers aren't sneaky S.O.B's. I dont' care how good your aim is with a sniper rifle, the good ones hit you 3 times before you even know there the hell they are, by then they've moved.

My first 20 hours of BF was me saying "there's no way anyone is that good at this game", it was so clunky compared to other shooters. I didn't realize I was being fragged, sniped, knifed, from a mirad of directions. I've gotten better at rushing, but it's still a huge factor.

To me the best BF2 players are not the ones you "draw" with like some corny old Western movie. Or who can hit the flop macro breakdance roll first. It's the ones you never see, the ones that take advantage of ever thing BF2 has to offer. Realistic, arcady, or simulation, the best move is to postition yourself for a cross fire with a buddy or squad, blindside , or shoot someone in the back. It infuriates me,mostly because I went headlong into battle with out thinking, and they didn't.

It doesn't take much either, just throwing in some varition and simple rules of advantage will do it. I defend Refueling Station at Kubra, not from the sand bags, and not even from behind the railroad containers, I defend from the base of the derreck (crane), looking down into Refueling. You'd be suprised how many people roll in aboard an APC and don't look up there. The first AT round comes out of nowhere. Sometimes there's even a second one that they have no idea from where it came. Even when they do realize it, prone on that hill reduces their angle of attack with the main gun greatly. Wait for them to over heat. Pop up and put a third one in em. It's not flawless but I find it's better then hunkering down in the building or being on the flat. Height is an advatage, use it. Sometimes it's just that simple.

**Blades** · 06-30-2006, 01:58 PM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

If you want a twitchy shooter BF1942 was helluva firefight game. Especially Omaha Beach. That was fun as hell. You could rip through 6 guys on one clip. So much fun. course I sucked at it, but it was still really fun.

**Chris_Redfield** · 06-30-2006, 03:22 PM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

Oh you can tell EXACTLY when youve been outsmarted or set up by people. Especially when youve played games that rely on said tactics heaviliy. Lovely example is SWAT4.

Fact is, I enjoy being set up in BF2, it happens so rarely, but its an awesome sight. If someone has positioned themselves for an ambush in flag defense, has a great ping and an awesome aim to back it up, you cal feel it. And you can appreciate it.

However, outsmarting someone cant happen if you dont have superior aim and nowledge about your weapon, which is my point. Outsmarting someone is not a substitude for FPS skills in Battlefield 2, you can see it clearly if youve played SWAT4, where outsmarting IS a subsitute for FPS skills.

**blue_piglet** · 06-30-2006, 05:59 PM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

So you think ppl do not use tactics. Of course we do, but individually in most case. Everyone will learn some tricks in first few weeks. And what we learn is called tactics. It's true there's far less well organized team tactics. But there definitely are. Like one guy runs around to draw enemy sniper's attention, then his mate takes the time to aim and lands a round on sniper's head. Or shooting at a tank to let the SpeOps do their job. Those are quite easy to use and common to see.

**imported_Nefarious** · 06-30-2006, 06:02 PM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

K. I have to read The Joy of Writing by Pierre Burton, and The Da vinci Code by Mike Brown, I am not going to read all that. All I can say, is that winning at BF2 is not a matter of matter over mind. Its a matter of not being a dumba** on the field.

**DaSniper079** · 06-30-2006, 06:10 PM

Re: Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

Well, I would have to disagree about not going after a sniper after he turns a corner. Often, the sniper lays a claymore right at the corner so all you have to do is jump before you go passed the corner.

Also, there are some ambushes on Karkand. I have seen a squad of AT jumping out behind corners as an MEC APC/tank was on its way to the hotel.

BF2 actually involves a lot of tactics...

Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

Winning in BF2- matter over mind.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment