Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

[Jumintiger]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

I think that IO mode will be great...for the first maybe 48 hours after release. People will then get bored of the stalemates you describe. You know why tanks were invented? To break the trench warfare of WWI. You're taking away those tanks, while it will not be in trenches with bolt action rifles it WILL become deadlocked. Over and over again.

[excluded]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

If you want infantry only mode, the solution is simple.. Counterstrike. Better engine, better weapon balance, better net code, better hit-detection. Of course, far more cheaters than you'll ever encounter in BF2, but if this idea goes through as is the only cheat you'll need to 1.4 is to run a squad of medics on an infantry only server.

Just as important, the Battlefield series defining characteristic is vehicle and infantry interaction. Battlefield without vehicles is like cereal without milk, it just doesn't make sense. Without vehicles (and to a lesser extent commanders, class balance ect..) Battlefield 2 is nothing more than a mediocre shooter.

Balance does not exist in this "Infantry Only" mode.

You think medics are bad now? Try infantry only medics with nothing to stop them.

But first, let's take a look at how the other classes will fair:

Snipers are useless with increased HP it'll take them 4 or more shots to kill and by that time the target has escaped.

Engineers are useless obviously with nothing to repair, no use for mines, and inferior weapons.

AT are useless with inferior weapons, no grenades, and nothing to shoot an AT rocket at.

And of course, Spec Ops are useless without anything worthy of a C4 kill (no vehicles, commander assets to c4).

Assault are useless as always, but suprisingly less useless than they are normally. Still a far cry from a medic, however.

Support? Meh, medics with slightly better guns but lose the ability to revive/heal as a result, and thus.. worthless.

Then you've got the GODs of no infantry servers, the ultimate stat padder, the medic. Thirty seconds to revive? Sweet! Medic packs that instantly heal 4 grenades worth of damage? Sweet. Best weapons too? Super sweet. Most sprint for escaping with my massive tank of health? Godmode.

Of course, this scenario is not so sweet for the assault that just spent a full clip and a grenade to kill someone, only to have them revived in a fraction of a second by the swarms of medics. And of course since the medic has such high HP it's easy for them to run out in to the line of fire (no tanks/APCs to worry about), revive someone, run around the corner and drop a medpack and heal up. It would be a laughable stat padding fest and EVERYONE will be playing medic.

Of course, without APCs medic squads will become nothing short of invulnerable. Camping will be horrible, as people can just sit back and turtle with the medic crew in whatever certain location with no fear of a tank rolling up on them, a helicopter cleaning them out, a plane bombing them, or a commander dropping artillery. These things that they are removing are the checks and balances that keep 100% medic squads and other lame tactics at bay.

So the only alternative for the idiots at DICE is the just make it normal BF2 without vehicles. Of course then the servers set with no infantry 24/7 Karkand become havens for stat padders and "leet dewds". Horrible balance of course, but an easy way to grab a medic and rack up a 6-7 SPM with nothing to worry about. The players that sit on these servers will be the undisputed king of KDR, SPM, and every other stat that matters.

The inevitable outcome of all of this - servers full of medics hopping around reviving, turtling, spawn camping, and servers completely devoid of any class other than a medic with horrible balance and a failed game dynamic. I could think of no quicker way to completely kill the series.

Worst idea ever, scrap it all DICE or you'll forever lose my faith in you as a semi-competent game developer.

edit #1: Adding on the the original point made by this thread, I'd like to include the following speculation in my initial post:

It doesn't matter if it's a server side option, let me put it this way.

Let's say DICE introduces IO mode in the 1.4 patch.

Let's say to make the numbers easier to digest we've got a total of 20 BF2 servers in all, all of which are 64 player servers.

We'll go with a fairly liberal estimate but based on the number of 24/7 Karkand servers this might not be far off and we'll say that half of the servers switch over the IO mode.

Let's also say on any 64 player server you've got roughly 10-15 people total who are either trying to get in to a vehicle or are in one and want to stay in it.

So now, over the 20 servers you'd have a total of 200-300 people trying to get vehicles. But then IO mode comes so those 200-300 people who like/want vehicles go over to the 10 servers that still allow them. So now instead of the reasonable 10-15 people trying to get vehicles you've got 20-30 people, or roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the server. Now it's more difficult to get a vehicle, more players are sitting around waiting and doing nothing, and as a result the whole game is corrupted. Airfields are certain to be hell if this patch goes through.

In conclusion, IO mode effects all players, and the excuse "it's just a server side option!" doesn't really cut it. The effects of such a drastic change will ripple outwards and effect every single BF2 player, including those poor folks who bought BF2 because it is a large scale FPS with infantry, and *gasp* vehicles!

Of course the numbers aren't always so clean in the real world, but I'd bet my left pinky that this same factor will effect servers in the real world to a noticeable degree. And it is that fact that I can only hope that DICE fails to implement a pleasing version of the IO mode so that very few servers will switch over and the impact will be minimal.

edit #2

Teamwork is not needed nearly as much in an IO server. It may appear like you have more teamwork, but that's only because many of the essential tasks teammates had to perform in regular BF2 are no longer necessary. So in an IO server everyone can be a medic and do their down thing, so you'll get revived more and you'll say.. hey! more revives = more teamwork.... right? Wrong.

Your team doesn't have to bother having teammates spawn as AT to destroy that tank/APC. Don't have to have a teammate hop in that AA post and drop that plane/helicopter out of the sky. Don't have to bother spawning as engineer to lay down AT mines to block the path for the incoming armored vehicles. Don't have to move quickly and uncluster to avoid the inevitable artillery associated with half a team squatting on a flag. Don't have to have that transport helicopter pilot drop you at the flag, wait in a low hover and pick you up again. You don't have to worry about being careful while rounding that corner and being face to face with an APC or tank. You don't have to worry about being exposed up on a hill top sniping where an enemy helicopter will easily spot you. The list goes on and on.

BF2 "infantry only" should just be renamed to BF2 "easy mode", because on the most basic level that's all it really is.

Oh, and on a final note... splitting the community of a game in a manner such as this is quite possibly the easiest way to ruin a game and drain its playerbase.

From a previous post PlaneWhore and this is probably, more appropriately, where I should have replied. So please put your name where Mr. Pmosh's is:




Yea but that's your opinion and they way you see things.

The way I see things is, in IO play, a squad should have more than 1 medic. If the squad is trying to take a well defended flag and the medics are doing their jobs and reviving/healing, it's not stats padding, it's doing their jobs. All be it, mega points can be had.

Which brings me to the next issue, points and ranked or unranked. If this IO mode makes it to the final 1.4 patch and is NOT ranked, I seriously doubt I'd play it. Only because, as mentioned in other threads, the servers will not be populated because everybody is too concerned with points in this game.

PRMM is cool and admittedly, I haven't checked for servers in the last couple weeks but, I stopped playing it because it's too hard to find a low ping, populated server.

It seems that most people are either emphatically for or emphatically against this being ranked (of those who are not against it period). I feel the reason for this is not that difficult. If against IO being ranked, the main reason: non IO server's will not be populated because everybody will be playing on the IO servers, i.e., the l337 pilots and armor drivers, the same ones that have like 150,000 global points and 140,000 of them in jet/chopper/tank/apc, will have nobody to kill. Which, BTW, in my opinion, is a form of stats padding the way others see medics as stats padders.

For those that are against it NOT being ranked: the servers will not be populated because, and, here's the difference, no global points.

I really do feel that both these reasons, the for and against, are true and 100% accurate. However, I am one man, with one opinion, and cannot assume that most people agree with me. The only way to be sure is approve it for ranked play. Either I'll be correct or incorrect but there will be irrefutable proof by looking at which servers are populated. If it happens the way I believe it will, the IO servers will in fact be populated and the non IO servers will not. The pilots will just have to get a flight sim game or something but at least the majority, and that's the key, will get what they want, a ranked IO option. If I am wrong, I would have no problem accepting it and play cs:s.

I do not want to turn this into a flame war with you personally Mr. Pmosh because although I have not met you, you seem an intelligent human being and that alone, I believe, is enough for you to deserve respect and be allowed to have an opinion. I just don't think the minority should win out over the majority.

Maybe there should have been 2 more options in this poll: ranked or unranked. Would be interesting to see results.... '

Oh, and in case anybody is wondering, I voted yes.

[squizz]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

it amazes me to see that people would take the time to write a 10 minute whine about infantry only, instead of just takin a second to filter conquest only servers in the browser...

[JonnyMacFred102]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

Lol at ^^^, some people (including me) feel that no matter how much we want something done the way everyone seems to like it, Dice doesn't get a clue and we need to just keep trying.

[BigRedRat]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

I like the idea of an IO mod. It will help to have some where to go play a relaxing game when one is having fits of frustration from being bombed,cannoned,roadkilled and just plain raped till your eyes bleed by people that could'nt care less if your having an enjoyable game.

[Pyryck]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

230 some odd posts later...hmmm...infantry only BF2?

No aircraft to worry about. Guess we don't need any maps with carriers to play on or even maps with airfields. Remove the fixed AA mounts.

No armor or APC's so we don't need any roads. Guess we can dispense with Engineer class and Anti-Tank class because they have no job to do now. Do away with the fixed TOW mounts.

Very few if any transports or jeeps so the area of the maps need to be down-sized to like the 16 player maps so players don't have to run so far from their spawn points to get back into the battle.

Maps are so small that each team can see the other so no need for UAV or scan. Arty is already gone so no real need for a commander at all. The squad leaders can just work things out. Snipers can see from edge to edge of the maps so they become a necessary kit to use but need to be nerfed so they don't rule.

With no commander toys or vehicles to blow up, Spec Ops is just about useless so remove the kit.

With such small maps and tight quarters, we'd need to dumb down any splash damage weapons in order to make the play a bit longer. Otherwise Support could just sit back and spam grenades.

Dayum, by removing all the aircraft and vehicles and lowering the number of kits needed to play and making the maps just little blocks of small towns, I think we've created a whole new game! We could even package this for consoles!

It's certainly NOT BF2 anymore or even one of the expansions so what should we call it now? CSS? QW? MoH? UT? SWAT4? BH Down? CoD? UO? IO?

By all means, respond to polls, fill out questionaires, rant and rave to your congressman or even your Pres, because Your Opinion Matters!

<gets off soapbox and goes back into hibernation waiting on BF2 to finally be released to the public in its final form and thinking, dayum, a year of beta testing down the tubes>

[Anaryl]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

Honestly. To all those who would actually say this is a crap idea that is killing bf2 slowly please answer the following questions

1. Are You a U.S citizen? If so you must take into account that you usually think you are right & filter information accordingly so you come to that conclusion
2. Do most of your points accrue from time in a tank on Karkand or a j10 on Wake?
3. Have instead of thinking on how you can exploit this mode & then ***** about it, considering people might just enjoy it?
4. Is one of the reasons you are opposed to this idea is because you think it will be like CS despite the fact that CS maps are what 1/5th the size of the smallest bf2 map?
5. Are you angry that the 1337 infantry players aren't going to be spawning in those Karkand hallways where they will easily die from your m1a2?
6. Are you afraid that there will be a longer queue for vehicles & consquently you won't be able to whore as much anymore?
7. Do you believe that EA are going to ruin the game by adding a new game mode?? (Honestly if you believe this, you are really really really (no reallly really) stupid & need to see a headdoctor as you may have gotten a sublethal dose of radiation to the brain from j10 whoring on wake too much)

These are the most coherant points I've seen from the anti-IO side. If you answered yes to one or more of these questions you are a douchebag & should see a doctor immediately.

Here are my reasons for IO.

- It can still be changed, ITS A BLOODY BETA DO YOU PEOPLE READ OR WHAT?
- Armour & Planewhores will no longer get ridicously inflated scores for doing sweet fuk all. Yes you do & you know it.
- It will actually reward people for playing in a squad... you know squads that new improvement to the engine that is supposed to promote teamplay. Obviously the people in this thread who oppose it aren't big fans of anything that requires them to work with other people.

Here are my reasons for why CS comparisons are completely irrelavent.

1. You dont respawn in CS
2. CS has tiny tiny maps
3. CS makes you pay for your weapons which means in order to get a better one, you have to be consistently successful.
4. AWP
5. CS only allows you to carry one grenade which usually does **** all.
6. CS is about Police actions not military actions
7. CS Maps are based on enclosed compunds BF2 maps are open fields with often some kind of built up area in them & are much representative of real life.

Honestly anyone who believes that this game mode will be detrimental are those who feel threatened by infantry & don't want to see them earning the same amount of points that j10 whoring does by simply playing the game as it was intended.
Those of you who state that bf2 is about combined armour inf air action ... well I have rarely seen such coordinated action unless a server has been clan stacked. Vehicle raping uncaps does not in my mind constitute as any kind of action it's just an activity reserved for lamers who think big stats equal big penis.

Anyone who thinks the game mode isn't balanced: you're right - Here's the Nobel Prize for Stating the Obvious - it's a beta you tools.EA is letting us figure out the blance issues, you twat, thats the idea of beta testing. Jeez you may as well have said "uh DUH ITS N0t FiNiShEd YeT, EA r T3h SuX0r"

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

WARNING: WALLS-O-TEXT TO FOLLOW

One thing I don't really get is, of all the different types of combat that can be had in BF2, infantry is by far the weakest and least-skillful there is. Infantry fighting is the weakest part of BF2, because of things like laggy hitboxes, server-side hit detection, that glorious cone-of-fire, and so on. Why people would prefer the infantry combat in BF2 to another FPS that's based solely on infantry combat is far beyond me. Regarding skill, yes, you have to aim at the target and click. It doesn't really matter how fast you aim because your bullets are still going to deviate off the mark and be arsed up by the added deviation and recoil after you fire. It's evident after having played this game for so long that the infantry combat is just about as newbified as DICE could have made it. Skill isn't rewarded even half as much as luck is. Sure, there is some modicum of skill involved, but it's very small when you compare it to the amount of luck you have to have for your bullets to actually hit the target you're pointed at. I can see why it was coded thusly - to allow people new to the game to get a handle on how to play without being owned every 2 seconds by CS-refugee-twitch-gamers. New people not getting owned = more sales, and to any company more sales = good.

So, you want to take something that is skilled in BF2, try successfully piloting a vehicle, be it a helicopter, jet, or even a tank. 125mm guns don't deviate. They go where you point them (adjusting for arc as needed). Vulcans don't deviate, they go where you point them. Successfully coming out on top of a dogfight in a jet (J-10 balance issue excluded, of course) means you had to try to lose your opponent then get behind him and kill him. That's skill. Winning a tank vs. tank fight involves using your terrain to your advantage and being able to fire on the move, time your distance to your target, judge the arc, and so forth. Winning an infantry fight involves either praying that your bullets go where your gun is pointed or by exploiting the poor hit detection by prone spamming/dolphin diving/whatever you want to call it.

And before anyone says something to the effect of it taking no skill to rape infantry in a tank, I'm not talking about Karkand here. Karkand is the smelly armpit of the BF2 community where the stats junkies flock. I'm talking about maps where there are no alleyways to camp, no 6-man dolphin-medic squads, and no claymore and hand nade spam around every flag.* I'm talking about good maps like Kubra Dam and FuShe Pass, where there's armour everywhere alongside the infantry fighting. ALL aspects of the combat.

Now then, I've found that on every point PlaneWhore has made in the past both here and on PBF, I've agreed with 100%, and this one seems to be no exception. BF2, as it stands now, is almost perfectly balanced (again, J-10 issue aside). Why won't an all-medic squad work on Gulf of Oman? Because you can't shock paddle an APC so that very squad will get pulverised the second they meet up with an armoured opponent. Why won't an Engineer column in tanks single-handedly win Daqing Oilfields? Su-30, and that's all that needs to be said. How come the Mi-28 doesn't rule Sharqi Peninsula? Repeat after me - "Hum-Vee". Checks and balances. Now you take away everything that I mentioned above that involves vehicles and you're left with what? Medics. Medics are, for all intents and purposes, the closest thing BF2 has to a God mode. You can heal yourself, get the most versatile guns in the game (decent at long range, great at medium, and better than anything but shotguns at close), and can even bring teammates back to life! The only thing that could possibly keep a team from going 100% medic is the threat of armour and the fact that, sans TOW or a MASSIVE amount of hand nades, they would be powerless against it should a Type 98 come marching up the hill. Without something to keep them in check they will run rampant. Yes, you will see the occasional support guy who needs to give ammo out to all the medics (since they won't be dying much and they'll be running out of ammo) and a sniper here and there, but unless you and the rest of the people on the server have some sort of 'only three medics per team' unspoken code of honour, there'd be simply no reason to go anything but medic.

Okay, now regarding ranked IO or unranked. It really doesn't matter in the long run because the stats system as it is now is rudimentary and meaningless. They are really only meant for your own personal observation and not really meant to be seen by others as far as I can tell, because you cannot tell jack about someone simply by looking at their stats other than what maps they play and maybe things like their vehicle and kit preferences. Score per minute, Kill/Death ratio, and all other such stats are so subjective that to look at them from a birds-eye view without ever having played with the player whose stats you're looking at is meaningless. So someone has a high KDR with assault rifles? That doesn't necessarily mean they're good with them. That could mean they camp outside the enemy's flag and spawn kill. That could mean they travel in packs of medics and get revived a lot. Someone with a low KDR with ARs? What does getting slammed by artillery or ending up on the wrong side of a BTR-90 have anything to do with how skilled you are with an AR? It doesn't. For all you know someone with a 0.5 KDR with ARs could be a better shot than someone with a 3.0 KDR because the stats mean nothing. Having said that, if you were to mix the stats even further by lumping all the vanilla BF2 stats together with the IO stats, they'd be even more meaningless. You'll see people with massive KDRs with guns cropping up and you won't be able to tell conclusively whether they're just good or they play IO. But like I said, in any case the stats don't matter because not only are they already inaccurate, but only the person who plays that account truly knows their own skill. They were never meant to be used to compare e-penises. But try telling that to the 24/7 Karkanders.

And as to what PlaneWhore said much earlier in the thread (I CBA to go back and read the whole thread again to find which post) about vehicle whores and infantry lovers being segregated by IO, I understand exactly what he meant. See, each map is designed to have both a fair amount of vehicle players and infantry players. The reason that armour maps need infantry players is because not only is there not enough vehicles to go around for everyone, but that they're needed to help capture flags that either cannot be accessed by vehicle (e.g. Sharqi TV station) or are suicide to do so (e.g. Kubra Construction Site) as well as see things that tanks cannot, or man AA, or use AT, etc. If all of the players that want infantry flock to the new IO servers, you'd have people on the 'regular' servers lining up for tanks, helis, and jets, and nobody to ground pound. Nobody to ground pound = no progress in the map/flags capped, and no progress = boring games. Boring games lead to empty servers, and if nobody plays on the vehicle servers, the vehicle portion of the game - what truly sets BF apart from just your average FPS game - will die off and will be dominated by infantry combat, to which end I mentioned BF2 is inferior in many regards to most other FPS. Granted, that's a worst-case scenario type thing, but I see exactly where he's coming from.

And on another note - this IO mode is really only going to crop up on three maps (maybe more if you factor in SF/EF/AF maps); Karkand, Sharqi, and Mashtuur. Who in the blue hells would play a round of Operation Clean Sweep without vehicles? OCS is my fave sniping map, yes, but I know at any time I may have to trade in that L96 for a SRAW should the need arise. But not being able to drive from one end of the map to the other and having to WALK there? o_O Nobody would want to take a 1300+m hike across the map to get to another flag, and the action would be so sparse without vehicles to get them to and from locations as well as for AT guys to shoot at from the hilltops that nobody will play IO on OCS. What does that tell you? Maybe that the map was designed for vehicles, both for fighting and for transport? Kubra? Same thing. Dalian? Zatar? You see where I'm going with this (I hope). Most of the maps, much like the game itself, were designed to have vehicles in it. To simply remove them all and say, "Here you go...enjoy!" will render most of the maps useless. Even still, if you were to leave in transports, you'd have to drive a long ways to get to the action, then either get in the top gun and have a .50 cal fight, or get out, kill your opponent, and move on. Once you die, you start allllllll the way back at your last flag and have to drive back again. And let's face it, that's a long way to go just to kill someone with an M16, isn't it (not that anyone uses the M16 anymore...sometimes I feel I'm the only one )? That means, the only maps that will even see the light of IO are the ones that are already predominantly infantry-based - Sharqi, Karkand, and Mashtuur.

Again, why play infantry only on a game designed around vehicles is beyond me. Playing BF2 for infantry only would be like buying a Dodge Viper just for the air conditioner. :hmm:

All in all, I think IO is a bad idea, but since it's just an option at least it can allow everyone to get what they want out of it. Still, I hope doing so doesn't give DICE the idea that vehicles are no longer wanted and that they should just focus on the infantry combat aspect of the series from here on out because IO servers are more populated than vehicle ones. I still think IO is by and large an outcry by the stat kiddies who flocked to this game because of the ranking system and would rather amass points to show off to their friends than play to enjoy the game. I never used to be so jaded towards the whole ranking system, but now I see where others were coming from. I don't remember - was there ever a big petition for IO in BF1942? (I didn't have a decent internet connection back when '42 was popular so I don't know a great deal about that community.)

*Disclaimer: No, not everyone who likes Karkand is stats junkie, but the stats junkies flock to that map for a reason. Do not reply with something like, "But I'm not a stats junkie I just like Karkand 'cause of the close infantry combat and being able to walk to a flag...", etc. because I'm not talking about you.

Whew...okay I'm done now.

~Wolfgang

[Donkey]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

Playing BF2 for infantry only would be like buying a Dodge Viper just for the air conditioner. :hmm:

LOL....

Excellent

[GunHappyBob]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

I always here people saying "why and new stuff when they should fix the bugs first". Don't they have seperate development teams that work on designing new concept and a team that fixes game problems?

[-Flawless]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

IO is a good idea. I personal like infantry only, Yes i have played counter-strike and BF2 is better. Its less linear game play.

Also remember this is only a beta.

[excluded]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

Thanks for the heads up on the "wall of text" thing Wolfgang but I hope it does not deter peeps from reading it. Very thoughtful, non flaming way of presenting your view and TBH, really makes me think.

I really agree with you on the negative impact of the global points system. If it did not exist, I doubt this post would exist. Also, that great pilots and tankers do posess skill. I have tried both and am terrible at both and do accept the fact that they are just better than me, no hax, no macros, they just pwn me.

Hence, my vote for IO option. This is the only part of the game that is enjoyable to me and if (remember, this is a big if because I don't claim to know for sure) the majority of others feel as I do, I just don't see why the few, who like to fly and drive, should make the many who don't, conform.

That I feel is the bottom line.

Oh yea, I have to fully agree with you on more point. Just thinking about a hike accross OCS makes me shutter. Definately one IO map I'd never play!

[slidero]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

IO is a good idea. I personal like infantry only, Yes i have played counter-strike and BF2 is better. Its less linear game play.

Also remember this is only a beta.

Explain to me how bf2 infantry only will be less linear than cs ?

[Bungalow_Bill]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

seriously doubt I'd play it. Only because, as mentioned in other threads, the servers will not be populated because everybody is too concerned with points in this game.

Thanks for fortifying my position. Which is exactly why I'm concerned about the impact IO will have on my enjoyment of BF2. You say players are "concerned with points in this game". And I'd agree, you are right. Don't try to sell IO as a quality gameplay mode to me if the only way you can sell it to the BF2 population is to make it a ranked point fest. If IO mode is as great as certain players in this thread are speculating, then DICE could EASILY release it as an unranked option and purely from the quality of the gameplay it'd be a huge success and doesn't need the ranked gimmick.

Back to the original point I was making, players ARE in fact obsessed with points. So obsessed with points they'll become obsessed with the one gameplay mode that will provide them with the easiest stream of points possible regardless if they find it less fun or linear ect. I find this fact disturbing, and I for one know I could never play like that.

So let's rehash the basic reasons why IO was and still is a bad idea.

• 1. DICE Canda DEVS have wasted how many hundreds of man hours working on this mode? What could they've accomplished instead of dicking around with this childish gameplay mode? Oh I don't know, revamp the assault class, rebalance medics, completely rework the airplanes and A2A system.. just to name a few. Fact is, I've already been directly effected by the time DICE has wasted creating this mess
• 2. This legalized version of point farming will attract a lot of players (mostly for points), it'll split BF2 communities, ruin good servers as frequent players leave to either join IO or leave IO, and this will have a global negative impact on BF2 as a whole. I've seen it in other games, and I know I'll see it in this one too.
• 3. This IO mode will split the different types of players and create a disturbing balance on vehicle on servers. Because where you had a reasonable 10 out of 64 players trying to get armor, you've now got essentially double that (give or take), and as we all know the end result of having 20 players trying to get a vehicle is a horrible team and a boring round.

I could go on and on and on, but those are the three big points I can pull right off the top of my head. I'm sure if I put on my thinking cap and thought about it while in the shower or taking a dump I'd come up with a whole slew of other points to highlight the negative aspects of DICEs new undertaking.

I feel good though, I've done my part to warn the public, and either way I win. Either I get to continue playing an untainted Battlefield 2 as DICE drops the idea, OR I get to come back on these forums a week or two after patch day and flip up my middle finger at certain individuals, and go "Told you so!". Don't say I didn't warn you.

Finally, to all of those players who really crave an IO mode, I've said it once, and I'll say it again...

[Miniman]

Re: Infantry only mode, worst idea ever.

i hit a troop directly with a grenade launcher - and he bounced!

also, bunnyhoppers are even worse.