Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

[imported_Dr.D]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

The purpose of this thread is to voice my concern for the way Battlefield 2 is currently heading. After testing out the new Beta patches, I have been led to the conclusion that perhaps EA has got it all wrong.

BF2 has been out for around one year now, and has gone through numerous tweaks in order to achieve a fair balance between weapons, classes and vehicles. I believe the current balance is fine as it is. Personally I believe EA should be working on fixing the major bugs in the game, ESPECIALLY the issue concerning crash to desktop, and full server crashes.

I fail to find words to express my disappointment and frustration in regards to the way EA has handled its patching. More often than not, the patches have introduced more bugs than it has solved.

Rather than pandering to the needs of the whingers, EA should set its sights on fixing the major bugs which run rife within their code.

In regards to game balancing, the simple fact is people are always going to whinge. If you remove people's ability to dodge and evade an attack, they will work another way to win in a skirmish. So if the good players start getting really accurate with their weapons, since they are unable to dodge and evade, what next? Make weapons less accurate? From memory, EA's main motivation behind BF2 was fun and gameplay first, realism second. If people want ultra realistic war combat, perhaps they should look elsewhere.

Seriously, people need to adapt to the gameplay, rather than whinge about it because they cant adapt their gaming style. The good players will always find techniques to win, the whingers will always whinge. I am all for EA removing exploits such as C4 throwing, but not totally warping the game style just to make the whingers happy, because they will never be happy.

Please EA, dont ruin what is a currently a very good, very fun and well balanced game.

Agreed 100%

[Blades]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

Im sure that looks real good on paper...

It looks pretty good in TacticalGamers ya noob.

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

It looks pretty good in TacticalGamers ya noob.

Which is still not always true. The lock range is so short for stationary AA that the jet can take one out with guns long before the player gets a shot off. Then the pilot repeats for the second one. Mobile AA is one balance, but many maps with jets do not have mobile AA. I know you jet-jockeys are going to look at my stats, and see that I have almost zero time as a pilot. I got sick of seeing my Air to Air missiles fly right past an enemy jet who is flying slow, straight, and with no flares. Then, he turns around and blasts me right through my flares while I'm in a hard spinning bank.

Still, an AWESOME ground pounder, tanker, or chopper pilot/gunner team, will get schooled left and right by an average jet pilot. The fact that a bomber can keep people from ever spawning is BS. There have been quite a few times on Oman and Kubra where this happened to me. I spawned, saw the jet, hopped in AA, and died before getting a lock. Then, I spawned somewhere else, only to find bombs falling on my location. My countdown timer simply started over, and I was looking at a different patch of sky. No other platform has this advantage. To be able to spawn camp three locations at the same time by quickly flying over them while going over your airstrip is pretty lame. It takes less than 15 seconds to re-arm and make it to a spawn point and drop more bombs.

The resupply rate really should get tweaked a little. I don't propose that jets should have to actually land to resupply, but maybe fly a little slower or require more than one pass. The "box" is too small for fast movers to be fair at all in this game.

At JRTC, which was SHORAD only, the OPFOR introduced F-18s to the enemy repertoire. When the unclass range of a Sentinel radar is 40K, and the update is once every 2 seconds, the fast movers dropped simulated 500lb bombs on locations after we got one scan on them. They didn't even bother to put MILES on them, because they knew that nothing could get a hit. There was no PATRIOT to provide a balance, and Stingers CAN NOT HIT a fast mover. VACR restrictions placed on Avenger crews and MANPADS guys make it impossible for them to get a shot off in the small window of opportunity. This is a real-life combat simulation I'm talking about. As far as I know, they have not used fast movers to that extent at that training center since then. Why do we have such powerful pieces of equipment in a game with a box 1/4 the size, then?

[franky2toes]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

You really think a jet is going to fly right over both your AA emplacement after using flares? You know how close a jet has to be to lock onto it with the AA in the first place? Which map could this strategy even be possible?

Gulf of Omen would work. There is 3 AA sites on the beach 1 and hotel and one at mec main.

[0wn4g3]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

Lets not forget that in the majority of these BF2 maps the AA placements are in rediculous places. Most of the time you do not have a 360 degree angle of view. Sometime a freaking tree blocks your chance at getting two rockets off on a smoking chopper or jet, next thing you know your dead.

That tree you hit did'nt feel a damn thing

[Turnip]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

I have tried teaming AA on oman, the AA really isnt stationed that close together. The one on the far left side is blocked by the house and trees making it basically useless. The far right one and the middle one gets spawn raped more than anything so it doesnt really give you a chance. And the little one with the bridge hardly ever sees a jet. Maybe you guys are playing against some crappy people I dont know, but I have never been that successfull with the AA on that map. Id say its one of the worst map for AA actually.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

Jimi, I myself think one of the "tweaks" for jets should be to rearm in "units". One "unit" being 100 rounds of cannon ammo, one missile and one bomb. That makes 6 passed for full load. It would create more time between bombing runs.

The reason why a jet can have so many bombing runs in Oman or any other map at that matter is because it has corridors and areas of approach. If only one AA is manned, you cant really stop a jet from literally being anywhere on the battlefield. Counter this, and you counter the jet problem. If a jet has to take altitude and perform "safe" divebomb, it wastes time, and gives your team time to do their thing with no problems.

Theres nerfing and theres actually good solutions. Tweaking reloading rate is a good solution in my opinion. Boosting AA range is a good solution too IF it comes at an expense of accuracy. Then theres the decreased splash damage of the bombs, yet to have 100% damage in its splash damage radius to make them anti-armor bomb, rather than anti-infantry. And there are tons of others. However, the real problem is still the mindset of people who will just be the prey and fall under the bombs. I say fall, because a pilot feeds off stupid targets mostly. Stupid or unlucky, and while luck changes, stupidity does not, and thats why a pilot always has unlimited targets...

[Silencer_X]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

Which is still not always true. The lock range is so short for stationary AA that the jet can take one out with guns long before the player gets a shot off. Then the pilot repeats for the second one. Mobile AA is one balance, but many maps with jets do not have mobile AA. I know you jet-jockeys are going to look at my stats, and see that I have almost zero time as a pilot. I got sick of seeing my Air to Air missiles fly right past an enemy jet who is flying slow, straight, and with no flares. Then, he turns around and blasts me right through my flares while I'm in a hard spinning bank.

Still, an AWESOME ground pounder, tanker, or chopper pilot/gunner team, will get schooled left and right by an average jet pilot. The fact that a bomber can keep people from ever spawning is BS. There have been quite a few times on Oman and Kubra where this happened to me. I spawned, saw the jet, hopped in AA, and died before getting a lock. Then, I spawned somewhere else, only to find bombs falling on my location. My countdown timer simply started over, and I was looking at a different patch of sky. No other platform has this advantage. To be able to spawn camp three locations at the same time by quickly flying over them while going over your airstrip is pretty lame. It takes less than 15 seconds to re-arm and make it to a spawn point and drop more bombs.

The resupply rate really should get tweaked a little. I don't propose that jets should have to actually land to resupply, but maybe fly a little slower or require more than one pass. The "box" is too small for fast movers to be fair at all in this game.

At JRTC, which was SHORAD only, the OPFOR introduced F-18s to the enemy repertoire. When the unclass range of a Sentinel radar is 40K, and the update is once every 2 seconds, the fast movers dropped simulated 500lb bombs on locations after we got one scan on them. They didn't even bother to put MILES on them, because they knew that nothing could get a hit. There was no PATRIOT to provide a balance, and Stingers CAN NOT HIT a fast mover. VACR restrictions placed on Avenger crews and MANPADS guys make it impossible for them to get a shot off in the small window of opportunity. This is a real-life combat simulation I'm talking about. As far as I know, they have not used fast movers to that extent at that training center since then. Why do we have such powerful pieces of equipment in a game with a box 1/4 the size, then?

Ok getting a little off the mark concerning my original intention for starting the thread. Normally when I see a jet, I go for the duck and cover strategy. My main concerns have been the proposed changes to infantry movement and kits, however from the discussion in this thread, it is quite apparent that there is definately a major issue concerning jets.

I do not believe nerfing the power of the jets is the way to solve the problem. The best way to deal with this is make mobile AA vehicles more available for maps where there are 2 or more air vehicles per a side, and perhaps shifting fixed AA locations so that their view is not totally obstructed by the landscape.

However if you do feel that changes to the current balancing on infantry and land vehicles is fine as it is in Version 1.3, please feel free to voice your support in here, hopefully the more people who voice their support, the more likely our concerns will be addressed.

[Turnip]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

I wouldnt mind flak cannons or something that gives a decent chance to kill based on skill, but homing things are kind of lame when they dont work.

[[STO] Killer Dragon]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

A 2:1 KDR for an infantryman shows skill, hes above average. A 1:1 KDR for an infantryman shows he can survive and he knows the game. Theres no limit to where skills can take an infantryman, even past 10:1 KDR. True skill and mastership of his game. But hes still on the lowest part of the foodchain, which is the main point.

Then armor. Below 4:1 means the tanker is inexperienced or doesnt quite know what his purpose is. But If hes at 4:1, hes doing OK. Same level as 1:1 on Infantry KDR. 8:1 would be a good tanker, like 2:1 on infantry, and again, sky is the limit for masters and people who know what they are doing. BUT again, they are still pretty low on the food chain.

Choppers, 5:1 KDR comparable to 1:1 infantry. Choppers are an upgrade over a tank, moves in one extra dimension. Jump from average to good however shows and a 2:1 in infantry can be compared to 10:1 on choppers. Sky is the limit for the choppers however the number of threats set the limits to their engagement area, because a smart pilot does not venture off to the zone of no survivabily. While they can escape the static threats, theres still a treat that knows no limits.

Which takes us to the jets. Jets 10:1 KDR is comparable to 1:1 on infantry. If youre doing less, theres a problem. 2:1 on infantry can be compared to 15:1 on jets. Why such a little jump? Because of the lack of direct threats, yet the lack of targets. A good pilot knows how to strafe a base but it will still give him not much extra kills.

Jets are still on the highest level of food chain. The jump from an OK pilot to good pilot isnt all that great because jets already start with a great kill multiplayer and their primary prey (not target) are infantry, who are lowest on the chain. Jets dont have anything higher on the food chain because there is nothing in BF2 that has an advantage over a jet. AA and Mobile AA are simply a means to take them down, but they are no way higher in the food chain. And heres where, if we take it literally, the "rock-scissors-paper" balance is broken. This is how far the simple minded and ignorant people see. The kryptonite for a jet is teamwork. Just like one AT is nothing against a tankdriver, one AA is absolutely nothing against a jet. However, increase AT count to 2, and you have an advantage over the tank in almost every aspect, starting from firepower to maneuverability (Im assuming the AT guys didnt just install their game for the first time). In AAs case, a jet cannot attack 2 AAs at once, so while one is under fire, another one can open fire. If we take Mobile AA into the game, the jet threat can be countered with ease. If not taken out of the picture at all. Teamwork in BF2 is like a multiplier, like vehcles is a multiplier for kills, teamwork is the same thing. If you want to step higher on the foodchain while being lower, you have to group up, and you will pass the second, or third step.

While I use simple numbers, you clearly get the picture-

1:1 infantry
4:1 armor
5:1 chopper
10:1 jet

Military statistics say that 2 men working as a team, as a single force, beat 5 solo soldiers, of course we take in mind that they are all trained (skilled). So if we apply that to BF2, we get this-

1:1 infantry paired up *5 = 5:1 KDR which already matches the tanks default KDR.

And so on. You see, teamwork in BF2, although not as apparent, and in infantry level firefights (person vs person) is not rewarding if tactics are considered. However, combined firepower of two guns will most likely clear the deck. Add the survivability with medic ability around, and youre set.

This last piece has mostly to do with success on the field point and kill wise. Which seems to be the main concern judging by the complains about jets massive KDRs and whatnot.

Vehicles are simply multipliers of score. And one has to accept that.

I think its needless to say that the numbers and all that jazz is just my point of view over the matter.

Can i have your babys? lol great post

I wouldnt mind flak cannons or something that gives a decent chance to kill based on skill, but homing things are kind of lame when they dont work.

they work u just need to learn when to shoot and the timeings.

[Metasynaptic]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

1:1 infantry
4:1 armor
5:1 chopper
10:1 jet

I dunno why people seem to think this is a magical post of shining clarity.

These stats he posted are of the opinion that anyone getting these figures are 'average' and you have to get much higher than these to be 'skilled'.

Bollocks.

Typically, these 'skilled' players you talk about are little more than J-10 carrier bombers/blackhawk hunters, or Karkand Tankers. You can EASILY rack up 40-1 or better using these techniques. If all you do is J-10 on Wake, 20-1 is the minimum to be considered 'average'. If you are just an engineer on Karkand you better be getting 20:1 to be 'average'.

A guy in a tank on Karkand doesn't have to worry about an attack chopper and a TV missile, or an F-15 with 5 bombs and laser guided missiles. YOu better be getting high scores in that tank, or you are a muppet.



If you have a good balance of maps and armies, those scores you posted above could be considered above average, because on maps where there's more than 1 armoured vehicle per side, on maps where the J-10 isn't the king of the sky... you are going to have scores that veer closer to 1:1.

Take a look at the stats of those guys you call 'skilled', check to see if all their time is Wake/China, or Karkand/Engy... and rethink these equations.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

I dunno why people seem to think this is a magical post of shining clarity.

These stats he posted are of the opinion that anyone getting these figures are 'average' and you have to get much higher than these to be 'skilled'.

False assumption. This is hardly the "average". These numbers are what I would expect myself from someone taking said vehicle or being a grunt. This has nothing to do with "averages" as on average, most pilots struggle to get past 5:1 KDR, they usually just go for the uncap, with one thought in mind "how do I get there without getting killed", afterwards they just either crash after the release (unfortunate event) or breathe and relax because they have survived their hardest ever work, and try to get another session of that uncap bombing... rinse, repeat.

Typically, these 'skilled' players you talk about are little more than J-10 carrier bombers/blackhawk hunters, or Karkand Tankers. You can EASILY rack up 40-1 or better using these techniques. If all you do is J-10 on Wake, 20-1 is the minimum to be considered 'average'. If you are just an engineer on Karkand you better be getting 20:1 to be 'average'.

"considered" is not something I "consider". The stats I consider are showing what I think of a player who attacks targets for the team (yet collecting pts for himself). Ive seen pilots who only attack uncaps because they dont know how to attack other flags, those are left out. Those are also people whos dogfighting KDR drops below 1:1 as soon as they are engaged. You can easily identify a SKILLED player from someone whos only mission is to take off and try to get to the uncap... And I do consider 40-1 a very good result if we take nowadays AA into account. An "average" is still something youd note through all maps. Karkand is an "odd one" for tankers, like OCS or lets say Wake is for pilots. And again, this has nothing to do with "averages", especially in maps which favour high point count through only one (few) limited positioning. If anything, Karkand Hotel camp is an anomaly of BF2 which I dont really think DICE had in mind. This is what I would expect someone to do with the tools given.

A guy in a tank on Karkand doesn't have to worry about an attack chopper and a TV missile, or an F-15 with 5 bombs and laser guided missiles. YOu better be getting high scores in that tank, or you are a muppet.

So does that mean a tank in Karkand has unlimited potential for scoring? Doesnt that actually work for other maps aswell? If anything, tanks in Karkand wont stand a chance against a coordinated squad. Set at least 2 ATs together, and NOT spawn at Hotel, and youre set. Hunt them down like rabbits. Of course the only way you would think that would solve stalemate at Hotel would be to crush the USMC with massive spawned MEC numbers and give them kill overdose , how smart.

If you have a good balance of maps and armies, those scores you posted above could be considered above average, because on maps where there's more than 1 armoured vehicle per side, on maps where the J-10 isn't the king of the sky... you are going to have scores that veer closer to 1:1.

If anything, you shouldnt consider "anomalies" at all. I mean, we all feed off dumb players, and some maps offer just that. And skill is not limited. Just because a map has a jet, and youre in a tank, doesnt automatically limit your KDR to a certain number. No. It depends on how good you are (skill- not ony hand to eye coordination, but also intelligence, and experience) first and foremost.

Take a look at the stats of those guys you call 'skilled', check to see if all their time is Wake/China, or Karkand/Engy... and rethink these equations.

Why should I? Do I really have to base my equations on the best of the best, or should I base my equations on my personal expectation of a vehicles potential in the hands of a casual player(s) with variable skill level.

Just because theres one odd superstar, doesnt mean I have to set an average by him.

[Beerman]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

I agree too, I want more maps and less bugs, the game is fine how it was.

[Metasynaptic]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

I started a rant, then changed my mind.

get out and enjoy the game instead of analysing it.

[Silencer_X]

Re: Say NO to game balancing, YES to bug fixes

I started a rant, then changed my mind.

get out and enjoy the game instead of analysing it.

so basically enjoy the game until everything thats decent gets nerfed in the next patch? I think it would be more logical to voice what things should NOT be changed for once, rather than whinging about things that people want changed.

just my 2 cents worth.