[xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

[Slocum]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

I will play IO a little bit. I am a infantry player, but IO seems like it will get too boring. Without that possible tank around the corner, or that chopper about to rape you it will get too repeatative.

But when i do play IO I will not touch medic. Out of 300hrs on my main account i have only played 10hrs as medic. I will mostly play support, but i have mostly played support since before 1.2 so it is nothing new.

[imported_BlueScreen]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

Fact: The medic is the most powerful class in the game

Fact: You don't need engineers, Spec Ops, AT, assault, sniper or any of the other kits in IO mode

Fact: The only class you need/want on an IO server is the medic

Fact: A team composed of nothing but medics on a regular server would be helpless against the armor and thus is not a valid strategy (this is a good thing)

Fact: A team composed of nothing but medics on an IO server is unmatched offensive and defensive force with nothing to counter it but other medics (this is a very bad thing)

Simply put balance in IO can never be achieved, it's virtually impossible. No matter how much you try and debate it IO mode is nothing more than an easier way to play Battlefield 2 and to pad up your SPM and KDR.

I can manage 80-100 points as a medic in 15ish minutes on a regular game of 64 player vanilla BF2 on just about any map. The only thing that slows my advance and the speed at which I gain points is the armored vehicles and how many medics I'm currently with. Because I have to rely on other teammates as anti-tank or what have you to deal with those threats - in other words I have to rely on teamwork and other teammates to be effective. With armor to deal with among other threats we need AT, engineers, snipers ect.. and thus we have far less people playing medic (making it much more difficult to find a revive and as a result slowing down a players kill rate drastically).

I can only imagine with those limitation removed not only would getting that amount of points be a whole lot easier but because I don't spend precious time waiting for armored to be destroyed, having to avoid it, or waiting for a revive (that never comes)t my points would go up probably in to the 130-150 range on a decent game.

Running with a full squad of medics on an IO server you'd pretty much never die. That's the same method players use now to get great infantry KDR on regular servers but without having to deal without vehicles it's much more effective.

Thanks Dude for giving me again something to laugh! After reading quite a few of your posts in the last time i'm still wondering if you are really such a moron or you just like to upset people.

Because we had this already and you still say the same i will just highlight the points:

1. You cry because IO is some 'stat padder' mode. The only reason why this should be important to you is because some 'IO medic whore' can 'pad' his stats so he comes near the 'vanilla plane whore'. Who cares? Me not!

2. It's an OPTION (means that you don't have to play it). If i remember right you stated in some previous thread that all people will move to IO mode servers as soon as it's possible so you don't have any targets to bomb (kind of selfish ?!).

So either you are such a ******* that you care about your stats and really think it's fine to pad them by 'whoring' around in a plane but not by playing medic in IO or you are a selfish prick who just wants his targets to stay and who doesn't give a **** about what other people want.

However, don't jump out of the window when you realize it because jerks like you are responsible for the crap the game is now. You morons even cry when they introduce an OPTION.

PS: I wont play IO but i have a general problem with your attitude

[SteelWolf]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

I'm looking foward to the infantry only mode. No planes, choppers, tanks, just RIBs. On the big maps like Fushee Pass you really dont want to be a medic anyways. Sniper would be the best for that map and mode. I dont know what it'll be like when it hits though, we'll all just have to wait and see.

[Bungalow_Bill]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

As I've said before I have no problem with IO mode as long as DICE makes it unranked. Of course if they did that nobody would play it. The only appeal of IO seems to be players want to make Battlefield easier and make getting a high score while playing infantry even easier. As if 80+ points in 15 minutes as a medic on a regular server wasn't good enough.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

Geez, could you anti infantry only guys possibly fondle each other balls any more?

And yet you think you have the right to say this:

Wow, that was mature.

IRT a comment PW made?

I have one I like, it's BF2, and I'd like morons like you to stop trying to impose your will on my game.

While I'd normally be inclined to agree with you in principle, I must disagree with how you're carrying on your end of the argument in this regard. PW isn't imposing anything on you or anyone else. You are the one who bought BF2, you had to have known there were going to be vehicles in it, you had to know said vehicles would be a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield (if they weren't there wouldn't be much point to having them, now would there?), and yet you're angry at PW for the fact he doesn't want vehicles removed from the game? He wants the game to stay the same way he bought it (for the most part)? Now that an IO mode is coming out which pretty much totally deviates from what BF2 and the BF series as a whole is advertised as, suddenly HE is imposing his will on YOU?

Why can't you guys just get over it? Some people like this game, and don't like vehicles. I can't fathom why you would have any problem with that. You want to make everyone play what you want, we all play the game, and enjoy different aspects of it. You like flying around in your little plane, some like running around Karland shooting people with a gun, why are you so damn hellbent on turning what OTHER people enjoy into some crusade?

What it will do is divide the community. I like infantry and I like vehicles. I guess I'm just lucky to be one of those people who is easily satisfied with what's been given to me. Does it suck when I'm running along as a sniper and I get smeared into the mountainside by a Type-98? Of course it does, but that's part of the game. Is it annoying when I'm just about to cap a flag with my squad and artillery rains down and blasts us all into next Wednesday? Hell yes it is, but that's part of the game. Now be on the other end, does it suck when you're driving your Type-98 and you happen upon some sniper popping your teammates' heads and you obliterate him with some 125mm death? Of course it doesn't. Is it annoying when your team is about to lose a flag and you drop some arty on it and it kills the enemy squad before they have a chance to secure the position? Of course it doesn't. BF was designed to have ALL kinds of people on the same battlefield at the same time. People who like infantry and going on foot, people who like armour and driving around in tanks, people who like jets and helis...ALL of them.

No map was designed specifically for people who only love jets, for example. What's the maximum number of jets that can be up at any one time (in a vanilla map...IDK the booster maps all that well)? 6? On Wake? Theoretically, two F35s, two J-10s, and two F-18s, although even to have more than four it would take some doing. So for arguments sake I'll stick with four. Now then, a MINIMUM of 16 players on a map (does anyone actually play Wake with only 16 people?), up to a maximum of 64. Anywhere from 6-25% of the team can be in a jet at any one time. That still leaves between 12-60 people without a jet, on a supposed 'air map'. This tells me that the map was designed to have people who like to do other things and fulfill other roles than just fly jets. There are also three tanks on Wake. Again not enough for every player. Two attack helis - four people total. You see where I'm going with this? Now if you subtract all the people who could fulfill the infantry role on the map, you are left only with people who want the jets, helis, and tanks, and nobody to ground pound and take flags, C4 commander stuff, hide as AT in the bushes and blow away the tank, sit in AA and take down the camping heli...all you have are people lining up to get in the vehicles and nobody willing to take the ground role because the people who like ground pounding will for the most part move over to IO servers.

That may be good for them, but if you take infantry players out of the regular BF2 servers that leaves one major role left unfulfilled and one gaping hole in the gameplay dynamic of BF2, or more specifically, the BF2 that people who bought the game and received it in June, 2005. Granted, this is a worst-case scenario, but it's not completely without merit, either. I'm not saying it'll suck to have no infantry on vehicle maps because they're simply fodder, I'm saying it'll suck because the maps and the game were designed to have them present on every map (some more than others, of course) and without them it will basically segregate the community into two pieces - those who like vehicles and those who don't. There's nothing wrong at all with liking infantry fighting, but dividing a community by giving those that do and those that don't different places to play instead of having them all play the same game together will pretty much eradicate a lot of the diveristy and dynamicness of BF2. As I said before, BF2 is not balanced for infantry play in its current state, and this applies to many things including its engine/gameplay model, map layout and design, stats system, and even its community as a whole. I'm not saying that IO mode will be the end to BF2 as we know it, but as long as it exists it will divide the community because essentially you'll have people playing two different games. Personally I love playing with and against people who are good in tanks, good in helis, good on foot, and/or any combination of the above. If IO takes too much of a bite out of any of that or puts a wall between certain types of players, then it's not going to be good for the community, nor the game and the development of any sequels, as a whole.

Get out of your jet and fight like a man. My proposal is that anyone with obscene hours and kills in a jet or tank should only be able to use a knife in infantry combat so they can know what it is like to be at a disadvantage.

Yeah, he could do that, but you know what else might fix this 'disadvantage'? Maybe you could get in a jet and try to take him down. But then of course, that would take skill and practice and it's much easier to just complain about jets and how they ruin the game and whine to DICE to nerf or remove them then to suck it up and learn to counter it by flying them or using ground AA intelligently. It seems to me you're putting yourself at a disadvantage by not being willing to take to the air and try to bring him down or at least keep him busy for your ground forces to advance. Why should he bring himself down (both literally and figuratively) to your level because you don't have the ability to dominate with a vehicle like he does. I mean, if it takes no skill to dominate in a jet, then you should have no problem hopping in one and splashing him straight away now should you?

~Wolfgang

[AlphaCueUp]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

why can IO have its own points and awards?

i would think points from another game-mode would be collected and presented seperately, as to ensure balance all-around

[Turnip]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

How can you call infantry "fodder" and then say the game is balanced to have infantry? Are they the zerglings of bf2 and their main purpose is to take hits?

[Bungalow_Bill]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

Damn fine post Wolfgang, pretty much said everything I wanted to say but was too lazy to type out.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

How can you call infantry "fodder" and then say the game is balanced to have infantry? Are they the zerglings of bf2 and their main purpose is to take hits?

I don't mean to refer to infantry as fodder per se, but some people (not referring to you specifically) seem to think that the only reason people are against IO as a whole is because they like sitting in a tank wasting little infantrymen. I'll tell you this - a smart infantryman will beat a tank just about every time. Think about it; you're a small infantryman - you can get in buildings, climb through forests/trees, hide on the other side of hills and for the most part you're hard to spot as you can blend in with shadows and terrain. The tank OTOH can only go certain places, will stick out like a sore thumb as it comes rumbling down the street, has limited range on its weapons (can't shoot down, can't shoot straight up), limited vision, is very slow, very loud, and VERY easy to hit with rockets. If you notice a tank camping the Hotel on Karkand and you continue to spawn at the Hotel instead of the Square, all the tank is doing is taking advantage of your stupidity. Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin that once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'? Spawn at a different spawn point and cream the tank with some AT rockets, or the TOW (if it can reach) or a jihad jeep. Tanks only dominate if you let them. Moreover, if you're running down the street with little regard for your own surroundings or what might be at the other end of said street, then you really deserve to get crushed by an armoured vehicle. Use cover, watch your minimap, listen to the sounds around you. If some people would learn to play smart it would eliminate nearly all the things people whine about in this game.

I'm actually beginning to agree more and more with PW's designation of IO being 'easy mode' because with IO you have to think less, plan less, strategise less, adapt less...basically you can just run around like a chicken with its head cut off without worrying about anything coming along that could obliterate you because of your own carelessness since EVERY kit can deal with infantry, and even if you can't it's not like you'll actually die much with the amount of medics there'll be. Essentially, take anything in the game that could be considered a challenge to overcome, and remove it. Was there ever an IO mode in BF1942? It had tanks, and mobile arty, and planes, and AA...why didn't it get an IO mode?

Damn fine post Wolfgang, pretty much said everything I wanted to say but was too lazy to type out.

Heh it was probably pretty much a rehash of your post in your IO only thread, actually, but since I agreed wholly with what you said in it it probably sounded pretty familiar.

~Wolfgang

[gh0st]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

Well, I guess there's just not much we can do now is there? I mean, it's already going to be official, I just wish people would understand what it's going to do to the community.

[sidtherat]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

two very long posts that can be summarised:

IO mode is bad, because all our targets oops opponents are going to play it. we are going to be forced to attack jets with our jets.. and does not give us points. wheee wheeee wheeeee!

you care because your gameplay is not going to be the same as in june 2005. who cares, it happens, live with it.

you care because community is going to be divided. who cares. you want people to stay on the recievieng end of the jets. but people want to play without them. and they dont care that you dont like it. just like you dont care that we dont like being totaly helpless against jets.

but while we care to give 'the fodder' some reliable means of defence against jets you call what we have already 'a skilles' weapon. and absolutely dont want to hear about improving the aa, instead making it hand guided [heat seekers goddamn!] to make it even less usefull. and absolutley no hand held stingers! and absolutely dont nerf medics..
let me guess what are you best at - gaining points using game imbalances? and that pathetic explaination why you use j10..

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

LOL! The hypocrisiy!

IO die-hard supporters use the insult such as this "now all the jet and tank whores complain that they have nobody to shoot!". When they INTENTIONALLY escape from normal servers to NOT to be killed by said tanks and jets. Hahahaha!

I think its funny that people still dont realize that IO is what you can call a "legal stat padding gameplay". Like IO servers today, which are generally disliked by "honest" players, official IO server are exactly the same. So why should the guys in IO get their stats officially saved while they play an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT game type? I dont care about stats myself, but I see the idiocy and hypocrisy behind this!

Not to mention the waste of valuable coding tome to fix bugs, or balance issues.

[AlphaCueUp]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

all this petty bickering about stats and points would all be put to rest if they collected and presented all your precious numbers seperately...

so when you guys compare your e-penis to some random anonymous PID, you know why their score is a lil higher than yours


thats what all this bickering is about......YOUR precious precious numbers......

[18Zulukiller]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

I'll tell you this - a smart infantryman will beat a tank just about every time.

Thats actually very true only thing i fear while in armour is infantry (i cant do crap about airpower so i forget about that). And this is honest to god im dam good Anti tanker and i never run from a tank i have tanks fleeing for there lifes from me. Maybe i come of worse at times by dieing lots just to take out one tank but theres many a time ive just hit a good vain of form and i take crap loads of armour one after another only thing that holds me back at times is a lack of ammo.

[Bungalow_Bill]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

two very long posts that can be summarised:

IO mode is bad, because all our targets oops opponents are going to play it. we are going to be forced to attack jets with our jets.. and does not give us points. wheee wheeee wheeeee!

you care because your gameplay is not going to be the same as in june 2005. who cares, it happens, live with it.

you care because community is going to be divided. who cares. you want people to stay on the recievieng end of the jets. but people want to play without them. and they dont care that you dont like it. just like you dont care that we dont like being totaly helpless against jets.

but while we care to give 'the fodder' some reliable means of defence against jets you call what we have already 'a skilles' weapon. and absolutely dont want to hear about improving the aa, instead making it hand guided [heat seekers goddamn!] to make it even less usefull. and absolutley no hand held stingers! and absolutely dont nerf medics..
let me guess what are you best at - gaining points using game imbalances? and that pathetic explaination why you use j10..

Sid, as both one of the top pilots in Battlefield 2 and one of best medics too let me give you a spot of advice. Dying to airplanes in particular is completely the fault of the infantry should it happen to them. They were either in a vehicle not moving, camping a vehicle spawn point, standing on top of a just captured flag or any number of other preventable scenarios. Take it from me Sid - as both an experienced pilot and an experienced medic I almost never die to planes. I can honestly measure my total deaths a week to planes in the single digits (that includes playing plenty of airmaps on a server like Cain's Lair).

So if you're having difficulties avoiding death by pilot then I strongly recommend that rather than blaming the external you analyze and improve the internal.

Now when I say "IO mode will divide BF2" I'm speaking purely from past experiences. Let me give you a real world example. My favorite game of all time is Ultima Online. One of the first MMORPGs this game had an incredible look an incredible feel and what can only be described as an amazingly skilled PvP system. Most of all though Ultima Online was great because it mixed all sorts of different people, personalities and playstyles in to one vibrant community. Now the developer OSI decided to listen to the gripes of a few players that the game was too "hardcore" After all you could murder in this game (with certain penalties of course), steal from other players.. basically you name it you can do it.

So OSI said.. ok simple solution what we'll do is duplicate the complete land mass and make one part the normal Wild West style hardcore existence (called Felluca) and the other side will be carebear land (Carebear land being Trammel and the place that term originates) where you can't kill, attack, steal from or even stand in the path of other players. Seemed simple enough but the end result of this was it split the community. The hardcore murderous type players got bored with fighting other murderous type players in Felluca and the "carebear" crowd that decided to go Trammel because it made everything so much easier in regards to trade skills ect.. you'd be crazy not to go to that side to do these tasks. Well the more peaceful crowd ended up losing the very thing they enjoyed about the game (but didn't know that they enjoyed) when the risk associated with what they did evaporated.

End result of all of this way a less enjoyable experience for all and a very large drop in the amount of subscriptions. As a result the population became sparse and the game in one patch went from "my favorite game of all time" to the "my favorite game made one of my least favorite by the worst patch in the history of patches". Of course all of these horrible patches that ruined that game happened well after the game design genius Richard Garriot left OSI and lost creative control over the game - big shocker.

That's just one of many examples and it perfectly fits the current scenario we find ourselves in with Battlefield. We've go a drastic diversion from the original focus of this series in to something that will polarize and divide different types of players and will ultimately negatively effect both groups. Some people can't see the forest for the trees but seeing as I've been down this same road before it's all too clear to me.