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

[Twisted-]

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

I can't believe how this all revolves around stats, thats the real problem with the game right there. I want IO ranked because otherwise i'm not going to get to play it, combined with the fact it's already possible to server side mod the vehicles out DICE making it unranked will just mean they have wasted god knows how much time making the option on 1.4.

I still can't see the logic in complaining about it being ranked because you don't want someone elses score to be bigger than yours, after reading through this whole thread thats the only argument i'm seeing. I hope it does go ranked and screw up the rankings so people realise there is more to this game than stats.

[WarGimp]

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

Let's try to keep this thread on track folks.

This isn't an e-pissing match and you don't "win" for calling down other forum members.

FYI, I'm dyslexic myself and my spelling sucks (as you prolly all know damned well), but I still put the effort in to make my posts readable, rational, and entertaining (if possible). Don't use dyslexia as an excuse, please. Too many people do and it makes me grumpy.

On topic:

Has it even been confirmed that IO servers will be rankable?
I've been busy and haven't kept track on this. If Dice/EA haven't announced that IO servers can be ranked, this whole points argument is very moot, aye?

[Auto-ER-]

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

My logic is undeniable and beyond reproach.

HAHAHA thanks dude, you have my sides splitting!!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Even easier is just to make it unranked. The nobody will play it and thus it won't effect the gameplay experience of me and others like me who care little about statistics.

It won't effect your gameplay experiance in the slightest if you stay off the IO servers, and it just doesn't get any simplier than that. And may I ask, if you care so little about statistics, then aren't you saying that you don't even really care about your own reason for it being ranked?

[gh0st]

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

Holy hell guys! I go out to get some poontang and come back to 5 more pages on this lol.

Well, I just read it all and to be honest..I lost track of everything, but I stick to my OP: IO will ruin this game if it is ranked.

I am also thankful for people like Planewhore, Wolf and some others who actually do understand the significance of all of this.

Props to you guys!

Now, onto some Bf1942 baby!

I had a blast on Coral Sea man, god there must be like 10 planes on each team in the air, so fun!

[Combat-Quokka]

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

Agree with everything the OP and Wolfgang Abenteuer said.

I like playing medic as much as the next guy, but making IO ranked is simply going to make a mockery of all of the existing stats. We'll have a squad full of medics, and perhaps 1 single support for the ammo we're going to need because we'll never die. Noobs will be slaugtered, and squads of clan players will eat them for breakfast.

But as if anything we say will make the slightest bit of difference.

Quokka

[GSG9xSNIPER]

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

ROFLMAO, You Vehicles whores are pizzed off because you wont be able to bomb,machine tank them down any longer. Kinda funny most of the negative feedback is from armour,plane and heli Ho's.

[frazzman]

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

Let's try to keep this thread on track folks.

Has it even been confirmed that IO servers will be rankable?
I've been busy and haven't kept track on this. If Dice/EA haven't announced that IO servers can be ranked, this whole points argument is very moot, aye?

from the EAUK forums....,

Hello everyone! Based on player feedback and bug reporting we are moving forward with our second 1.4 Beta version. This version has additional bug fixes and the following changes to the “Road to Jalalabad” map and the “No Vehicles” server option.

Road to Jalalabad

- Tickets adjustements
- Removal of 1 US tank to help address balance issues.

No Vehicles Option

- Added a new Server Browser Filter option for No Vehicles
- Return Health to default BF2 level
- Return Medic pack and Revive values to Default BF2
- Default spawn times to Default BF2 setting.
- No Vehicles is now a ranked server option!

We kept:

- Keep the current sprint bar setting (I.e. 2x sprint)
- Keep the current Vehicle exclusion list (i.e. we are not introducing light jeeps etc, just keeping the boats on Carrier levels).


.......

http://forum.eagames.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=26368

So ranked in the final version? .., more than a possibility.

But as if anything we say will make the slightest bit of difference.

Quokka

QFT

[SERIALBUTCHER]

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

The way I see it we have 2 options

1. Both sides w/ armour raping infantry w/ no intention of challenging each other while all the infantry wait to see who is going to go AT first

2. Nade/medic/sniper/support/fvck/fest

Both options being certifiably ghey imo

But maybe there is another option

My Clan |SI| , & associates [M] have incorporated vehicles (armour, & aircraft) into our squads, we neither love, nor hate vehicles, they are simply part of the modern battlefield, I am usually the SL, & we sometimes have enough guys on TS for 2 full squads, when in an APC I transport, & support my squad, when 1 of us gets a tank, he is on TS w/ us, & sticks w/ the squad, if 1 of us is in armour, & leaves the squad it is to secure a base in the rear, & airpower is there for us w/ close support

btw, when you have 1, or 2 full squads, someone, or 2, or 3 will get vehicles, so we don't have to listen to each other complain about the "stat whores" not supporting the troops

So we have solved the "imbalance" W/OUT gutting the battlefield feel from the game, we are not just infantry sluts, or vehicles whores, we are both

It is called "combined arms"

I believe this is closer to the "spirit" of what the game designers intended

in my most humble of opinions

In conclusion, no matter what changes they make to the game, there will be only 2 types of players, the quick, & the dead, & no nefing will EVER change that

"the more things change, the more they stay the same"

ps. 32 lone wolves get their 4$$3$ handed to them for hats on a daily basis

Major General |SI|SERIALBUTCHER

peace:)

[imported_Alex__]

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

It seems kind of stupid of DICE to allow this after how many patches, 5 or 6? Ive been through many a dispute of ZOMGZ THIS SERV0r IS INFATRY NONLY IT SFGETING SHTUT DOWNZZ!!!!!!!!11, and now they are allowing it? Don't get me wrong, I love infantry combat and am rarely seen in a tank unless its sitting there and im getting raped by armor. I love 5v5 infantry matches because they are really fun. But until anyone has played infantry only, they really shouldnt talk. You can kill medics, its not hard. I actually like killing medics, 2x the kills for me. example, shoot nub#1. nub#2 dives to revive nub#1, i shoot nub#1 and nub#2. This will definatly change the spirit of the game though. In my opinion the best thing they could do for this game is make infantry only with no unlocks. I would love DICE for ever and spend money on every game theyve ever made. and if they bring back jumping and shooting. but thats another story. unlocks ftl. m16 ftw.

[$kelet0r]

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

The real issue is that DICE should be designing this for the clans as the reward for keeping the game alive for their competitions and keep improving the core ranked game for public play
Rather than make more and more and more and more and more and more bloody problems

[Batausu]

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

A couple of days ago I was on an IO server, just to see how it is.
Map: Wake Island.
Team: USMC.
I spawned on the carrier and took a boat. Nobody was standing in my way, so I got to shore unharmed.
The sky was clear, no clouds at all, birds were singing, butterflies were flying around and you could hear vague sounds of firearms in the distance. :laugh:
What a change from the original hell from the sky!
I can tell you: this map is very easy for USMC to win. You can reach any flag you want by water, while the defensive force has to run to get there. Unless there is a well coordinated force, the battle is soon over.
There were a lot of different classes:
AT players were shooting at our boats, we were shooting back with the MGs mounted on the boats, snipers killing left and right, medics and support players throwing bags all around.
Anyway, nobody was bored; it was a good fight for everybody.
This is my experience with IO mode. Give it a try yourself. It’s fun.
I believe this is a mode made to change the pace of the game. Give it a couple of months before most will return to vanilla, the same happened with SF and the other expansions.
PS: Hey, where is everybody? Playing IO?? :laugh:

[WarGimp]

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

from the EAUK forums....,

http://forum.eagames.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=26368

So ranked in the final version? .., more than a possibility.

Alrighty... so the fears are justified on that front.

If this really seems like a problem for the ranking system, go ahead and make noise about it. Bring some good rational arguments to the table and show us and Dice exactly why it's a bad idea to have ranked IO servers.

Me, I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing. I'm not saying that it's a good thing either, I just can't say either way at the moment.

Here's a breakdown on what I'm looking at:
- Lots of people have been wanting to play BF2 without vehicle domination since day one.
- There's always been an outcry got more gametypes.
- Ranked IO servers will not replace all existing vehicle included servers. There's always going to be places to play with your jets/chopper/armoured death dealers.
- It's unclear that IO servers would bring imbalance to stats/ranks/awards overall. Seems to me that IO servers are likely to bring a more even spread to points gained by players and that there's not going to be any extra opportunity to score higher through ranked IO servers (unless you happen to kick a lot o arse as a groundpounder).

So with that in mind, I'm leaning towards the opinion that maybe ranking IO servers is not a bad idea at all.
With luck, maybe I'll get a break in my social schedual and be able to give it a shot within the next couple days (not tonight, tho... hot date ).

[WolfAlmighty]

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

Like I mentioned earlier (may have been in this thread or maybe another, I don't remember), the current stats system is horrible anyway. I mean, you're holding a sniper rifle and some commander drops a Vodnik on your head. You die and your death counts as a sniper rifle 'death'. How would this show your skill with a sniper rifle? That since you are unable to notice a TRUCK falling out of the sky while you have your sniper rifle out, this makes you unskilled with a sniper rifle? And as well, the ranks are based on points, not skill. Any skill-less fool with enough time on his hands can become Colonel (or higher, if he put the time in for the requisite badges). Having a lot of points usually means you play Karkand a lot and usually medic or support a lot. Therefore, the ranking system in its current state is worthless to anyone except the player himself.

Now then, having said that, what playing IO will do is skew the (aforementioned already bunk) rankings/stats even further. Now if someone has a high weapon KDR, for example, a lot of times it'll show they spend a lot of time on the urban map rotation of Sharqi, Karkand, and Mashtuur, and usually not a lot of time on the Chinese maps or the more vehicle-oriented MEC maps like Zatar and Kubra. Then you take someone with a lot of time on those (vehicle-oriented) maps and compare weapon ratios to the urban map player and most likely the actual weapon KDRs will be lower simply because of the chance to face vehicles. At least now when you compare the two types of players, you can take into account the maps played and come to the conclusion that the KDRs would be higher for the urban player because of the lack of deaths by vehicle. With IO that distinction won't exist.

But again, that part of IO I don't really have a problem with because again stats are worthless to everyone except the person playing. Stats junkies may care about how the ranking system will be affected and how they stack up against other stat junkies, but I'm sure most 'sane' people can already see by now that stats for the most part mean nothing and you cannot judge someone's overall playstyle, effectiveness, or really anything else except maybe most played map and vehicle, simply by looking at their stats. The only way to truly know how 'good' someone is on the battlefield is to play with and/or against them. My concern about IO segregating the fanbase and community, however, still stands.

Which really begs the question - has DICE ever come forward and said why they had the stats calculate out the way they did? I mean, I have a lot of deaths with assault rifles, for example, but that would stand to reason since I play Assault a lot and therefore am holding an AR most of the time. What would have been more fun to see is what kills me the most. I'd be much more interested in seeing how many times I've been killed by a tank, or artillery, or sniper rifle, or even knife and shock paddles than I would seeing how many times I died while holding it. Does anyone know why DICE did it this way? I haven't read all the interviews nor seen all the videos so if it was mentioned already let me know the link and I'd be glad to check it out.

~Wolfgang

[TP.BigBoss]

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

Lock This Forsaken Topic Admins Please!! Its So Pointless!!

[WolfAlmighty]

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

Lock This Forsaken Topic Admins Please!! Its So Pointless!!

If it's so pointless:

1) Why are there so many people discussing things in it?
2) Why are you wasting your time posting in it?

~Wolfgang