how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

[imported_shadow2k1]

with the new mode out of no vehicles, i think this will bring a whole new experience to the game

[-X$B-Trivium]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

i will a lot, im tired of people over using vehicles and owning everyone in them

[-=wKa=-Sauron]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

CSS anyone?

[imported_BlueBlaz0r]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

it probably would be fun on urban maps like karkand or sharqi, but i'm not gonna play it on a map like kubra damn having to run for 10 minutes to just get to a cap. point.

[Mekstizzle]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

I'll wanna play it, but on non-city maps. See what it's like on those. Maybe some SF maps, i wanna play SF so badly without claymores! That's never gonna happen...any unranked SF servers that say "no claymores?"

[pYura]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

add a poll

[buteonidae]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

Me, always. I'm sick of those freaks driving around in tanks and APCs, NOT capturing flags but instead spawn raping... looking for any opportunity to get that 1 extra point.

[-X$B-Trivium]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

infantry only will use a lot more teamwork if the players aren't stupid.

[Orion126]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

I play 99% city maps so I am definitely going to play it.

The other 1% is a plane flying map.

[Pyryck]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

I might try IO, but I bought Bf2 to drive and fly as well.

To me, BF2 without vehicles or aircraft isn't BF2 anymore, it's more like CS or MoH or CoD. I left CoD and MoH for BF2 because of the planes, choppers, tanks , APC's and jeeps.

[KristianSax]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

Well about as much as I've been playing it now ... there have been quite a lot IO servers around.

[Chasepwner]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

Me because I love infantry even though it is riddled with bugs, pronespammers, dolphin divers, bunny hoppers, and bad hitboxes.

[imported_RicRogue]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

As soon as the patch comes out, our server will be running IO. Our map cycle will be Karkand/Sharqi/Jalalabad.

[CATIA]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

CSS anyone?

CSS indeed

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: how many of you plan to play alot of infantry only

Not me, for reasons I posted in another thread:

What I have yet to understand is why anyone actually prefers the infantry fighting in this game to either using the vehicles or to playing another FPS that's designed solely around infantry fighting. I just don't get it. As an 'FPS', BF2 is horrible. Battlefield: Vietnam was ten times the FPS that BF2 is. BF2 as an FPS is so clunky and unreliable it's amazing anyone finds the gameplay anything short of frustrating. What BF:V (and BF1942 for that matter) had that BF2 should but doesn't:

•Soldiers who can't jump 5' in the air. In arcady FPS' like Unreal it's fine for people to jump high, but in a military-type shooter where you're envisioning people as soldiers and not superhuman hops-like-Shawn-Marion people it's absurd to see them be able to jump high enough to practically clear the height of a standing man.

•Insta-proning, or rather the lack thereof. In my experience, unless terrain dictates otherwise (such as firing over a wall), about nine out of every ten infantry 'fights' in BF2 begins with each combatant slamming the Z key, whether they are 200m or 2m away. Instant proning accuracy, no delays whatsoever. In BF:V you had to wait about 2-3 seconds from when you hit prone before having the accuracy of a prone soldier, plus the view went haywire if you did it on uneven ground such as the side of a hill. The view thing I could take or leave, but the accuracy delay is a must. It's bollocks to see someone 5 feet away from you all of a sudden do some sort of a bellyflop-lunge and in that same instant be able to aim and fire their heavy-*** LMG. I'm probably the last person to play the whole realism card in BF, but that's just laughable, and it pretty much makes crouch a useless stance.

•No dolphin diving/prone spamming. In the same vein of the two things mentioned above, there wasn't any (at least that I came across) of this BS hitbox lag/third person view manipulation like you can see in BF2 where people will abuse the prone/crouch/jump/stand animations to make themselves very difficult to hit. Sure, it's a great gameplay 'tactic' if you are in a competitive clan, but when I look out on a Battlefield I'd rather see soldiers fighting, not ex-members from Cirque du Soleil flopping and dancing around.

•Cone of fire/random deviation was at a minimum. Recoil played a MUCH bigger factor in BF:V and BF1942 than it does in BF2 (although recoil does still have an effect, just a less controllable one) and because of that the random deviation wasn't as exaggerated. A lot of the recoil effect was mixed into the random deviation in BF2 (in an attempt to n00bify the game, I'm guessing, so that players who learned how to adjust for recoil didn't jump in and own new players, giving everyone, both new and veteran, an equal ground). Basically your bullets went to that little white dot in the centre of your crosshairs unless you held it on full auto the whole time. You could actually shoot 'from the hip' at someone from two feet away and not have your bullets fly out at 45 degree angles like they often seem to do in BF2.

•No ironsights. While not a problem in itself because I think ironsights are a pretty cool feature, the ironsights on many of the guns in BF2 are off (there's a thread here at totalbf2 with some good info on the matter but I CBA to look for it right now), meaning what you think is the centre of your screen, isn't, necessarily. While BF1942 and BF:V didn't have ironsights, only a 'zoom' for alt-fire (although sniper rifles did have scopes), at least it still meant that the dot you see in the crosshair still was the centre of the screen and that's were your bullet will go when you press 'fire'. With how sloppy some of the ironsights are in BF2, especially the M249, AK101, and MR-444, it's evident that DICE either didn't care they were off-centre, or they figured the guns were inaccurate enough as it was that it would never matter and people wouldn't care too much since vehicles were the focus of the game.

•Class choice. Now, before you say that BF2 has seven classes and BF:V only had four, in some sense you're right but in another sense it was better in BF:V, at least as far as infantry combat was concerned. In an IO mode for BF2, you're essentially going to have two useless classes - the Engineer and the AT. Now yes, some people will say something akin to, 'I will pwn j00 with mah DAO-12 and pump shottie!!!', yes those guns are good, but the classes AT and engineer will be useless. You'll have little use for AT rockets other than a clunky way of shooting at infantry, and landmines and the spanner will be completely useless. For an IO mode, those two classes should be removed entirely and do what BF:V did - give each class a choice between two different weapon loadouts. For example on many of the US vs. NVA maps, the US assault soldiers were given a choice between an M16 or a Mossberg 500 shotgun. So, do the same with the assault class in BF2. When you choose your loadout, you can choose either the M16A2, or the M11-87 pump shotgun. That way people who wanted to use a shotgun to assault can, well, use a shotgun as Assault! However, Assault won't be played much regardless because of...

•Medics. An overpowered class in its own right, but when you take away vehicular threats they become gods of the battlefield. There was no 'medic' class in BF:V, which was kind of sad (although in the US vs. VC maps all US soldiers had medkits which was kind of unfair, but I digress), but at least in BF1942 the medics were at least balanced against their assault counterparts. AFAIK no soldiers in BF1942 had body armour, but the medics got weaker guns than assault, didn't have the spammable insta-heal medpacks, nor the Revive-o-Matic™ defibs that could bring fallen soldiers back from the dead. Medic's role was more situational because they didn't have the stronger guns and their healing took time. They weren't the one-class wonder they are in BF2, and with vehicles removed this will only be accentuated.

...

I won't get into the indestructable Claymore issue right now since FF-on/off is a serverside setting and in FF-on environments clayspammers are self-checked. But if you add all that up basically what you have is an FPS with seven classes, only five of which will be useful and only three of which will be played with regularity (mostly medic, some support, and some snipers), all of whom experience hitbox glitches and random cones of fire. Basically, a game that is inferior to its own predecessor in that regard. Why people would want to play a game as clunky and luck-based as BF2's infantry combat for fun is beyond me. But my guess is most people aren't going to play it because it's 'fun', they're going to play it because they'll have stats to show how l33t they are to their friends and won't have to worry about vehicles ruining their almighty KDRs (or they'd play it unranked, like earlier BFs were).

If the infantry combat were (greatly) revamped then I'd play it, although IMO it would be better as an entirely seperate game because so many changes would have to be made to make it worth playing. BF:V did it right, it's just a shame it ran so poorly on so many systems otherwise a lot more people would see its true beauty, especially those who think BF2's infantry combat is 'good'.

~Wolfgang