PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

[imported_Jazza]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

Again the main goal of these changes is to encourage players to use their rifles instead of explosives. Explosives that provide easy kills should still have a role but it should be a lesser one.

Perhaps if guns where a lot more accurate, I would actually bother to shoot the guy hiding behind a crate instead of just throwing a nade to the side of him.

As for what bugs I would like to see fixed in a new patch. I would like to see a decent FPS again, pre SF patch I ran this game fine at 1280x1024 4xAA/4xAF Max, now I am down to 1024x768 2xAA/Medium~High-ish. What ever they buggered with in the 1.12 (1.2?) patch, it has screwed up a lot of people's FPS's.

One day I hope this game will be play how its intented to be played, perhaps after 2142 has been released?

[joshblancett]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

just like to re-state my rant
greandes+IO= bf2 version of a snowball fight

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

I agree with PlaneWhore 150%.

Take Hotel on Karkand for example... place a claymore at each entrance and there's no way whatsoever to take that flag without running into a clay.

Logically, this is a serious issue because it possible to defend virtually any flag on a city map (Mashtuur, Sharqi, Karkand, Jalalalabad) with a claymore. Even if there are 10 flags, all it takes is 10 snipers to pretty much defend the entire map from flanking maneuvers...

I agree with the fix for clays... just make them destructable and be done with it. We've all been asking for this forever now, so please give DICE :)

Regarding grenades though, I don't agree with the fix -- although I most certaintly agree with the problem. Not allowing Support to resupply grenades seems a bit illogical IMHO... not in real life comparison (nothing realistic about the game anyway)... but in the sense that new players will outright assume that nades should be resupplied too.

Instead, to make things more smooth, I think to fix the nade issue all you do is:
1) Every class gets 1 grenade except SpecOps, who gets 2 nades.
2) Limit the nade throwing distance.
3) Don't allow grenades to be thrown by jumping.. or atleast don't make them go farther if you jump!

Walk outside and try to throw a rock while jumping. Try not to hit your own foot, lol.

Can't say much about the planes... I don't like flying.

My biggest problem with infantry combat right now (which is superb if you have good players on each side) is that primary weapons are literally overshadowed by specialty weapons. This really shouldn't be the case, methinks.

One of the main reasons PlaneWhore hates Karkand, for example, is that when he plays on the map all he sees is braindead nade spamming. Every corner between Hotel and USMC main is littered with indestructable claymores and anyone defending hotel doesn't go 1 second without a full set of nades in his possession.

The side that PlaneWhore doesn't see, however, is the side where people flank all the way around and take some flags in the back. When that occurs, half of the action transfers towards the back of the map and the action couldn't be sweeter. All of the noobs stay at the front trying to take/defend Hotel while the smart players spawn in the back and continue the fight...

The goal is to let PlaneWhore and the majority of the BF2 community see the gameplay that I and few others see. When I go into a server, I have to try to get the teamwork going (regardless of what map I'm on). This is because every map has some silly thing that people instinctively do..

Thanks for the good post PlaneWhore, I'm sure DICE will see and lets all hope they consider this.

[vbl]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

Take Hotel on Karkand for example... place a claymore at each entrance and there's no way whatsoever to take that flag without running into a clay.

1) Drive HUMVEE next to flag area (where the payphone is)
2) Jump on HUMVEE
3) Jump into flag area

To say nothing of using someone to minesweep and then reviving him.

We've discussed claymores over and over so I don't feel like we need to rehash that. I will say that another minor change that I'd like to see is that claymores disappear if a Sniper gets too far away from them.

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

1) Drive HUMVEE next to flag area (where the payphone is)
2) Jump on HUMVEE
3) Jump into flag area

Inf Only has no humvees. With vehicles, it seems a bit silly to drive into the flag zone with a jeep just to set off the clays. I have done this before though and have encountered a few problems with that method:

a) Sometimes you jump out and get crushed between the wall and the HMMV.
b) Sometimes the HMMV doesnt blow the clay, depending on its location. The claymore can be placed in such a way that the HMMV doesnt blow it.

So the method you describe is works on occasion and on a specific game mode, but there is still a way around it. There is still a way to place a claymore in such a way that there is no way to get in without dying.

To say nothing of using someone to minesweep and then reviving him.

I understand the usefulness of squad teamwork and it obviously applies here... but I think we can all agree that this takes absolutely 0 skill. Yes, claymores are usefull and you can't blame people for using them, but that doesn't mean that it upholds the essence of multiplayer gaming, which is to the face off against an opponent and use reaction time, tactical awareness and brains to beat them.

We've discussed claymores over and over so I don't feel like we need to rehash that. I will say that another minor change that I'd like to see is that claymores disappear if a Sniper gets too far away from them.

Now that one doesn't make sense. Although the game isn't realistic to any degree, claymores disappearing based on distance is just plain weird. What if you want to defend a bridge with a claymore and move on? That would make sense as it is an anti-personel mine. It's not like DICE flat out stated that the sniper should only use claymores to defend himself... kind of defeats the open endedness of BF2, no?

I think the issue here is not forcing people to play a certain way (your example does that variable), but to make it so people can actually fight back against certain things.

There's nothing you can do about well placed claymores on many of the flags in-game. There's nothing you can do about a shower of infinitely resupplied grenades overhead.

I will state this though... I honestly don't care if they change this stuff or not. It doesnt bother me *that* much. I rarely die from claymores because I attack weak enemy positions. I use the minimap and the intuition to attack flags that are weaker than others... I wont run down the center of a street or directly across a bridge. I wont run into the most well defended spawn point when I can flank and go to others then hit that same spawn point from the rear.

I never have problems with nades or claymores because I overcome them with tactical awareness and good movement.

Other people don't like doing this though, so I'll never argue against people because they like to play a certain way. Instead, I'll stay on the side of reason and logic -- even if it doesn't affect me all that much.

[vbl]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

Inf Only has no humvees.

IO mode was a late, poorly-thought out addition to the game. If DICE starts making changes to the overall game mechanics just to benefit this secondary mode then they have some serious prioritization issues.

Just the same, I always approach the discussion from the standpoint that we're playing regular BF2 since that's the core game.

With vehicles, it seems a bit silly to drive into the flag zone with a jeep just to set off the clays. I have done this before though and have encountered a few problems with that method:

a) Sometimes you jump out and get crushed between the wall and the HMMV.
b) Sometimes the HMMV doesnt blow the clay, depending on its location. The claymore can be placed in such a way that the HMMV doesnt blow it.

There are countless things that are silly in BF2 - I'm don't really see silliness as a valid reason to discredit a functional tactic.

Now that one doesn't make sense. Although the game isn't realistic to any degree, claymores disappearing based on distance is just plain weird. What if you want to defend a bridge with a claymore and move on? That would make sense as it is an anti-personel mine. It's not like DICE flat out stated that the sniper should only use claymores to defend himself... kind of defeats the open endedness of BF2, no?

Again, logic doesn't really matter. Do I really need to cite the mechanics of the shockpaddles or spawning on an SL, or can we just accept that any idea short of laserbeams and spaceships might be worth considering within BF2's pseudo-reality?

The crux of the idea is important, though. Require snipers to stay nearby, and you enable attacking troops to disable the mines by killing the source. I'd like to see the decay time of claymores adjusted to be much faster, too.

But like I said, we have a whole thread of other ideas (prone bypassing claymores being just one) to address this issue without hamstringing the claymore's core survivability and making them nearly pointless to place.

Anyone who tried to use claymores when claymores were destructible remembers that the slightest explosions set them off, which also increased the likelihood of the claymores killing teammates - artillery would set a claymore off and kill a teammate who happened to be in the blast area.

I think the issue here is not forcing people to play a certain way (your example does that variable), but to make it so people can actually fight back against certain things.

That was one minor idea that I suggested in addition to the numerous ideas in the thread I cited earlier.

Seriously. If people keep going back to "claymores have to be destructible to be balanced", despite the treasure trove of alternate, balanced suggestions in the claymore workshop thread then I think it's fair to say that, at this point, they're just trolling.

I don't really care about grenades, so go nuts. The only reason I keep harping on the claymore issue is because this forum has invested a lot of time in the discussion and it's patently stupid to rehash the same old, tired, inferior suggestions.

[imported_The 13th Raptor]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

If you prone under the payphone you can cap the hotel flag, you dont even need to get on the balcony to do it. :)

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

IO mode was a late, poorly-thought out addition to the game. If DICE starts making changes to the overall game mechanics just to benefit this secondary mode then they have some serious prioritization issues.

IO is a part of the game, like it or hate it. There's nothing wrong with it.

There are countless things that are silly in BF2 - I'm don't really see silliness as a valid reason to discredit a functional tactic.

We're not talking about a tactic, but adding a limitation in the game. Of course there are silly things about BF2 (jumping off ledge with parachute, lol)... but I believe there is a limit when it's just ridiculous and doesn't make sense. If you place something, it should stay there... because there are countless reasons that you aren't thinking of for someone to leave a claymore behind.

You can't assume to know all of the reasons for doing something. Go back to the basics and rationalize in a simple way, without the little details.

Again, logic doesn't really matter. Do I really need to cite the mechanics of the shockpaddles or spawning on an SL, or can we just accept that any idea short of laserbeams and spaceships might be worth considering within BF2's pseudo-reality?

The crux of the idea is important, though. Require snipers to stay nearby, and you enable attacking troops to disable the mines by killing the source. I'd like to see the decay time of claymores adjusted to be much faster, too.

But like I said, we have a whole thread of other ideas (prone bypassing claymores being just one) to address this issue without hamstringing the claymore's core survivability and making them nearly pointless to place.

Anyone who tried to use claymores when claymores were destructible remembers that the slightest explosions set them off, which also increased the likelihood of the claymores killing teammates - artillery would set a claymore off and kill a teammate who happened to be in the blast area.

That was one minor idea that I suggested in addition to the numerous ideas in the thread I cited earlier.

Seriously. If people keep going back to "claymores have to be destructible to be balanced", despite the treasure trove of alternate, balanced suggestions in the claymore workshop thread then I think it's fair to say that, at this point, they're just trolling.

I don't really care about grenades, so go nuts. The only reason I keep harping on the claymore issue is because this forum has invested a lot of time in the discussion and it's patently stupid to rehash the same old, tired, inferior suggestions.

There's not much I can say here because I'd be arguing against myself. On the one hand, there are problems with claymores in BF2 -- we can agree on that I hope. How to fix those problems is always based on how someone interprets the problem in the first place.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have no problems with the claymores as they are now. I know how to avoid them and they don't bother me in the least. I still admit that claymores are Hotel are unstoppable... proning by the claymores is literally impossible no matter what anyone says. The claymore has to be placed in a very specific way and you have to crawl up in a very specific way for this work ... it's a matter of luck and isn't at all practical when attacking a flag.

Personally, I never really complained at all... even during 1.0. I get a kick out of the game no matter what and I love the idea of "adjusting" to the gameplay.

So this discussion is more like something to think about for a few min than a serious consideration The reason BF2 is having some of the issues it has right is because some people implemented ideas that they thought were fool proof.. but alas.. they missed something. 'Tis why I think they should create limitations in the game with great care.

[vbl]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

Seriously. If people keep going back to "claymores have to be destructible to be balanced", despite the treasure trove of alternate, balanced suggestions in the claymore workshop thread then I think it's fair to say that, at this point, they're just trolling.

Only because it bears repeating, and because I have no interest in perpetuating the rhetorical whankfest that I helped start and sustain.

[Iwantcable]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

I really wish people would stop encouraging DICE to nerf anything other than the J-10...

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

Only because it bears repeating, and because I have no interest in perpetuating the rhetorical whankfest that I helped start and sustain.

Rhetoric and forums go hand in hand my friend

[vbl]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

Rhetoric and forums go hand in hand my friend

Oh, you don't have to tell me! That big *2,642* under my name is proof alone of my penchant for e-debate.

I just don't think that this claymore issue really needs to be rehashed again in light of the analysis, debate, and subsequent conclusions that have already been honed and tempered in other threads.

[Tobacco]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

The side that PlaneWhore doesn't see, however, is the side where people flank all the way around and take some flags in the back. When that occurs, half of the action transfers towards the back of the map and the action couldn't be sweeter. All of the noobs stay at the front trying to take/defend Hotel while the smart players spawn in the back and continue the fight...

In my defence of being a "Noob", the Front of Karkand is where the Armour most often rolls through(they do go down the sides to, but not as often), and I use the AT Kit more than any other kit so......You are correct though, when the back flags are being capped the gameplay does change for the better.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

Explosives should be used to break stalemates or attack targets behind cover. If explosives are used as primaries, then theres a problem.

[imported_Kold81]

Re: PlaneWhore's top 4 BF2 changes that need to be in the 1.5 patch

Variable.......where in K.C. do you live? Gladstone here....lol

Nice to see a local.