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

[deviousbf2]

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

before we do all these things,WILL PATCH 1.5 COME OUT?

[PHPT]

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

The moment you take cover, you force an opponent to choose a weapon to engage a target who is behind cover... which is a grenade.

Any given map is loaded with countless obstacles, it doesn't take much effort to figure out that someone's trying to flush you out and it's time to run around the nearest corner.

Indeed. Then why change the gameplay in the first place.

I'll give you a hint, none of the changes were justified by "realism."

Unfortunately BF2 does not offer that much room for "outsmarting" an opponent as the way the weapons work do not allow this. It comes down to better shooting skills mostly. SWAT4 is an example of how 1 shot kill weapons create a suspenseful environment where all it takes is one quick burst. That makes killing a target that much easier, and as such, thinking comes into the equation.

At the very most, all that means is that BF2 is based more on taking risks and compensating for error, whereas insta-dead shooters are more based on completely avoiding that error. Outsmarting your opponent is not only common, it's invaluable, try playing AT for a while and maybe you'll learn how. Ambush and evasion are much more powerful than good aim.

Grenadier hops, while rifleman must prone.

Try crouching. Grenadier's explosive toys also take 4 seconds to do anything and can be dodged much more easily than bullets.

Let me ask you, when did you see people set up ambushes in BF2, using FIREARMS?

Try playing AT, it'll give you some practice. An ambush is not a guaranteed win just because you got the first shot off. You need to put yourself in a position where you're gonna hit and they're gonna miss, which can be as simple as jumping around a corner, proning in front of some unsuspecting bastard, and unloading half a magazine into his chest before he can process the fact that he's being shot. Humans take half a second to react, it shouldn't take you that long to kill them.

Running means ditching the engagement and leaving your position. Like in dogfights, runner is a runner. Runner is a target.

Runner is a target? There are only two situations. One, you have line of sight. You win, SHOOT HIM. Two, you don't have line of sight. In which case, you're not a target because the only thing he can do is try to hit you with a grenade. Dodge the ****ing grenade. Then shoot him. Or better yet, run TOWARDS him, dodging the grenade and shooting him in the process, most likely killing him before he can finish pulling his gun out.

[sstalker]

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

Of course I still use grenades but unlike many when I throw my grenade I have a specific target I'm aiming for. I want to watch the people who rely on easy, exploitable and RANDOM grenade and claymore kills to curl in to a little ball and cry when they're forced to use their rifle for a change. That'll be the day.

It's obvious this is your first fps shooter. quick lesson in fps shooters. cs 1.6 nade spam at choke points. day of defeat and call of duty....nade spam at key choke points. Tom clancy's ghost recon frag out spam at key choke points. The art of war, get over it learn to pound. Better yet learn to avoid key choke points then learn to pound.

The thing what I'm trying to do, is to find a balance with these two methods. I try to save grenades by aiming them carefully to ensure maximum damage. To ensure maximum damage, I also "nade spam" at the key choke points.

[Chris_Redfield]

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

Any given map is loaded with countless obstacles, it doesn't take much effort to figure out that someone's trying to flush you out and it's time to run around the nearest corner.

You missed the point. Spetznaz suggested taking cover from grenadiers. Im saying that taking cover promotes even more grenade use against you at that specific moment. This isnt a bad thing. In fact, as Ive said numerous times, I believe grenades should be used against targets behind cover. Just seems like a wrong tactical "tip" to "avoid" grenade use against yourself.

I'll give you a hint, none of the changes were justified by "realism."

And I´ll propose you a question- if everything in BF2 can be countered by pure skill, then why make those gameplay changes in the first place?

Those changes were justified by this: people used them as primary weapons in situations where bullets would have to be used (intended by DICE). Grenades in BF2 are now used very frequently in situations where bullets "should" have been used. Counter by skill or aim? No problems, I understand. I just understand why the hell would they change n00btubing and C4 chucking.

At the very most, all that means is that BF2 is based more on taking risks and compensating for error, whereas insta-dead shooters are more based on completely avoiding that error. Outsmarting your opponent is not only common, it's invaluable, try playing AT for a while and maybe you'll learn how. Ambush and evasion are much more powerful than good aim.

Failed argument. AT does not have to deal with buggy hitboxes and using AT missiles is "usually" in a scenario where youre up against a force multiplier (armor). Outsmarting an opponent is a must.

Thing is, AT does not suffer from issues I mentioned, which is insufficient power of firearms. In fact, engaging armor with AT rockets is completely different from engaging troops with firearms. I have no idea what you were thinking here...

Try crouching. Grenadier's explosive toys also take 4 seconds to do anything and can be dodged much more easily than bullets.

While I agree that theoretically grenades are easily dodgable, BF2 promotes non-mobile engagement against targets. Grenadier tosses and jumps (evades). Shooter prones/crouches and stays still (does not evade). Who is theoretically a better target?

Try playing AT, it'll give you some practice. An ambush is not a guaranteed win just because you got the first shot off. You need to put yourself in a position where you're gonna hit and they're gonna miss,

Silly me thinking that THIS IS AMBUSH Im talking about .

"Me miss, you hit" has nothing to do with positioning in BF2 Im afraid. It has mostly to do with aim and weapon choice. Why else would people pay so much attention to the weapon characteristics in these forums?

"If I can see you, you can see me.", the exact same applies to "If I can shoot you, you can shoot me."

Heres the issue, BF2 does not punish people enough for severe tactical mistakes, which is a shame. Which is also the reason why BF2 is full of akward engagement styles and extremely open combat. While realism is not the goal, at least some thinking should be promoted.

Even tactics on squad level are limited to the rule of force in numbers.

which can be as simple as jumping around a corner, proning in front of some unsuspecting bastard, and unloading half a magazine into his chest before he can process the fact that he's being shot. Humans take half a second to react, it shouldn't take you that long to kill them.

And this is "ambush"? :laugh:

This is simply utilizing your aim. Humans take 0.2 seconds to react, not 0.5.

There are only two situations. One, you have line of sight. You win, SHOOT HIM. Two, you don't have line of sight. In which case, you're not a target because the only thing he can do is try to hit you with a grenade. Dodge the ****ing grenade. Then shoot him. Or better yet, run TOWARDS him, dodging the grenade and shooting him in the process, most likely killing him before he can finish pulling his gun out.

Solution to close quarters combat. Which subject I havent even touched yet.

Originally Posted by everec
It's obvious this is your first fps shooter. quick lesson in fps shooters. cs 1.6 nade spam at choke points. day of defeat and call of duty....nade spam at key choke points. Tom clancy's ghost recon frag out spam at key choke points. The art of war, get over it learn to pound. Better yet learn to avoid key choke points then learn to pound.

The thing about CS 1.6 is, even though the opening moves usually are seen like huge grenade showers into chokepoints, they are relatively useless and rarely justify the waste of that grenade. The spam in 1.6 isnt caused by usefulness of the grenade.

[joshblancett]

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

i took a screenshot of a nade addict in top form, beware on the battlefield
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Bungalow_Bill]

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

good post,spetsnaz
i use to think that the grenade fight that would start ever round in k-land was horrible,i hated playing it for that reason. i would get ticked that my own teammates would kill me more than enemy. then after a few rants here about the subject, i started to read what most of the higher ranked players said about this- just move- go somewhere else than the center of the map. i tried the advice and had a very good round just picking off the nade addicts running up for their fix. thanks,

Frankly that's stupid advice and it can leave your team at an extreme disadvatnage. First off you're not stopping it from happening you're simply moving out of the way because you had no other choice. If the spammers shifted their focus and spammed in your new location as well you'd be having the same problem you were having originally. More importantly if your entire team followed your example and moved off to the sides then the USMC team could storm straight down in to the Hotel and capture the flag. So really the grenade spammers have succeeded in being effective by essentially forcing you to relocate. All you did was artificially lower the amount of kills they ended up getting by a very tiny amount.

But this is using Karkand as an example and frankly not all grenade spamming happens at Karkand. It happens at multiple locations on Mashtuur, it happens at multiple locations on Sharqi and Jalalabad is nearly as bad as Karkand is.

*Ridiculously long post

A jumping, sprinting, strafing and prone/crouching grenade spammer is not a very viable target for a rifle thanks to the poor hit detection in Battlefield 2 and laggy hit boxes. You're assuming they'll magically stand motionless while they chuck nades at you at point blank and while I'm sure a couple do 99% move around a lot.

But honestly that's only one spectrum of the spamming problem. On any map where you're against a team with a sizeable group of spammers assaulting will become very tedious. When you've got a situation where most of the enemy team is at one spawn and most of the enemy team is at the spawn right next to that spawn this tactic begins and it doesn't need to be Karkand for this to happen.

Bottom line again is this is an exploitation of the original function of the grenade (and tube, and claymore) that DICE never intended. In a perfect world DICE imagined people using grenades in a strategic and intelligent fashion such as I do and with a stockpile of 4 it gives me plenty of ammo to do it again and again.

But in the real world all giving 4 grenades to every single player has done is give the enemy team a total of 32x4=128 grenades to throw per respawn (assuming a 64 player server) and that isn't even including the grenade resupply exploit. I like having four grenades too because I use them properly and don't exploit them but honestly I'd much rather have a single grenade per respawn which would give me less firepower (I'd have to use that single grenade wisely and more intelligently that I use them now) but as a result give me a much more enjoyable atmosphere for infantry combat where opposing players actually bother using their rifles for a change rather than just throwing grenades and claymores everywhere and hoping for random kills.

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

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

Frankly that's stupid advice and it can leave your team at an extreme disadvatnage. First off you're not stopping it from happening you're simply moving out of the way because you had no other choice. If the spammers shifted their focus and spammed in your new location as well you'd be having the same problem you were having originally. More importantly if your entire team followed your example and moved off to the sides then the USMC team could storm straight down in to the Hotel and capture the flag. So really the grenade spammers have succeeded in being effective by essentially forcing you to relocate. All you did was artificially lower the amount of kills they ended up getting by a very tiny amount.

"Spammers" is such a stupid word for video games. They're just playing the game... how about calling them players?

I said before, this has nothing to do with grenades in particular. If you remove every single explosive device in this game and just leave automatic weapons, the crossroads at Hotel will STILL be impossible to take. Your new complaint will then be medics, because they will revive one another at the Hotel crossroad.

Why do you think all of these complaints are completely focused on Karkand? You started this thread when you started playing Karkand alot more... and I can garauntee that 99% of your examples are written while you envision the many grenades going off at the Hotel crossroad.

PlaneWhore.. plane and simple.. you know nothing about strategy (this is to you as well Chris). Read some books on the topic, it's very interesting and will serve a purpose out of game.

Anyone who says that avoiding a highly concentrated force to outflank them in an easier-to-hit location is a defeat is very very confused. (or "success" of the opposing team, as you say PlaneWhore). Even in real life, when there is a frontline (Hotel crossroad would be the frontline) it is nearly impossible to get through. Those that out-maneuver the other team are always victorious.

Sun Tzu said it best at about 500BC:

Thus, to take a long and circuitous route, after enticing the enemy out of the way, and though starting after him, to contrive to reach the goal before him, shows knowledge of the artifice of DEVIATION.

Grenades may seem like a problem right now, but they are a cause of a much larger "problem" that is a fundamental aspect of the game. If you remove grenades, the Hotel crossroad area will not change... neither will any place that you deem "spammer heaving".

But this is using Karkand as an example and frankly not all grenade spamming happens at Karkand. It happens at multiple locations on Mashtuur, it happens at multiple locations on Sharqi and Jalalabad is nearly as bad as Karkand is.

Where on Maashtuur and where on Sharqi? Keep in mind that you should also provide a simple screenshot of the action to prove the "grenade spamming" and then compare to Karkand's area.

I'd love to see this . . .

A jumping, sprinting, strafing and prone/crouching grenade spammer is not a very viable target for a rifle thanks to the poor hit detection in Battlefield 2 and laggy hit boxes. You're assuming they'll magically stand motionless while they chuck nades at you at point blank and while I'm sure a couple do 99% move around a lot.

Nope, I assume that they move around like mad. Somehow all this "hit detection" crap is never a problem for me. I get hits when I expect to. Yes, there are times when it seems like my hits are not going through ... at which point I instantly leave the server and find a new one as I dont have that much time to play.

But honestly that's only one spectrum of the spamming problem. On any map where you're against a team with a sizeable group of spammers assaulting will become very tedious. When you've got a situation where most of the enemy team is at one spawn and most of the enemy team is at the spawn right next to that spawn this tactic begins and it doesn't need to be Karkand for this to happen.

Again with the "spammers" thing. You're a spammer too... why all others spammers as if there's some difference between you and them?

Bottom line again is this is an exploitation of the original function of the grenade (and tube, and claymore) that DICE never intended. In a perfect world DICE imagined people using grenades in a strategic and intelligent fashion such as I do and with a stockpile of 4 it gives me plenty of ammo to do it again and again.

You casually avoided this last time because you can't answer it. So I'll ask again:

How do you know what DICE originally intended?

You know DICE is not one guy with a conciousness who can imagine things right? DICE isn't a guy named Theodore Dice or something :laugh:

But in the real world all giving 4 grenades to every single player has done is give the enemy team a total of 32x4=128 grenades to throw per respawn (assuming a 64 player server) and that isn't even including the grenade resupply exploit. I like having four grenades too because I use them properly and don't exploit them but honestly I'd much rather have a single grenade per respawn which would give me less firepower (I'd have to use that single grenade wisely and more intelligently that I use them now) but as a result give me a much more enjoyable atmosphere for infantry combat where opposing players actually bother using their rifles for a change rather than just throwing grenades and claymores everywhere and hoping for random kills.

Yes the gameplay would significantly change with less grenades and I'm all for it. But once again, the way it is now doesn't really bother me all that much either.

One thing that DICE may be afraid of is that these maps were specifically designed with the grenades in mind. In other words, if you remove the nades then it might make it impossible for USMC to keep people out of their East main spawn. ATM, grenades are really the only barrier between their main and the MEC attack it. I know that if I take cover at those 3 barrels in front of the large hill at USMC main East and have a couple guys watching my back no one is going to get us out of there unless they clean us out with grenades. And seeing as I can usually hang out there and withstand a barrage of grenades... 1 grenade per player wouldn't be a problem.

What I'm saying is, you imagine little bits and peices of gameplay that you experienced (they are very little bits and pieces given the amount of players in this game) and imagine what it would be like without grenades or with very few grenades -- but you fail to see the hundreds of other scenarios that DICE may have intended or which disadvantages would arise.

Ridiculously long post.

Redicoulously hypocritical statement.

[Bungalow_Bill]

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

"Spammers" is such a stupid word for video games. They're just playing the game... how about calling them players?

No. How about we call actual "real-life" email spammers just plain "emailers". They spam and thus they get the title associated with such unsavory behavior.

I said before, this has nothing to do with grenades in particular. If you remove every single explosive device in this game and just leave automatic weapons, the crossroads at Hotel will STILL be impossible to take. Your new complaint will then be medics, because they will revive one another at the Hotel crossroad.

You are wrong but I'm not completely suggested removing grenades because they do serve a purpose and have a distinct and unique function. But if it really came down to rifle versus rifle the more skilled team would kill the less skilled team and it'd be as simple as that. You cannot "spam" a rifle at random like you can with claymores or a grenades (and actually kill people) and as a result players that depend on such unskilled methods of killing would be lambs to the slaughter. I personally can kill 6 or 7 people alone with my rifle (in rifle vs. rifle) before some guy gets a lucky G3/PKM insta-kill headshot on me.

Why do you think all of these complaints are completely focused on Karkand? You started this thread when you started playing Karkand alot more... and I can garauntee that 99% of your examples are written while you envision the many grenades going off at the Hotel crossroad.

No. As I said before grenade spam is viable on any map. Of course Hotel Karkand is the most extreme example however this happens on all maps wherever you have two points where enemies are spawning and clashing.

PlaneWhore.. plane and simple.. you know nothing about strategy (this is to you as well Chris). Read some books on the topic, it's very interesting and will serve a purpose out of game.

We aren't playing an RTS dummy. Strategy has limited usefulness in a game like BF2. But it does have it's place. I should know because I've got the gold medal every single round and that is in part because of my superior stratagies. I also have a very good W/L and that's because I always lead the top squad and implement said stratagies and more often than not it's what gives our team its winning edge.

Anyone who says that avoiding a highly concentrated force to outflank them in an easier-to-hit location is a defeat is very very confused. (or "success" of the opposing team, as you say PlaneWhore). Even in real life, when there is a frontline (Hotel crossroad would be the frontline) it is nearly impossible to get through. Those that out-maneuver the other team are always victorious.

You're pretty stupid sometimes Spetnaz. Battlefield 2 does not work like that. Lets say for a moment that we use your strategy, say on Sharqi Pennisula. The enemy controls the Surv Post and we control City Ent. So we want to capture Surv Post but the enemy team is spamming grenades like crazy so we decide to go around. So we sneak around north around the main grouping of buildings to hit them from the side. Now as a result of this strategy two things have happened 1) we have wasted a lot of time moving a very large distance as infantry versus going straight for the flag. In BF2 infantry do not move 100MPH and accomplishing your goals as a team is a time sensitive task and 2) since we were all off to the side sneaking around to capture the enemy point they simply moved forward virtually unopposed in a direct route that took far less time. Like it or not Spetnaz moving straight on at a target is both the best way of defending your current control point and attacking the enemies nearest control point. It is this dynamic that grenade spammers capatalize on with their exploit.

Grenades may seem like a problem right now, but they are a cause of a much larger "problem" that is a fundamental aspect of the game. If you remove grenades, the Hotel crossroad area will not change... neither will any place that you deem "spammer heaving".

Again this is a game, not real life Spetnaz. In this game as far as rifles go skill and teamwork are the two most important factors. With unskilled factors out of the equation like greandes and claymores the players with the most rifle skill will win every single time without contest.

Where on Maashtuur and where on Sharqi? Keep in mind that you should also provide a simple screenshot of the action to prove the "grenade spamming" and then compare to Karkand's area.

Again Karkand is a "extreme" example and the reason it used so frequently is because the imbalance is highlighted quite well by the poor map design. Simply put anywhere you have two control points nearby you have an opportunity to spam. You think RD-Volx got his 55,000+ grenade kills at the Hotel spawn on Karkand? Games rarely get stuck at that spawn so obviously Volx is grenade spaming elsewhere on the Karkand map and killing lots of people.

Nope, I assume that they move around like mad. Somehow all this "hit detection" crap is never a problem for me. I get hits when I expect to. Yes, there are times when it seems like my hits are not going through ... at which point I instantly leave the server and find a new one as I dont have that much time to play.

Again your wrong Spetnaz. I'm sorry you seem to be playing a different game than me. Hitboxes in this game lag behind the target. Case and point - Hitting a moving enemy chopper with a TV missile. Ask any experienced TV missile user where you aim at a moving choppers and they'll all give you the same answer and that is that you aim BEHIND the chopper because the chopper hitbox is typically lagging a full choppers distance behind the actual chopper you see. As one skilled TV missile user told me "pretend the enemy chopper has a giant balloon attached to the side of it that drifts in the opposite direction it is currently heading

Proof if you can stand the crappy rap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jwwWD7LE9k

Infantry experience this exact same hitbox lag but since they aren't moving as fast as a chopper it isn't as obvious.

How do you know what DICE originally intended?

It's an educated assumption based on the current state of grenades and the outrageous way in which they are most commonly used. Because of the ridiculous nature of the above I can only conclude that grenades original intention was the only obvious usage they have which is hitting people that you cannot otherwise hit with a rifle. As Chris said these are the people taking cover behind objects or in an area which you cannot easily or safely access on foot (sniper on a roof for example).

Yes the gameplay would significantly change with less grenades and I'm all for it.

Ok then case closed thanks for supporting my opinion (fact) and the original intention of this thread.

[Shask]

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

You're an idiot, because you want the GL nerfed.
Otherwise, gj.

[Batausu]

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

Since all this talking is about grenades, I suggest you start a poll "How many of you want the grenades changed?".
I guess at least 75% will be against changing.

[Chris_Redfield]

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

PlaneWhore.. plane and simple.. you know nothing about strategy (this is to you as well Chris).

One hell of an argument from the guy giving such advice as "relocation" and "get a better aim".

Strategically the best option is to hold distance. How what good does that do, except keep you a healthy KDR?

You also pretty much mixed up "strategy" and "tactics".

As for me not knowing strategy, people pick ME as a squad leader and I was the person behind gameplan design which lead to the victory of a small "unknown" SWAT4 clan, over European 4th place teams.

This discussion has nothing to do with strategy nor tactics because you are so desperately trying to "teach" me something new. Everything youre saying I already use, and a lot more added to that. This doesnt mean I nod my head in agreement. Grenades are ridiculously easy to use in almost all infantry level engagement, provided the distance favours success.

[PHPT]

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

Those changes were justified by this: people used them as primary weapons in situations where bullets would have to be used (intended by DICE).

You can't dodge a point-blank tube grenade. And last I heard, they undid that nerf and didn't mention it in the changelog. C4 chucking's second nerf, I have no idea. The first time, ironically, because C4 was doing a better job of launching explosives around than grenades were. That and throwing it while jumping was glitchy as ****, you could throw it ridiculously far if you timed it right.

Failed argument. AT does not have to deal with buggy hitboxes and using AT missiles is "usually" in a scenario where youre up against a force multiplier (armor). Outsmarting an opponent is a must.

I'm referring to urban combat with the DAO. Not that it's relevant, but if you want buggy hitboxes, try hitting any fast vehicle coming towards you. :P

While I agree that theoretically grenades are easily dodgable, BF2 promotes non-mobile engagement against targets. Grenadier tosses and jumps (evades). Shooter prones/crouches and stays still (does not evade). Who is theoretically a better target?

Grenadier has a grenade in his hands, not a gun. You have a gun. If you dodge the grenade, he has nothing to kill you with until he pulls out his gun. That's a ridiculously strong head start. If they're the kings of nade spam, support, then their gun takes even longer to pull out. If they're using the PKM, it's even worse.

"Me miss, you hit" has nothing to do with positioning in BF2 Im afraid.

On urban maps, it has everything to do with it. Why do you think the forum is flooded with people whining about people going prone? Because they got jumped, couldn't react, and got blown away, so they're crying for a nerf. It's that powerful. Use it.

"If I can see you, you can see me.", the exact same applies to "If I can shoot you, you can shoot me."

If I'm facing someone and they're not facing me, then no, they can't shoot me until they find out where I'm shooting from. By that time, they're either dead, or too dead to win the confrontation.

Heres the issue, BF2 does not punish people enough for severe tactical mistakes, which is a shame.

BF2 tests you as much on your ability to compensate for mistakes as it does on your ability to avoid them. Leaving room for error also makes confrontations more like confrontations and less like "LOL I shoot first I win!"

This isn't a "tactical shooter", there are plenty of those out there if that's more your style, it's a hybrid arcade/tactical shooter. That's not going to change.

Even tactics on squad level are limited to the rule of force in numbers.

Why do you think a squad with everyone on voice tends to do so much better?

This is simply utilizing your aim.

It's putting me in a position where it's very easy for me to aim and very difficult for them. An "ambush" is simply exploiting an opponent's lack of preparedness to put them in an unfavorable position. So yes, that is an ambush.

Solution to close quarters combat. Which subject I havent even touched yet.

That's why you MAKE the fight close-quarters. If they want to stay at a safe distance and avoid a firefight, shove a firefight down their throat.

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

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

PHPT is right.

The game shouldn't punish you for tactical screwups. The enemy should. Throwing grenades and jumping is a tactical screwup that is inferior when facing a good player.

Chris, I didn't mean to insult (I know it came off that way, sorry)... you guys keep saying that running away from a threat is some sort of defeat which it is not... it's just a maneuver. Success and defeat are defined based on who gets to the spawn screen first.

You admitted earlier that you're not a good shot. So why do you expect the game to adjust for your lack of skill when shooting?

[Chris_Redfield]

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

I'm referring to urban combat with the DAO. Not that it's relevant, but if you want buggy hitboxes, try hitting any fast vehicle coming towards you. :P

:laugh: , indeed.

Grenadier has a grenade in his hands, not a gun. You have a gun. If you dodge the grenade, he has nothing to kill you with until he pulls out his gun. That's a ridiculously strong head start. If they're the kings of nade spam, support, then their gun takes even longer to pull out. If they're using the PKM, it's even worse.

Heres the thing. A grenadier does not throw "a" grenade at you and pull out his rifle. A good grenadier will throw multiple grenades at you so you will have to constantly relocate, or die. This is the problem. I wouldnt even be talking here, if there was a timeframe between grenade throws that would make a grenadier think twice before thworing that second grenade. My ultimate point- create severe tactical (usually loss in time) disadvantage in using grenades in a head to head combat and its set.

On urban maps, it has everything to do with it. Why do you think the forum is flooded with people whining about people going prone? Because they got jumped, couldn't react, and got blown away, so they're crying for a nerf. It's that powerful. Use it.

Were talking about 2 totally different things here.

If I'm facing someone and they're not facing me, then no, they can't shoot me until they find out where I'm shooting from. By that time, they're either dead, or too dead to win the confrontation.

Thing is, unless you get a headshot, they are more likely to run away. This I call a lack in reward from a good ambush.

BF2 tests you as much on your ability to compensate for mistakes as it does on your ability to avoid them. Leaving room for error also makes confrontations more like confrontations and less like "LOL I shoot first I win!"

My personal experience. Avoiding mistakes only prolongues the time before you die. If you do not have skill to back it up, you will die anyway, sooner or later. Skill determines how many kills you get before you die. Using intelligence in BF2 does not have an effect on that unfortunately. Unless were talking about placing claymores all over the place or creating C4 traps. But those arent "aiming" skills Im talking about. Those are mostly associated with experience, and not hand-eye coordination.

Why do you think a squad with everyone on voice tends to do so much better?

Been there, done that. Im an avid VOIP user myself. Vast majority of VOIP communcation falls back to "enemy over there!". Engaging a target is still on "strenght in numbers" basis where squads rush flags all together. Seeing squads use tactics such as flanking, is a rarity. Even dividing squad up for a multiple angle assault is such a rare sight. And frankly, its not nearly as rewarding as it should be.

That's why you MAKE the fight close-quarters. If they want to stay at a safe distance and avoid a firefight, shove a firefight down their throat.

Bunnyhop my way into his laps? Hybrid of arcade/tactical shooter you say?

PHPT is right.

The game shouldn't punish you for tactical screwups. The enemy should. Throwing grenades and jumping is a tactical screwup that is inferior when facing a good player.

The game should provide atmosphere for a player to punish you for your tactical screwups. I think that sounds better for you

Indeed, agreed. Throwing grenades and jumping is a tactical screwup, HOWEVER, BF2 allows this so called inferior tactical move to be successful. Simply because weapons do not deal enough damage (giving grenadier enough lifetime to execute his jumps and throws) and hitbox issues which will often not register certain hits.

Chris, I didn't mean to insult (I know it came off that way, sorry)... you guys keep saying that running away from a threat is some sort of defeat which it is not... it's just a maneuver. Success and defeat are defined based on who gets to the spawn screen first.

I didnt say it automatically constitutes as a defeat. Im saying its hald-defeat. If a grenadier puts you into changing maneuvers, youre possibly playing by his rules. Putting your opponent to play by your rules is a strategical move to YOUR victory. I did this a lot in SWAT4, and a lot in BF2 dogfighting.

You admitted earlier that you're not a good shot. So why do you expect the game to adjust for your lack of skill when shooting?

I never expected, nor expect the game to give me a full "refund" for my lack of shooting skills. But I do expect to be properly rewarded for outsmarting my opponent regardless of my aiming level. Right now, no matter what the situation is, I think about 3-5 hits. Frankly, getting that many hits into a target, even though you have an upper hand, is an issue for me. I simply make them run away. Was I rewarded for my tactical superiority? No.

Since all this talking is about grenades, I suggest you start a poll "How many of you want the grenades changed?".
I guess at least 75% will be against changing.

I wouldnt want nades to be changed. I would like

Added time to pin pull and throw maneuver
Added time for "throw charge" to charge up fully
Reduced throw distance with "left click" method
POSSIBLY, reducing grenade numbers to 2 per batch

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

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

No. How about we call actual "real-life" email spammers just plain "emailers". They spam and thus they get the title associated with such unsavory behavior.

I guess we'll never agree on anything. You're misinterpreting what I meant.. yet again.

The reason people call them "spammers" and not "emailers" is because they send out mass emails to people they do not know and harass others. If the point behind emailing someone was to harass them with advertisements, then they wouldn't be called spammers.

If people are given grenades in their kit, why insult them for using what the game has given them? It really isn't fair. Even if I disagree with the tactic of using grenades as a primary weapon, I realize that in the end it's a disadvantage and can easily be countered with some skill and use of the mind -- thus I punish them with pixel bullets, not words.

You are wrong but I'm not completely suggested removing grenades because they do serve a purpose and have a distinct and unique function. But if it really came down to rifle versus rifle the more skilled team would kill the less skilled team and it'd be as simple as that. You cannot "spam" a rifle at random like you can with claymores or a grenades (and actually kill people) and as a result players that depend on such unskilled methods of killing would be lambs to the slaughter. I personally can kill 6 or 7 people alone with my rifle (in rifle vs. rifle) before some guy gets a lucky G3/PKM insta-kill headshot on me.

So you judge skill based on how difficult something is? By that logic, I could say that you are unskilled because I always run at you with a knife.

If you are easily disposed of by grenades, that is your weakness and you cannot blame people for exploiting your weakness.

I'm not easily disposed of by grenades, my weakness is not watching my back often enough and players that notice that exploit that weakness fully. I also have problems facing good snipers because I get too cocky and try to pull the headshot when a body shot + a few pistol rounds would suffice.

We aren't playing an RTS dummy. Strategy has limited usefulness in a game like BF2. But it does have it's place. I should know because I've got the gold medal every single round and that is in part because of my superior stratagies. I also have a very good W/L and that's because I always lead the top squad and implement said stratagies and more often than not it's what gives our team its winning edge.

I'm a dummy? You just contradicted yourself in that paragraph.

You're pretty stupid sometimes Spetnaz.

Don't flame - or atleast restrict to a PM.

Battlefield 2 does not work like that. Lets say for a moment that we use your strategy, say on Sharqi Pennisula. The enemy controls the Surv Post and we control City Ent. So we want to capture Surv Post but the enemy team is spamming grenades like crazy so we decide to go around. So we sneak around north around the main grouping of buildings to hit them from the side. Now as a result of this strategy two things have happened 1) we have wasted a lot of time moving a very large distance as infantry versus going straight for the flag. In BF2 infantry do not move 100MPH and accomplishing your goals as a team is a time sensitive task and 2) since we were all off to the side sneaking around to capture the enemy point they simply moved forward virtually unopposed in a direct route that took far less time. Like it or not Spetnaz moving straight on at a target is both the best way of defending your current control point and attacking the enemies nearest control point. It is this dynamic that grenade spammers capatalize on with their exploit.

What dynamic? We can share examples all day. A maneuver in-game cannot be restricted to 1 paragraph... there's alot more to it and alot of it depends on split second decisions. It's not a generalized as you make it.

I know because it works for me.

Again this is a game, not real life Spetnaz. In this game as far as rifles go skill and teamwork are the two most important factors. With unskilled factors out of the equation like greandes and claymores the players with the most rifle skill will win every single time without contest.

You need to redefined skill a little bit for yourself. If grenades are a problem for you, but they aren't a problem for me -- yet we have the same style strategy then something is wrong on your end not mine.

Choosing something you're good at and saying "oop! that's skill right there man!" and claiming other things aren't skill isn't a decision you should be making.

Again Karkand is a "extreme" example and the reason it used so frequently is because the imbalance is highlighted quite well by the poor map design. Simply put anywhere you have two control points nearby you have an opportunity to spam. You think RD-Volx got his 55,000+ grenade kills at the Hotel spawn on Karkand? Games rarely get stuck at that spawn so obviously Volx is grenade spaming elsewhere on the Karkand map and killing lots of people.

Volx just beats on newbies. Good for him.

Again your wrong Spetnaz. I'm sorry you seem to be playing a different game than me. Hitboxes in this game lag behind the target. Case and point - Hitting a moving enemy chopper with a TV missile. Ask any experienced TV missile user where you aim at a moving choppers and they'll all give you the same answer and that is that you aim BEHIND the chopper because the chopper hitbox is typically lagging a full choppers distance behind the actual chopper you see. As one skilled TV missile user told me "pretend the enemy chopper has a giant balloon attached to the side of it that drifts in the opposite direction it is currently heading

I'm not talking about choppers, I'm talking about infantry combat. I dont have experience with choppers (I dont like to fly in BF2) so I can't argue that.

What I'm saying is I rarely have issues hitting people that I expect to hit.

Infantry experience this exact same hitbox lag but since they aren't moving as fast as a chopper it isn't as obvious.

Man.. so all this time I've been playing SP I guess..

It's an educated assumption based on the current state of grenades and the outrageous way in which they are most commonly used. Because of the ridiculous nature of the above I can only conclude that grenades original intention was the only obvious usage they have which is hitting people that you cannot otherwise hit with a rifle. As Chris said these are the people taking cover behind objects or in an area which you cannot easily or safely access on foot (sniper on a roof for example).

So please don't pawn off an assumption as fact. You assume so, but I say again... as I said before...

DICE stated officially in an interview that jumping and grenades were specifically left in to retain the style of gameplay in BF2, while jumping+firing anything else was removed.

Ok then case closed thanks for supporting my opinion (fact) and the original intention of this thread.

Opinion or fact? Which?

I support the idea behind it, but for different reasons that you. For you it's a matter of defining what you believe is "skill" and for me it's to make the gameplay more authentic than before.

However, unlike you... I and many others realize the implications of making these small changes. Little changes cause big problems and DICE has a much strong view on this than you do because they are professionals who made this game. That's not saying we should agree with everything they do (obviously), but claiming that you know exactly what they intended when they publicly stated the obvious then saying your opinion=fact (doesnt make sense), followed by insulting all players who utilize a gameplay element put right in front them as being "spammers" and "unskilled" is just... wrong.