To All Jihad-Jeepers

[Bungalow_Bill]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

Your argument seems focused on the fact that it's an exploit because it can't be stopped, and a less skilled player can kill a more skilled player with it. (As you okayed HMMWV and Vod attacks) Hmm...

You lose right here. It's an exploit as defined by DICE and unintended and unfixable gameplay design. But to be fair I'll disregard the fact that you're already wrong.

So... planes are sploitz, grenades are sploitz, tanks are sploitz, the AK101 is a sploit... ok, I'm being facecious,

Not only are you being facecious but you're making a pretty poor comparison. To get fantastic results with the aforementioned: guns take skill, planes take skill and tanks take skill. Jihading does not take skill yet it still produces fantastic results that are impossible to replicate with any other methods available. Be honest when is the last time you heard of an AT player killing 15+ tanks and single-handedly crippling an enemies armor advance all by his lonesome?

since these are units in the game, while Jihading is a combination of multiple factors that DICE couldn't predict (despite ads for the game SHOWING jihading).

Proof of this jihading in an ad? Jihading isn't a combination of multiple factors though it's a combination of a legitimate use of C4 turning in to an illegimate usage of C4. Unfortunatly if the illegitimate method gets fixed the legitimate method is no longer viable and thus the problem.

1.) There are two tanks, both with good drivers, stationed on a nice solid raping spot, say... on the level part of the street above the Karkand train wreck. These two tanks are both crewed with engineers, with medics in the top turrets. There are handfuls of squads running around, repairing and protecting the tanks. The tanks have a moving pattern of rolling forward, shelling the spawn/bridge, and falling back behind the ledge/cover to repair. The commander has three supply crates stacked around HIS tank. (And yes, I have seen this scenario multiple times.)

That's odd you've seen this scenario multiple times considering I've never seen it and getting both tanks on Karkand is a very rare event and the round is usually over by the time that happens either way. This scenario either way is the collective teamwork effort of at least two squads worth of people.

In fact two squads worth of people can lay waste to a flag without the tanks and simply sitting back and spamming grenade would've achieved a very similar effect. Of course tossing some grenades would've been the obvious solution to this supply crate problem. The grenades would destroy the supply crates and kill any engineers on foot around the tanks. Artillery would also do a fantastic job at ruining thiese tanks. At that point they'd be vulnerable to the enemy team spawning up and firing AT rockets (especially if they aim for the treads). It only takes a couple of AT and you can easily outdamage and outlast an engineers wrench and kill the offending tanks.

2.) C4 traps will not work, as the enemy does not advance, content to hold the line and blast with ranged firepower/arty.

If the armor does not advance then how did they get to their current location in the first place? Of course it advances you idiot. Unlike a Jihad using C4 in a legitimate fashion requires you to think. If the Spec Ops had thought ahead and trapped the road with a line of C4 the tanks would've even been unable to progress or killed by the trap.

3.) AT cannot kill the tank. Due to the sheer volume of repairing, any less than four rockets striking simultaneously WILL NOT kill the tank, never mind the coordination required on a pub to pull that off (HAH!). Furthermore, when AT dies, the rocket misses, and the enemy is focus firing on AT soldiers. Lastly, as soon as hit ONCE, the tanks will swap roles, and the damaged one will repair fully.

Again AT alone is a silly thing to do. Grenades or artillery would destroy all the crates and nearby engineers leaving the tanks extremely vulnerable to an enemy team spawning mostly as AT.

4.) Commander's artillery is down.

Oh RLY? Let me guess, and the teams are stacked 54-10? Shutup with this unrealistic scenario already.

5.) All in all, the team is boned, cornered, and being fisted. So a player chucks some C4 onto a vod, rolls around the long way, and makes some tanker's day. All of a sudden, there's pandemonium, and the seige is broken.

At that point the team deserves to be boned. They've failed to stop the tanks and they're too stupid to figure out how. They enemy team has obviously got their **** together and they're owning as a result. Since when is winning as a result of superior teamwork a bad thing?

Funny thing you're selling the arguement on how overpowered C4 jihading is for me. One single man versus 2+ squad worth of engineers working together in flawless harmony with two fully manned tanks. Destroyed instantly by one simpleton exploiting a gameplay bug with a dime a dozen kit and standard vehicle.

Rare, but it does happen.

So we should now base all gameplay design decisions based of an ultra rare event that I have never personally witnessed? How about we base all gameplay changes on that kind of poor logic? If DICE did this game would be crap.

By your logic, the jihad would be okay, as it was the only viable AT role.

Incorrect. An aimbot is aimbot. Jihading is Jihading and nothing will change that. If an AT player is not skilled enough to take down a tank that is a completely seperate issue that can be resolved by said player getting better.

So, Jihading is allowed, OR anything that could defeat a better player is disallowed, thus leaving us playing PONG.

A better player can be defeated without being superior to them. It's simple really - lots of inferior players can beat a single superior player. Inferior players spawn in mass as AT after grenading the supply crates - problem solved. Accept the fact that that player deserved to kick your a*s through superior strategy and reflexes and move on. Now if you've got SUPERIOR players versus other superior players then it's a match. Three AT rockets fired simultaneous at a tank will instantly destroy it. That is no more a feat of teamwork than what you described above but it would instantly nullify this imaginary tank brigade scenario without breaking a sweat. The only difference is this 3 AT rockets at the same time scenario happens on accident ALL the time when you've got dominant armor and a pissed off team full of AT players whereas your "tank brigade" scenario NEVER happens... ever.

And now the reference to cheating will come. There is not a "fine and blurry" line between cheating/sploiting and using the game mechanics legitimately and creatively. Sploiting is breaking the code, popping into level glitches, provoking breakdowns in game mechanics that were not programmed into the system. Cheating is outright violation of the code, changing it to suit yourself.
Jihading is neither. C4 goes on cars just fine. Cars move.

C4 goes on cars just fine because it is intended to. Lets say an enemy tank rolls up on you, you toss C4 on to him, it sticks which allows you to get a safe distance away, detonate and kill him. That is the sticking function of C4 being used in a legitimate fashion.

Battlefield claims to be a sandbox,

Since when? GTA is sandbox. BF2 is an arcade style FPS with vehicles. Get over it.

Now, you can call things lame, and some of these tactics certainly are. I for one, find nothing as infuriating as bunny-hoppers and grenade spammers. However, these are not sploitz or cheating, these are simply tactics I have to deal with. Now, people complain about some things which grow unbalanced (tube-spamming/air rape/hopping), and if it's severe enough, DICE will introduce a fix, by either nerfing the offender (tube/hopping/C4) or buffing a counter (better AA). This is not due to sploitz, but due to imbalance produced emergently by the sandbox.

Again we've already gone over the fact that DICE would *like* to fix Jihading but fixing Jihading would break the legitimate usage of C4 and thus DICE has not done it. As I said before if they can press a magical button and fix it they would.

If you take your argument to it's logical conclusion, all tactics that give an advantage (camping, grenading, flying a plane, etc) would be considered sploitz, and we'd be fighting with nerf guns in a padded room. Again, this is not in favor or code-violating cheats/sploitz, but in defense of legitimate sandbox solutions (firing AT rocket into slow moving jet/ jihading / jumping onto a roof you couldn't otherwise get to from a vodnik). If the tactic is unbalanced enough, DICE would do something, such as giving the tank more protection from C4 not planted on its surface, or underneath it.

Game doesn't work like that sorry. DICE Canada has already proven that they cannot code themselves out of a wet paper bag. They are the same outfit that told US the players than balancing the J-10 was "too hard".

And finally, on a personal note, when I do drive a tank, and I see some jeep flying at me, I slam into reverse and blast the ground near him. Despite my limitted time, I can kill them 50% of the time, and when they get me, I laugh. Why? Because it's funny.

Try and kill a competent DPV on Jalalabad. Fact is you won't. They move too fast and any tank shell hits you get on them won't register unless they're coming head on at you (in which case they suck). As I said before a slow moving Vodnik and a sizeable advance warning of a head on Vodnik gives you plenty of opportunity to kill said Vodnik but it's still an exploit of a gameplay design flaw that DICE is unable to fix.

And no, I don't often do it. I do sometimes, because it's funny, or when it's the only viable means, but most often, I prefer to AT rocket. And when I see some jeep whiz by, loaded with red skulls, I chuckle, because some tank that's busy pounding a squad to pieces is about to meet the business end of what he's dealing out, the paper to his rock (and the squad would be the scissors).

Bottom line. A fast moving jeep rigged with C4 able to kill a tank 10 feet away is not rock paper scissors, it is a gameplay balance issue and nothing more. Consider this... why did they so heavily nerf C4 tossing? The answer is simple really. They nerfed it because C4 is meant to be extremely powerful and as a balancing factor have poor deployment speed or and low range. So you can't throw it now... balance in action. Jihading is far WORSE of an exploit than tossing C4 ever was as it makes your range unlimited and your deployment speed instant but the difference is DICE is too incompetent to code in the magical solution that'll fix jihading yet leave the legitimate uses of C4 unharmed.

Are any of these sploitz? (When you are killed by
-A parked car laden with c4.
-A recently parked car laden with c4.
-A car that stops right in front of you, laden with c4.
-A moving car laden with c4.

Lets put it this way. The second the vehicle is moving the C4 usage is unintentional. I have seen Spec Ops place C4 on a stationary vehicle before and detonate when the enemy tank got to close to what appeared to be a harmless vehicle. That is perfectly fine. However the moment you hop in that jeep and get it up to speed you're in the process of exploiting and gameplay flaw (like it or not). The solution is simple actually when I look at it. With C4 in this game it should fall off of the vehicle if the vehicle is moving too fast.

-Jumping from a vodnik onto a roof you couldn't otherwise reach.
-Jumping out of a vodnik into a building you couldn't otherwise access (hotel glitch).

Example One is perfectly fine. You are supposed to go ontop of buildings (game code). It can be annoying, it can be cheap, but you only really gain the advantage of surprise.

Example Two is an exploit. You are not supposed to get into the hotel... ever. The code is written so you cannot get in. Once in, you are in a level glitch, able to fire out without being hit. You gain invincibility. \

Jihading in its current form is much closer to example 2 but not quite as severe or intentional. Jihading is a bit of a special case and as such it is difficult to define where in the exploit ladder it currently stands. Example 2 is obvious intention to cheat whereas a potential jihad user may be unaware that this is a gameplay flaw as stated by DICE that they have not been able to fix yet. As I said in a previous example if you jumped and fired an AT rocket right at the right time you got 3 missiles to fire due to a bug instead of a single missile. That is a bug that you have exploited to give you an advantage. It's easy for everyone to do so it sort of "melds" in to the fold as an actual gameplay strategy but make no mistake about it, it is still an EXPLOIT.

In the end though it all comes down how you conduct yourself as a player. I don't grenade spam and I don't jihad. I consider both to be far too easy and obvious flaws of the game code. I take pride as my own personal success as a skilled player and I feel good about the fact that I don't have to exploit gameplay design flaws to gain an advantage over my opponent, even if they are low enough to exploit said design flaws. So no matter what I win because if you have to restort to this lowly tactics you'll have nothing more than a hollow victory which is nothing worth celebrating or being proud of. It's also worth noting that these players doing lame crap like jihading aren't improving their own FPS skill. When BF2 becomes an ancient relic like so many other FPS before it they'll have taken nothing away from the game. When they land themselves in a SKILLED fps where they have to be GOOD to win *shocking!* they'll be getting their asses handed to them because instead of getting better like they should've done in BF2 they instead stagnated by using "Easy mode" exploits.

[Mavlyn]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

You lose right here. It's an exploit as defined by DICE and unintended and unfixable gameplay design. But to be fair I'll disregard the fact that you're already wrong.

I lose right here? Let's see your oft-quoted and high-handed, yet never-validated statement. I refer you to the BF2 version 2 ROE, straight from the source:

2.3.2 Allowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:

Server Administrators may implement and enforce rules that result in minor changes to gameplay behaviour or styles as long as these are clearly stated before a player starts playing on a server. These rules typically introduce minor restrictions on how a certain aspect of the game can be used.

Examples of such rules that are acceptable are:
<...>
(f) Using C4 explosives on fast-moving vehicles to destroy other vehicles (C4-ramming)

Hmm... did you read that right? What the ROE says is that servers CAN disallow Jihading if they want too, classifying it with Blackhawk-capping, uncap-bombing, and driving while commanding. This places the tactic clear out of the realms of exploits, and as a cheap, but valid, tactic. So, DICE allows it, has no problem with it, but will let servers modify it selectively.

Seems that you lose, Planewhore. Now, if you want to make Planewhore's NOJIHADING Server, then you could make a rule not to C4-ram/Jihad, and that would be cool, but on a general server, put up or shut up.

Not only are you being facecious but you're making a pretty poor comparison. To get fantastic results with the aforementioned: guns take skill, planes take skill and tanks take skill. Jihading does not take skill yet it still produces fantastic results that are impossible to replicate with any other methods available. Be honest when is the last time you heard of an AT player killing 15+ tanks and single-handedly crippling an enemies armor advance all by his lonesome?

15+ tanks with a jihad jeep? Damn, that's one fine Jihad jeeping. When's the last time you heard of someone killing half a team and destroying five vehicles at once with a single attack run in a Jihad Jeep? I don't know about that, but I've sure seen it pretty commonly on carrier attacks on Wake. Effectiveness is not equal to cheating.

Proof of this jihading in an ad? Jihading isn't a combination of multiple factors though it's a combination of a legitimate use of C4 turning in to an illegimate usage of C4. Unfortunatly if the illegitimate method gets fixed the legitimate method is no longer viable and thus the problem.

I refer you to the top. Illegitimate by who's declaration? Yours? DICE is fine with it.

<snip - yammering - snip> Shutup with this unrealistic scenario already.

The point of the hypothetical scenario, which I have seen about three times on Karkand, was not to extol the virtues of teamwork, but to provide a counter to your arguement that "a problem is not a problem if there's no other way to solve it". Since you seem incapable to accepting the argument, and instead wish to discuss how much the scenario sucks, I will go back and illuminate this for you:

You stated the J-10 was fine because, and I quote, "Can't really compare it to a J-10 because no other alternatives exist to using the J-10 when a team needs aircraft. Plenty of alternative methods exist to killing a tank or APC and thus the jihad exploit is unnecessary."

I therefore constructed a scenario that I have seen occur, where a Jihad Jeep was necessary, thereby, with your logic(?) making it necessary.

I'm not saying this is the primary reason for a Jihad Jeep, as I don't follow your logic. In fact, your train of thought could allow AIMBOTS as "necessary" while disallowing the use of the fire button.

More on MY reasoning later, but this was to poke all sorts of fun holes in your argument, especially since you and DICE don't seem to be agreeing anymore (see, top).

At that point the team deserves to be boned. They've failed to stop the tanks and they're too stupid to figure out how. They enemy team has obviously got their **** together and they're owning as a result. Since when is winning as a result of superior teamwork a bad thing?

Funny thing you're selling the arguement on how overpowered C4 jihading is for me. One single man versus 2+ squad worth of engineers working together in flawless harmony with two fully manned tanks. Destroyed instantly by one simpleton exploiting a gameplay bug with a dime a dozen kit and standard vehicle.

One move can break any chess game. A well placed sniper can rip apart an AT ambush. A good mining string can break an assault. A tank can rip down entire squads, and a single bombing run on a spawn can wipe most of a team out in seconds. Let's BAN BOMBING RUNS! Again, effectiveness does not equal cheating. In another situation, (say, a spread out attack with lighter vehicles) the same attack would be worthless.

So we should now base all gameplay design decisions based of an ultra rare event that I have never personally witnessed? How about we base all gameplay changes on that kind of poor logic? If DICE did this game would be crap.

No, we should base gameplay design decisions off of the ranting opinion of one player who detests Jihad Jeeps, as that is by far the more logical solution.

Again, the scenario deals with your argument logic, not common game occurance. Back on track, please.

Incorrect. An aimbot is aimbot.

Yay! You've mastered the reflective property! A=A!

Jihading is Jihading and nothing will change that.

I'd hope not. If A != A, there would be a severe problem in reality.

If an AT player is not skilled enough to take down a tank that is a completely seperate issue that can be resolved by said player getting better.

Agreed!

A better player can be defeated without being superior to them. It's simple really - lots of inferior players can beat a single superior player. Inferior players spawn in mass as AT after grenading the supply crates - problem solved. Accept the fact that that player deserved to kick your a*s through superior strategy and reflexes and move on. Now if you've got SUPERIOR players versus other superior players then it's a match. Three AT rockets fired simultaneous at a tank will instantly destroy it. That is no more a feat of teamwork than what you described above but it would instantly nullify this imaginary tank brigade scenario without breaking a sweat. The only difference is this 3 AT rockets at the same time scenario happens on accident ALL the time when you've got dominant armor and a pissed off team full of AT players whereas your "tank brigade" scenario NEVER happens... ever.

I guess I was hallucinating about those Karkand matches. Anyhow, let's try and stay on the issue... why is Jihading breaking the rules? Since it's not agains the ROE (see top) and the rules are not being determined by effectiveness of a tactic (see main response to the scenario argument), what is it?

C4 goes on cars just fine because it is intended to. Lets say an enemy tank rolls up on you, you toss C4 on to him, it sticks which allows you to get a safe distance away, detonate and kill him. That is the sticking function of C4 being used in a legitimate fashion.

No problems here. However, cars moving is also legitimate. Delivering that C4 via a car does not magically become illicit.

Since when? GTA is sandbox. BF2 is an arcade style FPS with vehicles. Get over it.

Marcus Nilsson: It's a brand new way of playing in the Battlefield sandbox and with a lot of new toys. (From a 2142 Interview).

Yup, that would be DICE's Senior Producer calling the Battlefield series a sandbox experience. Again, you've been refuted by direct quotes from the creators. You're 0 and 2 here. As you put it, "get over it."

Again we've already gone over the fact that DICE would *like* to fix Jihading but fixing Jihading would break the legitimate usage of C4 and thus DICE has not done it. As I said before if they can press a magical button and fix it they would.

Really? They seem to be fine with it from the ROE. And I did toss out an easy fix in my original post. Now, if your psychic powers tell you otherwise, let me know, and I'll rescind my argument.

Game doesn't work like that sorry. DICE Canada has already proven that they cannot code themselves out of a wet paper bag. They are the same outfit that told US the players than balancing the J-10 was "too hard".

Oh, right... they can't fix it because they're incompetant, not because it's not a problem. Gotcha.

Try and kill a competent DPV on Jalalabad. Fact is you won't. They move too fast and any tank shell hits you get on them won't register unless they're coming head on at you (in which case they suck). As I said before a slow moving Vodnik and a sizeable advance warning of a head on Vodnik gives you plenty of opportunity to kill said Vodnik but it's still an exploit of a gameplay design flaw that DICE is unable to fix.

There you go again, using your psychic powers to determine that they want to fix it, but can't pull it off. And as for Jalalabad, that's a map where the tanks lose a lot of power in the city. I kill more tanks there per match with mines/AT than almost anywere else. Oh, and again, effectiveness != cheating.

Bottom line. A fast moving jeep rigged with C4 able to kill a tank 10 feet away is not rock paper scissors, it is a gameplay balance issue and nothing more. Consider this... why did they so heavily nerf C4 tossing? The answer is simple really. They nerfed it because C4 is meant to be extremely powerful and as a balancing factor have poor deployment speed or and low range. So you can't throw it now... balance in action.

In my post, I stated that if the issue was bad enough, they would fix it. However, they've made no attempts to fix C4-ramming. C4 chucking was not an exploit either, but merely an unbalanced gameplay factor they corrected. (It was not an exploit then, but to do it now, after DICE has made it illicit, would be exploitive. This is key.)

Jihading is far WORSE of an exploit than tossing C4 ever was as it makes your range unlimited and your deployment speed instant but the difference is DICE is too incompetent to code in the magical solution that'll fix jihading yet leave the legitimate uses of C4 unharmed.

Damn your psychic powers! Determining their intent and their capability with one flick of the keys! If they solved the "lesser" problem of C4 frisbees, why can't they solve the "obviously greater" problem of Jihad Jeeps?

Lets put it this way. The second the vehicle is moving the C4 usage is unintentional. I have seen Spec Ops place C4 on a stationary vehicle before and detonate when the enemy tank got to close to what appeared to be a harmless vehicle. That is perfectly fine. However the moment you hop in that jeep and get it up to speed you're in the process of exploiting and gameplay flaw (like it or not). The solution is simple actually when I look at it. With C4 in this game it should fall off of the vehicle if the vehicle is moving too fast.

Wow! You made a solution, too! That makes two of use in a thread to develope simple (you said it!) solutions to the problem. Surely DICE could pull off one of these if they wanted too. Oh, right, they're so inept that they can be outwitted by a couple of players on a forum. Maybe you should work for DICE.

Furthermore, what if they move the vehicle, park it in a better location, and wait for someone to get there before blowing it up?

The point is, your effectiveness argument is broken from the get go. There is no easy line, and it gets muddled in contrivances, such as the armor seige, the moving car, or any other "how much does this help" debates. The solution, then, is to look at it in the paradigm of the final hypothetical: code.

Jihading in its current form is much closer to example 2 but not quite as severe or intentional. Jihading is a bit of a special case and as such it is difficult to define where in the exploit ladder it currently stands. Example 2 is obvious intention to cheat whereas a potential jihad user may be unaware that this is a gameplay flaw as stated by DICE-

TO THE TOP OF THE POST!

-that they have not been able to fix yet. As I said in a previous example if you jumped and fired an AT rocket right at the right time you got 3 missiles to fire due to a bug instead of a single missile. That is a bug that you have exploited to give you an advantage. It's easy for everyone to do so it sort of "melds" in to the fold as an actual gameplay strategy but make no mistake about it, it is still an EXPLOIT.

You're looking at it all wrong. From the "advantage" and "effectiveness" perspective, everything is relative and debatable. What is an exploit at it's root? Is it unfair advantages? Then is skill an exploit? Or planning? Or is being in a tank an exploit?

You claim its a game flaw, that DICE can't fix it. DICE doesn't call it a flaw (they allow it to be restricted server side, at which point using it WOULD be cheating).

Your argument implodes without your backing from DICE. Exploits cannot be determined on merely advantages, for you see where that insanity leads. Exploits are deliberate violations of code to achieve results against the programming, not legitimate uses of tools. And DICE has left C4-ramming legitimate.

Check and mate.

[Batausu]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

Hey Mavlyn, it seems like you beat me to it.
Here's my shot:

You lose right here. It's an exploit as defined by DICE and unintended and unfixable gameplay design. But to be fair I'll disregard the fact that you're already wrong.

Cough…BS…Cough.

In fact two squads worth of people can lay waste to a flag without the tanks and simply sitting back and spamming grenade would've achieved a very similar effect. Of course tossing some grenades would've been the obvious solution to this supply crate problem.

What grenades?! The single one you proposed?! This is another example of what removing the grenades could do to the overall balance we have now.

If the armor does not advance then how did they get to their current location in the first place? Of course it advances you idiot. Unlike a Jihad using C4 in a legitimate fashion requires you to think. If the Spec Ops had thought ahead and trapped the road with a line of C4 the tanks would've even been unable to progress or killed by the trap.

How often have you tried such a tactic and succeeded, you idiot?! (I'll try to call you that every time you call someone else the same, just to show that you're not immune).
You think you're a BF2 guru?! Just play your lame tactics and stop questioning other's.
I remember you in a MIG raping the carrier on Oman, although USMC had 2 flags taken. This is 'a legitimate fashion' and a skilled way to play?!

Try and kill a competent DPV on Jalalabad. Fact is you won't. They move too fast and any tank shell hits you get on them won't register unless they're coming head on at you (in which case they suck).

I have done that plenty of times, in a tank or with an AT rocket and I consider myself an average player. Just this fact speaks a lot of your 'skill'.

Jihading is far WORSE of an exploit than tossing C4 ever was as it makes your range unlimited and your deployment speed instant

Stupid. You are clueless.
Throwing a C4 and detonating in quick succession, this was the exploit DICE has taken away. It was an exploit, since the opponent could not retaliate.
Tell me you're 'skill' is up to the task of killing in one shot a low armored vehicle. Am I mistaken?!

The solution is simple actually when I look at it. With C4 in this game it should fall off of the vehicle if the vehicle is moving too fast.

You are hilarious! So a moving tank could be even more protected from a SpecOps, trying to do his job of planting C4 in 'a legitimate fashion'.

if you jumped and fired an AT rocket right at the right time you got 3 missiles to fire due to a bug instead of a single missile. That is a bug that you have exploited to give you an advantage.

In more than 200h of playing AT kit, I have never seen this bug. But I had plenty of times the bug with the missing rocket. I always wondered where that rocket went? Now it's obvious: to players who had 3 missiles at a time! :laugh:

When BF2 becomes an ancient relic like so many other FPS before it they'll have taken nothing away from the game. When they land themselves in a SKILLED fps where they have to be GOOD to win *shocking!* they'll be getting their asses handed to them because instead of getting better like they should've done in BF2 they instead stagnated by using "Easy mode" exploits.

All you care for in this game is KDR and SPM. We care for fun.
I can't wait for EA to drop support for ranked servers. Luckily, 2142 is almost here, so you can take your 'skill' and go get your points there. Leave us to our 'skill' less and 'point' less game.
Good bye and beware of grenades!

[Desertfox]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

Holy **** Guys Seriouslly, Take A Chill Pill. Its A Joke Everything Has To Turn Into A Flame Doesnt It?

oh and commanders arty is down is unrealistic? LOL I do it all the time.

[Orphious2006]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

Great arguement on both sides! I love to read threads like this!! I would agree with PW if Jihad Jeeping was against the ROE. Its is left up to server owners to decide so for now it is not an exploit. Also I have yet to see link other than the ROE to show that Dice thinks its an exploit.

[EyeofG]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

Cake is the food of Jihaders!

[12:oc7ock]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

the same can be done with an APC or Transport Helo.

lol, I loaded up the nose of a my AH1Z once and took out a Havoc just to say I did it. That's probably the maddest I've made any BF2 players. Was pretty funny to me and my gunner though.

[Desertfox]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

yeah sometimes if theres no one else trying to get the chopper/plane etc I will put C4 on it. So if some noob rams me I get the kill

[Bubas]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

I don´t understand all the fuss.
It´s easy to destoy the Jhiad jeeps, 1 At and it´s history, just let the vehicle pass and shoot. The problem with the faulty hit boxes only hapens to me when they are moving in my direction.
There are plenty ways of destroying jhiad vehicles: GL, mounted machine guns, Tanks, APC´s, Planes, Grenades, Helos, etc...
I never played in a Tank in Jalalabad, but it´s so easy to destroy the little vehicles in the other maps that I don´t see why all the fuss. Change the dynamics of a game because of a map?
Planewhore, if you were as good in a tank as you say you are in a plane you wouldn´t complain abaut jhiad jeeping....get some skillz .

And ask all the tank whores if they prefer to fix the C4 problem (for me it´s not a problem) or the ubber killing machines with no real counter that are the planes.

[Jay-C_2142]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

Although some people are complaining this is turning into a flame fest, i have enjoyed reading this thread alot. Good arguments on both sides. Its good to see a debatable subject being pushed to the extremes. Right now i would side with mavlyn and batauso, both putting across good arguments (if but a bit of flaming from batauso). I await PW's reply with baited breath

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

Yup, PW is a blast to argue with, no matter what the subject may be.

[Bubas]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

Yup, PW is a blast to argue with, no matter what the subject may be.

It depends, if you argue with his point of view then he starts a flame war...PW seems to have the need to be allways right. Point a hole in his logic and he starts to be nasty.

On his behalf some of the best posts I read here were written by him.

In this thread I think his problem was that someone has jhiaded him a little to much.

[(4THIDUSA) SSG H.]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

argue points, but drop the name calling

hows this to even the planes out, remove the auto aim ESP bot they get, you know the one if you get in a vehicle or mounted postion, they get a box on the screen that tells them you are there on the other side of the map, even though they can be slightly outside of the max view area and "know" you are there, so much for "skill" huh?

[Consultant01]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

It's not for you to decide backseat admin. If the TBF2 forum admins don't like my posts they can ban me for them. And honestly, defending a player who just "decides to ruin someones day". How about you go defend some school yard bullies while you're at it?


It's not me who called it an exploit, it was DICE. It is a broken game mechanic that they do not have the programming abilites to fix so they created a ROE against it as a "bandaid". But make no mistake about it if DICE could press a magic button and make the jihading tactic go away they'd hit it in a heartbeat



You can use the same lame justification for anything. Aimbot for example. What you see as a cheat and an exploit I see as an effective and legitimate program to give me an edge against infantry. I mean they can download it too right?



Can't really compare it to a J-10 because no other alternatives exist to using the J-10 when a team needs aircraft. Plenty of alternative methods exist to killing a tank or APC and thus the jihad exploit is unnecessary.

Lets say for example if you jumped and fired a grenade launcher (or an AT rocket) you'd fire out three grenades (or 3 AT rockets) instead of one, DICE acknowledged it was an unintended bug but because of the nature of the game code absolutely no way exists for them to fix it. How do you think most servers would feel about people using that exploit? Same deal as Jihading only it would effect more people than just the handful of armor people that jihading effects. Jihading is an uintended and unwanted usage of C4 according to DICE that cannot be changed because it is not possible without breaking the legitimate uses of C4. So DICE figures best to let the armor people get raped by an unstoppable jihad of death then piss off all the Spec Ops people.

I don't like Jihaders trying to kill me and I especially dislike them when I'm with my squad trying to get transport so we can capture flag and some dumbarse jihader is loading up the only available jeep with C4 packs. All so he can go n00b some poor tank driver and cost our team a ticket and our only viable means of transport.

You may be the greatest piece of work in this entire forum, and that's saying something.

A few things:

1. Ruining his day: He spent the entire previous round in a tank killing our whole team so I tasked myself the following round with keeping his tank out of my team's way. The difference between the two rounds was that we won the second one because I was dedicated to keeping their tank out of action.

2. "Exploit" is another in a substantial list of words you like to throw around as some kind of moral judge of gaming absolutes. Remember, you called people who play 24/7 Karkand servers as Medics "Stat padders". Who are you to judge? Ahh, thats right... nobody of any significance.

3. The tank smoke-screen thread was hilarious and the fact that I made fun of myself throughout the entire thread after learning the truth and peoples comments on what a good sport I was for it says volumes about how I handle myself.

4. I have no need to defend my stats to somebody like you but I will comment that the following round I went 48-2 in the SAS Tank and my team won 176-0.

[jackal22]

Re: To All Jihad-Jeepers

it rocks so hard when you do it to all the j10 whores on wake though. me and my friend just steal a chinese jeep c4 it, drive round the airfield mowing down everything, some guy gets in a j10, bam dead.

thenunless i can make it to the jeep spawn at the airfield or jump off into the ocean in time its normally lights out.