Suggestions for gameplay changes for EA

[DepthCharge]

So, about the Support class 'tweaks'.

Basically, the Support class with the tweaks I suggest would function as it does now, save for a few things.

1.) MG's would be less accurate when standing than they are currently.

2.) The MG's would be roughly as accurate when prone as they are now.

3.) If you press 'x' to deploy in the proper situation (when prone or having a support surface),
THEN you'd be restricted to a 45 degree angle of movement (Not view) in which you can aim
(like the aiming restrictions on a fixed gun emplacement). Maybe 90 degrees would be better
though... Anyways, if you want to look around or deploy facing a different direction, you
would simply undeploy and do so, either looking around or redeploying in the same direction.

4.) Maybe it would be good for the support class to keep their points for throwing
down ammo packs, though I was just thinking if it's a good idea to take the medic
packs away to prevent them from having too many class-specific ways of gaining
points, it would be the same for Support. Although, medics can heal, drop pads,
and revive. That's three. Support could supply, drop packs, and use their bigass machine
gun. Do you think it'd be fair to allow them to continue getting points for dropping packs?
It'd be a lot simplier then, as EA would simply have to make it so that medic didn't have to drop packs to have that aspect fixed.

[[LG]Cataclysm]

1.) MG's would be less accurate when standing than they are currently.

NO!

They also should get ammo points, that's their job.

[Jeffrey_Dahmer]

I was putting together a list of changes that I think might help the game overall, and I figured I'd like to have you guys take a look at it. Be blunt with your feedback :)

Will do.

Class tweaks
General Notes: When looking at how classes play, I've taken my experiences in the game and what I've heard about on the forums and compiled a list of suggested tweaks to each class that might improve how the game plays. Take them or leave them, they're simply a list of possible changes that might help the class, by no means am I suggesting that all of them be implimented, especially not at once. Keep in mind that some tweaks are to tone classes down, some are to tone the classes up. I am of the opinion that the medic could be toned down a little bit for the points it gets as a class, but only slightly. The other classes, then, should be toned UP so that there are many opportunities for a lot of points. This is simply because of the huge requirements for increasing in rank and gaining medals and such. So with that in mind, most suggestions tweak most of the classes 'up' for teamplay (not for combat), and attempt to balance them out so no one class is cut-and-dry better than the others in terms of combat effectiveness and ability to gain points. How many of these tweaks are implimented, if any, would be up to EA. Their job would be to determine if the assumptions which I base my suggestions on are correct, and select a proper course of action from there, be it implimenting my idea if it has merit, or rather, finding their own solution to the problem. For example, if stats do show that in fact, medics are advancing and racking up more points than other classes, perhaps some of the changes I suggest for the medic should be implimented. The key of course, is the find balance, to where all of the classes are played near equally. You wouldn't want to do all these changes at once, however, as you run the risk of overpowering or nerfing classes and losing players. The tweaks, by the very nature of tweaking, must be slight, and the effects of each tweak must be judged before moving on. EA would have to do such things such as check and see which class generally has the highest average score after a match, or the total amount of time the community has logged playing each class, or perhaps the ratio of fights won with one person crouching and the other running then diving prone.

Paragraphs, buddy. They're part of our language for a reason.

So, the assumptions I operate off of are...
1.) Medics have more chances to earn points, and as such, earn more points and advance unfairly fast when compared to other classes. Thusly, they are overplayed.
2.) Spec Ops is overplayed, due to their relatively good main weapons and their C4, which allows them to threaten nearly anything on the battlefield. No other class can make such a boast.
3.) Support, Engineer, and Sniper are underplayed (in the roles they are intended for, anyway).
4.) Anti-tank and Assault could use some tweaking, but seem ok overall.
...if you believe these are incorrect, please tell me, and I will reconsider my suggestions.

We'll cover this in detail below.

1.) Engineer - Currently, the engineer class is usually only played when making specific use of vehicles. They hesistate to use mines, as teammates will often run over them and punish them. Not only that, but due to the relative rarity of situations in which an engineer can gain a repair point, they are left somewhat out in the cold for 5 the purposes of class-specific teamplay points (when compared to medics and support classes). I'd like to see the person who manages the Second or Final level of engineering repair badge without exploiting in some manner or Blackhawk hopping for an hour. So, make it easier for the engineer to earn themselves repair points, fix the mine-tk problem, and maybe flesh out the engineer's ability to sense and disarm enemy explosives, if appropriate.
Suggestions:
a.) Get repair point for repairing 25%, not 50%. (anything...bridge, friendly vehicle, UAV, etc.). Also, they'd need to be able to see when friendly vehicles are damaged more than 25%.
b.) Friendlies running over mine = suicide? Is no more? No damage at all? How do you prevent stupid mine usage or tk mine usage?
c.) 'Engineer sense': As far as I can tell, when you're in game and you're near enemy explosives as an engineer, you usually get a warning. I'm not sure if this 'sense' is specific to the engineer class, but it should be. Furthermore, it could be tweaked into a real feature of the class. It could tell you the type of danger (Claymore, C4, or Mine)? The warning should tell you how close you are to the enemy explosive, either with a distance meter to the nearest explosive, or by blinking more rapidly as you approach it. Of course, it should NOT be indicated by an icon in the HUD like friendly explosives are. Make it so that given time, Engineers can find where an explosive is and disable it.
d.) Should be able to sense/disarm C4?
e.) Maximum limit for mines = 5? (If you run any more, you run the risk of n00bs mining off every entrace to a base)
f.) Engineers would be the only class capable of disabling enemy explosives, and they should get points for doing so (it's a risky job, and engineers are the only guys who can do it, so they should get points).

a. Make it 33% 25 may be too easy and 50 too hard.
b. You need to make a clear suggestion here. The only way to really make this effective is to turn friendly fire off with mines, set the mines not to explode with friendly contact, or punish the person driving for a suicide. You could make the rational for the non-explosive mines as "smart" mines with IFF on them.
c. If you don't know, you need to find out.
d. Might be pointless. By the time you sense the C4, you're often dead.
e. That's a valid base defense, shouldn't be done away with.
f. Risks making Engineers into the new Medics with double point gaining systems. Unless you make everyone a double gainer, which might not be a bad idea.

2.) Spec Ops - Many people play Spec Ops, but they usually seem to play it as more of an assault class rather than actually engaging in 'Spec Ops'. Only rarely have I seen bridges blown or C4 used to set up traps and destroy Commander assets. Usually, Spec Ops are the guys charging out of buildings blowing up tanks or going around suicide bombing. Spec Ops, more than many classes, is capable of taking on any threat and being good at nearly any role, hence its popularity. The class, in my opinion, should become geared more towards being sneaky and actually engaging in 'Special Operations'. Leave Flag Capping to the assault class. My main suggestion is a more inaccurate and/or less powerful gun (but silenced and with a flash suppressor). If you want to be sneaky at range, be a sniper. If you want to be sneaky up close, play Spec Ops.
Suggestions:
a.) Weaker Gun: Tone the primary gun down, and the other aspects of the kit become critical. Now this 'nerfing' of the primary gun of the Spec Ops can come in one of two ways. The first is that the weapons are made far less powerful, like the Anti-tank classes submachine gun is now. The other option is to make it far less accurate (which is my suggestion). Now, to start making the class sneaky, while you tone their main gun down in one fashion or another, make the rifle silenced and/or have a flash suppressor. Since most Spec Ops guns appear to be very small, they should allow for a lot of stamina, and by virtue of their small size and short barrel, they SHOULD be inaccurate. Make the gun only useful for up-close encounters. Perhaps instead, the rifle could be decently powerful up close, but damage drops off very rapidly as you get further downrange (that's how Submachine guns should be, in my opinion). Leave the stealthy long range stuff to snipers.
b.) Reward for destroying enemy command assets and 'enemy' bridges (what determines an 'enemy bridge'?). This seems to be planned for implimentation in the next patch, which is a good idea, I think. Perhaps only reward the first time they are destroyed, then, see g.).
c.) If the class remains overplayed after being tweaked down, perhaps change how C4 is deployed/works? Make it so that it only sticks to stationary targets? Or simply unmanned vehicles and fixed targets? You'd still be able to toss it onto vehicles, but it'd be more iffy if the target kept moving. If it simply didn't stick to enemy vehicles, then that's one of the problems right there.
d.) Camo
e.) Reward knife kills with additional class points (promotes people remaining silent and stealthy).
f.) Reward kills that prevent the enemy team from repairing their assets (IE: Make it so that a destroyed enemy UAV is something that a Spec Ops class will want to defend and make sure that the enemy team doesn't get it functional again). Gamewise, just make it so that a destroyed enemy asset is not like a Flag Area, and the Spec Ops class gains points for defending it just like he would for defending a flag.

a. Agreed. But the range should be more than the MP5, since it's still using 5.56, albeit with a lower velocity charge.
b. In the works apparently.
c. Will comment later.
d. Need to specify, or refer to point.
e. Will make them triple gainers. Also, since you're hung up on "Team" play, you need to stick points with mission objectives. Destroying enemy assets helps complete the mission. Knife kills do not.
f. Now quadruple gainers. You are giving them more points than they presently get.

You need to narrow down the points here, or this will become the new med class.

3.) Support - Relatively few people seem to play Support Class. While those that do seem to have developed a taste for the class, personally, I think there might be a few tweaks that might improve players chosing this class in support of their team.
a.) The support class should be able to 'Deploy' his machine gun using the bipod that's already represented on the model (while either prone or set up on a ledge, like sandbags or a window or whatever) for a tight spread, and the gun would be very inaccurate otherwise. Movement is restricted while deployed (front 45 degree arc from where you deploy, you'd have to redeploy to point someplace else). Anyone played Day of Defeat? Like their machine gunners. This should allow for sustained bursts of relatively accurate SUPPRESSING fire (accurate enough to make sure people respect it and are actually suppressed). Those who attempt to run through a constant stream of fire from a machine gun should die VERY quickly, unless sprinting VERY short distances perpendicular to the machine gunner from piece of cover to piece of cover. Short bursts of fire while deployed should allow for near rifle-like accuracy. Also, perhaps increase the RoF of the machine gun weapons (Mg42), and make sure you have tracers. In a straight up firefight, if someone's in front of a deployed machine gun, they should LOSE unless they're a sniper at range. It should take a moment to deploy and undeploy, to make grenades effective at rooting out Support guys.
b.) Should get no points for dropping ammo bags. Ensures that in order to gain teamplay points, a Support class must choose between actively teamplaying (running ammo), and setting up his weapon to get kills and defending. Shouldn't be able to do both.

a. Agreed. The lack of accuracy in support class is absurd. As a recent Gulf II veteran pointed out, at 400 meters, a gunner can get 5 out of 7 rounds into a man sized target.
b. Nerfing this sets up other classes to be overpowered. This and the medic packs should be changed to supply drop only, i.e. you can't drop a pack at all, the only other way to get ammo outside of standing next to a support guy, is to stand next to a crate. Kinda like real life. Either that or keep packs, but don't make an infinite amount. You can drop 2, then you have to go to a supply point (flag) or a supply drop to refill.

4.) Medic - Few changes needed here, as in my opinion, the class is pretty good. Many people, however, believe that those being a medic are so because they simply wish to gain a lot of points. So the solution I offer here is simple. Make it so that the points a medic gets are from actually taking the time to do a dedicated healing/revive action. Simply throwing down a health pack doesn't really seem like teamplay to me, nor does it make sense for a medic to simply toss down a pack and say 'heal yourself'. Make it a dedicated action to heal teammates, and still allow points for reviving (which can be a critical function of a medic and is dangerous), and I have no problems.
a.) Not able to drop healing packs.
b.) Should know which wounded are squad leaders/commander, and gets additional points for reviving them.

a. Considering that troops in the field carry first aid kits with them, this isn't unreasonable. See above for suggestions.
b. I'm not fond of this. Maybe a small percentage bonus at the end. You don't want people commander whoring for points. Although whoring for your commander usually will earn you points...

5.) Sniper - Many changes are offered here, because for the most part, the Sniper class, while certainly not useless, simply seems...off. It can be done better, and as such, the role of a sniper should become more defined and, well, sniper-like. So I'm going to throw out a lot of suggestions. I wouldn't dream that all of these should be implimented, because then you'd have elite snipers making the game completely unfun by capping you and your entire squad clear across the map, just like we have elite pilots now. No one person should be able to determine whether or not a team wins EXCEPT for the commander, and even then, only if he commands well and his men listen. The only combat tweaks I'm suggesting are more accuracy (but with scope sway and restrictions) and a little damage tweaking for the M95 and the semi-autos (see a.)).
a.) More damage for M95 (1-shot chest kill (if target is unarmored)) (M95 should have large muzzle flash and make a lot of distinctive noise). Also, not sure if this is already the case, but the semi-auto sniper rifles should be able to kill in one HEADshot.
b.) A sniper should only be able to scope in when stationary. The moment he moves he should scope out.
c.) Deviation of weapons should be changed. The American Bolt Action should be almost perfectly accurate if the sniper is prone and deployed. Basically, if a sniper can see a target, and the target is stationary, he should be able to reliably hit it in the head with the American Bolt Action, and in the chest with every other rifle (let's just say, for argument's sake, the American Bolt Action has an deviation of 1, and all the other rifles should have a deviation of 2). Depending on how far a sniper can zoom, at the most extreme zoom level, an American Bolt action should be able to reliably hit a target in the chest, while the other rifles would have like a 75% of hitting the target if you aim for center of mass.
d.) Allow snipers to deploy, like machine gunners, when prone or given a surface to deploy on, such as a sandbag or a window ledge. While deployed, you can't move and you can only move your point of view 45 degrees from the direction you set up. Deploying while standing would give you prone level accuracy (the good here is that a sniper can set up in a buildling with some cover), and deploying while prone would give you the best accuracy in the game (in terms of accuracy levels, it would probably halve current deviations). The 'x' key could be used to deploy, but only while unscoped and either a.) prone or b.) near a suitable support surface, such as a ledge or sandbags. Deploying and undeploying would take a moment.
e.) Higher levels of zoom (re-select sniper rifle to change zoom level, ala switching firing modes for other weapons). Sniper rifles would have very, very, very little accuracy when unscoped (the player shouldn't even get a crosshair).
f.) Put in Scope Sway (ala Day of Defeat's sniper rifles). Standing = most scope sway, crouching = less, prone = even less sway, deployed while prone = least.
g.) Accuracy for positions: Standing should be inaccurate, useful at short ranges only or for spotting, crouching should allow for more accurate shots but would still be inaccurate, useful perhaps to shoot someone across a small base or a few dozen yards from you. Prone would result in more accuracy, allowing you to say, hit a target across a sizeable river (like the one in Dragon Valley). Deployed and prone would give you the most accuracy, allowing you to hit anyone you can see (keep in mind that the sniper would be required to factor in travel time of the bullet, so don't worry, it'd still be hard to hit someone at that range). Note that all this is only if the rifle is scoped in. If unscoped, the sniper would be lucky to hit someone 5 yards in front of him.
h.) Gets kill assist or teamplay points for enemy vehicles spotted that are destroyed by teammates during 'spotted' duration (not infantry, because the sniper can just kill those)
i.) Sniper hits reduce stamina to zero (represents the dangers of snipers and their pinning ability)
j.) Gains additional points for killing enemy Squad Leaders (5 points) and Commanders (10 points) (would be able to know who the squad leaders and commanders are if he can see them). Reward careful, deliberate sniping (and patience), where he sets up, shoots, then moves to avoid detection.
k.) Sniper sense: Knows when he's been 'spotted' or UAV'ed (if visible to UAV) or both?
l.) Name doesn't show up when enemy aims at you? (Allows camo to be more effective, especially if you remain still). See notes below on camo in general.
m.) Fix Claymore Teamkills just like Engineer Mine TK's.

a. agreed
b. agreed
c. agreed
d. agreed
e. agreed
f. Unnecessary. Change the system to a spot/snipe scenario, more like BHD or Joint Ops(or real life...). The extra time you spend setting up a shot will offset the necessity of sway, and more experienced shooters will eventually not need a scope. Think of that as a player upgrade, rather than a kit...
g. agreed
h. Possible.
i. Only in the critical box, representing chest, throat, head. This represents a need for skill, and not just a great scope.
j. YES! Part of the job of snipers is to sow confusion and destroy morale. Killing high-value targets does just that. Not that many points though.
k. No. It's the danger of being a sniper, detection.
l. agreed
m. I don't see many claymores deployed, so not a problem.

6.) Anti-tank - The anti-tank class, while pretty good overall, could also use the opportunity to make some more points. Also, if any ground trooper should be set up to fight aircraft, I think the Anti-tank might be a good candidate, since there seems to be a general complaint out there that air defense weapons simply don't work all that well (a good pilot is neigh invulnerable in an aircraft, and chopper pilots can be an absolute terror). Point is, anti-air emplacements offer precious little protection from aircraft, and besides, the better pilots know exactly where the emplacements are and when someone is in them (and it's not hard at all to dodge missiles, even after you've dropped counter-measures) by the fact that the emplacements cease the appear grey and empty on the minimap.
a.) Stinger? (switch firing modes on anti-tank rocket to target aircraft?)
b.) Teamplay points for taking out vehicles in general? Additional assist points for helping to take out vehicles, to promote multiple anti-tank guys to work in unison to bring down enemies?. Perhaps 1 point for every hit against an enemy vehicle?

a. Either a stinger or make helos more vulnerable to AT rockets. IRL an RPG round will hurt a helo, badly.
b. Points for occupied vehicles destroyed, and points for assist. After all this IS the primary job of AT, so they should get a reward for it, as much as medic or other classes do.

More to come

J.

[coldmist]

Vehicle chat!!!

We have 'b' for squad chat and 'v' for commander chat.

We need a '/' (or some other key) for the people (of any squad) in a vehicle to chat together.

For example, if two people jump in a Helo, press '/' and the co-pilot can say "I see a tank over on the right". Even if two people are on the same squad and in a helo, that command, heard by the whole squad if a 'b' is used, causes chaos.

Please add a 'vehicle chat' option!!!!!

[Jeebus007]

Vehicle chat!!!

We have 'b' for squad chat and 'v' for commander chat.

We need a '/' (or some other key) for the people (of any squad) in a vehicle to chat together.

For example, if two people jump in a Helo, press '/' and the co-pilot can say "I see a tank over on the right". Even if two people are on the same squad and in a helo, that command, heard by the whole squad if a 'b' is used, causes chaos.

Please add a 'vehicle chat' option!!!!!

not a bad idea at all! :)

[DepthCharge]

Good points, all.

First of all, forgive my apparent lack of formatting. Lengthy posts like this one benefit from a little time spent putting it into the proper format. As is, apparently the forum was built around the assumption that someone would be operating at a much higher resolution than I am.

But that's neither here nor there.

Now, for the teamplay classes, namely, the Engineer, the Medic, and the Support.

As is, the Medic is overplayed. The medic has three class-specific ways of gaining teamplay points. The packs, standing around and healing with a radius, and reviving.

Support has two, standing around and giving ammo, and throwing down packs.

Engineer has one, simply repairing stuff.

So perhaps two methods of getting teamplay points for the 'teamplay classes' is best. In which case, the Medic would have revive and radius healing, the Support would be unchanged, and the Engineer would have repairing and possibly disabling enemy explosives (by the way, warnings for and disabling C4 can be useful against Spec Ops guys who throw down packs for defense and wander off to cap points and simply blow them when the point becomes neutral).

I think that most classes should have several methods of gaining points. Assault, Anti-tank, Spec Ops, and Sniper all gain most of their points from killing or helping teammates kill enemies and assaulting or defending points, and their kit allows them to do just that.

Medic, Engineer, and Support classes would gain some of their points that way, but some of their other points are going to come from the teamplay aspect. None of these classes are as optimized for general combat as those listed above. Support could get a lot of kills with their machine guns, but enemies would quickly learn where they were and root them out or simply go around, forcing the Support guy into a vulnerable period of redeployment. Engineer is no good at range, and the Medic is fairly middle of the road in combat (he'll still get nailed by most competent combat classes, especially if he's risking healing or reviving a teammate).

Anyways, I'll look this over...good points on the Spec Ops...I did get a little carried away it seems...

[powersmoker]

Somehow, I have to scroll from left to right to read posts in this thread.
Can someone fix that please?

[Jeffrey_Dahmer]

7.) Assault - The Assault Class, for the most part, seems to do pretty well as is. They could use more opportunities for teamplay points, however.
a.) Since assaulting points is most of what the Assault class does, they should probably gain additional points for assaulting and capturing a point (always get points as though capturing, rather than assisting?).
b.) Takes points faster than other classes (say, 50%?)

a. Yes.
b. Maybe. 50% is a bit much though. OTOH, it might encourage people to GET IN THE WAR!

Tweak Vehicles
a.) Attack choppers should only take one tank shot before going down (or being buried in the red)?
b.) Transport choppers should take 75%+ damage from a tank round?

a+b. Maybe. Helos should be more susceptible to explosives in general i.e. AT rounds. Maybe they should be more susceptible in certain areas, like around the rotor (the dome on top).

Change Team Damage/Punish system
a.) Change it. Fix what counts as a tk to actually represent tk's.
b.) Make friendly explosives warning symbols denote C4, Claymore, or Mine
c.) Make Claymore and Mine TK's count simply as suicides? How would you counter intentional tk'ers then?
d.) Forgive should fully remove all point loss.
e.) Fix physics and kill allocation so that tk's are really tk's (rather than someone tripping on their way out of a helicopter)?
f.) Tk should default to 'forgive'

a. A lot of it is subjective. What is REALLY a TK and how do you sort it out, automatically? If a guy is using a wireless joystick, it runs out of battery while he's in a helo, and the helo goes down, taking 5 people with him, how will the system tell that it wasn't intentional? How can you create a system that won't be exploited?

If you give the vote to players a large number will take a TK personally. Like my favorite, punishing TKs for artillery strikes when an idiot ran into the area. And ignored the "ARTILLERY YOUR AREA" on the commo. Yet it's the commander that gets punished for stupidity. I've never understood why people get personally offended over an accidental TK.

b. Doesn't matter. If it goes boom, stay away.
c. Still working on that
d. Best idea out of this lot.
e. Another good idea
f. Yes.

Change Team Balance system
a.) Switch Lone Wolves first, then entire squads (if possible), smallest squads before larger ones, Squad Members before leaders. This means that the lone wolves get switched first, then 1-man squads, then a member from a 2-man squad, then the squad leader from the same squad, so on and so forth.

No. There needs to be a clan recognition tag. People in the same clan get moved to the same side first. This would solve many problems for people on public servers

Game Mechanics
a.) Can't shoot while jumping (takes a moment to bring gun back up)
b.) Can't shoot while diving (takes a moment to bring gun back up after proning)
c.) Jumping takes 30% stamina? Not able to jump below 30% stamina level?
d.) 3-d warning for for incoming friendly arty
e.) More effective anti-air (against planes) (missiles should seek better/faster, or chance that flares won't work), and choppers that are slightly less tough. Also, take the ability to drop bombs away from airplane pilots. Let them have guns and missiles, that way they're effective against aircraft and at strafing positions. Let BOMBERS drop bombs, and leave that in the hands of the Bombadier. This will balance the aircraft just like other vehicles are balanced. As is, a skilled pilot can kill just about anything on the map. They may not be able to hit infantry spread out across the map, but I'll be damned if they won't bomb a position that's being taken and completely abort an offensive. If they want to attack ground vehicles, let them use a chopper or a bomber, but be vulnerable to fighter aircraft. Everything should be effective against some things, and vulnerable to others. Like the Spec Ops class, no other vehicle but a fighter-airplane can take on everything on the map (and the fighter can do it easily). Perhaps allow the Bomber to have flares, but deny them to the fighter, so they have to outrun and dodge the missiles.

a. agreed
b. agreed
c. If you fix a and b, c is unecessary
d. Maybe a giant voice that overwhelms everything.
d. Part of this should have gone under "Tweak Vehicles", but correct. Everything should be vulnerable to something. Aircraft could use to be more vulnerable to AA fire.

More to come, count on it.

J.

[WrAth2110]

WOW I THINK THIS ONE MAN IS THINKING MORE THAN ALL OF THE MEN AT EA PUT TOGETHER!

And i agree to most all of it.

[Jeebus007]

i say EA should hire him =D

[BiG_F0X]

Way to put so much time and effort into this analysis. I dont have that kind of patience lol. Good work.

[teadaze]

very good suggestions from everyone. I agree on the most and if even half of the suggestions would be implemented bf2 would rock so much more it's ridicolous!

hopefully EA (yea right) will actually consider all of these thoughts and have a field trip in the meating room!

[DepthCharge]

Now, my next question.

Anyone know where the official EA forum is, so I can submit this and get someone's attention?

[ZapStarfighter]

hopefully EA (yea right) will actually consider all of these thoughts and have a field trip in the meating room!

EA has a meeting room?

[Jeffrey_Dahmer]

g.) When you leave a squad, you cannot rejoin for 15 seconds (prevents
leaving and rejoining to change squad leader)? 30 seconds? This makes
keeping the squad leader alive very important.
h.) Extend Flag Defense Area to twice radius to capture flag? Flag Defense
assists? (reward defense more, because being stationary and suffering
through arty and bombing sucks). Perhaps for the entire area of a base?
i.) Pistols less accurate than just about any other weapon overall, decent
power, except against Body armor.
j.) Give different symbols for different threats, C4, Claymore, Mine, class-
specific warnings?
k.) Parachutes only for jumping out of helicopters/aircraft (not jumping off a
high ledge)

g. I don't think this is necessary
h. An interesting tweak, but that might entail changing the capture radius. If they can be separated, this might be fine. The whole base would be more realistic, and I think it would be better, especially for defensive players
i. Less accurate at range. Within 25 meters, it shouldn't be rocket science to hit something accurately.
j. As I said before, I really don't see a need to label each kind of explosive.
k. I'd just leave this, considering that parachute use is unrealistic as is.

l.) Commander not punished for poor use of arty? Punished less? Not at all if
he tk's lone wolves, can only be punished if he doesn't warn squads
(assuming 3-d arty icon tweak).
m.) More incentives to command (and command well) (fewer points
for 'active duty' commanders, as they should be commanding, not running
around capping points), Commanders only get teamplay points for defending,
not capturing points or kills.
n.) Longer 'spotted' time to reward taking the time to 'spot' something or
someone? 10-15 secs?
o.) Fix VOIP support (multiple times I've played on a VOIP server and not
been able to communicate via VOIP)
p.) Get additional points for destroying/killing spotted targets (spotter
wouldn't get any extra points if they kill what they spot). (Gives Planes,
Armor, Helicopters, Snipers, etc. incentive to help out their teammates in
distress).

l. Use the TK forgive=0 to mitigate much of this. If you do away with TK points for bad strikes, expect to see arty spamming everywhere. This may also apply to 50% penalty. If I kill 4 on my team, but take out 16 of theirs, it's worth it.

Lone wolves serve a useful function in the game, namely doing high risk/specialized tasks without risking large amounts of troops, and freeing squad slots for conventional tasks. Penalties should apply to killing them.

m. I often think that commander should be an "eye in the sky". He works from the satellite/UAV, and doesn't have a presence on the battlefield, physically.

Of course, given how useless squads are, he often has to hold positions on his own. So it's tough to say. I'd say give the defense points, but not assault. No commander needs to fly a jet.

n. In 10-15 secs it's gone. Just leave as is.
o. It may be the server being played on that's the problem, less so than the VOIP not being right. If it is a coding problem, fix it.
p. Clueful people understand that if you spot something, and they have the means, they should go after it. Clueless do not. Will adding points help more people get to l33t street? I don't think so.

Plus, many times people are engaged in a mission of their own, and by the time they can reach you, you're already dead. Or they are. I don't know how well this would translate in actual gameplay.

q.) Capping goes half as fast in vehicles? (1/2 in ground vehicles, 1/4 in
aircraft/helicopters?)
r.) Capping a point takes 50% longer? (discourages lone wolves assaulting,
encourages lone wolf play focused on something other than points capping as
well as squad functioning and teamplay). Encourages people to squad up
(this leaves Lone wolves to do lone wolf stuff, IE: Snipers, Pilots, Spec Ops
Infiltrators, etc.).
s.) Medals, Badges, and Ribbons should use TOTAL stats, not 'x in one round'
values. Otherwise, badges such as the knife or pistol badge, which require a
score of 'x in one round', are detrimental to a team. Rather than do awards
by a person's performance in a round, do it by their performance overall, or
over time as a rate (perhaps get an award for reaching a RATE of 3 teamplay
points, or Commander points, or Squad Leader points, or Squad Member
points a minute, or kill assists, or vehicle points, something like that), or a
percentage. Increase the incentive for teamplay, not individual glory, with
awards. Make it so that going for any award and playing as best you can for
your team are not mutually exclusive. This also prevents people from
choosing a server based upon round time and how long they have to try to
get a medal.
t.) Take a look at the records of each top player. If they have exploited,
bust them down to private or ban their CD-key. If they've been warned
before, ban their CD-key.
u.) When voting, the amount of votes required to get something done, such
as a map change or kicking a player, should not take into account those who
abstain from voting to determine the required number of votes. Say, if 66%
or 75% of those who voted vote for something, then the vote would be
successful (probably 75%).

q. 10% maybe. Large numbers of people around the flag should still take precedence.
r. Bad idea. Many times it's the lone wolves who get out of a jam or base camp to head back and cap a flag, starting the counterattack. Penalizing them will ensure that base camping or a bad round will stay that way.
s. Instead, add more team specific badges, or reduce the requirements on teamplay awards. Just because someone is having a good round is no reason to penalize them.
t. No. This is DICEs' fault for not QAing and balancing the game fully. The players are just doing what DICE allowed them to do. Surely they could have patched it by now.
u. The only thing between legit players and the trolls voting innocent players off for no reason is the voting system. Change it, and it'll be minutes before it becomes more annoying then TK.

v.) Spec Ops and Snipers should be able to disable THEIR explosives and pick
them up, probably using their knife like an engineer would his wrench.
w.) Reward for defending command assets and bridges from Spec Ops.
x.) Camo, while also helping you visually blend in, should prevent your name
from showing up when an enemy aims at you (when you're on foot) (applies
to sniper and possibly spec ops).
y.) ENTIRE TEAM SHOULD BENEFIT FROM WINNING, not just commander! 25%
extra points for being a squad leader/member on the winning team, x2 for
being commander, and NO BONUS for lone wolves (let them form a one man
squad if they want to wander around on their own, at least the commander
can communicate with them then).

v. Yes.
w. Might be interesting. Certainly would make people more likely to hang around the rear.
x. Sure.
y. Lone Wolves are part of the team, and if they contribute, they should be rewarded points, like everyone else. If you help win the round, you get the bonus, no part is unimportant.

[QUOTE=DepthCharge]
z.) Teamplay needs to be emphasized more. Commander should get teamplay
points for each order he gives to a squad that they complete. The squad
leader should get teamplay points for each order he gets from the
commander that he and his squad complete. The squad members should get
teamplay points for each order he gets from his squad leader (and by
extension, the commander) that he completes. When giving orders, the
orders are considered 'completed' if even a single member of a squad
completes them. Only the members that actually follow the order get the
additional points (and the commander gains the additional points for having
his order followed). No additional points for 'move' orders. There should be a
way to set up waypoints and a set of commands for squads. Squad Leaders
get teamplay points for following orders (not 'move' orders) from commander,
and squad members get teamplay points for following orders from squad
leader (and by extension, the commander).

Orders that the Commander/Squad Leader/Squad member would get points
for would be 'attack' (capture a point), 'defend' (defend a point), 'destroy'.
Squad Leader would get a point for forwarding a request from a squad
member onto the commander. Commander gets points for honoring requests
from squad leaders.

This would be nearly impossible to implement fairly. What criteria do you use to determine that someone was contributing? How do you keep it from being a personality problem if it's player driven? How do you account for variables if it's systemic?

If you would like to give us a concrete example of a working system that is fair, I'd be interested in hearing it. For everything I can think of, there are ways to make it unfair.


The rest of this requires a player upgrade, not a game upgrade. If a commander doesn't realize that he needs to keep assets gained, he deserves to lose. If a commander issues outlandish orders, he deserves to not have them followed.

If a squad leader orders his team to defend an asset, and he goes driving off with armor to whore, he deserves to lose, as does a squad leader who does nothing.

Squad members who don't cover each other and support each other also deserve to lose. It sucks for the players who are trying to do the job, but so much of "teamwork" play requires good play up and down the chain of command. Any weak link, and things suddenly get bad.

No point system is going to change that.

J.