Limit Flag Capture Ability to Infantry

[Grey Fox]

Paas EA won't do anything you suggest
1. because this would competly change the game, but is a simple thing to do, just add a couple of code to make vehicles not be able to capture dlags, so EA will leave it to the mod comunity.
2. It creates as much annoyances as it solves, some people are more annoyed by spawncamping thne the ability of vehicles to capture flags, so once again this simply change will be left to the mod comunity
3. BF2 is not a squad based game, it's game where you can make squads if that will serve to your advantage or if you like it more. Squads allready have an advantage over lonewolfs, so there is no problem with that.
4. APC argument is flawed, people inside an APC are just as vunerable inside as outside, just to different things.
5. People who disagree with you are not necesairly idiots, if you are that smart then respond to post of people who actually have good arguments against you, do not just pick out the trolls and then generalize that everyone who is against your idea is an idiot.

[ud!t]

I just really hate the idea of being that exposed while taking a flag. I really hope EA does not implement this, I mean the defenders get to use tanks while fighting for the flag so why shouldn't the attackers?

And don't give this crap about "you should come in with AT and backup etc." so what you still can't use tanks or vehicles at the crucial time, you're at a disadvantage. It would just make it too hard to take the flag. What are you meant to do about a sniper 100 metres away hidden in a bush? what about having no protection against artillery? what about that camping enemy tank which can hold the base and mow down the infantry?

I really don't think most of you have thought this through enough.

[glaeken]

A lot of people are missing the point here, like the person above, the point is that you should not be in anyway, using the tank to cap a flag, this would mean hopping out of it too. if you are in a tank you need to support your team, provide covering fire etc. And not be getting into a enclosed space, like a flag area.

I think the idea is brillant, i do think the tank should get bonus points. maybe the flags have a larger cap radius for tanks, they still dont get flag cap points, and they cant make the flag go down, but if they are in the same area of a flag, that is being capped by infantry then they could get assist points. Having the larger cap radius for them, means they can go about there job of providing covering fire.

same goes for helis, let them get an assist point, but they cant cap it from the air, there must be infantry at the flag to cap.

There is only one issue i see with all this, and that is if you have no flags left, and you are the only person left in a tank, you would have to get out and cap it. But you should be supporting your team more so this situation should never happen. And if your facing a team that manages this, you would be dead anyway.

Once again Brillant idea :)

I don't see me missing the point :p I see what you are saying but in my games of battle field it is often essential that one guy is able to cap a flag on their own. It’s not ideal and it would be great to see all this lovely team work and so enable the idea but ideals and the real world don't co-exist very often.
Games where you can not get team support are common.

[Paas]

I just really hate the idea of being that exposed while taking a flag. I really hope EA does not implement this, I mean the defenders get to use tanks while fighting for the flag so why shouldn't the attackers?

And don't give this crap about "you should come in with AT and backup etc." so what you still can't use tanks or vehicles at the crucial time, you're at a disadvantage. It would just make it too hard to take the flag. What are you meant to do about a sniper 100 metres away hidden in a bush? what about having no protection against artillery? what about that camping enemy tank which can hold the base and mow down the infantry?

I really don't think most of you have thought this through enough.

Um, you can bring a Tank along with you, as a support role, to help to capture the flag.

He just wouldn't contribute to the effort. He would be surpressing infantry and helping you against other armor. Also, if you had a Tank working with a small balanced squad in an Assault role; you wouldn't have any issues.

I think the issue here is people don't want to lose the ability to perform lonewolf actions. I mean; sure, defense defends with a tank. But! Who said you should be trying to cap a flag on foot by yourself? ...and furthermore, who said your entire FT should be Medics and Special Forces; which are weak at distance against tanks?

I thought it through plenty, as a matter of fact, it wouldn't really sting as much as ya' folks are thinking. It would just change the dynamics of the combat, wouldn't hurt the balance or any-such thing... you just would be FORCED to operate as squads, because Lone-Wolfs would be ineffective in all scenarios.

{WP}Paas

[glaeken]

I think the issue here is people don't want to lose the ability to perform lonewolf actions. I mean; sure, defense defends with a tank. But! Who said you should be trying to cap a flag on foot by yourself? ...and furthermore, who said your entire FT should be Medics and Special Forces; which are weak at distance against tanks?

{WP}Paas

I actually think the ability to perform lone wolf actions are important. We don't play on servers where everyone is team minded and often teams can be down to one spawn point and getting raped and one lone wolf getting out and capping a flag manages to turn things around.

It would be great to see all this team work and it is great when it does happen on a server from time to time but unfortunatly you can not rely on it and sometimes the lone wolf capping a flag is absolutly needed.

[Paas]

I actually think the ability to perform lone wolf actions are important. We don't play on servers where everyone is team minded and often teams can be down to one spawn point and getting raped and one lone wolf getting out and capping a flag manages to turn things around.

It would be great to see all this team work and it is great when it does happen on a server from time to time but unfortunatly you can not rely on it and sometimes the lone wolf capping a flag is absolutly needed.

I wouldn't agree and say it's "Needed", but, you're right. At times, it's the thing that changes the match...

But, just as people are personally trained to play individually, I think they could equally learn to work as a effective force. And thus' would RARELY arrive at such a situation.

I do understand your point though. Thanks for the input.

{WP}Paas

[bu11eTJuNkiE]

stupid idea, why not get some friends and play with them. Seriously get some.

[Paas]

stupid idea, why not get some friends and play with them. Seriously get some.

What's a stupid idea? You kinda' just posted a short line that doesn't explain or present your point well. Please rephrase if you don't mind.

{WP}Paas

[22CW Cainius]

no, this idea is for the lazy and stupid....


if you're too lazy to defend a flag vs a tank then what makes you think infantry are gonna be any easier?

if you're too stupid to defend a flag vs a chopper then what makes you think an infantry swarm from the air is gonna be any different?

this is NOT SOCOM/Metal Gear/Rainbow 6/Splinter Cell... it's Battlefield.... get used to vehicles....

[rombaft]

Paas, look at the poll, only 35% of the people who voted in the poll want to change the game, and there aren't even to many voters, so the rest don't even care what means that actualy only 5% of the people want to change the game.

Also you say take a tank or this or that with you for back up, yes offcourse, if we live in a perfect worl where teamwork is perfectly normal and easy then it maybe would work a bit, and I say a bit because the enemy needs only 1 person to defend his flag, but no, you need at least two people to capture it, so on maps where one team has to capture all the other flags you are screwed.

Your idea is just for another game man, you just didn't think it true, this is battlefield and let it be battlefield, play another game, you would feel better (I gues, it will probably be something else that will bother you then)

[Paas]

no, this idea is for the lazy and stupid....


if you're too lazy to defend a flag vs a tank then what makes you think infantry are gonna be any easier?

if you're too stupid to defend a flag vs a chopper then what makes you think an infantry swarm from the air is gonna be any different?

this is NOT SOCOM/Metal Gear/Rainbow 6/Splinter Cell... it's Battlefield.... get used to vehicles....

Actually the idea would promote a bit more teamplay, and actually put to use the Squad system already in the game.

I see you don't like it though, which is cool, thanks for your input anyways.

{WP}Paas

[Paas]

Paas, look at the poll, only 35% of the people who voted in the poll want to change the game, and there aren't even to many voters, so the rest don't even care what means that actualy only 5% of the people want to change the game.

Also you say take a tank or this or that with you for back up, yes offcourse, if we live in a perfect worl where teamwork is perfectly normal and easy then it maybe would work a bit, and I say a bit because the enemy needs only 1 person to defend his flag, but no, you need at least two people to capture it, so on maps where one team has to capture all the other flags you are screwed.

Your idea is just for another game man, you just didn't think it true, this is battlefield and let it be battlefield, play another game, you would feel better (I gues, it will probably be something else that will bother you then)

Argh! I grow tired of people like you, you act is if I DO NOT play the game as is! I mean, damn, I can't make a suggestion!?

All of the other anus's the have thrown out half hearted proposels that are barely understandable, you back them up. But! I put out a idea with some backing; a fucntion/goal, and some scenarios of implementaion and results and what do I get, " Personall Attacks/ Uninformed Responses "

This is NOT a complaint! It's a DAMN SUGGESTION! If EA didn't change BF2 from this 1.02 path with broken hit detection and all, I would still play and I would still enjoy myself.

But! I think it's well within' my rights to suggest somthing, as many have done before me. If you don't like the idea, say so, give a reason why you think it won't work, and leave it at this. I will continue to push this concept because I PERSONALLY (as well as a few others) feel it's a good idea.

Now, thank you for what limited input you have given', and sorry you don't share my vision. But, please, have some sense of dignity and quit riding my ass on a personal level for simply thinking outside of the box.

{WP}Paas

P.S. - ...and Forum Polls have about as mucn influence on game modifications as political polls have on politics. So, I would rather NOT look at the polls for any type of suggestions, nor' modifiy my perspective around a friggin' set of polls. Thank you.

[vbl]

I don't think the main poster's idea is the right solution. Here's a post from another thread (sigh) on the same issue:

My beef isn't explicitly with vehicles taking flags - it's with most flags not having good, indoor space for opposing infantry to hide. Consider reality for just a moment, not as a rule but as a theoretical model.

If there is a section of a town in dispute, yes, tanks could be brought in to establish some level of superiority. However, the area wouldn't be secure (or "under control") until all opposing infantry elements are ferreted out of hiding places - which is something that most vehicles cannot do (which is correct). So you need infantry to go into the smaller spaces (tunnels, bunkers, buildings) to take out the other elements.

Think of Iraq - the US has vehicles all over certain "hot" areas but those areas remain notably insecure because the remaining infantry elements are hidden.

I think a similar idea should have been put into play here, but retro-fitting maps to support this would never work. One of the other posters made a good, related point - the Blackhawk should not be able to take a flag where there is enemy infantry still contesting it. The whole "6 people trumps 5 people for the flag cap" idea ruins defense. If the BH had to kill every single opposing player within flag range, and the enemy infantry had decent places to hide, then I think we'd all be happier.

I always liked Planetside's take, which involved greater benefits for taking a base but also a more involved undertaking to lay siege to one. It resulted in battles that progressed from air to armor to infantry combat until a given base was taken - you could never take a base, or even a tower, with a tank. And Planetside is arguably as, or more, vehicle-centric when compared to BF2.

BF's flag points are too liquid for my taste and hold little significance beyond ticket bleed. Tactically, strategically, that's lame.

Maybe rules could be put into place wherein after taking a flag, at least 1-2 troops must remain behind to defend it. If a flag is taken and then vacant for x seconds/minutes, it slips into neutrality again and the cap points are not awarded. This would prevent a BH or Jeep from hopping across the map nabbing points. And it would bind that lone tank to stay or have its flag-cap lost.

We might also consider awarding defenders - when a player stays within a controlled flag range for x minutes they get x points for defense.

[DickY]

Maybe rules could be put into place wherein after taking a flag, at least 1-2 troops must remain behind to defend it. If a flag is taken and then vacant for x seconds/minutes, it slips into neutrality again and the cap points are not awarded. This would prevent a BH or Jeep from hopping across the map nabbing points. And it would bind that lone tank to stay or have its flag-cap lost.

We might also consider awarding defenders - when a player stays within a controlled flag range for x minutes they get x points for defense.

This is really a good suggestion. It would encourage more squad defence play, and not the mindless lone-wolf running to the enemy or neutral flags, just for the points ... Like in Karkand, mostly every MEC soldier is in the beginning of the round at the first cappoint, to rack up some kills, but where is the defence of the MEC base island??? Our squad has always defended the entrances to that island from those lone-wolfs, and nearly all of the times then, MEC won :p

Now, the suggestions of {WP}Paas are excellent. Vehicles are support and nothing else, infantry is the backbone, there is no question about that. How many times have you seen an armor being taken by some lone-wolf, kicking ass around a cappoint, but did he help the team? Most of the time after only a few minutes tank got wrecked. Did he have some support from infantry around him to cap the point and HOLD it? ... NO ...

BF2 was/is based around squads and teamwork, forcing infantry-only-caps would definitely increase this teamplay. I am all for it :)

BTW, {WP}Paas, just checked your score and may I say, you must be a kicking-ass squad leader dude What I would give to play a couple of hours in your squad

[TheSmisker]

YES!
Yes, this is the whole point (rombaft, read and listen up! This is how constructive criticism is done in my, and surely more people's opinion ) of this thread and others like it!
Brainstorming it is called, someone starts out with an idea and then it gets beaten around and examined and added to, downplayed etc. etc.

I LOVE what you wrote in here about Planetside (whatever that is), battles de-volving from air assets (jets to secure air-superiority and safeguard air-assault troops making vertical envelopment, TAC air support to help groundtroops move to their assault-points or to fend of incoming armour),
to armour making that fast, hard push into enemy territory, right down to infantrysquad-battle, dirty and gritty, nades and all! And truly, the infantry needs more pot-holes to hide and figth back from. Now, arty/fighterbombers make defending a no-option for most...

Imagine being commander if the game were to look like this!

Then rinse and repeat if on attacking side or fortify (mines/C4, snipers, AT-teams, QRF etc. etc.) with choppers and TAC-air support on standby to defeat counterattacs. This is how basically all modern wars are fought and the awesome thing is that Bf2 is in a position to reflect it!

Oh, the glory of the day when this is realized, will we ever see it happen?

I belive part of the problem is that the larger maps have soo many flags. There is no incentment to defend a taken asset because the enemy will hit another flag and most of the troops will run off to where the shooting is. Imagine for instance Gulf of Oman, 64-players with just 2 US-bases at the beachvillage + Carrier and 2 MEC-bases in the town + Airstrip. THAT would be awesome because you would have to be very determined and co-operate to actually gain a flag.

Sorry for rambling, got a little bit excited here. Good posts guys, keep it coming and EA, PLZ look into this and spin it around the team!!!

I don't think the main poster's idea is the right solution. Here's a post from another thread (sigh) on the same issue:

My beef isn't explicitly with vehicles taking flags - it's with most flags not having good, indoor space for opposing infantry to hide. Consider reality for just a moment, not as a rule but as a theoretical model.

If there is a section of a town in dispute, yes, tanks could be brought in to establish some level of superiority. However, the area wouldn't be secure (or "under control") until all opposing infantry elements are ferreted out of hiding places - which is something that most vehicles cannot do (which is correct). So you need infantry to go into the smaller spaces (tunnels, bunkers, buildings) to take out the other elements.

Think of Iraq - the US has vehicles all over certain "hot" areas but those areas remain notably insecure because the remaining infantry elements are hidden.

I think a similar idea should have been put into play here, but retro-fitting maps to support this would never work. One of the other posters made a good, related point - the Blackhawk should not be able to take a flag where there is enemy infantry still contesting it. The whole "6 people trumps 5 people for the flag cap" idea ruins defense. If the BH had to kill every single opposing player within flag range, and the enemy infantry had decent places to hide, then I think we'd all be happier.

I always liked Planetside's take, which involved greater benefits for taking a base but also a more involved undertaking to lay siege to one. It resulted in battles that progressed from air to armor to infantry combat until a given base was taken - you could never take a base, or even a tower, with a tank. And Planetside is arguably as, or more, vehicle-centric when compared to BF2.

BF's flag points are too liquid for my taste and hold little significance beyond ticket bleed. Tactically, strategically, that's lame.

Maybe rules could be put into place wherein after taking a flag, at least 1-2 troops must remain behind to defend it. If a flag is taken and then vacant for x seconds/minutes, it slips into neutrality again and the cap points are not awarded. This would prevent a BH or Jeep from hopping across the map nabbing points. And it would bind that lone tank to stay or have its flag-cap lost.

We might also consider awarding defenders - when a player stays within a controlled flag range for x minutes they get x points for defense.