A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

[motorboatJones]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

He may be a retard but his stats are impressive. I wish I had a K/D ration over 1. Mine is like .8 or something sad like that.

It has gone up a lot since I started playing commander more and using armor more.

p.s. the honey in my av is former net model tiffany teen.

[Jesse]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

Jesse, I truely hope I can be your commander sometime.


Your points are very true and your opinion on the subject is a lot more thought out than most.

Still, I dissagree because of one simple point:
Just because something is over the heads of the masses doesn't mean it should stop it from being a feature.

The times I've had good commanders (or a team that followed my commands well) have been so good that they offset the bad ones. Every round is like a chance of having a fantastic command/team synergy. Even tho it doesn't happen often, the chance of it happening keeps me interested.

And when it's not happening... well, Eff it! I get a chance to do some mindless killin.

As far as the features being "hack like"... well, they had to come up with some excuses to provide intel through a single player. In the real world, there's likely to be more people involved in C&C than in any particular battle.
There really is some amazing recon technologies being used these days, but it's harder to model having teams of people to deal with the information. What BF2 does isn't a bad fudge to make it compatable with being a game.

Hehe... I just wrote WAY more than I'd intended!

If I ever play much BF2. I'm currently waiting on the Desert Conflict release, and college is getting hectic, so not much BF2 in between being annoyed with it's shortcomings and having real life things to do. :p

I'm all for new features, and even them keeping the commander feature, as long as they think them out first, which I don't think was done with the commander feature in the way we see it. I see EA calling up DICE and going "Wow, let's give them a commander mode, and give the commander this this and this!" and it just sort of evolved from that without much more thought on the impacts of gameplay.

The UAV is just silly. It's invisible, it's all seeing, it's detrimental to gameplay in the sense that it's virutally invincible (due to magically appearing supply crates that fix the trailer...which is the only thing that can stop it is the destruction of said trailer). A real UAV is a good tool, but it's NOT invisible, and it CAN'T see anything and everything no matter what, just by flying around. I'm not trying to make this a realism arguement, there are plenty of those, but the commander can just click to that area, and BAM! Instant knowledge of the enemy in that area to all teammates, thus completely ruining the idea of stealth. (sorry, but the commander mode will ruin all this in the same way in Special Forces, there won't be the hyped stealth operations). Why not make the UAV a physical object, that when deployed, spawns on the location and flies in circles and disappears/self-destructs after it's time is up? Then at least there's a counter to it other than blowing up an instantly repaired trailer.

The scan...is also silly. One player as the ability to click one button, and find out where every enemy unit, regardless of where they are or what they're in. Another strike against any sort of sneak attacks. Attacking head on is basically the only option, as the enemy expects both that and anything else you do, since you CAN'T hide anymore due to said features. Snipers are also hurt, but I'm not worried about them. The critical thinking required to second guess your enemy is gone, because the game now lowers thinking your strategies through to nearly an insignificant value. Why try to plan something when they know where you are anyway?

Artillary...oh boy what a mess. Point and click, and you get a shower of death. It's just TOO easy for the commander to use this, not to mention as soon as flags gray, the shells leave the barrel for said location. This removed any remaining encouragement to defend a base as if you stay, you get artillaried. So people gray, cap, and get the heck out because they know artillary is coming, and with pinpoint accuracy in the form of about 15 shells or so. BF1942 artillary was so much better, and it also required teamwork among the spotter and the artillary user, to get it's job done. (even though the supposed hallmark of BF2 is teamwork...it's features drive it away from such, sadly)

Supply crates...oi. Why worry about some magic appearing crate? Just give us random med lockers and ammo crates back, not having to wait on some incompetent commander who wants to repair all of his arty guns to try and get some kills or something.

And added on top of all that is of course the added annoyance of people abusing the commander 2x point bonus, causing more stress from not doing their job or wasting vehicles by sitting in them while "commanding", or TK/kick-vote-spams because people didn't get the commander position. Another blow the community there as people are mature enough to deal with the fact one person per team can be commander. I have no problem with it as I never want to command anyway, but I do have a problem with the people who spam kick votes and the like and complain just because they don't get their 2x bonus for being that special person on the team. (I also never want to command as I take it as a given that I'm lucky to get just 1 squad that'll half-way listen to me. If I want to command, I'll fire up Empire Earth or something )

Take all this as you will, just my thoughts on the commander mode, as harsh as a lot of you might see them. :) As I said, I don't mind new features, but the lasting effects on the gameplay I don't think were considered for the commander feature, but rather it was to add the hype so the game sold more.

[cdbob]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

those commanders are so annoying

[cdbob]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

those commanders are so annoying the worst are the ones who either spam you with worbs or TK you on purpose just to annoy you
sorry I double posted accident

[WarGimp]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

Well Jesse, I won't argue the points to make simply because you're perty much spot on.

Except in one area:

I very much doubt that those command functions were just tossed in. I think they were carefully designed game mechanics before they ever became "features".

The main thing command functions have done is to make the gameflow much more dynamic.

The disruption to reliance on being seaky was on purpose. It makes for faster action. You can still be sneaky... it's just harder and you have to do it on the fly. It's very difficult to camp, the best defence is an active, mobile defence. [Personally, I like the challange]

The thing is, I like a fairly fast paced game that has brains behind it. That's a very rare mix. The other battlefield games where interesting, but never really compelled me much. At the time I had Tribes 2 to play with and it was totally unrealistic and fast paced, yet contained command elements and things like radar. It was hella fun! It was also much easier to get away with game mechanics because it was entierly fictional.

[Side Note: Dice has admited (unshamfully) that the Tribes games were a huge insperation to them while working on the BF games.]

Now what BF2 has done is to move into that style of gameplay, but kept the world looking like one around us. This draws in the military sim people (who generally aren't to impressed and complain non-stop on forums ) as well as the people who are looking for that magic blend of action and stratagy (like me).

I'm gonna go play now!

[HiljaneMies]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

He may be a retard but his stats are impressive. I wish I had a K/D ration over 1. Mine is like .8 or something sad like that.

There's nothing impressive about his stats. He's basically a vehicle whore that only plays Karkand. Furthermore he apparently likes to play anti-tank as he sits in his vehicle, making him unable to repair the vehicle, thus wasting its potential to some extent. His accuracy with infantry weapons is so pathetic that he's lucky if he kills you with a rifle.

I personally laugh at his stats.

[Moke]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

I got an idea.....

If youre commander, you cant enter the driver seat of any vehicle...

[WarGimp]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

I got an idea.....

If youre commander, you cant enter the driver seat of any vehicle...

Actually, I rather favor the idea of the comander being required to remain in a hardened command buncker. On maps where the US Essex is present, you could use it's bridge.

This would make for an aditional (and more interesting) tactical asset. Lose the bunker, lose the commander. It would even be interesting to make it vunerable to artillery fire... although very tough. It would give the the choise... use the artillery for the field, or to destroy the enemy commander.

I suppose there would be issues with how you get into the buncker... but hell, maybe you could get away with just teleporting.
*shrug*

[SufF3R]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

I hate how everybody complains that the commander isn't doing a good enough job. It might look easy in your eyes but the commander could be having a hard time because people won't listen to him. I think some people should learn how to stop being little whiney girls and deal with it, not everybodies good at everything and if you think you can do a better job, nobody gives a crap.

[« R²» HKS]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

I hate how everybody complains that the commander isn't doing a good enough job. It might look easy in your eyes but the commander could be having a hard time because people won't listen to him. I think some people should learn how to stop being little whiney girls and deal with it, not everybodies good at everything and if you think you can do a better job, nobody gives a crap.

To a certain extent you are right. I know that if someone doesn't get a crate the instant they ask for it then they may put up a mutiny vote. However in the situation I outlined, that commander was in an APC in the front lines and dropping crates next to himself. He even admits that he was going for expert command and obviously wanted to rack up some kills. Expert command, what a joke because all he was doing was looking after himself not his team.

As far as I'm concerned a commander fighting in the front lines doesn't help your team 1 little bit. A commander sitting in a vehicle is only wasting a team asset. There is no need for a commander to be in any vehicle, there are plenty of places to hide, they should be in the commander screen for the whole game and commanding their team. A commander flying a plane or heli is a complete joke!

If you want to fight in the front lines then don't command. The only time I believe a commander should be active is if its a 16 player server as they can help to speed up the caps but they should never drive a vehicle, or just sit there wasting a vehicle for their team.

I have had some really excellent commanders on our server, who will drop crates before I get the chance to ask for them, verbally tell you where you opponents are close by, extremely tactical, everything you would hope a commander to be then their are those other idiots who basically are just selfish.

[Jesse]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

Well Jesse, I won't argue the points to make simply because you're perty much spot on.

Except in one area:

I very much doubt that those command functions were just tossed in. I think they were carefully designed game mechanics before they ever became "features".

The main thing command functions have done is to make the gameflow much more dynamic.

I'll agree that it wasn't simply THROWN in the game. The main factor I do think they forgot to consider was the general public and how they would use these features. Although I still think the tools are overpowered no matter the application, they are good ideas in theory. But put something call responsibility in the hands of the general players you run into online...and well we all know what happens then. :p

The disruption to reliance on being seaky was on purpose. It makes for faster action. You can still be sneaky... it's just harder and you have to do it on the fly. It's very difficult to camp, the best defence is an active, mobile defence. [Personally, I like the challange]

If they were trying to destroy being sneaky, then I'm happy to say that's the first completely successful aspect of the game that made it from planning to final product. :p I would replace harder with "only possible to do between UAV/sat scans", as commanders have no problem artillarying someone in the middle of nowhere. (albeit fairly useless). I suppose the "faster action" was to appeal to the people with shorter attention spans and can't stand walking in maps like El Al, or being able to coordinate an attack from so many angles the maps like that also offered, as the maps in BF2, no matter city or otherwise, the CP's are still very close compared to most 1942 maps. I just think it removes the extra aspects of being able to coordinate more strategies instead of the constant full-on attack BF2 forces into 99% of situations.

The thing is, I like a fairly fast paced game that has brains behind it. That's a very rare mix. The other battlefield games where interesting, but never really compelled me much. At the time I had Tribes 2 to play with and it was totally unrealistic and fast paced, yet contained command elements and things like radar. It was hella fun! It was also much easier to get away with game mechanics because it was entierly fictional.

[Side Note: Dice has admited (unshamfully) that the Tribes games were a huge insperation to them while working on the BF games.]

Now what BF2 has done is to move into that style of gameplay, but kept the world looking like one around us. This draws in the military sim people (who generally aren't to impressed and complain non-stop on forums ) as well as the people who are looking for that magic blend of action and stratagy (like me).

I'm gonna go play now!

I've never played Tribes 2, but I've heard good things about it. The magic blend of action and strategy, personally from my own opinion, has been biased in BF2 from that of 1942 toward the action side. Again, I think that's more of the marketing aspect of EA trying to get the less-competent (they've admitted catering to new players and basically dumbing everything down, I'm sure we all accept that by now) people to play the game as well, so eh well. From marketing standpoints, they succeeded, but I still think it's hurting the community to where BF3, if there is one, is going to be a nightmare unless EA/DICE get their act together.

And btw, good discussion Wargimp, glad to see good reasoning used instead of flaming. :) +5 respect points for use of logic.

[WarGimp]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

I hate how everybody complains that the commander isn't doing a good enough job.

I donno...
I've had people sending me complements on my commanding, even during losing battles.
There's nothing quite so gratifying as someone coming on the command channel to say "Gimp! Great work on the command!".

[WarGimp]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

I'll agree that it wasn't simply THROWN in the game. The main factor I do think they forgot to consider was the general public and how they would use these features. Although I still think the tools are overpowered no matter the application, they are good ideas in theory. But put something call responsibility in the hands of the general players you run into online...and well we all know what happens then. :p

Agreed. Then again, I'm still of the oppinion that having a bad commander doesn't make the command position invalid. Rather, it makes me apresiate a good commander more... and strive to be a better one myself.
As for overpowered functions, well... both sides have the same functions, so it's not all that bad. Artillery isn't that hard to avoid, either. I'm constantly listening for that background whistel of incoming shells. When I hear it, it's time to find a roof to hide under!

If they were trying to destroy being sneaky, then I'm happy to say that's the first completely successful aspect of the game that made it from planning to final product. :p I would replace harder with "only possible to do between UAV/sat scans", as commanders have no problem artillarying someone in the middle of nowhere. (albeit fairly useless). I suppose the "faster action" was to appeal to the people with shorter attention spans and can't stand walking in maps like El Al, or being able to coordinate an attack from so many angles the maps like that also offered, as the maps in BF2, no matter city or otherwise, the CP's are still very close compared to most 1942 maps. I just think it removes the extra aspects of being able to coordinate more strategies instead of the constant full-on attack BF2 forces into 99% of situations.

Again, I donno. I've had a lot of success being sneaky even while UAVs and scans are being done by the enemy. Using non-standard routes, tricky cover, and quick movement has allowed me to pull off some very nasty sneak-caps.

Honestly, I do think that a better system could have been made. I've actually got a fully fleshed out and psudo coded one sitting in one of my concept folders. One very simple step they could have taken is to have a blinky "you are being detected by the enemy's UAV" light. It's a totally unrealistic concept, but it would work well as a game mechanic. At least that way you would know when it's time to just haul ass 'n get the farq outta the area!

I've never played Tribes 2, but I've heard good things about it. The magic
blend of action and strategy, personally from my own opinion, has been biased in BF2 from that of 1942 toward the action side. Again, I think that's more of the marketing aspect of EA trying to get the less-competent (they've admitted catering to new players and basically dumbing everything down, I'm sure we all accept that by now) people to play the game as well, so eh well. From marketing standpoints, they succeeded, but I still think it's hurting the community to where BF3, if there is one, is going to be a nightmare unless EA/DICE get their act together.

You should see the utter debochal that was the third game in the Tribes series. Tribes: Vengance was a push towards faster action at the expence of "depth". The command screen was removed, the maps were made smaller, and the general mechanics drasticly "streamlined" (iow, dumbed down). The interesting thing is that this is exactly what the fan base had been crying for. The game was designed with a large amount of feedback provided from the largest fan sites. In the end, it was a huge flop. Thus, I'm playing BF2 now.

Lesson learned: Gamers make exceptionally poor game designers.
Sub lesson: People simply don't know what they really want.

And btw, good discussion Wargimp, glad to see good reasoning used instead of flaming. :) +5 respect points for use of logic.

Likewise.
Good to see some folks are capable of seeing the other side of the argument regaurdless of their personal stance on it.

[CaptainPuffy]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

The earliest I play is usually 2-3 am because of my work and personal schedule. At that time, there are plently of squads, but do you know how many squad leaders and commanders I've come across that actually give out orders at that time? I dont need 2 hands to count them all. If you look at my stats, you'll notice that 80% of my time playing has been on a squad. Being a self admitted noob, I am finding this game increasingly frustrating. My average life span when I'm in a useless squad or as a lone wolf is 30-90 seconds. On the few times when I have a leader who gives out orders and who's squad members stick together, I can be alive for minutes. (which seems like forever)

It does make sense that FPS does not lend itself towards team work in most cases (not all). To have an effective team, you need competent commanders, squad leaders and squad members, its kinda like a house of cards, all it takes is one piece to fall out of place and it all comes falling down.

BF2 players can be grouped into 2 categories, those who want to use teamwork and those who do not. What the team work players need is one place where we all can meet and form squads before we enter a server. An IRC chanel would do the trick. Does anyone know if one already exists? I am personally dying to actually play this game the way it is meant to be played, but the time I am able to play does not make forming random squads easy. We team players all have a common problem, and we all need to work together to solve it.

[ConscriptVirus]

Re: A fix for stopping smacktard commanders.

just make mutiny votes like at 10 or 12 cuz ive seen some where it was like need 42 votes to get rid of the commander and there wenret even 42 ppl on our team