Commander mode should have never been developed.

[ptegan]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

Wow! An actual discussion on TotalBF2 that hasn't decended into the flames yet! :p

Personally I think that a lot of the problems that you describe are all down to a lack of comms (you only mention the word VoIP once in the first post).

Isn't it possible that you were defending a base that was in no danger of being attacked by the enemy and the commander, having done a scan, decided that you would be better off attacking a abse where he saw few if not no defenders?

Would you have asked your squad to pack up and move out if this was the acse *and* the commander, via VoIP had explained why he was asking you to do what he was doing?

Playing on unranked servers has given me a new vision of the commander role where it's normal to speak to all the squads at the same time explain the overall gameplan and then to make sure that each SL has an idea of how the game is going. It also gives SL's more power to make decisions for themeslves absed on this knowledge that only the commander can supply.

[SilverHawk]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

UAVs don't exist? What are you smoking? Have you ever heard of Predator Drones and Global Hawk Drones? They full-fill this exact function, except over a much LARGER area! If Commanders had a Global Hawk useable, the entire Karkand map would be revealed to him and the team, it can also laze targets for strike fighters and can also launch AGM-114 Hellfires/AGM-64 Mavericks to take out Tanks or bunkers/buildings. Be glad the Commander doesn't have something like that at his disposal.

Not to mention that your whining about Artillery, be GLAD that's it's just standard ground burst shells, instead of Bomblets Dispenser or Mine Dispenser, or a Tactical Nuclear Shell.

Though, if there's one ability I wish the Commander had, was the ability to call in off-screen Fighters or SAM Sites to take out enemy Air Power, that would rock.

[Donkey]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

Though, if there's one ability I wish the Commander had, was the ability to call in off-screen Fighters or SAM Sites to take out enemy Air Power, that would rock.

This is one thing that could solve 2 problems... That is stop people from complaining about air power being to overpowered and the commander being useless....

Both of which I find to be not true however I could live with such a solution....This thing would have to take a decent amount of time to re-charge but would be able to take out ONE plane no matter what.....something like that...The more I think about this the more I like this idea....

[Jesse]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

UAVs don't exist? What are you smoking? Have you ever heard of Predator Drones and Global Hawk Drones? They full-fill this exact function, except over a much LARGER area! If Commanders had a Global Hawk useable, the entire Karkand map would be revealed to him and the team, it can also laze targets for strike fighters and can also launch AGM-114 Hellfires/AGM-64 Mavericks to take out Tanks or bunkers/buildings. Be glad the Commander doesn't have something like that at his disposal.

Of course UAVs exist. What DOESN'T exist are invisible ones that don't even require anyone to operate them. Furthermore, they don't have this super ability of spotting anything that is an enemy unit, regardless of class, vehicle, etc. and it gives you a direction of that unit to boot. This is simply way out of context, for such a unit to automatically be able to classify units, on it's own, as an enemy or not, including infantry, and tell us exactly where ALL of these are instantly. It takes someone to take the data from a UAV in the real world to interpret the data they relay back to troops and decide what it means.

Not to mention that your whining about Artillery, be GLAD that's it's just standard ground burst shells, instead of Bomblets Dispenser or Mine Dispenser, or a Tactical Nuclear Shell.

Yes, let's add the B61 tacital thermonuclear bomb to the already overpowered arsenal of the commander. The problem with the arty is that it's ease of use, the commander doesn't have to aim or anything, all they have to do is point and click. Yes, real physics equations ARE used (go look up threads on the editor forum if you're so inclined to find the EA spokesperson say it) to aim the artillary, and yes this is an application in the real world. However, it is NOT helpful to gameplay, and removes both desirable features from the game as well as the requirement of skill and teamwork to use artillary, unlike the artillary we used to have in 1942, which was fine.

[SilverHawk]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

Of course the Commander doesn't do any of that, because Drones are piloted by peeps back safe and sound in the States. Forces are classified and flagged by GPS Marker for ground forces to use and find their target, you can even mark them with a direction marker to help the ground forces guess where they are going to be if the target is moving. So DICE isn't so far off the mark as so much making the info the Drone gives Real-Time instead of by the minute.

As for the removal of Self Propelled Artillery, you can thank the peeps that used it as a Tank instead of in its proper role. Last thing the CQB maps need in BF2 is an Howizter Whore.

[killer00]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

nice read.

[Wynterheart]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

I originally wrote this a few weeks ago but thought better about posting it. Then I read this thread and figured it might be worth a discussion. Read on.

It occurred to me while playing tonight - my first night in almost a month - that the commander position is pretty ridiculous. Aside from vending supply crates, I don't think the commander brings much to the fun, immersion, or teamwork aspects of the game. Here are a few notes:

1) Commanders can't be effective at giving orders. Why? They have no idea what people are good at, and they mostly ignore the squad-specific situations and statuses.

I spent much of tonight, as usual, defending. Of course, my commander kept ordering me to attack flags, despite the fact that other players were already doing it (on their own initiative) and I was busy holding a position. The commander didn't know - couldn't know - that I am good at defending and had been doing so for most of the game. No one person is going to bother assessing the movements and skill of one player, or even a few players. It's just not relevant enough for the commander to bother looking into, especially for a 20 minute game.

He also didn't know when I was tied up with a firefight, or that the lack of vehicles around me made it a pointless venture to try and travel halfway across the map.

How can a commander who has no clue about the strengths of, and the circumstances surrounding, his troops, command? He can't. It's not his fault - it's just a stupid job.

1.5) Commanders also can't be effective at giving orders because the game's reward system focuses on personal excellence, not team excellence (or even squad excellence). There is very little incentive for players to follow commander orders, especially if those orders lead players to areas where there is less potential for points. Thusly, players aren't very likely to listen - unless they're of the rare breed that considers a team win more important than an admirable personal score.

2) The game would be better off without the UAV. You can thank the UAV and the Sat Scan for the total lack of stealth in this game. What good is being sneaky if you're visible to everyone on the other team with so much as a right-click-left-click from the enemy commander?

3) Artillery. Ugh. There's nothing fun about it. It's just annoying enough to frustrate me every once in a while, but just random and slow enough to not make much of a difference overall.

-----------

There are good commanders who make the very best of the position - my hat goes off to them. But honestly, I would've rather seen the DICE developers spend more time beefing up other aspects of the game instead of working to code in the commander, which I feel is pretty shallow.

So what might've made more sense? Richer squad-level functionality.

Squads are more manageable - many are made up of friends, clanmates, etc. so there's a far more cohesive understanding of who does what. Squad leaders are more likely to know the strengths and kit makeup of the squad, and he can also request that squad members fill certain roles - something the commander never does. Plus, you can control the membership of your squad (weeding out non-team players) with a simple kick, whereas commanders can't remove non-complying squads or squad leaders.

Squad leaders can recognize opportunities and threats as well as any commander, and it's far more efficient for the squad leader to tackle objectives because he has the context to know when and how to move his men.

Squad leaders would have to coordinate, but that's not too hard to handle. The minimap displays the SLs in big numbers, so it takes a half second to see that squad 1 is handling a flag assault.

But what about supply crates you say? Give each squad leader the ability to request supplies, with a longer timer. Or just ditch the magical supply crates altogether and make the players themselves participate in hands-on repairs, resupply, etc.

As far as additional squad-level functionality, here are a few ideas. I am sure that there are more, and I'm also sure that these are my 5-minute concepts and aren't necessarily balanced without some tweaking.

1) Benefits for squads that stick together - longer sprint, better accuracy, faster healing, more shared points, radial abilities for medics and support (like in a vehicle), a mini-radar that surrounds the squad (to account for the collective awareness when all members are near each other), and a variety of formations are just a few ideas.

2) Better intra-squad communication, especially between SLs and from SLs to squad. Additional radio messages, and the ability to VoIP to different audiences independently. SL to SL, SL to SM, etc.

Just my thoughts on Commander. I have about 1,000 points in that role, and I never intend to raise it.

These days it's hard to find someone who wants to command anyway, so the spirit of this post shouldn't be too far afield.

Check your flames at the door.

i agree 100%. nothing i hate more than that goddamn artillery coming down every 30 seconds on maps like karkand. commander mode should be removed immediately.

[Super Six Three]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

many players become commanders just because of the artillery

Commander
|
Squad Leader
|
Squad Member

[Jesse]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

Of course the Commander doesn't do any of that, because Drones are piloted by peeps back safe and sound in the States. Forces are classified and flagged by GPS Marker for ground forces to use and find their target, you can even mark them with a direction marker to help the ground forces guess where they are going to be if the target is moving. So DICE isn't so far off the mark as so much making the info the Drone gives Real-Time instead of by the minute.

I never said the commander did any of that. Infact, the commander doesn't have to do ANYTHING, and that's part of the problem. They point and click, and there's a magic circle on your minimap showing anyone within a radius of it. It doesn't even move (Predators don't hover, at least not yet :p ) and it can even spot someone directly below it in a building, no line of sight to them what so ever. Furthermore, no one has to pilot it, and it's invisible. If someone saw a UAV that was spotting them, I'm sure they wouldn't ignore it and would shoot it, but we don't even have THAT option in BF2. It's just like giving your team a radar hack from BF1942 and detracts from gameplay. If the thing had to be flown by a teammate (not really the commander, just someone willing to do it) and it could be shot down, I'd be happy with that, as it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is to gameplay now.

As for the removal of Self Propelled Artillery, you can thank the peeps that used it as a Tank instead of in its proper role. Last thing the CQB maps need in BF2 is an Howizter Whore.

The last thing ANY map needs is point and click arty, but it's there. The maps aren't that great, but I don't think EA/DICE would put a howitzer in an urban map if it were reverted to the superior player-controled version instead of the point and click arty. And even if a howitzer were added, it would be either extremely difficult with the vehicle scooting from every shot when trying to get a parabolic trajectory, or would be impossible to hit most areas when firing at a more direct angle due to buildings. Much less overpowered, much more teamwork required that way, so it would be an extreme improvement over what we have now. (not to mention you could hit the thing with a couple AT rounds and it's done for, unlike having to walk over in the middle of scans and UAVs, plus the enemy, to disable the arty we have now. Which is just suicide and wasting your team's time as the arty is instantly repaired by magic falling crates from the sky)

[artnez.com]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

Hm, great discussion. I've been playing BF games since the Wake demo of BF1942, so I can add some input here :)

To the people who don't like commander mode:

You have to understand that BF2 is a game geared towards the average gamer. Most of the people that support the Commander mode are people that came from other games -- so they don't have any idea what gameplay was like in '42, DC, or BFV.

A constant problem in BF1942, DC and BFV was that the game relied on the maps to force people into choke points for a good fight to break out. This was particularly evident on the city maps.

And because the average gamer (as Wargimp described what his friend said), focus more on the fun factor of the game and, more often than not, really don't want to put much thought into a game. Many people play games casualy to clear their head and dont want to sit and "strategize" every little situation.

So the problem isn't with the Commander mode itself. The problem lies in the fact that DICE & EA (or just EA) made the decision to turn the Battlefield series into a "mainstream" franchise. They want players to jump in and go after the enemy.

To the people that who do like commander mode:

When I play on the BF2 servers, I never get anything below 5th place. This isn't because I'm good, it's becuase I got used to the BF1942 style of play. I try to anticipate my enemy's movements.

For example:

- I snipe/shoot a guy when trying to flank a flag.
- I realize that I'm too far away from the flag to make a run for it... and "feel" out the time it will take for him to spawn. I come to the conclusion that he will come after me again and, if I run for the flag, he'll pick me off as I cross a road.
- Since I memorized all of the spawn locations of that particular flag, I can ancticipate which angle he will come from, provided that he goes straight for me without trying to flank me. I come to that conclusion because:
a) If he's just a casual player, he wont mind simply running at me and going all out.
b) if he's a serious player, he'll be afraid of flanking me because I get to the flag too fast.

I then pick a spot and wait for the player to show up, and sure enough, he does and I kill him.

Good players in BF1942 and DC always thought this way. They anticipated an enemy movement in split seconds and setup defenses because there was no UAV, there was no SCAN and spotting enemies was much harder.

Another example:

- Our team is converging on the last enemy flag. I realize that I'm too far away to make any difference to the flag cap.. and based on how things are going, we will take this flag with no problem.
- Since I'm too far & i'm predicting the flag will be ours, I instead run/drive to our flag on the opposite end of the map, stopping by every flag on my way to make sure no one snuck through.

Sure enough, 80% of the time, someone sneaks through and I end up trailing & killing them becasue they don't expect it.

--------

What I just laid out me seem obvious to many of you, but how often do you think that way? Chances are, if you rely on commander mode and dont really care much about "strategizing" things as you play, you probably dont think that way at all.

Yes, at times I am wrong and get outsmarted or just pick the wrong tactic. Most of the time, though, I am correct because the average gamer is very predictable.

---------

So what's the point of my banter?

I'm just trying to say that the game of BF2 is not geared towards the strategy gamers. The developers did everything they could to make the game as easy as possible and action to happen as much as possible (this explains why more points are earned per round than in any DC/BF1942/BFV game).

The commander is vital to this, but it really gets in the way of a good firefight. You can retain a long infantry firefight with 2 large forces because artillery is sure to raindown fast, and UAV will easily expose weak flanks for people to go around.

To me, that sucks. That's why I play RealityMod mini-mod. It removes the ability for the commander to do a scan or a UAV. The action is just as heavy, but much more tactical in nature.

It also includes the AAS mode (which is basically a Push mode, where you need to take each flag in order... so no flag hopping).

I still have no idea why BF2 devs did not make this mode, probably because they didn't have the time.

If you play a city map in the ProjectReality mini-mod, with AAS mode on, on a server with more than 25 people, the action is amazing. We've had firefights that lasted for a good 10 minutes straight, withiout anyone gaining any ground. Medics would heal, support would refill ammo and snipers would cover. Specops would try to get around, but didnt make it every time and got slaughtered.

So that's why I'm disappointed with the gameplay in BF2. It's made towards a larger group of the gamer population, so it has to be made easier and more enjoyable for the casual gamer (less thinking, more shooting).

I'm waiting for Forgotten Hope 2 to bring back the amazing gameplay of FH in BF1942 and all of you newcommers to Battlefield games will see how classic battlefield was played and you will forget all about commander mode, UAVs, GP-30s, 203s, tank whores, chopper whores, spawn campers, flag hoppers, bunny hoppers, dolphin divers, prone jumpers and all that other crap people are complaining about.

And finally, a bit off topic opinion...

I think most of the complaints (whoring, etc) are valid. We never had these complaints '42, DC, or BFV, because the gameplay prevented it and the player base understood what the BF games were all about.

Nowadays, all of the complaints come in because there are just too many things that are nothing short of annoying in this game.

I dont see why anyone would like the artillery mode. Picture a great battle going on for a flag. The defense is entrenched and keeps spawning in, while the offense has a couple great squad leaders tucked and spawning people on them. The battle is tough and moves up very slowly. Then, suddenly, artillery drops and wipes out both teams... now nearly everyone gets split up again because they choose to spawn in different areas of the map and the exciting action is gone.

BF2 pretends to adhear to teamplay, but all it does is give people the ability to command, with no rewards (which is why you never see a good squad leader in first place, or a losing commander in first place... even if he was commanding great, but his team couldn't shoot/move/work worth a damn).

[Jesse]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

Very good points indeed artnez. Agree with most if it.

I'm just trying to say that the game of BF2 is not geared towards the strategy gamers. The developers did everything they could to make the game as easy as possible and action to happen as much as possible (this explains why more points are earned per round than in any DC/BF1942/BFV game).

Also, you have the new teamwork points, as well as TWO points per kill adding toward your points per round, so the action really existed in BF2. BF2 just creates the illusion by giving you more points. A cleverly disguised fallacy, I say. :p

The commander is vital to this, but it really gets in the way of a good firefight. You can retain a long infantry firefight with 2 large forces because artillery is sure to raindown fast, and UAV will easily expose weak flanks for people to go around.

The commander isn't really vital except to people who simply can't think in a Battlefield since as far as I'm concerned. I agree it gets in the way, which I think is all it does. And in the way, I mean in gameplay in general, not my personal agendas.

So that's why I'm disappointed with the gameplay in BF2. It's made towards a larger group of the gamer population, so it has to be made easier and more enjoyable for the casual gamer (less thinking, more shooting).

Agreed. However, I don't see how any gamer could be happy with something that dumbs the gameplay down so much. What happened to games slowly getting more difficult over time to produce a challenge, and the fact that gamers would actually overcome all of that? It also added depth to the game. I do believe there's a perfect balance somewhere between making a game for idiots and making a game that requires a lot of practice to perfect. BF2 is about 19/20 of the way to the idiot side however with everything being automated.

I'm waiting for Forgotten Hope 2 to bring back the amazing gameplay of FH in BF1942 and all of you newcommers to Battlefield games will see how classic battlefield was played and you will forget all about commander mode, UAVs, GP-30s, 203s, tank whores, chopper whores, spawn campers, flag hoppers, bunny hoppers, dolphin divers, prone jumpers and all that other crap people are complaining about.

Bingo. And if people shun mods for Special Forces or whatever the next expansion is that EA announces before the end of November, it's their loss (both in the experience, and in money)

I think most of the complaints (whoring, etc) are valid. We never had these complaints '42, DC, or BFV, because the gameplay prevented it and the player base understood what the BF games were all about.

Actually, those complaints did exist in most games of DC I played. However, they weren't as severe as the ones in BF2, and were generally used if the person used the tactic for the majority of the map, not once. Also, most things (planes, helicopters, tanks, especially, since they're a big target for complaints when people do good in them) required PRACTICE to use. That was respectible, even if camping in them wasn't. None of these were a "no-assembly-required" device in 1942, and sadly all require no practice to use in BF2. I don't care who you are, or how many points you have in BF2, I really don't have much respect for doing good in anything in this game, simply because it's so easy to do so anymore. No practice needed. (not meaning that to offend anyone, before someone takes it that way)

BF2 pretends to adhear to teamplay, but all it does is give people the ability to command, with no rewards (which is why you never see a good squad leader in first place, or a losing commander in first place... even if he was commanding great, but his team couldn't shoot/move/work worth a damn).

Pretend, exactly. They market a teamwork game, and give us a game that does nothing but promote individuality. I personally wouldn't even go as far as say the ability to command, but rather the ability to use completely overpowered tools with no skill at all. The only good feature of the commander mode is perhaps the ability to have an overview of the squads and coordinate them on your own minimap. Anything else is overkill.

[rsgx]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

The commander position WOULD be much better, if the commander assets were easier destroyed, not repairable w/supply crates, and took much longer to repair with an engineer (like a minute or something). Players also should get more reward for destroying commander assets. That would make less artillery strikes/UAVs/scans, encourage more teamwork, and make the Spec Ops job more important. I also think the commander should have a VOIP, so that he can communicate a lot better with his team, instead of having to type stuff, or issue pre-defined, non-specific orders.
Example-Attack this position! compared to
-Hey Alpha, Im looking at your position right now, and I see more than just a few units in there. Wait just north of it while l send in artillery. After that, go in and capture, while Ill spot any units or armor coming your way.

[imported_bigpappa]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

u can sit still or hide for more than 30 seconds before u get sniped or have arty dropped on u....that sux

[Jesse]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

The commander position WOULD be much better, if the commander assets were easier destroyed, not repairable w/supply crates, and took much longer to repair with an engineer (like a minute or something). Players also should get more reward for destroying commander assets. That would make less artillery strikes/UAVs/scans, encourage more teamwork, and make the Spec Ops job more important.

If by easily destroyed, you mean make the arty player controled and mobile like 1942, remove scans entirely, and make the UAV an actual flying object a player can operate from the trailer, then yes, I agree. But then the commander doesn't have his tools and has the job of COMMANDING, not playing super soldier.

And more points for destroying commander assets? Eh...it's been done, I don't think they deserved them in the first place. It'll just encourage people to compete over assets for points and to go solo to blow them up, no teamwork there. Either that, or it'll encourage main base camping. And we all know there needs to be more of that in the BF series.

[vbl]

Re: Commander mode should have never been developed.

Kudos to everyone who has posted here - the replies have been really thoughtful on all sides of the issue.