Mechanics of the game not to blame
I peruse this board often and I see so many threads complaining about what I will call the mechanics of the game. I will broadly define “mechanics” as the accuracy of the guns, the ability to jump and throw explosives, the blast radius of weapons, the ability to rearm jets by flying over an airstrip, and anything else that taken together creates the “play-ability” of the game. What I see little of is an analysis of the environment beyond complaints about foliage generation, view distance problems, and video settings. What I propose is that many of the complaints I’ve mentioned above (and many of the others) could be greatly reduced if the map design had been more of a concern of the programmers. To illustrate my point I will make two statements and comment on each briefly. Then I will bring it all together to show how the “play-ability” of the game could be greatly changed (for the better) if just one aspect of the game, map design, had been different.
Two Statements
1) Control points need to be more than a flag and a bail of hay.
2) The areas between control points need to be more than barren waste land.
Statement 1 Explanation: I actually uttered these words to my teammates a couple of weeks ago when we were constantly being bombed by a jet every time the flag we were capturing went neutral. One of the biggest problems I have always had is that the control points are nothing more than a building or two and a flag surrounded by a (worthless) bunch of sandbags. As soon as a flag goes neutral or is captured the jet is given free kills assuming the pilot can get there within 10 or so seconds (which isn’t hard given the agility of the jet and the ability to reload in about 2 seconds by simply flying over the airstrip). On the ground, clearing out a neutral flag involves lobbing grenades and “noob-tubing” in the general direction of the flag’s base without ever having to actually see the enemy to be a threat. As you know, anytime a flag goes neutral, it isn’t hard to figure out where the enemy is; they are within 10 feet from the flag because the capturing radius is so small.
Statement 2 Explanation: I really enjoyed Battlefield Vietnam because of the various ways you could approach a flag (and consequently, a situation). This was due mainly to the map design. In BF2 it seems that most of the action takes place in small “pockets” surrounding each control point and that the straight-line distances between control points are nothing more than barren avenues to get to the next pocket. This has a three-fold effect. First, it clusters the action making artillery, jet bombing, noob-tubing, and sniping more (annoyingly) effective. Second, it makes the job of a jet bomber easier because if you aren’t in the control point you are traveling in a straight line to the next one in a barren wasteland making you easy to spot and giving you no place to avoid the bombs. Third and finally, it makes so much of the rest of the map worthless. If you need to see this for yourself, take a look at the overhead map of Zatar Wetlands and ask yourself how much of the map you actually see during a game. It is probably not more than the control points and the straight-line areas between them.
Conclusions
Admittedly, I have picked on the jet pilots greatly in the above text but I think that many of the reasons of why map design makes jets so annoying are the same reasons why many other aspects of the game (such as noob-tubing, tank-whoring, artillery, UAV, etc.) are amplified and reduce the fun of the game.
What I feel is called for in BF2 is more complicated control points (such as the Chinese uncappable base in FuShe Pass) with larger capture radii. This way the emphasis is more on infantry while tanks, helicopters, and jets play a support role rather than as the primary weapons and the success of noob-tubing and C4 throwing is reduced because it is possible to hide and use surprise rather than just driving right up to the flag and hoping for the best. I know that there will be many players who will point out that there is a graphics problem with over-complicated control points and too many static meshes being rendered. However, if the programmers of the game had kept game play (including map design) in mind while creating the engine, form would have followed function and the above suggestions could have worked.
What I would also like to see changed is the reduction of barren land between and around control points so that there is less emphasis, for example, on grabbing a tank, making a bee line for the closest enemy control point, and laying waste until someone finally bombs or C4s you. In this way, capturing a control point is more than just a brute-force, aggressive assault. This game needs a little more finesse and being able to approach control points without being seen out in that barren land would help. Arcade game BF2 may be, but was it necessary to emphasize this fact in every aspect of the game? Again, there is a graphics problem here but the points I made above about graphics hold here too.
I realize that the game is made and there is nothing we can do about the current maps. However, with the pending release of booster packs and possibly expansion packs, there is room for movement toward the kind of maps I’m talking about. I must admit that the Special Forces expansion pack took the game in a direction I wish it hadn’t. Although the emphasis is more on infantry, the game doesn’t work for me because:
1 – The night maps just don’t work no matter how cool the night vision is.
2 – The capture radii are still too small.
3 – The flags are too close together
4 – Some of the maps are just too small for helicopters, tanks, and APCs.
The maps we get in the booster packs remain to be seen but what I hope to see is movement toward different styles of game play. We already have vanilla BF2 with somewhat varied maps. We have the SF expansion pack which emphasizes infantry in close quarters. Now we need some maps that emphasize other aspects of the game such as stealth and different approaches that don’t favor the aggressive, brute-force strategy.
One more point in this lengthy post: I feel that if we had the kind of maps that I’ve described above there would be another effect (sorry pilots but I’m going to pick on you again). It seems to me that pilots of jets and helicopters do little more than don their weapon and go hunting. What I mean by this is that they provide little DIRECT support to ground troops outside of GENERALLY reducing the effectiveness of the enemy. Again, I feel that by emphasizing infantry combat in the environments I have called for, pilots of jets and helicopters would have to provide direct support to be successful.
So, there are my thoughts. What have I missed and why do my suggestions work or not work?
Two Statements
1) Control points need to be more than a flag and a bail of hay.
2) The areas between control points need to be more than barren waste land.
Statement 1 Explanation: I actually uttered these words to my teammates a couple of weeks ago when we were constantly being bombed by a jet every time the flag we were capturing went neutral. One of the biggest problems I have always had is that the control points are nothing more than a building or two and a flag surrounded by a (worthless) bunch of sandbags. As soon as a flag goes neutral or is captured the jet is given free kills assuming the pilot can get there within 10 or so seconds (which isn’t hard given the agility of the jet and the ability to reload in about 2 seconds by simply flying over the airstrip). On the ground, clearing out a neutral flag involves lobbing grenades and “noob-tubing” in the general direction of the flag’s base without ever having to actually see the enemy to be a threat. As you know, anytime a flag goes neutral, it isn’t hard to figure out where the enemy is; they are within 10 feet from the flag because the capturing radius is so small.
Statement 2 Explanation: I really enjoyed Battlefield Vietnam because of the various ways you could approach a flag (and consequently, a situation). This was due mainly to the map design. In BF2 it seems that most of the action takes place in small “pockets” surrounding each control point and that the straight-line distances between control points are nothing more than barren avenues to get to the next pocket. This has a three-fold effect. First, it clusters the action making artillery, jet bombing, noob-tubing, and sniping more (annoyingly) effective. Second, it makes the job of a jet bomber easier because if you aren’t in the control point you are traveling in a straight line to the next one in a barren wasteland making you easy to spot and giving you no place to avoid the bombs. Third and finally, it makes so much of the rest of the map worthless. If you need to see this for yourself, take a look at the overhead map of Zatar Wetlands and ask yourself how much of the map you actually see during a game. It is probably not more than the control points and the straight-line areas between them.
Conclusions
Admittedly, I have picked on the jet pilots greatly in the above text but I think that many of the reasons of why map design makes jets so annoying are the same reasons why many other aspects of the game (such as noob-tubing, tank-whoring, artillery, UAV, etc.) are amplified and reduce the fun of the game.
What I feel is called for in BF2 is more complicated control points (such as the Chinese uncappable base in FuShe Pass) with larger capture radii. This way the emphasis is more on infantry while tanks, helicopters, and jets play a support role rather than as the primary weapons and the success of noob-tubing and C4 throwing is reduced because it is possible to hide and use surprise rather than just driving right up to the flag and hoping for the best. I know that there will be many players who will point out that there is a graphics problem with over-complicated control points and too many static meshes being rendered. However, if the programmers of the game had kept game play (including map design) in mind while creating the engine, form would have followed function and the above suggestions could have worked.
What I would also like to see changed is the reduction of barren land between and around control points so that there is less emphasis, for example, on grabbing a tank, making a bee line for the closest enemy control point, and laying waste until someone finally bombs or C4s you. In this way, capturing a control point is more than just a brute-force, aggressive assault. This game needs a little more finesse and being able to approach control points without being seen out in that barren land would help. Arcade game BF2 may be, but was it necessary to emphasize this fact in every aspect of the game? Again, there is a graphics problem here but the points I made above about graphics hold here too.
I realize that the game is made and there is nothing we can do about the current maps. However, with the pending release of booster packs and possibly expansion packs, there is room for movement toward the kind of maps I’m talking about. I must admit that the Special Forces expansion pack took the game in a direction I wish it hadn’t. Although the emphasis is more on infantry, the game doesn’t work for me because:
1 – The night maps just don’t work no matter how cool the night vision is.
2 – The capture radii are still too small.
3 – The flags are too close together
4 – Some of the maps are just too small for helicopters, tanks, and APCs.
The maps we get in the booster packs remain to be seen but what I hope to see is movement toward different styles of game play. We already have vanilla BF2 with somewhat varied maps. We have the SF expansion pack which emphasizes infantry in close quarters. Now we need some maps that emphasize other aspects of the game such as stealth and different approaches that don’t favor the aggressive, brute-force strategy.
One more point in this lengthy post: I feel that if we had the kind of maps that I’ve described above there would be another effect (sorry pilots but I’m going to pick on you again). It seems to me that pilots of jets and helicopters do little more than don their weapon and go hunting. What I mean by this is that they provide little DIRECT support to ground troops outside of GENERALLY reducing the effectiveness of the enemy. Again, I feel that by emphasizing infantry combat in the environments I have called for, pilots of jets and helicopters would have to provide direct support to be successful.
So, there are my thoughts. What have I missed and why do my suggestions work or not work?
Comment