Pages: 1 2

 

2007-05-11 16:47:10
Marinejuana
local
+415|6852|Seattle

S.J.N.P.0717 wrote:

Stat padding is takes no skill whatsoever and is completely stupid. No idiot can just jump on IO and own like no idiot can jump on vehicle and own. You think everyone can just get on an IO and get good stats? Most people who vehicle whore would suck at IO and most people would IO would suck at vehicle whoring.  With each you have to practice and over time get better and better. Stat padding is cheating, in reality being in a vehicle is close to cheating since you have an unfair advantage over most the people your going to kill that's why vehicle k:d are almost always high. You have to be Engineer, Anti-Tank or Special Ops and for the most part Engineer and Special Ops can only be used defensively. With helicopters and planes it's even worse since only Anti-Tank is barely usably against them. Anyone else is screwed and have to hide or stay in a stationary gun to at most and most of the time just damage it unless they want to die. But still "And most people who play IO have good stats because its akin to padding." is just bullshit it's nowhere near it unless your talking about actually stat padders. At least you didn't disagree with my remark "since most people who complain about IO are either vehicle whores or have shitty stats."

AmbassadorofPain wrote:

RDMC(2) wrote:

IMO, Infantry Only should never have been introduced in the first place as it completely killed the way Battlefield 2 was meant to be played.
Which included
- prone spamming / dolphin diving
- shooting while jumping
- C4 chucking
- the blackhawk with a good crew being a flying fortress that could only be taken down by C4 ramming, several tanks and apcs hunting it or a bunch of vehicle .50 cals combined
- etc. etc.

What *exactly* is the way BF2 was ment to be played? I keep hearing pretty much that phrase over and over again, but so far I haven't heard any somewhat valid or reasonable explanation for that. All people that used this statement so far were jet whores (who wouldn't accept that there's just not enough jets for everyone usually and that some don't tk for vehicles or, respectively, can't accept that others would get good kdrs when competing with other ground pounders instead of jets and bombers), helo whores (same) and people who spent 1250 of 1450 total playing time camping on Karkand in the M1A1.

The phrase I like most second only to the one just mentioned is "Infantry Only doesn't take any skill". Again, it usually comes from that kind of people who think there's anything 1337 about bombing men with boomsticks on the ground at 900 mph or doing a chopper-rape session on certain SF or vanilla maps, well knowing that the vast majority of pubbers will not coordinate efforts enough to place 2 vehicles with .50 cals to shoot the chopper down or, if that happened, some other guy will for sure hop in the drivers seat and drive away.

A few other things that are or were included in the game yet for sure weren't ment that way:
- It shouldn't have been possible to flip boats over to repair them or drive vehicles into water so they take damage and do the same
- It shouldn't have been possible to get into certain buildings, because if so, DICE would have given them openable doors
- The red aka dead zone pretty sure was not intended to work as a noob-ejector for solo'ers or people who want to fly with someone else instead of the gunner who actually got in
- etc.

These two lists could be continued endlessly.

Don't get me wrong: I've had my fun back in the days before IO, too, and still play regular vanilla, not least because I'm starting to discover my love for attack choppers. Yet I can not see why that would be more the way "BF2 was ment to be". Ever since, DICE responded - as good as possible, which, in some case, was far from good of course - to public demand by nerfing (i.e. the blackhawk or the dolphin dive) stuff, cutting back badge and ribbon requirements or implementing new features.
After all, there used to be IO servers before that game mode had been implemented by DICE - it's been considered statspadding and servers could lose their rank status for enforcing a "no vehicles policy".

Quite obviously, it is the players who decide(d) how BF2 is ment to be played.

In the end, BF2 is ment to be fun and that is absolutely all BF2 is ment to be.

Once again, I apologize for talking too much.
2007-05-11 16:48:12
Marinejuana
local
+415|6852|Seattle

Marinejuana wrote:

S.J.N.P.0717 wrote:

Stat padding is takes no skill whatsoever and is completely stupid. No idiot can just jump on IO and own like no idiot can jump on vehicle and own. You think everyone can just get on an IO and get good stats? Most people who vehicle whore would suck at IO and most people would IO would suck at vehicle whoring.  With each you have to practice and over time get better and better. Stat padding is cheating, in reality being in a vehicle is close to cheating since you have an unfair advantage over most the people your going to kill that's why vehicle k:d are almost always high. You have to be Engineer, Anti-Tank or Special Ops and for the most part Engineer and Special Ops can only be used defensively. With helicopters and planes it's even worse since only Anti-Tank is barely usably against them. Anyone else is screwed and have to hide or stay in a stationary gun to at most and most of the time just damage it unless they want to die. But still "And most people who play IO have good stats because its akin to padding." is just bullshit it's nowhere near it unless your talking about actually stat padders. At least you didn't disagree with my remark "since most people who complain about IO are either vehicle whores or have shitty stats."

AmbassadorofPain wrote:

RDMC(2) wrote:

IMO, Infantry Only should never have been introduced in the first place as it completely killed the way Battlefield 2 was meant to be played.
Which included
- prone spamming / dolphin diving
- shooting while jumping
- C4 chucking
- the blackhawk with a good crew being a flying fortress that could only be taken down by C4 ramming, several tanks and apcs hunting it or a bunch of vehicle .50 cals combined
- etc. etc.

What *exactly* is the way BF2 was ment to be played? I keep hearing pretty much that phrase over and over again, but so far I haven't heard any somewhat valid or reasonable explanation for that. All people that used this statement so far were jet whores (who wouldn't accept that there's just not enough jets for everyone usually and that some don't tk for vehicles or, respectively, can't accept that others would get good kdrs when competing with other ground pounders instead of jets and bombers), helo whores (same) and people who spent 1250 of 1450 total playing time camping on Karkand in the M1A1.

The phrase I like most second only to the one just mentioned is "Infantry Only doesn't take any skill". Again, it usually comes from that kind of people who think there's anything 1337 about bombing men with boomsticks on the ground at 900 mph or doing a chopper-rape session on certain SF or vanilla maps, well knowing that the vast majority of pubbers will not coordinate efforts enough to place 2 vehicles with .50 cals to shoot the chopper down or, if that happened, some other guy will for sure hop in the drivers seat and drive away.

A few other things that are or were included in the game yet for sure weren't ment that way:
- It shouldn't have been possible to flip boats over to repair them or drive vehicles into water so they take damage and do the same
- It shouldn't have been possible to get into certain buildings, because if so, DICE would have given them openable doors
- The red aka dead zone pretty sure was not intended to work as a noob-ejector for solo'ers or people who want to fly with someone else instead of the gunner who actually got in
- etc.

These two lists could be continued endlessly.

Don't get me wrong: I've had my fun back in the days before IO, too, and still play regular vanilla, not least because I'm starting to discover my love for attack choppers. Yet I can not see why that would be more the way "BF2 was ment to be". Ever since, DICE responded - as good as possible, which, in some case, was far from good of course - to public demand by nerfing (i.e. the blackhawk or the dolphin dive) stuff, cutting back badge and ribbon requirements or implementing new features.
After all, there used to be IO servers before that game mode had been implemented by DICE - it's been considered statspadding and servers could lose their rank status for enforcing a "no vehicles policy".

Quite obviously, it is the players who decide(d) how BF2 is ment to be played.

In the end, BF2 is ment to be fun and that is absolutely all BF2 is ment to be.

Once again, I apologize for talking too much.
QFT
2007-05-11 22:51:52
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6948|Disaster Free Zone

S.J.N.P.0717 wrote:

What do you consider a high k:d and spm?
It doesn't matter what I consider 'high', on IO both SPM and KDR are artificially increased.
Most people who play IO have less than 2spm and less than  1:1 k:d. Do you think that's good?
That's absolutely terrible, and also unbelievable. SPM of 3-5 are not uncommon and KDR of 3-10 are common place.
The score can range from 400-200 to the top player to 10-40 to the lowest and both of them won't be alone in that area. That's just fucking stupid to say anyone can jump on an IO server and have major stats.
There will always be retards playing, but anyone can jump on IO and do a shit load better then normal maps. imagine those low scores if the people had to deal with vehicles as well...

Haha at least you didn't disagree but far from it, it takes time. I got my 15 death streak and purple heart there when I first started playing there. There is a clear gap at the end of the scores in the rounds.
I'm sorry you suck so much or had such a terrible team, but this is far from the norm. I would say at least 70% of my deaths are revived while playing IO, compared to fuck all on normal servers. It means I should end the round 40:20 but because of revives end with 40:6 (probably even better because I'm not dead as much).
What's your definition of good players?
Some one who can read the situation of a game and take counter measures to win. Someone who takes the responsibility to eliminate the enemies greatest treats and capture/defend the important flags. Someone who is good at all aspects of the game and in any given situation turn it around in favour of there team. A good player is NOT necessarily the person with the highest KDR, the highest SPM or the person with the highest score at the end of the match.

Close minded. Medic is best kit to help your team, support is second and agressive snipers are really useful. They can 1 shot him to where he's almost dead then 1 more shot from anything and he's dead. Or he's already damaged a little and then he's dead. That's why these classes when used right have good spm and k:d
You obviously don't get off of karkand/jalalabad much do you? Play a round of fushee, daquing, kubra, dalian, oman, zatara, dragon valley, operation clean sweep or Songhua with a team of just the 'best' kit, and see how long they last against a team of just AT. Not saying medics are not useful, but the impact is so greatly reduced. Same with sniper, support and assault (which is by far the most useless).

Medic is only so good in IO because there is nothing better to worry about, they have the best guns and can heal and revive people, in maps where guns and revives play second fiddle to vehicle strength, AT (or engy)is the best kit. But unlike IO, where medics still only have to deal with other infantry. In vehicle maps the 'best' unit (a plane) has to deal with AA, other planes, tanks, APCs, lucky SRAW shots etc. Armour has to deal with planes, choppers, Tows and other armor and infantry AT, spec ops and engy. Choppers have to be aware of almost everything and so does infantry, difference is, planes/choppers/armor target other planes/choppers/armor before infantry. (and don't bring up wake... its a terrible excuse for map and with out, no carrier rape rules by far the worst map in BF2)
Anyone can get on IO and go revive mad and get good scores, they can be crap and get revived over and over and get good KDR even tho they die more then they kill. Not everyone can get in plane/chopper and do well. Not everyone can get in a tank and do well... not even on karkand. Using a vehicle takes as much skill as infantry, and there 'great' advantage over infantry is absolute BULLSHIT.
AT/AA              28:49:18      1,355   1,637      0.8277        49.81%
C4                14:31:23      1,150        879     1.3083       0
AT Mine      03:49:36      325      265       1.2264      0
A large percentage of these kills are on vehicles, be it planes/choppers, armor or transports. But the KDR speak for themselves, Yes vehicles kill me more when I'm trying to kill them, But not by much. This great 'advantage' is a total myth put out by the stubborn people who refuse to do anything about it, and then whinge a bitch that a tank killed them while they where playing there precious medic/sniper kits.

You all bitch about planes, but never get in AA, or when flying never engage the other fighters but look for things to bomb, or you just can't fly and bitch about it because your not good enough.

AmbassadorofPain wrote:

The phrase I like most second only to the one just mentioned is "Infantry Only doesn't take any skill". Again, it usually comes from that kind of people who think there's anything 1337 about bombing men with boomsticks on the ground at 900 mph or doing a chopper-rape session on certain SF or vanilla maps, well knowing that the vast majority of pubbers will not coordinate efforts enough to place 2 vehicles with .50 Cal to shoot the chopper down or, if that happened, some other guy will for sure hop in the drivers seat and drive away.
Vehicles are not that good... there are plenty of counter measures for every vehicle (wake excluded). And its the first rule of using vehicles never ever give them up to the enemy EVER!!! If you can follow this one rule, you should have a relatively even playing field where planes fight planes, choppers fight choppers and tanks/infantry fight each other. As infantry you can also aid your team by using AA or going AT, or getting in transports and using the 50 cal against things. If vehicles are not doing there 'job' on your team then its the fault of your team mates not the strength of the vehicles in question. Akin to people just running off to kill an AFK in IO when your in the middle of a fight against 3+ enemies and need some help.

S.J.N.P.0717 wrote:

"Reviving also = massive KDR."

You have to be good to use this. You have to move fast and know where the enemies are to not get killed. One grenade where the dead body is and your dead a lot of people die from trying to revive their teammate. No noob can just revive any teammate he wants without dying. Once again it takes skill.
Reviving takes skill... Umm HOW??? 'a dead body that doesn't move' zap... 2 points for doing nothing.
Also it doesn't matter who is revived, every time someone is, it increases someones KDR, either the person being revived doesn't get a death, or the person who kills him and then kills him again gets 2 kills. Every revive increases someones KDR, as there are hundreds of revives on every IO server in every game. That's 100s of extra kills, or 100s of less deaths which means extra KDR.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2007-05-11 23:04:19)

2007-05-12 03:19:39
Snake
Missing, Presumed Dead
+1,046|6833|England

AmbassadorofPain wrote:

What *exactly* is the way BF2 was ment to be played? I keep hearing pretty much that phrase over and over again, but so far I haven't heard any somewhat valid or reasonable explanation for that. All people that used this statement so far were jet whores (who wouldn't accept that there's just not enough jets for everyone usually and that some don't tk for vehicles or, respectively, can't accept that others would get good kdrs when competing with other ground pounders instead of jets and bombers), helo whores (same) and people who spent 1250 of 1450 total playing time camping on Karkand in the M1A1.
Well, I use that phrase yet I play every aspect of this game. Something that most people cannot say they do.

To me, the way that BF2 was meant to be played is in a completely hostile environment combining many aspects of modern warfare, and, to quote the gamecase "All-out war on the modern battlefield".
Modern warfare is not just infantry combat. It usually involves an airstrike of somekind against enemy positions and the occasional tank rolling up the street laying down fire on an enemy position.
Now, ok, I cant remember the last time the US went on a rampage to overthrow China, and DICE removed the Laser Designators prior to release, however, thats not the point.
This game was originally designed to account for an all out battlefield combining all aspects, i.e. infantry, AA, choppers, tanks and jets. With the introduction of IO, on the 64size maps only a handful are playable due to the shear size of the maps. Even 32's can be too big. I dont remember seeing FuShe or OCS being popular IO maps. That, to me, points out exactly what the original intentions of the game were meant to be - a combined battlefield. And it was. Although I feel that DICE did a bad job of incorporating the infantry on most of the vanilla maps, you look at the SF maps (and Great Wall on EF) and they are wonders. They combine all aspects (bar jets) in a very good, well rounded atmosphere. The choppers are only dominant in the most experienced of hands as are the tanks. Compare that to karkand (where most people refuse to leave) and you can see why most people complain of "vehicle whores".

Personally, I believe that if stats were not a part of this game, you would see more people on the maps outside of karkand and you would also see more people playing as AT on that map to counter the tanks. And thats because you wouldnt care about your KD. As Drunkface pointed out, all AT weapons generally yield low KDR's. And that is a typical reflection of the effectiveness of the AT weapons vs vehicles - which is how it should be. Its just that nobody wants to do it because they will lose out on a few revive points.
Also, DICE did a poor job in implementing the ground defense (TOW's are usually in useless spots as are the mounted LMG's, which are usually for display purposes) which leaves the average grunt having to use the AT weapons. Which we all know, doesn't happen.



AmbassadorofPain wrote:

After all, there used to be IO servers before that game mode had been implemented by DICE - it's been considered statspadding and servers could lose their rank status for enforcing a "no vehicles policy".
This goes hand in hand with my above statement - and something I totally forgot about. Yes, IO servers were "illegal" in the eyes of EA/DICE/BFROE (oh no, he didnt say that did he??!). They used to be able to get your stats wiped - then they introduced the option, legally, into the game. More than 1 year after the game was released, did IO arrive. And it came with Jalalabad, a new city map that was suposedly going to pioneer the new IO mode. If you ask me, Jalalabad is the worst city map for IO unless the US can somehow break through.
So why, if it was originally considered padding (because of the huge scores associated with it, and the game isn't being played as intended) did they then introduce it?
Simple. Complainers. See below.


AmbassadorofPain wrote:

Quite obviously, it is the players who decide(d) how BF2 is ment to be played.
I hope not, otherwise PK and the latest "Padding Only" servers will also become legal

Formerly, when EA/DICE cared about BF2, if enough people complained, then they'd (usually) *attempt* to fix it. Look at the BH nerfing.
I guess enough people were playing IO and wanted IO that they gave it to the people. And it was playtested. Didnt all classes have a huge armour bonus given to it? Perhaps that was to make it harder to kill people = less points. Maybe DICE could foresee all the points and attempted to prevent it (before the mass criticism).

In turn, its replaced vehicles with nades. Generally, in my experience, IO on vanilla is worse than SF for the nade and clay spamming retards - even more so on the 64player servers. SF IO can actually be pretty good fun especially on MassD. In some respects, I think that that map has had a new lease of life thanks to IO. It just, works. And it works well. Even more so with vehicles (imo), but on IO you get the full 6man squads going on river raids in the RIB.


AmbassadorofPain wrote:

In the end, BF2 is ment to be fun and that is absolutely all BF2 is ment to be.
QFT. IO is legal now. Play it if you wish. However, by playing it you are missing out on a huge part of the game, in terms of weapons, maps, gameplay, tactics, fun and experience.
This game was primarily designed to include an all out battlefield combining all of these aspects. There are not a lot of games, from an FPS POV, that provide this. Why not take advantage of it?
2007-05-12 04:55:23
AmbassadorofPain
Member
+34|6924|Devil's Perch

DrunkFace wrote:

You all bitch about planes, but never get in AA, or when flying never engage the other fighters but look for things to bomb, or you just can't fly and bitch about it because your not good enough.
I find flying boring and I don't spend spare time doing stuff that's boring, that's what I have to do at my job and university already.

DrunkFace wrote:

Vehicles are not that good... there are plenty of counter measures for every vehicle (wake excluded).
And its the first rule of using vehicles never ever give them up to the enemy EVER!!! If you can follow this one rule, you should have a relatively even playing field where planes fight planes, choppers fight choppers and tanks/infantry fight each other.
That is an excellent theory, but barely more than that. How many pilots do you think would have a KDR of > 3 for aviator, if they sticked to shooting down enemy jets and bombers exclusively? Same for the choppers. Also, it's never been questioned by anyone that it is stupid to give up vehicles so the enemy can grab them. The equality of the battlefield is a topic in question though: there's vehicles in this game that are just better than others. Some take more hits, some are more agile than their equivalents and, which gets us back to "the way it's ment to be played", what would be the purpose of bombers if not bombing ground troops and enemy armor? Of course it is intended to help people enlarge their e-peen by dropping a set of 5 bombs on enemy ground forces. Now don't start with lucky AT shots, tanks etc. pp. Shooting down enemy jets and bombers in a tank usually takes an extreme lot of luck or an extremely careless pilot, not talking about AT rockets at all.
Yes, of course there's AT vehicles and fixed AA sites, but seriously and honestly, what's the success rate, who will usually prevail in that fight? Good pilots, be it jet or chopper, know where fixed sites are and will know to avoid vehicles as long as possible.

DrunkFace wrote:

As infantry you can also aid your team by using AA or going AT, or getting in transports and using the 50 cal against things. If vehicles are not doing there 'job' on your team then its the fault of your team mates not the strength of the vehicles in question.
Completely agreed. Maybe that's why I wrote

AmbassadorofPain wrote:

[...]well knowing that the vast majority of pubbers will not coordinate efforts enough to place 2 vehicles with .50 Cal to shoot the chopper down or, if that happened, some other guy will for sure hop in the drivers seat and drive away.
A chopper can easily mow down an enemy infantry squad and there's not much to do when a bomb wave is heading in your direction either, but barely any infantry guy can go through a whole squad of other awake infantry without dying. That's the difference. Shooting down choppers or jets requires luck and usually coordinated efforts. Prevailing against other infantry is an all-equal environment.
IO eliminates the "food chain of virtual war in BF2" as one might call it.

On the other hand, just to get this straight: I do not deny the fact that some are extremely skilled with the jet, bomber or chopper, but I have a different idea of what skill actually means and when that skill comes to pay.

Snake wrote:

With the introduction of IO, on the 64size maps only a handful are playable due to the shear size of the maps. Even 32's can be too big.
Good point. But these large 64 player maps are played on 24 or 32 player servers, too, something that pretty sure wasn't ment to be either.

Snake wrote:

I dont remember seeing FuShe or OCS being popular IO maps.
I don't see these two in particular being popular maps at all. OCS isn't playable in IO, not even in 16 player size, because every boat that would come across the sea would be Eryx'ed before getting anywhere near the shore. FuShe pass 16 player IO though would be a pretty good IO map, even with more players, if, of course, people would stick to doing infantry combat, not camping ridges as snipers and PKM bullet sprayers.
On the other hand, and I've said this before, popularity shouldn't be a measure for quality, because if so, we'd all be eating shit and listening to stupid montonous pop music.

Snake wrote:

That, to me, points out exactly what the original intentions of the game were meant to be - a combined battlefield. And it was. Although I feel that DICE did a bad job of incorporating the infantry on most of the vanilla maps, you look at the SF maps (and Great Wall on EF) and they are wonders. They combine all aspects (bar jets) in a very good, well rounded atmosphere. The choppers are only dominant in the most experienced of hands as are the tanks. Compare that to karkand (where most people refuse to leave) and you can see why most people complain of "vehicle whores".
Totally agreed. Yet you already mentioned why people hungered for a change: infantry is badly incorporated into most vanilla maps and there's just not enough interesting/exciting vehicles for everyone...

Snake wrote:

Personally, I believe that if stats were not a part of this game, you would see more people on the maps outside of karkand and you would also see more people playing as AT on that map to counter the tanks. And thats because you wouldnt care about your KD. As Drunkface pointed out, all AT weapons generally yield low KDR's. And that is a typical reflection of the effectiveness of the AT weapons vs vehicles - which is how it should be. Its just that nobody wants to do it because they will lose out on a few revive points.
Or ammo points or claymore kills of course.

Snake wrote:

Also, DICE did a poor job in implementing the ground defense (TOW's are usually in useless spots as are the mounted LMG's, which are usually for display purposes) which leaves the average grunt having to use the AT weapons. Which we all know, doesn't happen.
Again, I can only agree.
Yet this brings up the question: what is the root of this problem? DICE designing bad maps? The average player not listening to the voice of reason and spawning medic, support, sniper instead of AT when enemy armor is camping spawns? DICE giving a stats and ranking system?

Snake wrote:

AmbassadorofPain wrote:

Quite obviously, it is the players who decide(d) how BF2 is ment to be played.
I hope not, otherwise PK and the latest "Padding Only" servers will also become legal
That's not desireable, but it doesn't bother me that much actually.

Snake wrote:

This game was primarily designed to include an all out battlefield combining all of these aspects. There are not a lot of games, from an FPS POV, that provide this. Why not take advantage of it?
True. I wouldn't want to give up the vehicles totally either.
Proud member of a dead community.
2007-05-12 05:06:48
jerzeyjoe
Member
+5|6478

AmbassadorofPain wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

You all bitch about planes, but never get in AA, or when flying never engage the other fighters but look for things to bomb, or you just can't fly and bitch about it because your not good enough.
I find flying boring and I don't spend spare time doing stuff that's boring, that's what I have to do at my job and university already.

DrunkFace wrote:

Vehicles are not that good... there are plenty of counter measures for every vehicle (wake excluded).
And its the first rule of using vehicles never ever give them up to the enemy EVER!!! If you can follow this one rule, you should have a relatively even playing field where planes fight planes, choppers fight choppers and tanks/infantry fight each other.
That is an excellent theory, but barely more than that. How many pilots do you think would have a KDR of > 3 for aviator, if they sticked to shooting down enemy jets and bombers exclusively? Same for the choppers. Also, it's never been questioned by anyone that it is stupid to give up vehicles so the enemy can grab them. The equality of the battlefield is a topic in question though: there's vehicles in this game that are just better than others. Some take more hits, some are more agile than their equivalents and, which gets us back to "the way it's ment to be played", what would be the purpose of bombers if not bombing ground troops and enemy armor? Of course it is intended to help people enlarge their e-peen by dropping a set of 5 bombs on enemy ground forces. Now don't start with lucky AT shots, tanks etc. pp. Shooting down enemy jets and bombers in a tank usually takes an extreme lot of luck or an extremely careless pilot, not talking about AT rockets at all.
Yes, of course there's AT vehicles and fixed AA sites, but seriously and honestly, what's the success rate, who will usually prevail in that fight? Good pilots, be it jet or chopper, know where fixed sites are and will know to avoid vehicles as long as possible.

DrunkFace wrote:

As infantry you can also aid your team by using AA or going AT, or getting in transports and using the 50 cal against things. If vehicles are not doing there 'job' on your team then its the fault of your team mates not the strength of the vehicles in question.
Completely agreed. Maybe that's why I wrote

AmbassadorofPain wrote:

[...]well knowing that the vast majority of pubbers will not coordinate efforts enough to place 2 vehicles with .50 Cal to shoot the chopper down or, if that happened, some other guy will for sure hop in the drivers seat and drive away.
A chopper can easily mow down an enemy infantry squad and there's not much to do when a bomb wave is heading in your direction either, but barely any infantry guy can go through a whole squad of other awake infantry without dying. That's the difference. Shooting down choppers or jets requires luck and usually coordinated efforts. Prevailing against other infantry is an all-equal environment.
IO eliminates the "food chain of virtual war in BF2" as one might call it.

On the other hand, just to get this straight: I do not deny the fact that some are extremely skilled with the jet, bomber or chopper, but I have a different idea of what skill actually means and when that skill comes to pay.

Snake wrote:

With the introduction of IO, on the 64size maps only a handful are playable due to the shear size of the maps. Even 32's can be too big.
Good point. But these large 64 player maps are played on 24 or 32 player servers, too, something that pretty sure wasn't ment to be either.

Snake wrote:

I dont remember seeing FuShe or OCS being popular IO maps.
I don't see these two in particular being popular maps at all. OCS isn't playable in IO, not even in 16 player size, because every boat that would come across the sea would be Eryx'ed before getting anywhere near the shore. FuShe pass 16 player IO though would be a pretty good IO map, even with more players, if, of course, people would stick to doing infantry combat, not camping ridges as snipers and PKM bullet sprayers.
On the other hand, and I've said this before, popularity shouldn't be a measure for quality, because if so, we'd all be eating shit and listening to stupid montonous pop music.

Snake wrote:

That, to me, points out exactly what the original intentions of the game were meant to be - a combined battlefield. And it was. Although I feel that DICE did a bad job of incorporating the infantry on most of the vanilla maps, you look at the SF maps (and Great Wall on EF) and they are wonders. They combine all aspects (bar jets) in a very good, well rounded atmosphere. The choppers are only dominant in the most experienced of hands as are the tanks. Compare that to karkand (where most people refuse to leave) and you can see why most people complain of "vehicle whores".
Totally agreed. Yet you already mentioned why people hungered for a change: infantry is badly incorporated into most vanilla maps and there's just not enough interesting/exciting vehicles for everyone...

Snake wrote:

Personally, I believe that if stats were not a part of this game, you would see more people on the maps outside of karkand and you would also see more people playing as AT on that map to counter the tanks. And thats because you wouldnt care about your KD. As Drunkface pointed out, all AT weapons generally yield low KDR's. And that is a typical reflection of the effectiveness of the AT weapons vs vehicles - which is how it should be. Its just that nobody wants to do it because they will lose out on a few revive points.
Or ammo points or claymore kills of course.

Snake wrote:

Also, DICE did a poor job in implementing the ground defense (TOW's are usually in useless spots as are the mounted LMG's, which are usually for display purposes) which leaves the average grunt having to use the AT weapons. Which we all know, doesn't happen.
Again, I can only agree.
Yet this brings up the question: what is the root of this problem? DICE designing bad maps? The average player not listening to the voice of reason and spawning medic, support, sniper instead of AT when enemy armor is camping spawns? DICE giving a stats and ranking system?

Snake wrote:

AmbassadorofPain wrote:

Quite obviously, it is the players who decide(d) how BF2 is ment to be played.
I hope not, otherwise PK and the latest "Padding Only" servers will also become legal
That's not desireable, but it doesn't bother me that much actually.

Snake wrote:

This game was primarily designed to include an all out battlefield combining all of these aspects. There are not a lot of games, from an FPS POV, that provide this. Why not take advantage of it?
True. I wouldn't want to give up the vehicles totally either.
Great post!

I do have one thing to add to this topic and that is the team play. With IO mode squads move as squads and really work together. I am not saying that it didnt happen with vehicles but it seems to me there is better team play in IO servers.

I like a little of both modes in my bf2 diet.
2007-05-14 13:08:38
JackerP
aka S.J.N.P.0717
+21|6544|Mo Val, Cali
"on IO both SPM and KDR are artificially increased."

How are they artificially increased?



"That's absolutely terrible, and also unbelievable."

That's the truth. That's what my stats used to be when I first started playing and there are still lots of people who have stats like that.



"SPM of 3-5 are not uncommon"

There are over 297k players here. About 7.7k have SPM 3-5. And that's the top 8k out of 297k excluding the top 300. This includes people who play IO, vehicle whore, and knife and pistol only servers.




"and KDR of 3-10 are common place"

Now for this. This is the top 1600 players out of 297k excluding the top 23. Haha but this is equally split among people who only do IO, vehicle whore, sniper and pistol and knife servers only. I'm saying max there is 400 IO guys and they are good and earned this. What about the people who have over 100 kills and 0 deaths on vehicle servers? That is by far worse.



"There will always be retards playing, but anyone can jump on IO and do a shit load better then normal maps. imagine those low scores if the people had to deal with vehicles as well..."

Like I said before, this is because everyone's on a equal playing field. It's guy vs. guy. Not guy vs. guy in tank. I recently played vehicle map because this guy I know was playing it. I played 3 rounds. Got Gold and Silver the second and third rounds without being in a tank or apc or helicopter or airplane. There's not too much difference to vehicle and IO servers. Your not going to get outrageously different scores if you go from one to the other. They both take skill to do good.



"What's your definition of good players?

Some one who can read the situation of a game and take counter measures to win. Someone who takes the responsibility to eliminate the enemies greatest treats and capture/defend the important flags. Someone who is good at all aspects of the game and in any given situation turn it around in favour of there team. A good player is NOT necessarily the person with the highest KDR, the highest SPM or the person with the highest score at the end of the match."

Good definition although I asked to make a point and don't feel like going back to remember why or what point.



"I'm sorry you suck so much or had such a terrible team, but this is far from the norm. I would say at least 70% of my deaths are revived while playing IO, compared to fuck all on normal servers. It means I should end the round 40:20 but because of revives end with 40:6 (probably even better because I'm not dead as much)."

I'm much better now but this happens a lot. If you play with the team on a 64 player server you'll be revived a lot. If you play on a much smaller server to where no one's medic or away from the team you'll be more likely to not be revived.



"You obviously don't get off of karkand/jalalabad much do you?"

Very little.



"Play a round of fushee, daquing, kubra, dalian, oman, zatara, dragon valley, operation clean sweep or Songhua"

I have played plenty of rounds on these maps.



"with a team of just the 'best' kit, and see how long they last against a team of just AT."

Are you talking about IO or vehicle? Medic is the best kit in IO and AT is the best kit in vehicle but still you need a variety



"Anyone can get on IO and go revive mad and get good scores,"

I think this might have been why I asked what's a good player, not sure. But that's bullshit. There is a clear difference between the good and the shitty players and the scores show it.



"they can be crap and get revived over and over and get goodKDR even tho they die more then they kill"

Haha can happen but not very often. Not everyone's a medic or even a majority most of the time.
Most of the time i'm not revived.



"Not everyone can get in plane/chopper and do well. Not everyone can get in a
tank and do well... not even on karkand."

Tank is pretty easy to use and can get easy high kdr in it just don't be a complete idiot.
Planes and helicopter take more skill to kill with.




"Using a vehicle takes as much skill as infantry,"

Different type of skills though. I think that IO guys that do good can go over to vehicle server and do good. Since there are still IO battles going on it or if they hop in a tank or apc that's pretty easy.



"and there 'great' advantage
over infantry is absolute BULLSHIT."

Haha, there obviously is. Most kits can't do shit to it. 3 can and only 1 can attack for the most part. The other's
are almsot always defensively. It has 2 guns which it can fire at the same time. One automatic machine gun and a turret that has a blast radius. So it takes 1 hit for it to kill you or a couple people possible in 1 shot and you can't so shit to it unless your AT.






"AT/AA              28:49:18      1,355   1,637      0.8277        49.81%
C4                14:31:23      1,150        879     1.3083       0
AT Mine      03:49:36      325      265       1.2264      0
A large percentage of these kills are on vehicles, be it planes/choppers, armor or transports. But the KDR speak for themselves, Yes vehicles kill me more when I'm trying to kill them, But not by much. This great 'advantage' is a total myth put out by the stubborn people who refuse to do anything about it, and then whinge a bitch that a tank killed them while they where playing there precious medic/sniper kits."

So people on vehicle servers can only be Special Ops,AT, or die?
Any kit on IO can be good since there is equal playing field.



"You all bitch about planes, but never get in AA, or when flying never engage the other fighters but look for things tobomb, or you just can't fly and bitch about it because your not good enough."

Vehicle servers are okay I just like IO. That's what it comes down to but then some people like you like to bitch about IO


"Reviving takes skill... Umm HOW??? 'a dead body that doesn't move' zap... 2 points for doing nothing.
Also it doesn't matter who is revived, every time someone is, it increases someones KDR, either the person being revived doesn't get a death, or the person who kills him and then kills him again gets 2 kills. Every revive increases someones KDR, as there are hundreds of revives on every IO server in every game. That's 100s of extra kills, or 100s of less deaths which means extra KDR."


You think you can just walk over to a dead body get your paddles out zap then walk on? That guy just died from somebody pretty close. You have to know how close they are and where they are first. Can they just chuck a grenade to kill you when your right there to revive. Or is there whole team right there to kill you the second you're near him. You have to be smart, fast and coordinated to get a revive without being killed. An idiot can revive, but an idiot can also die and get the other guy he just revived killed.
2007-05-14 14:26:53
cowami
OY, BITCHTITS!
+1,106|6556|Noo Yawk, Noo Yawk

I really play IO servers because my computer lags on most everything else.

Of course, there is the ultimate feeling of satisfaction with using anti-tank rockets to blow up swarms of medics.
https://i.imgur.com/PfIpcdn.gif
2007-05-14 14:56:18
JackerP
aka S.J.N.P.0717
+21|6544|Mo Val, Cali
Yet 2 more reasons to play IO.
2007-05-14 17:53:23
Nate_32
Member
+3|7000|Nambe, New Mexico

S.J.N.P.0717 wrote:

I think your right about the interface but maybe the creators didn't envision IO becoming so popular idk. But Bf2s is much better than CS imo.

(Don't forget to bring my crummy stats into the argument)

The first thing I did was check for your stats but didn't see any. Still I assumed they were crummy since most people who complain about IO are either vehicle whores or have shitty stats.
Yeah, I haven't got around to putting it in my profile. My stats I would guess I fall into the latter of your two scenarios. (I have another account from the pre-prefix days) I can see what you mean about the interface thing, I mean I guess I should be happy they even put anything at all considering how jacked up some of the patches have been. Yeah BF2s is much better for tracking stats, but IMO CS as a game is better than BF2 for the instant battle infantry action, and the round system is better than respawning for that type of gaming.

Looks like I opened up quite a can of worms here, for a feature that will probably never be implemented.
2007-05-15 06:27:27
XRogerMellieX
Member
+8|6595
Everytime someone bitches about IO, I get an itchy groin.

The main argument against IO is the whole 'stat-padding' bullshit that you've all bandied about over the last two pages. In order for that to bother you vehicle players so much, you need to be whole-heartedly interested in stats.

My does my SPM of 4 (and colonel rank in 600 hours) bother you so much? Do you think all the hot chicks will do me because my stats are better? SRSLY get over it!

I play IO because I fucking LOVE IT. I can play vehicle servers just fine but I don't enjoy them anymore. I got tired of being fodder for someone elses jet-rampage, or getting tk'd at the chopper, or getting a simpleton as a pilot or gunner. I got REALLY bored of armour as it's just too goddamned easy (I'm on my second account btw, I have about 100 hours in armour).

If it makes you feel better, as mentioned above I can't really rank up any higher than colonel. The nearest achievable rank is a 2-star, I need 100 hours to get the points but around 700 hours to actually qualify.

Why does this bite so many peoples arses? We are all quite capable nowadays of spotting if someones stats were gained on IO or vehicle servers, so you can quite happily ignore an IO player when it comes to comparisons (if that's what you need).

EA really opened up the field of play for IO. Nothing has ever come close to being as good as it for playability. I don't enjoy CS, never have. I liked ET for it's objectives and the like but the things I can do on IO are SO much fun.

I try vehicle servers occasionally and the same shit keeps on happening. I get tired of it for the above reasons and as well that as an infantryman you can get caned from anyone, anywhere and that to me is VERY frustrating.

In my opinion, those who complain really strongly about IO are the players who spawncamp or use vehicles in a way that nets them high KDR's and they are jealous of people with better stats who play on servers where they can't be spawnraping fodder.

Oh and btw, if you get camped on IO you deserve it. They never get me more than twice... all I can suggest is try harder to break out (and stop spawning at the forward right as US on Karkand).
2007-05-15 21:36:20
JackerP
aka S.J.N.P.0717
+21|6544|Mo Val, Cali
"My stats I would guess I fall into the latter of your two scenarios."

Now that I think about it, I would suggest people who first start playing to play IO at first. It would be like learning the basics then move on. I then think when you play vehicle servers you'd be better. You'd already have the infantry part down then learn to use the vehicles. Not good for some noob to get raped by vehicles when he barely knows how to play.

"Yeah BF2s is much better for tracking stats, but IMO CS as a game is better than BF2 for the instant battle infantry action, and the round system is better than respawning for that type of gaming."

I like bf2 more but CS definitetly beats it in instant battle infantry action.
2007-05-15 21:56:11
oChaos.Haze
Member
+90|6705
Personally I love vehicles, obviously.  What I hate is people who bitch about things that don't matter.  Whether it be vehicle whores hating on IO, or IO players hating on vehicles.  Do what you want, play how you want, and we'll all be fine.  I can't stand IO, does that mean it shouldn't be there?  No.  The only argument I see working is that the game is called BATTLEFIELD 2.  It's supposed to incorporate all aspects of a modern battlefield.  But still once again, it doesn't matter.  If someone likes to walk around and only fight other guys walking around, it affects my day NONE.  I used to hate on IO, then realized it's pointless to hate on.  Just let people have their fun. 

Once again Snake, another great post.  Snake be the shiz nit.
2007-05-15 22:00:23
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6714|Chicago, IL
IO+Karkand+support class+grenades=see leader board........

All the stat padding of quality hax without the fear of a reset, but it's not fun in the slightest, so I can't understand why people play like that.
2007-05-15 22:04:38
BlackKoala
Member
+215|6592
Ambassador owns.
2007-05-15 23:57:05
YunDog
Member
+6|6817
IO = no jet bombing whores = +1
2007-05-16 00:15:55
Sgt. Sergio Bennet 3rd
Member
+169|7013|Mexico City

S.J.N.P.0717 wrote:

How's it akin to padding?

Please answer this at least


Stat padding is takes no skill whatsoever and is completely stupid. No idiot can just jump on IO and own like no idiot can jump on vehicle and own. You think everyone can just get on an IO and get good stats? Most people who vehicle whore would suck at IO and most people would IO would suck at vehicle whoring.  With each you have to practice and over time get better and better. Stat padding is cheating, in reality being in a vehicle is close to cheating since you have an unfair advantage over most the people your going to kill that's why vehicle k:d are almost always high. You have to be Engineer, Anti-Tank or Special Ops and for the most part Engineer and Special Ops can only be used defensively. With helicopters and planes it's even worse since only Anti-Tank is barely usably against them. Anyone else is screwed and have to hide or stay in a stationary gun to at most and most of the time just damage it unless they want to die. But still "And most people who play IO have good stats because its akin to padding." is just bullshit it's nowhere near it unless your talking about actually stat padders. At least you didn't disagree with my remark "since most people who complain about IO are either vehicle whores or have shitty stats."
IO is for padders,
now answer this:

if half the team has support kit and half the team has medic kit, how do u call that ????
2007-05-16 00:17:51
Sgt. Sergio Bennet 3rd
Member
+169|7013|Mexico City

YunDog wrote:

IO = no jet bombing whores = +1
then learn to fly the planes or use the stationary AA or the tunguskas. do you know they exist in the game ??
i have played games at danging oilfields where i whore the tunguska and finish first, taking down everything that fly.
2007-05-16 02:30:11
YunDog
Member
+6|6817

Sgt. Sergio Bennet 3rd wrote:

YunDog wrote:

IO = no jet bombing whores = +1
then learn to fly the planes or use the stationary AA or the tunguskas. do you know they exist in the game ??
i have played games at danging oilfields where i whore the tunguska and finish first, taking down everything that fly.
anyone who has played those things against serious jetwhores knows what BS your AA and tungstas are - pfft goodluck trying to hit a good pilot in a J10 with stat AA  - Loser=you

just play IO - eliminates a % of DHs - whos personalities appear addicted to repetitive bombing over and over

joining 'non IO' servers now you get pounced on by all the whores who've become desperate for the kills due to numbers moving over to IO - its almost only whores and newbs who dont know any better

the whores have themselves to blame for the creation of IO, and its popularity - and now they are crying cause no one wants to be their hapless victims anymore - yeah I wanna join a game and spend every 10 secs staring at a 10 second count down - not what i call playing a game

they fucked the game with their fucking exploiting and whoring - NOW FUCKING EAT IT
2007-05-16 12:12:11
JackerP
aka S.J.N.P.0717
+21|6544|Mo Val, Cali
"IO is for padders,"

Can anyone say why IO is for padders? Besides just saying IO is for padders.



"if half the team has support kit and half the team has medic kit, how do u call that ????"

What do you mean? I've never seen this happen. Even having half the team medics, never seen it.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard