BF2S Forums uncapturable base raping rules make the maps unfair

wrong, like in wake i agree with the rule that u may not attack the uncapable base . coz basebombing the carrier is so weak...usmc dont make a chance if u cannot go anywhere

slimer wrote:

Every server you go in has these rules and I don't think its right. The side without an uncapturable loses 75% of the time because they are being held back. The USA side on karkland always wins because they can't get spawn camped but the MEC side can. Same goes for sharqi, as soon at the hotel is gone, the MEC chopper just takes over.

A patch to give both sides an uncapturable would be great.

The other thing is the language thing, if you can't take the word ass, or shit, ect. Should you be playing a killing war game in the first place? If real life, people use those words so why make such a big deal about it.

I totally agree!

Each side should have an uncapturable base. . . the round will end when one sides ticket count reaches zero anyway. So why not - it's a stupid EA/DICE inclusion (to have it AS-IS) and utterly unfair.
+
The artillery should also have a range - able to hit the foward spawn points at the main bases - but not the back spawn points - this would make the game also more fair. Blasting the US carrier on Wake (as much fun as it for me to do!, watching 6-8 guys trying to get in 1 attack chopper; then getting art.y-striked instead); on wake this should not be possible - only the island spawn should be in range. The same for the PLA-base on Wake it should be uncapturable with forward spawn points in range of artillery and back spawns near the vehicle spawns out of artillery range.
+
The commander should be commander and not a "requester." I hereby "request" you do this is how it feels; not I "command" (order) this: because the reply 50% of the time is: "No way sir." As commander you should literally be able decide where spawning troops will spawn. Also the commander role - should be changed in many other ways. When a round begins when troop allocations occur, kit selections and requests for vehicles are made, it would be in the commanders charge to do the following.

a.) Decide who will be in a certain strategic vehicles (and that decision will last that entire round; 1 person one vehicle slot for that entire round; unless that player leaves the game); should a commander fail to select a player for a vehicle slot (after the player requests are made for those slots); it should be first come first serve to the requesting players.

A side benifit would be TK-ing for strategic vehicles (non-transports) would not be possible anymore. Plus if you remain on that certain server for more than round (or leave and rejoin) you are prohibitted from making a request for the same-type strategic vehicle next round. Another side benifit would be no more round to round hording of specific vehicles by certain players.

b.) If there are too many kits of one type selected, or innaapropriate for a strategic vehicle, the commander can "request" the players to change certain kit selection prior to the game beginnings/or spawn. Should a player "refuse" a commander-request more than twice (IAR); be subject to automatic kit selection by the commander.

c.) Review squads at will - and re-assign who is squad leader - at will. This would keep certain deep (in enemy territory) spawn points active - shoud the current squader leader get killed - and the other players simply don't realize you can just leave and rejoin a squad and re-spawn at the same point.  Also a commander can force (assign) players to squads who have not selected a squad. All squad-assignments are for that entire round.

d.) A commander can choose to kick a player (at will) if he has -15 points or less during a round; or more than 10 teamkills. This ability to kick is an option, and the commander would be able to notify a player, that he is approaching a kick limit - and better cease the behavior that is causing the negative scoring.

e.) The commander can "request/select" the players spawn locations at the games-beginnings/or re-spawns. Should a player(or squad) "refuse" a commander-request more than twice (IAR); be subject to automatic spawn location selection by the commander; thereafter during the round.

f.) I could think of more things that would make the commander actually a commander, if I thought about it more. What about you?

a-f

noone would dare play BF2 is some nooby ass decide what YOU should do. Hell, he might give me a sniper kit. Well that would suck for him, the team, and me.

*ToRRo*cT| wrote:

wrong, like in wake i agree with the rule that u may not attack the uncapable base . coz basebombing the carrier is so weak...usmc dont make a chance if u cannot go anywhere

Actually they have another spawn by their artillery and you can grab a boat to go to flags

Bernadictus wrote:

a-f

noone would dare play BF2 is some nooby ass decide what YOU should do. Hell, he might give me a sniper kit. Well that would suck for him, the team, and me.

Not true in any aspect.

That would not be an option. The idea is to make the play more TEAM oriented when players wont play that way.

As far as kit-selections there are 6 to choose from which roughly = 15% per kit selection. This number can floated on the server as an OPTION.

Should a server have the MAX, number for say snipers set to 20%, the last players to select that kit exceeding 20%, will issue a RED flag to the commander and he can request you to change that kit to a kit that is being underplayed and needed for that particular map as setup up in the servers options kit-% requirement list (2 requests; after that it is an order). This hardly equates to some noob randomly changing players kits because he is a jerky-noob. The actuality is that commander-players would ONLY be able to make sensible kit-selection changes + should a kit that is being underplayed in that map need to be filled - a commander could not issue a request, to have a medic changed to a sniper-kit, when an AT-kit is the actual kit being underplayed + this percentage kit-played value-%-per-map as players choose (re-choose at spawn times) would be available for players view so they could take THIS into consideration when making infantry kit selections at spawn times.

SnobbyBoss wrote:

That would make the game less fun for infantry and more fun for u, the commander in all of his games.

You could only come that conclusion by not thinking - at all.

1.) Servers should have additional options - these would merely be OPTIONS! Either ON or OFF. This would give the game (BF2) more options for variations of play.

Both main BASES could be UNCAP:ON or UNCAP:OFF, this would mean that the MEC/or/PLA side could also capture the USMC base on servers set up with both set to OFF. This would make the battles either fair or crazy(!) depending how the server was setup.

2.) As far as Commander ruining infantry play - it would have the opposite effect. Changing a kit-selection based upon vehicle use - is utterly justified. In the other actual infantry selections it is a request to change your kit the first two times - after that it is an order - you will do it. This as well would be a server OPTION, either ON or OFF. This would give the game (BF2) more options for variations of play and more structured battle play for clans/players/etc desiring the OPTION to make it so.

In addition, the ability to change a medic-kit selection to an engineer-kit, when someone is manning a tank, is a harmless change from the players perspective. And this as well would go into the game-logic coding, which would probably have appropiate kit selections pre-approved as - not needing to be changed:

Tank or APC: Engineer = OK
Black Hawk pilot: Medic or Supply = OK
Black Hawk gunner: Medic or Supply = OK
Black Hawk passenger: Engineer = OK
Attack chopper - either slot: Engineer or Medic = OK
Plane: doesn't really matter all kits approved.

As far as the commander having total control over kit selection that would not be the case. There are 6 kits, and there should be some balance, based on the MAP of course, and the game-logic would have different kit allocations percentages for different maps.

Karkand (and Gulf of Oman) for example needs: AT kits played on this map more so than others kits. The server would be set up with a player percentage requirement for this kit to say 15%-30% of actuall (not-in-tank) infantry players, should players not meet the % requirement in the server setup, the commander can issue a request to ALL-or-some-players to make the kit-change voluntarily. After 2 denials by players he can select your kit after on your third spawn. This is hardly an unreasonable server OPTION. And some players will take the commander-request to heart and actualy accept he kit-selection-change request voluntarily.

Other map kit-percentages would be easy to estimate and set in the server option setup.

3.) Making vehicle hording impossible and eliminating ALL tk-ing for vehicles would not be more fun for the commander- it would make the game more for for YOU. And this of course would be a server OTPTION. Either ON or OFF. This would also force vehicle hording-jerks to play infantry as well + it would give players the peace of mind  that the vehicle, your using, is yours for that ENTIRE round. One vehicle-slot:one player per round. No more jerky behavior in reference to vehicles would be possible any more on servers with this OPTION set to ON. Also stealing vehicles could also be addressed. Should an engineer (accpeted to use that vehicle for the entire-round) step out of a vehicle to fix it and a jerky team-mate drive away with it the player simply needs to make a request to the commander, and he can, at will, swap the players positions - this would also be a server OPTION, either ON or OFF.

All I am suggesting is adding additional-server options to resolve same-team player abuse, many suffer from and complain about. And to give options to the server setup for those wishing for more structured team play - and to make the commander less of an action-requestor.

Last edited by topal63 (2006-01-24 10:55:00)

i agree with the original post.

I think the only things that should be banned are:

stats padding
bunny hopping
punishing for mistakes

this is war. if you're on the defending side of a map, you should be allowed to camp.
if the other team sucks and you've pushed them back so far that all you have left to do is base rape them, then tough shit!

i've seen servers that don't even let you car bomb or throw c-4. what's next, you can't shoot someone without warning them ahead of time? what is this, Iraq or something?

I have a question for that first long post.  If you have a bad commander, such as perposly tking and doing arty on his allies just to kill them, what would you do?  This idea just makes the commander too powerful.

earth.citizen wrote:

TOPAL63.... you go to school to learn how to talk like that?

I would suggest to you that your challenge not be to advocate changing the functionality of the game but to encourage your team to work together. I know that sounds flippant, but I think it's true. The most enjoyable games I've played have been when a majority of my team's members, total strangers, came together and worked hard to win the round. Everyone felt as if they were part of something special. You just don't want to quit playing when you are on one of those teams.

As for this other issue of regarding base raping the "locked" base: Chances are you're a victim of a team that understands teamwork and you're going to lose that round anyway. Don't let your stats suffer needlessly and just don't respawn. Let the round end and play on.

LOL, and no I’ve never seen the inside of a school or a book - how about you?

Your reasoning/conclusions are beyond non sequitur, and of course that is from my lofty perspective . . .
. . . anyways:
a.) No game functionality is changed.
b.) The game-mechanics of artillery strikes remains the same.
c.) Vehicles remain functionally as-is.
d.) Shooting, re-supplying, reviving, sprinting . . . EVERYTHING in-game, remains the same.

By the way adding OPTIONS is what I have suggested. This is basically no different than requesting additional content or form be added to the game: new-unlocks, new-maps or new-OPTIONS. Considering these would be options added to a BF2:ranked:servers setup - you could setup a BF2:SERVER as-is (the way it is now), or in a different way.

And you are operating on list of assumptions that color your comments further out of context.
a.) I don’t consider base raping to be something invalid - it is legal game-play.
b.) I don’t think there is such a thing as spawn camping or spawn raping - it is in BF2 and utterly legal.
c.) I never re-spawn at the same spawn twice - if the first time I was killed when spawning.
d.) I am one of those guys that steals your plane/tank/chopper and spawn kills you.
e.) I don’t care about STAT.s, they are proof of nothing, other than you or I play a game called BF2.

My comments/posting are out of context, in terms of the commander ideas, as it relates to the topic of this thread and that - it is NOT a complaint. It is a SUGGESTON for improving the game by adding OPTIONS (and thus could have/maybe should have been posted in the BF2 improvements forum section).  I suggest you learn how to better comprehend what you’re reading, so that your commenting makes sense.

As far as the topic of this thread goes: one of the server setup options suggested was main base UNCAP:ON or OFF. I don’t see why It would be a big deal to have some BF2:servers SETUP with main base UNCAP:ON and some with main base UNCAP:OFF, it would just offer more variety to choose from in-game/when on-line.
+
The other commander suggestions don’t impact the game mechanics AT ALL - what they do change is the ability for team-mates to play like jerks. Most of all - TK’s for vehicles = NOT possible. And all-of-it by the way, if you can read, are mere OPTIONS. Which means it could be left as is on some servers; and on others NOT.

Last edited by topal63 (2006-01-25 14:59:05)

ownasses wrote:

i agree with the original post.

I think the only things that should be banned are:

stats padding
bunny hopping
punishing for mistakes

this is war. if you're on the defending side of a map, you should be allowed to camp.
if the other team sucks and you've pushed them back so far that all you have left to do is base rape them, then tough shit!

i've seen servers that don't even let you car bomb or throw c-4. what's next, you can't shoot someone without warning them ahead of time? what is this, Iraq or something?

Amen Brother, preach it from the mountain top!

The USMC team wins 75% of the time because the dumbass MEC spawns at the first flag. The worst thing that can happen to the USMC team is that they capture the hotel flag first instead of a rear flag. When USMC team achieves victory it's usually because it capped some rear flags.

Read:
Ror all of you people who play karkand and don't get it:
Don't spawn at the hotel or attack the hotel. The hotel is a meatgrinder. Ok? Hotel is nice for any player on either side as long as that player has some armor. Otherwise the nade blankets, constant arty fire from both sides, steady stream of enemies, and insufferable friendly newbies will insure that the best you can maintain in frontline combat there is a 1:1 ratio. USMC's rate of victory goes down quite quickly when they have to fight their way through the map. The hotel flag is a bad flag for whichever team holds it. When the USMC team has it they get killed while spawning just as much as the MEC does. The spawns at the hotel are open and vunerable, it's not an ideal place to spawn at if it's the closest flag to the enemy. LET THE ENEMY HAVE IT!

Ok? This is such a perfect example of what is really wrong with the game. Some gamer is complaining about how his style of play is ineffective and how the game should be changed so his style of play is more effective. Here's a tip - maybe you should try to play differently if what you do isn't working. The USMC starts out with their tickets automatically decreasing, also it's not imposslble to hold USMC back if you aren't rushing up to meet them or trying to battle em at the flag istelf rather than in the alley ways. The USMC really wins because all of the MEC team spawns at a giant meatgrinder to die in an orgy of explosions and bullets while a squad or two of USMC sneak around and cap the rear flags in most cases.

Let me propose the obvious to you that so many of you have missed.
If the hotel were a hard flag to cap, an easy flag to defend, a flag where the spawn points were well protected than this map would be almost impossible for MEC to lose. It would be much harder for USMC players to change their style and win if the map were redesigned. For the map to be more balanced the only thing that has to happen is gamers have to use their heads a little when playing MEC.

If you just spawn at the next flag back you have ample opportunity to close off USMC from each other flag, adequately mine and c4 key spots, set up in dispersed places that artillery doesn't get everyone killed like it does in the alleys at the hotel, and MEC has more time to move armor up and contest the USMC armor. I guess that just makes too much sense right?

Most of the average/below average players seem to be so happy, on both teams, to run into the alleys at hotel over and over again and accumulate death after death. Maybe they oughtta just cut all the other flags out and make it so arty doesn't need time to recharge so you everyone could play like retards to their hearts content... running right into large numbers of enemies that are running right at you with both commanders dropping arty in relatively the same spot.

Last edited by ComradeWho (2006-01-25 15:35:07)

the only thing I dont like about one side with uncap and the other with none is that:
when you attack an uncap some admin is talking crap about it all the while his team is just base rapping you. I was a server about a week ago and I was in command when one on my jets hit the uncap on OCS at that point an admin warned that if he did it again he would be baned. As this converation is going on my base had the uav sat and arty taken out then caped then I got killed. So i spawn at another location just to die again. I must have changed spawn point 4 more times with the same result death. so I start asking why is fair you their team to base rape and destroy commander assets and not our. They said come over as sf and no prob but dont kill any1 while your there? at that point I asked them to ban me from there server. I was a server to do with firefighters and etc....