BF2S Forums Does anyone Else hate the wide open "Unreal Tournament " type maps?

Pretty much all I play is Karkand, Sharqi Pen. & Mashtuur City.  These are by far my favorite maps.  Every once in a while I'll hop on one of the open maps to get some aviator time, but other than that I don't mess with the open maps.

Well, thats what happens in the openendedness of BF2. Sometimes I love the fact that I could run behind their lines and cap a base, other times I hate it. Some of the maps would be impossible to win unless you could do that. I've rarly seen a game of Karkand where USMC takes the first flag and marches down over the rest of them. Its moreless spliting the enemies lines and making them fight two fronts. Mashuter is more designed with that in mind giving the MEC 3 spawns and easy access to the other spawn points.
I'm glad it is openended because other games that are like BF (a la Joint Operations) it made the choice of which spawn you have to assult. Heck you had to attack them in a certain order. Yes it kept the action concentrated on a small area, but most the maps were designed like crap and it was impossible for the most part to take alot of the bases.

BF2 does have a map editor, it just sucks becuase you have to have the map installed on your HD before joinin a server.

I like the wide open maps. They allow for some variation in the game. If you want Counter-Strike type scenarios constantly, than go play Counter-Strike.
I enjoy the close quarters maps a Hell of a lot too, but variatin is what makes the game so cool.
In Wetlands, which is a spokesmap for wide open map, you ahve the wide open spaces and all that, but you also have the zippy little boats and buggys. Also, defending a point in the middle of a wide open space can allow you to formulate strategies and have a lot of fun.

Still, some people will stick only to a few maps. That's fine by me, they can do what they want. Still, if any one of those type of people tries to mock me for my low SPM, or Kills or Kill:Death ratio, I'll murder them myself. You can't compare accuratly with other players who don't do the exact same thing as you anyway.

i only play karkand, i mean city maps

large open maps like zatar and kubra aren't any fun to me. i have to hike for like 5 minutes to get to the spawnpoints and there's not enough CQC for my taste. there may be less nade launchers around, but there are plenty vehicle whores to make up for it...

Krappyappy wrote:

i hate to break it to you but the whole point of bf2 is the vehicles. 'vehicle whore' is just someone who is doing what they're supposed to be doing.

playing bf2 for its infantry game is like playing chess only using the pawns. it's not how the game was designed, and it fails miserably as an infantry shooter. the weapons are poorly designed and inaccurate, the traveling distances are way too long, and the classes aren't balanced. the movement system enables players to dodge fire [which is a GOOD thing considering they are up against tanks and airplanes] but looks ridiculous. instead of dolphin diving, we could have used a real 'dive' key that works and looks much better.

the BF series is popular for its variety - you can fly in, chute down, hop in a tank, and continue on foot when the tank gets blown up. taking each part of the game individually, none of them are any good. i've already mentioned the problems with the infantry game. the flight engine is mediocre at best, with questionable physics and ridiculously small flight space. the BF series are like jacks of all trades - not worth much at any one thing but pretty good taken as a whole.

couldn't have said it better.  if you don't like the vehicles then get a copy of America's Army which is a damn fine infantry shooter game and its free.  the whole point of the bf series is for people to master the vehicles with the infantry kits as a complement, not the other way around.

where does it say that vehicles are the core of BF2? i've never seen or heard this before. the game is classified as an modern tactical shooter not a vehicle simulation. this game trys to simulate reality and in real life combat situations i always thought that vehicle/weapon technology complemented the infantry.

krappyappy, you obviously misunderstood what i meant by vehicle whores. i have no problem with vehicles. vehicles can be quite enjoyable at times. i am referring to the people who round after round only use armor or aircraft and proceed to spawnkill more then anything else. of course there are plenty of ways to avoid this i.e. spawn somewhere else or as AT, but this is not always effective as i can't make my entire team correspond to this tactic.  the point i am trying to make is that vehicles are quite overpowering to infantry combat so i find it a little unfair that people can gain the same global status by accumulating the majority of their points in armor or aircraft.

p.s. just because you suck with guns doesn't mean that  you can categorize BF2 as a poor infantry shooter, many believe that this is the one of the greatest fps' of all time.

Wide open maps is what I associate (and like) with the BF-series. UT and Quake have traditionally been running-down-the-hallway games where the most open area was some central room.  I know that have changed with the later versions though.

BF2 have less problems with large maps than BF1942 had, thanks to more control points and terrain objects that enables the infantry to shelter behind (eg all those big boulders on Zatar Wetlands). Go play El Alamein for a while and you'll see what I mean.

Speaking about tank whores on all maps except the infantry ones is like calling ppl rifle whores on Strike at Karkand. IMO a tank whore would typically rather play the infantry maps than Zatar Wetlands, where kills with a tank doesn't come that easy.

Normally the edges around the map have obstacles that doesn't allow you to go along the edge for very far. When there are no obstacles the terrain are uneven so that a vehicle is weared down fast, especially if you try to maintain high speed.

DeltaForceWarrior wrote:

where does it say that vehicles are the core of BF2?

DeltaForceWarrior wrote:

the point i am trying to make is that vehicles are quite overpowering to infantry combat

i rest my case. why do you think the vehicles are so overpowering? because they're the main focus of the game. stop fooling yourself, the game has only 3 maps of infantry centered action, all the rest are vehicle maps. i guess all those apcs on songhua stalemate are there for eyecandy, and we're supposed to run around using only rifles.

DeltaForceWarrior wrote:

p.s. just because you suck with guns doesn't mean that  you can categorize BF2 as a poor infantry shooter, many believe that this is the one of the greatest fps' of all time.

i don't normally like to bring up stats, and could care less what people thought of the way i played. but i'm bored, so i'll oblige your little remark. i obviously don't suck with the guns. in fact, i have better ratios and accuracy than you in almost every infantry weapon. see for yourself.

http://bf2s.com/compare.php?pid1=deltaf … Krappyappy

infantry has always been the weakest part of the BF series. i could go into a whole spew about the ballistics model and why it's utter garbage, but i've done that already in other threads and don't feel like repeating myself. you're free to believe what you like, and so am i. i believe that BF2 is a terrible infantry shooter, and you don't need to resort to saying i suck just because of what i believe.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-12 03:03:38)

krappyappy wrote:

i rest my case. why do you think the vehicles are so overpowering? because they're the main focus of the game. stop fooling yourself, the game has only 3 maps of infantry centered action, all the rest are vehicle maps. i guess all those apcs on songhua stalemate are there for eyecandy, and we're supposed to run around using only rifles.

if you had even bothered to read the rest of the posts in this thread, you would have noticed that the first part of my second post was in reply to something someone else said. you are trying to twist the words in my second post by implying that i think vehicles are only supposed to be eyecandy. i clearly stated that i don't mind vehicles, i just mind certain things that certain players do with them.

the comparison you made is also pretty weak evidence of your "superior" gun skills. ratios mean nothing as the more kills you get playing as a certain class means that you will also play that kit much more often and that will surely entail more deaths with that certain kit/weapon. accuracy is also an unreliable factor, because many times i empty the last few rounds of my gun into the ground so the gun reloads itself. i play mostly karkand so i encounter many, many, many hoppers and divers, so i think it is understandable that a lot of the shots i may take won't be hits. i play the game for fun, not to prove to people that i am a better marksman than they are.

i apologize if i offended you with my comments about your gun skills, but since you tried to talk down to me in your first post i felt it necessary to defend my integrity and my playing style.  i looked at your stats and noticed for the amount of time that you have played the game that you had low kills with most weapons, except assault rifles, so i figured that you were either bad with guns or just didn't use them and that was your reasoning for calling BF2 a poor shooter.

until our stats are identical i find it very hard for you to say that your gun skills are elite to mine, so please get your facts straight before you try to flame me.

Last edited by DeltaForceWarrior (2005-12-12 20:56:37)

Krappyappy wrote:

like i said, i don't like bringing stats into anything. so let's just forget about that bit. i don't suck with guns, and you don't either.

agreed

BF2 is not directly focused on any combat. (Infantry, armor, or air). Instead it focuses on giving a semi-realistic view on modern combat while still maintaining the "super soldier" feel of a military FPS.  Now in modern combat the infnatry make up the core of the army but the airforce and  tanks due the majorty of the killing. (if you factor out long range missles and the like.)

So yes indirectly it is geared toward air power and armor. But that is what modern day warefare is about The infantry and armor support each other. (most tanks in city usually have a squad of infnatyr nearby to help cover them from from such things as an anti tank person popping out from behind the tank and hitting them up the rear or other avenue the tank isn't looking at.) as well as the tank support the infantry by taking down buildings they don't want to mess with or other "fixed" positions and what not.

In truth if you know what your doing no piece of armor can ever own you. they will get some kills on your that is a gaurantee. but they wont own you.

Anyways i don't like 64 player size maps period. Karkland is my favorite map on 16 size but my most hated at 64. Most maps are GREAT on 16 or 32 version but the 64 is usually to large even for a full 64 players. Because the maps are so large  usually its 2 or 3 soldiers fighting here or there but the battle is spread out it's not compact and intense.

Anyway personally i have no problem with *insert vechichle/aircraft* whoreing as long as they are not spawn raping. Don't be an ass monkey just take the damn base. And if it's uncapturable back off and let the enemy take some flasg so that the map lasts longer.

And noobtubers. My definition of a noobtuber is shooting the grenade at only 1 soldier at any distance less than 30 meters. (in real life 20-40 mm grenades launched from a GL do not arm till after 30 meters to prevent the person from shooting themselves or other friendlies.) basically if they put a min distance before a grenade from the GL would explode like in real life i would have absolutely no problem with some using the weapon exclusively.

I actually don't mind someone using a rocket (eryx, sraw, ect) at point blank as long as they are aiming at me and not the ground in front of me, because it takes a bit of skill and luck to actually hi the person with the rocket but hitting the ground point blank and killing yourself is a pussy skilless act.

Anyway the infantry maps are by far my favorites. But maps such as kubra dam, shongua, and the one with the uS vs PLA. not wake but the other one where the us start on the carrier and the PLA start back at their air base in the mountains.

In all honostly shaqri i s probably the only 64 player size map i like because the majority of the combat is  inner city close qaurters if the teams are balanced with skill levels. Hell the helos and tanks on this map rarely play a problem on the 64 size because their is plenty of cover as well as AA and tow slots.