Poll

Did you expect BF2:SF to be more or less like Vanilla BF2 than it is?

More13%13% - 7
Less35%35% - 19
About Same32%32% - 17
Both1%1% - 1
Neither1%1% - 1
Either; but in ways not quantified by this simple poll15%15% - 8
Total: 53
Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6721|Melbourne, Australia
Forgive my rant, but I just had to get this out...

Frankly, I've been disappointed with how "Vanilla" the gameplay in BF2:SF is. (But don't get me wrong, I love BF2:SF)

Most maps are just head-to-head conquest and could just as well be Vanilla BF2.

Even when considering the head-to-head conquest nature of the core BF2, and that SF would follow that paradigm, it seems that the "missions" and the way they are set-up are not terribly "Special Forces"-like.

For example, from what I have read it is kind of rare to have SpecFor vs SpecFor encounters. Admittedly most of my reading is on the British SAS, but it seems the premise of mist of the maps is a little...skewed.

The Insurgents and Rebels are both equipped similarly to to their SF opponents... this seems a little odd to me. When the SAS have done missions in Columbia against drug barons, they have been up against SF-trained fighters, but they have seldom been as well equipped or backed.

Most of the SpecOps I have read about are seldom done with immediate access to Artillery, Armour and Attack Chopper (because of the obviousness of the logisitics of getting them set-up) - unless only on the non-SF side.

I think most of what I'm saying about the set-up is that the sides are too even - and this is rarely the case (from what I understand) in genuine special operations. Usually the SF are out-numbered and out-gunned, but are better trained, have better intelligence, have better equipment and the element of surprise. Basically, the starting conditions should be asymmetric but still balanced.

Sure I'll cop flames for this but...

Iron Gator - I actually see this as a good Head To Head (HTH) SF vs SF map... it works.
Devils Perch - Again, this seems a good take on a HTH Special Operation. I would take away the SEALs artillery and give them a "parachute drop" spawn point.
Surge - Good premise, but I'd expect a greater proportion of Rebels with more mundane equipment (no gas masks, flashbangs, teargas, ziplines), no UAV or Satellite, and Spetznaz without Arty but with UAV & Satellite.
Mass Destruction - Same comments as Surge.
Leviathan - Premise is "okay" but seems more like a strategic strike by conventional forces than a SpecOp. I'd take the artillery away from the MECSF, possibly lighten their armour too, change the SEALs to conventional Marines...
Night Flight - This is definitely a good SpecOp premise, but still. I'd take away the SF equipment and weapons from the Insurgents and give them more mundane stuff. Get rid of their commander assets except UAV. SAS should have only UAV and Satellite, and possibly have some Insurgent flags that are easier to defend. Apart from that it's a good premise and a good map.
Ghost Town - This is like someone blended Mashtuur, Karkand and Sharqi then threw some LSD and Amphetamines in too. It's a brilliant map. Bloody awesome. But it's too direct for genuine Special Forces! At the most I'd take away artillery from both sides as they are "recovering documents" rather than trying to take ground.
Warlord - Possibly the definitive SF map. And as above, it's brilliant. I'd take away the SAS artillery, and downgrade the Insurgents weapons and equipment to mundane. Maybe even boost their numbers if possible. I'd do-away with the insurgents Satellite and UAV. I'd take away the SAS tank, perhaps replace it with another APC/AFV and move their staging area a bit further away from the city. Or get rid of the tank and APCs/AFVs and make it a Night Map since this is the sort of thing that the SAS wouldn't do during daylight. If you want it as a daylight map, make the changes above, get rid of the tank, and add two Black Hawks - then you have a Black Hawk Down style of "daytime interdiction" against a local "Warlord".

On top of all this I'd also like to see the SF teams using special weapons - the silenced version of the L96A1 for example, the MP5SD3 silenced SMG, the Russian Silenced Assault Rifle That I Can't Remember the Name Of. Every SF soldier to have a suppressed pistol for example... the Assault kit could have some of the "special" rounds for the 40mm grenade launcher - like the grapple throwing charge, or the shotgun round. The Engineer could have frame charges for opening doors or ferret / door opening rounds for his shotgun (or fibre optic cameras to look round corners etc). And what about rapelling? Oh dear.

And if you must have "Arty" you can make it a commander function, not an assett, and it's actually an airstrike or something.

With the cooperative modes we could have had extra bots as civilians - giving everyone extra TKs... then we could have had hostage rescue and other kinds of scenarios.

What kinds of maps / schenarios would I make? Don't have the time right now but will post again later. Unless this waffle has put everyone off.

\\'
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6936|California

i dont care much for the mechanics of the system, but i will add my .02 worth.

Night Maps are the biggest challenge out of both games
Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6721|Melbourne, Australia

stryyker wrote:

i dont care much for the mechanics of the system, but i will add my .02 worth.

Night Maps are the biggest challenge out of both games
Oh absolutely!

I bloody love the night maps. I reckon most of the SF maps should be night. Or there should be a night and day version of every map

Okay maybe not...

But the night maps highlight what the differences between SF and Vanilla should have / could have been.

\\'
Noop-Ni
ROAR
+14|6715
The problem with giving one team certain advantages is that people will want to be on that team. Who'd play insurgent on Warlord if they got no equipment, compared to the SAS with all their crazy fantastic stuff? You'd get situations where the special forces outnumber the insurgents 3 to 1, and that's just wierd.

If the entire game was like the intro though, that'd be cool. Actual working stealth attacks, and people blowing up flags and running away and stuff. Impossible to implement, sure, but still cool.
sfg-Ice__
Member
+4|6869
There has to be equally equiped sides so to maintain game balance.  In war the bettert equiped and trained wins...in the game if one side always won noone would play lol.

Anyway, this brings me to what I would really like to see come out of EA/Dice.  Underground close quarter maps.   Haze tunnels, passages, rooms, drops, bridges, whatever but all within the confines of something like a mine, or underground complex.  Now that would be a real battle.
Impaqt
Member
+37|6854|Chicago, Il
This is Battlefield 2.. NOT Ghost Recon......

BF2 has very little basis on Reality.....  EA/Dice did just fine with the SF Xpack
farmerfez
o wut?
+78|6747

I cant play night maps because my graphix card sucks...
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|6686|Little Rock, AR
Did anyone ever play Global Operations?  That game had a mode where the attacking team had to get to a certain point to pick up a bomb, then take the bomb to a certain point to blow up the communications center or whatever.  The defending team couldn't ever pick up the bomb, but if the person on the attacking team carrying the bomb got killed, the bomb was dropped where his kit was and his teammates could carry on.  There were also missions that had a non combatant that was playable and one team had to get the hostage or whatever from point A to point B.  I was hoping there would be missions like that in SF.  Also, I've noticed that it seems like I have to shoot about 20% more to get kills in SF and it seems like it takes other people more shots to kill me, as well.  Anyone else notice that?

Last edited by kilgoretrout (2006-08-14 14:07:51)

Mariena
Blondes have more fun
+52|6685|The Netherlands

sfg-Ice__ wrote:

There has to be equally equiped sides so to maintain game balance.  In war the bettert equiped and trained wins...in the game if one side always won noone would play lol.

Anyway, this brings me to what I would really like to see come out of EA/Dice.  Underground close quarter maps.   Haze tunnels, passages, rooms, drops, bridges, whatever but all within the confines of something like a mine, or underground complex.  Now that would be a real battle.
Oh. You mean like the palace battles on Warlord?
Yes, I can only imagine all the automatic shotguns and grenade launchers and nade spamming. That'll be a real battle!

USAFDude_1988
Will fly for food.
+120|6725|Daytona Beach, FL
I've always wondered why Insurgents and Rebels get comm assets. OK Artillery is alright.. but UAV and satellite capability? wtf?

The balance issue could be solved by unbalancin teams. Although I'd like to see how much difference it would make if one side had UAV and satellite, while the other side has to fight like it's the old 20th century.

Windrider_Melb wrote:

stryyker wrote:

i dont care much for the mechanics of the system, but i will add my .02 worth.

Night Maps are the biggest challenge out of both games
Oh absolutely!

I bloody love the night maps. I reckon most of the SF maps should be night. Or there should be a night and day version of every map

Okay maybe not...

But the night maps highlight what the differences between SF and Vanilla should have / could have been.

\\'
I totally agree, Leviathan, Devil's Perch, and Night Flight are really what SF is all about. Iron Gator is also a great map for Special Forces too. Those four are really the only "different" maps in SF.

Last edited by USAFDude_1988 (2006-08-16 17:05:20)

Capt. Foley
Member
+155|6804|Allentown, PA, USA
Yea SF was realy lacking alot of content and it was poorly optimized which causes alot more lag. There should be ALOT of different weapons for each army and more viechals, they also need to do the viechals right for once exapmle the Hind should be a transport also, Apache should have a more powerful cannon ect.
Paco_the_Insane
Phorum Phantom
+244|6861|Ohio
You should Try Americas Army for missions like hostage rescue and stuff.
Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6721|Melbourne, Australia

Mariena wrote:

sfg-Ice__ wrote:

There has to be equally equiped sides so to maintain game balance.  In war the bettert equiped and trained wins...in the game if one side always won noone would play lol.

Anyway, this brings me to what I would really like to see come out of EA/Dice.  Underground close quarter maps.   Haze tunnels, passages, rooms, drops, bridges, whatever but all within the confines of something like a mine, or underground complex.  Now that would be a real battle.
Oh. You mean like the palace battles on Warlord?
Yes, I can only imagine all the automatic shotguns and grenade launchers and nade spamming. That'll be a real battle!

Or the control centre in SURGE, with its crawl spaces and ladders...
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6889|Colorado
I was expecting more vanilla, so I wasn't happy at first but then gave it a chance a couple more times & now its my fave.
Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6721|Melbourne, Australia

USAFDude_1988 wrote:

I've always wondered why Insurgents and Rebels get comm assets. OK Artillery is alright.. but UAV and satellite capability? wtf?

The balance issue could be solved by unbalancin teams. Although I'd like to see how much difference it would make if one side had UAV and satellite, while the other side has to fight like it's the old 20th century.

Windrider_Melb wrote:

stryyker wrote:

i dont care much for the mechanics of the system, but i will add my .02 worth.

Night Maps are the biggest challenge out of both games
Oh absolutely!

I bloody love the night maps. I reckon most of the SF maps should be night. Or there should be a night and day version of every map

Okay maybe not...

But the night maps highlight what the differences between SF and Vanilla should have / could have been.

\\'
I totally agree, Leviathan, Devil's Perch, and Night Flight are really what SF is all about. Iron Gator is also a great map for Special Forces too. Those four are really the only "different" maps in SF.
Exactly what I meant - give the lower-tech team the advantage in numbers to make up the balance; I'm wondering if the Autobalance function can give a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage of numbers to one side...

I do think the premise for the Mass Destruction and Surge maps are good... it's just the set-up seems... "wrong" for a real Special Forces Operation.

\\'
USAFDude_1988
Will fly for food.
+120|6725|Daytona Beach, FL

Windrider_Melb wrote:

I do think the premise for the Mass Destruction and Surge maps are good... it's just the set-up seems... "wrong" for a real Special Forces Operation.

\\'
I agree with that... but its hard to simulate a surprise attack on an enemy in this game.
Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6721|Melbourne, Australia

USAFDude_1988 wrote:

Windrider_Melb wrote:

I do think the premise for the Mass Destruction and Surge maps are good... it's just the set-up seems... "wrong" for a real Special Forces Operation.

\\'
I agree with that... but its hard to simulate a surprise attack on an enemy in this game.
Oh I agree - I think they did a decent job considering that the core BF2 is just flag-capping and bodycount.

The surprise aspect (in my opinion) could easily be simulated by using a night map where the attacking Special Forces team has NV gear but the defending terrorists/insurgents/rebels do not. BF2 does have dynamic lighting and I'm wondering if it would stretch to car headlights, torches/flashlights and searchlights.

\\'
HCSkorpio
Hind Secks
+8|6753|California
quote=USAFDude_1988 I've always wondered why Insurgents and Rebels get comm assets. OK Artillery is alright.. but UAV and satellite capability? wtf?

I guess the insurgents and rebels managed to hack probably like the us satellites...electronic warfare.

If you mean by advantage in numbers then give the insurgents more tickets..

In warlord...let the SAS have an attack chopper...

but let the insurgents be able to take down the attack chopper with one rpg-7.

Some aspects of SF are just WTF....like how can insurgents have a T-90 and a BMP-3?
ShadowFoX
I Hate Claymores
+109|6747
Bf2sf > Bf2
rmilhous
Member
+32|6744|Augusta, Georgia
By no means do I mean to piss our talented Airplane Pilots off, but I do like the fact that it is only Heli aircraft and no jets. The jets are great, but the Attack Heli's have the advantage on most of your SF maps without Tom Cruise coming by and lighting your ass up. So when ever I get the chance I still venture over to the vanilla side and play from time to time. Meh, I even attempt to fly a jet sometimes myself.

If I may, I would have really loved to have seen the addition of grappling hooks and ziplines in Vanilla. Imagine what Karkand would be like then.

As for teh night maps, you have to let them grow on you. And the other poster that made mention of needing a better graphics card to play them, well he is 100% right. Until I put a new graphics card in my PC the night maps sucked ass. They are still a little tough though. Probably the best one as far as ease of game play goes is the Leviathan map. Well laid out, and still a good bit of areas with light. You dont really need to play with night vision on all the time on Leviathan like the other two.

I don't know about you guys, but I am anxious to see Jalalabad in action in a few days.

rmilhous
comet241
Member
+164|6981|Normal, IL
ill aggree that it would be cool if it was more special ops like.... I think maybe having "missions" where a better equipt but outnumbered force takes out some objective would be a nice touch, but im dreaming there. true that the day maps are pretty much vanilla with some sprinkles on top. The night maps are completely different though and that alone saves SF imo. night vision ftw

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard