Discussion topic for today! ;)
OK, we all know there are optimum flags in every BF2 map where the AAS balance hinges on...
For example; on Karkand it is the Suburbs - hold this and you pretty much have the game won, same on Zatar - get that central hill base and you are laughing...
Key Bases in BF2:
Dalian Plant - The Warehouse
Daqing Oilfields - The Cistern
Dragon Valley - The Woodyard (though everyone knows the USMC is lucky if they get past the Village!)
Fushee Pass - West Mine Entrance
Gulf of Oman - perhaps the Hotel, but this map is perhaps the most fluid
Kubra Dam - Maintence Yard
...etc, etc, etc...
In effect, once you have these key central bases in AAS there is little incentive to push on as you know you are playing for tickets after that.
To be fair, on Karkand this usually happens at the Train Wreck ~ the USMC advance just seems to stop and then it becomes a big sniper fest. The river becomes a barrier to any counter-attack by the MEC and the USMC can just sit AT and armour behind the train and let the MEC guys bang thier heads against a brick wall!
You all know what I mean.
SO - what's my point?
Well, just occassionally it would be nice to practise a 'non-AAS' game ~ I'm not going to suggest another 'night' on Meathook as these are starting to pile up (SF night, Infantry only night, Jeep only night, etc)...
Just maybe every couple of weeks we have a non-AAS game, nothing set - just as the mood takes us.
after playing on the dMw server ive started to hate just the normal way of playing the game
i was on a ranked server last night playing commander on Songhua Stalemate and everytime i gave out an order the sqaud seemed to follow but there were only a few sqauds to cover all bases, so each time a sqaud moved off, the base was over run. so it seem imposable to win<_<
so i belive that AAS is a much better way of playing the game because you atually need team work and you dont end up losing a base futher back and having to go and lone wolf it back. -_-
so im not realy to bothered about the idea of having a 'non-AAS' game but if there are people wanting to try it out i wont be against it, so it may be a good idea if others want to try it out. :)
As with Glen, I also prefer AAS, but a game of vanilla BF2 would be nice. I am up for it.
This is a major problem with ranked servers - everyone wants to attack and no one wants to stay back and defend (the attackers invariably get more points).
On dMw everyone seems willing to 'do thier duty' and take on the boring job of defending.
In every game I have SL'ed I have had to ask for a volunteer to stay back and I have never had a lack of volunteers.
HOWEVER - I should point out that there are non-AAS servers out there that do play in a mature and tactical way...
You will have seen Tactical Gamer mention on this forum many times - we have a very good relationship with these guys (dMw play regularly on thier 64 player N0. 1 server often)...
Here you will find that commanders will ask specific squads to defend - and squads and individuals play for the 'team win'.
Many of the guys who like to play commander on here are American, and they tend to take the role seriously (as do the Squad Leaders).
Unfortunately the majority of ranked servers playing non-AAS are completely unmoderated without an Admin in sight, so play can degenerate into a complete free for all.
I have seen people warned and then kicked on TG servers for immature play or cheating. But unfortunately servers like dMw and TG are few and far between.
As a BF2 noob I'm not sure what I think, but at the moment I prefer the freer play on TG to the choke point after choke point style of AAS. However, since TG gets full 64-player games and the Hook has smaller teams AAS I guess makes sense there.
QuoteOriginally posted by Maus@Jan 3 2006, 02:09 PM
As a BF2 noob I'm not sure what I think, but at the moment I prefer the freer play on TG to the choke point after choke point style of AAS. However, since TG gets full 64-player games and the Hook has smaller teams AAS I guess makes sense there.
[post=107900]Quoted post[/post]
Yep - that' the point. As we get smaller teams we use AAS to concentrate the action in a smaller area.
Thus we get as much action on Meathook as a TG game (as on teh TG server squads tend to be spread out).
:)
...However, if you like to play SpecOps and go behind enemy lines there is less point in AAS. Pity.
As Spec Ops you can still go behind the lines. You just have to plant C4 on the oppositions tanks and APCs; and when they bring them up you press the little red button! :dribble: :devil: :roflmao:
QuoteOriginally posted by Sn00ks@Jan 3 2006, 02:20 PM
As Spec Ops you can still go behind the lines. You just have to plant C4 on the oppositions tanks and APCs; and when they bring them up you press the little red button! :dribble: :devil: :roflmao:
[post=107908]Quoted post[/post]
There is never any reason to enter UCB on the hook due to the lack of commander.
personally I'm not a big fan of people sneaking way past the point of combat to steal any vehicle. especially US stealing tanks and AP's from the last base in 64 player karkand, when the combat is still at the suburbs (Before anybody says anything. I know it's allowed)
back to the original point
AAS Rocks :rockon: The only way to play :dmw:
QuoteOriginally posted by Ranger@Jan 3 2006, 09:13 AM
Discussion topic for today! ;)
OK, we all know there are optimum flags in every BF2 map where the AAS balance hinges on...
For example; on Karkand it is the Suburbs - hold this and you pretty much have the game won, same on Zatar - get that central hill base and you are laughing...
Key Bases in BF2:
Dalian Plant - The Warehouse
Daqing Oilfields - The Cistern
Dragon Valley - The Woodyard (though everyone knows the USMC is lucky if they get past the Village!)
Fushee Pass - West Mine Entrance
Gulf of Oman - perhaps the Hotel, but this map is perhaps the most fluid
Kubra Dam - Maintence Yard
...etc, etc, etc...
In effect, once you have these key central bases in AAS there is little incentive to push on as you know you are playing for tickets after that.
To be fair, on Karkand this usually happens at the Train Wreck ~ the USMC advance just seems to stop and then it becomes a big sniper fest. The river becomes a barrier to any counter-attack by the MEC and the USMC can just sit AT and armour behind the train and let the MEC guys bang thier heads against a brick wall!
You all know what I mean.
SO - what's my point?
Well, just occassionally it would be nice to practise a 'non-AAS' game ~ I'm not going to suggest another 'night' on Meathook as these are starting to pile up (SF night, Infantry only night, Jeep only night, etc)...
Just maybe every couple of weeks we have a non-AAS game, nothing set - just as the mood takes us.
[post=107860]Quoted post[/post]
Non-AAS = whack-a-mole <_<
QuoteOriginally posted by OldBloke@Jan 3 2006, 06:27 PM
Non-AAS = whack-a-mole <_<
[post=107935]Quoted post[/post]
I'm with OB on that one, great game the other night on SAK2 and SAK. Armitage you had 62 kills on SAK2.. nice one! You dont see those kind of scores on many ranked servers..
on a side note anyone seen this before?
(http://www.robchie.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/man.jpg)
yer ive seen stuff like that quite a bit.
how do u post pictures?? :huh:
add links to your personal web space you get from your isp
where do i find my personal web space??
i use blueyonder as my isp. they give me 5 or 10 meg free webspace.
who is you isp? take a look at your isp's homepage. you should find out there.
QuoteOriginally posted by Armitage@Jan 3 2006, 05:58 PM
There is never any reason to enter UCB on the hook due to the lack of commander.
personally I'm not a big fan of people sneaking way past the point of combat to steal any vehicle. especially US stealing tanks and AP's from the last base in 64 player karkand, when the combat is still at the suburbs (Before anybody says anything. I know it's allowed)
[post=107933]Quoted post[/post]
I dont see a problem taking vehicles. BB caught me in the US base on Karkand on Saturday trying to do that. It was really wierd. I knew he had seen me, but thought it unethical to shoot at him. So I hid in clear view. He came over and seemed to take forever to hetting round to shoot me.
That is one of the problems of sneaking around, sometimes you find yourself in a position where you cant act.
QuoteOriginally posted by big-paddy@Jan 4 2006, 10:33 AM
I dont see a problem taking vehicles. BB caught me in the US base on Karkand on Saturday trying to do that. It was really wierd. I knew he had seen me, but thought it unethical to shoot at him. So I hid in clear view. He came over and seemed to take forever to hetting round to shoot me.
That is one of the problems of sneaking around, sometimes you find yourself in a position where you cant act.
[post=107995]Quoted post[/post]
Hmmm, I've always been a bit confused about the vehicle in the UCB situation too.
From the SpecOps point of view the UCB is fair game in order to destroy material assets - this is usually interpreted as being the radar and UAV trailer...
But my question has always been - aren't vehicles in the UCB assets too?
Anyway - this is off-topic for two reasons, first because dMw doesn't use a commander the UAV and radar are less strategic in our game and also this thread is supposed to be about the negative effects of so-called choke-point!
To get back on track, I simply don't want situation where ~ as happened last week ~ Armitage actually felt he had to leave a game because he got fed up of the Zatar Wetlands choke point (Hill BAse) which we were dogedly defending, knowing we would win on tickets.
His perfectly reasonable comment in the game was 'can't you guys PUSH a bit - this is getting boring'.
And I'm sure to him it probably was!
In 'our' defence, everyone knows that Zatar is a race to that central base, and there is always a very nice little battle there to begin with to be 'king of the hill'. And so I suspect - no disrespect intended Armitage - had the other team won this race they probably wouldn't have complained.
Also, why SHOULDN'T a team defend heavily...BF2 is all about tactics.
MY POINT...Was to compare BF2 to football in a way, where some big teams are accussed of being 'boring' because they play a 'negative' defensive game.
The manager's response is always the same - 'it's all about winning'.
But for the fans this kinda play can be a bit soul-destroying.
What I was trying to ask is whether people felt that this kind of negativity was not in the dMw spirit - or is it a fair tactic?
On a personal note - after Armitage made his comment in the game I asked my squad what they felt and what they wanted to do. We took a vote and they said they felt happy defending...
My usual tactic in this situation is to hold the important flag and then to send across a skirmisher or two every so often to see if they can steal the next flag...
But then I thought we all did that?
Hmm I think most of us play because of the fun element, but it is always a bonus if you win. If this means playing defensively, because you know that if you push you'll lose, I think is OK.
Some frag monkeys might find this boring ;) but setting up a good defense that repulses all advances can be quite satisfying. It is probably good practice too. If we ever play other clans and have mutiple squads with different roles then knowing an effective defense strategy would be worth it.
A battle isn't all about attack, attack. Sometimes you take a strategic point and control it to win the battle.
My 10ps worth.
QuoteOriginally posted by Sn00ks@Jan 4 2006, 11:04 AM
Hmm I think most of us play because of the fun element, but it is always a bonus if you win. If this means playing defensively because you know that if you push you'll lose I think is OK.
Some frag monkeys might find this boring ;) but setting up a good defense tha repulses all advances can be quite satisfying. It is probably good practive too. If we ever play other clans and have mutiple squads with different roles then knowing an effective defense strategy would be worth it.
A battle isn't all about attack, attack. Sometimes you take a strategic point and control it to win the battle.
My 10ps worth.
[post=108001]Quoted post[/post]
I'm with you 100% there...
Another very good example of this situation is the first base in Dragon Valley (The Village)...
How many times have you played USMC and NOT been able to get past there?
(I always meant to start a thread to poll whether we should allow th US team to 'have' the village by default...in fact i will do tht now while I remember!)
:)
QuoteOriginally posted by Ranger@Jan 4 2006, 11:55 AM
But then I thought we all did that?
What - bore the opposition into leaving? :roflmao:
QuoteOriginally posted by DogMeat@Jan 4 2006, 11:10 AM
What - bore the opposition into leaving? :roflmao:
[post=108004]Quoted post[/post]
No - that's just me!
LOL
:)
QuoteOriginally posted by big-paddy@Jan 4 2006, 10:33 AM
I dont see a problem taking vehicles. BB caught me in the US base on Karkand on Saturday trying to do that. It was really wierd. I knew he had seen me, but thought it unethical to shoot at him. So I hid in clear view. He came over and seemed to take forever to hetting round to shoot me.[post=107995]Quoted post[/post]
I was torn :devil:
QuoteOriginally posted by Ranger@Jan 4 2006, 10:55 AM
Hmmm, I've always been a bit confused about the vehicle in the UCB situation too.
From the SpecOps point of view the UCB is fair game in order to destroy material assets - this is usually interpreted as being the radar and UAV trailer...
But my question has always been - aren't vehicles in the UCB assets too?
Anyway - this is off-topic for two reasons, first because dMw doesn't use a commander the UAV and radar are less strategic in our game and also this thread is supposed to be about the negative effects of so-called choke-point!
To get back on track, I simply don't want situation where ~ as happened last week ~ Armitage actually felt he had to leave a game because he got fed up of the Zatar Wetlands choke point (Hill BAse) which we were dogedly defending, knowing we would win on tickets.
His perfectly reasonable comment in the game was 'can't you guys PUSH a bit - this is getting boring'.
And I'm sure to him it probably was!
In 'our' defence, everyone knows that Zatar is a race to that central base, and there is always a very nice little battle there to begin with to be 'king of the hill'. And so I suspect - no disrespect intended Armitage - had the other team won this race they probably wouldn't have complained.
Also, why SHOULDN'T a team defend heavily...BF2 is all about tactics.
MY POINT...Was to compare BF2 to football in a way, where some big teams are accussed of being 'boring' because they play a 'negative' defensive game.
The manager's response is always the same - 'it's all about winning'.
But for the fans this kinda play can be a bit soul-destroying.
What I was trying to ask is whether people felt that this kind of negativity was not in the dMw spirit - or is it a fair tactic?
On a personal note - after Armitage made his comment in the game I asked my squad what they felt and what they wanted to do. We took a vote and they said they felt happy defending...
My usual tactic in this situation is to hold the important flag and then to send across a skirmisher or two every so often to see if they can steal the next flag...
But then I thought we all did that?
[post=108000]Quoted post[/post]
The dMw spirit from CZ has always been to move people between teams to try and even things up. Can be tricky on BF2 but if one team is defending consistently and it is jsut a case of ticket run down then IMHO the right thing to happen is for someone to swap from defending team to attacking team. If there is a pitched battle over a point and the defending team are trying to advance but cannot get the impetus to go further then that is different. Just sitting holding a point letting the tickets run down will spoil peoples enjoyment unless it is really close to the end of a map.
My 2p :)
QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Jan 4 2006, 11:44 AM
The dMw spirit from CZ has always been to move people between teams to try and even things up. Can be tricky on BF2 but if one team is defending consistently and it is jsut a case of ticket run down then IMHO the right thing to happen is for someone to swap from defending team to attacking team. If there is a pitched battle over a point and the defending team are trying to advance but cannot get the impetus to go further then that is different. Just sitting holding a point letting the tickets run down will spoil peoples enjoyment unless it is really close to the end of a map.
My 2p :)
[post=108016]Quoted post[/post]
Yep - and to be frank I'm not saying I disagree.
Which is why I asked my squad what they thought, but to be fair, if you ae winningyou don't like giving up a winning position do you? LOL
Like you - and this is why I started this thread - I like it when everyone is enjoying it. I was (seriously) a bit upset when Armtage left.
If I did anything different in the future I would have probably ensured that my squad was split into an attack and defense team and that we made a real effort to push people forward...
I didn't *feel* like we were doing anything wrong in holding a good position, as there are several of us (myself included) who particularly like to defend. But in a group like ours, where winning ISN'T the chief priority I think you do have to - as funny as it sounds - think about how the other team and whether they are enjoying themselves...
After all, we are all 'the other team' 50% of the time, so you have to put yourself in thier position.
A win where the other team has left because they are bored is a bit of an empty win!
(Incidently this is the reason I am so quick to point out team ballancing ~ I hate it when you think you have had a really good win, only to have someone com on the forum the next day and say 'well you did have more in your team than us'. It really takes teh shine off!)
but invariably after these kind of games, you get people posting straight away about what an intense battle and how close and great it was - i assumed everyone enjoyed the close ones when the defenders had locked down and you had to find a way in
QuoteOriginally posted by Boris@Jan 4 2006, 11:57 AM
but invariably after these kind of games, you get people posting straight away about what an intense battle and how close and great it was - i assumed everyone enjoyed the close ones when the defenders had locked down and you had to find a way in
[post=108021]Quoted post[/post]
:withstupid:
QuoteOriginally posted by Boris@Jan 4 2006, 11:57 AM
but invariably after these kind of games, you get people posting straight away about what an intense battle and how close and great it was - i assumed everyone enjoyed the close ones when the defenders had locked down and you had to find a way in
[post=108021]Quoted post[/post]
You are right - and I will make this my last point (honest LOL)
I forgot to add one strange thing that maybe only applies to me (maybe because I am Scottish < not trying to be funny by saying this!)...
But I sometimes LIKE to be on the losing side, with all the odds stacked against me!
I have only EVER left ONE game of BF2 because it was going badly for me ~ that was that time where loads of 'guests' invaded Meathook and started raping the USB because they didn't know our rules...
That is the ONLY time.
I love to fight on to the last - I NEVER give up...And with good reason, there have been quite a few occassions when my team has come right back from an apparent loss to take a game...
And aren't those the BEST games?
Even that really mad situation with the Farm on Dragon Valley - I have spent whole games just fighting between the US UCB and the Farm! But have I given up?
NO!
Because I like the odds stacked against me.
So - yes, sometimes there is 'negative' play in the game (if you percieve GOOD defense as negative) but it's a really good feeling to overcome this!
:)
Just an observation! (Apparently disagreeing with myself there as well! LOL)
in the AAS game i dont care if im winnign or losing but it always seems quite fun.
its good even if you've just joind a game half way through because you still no what to do, just go attack the nearest base with your team,
simple.
...and i think that everyone likes the AAS as long as it has a good route planned for the map, like karkand and songhua, i think that these 2 AAS routes are done the best because you dont no which side will win. i believe that on these 2 maps each team has an equal chance at winning, and each time i have played this map ive seen each side win an equal amount of times.
so my point is: i think that to make some maps more enjoyable the AAS routes may just need to be tweaked a little so that teams have more of an even chance.
:)
Here are my points: ......
Nah, I like AAS. It's quit easy but can get quit tactical. Pushing back the enemy away from a base is really difficult and takes tactics and when you achieve it by excellent teamplay it's allright.
QuoteOriginally posted by BIG-Glen@Jan 4 2006, 12:28 PM
so my point is: i think that to make some maps more enjoyable the AAS routes may just need to be tweaked a little so that teams have more of an even chance.[post=108030]Quoted post[/post]
Absolutely :D
Let's hope Lib doesn't have too much ongoing at the moment 8)
QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Jan 4 2006, 01:22 PM
Let's hope Lib doesn't have too much ongoing at the moment 8)
[post=108041]Quoted post[/post]
Eh, what, I wasn't listening. :huh:
It would take me about 2 minutes to change an AAS route, then pass it to BB to put on the server.
Anything that will make the game more fun is worth making the time for.
what are we changing?
Wow, i just read this whole topic and i dont even play BF2. Something about it interested me.
QuoteOriginally posted by Armitage@Jan 4 2006, 06:32 PM
what are we changing?
[post=108096]Quoted post[/post]
your login :devil:
:byesad:
QuoteOriginally posted by Ranger@Jan 4 2006, 12:08 PM
I forgot to add one strange thing that maybe only applies to me (maybe because I am Scottish < not trying to be funny by saying this!)...
[post=108023]Quoted post[/post]
That is a scottish thing. 'Well we lost agaijn lads, but didnt we look bonnie?'
The thing about fighting a team that is dug in is sometimes you do finally overwhelm them and come back to roll them right back. I dont think anyone minds losing a game. As long as we keep an eye on team balancing everything should work out between games.