BF2: UAVs too all-seeing... DICE, please modify to improve..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

UAVs are great for finding and killing (via arty) obnoxious
campers, but totally screw up the game-balance for
special-forces and snipers, who both frequently like to
work in stealth mode. The implementation of UAVs
is a great feature of the game, but the oversimplied way
they currently work is detrimental to game-balance.

I suggest that a visibility-component be added to UAV
detection. What point is there in decking out a sniper in
fancy camoflage and having him lie in the grass, just
to have his location immediately picked up by a casual
UAV scan ? Or for a single special-forces operative
hidden in a roofed bunker, or under a roof-overhang ?

The wise Commander will always commission a few UAV
scans away for the obvious centers of fighting, especially
over key CPs. However, the motionless well-camod
sniper or building-hidden troops should still not
be visible.

Why bother being a sniper when you are going to be the
next target for arty when the Commander has nothing
better to do with his arty... Your normally-distant location
from concentrated-action makes your role immediately
recognizable on the UAV scan, even if you are full-camo,
motionless, lying in the grass and have not yet fired one
shot.... OTOH, ground-spotting of snipers in the game
seems to work in a perfectly appropriate way, either in
the SP or MP game.

Also some detection-weighting be given in the UAV scan to
visible ( from the air) motion between one scan-rotation
and the next. Ranging from zero for a no-motion, lying-prone,
low-visibility sniper, to full weighting for an occupied vehicle,
in motion or not. Detection-weighting could correspond to
the frequency of dot-appearance on each UAV scan-
rotation, maybe ?

Other suggestions ?

DICE, are you reading ? Please.....

John Lewis

 

[schrodinger]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42c1a73f.16115420@news.verizon.net...
> UAVs are great for finding and killing (via arty) obnoxious
> campers, but totally screw up the game-balance for
> special-forces and snipers, who both frequently like to
> work in stealth mode. The implementation of UAVs
> is a great feature of the game, but the oversimplied way
> they currently work is detrimental to game-balance.
>
> I suggest that a visibility-component be added to UAV
> detection. What point is there in decking out a sniper in
> fancy camoflage and having him lie in the grass, just
> to have his location immediately picked up by a casual
> UAV scan ? Or for a single special-forces operative
> hidden in a roofed bunker, or under a roof-overhang ?
>
> The wise Commander will always commission a few UAV
> scans away for the obvious centers of fighting, especially
> over key CPs. However, the motionless well-camod
> sniper or building-hidden troops should still not
> be visible.
>
> Why bother being a sniper when you are going to be the
> next target for arty when the Commander has nothing
> better to do with his arty... Your normally-distant location
> from concentrated-action makes your role immediately
> recognizable on the UAV scan, even if you are full-camo,
> motionless, lying in the grass and have not yet fired one
> shot.... OTOH, ground-spotting of snipers in the game
> seems to work in a perfectly appropriate way, either in
> the SP or MP game.
>
> Also some detection-weighting be given in the UAV scan to
> visible ( from the air) motion between one scan-rotation
> and the next. Ranging from zero for a no-motion, lying-prone,
> low-visibility sniper, to full weighting for an occupied vehicle,
> in motion or not. Detection-weighting could correspond to
> the frequency of dot-appearance on each UAV scan-
> rotation, maybe ?
>
> Other suggestions ?
>
> DICE, are you reading ? Please.....
>
> John Lewis

Hmmm. Maybe tie it to a heat signature, or motion only. I suspect that
would mean a major rework.

Anyway, it there is decent teamwork going on, then your special forces will
already have taken the UAV trailer out - very easy on most servers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

i own a yacht <me@privacy.net> once tried to test me with:

> this game wasn't designed so that pansies like you could find a nice
> hidden spot and sit there the entire round desperately trying to kill
> something with your sniper rifle. it's a fast-paced action game, and the
> uavs are perfectly balanced towards that.
>
> and they are temporary, you realize. and cover a fairly small area at a
> time. and are extremely easy to disable. you must be terrible if uavs
> are presenting that much of a problem.

Are you always a jackass, or is it just that time of month?

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:43:50 GMT, i own a yacht <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>John Lewis <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote:
>> UAVs are great for finding and killing (via arty) obnoxious
>> campers, but totally screw up the game-balance for
>> special-forces and snipers, who both frequently like to
>> work in stealth mode. The implementation of UAVs
>> is a great feature of the game, but the oversimplied way
>> they currently work is detrimental to game-balance.
>
>this game wasn't designed so that pansies like you

As usual you get the wrong end of the stick.....by
letting your personal vendetta get between your
brain and your keyboard.

> could find a nice hidden spot

Isn't that what a sniper is supposed to do, then move quickly
and quietly and do it again ??

> and sit there the entire round desperately trying to kill
>something with your sniper rifle.

More important... the spotter role for his team. This is
supposed to be TEAM-PLAY, remember...However, that
role is also significantly nullified by the overpowering
UAV implementation.

I could dwell on medal-award deficiencies in the area of
team-play points too, but that is not the subject of this
thread.


> it's a fast-paced action game, and the
>uavs are perfectly balanced towards that.
>

I am not the slightest bit interested in being a sniper.
However, since balance between the various kits is
important in other ways, and since DICE has spent
a great deal of effort on the game-balance, I was
pointing out a fairly significant (and unrealistic)
game-balance deficiency in the UAV implementation.

>and they are temporary, you realize. and cover a fairly small area at a
>time. and are extremely easy to disable.

and fix...........

> you must be terrible if uavs
>are presenting that much of a problem.
>

Not to me.
I prefer Assault or Engineer.. [ to kill that UAV-spotted Special
Forces guy, and fix the UAV trailer in the unlikely event of him
breaking it... in addition the usual engineer duties elsewhere )
But why should a couple of kits be put at a major disadvantage
when a tweak to the UAV implementation would take care of
most of the issues ?

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

nothing is absolute in the game. Tanks don't kill in one shot, the F-35
isn't all it can be, engineer class is difficult to play, anti-tank is hard
and air defenses can't hit anything in less than 4 shots. So don't expect
the sniper to have all the advantages of being a sniper. Most commanders
will ignore snipers as long as they aren't capping flags or camping out in
the enemy base (which I bet is why you're so pissed)

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42c1a73f.16115420@news.verizon.net...
> UAVs are great for finding and killing (via arty) obnoxious
> campers, but totally screw up the game-balance for
> special-forces and snipers, who both frequently like to
> work in stealth mode. The implementation of UAVs
> is a great feature of the game, but the oversimplied way
> they currently work is detrimental to game-balance.
>
> I suggest that a visibility-component be added to UAV
> detection. What point is there in decking out a sniper in
> fancy camoflage and having him lie in the grass, just
> to have his location immediately picked up by a casual
> UAV scan ? Or for a single special-forces operative
> hidden in a roofed bunker, or under a roof-overhang ?
>
> The wise Commander will always commission a few UAV
> scans away for the obvious centers of fighting, especially
> over key CPs. However, the motionless well-camod
> sniper or building-hidden troops should still not
> be visible.
>
> Why bother being a sniper when you are going to be the
> next target for arty when the Commander has nothing
> better to do with his arty... Your normally-distant location
> from concentrated-action makes your role immediately
> recognizable on the UAV scan, even if you are full-camo,
> motionless, lying in the grass and have not yet fired one
> shot.... OTOH, ground-spotting of snipers in the game
> seems to work in a perfectly appropriate way, either in
> the SP or MP game.
>
> Also some detection-weighting be given in the UAV scan to
> visible ( from the air) motion between one scan-rotation
> and the next. Ranging from zero for a no-motion, lying-prone,
> low-visibility sniper, to full weighting for an occupied vehicle,
> in motion or not. Detection-weighting could correspond to
> the frequency of dot-appearance on each UAV scan-
> rotation, maybe ?
>
> Other suggestions ?
>
> DICE, are you reading ? Please.....
>
> John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:55:23 -0400, "ChangeGuy"
<change.this@change.that> wrote:

>nothing is absolute in the game. Tanks don't kill in one shot, the F-35
>isn't all it can be, engineer class is difficult to play, anti-tank is hard
>and air defenses can't hit anything in less than 4 shots. So don't expect
>the sniper to have all the advantages of being a sniper. Most commanders
>will ignore snipers as long as they aren't capping flags or camping out in
>the enemy base (which I bet is why you're so pissed)
>

Not pissed at all. I don't like to play sniper.

In a game in which the developers took extraordinary pains
to make other items balance, the potential unbalance issues
for sniper and Special Forces stood out like a sore thumb.
I know that snipers and camping are a real PITA in other
games inc. BF1942, but the proposals I made would render
them UAV-visible from the air in expected situations -- roof-tops,
crane-tops etc, where the camo does not blend in.

However, why should a UAV pick them off motionless
in grass --- if so, why bother with the camo at all ? And there
is not that much grass in many of the current BF2 scenarios.

Or why should a UAV find a Special Forces operative hidden
in a building, or under bushes or a porch for that matter? Isn't part
of the fun for the SF dodging quickly from one cover to another in
the path towards an objective? Obviously, the SF can barrel
across the country-side in a DPV, and hope to out-run
detection, but wouldn't it be nice for the SF to have the
opportunity to try some alternate tactics, such as run 'n hide ?

Much of the fun in BF1942 is the variety of available and
legitimate tactics. When one gets tired of piling up points
out-gunning the opponents, why not try some stealth in
flag-capture for a change, be where the opponent least
expects you to be ?? A totally legitimate Special
Forces-type role.

In BF2, a fun-challenge could be to avoid the eye-in-the-sky
while sneaking - if the drones functioned in a realistic
eye-in-the-sky manner.........and even to the extent of
making them visible and very slightly audible to nearby
ground forces.

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:34:21 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:55:23 -0400, "ChangeGuy"
><change.this@change.that> wrote:
>
>>nothing is absolute in the game. Tanks don't kill in one shot, the F-35
>>isn't all it can be, engineer class is difficult to play, anti-tank is hard
>>and air defenses can't hit anything in less than 4 shots. So don't expect
>>the sniper to have all the advantages of being a sniper. Most commanders
>>will ignore snipers as long as they aren't capping flags or camping out in
>>the enemy base (which I bet is why you're so pissed)
>>
>
>Not pissed at all. I don't like to play sniper.
>
>In a game in which the developers took extraordinary pains
>to make other items balance, the potential unbalance issues
>for sniper and Special Forces stood out like a sore thumb.
>I know that snipers and camping are a real PITA in other
>games inc. BF1942, but the proposals I made would render
>them UAV-visible from the air in expected situations -- roof-tops,
>crane-tops etc, where the camo does not blend in.

<snip>

I think a neat feature would have been to have the UAV as an actual device
that could be shot down.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:57:06 GMT, Memnoch
<memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:34:21 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:55:23 -0400, "ChangeGuy"
>><change.this@change.that> wrote:
>>
>>>nothing is absolute in the game. Tanks don't kill in one shot, the F-35
>>>isn't all it can be, engineer class is difficult to play, anti-tank is hard
>>>and air defenses can't hit anything in less than 4 shots. So don't expect
>>>the sniper to have all the advantages of being a sniper. Most commanders
>>>will ignore snipers as long as they aren't capping flags or camping out in
>>>the enemy base (which I bet is why you're so pissed)
>>>
>>
>>Not pissed at all. I don't like to play sniper.
>>
>>In a game in which the developers took extraordinary pains
>>to make other items balance, the potential unbalance issues
>>for sniper and Special Forces stood out like a sore thumb.
>>I know that snipers and camping are a real PITA in other
>>games inc. BF1942, but the proposals I made would render
>>them UAV-visible from the air in expected situations -- roof-tops,
>>crane-tops etc, where the camo does not blend in.
>
><snip>
>
>I think a neat feature would have been to have the UAV as an actual device
>that could be shot down.

Yes, please.
And with a longer re-spawn time if killed.

The UAV implementation just seems hasty and badly thought out.
The satellite view is great, given the apparent lack of
weather-effects. An occasional short-lived sand-storm would
make things rather interesting......except for the graphics cards..

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

i own a yacht <me@privacy.net> once tried to test me with:

> Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:
>> i own a yacht <me@privacy.net> once tried to test me with:
>>
>>> this game wasn't designed so that pansies like you could find a nice
>>> hidden spot and sit there the entire round desperately trying to
>>> kill something with your sniper rifle. it's a fast-paced action
>>> game, and the uavs are perfectly balanced towards that.
>>>
>>> and they are temporary, you realize. and cover a fairly small area
>>> at a time. and are extremely easy to disable. you must be terrible
>>> if uavs are presenting that much of a problem.
>>
>> Are you always a jackass, or is it just that time of month?
>
> QQ. familiar with that term yet?
>

Spell it out for me.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"i own a yacht" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:f_Fwe.8775$o6.452@fe19.usenetserver.com...
> Memnoch <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> I think a neat feature would have been to have the UAV as an actual
>> device
>> that could be shot down.
>
> it can already be taken out by a spec op. one. solitary. spec op. that's
> what they're there for. and trust me, no commander is going to use a
> uav to see the spec op coming. if the commander is busy keeping an eye
> on the mainbase with uavs and waiting for a spec op to come running in
> then chances are very high that your side is getting owned and a mutiny
> needs to be called.
>
but a good commander will probably do regular scans and monitor incoming
enemy activity, it's still not enough though, spec ops determined to blow up
stuff will succeed most of the time before they can be killed. Using
claymores, antitank mines and other tricks work better.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

The answer is to send special forces after the enemy's radar dishes and
UAV trailers right quick.