I quite like the idea of no side switching, I does add much more of a famialirity.
As for the comment of unbalanced map start positions, Across a selection of maps, both teams will have a less favourable starts, but then that is the same in a 'real war' scenario, you just learn to use that to your advantage?
BF3
Moderator: Executive
Re: BF3
Yep you're right Thur. We don't know how the maps will play so lets just try without side switching which I think we all agree is our favourite option and if it doesn't work we can change that for the next camp.Thur wrote:Thanks for the input everyone. Ash nailed it. There will be imbalances. I think for the first camp we can deal with it. Each side has it's strengths. I say lets see what happens without side switching for the first camp. At least the HC's will only have to plan for half a map.
Re: BF3
My biggest imbalance fear is air power. Some pilots never seem to get shot down while never missing. Completely demoralizing for ground pounders. May need to require max rounds "pro" pilots can play as a pilot in a battleday. Or maybe can only fly every other round.
Numbers, another pain. One side having 2,3, or 4 more than the other hurts. If there is a numbers rule, I think it should be +1 max at the start of a round. Having four more basically gives a full squad advantage.
Numbers, another pain. One side having 2,3, or 4 more than the other hurts. If there is a numbers rule, I think it should be +1 max at the start of a round. Having four more basically gives a full squad advantage.
Re: BF3
Air isnt such a big problem in BF3, any more.
As a pilot you cant fight ground AND Air units at the same time. So if the ACE Pilot is Fighting off ground troops, then the enemy Pilot should take Air to Air Missles and eventually shoot the ace down. If the Ace switches to Air2Air then the ground is safe.
As a pilot you cant fight ground AND Air units at the same time. So if the ACE Pilot is Fighting off ground troops, then the enemy Pilot should take Air to Air Missles and eventually shoot the ace down. If the Ace switches to Air2Air then the ground is safe.
Re: BF3
I hope you are right Chef. Ash's idea of limiting the airtime of pro pilots (goes for heli also) might be an interesting idea.Ash2Dust wrote:My biggest imbalance fear is air power. Some pilots never seem to get shot down while never missing. Completely demoralizing for ground pounders. May need to require max rounds "pro" pilots can play as a pilot in a battleday. Or maybe can only fly every other round.
Numbers, another pain. One side having 2,3, or 4 more than the other hurts. If there is a numbers rule, I think it should be +1 max at the start of a round. Having four more basically gives a full squad advantage.
Regarding the teamratio: we had that rule in the past and should keep it.
Re: BF3
I really don't like the idea of limiting the air time of "pro pilots". Next you'll be limiting the time of pro gunners in tanks, or the amount of time on the battlefield pro soldiers can have. It's a bad rout to go down.
The addition of stingers for engineers should be all the solution a general needs. Not even pro pilots can stop a whole bunch of stingers fired at him.
The addition of stingers for engineers should be all the solution a general needs. Not even pro pilots can stop a whole bunch of stingers fired at him.
Re: BF3
Chuck Norris could!styphon wrote:I really don't like the idea of limiting the air time of "pro pilots". Next you'll be limiting the time of pro gunners in tanks, or the amount of time on the battlefield pro soldiers can have. It's a bad rout to go down.
The addition of stingers for engineers should be all the solution a general needs. Not even pro pilots can stop a whole bunch of stingers fired at him.
But I get your point. As Chef said lets keep our fingers crossed.
Re: BF3
Agree with styph. People come here to play the game as it was meant to be played. Some might leave soon if too many rules are applied.styphon wrote:I really don't like the idea of limiting the air time of "pro pilots". Next you'll be limiting the time of pro gunners in tanks, or the amount of time on the battlefield pro soldiers can have. It's a bad rout to go down.
The addition of stingers for engineers should be all the solution a general needs. Not even pro pilots can stop a whole bunch of stingers fired at him.
.-
HumanSpeedbumpAK
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:23 pm
- Location: Quincy, MA USA
Re: BF3
I once won an 8v8 BF2 Tourney by shooting a Cobra with an AT Rocket.
The pilot and co-pilot were killed when the rocket hit the windshield, but the vehicle itself just landed unceremoniously in-front of me and flew it back to base for repairs and a new gunner. Having two air vehicles in an 8v8 match is just plain unfair, we took all 3 control points and pushed them off the map to win with just under 20 tickets remaining. They had over 100 so it was literally the only way for us to win and was pretty intense.
Digital Overload 2006. I've got some pictures/video from the event I'm determined to dig up now.
EDIT: Fixed calling the Cobra a missile instead of a helicopter. sometimes I need sleeps.
The pilot and co-pilot were killed when the rocket hit the windshield, but the vehicle itself just landed unceremoniously in-front of me and flew it back to base for repairs and a new gunner. Having two air vehicles in an 8v8 match is just plain unfair, we took all 3 control points and pushed them off the map to win with just under 20 tickets remaining. They had over 100 so it was literally the only way for us to win and was pretty intense.
Digital Overload 2006. I've got some pictures/video from the event I'm determined to dig up now.
EDIT: Fixed calling the Cobra a missile instead of a helicopter. sometimes I need sleeps.
-
WoodenPlank
- Posts: 1085
- Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:23 pm
- Location: Northwest Florida
Re: BF3
Trying to artificially limit air-power, to me, is a huge mistake. Especially with our current understanding of the jet unlocks (ie: only A2A or A2G, except for cannon), combined with man-portable AA should fix the imbalance problems from BF2. Truth be told, though, I didn't think it was all that unbalanced in BF2 on most maps. I always thought the biggest imbalance with aircraft was how much the F35 sucked, and that many maps had the US at an air power disadvantage.
I actually like the idea of side-swaps, simply to fix imbalance issues. This goes TWICE for Attack/Defend conquest maps (Karkand and Sharqi, I'm lookin' at YOU). Defending maps like that every. SINGLE. FREAKING. battle would really start to drag, and quickly - especially if it was a map played a lot due to the campaign map layout. Even worse, some of those maps were often indefensible once the attackers got more than 1 or 2 flags. Karkand was horrible about that - usually all it took to win was one quick flag cap (especially the flag in the NW corner) and the defenders would almost never recover. Same goes for losing the TV station in Sharqi, and getting camped by the MEC helicopter all round. (Oof. That was made even worse by our anti-camping rules giving the MEC helo an advantage at the start of the round, and that the MEC helo's nose gun was WAY more powerful than the US one)
When both sides get chances at attacking and defending, it accounts for these imbalances. Maybe instead of saying no swapping at all, you always start as "your" army, even if "your" army isn't the correct (ie: attacking army plays as attacking in-game army) side on an A/D map, then sides switch for round 2. This seems like it would be a way to keep balance issues to a minimum, while still maintaining some cohesiveness. You could always explain it as some sneaky-sneaky happened between rounds, and each army ended up stealing the other side's equipment.
The half-switch idea might not be needed on non-A/D maps, or at least might not make as much of a difference. Some of the non-A/D maps in BF2 were still somewhat imbalanced (Gulf and Dalian Plant come to mind), but nowhere near as bad as the A/D maps.
I actually like the idea of side-swaps, simply to fix imbalance issues. This goes TWICE for Attack/Defend conquest maps (Karkand and Sharqi, I'm lookin' at YOU). Defending maps like that every. SINGLE. FREAKING. battle would really start to drag, and quickly - especially if it was a map played a lot due to the campaign map layout. Even worse, some of those maps were often indefensible once the attackers got more than 1 or 2 flags. Karkand was horrible about that - usually all it took to win was one quick flag cap (especially the flag in the NW corner) and the defenders would almost never recover. Same goes for losing the TV station in Sharqi, and getting camped by the MEC helicopter all round. (Oof. That was made even worse by our anti-camping rules giving the MEC helo an advantage at the start of the round, and that the MEC helo's nose gun was WAY more powerful than the US one)
When both sides get chances at attacking and defending, it accounts for these imbalances. Maybe instead of saying no swapping at all, you always start as "your" army, even if "your" army isn't the correct (ie: attacking army plays as attacking in-game army) side on an A/D map, then sides switch for round 2. This seems like it would be a way to keep balance issues to a minimum, while still maintaining some cohesiveness. You could always explain it as some sneaky-sneaky happened between rounds, and each army ended up stealing the other side's equipment.
The half-switch idea might not be needed on non-A/D maps, or at least might not make as much of a difference. Some of the non-A/D maps in BF2 were still somewhat imbalanced (Gulf and Dalian Plant come to mind), but nowhere near as bad as the A/D maps.