US team "softer" via mod unbalance

[Ammond]

In my direct experience I think there is significant unbalance between the two sides favoring nonUS.  Over a long period, say 8 hours or so, even a 5 to 15 percent difference would be significant. Kits and vehicles are involved. If anyone else has observations please jump in.

Favoring nonUS -
Main battle rifles for the ATs are different. The pistols also seem different.
Silenced SPEC OPS main gun is different. SVD and M24 operate differently.
Aks seems more effective than M16s.
J10s are unbeatable. Hellion is very difficult to Stinger head or ass on (two heat sources?).

These may be addressed in V.4. But that doesn't address the tournament's current difficulties - balance and enjoyability.

I suspect there are other differences that make the US side "softer." Suspecting such I think it would be an increasingly difficult prospect to populate the US side once the knowledge was in the open.

Just ask yourself why some of the elder campaigners almost never play the US side. It may be insightful to determine what the win/loss ratio of the tournament is for the history of v3.8 and v3.9.

It's not enjoyable suspecting via direct observation your side is soft and the history of the tournament is against your team. Who would sign up for that?

Only the DEVs can resolve this matter technically. They should expose the statistics. EA sorta` does for vanilla. Otherwise there is a policy solution - team swapping.

Knowing how hard it is to balance the mod and the maps I have and will repeatedly suggest team swapping per week as a policy fix for a technical issue.

Your comments please.

[Mbuna]

all a matter of opinion. in my opinion i actually like the US weapons better. The G36C is the best gun in bf2 in my opinion.Plus it was silenced and the Ak-74 was not. Didn't effect PLA much...  I also like the m4 better than the S12k... and afterall, they are all identical in damage,range,kick etc... i have heard that the j-10 is unbalanced but i have also heard people saying it would be fixed... helian vs warhawk= evenly matched beasts.

also if you remember how the team requests went last campaign. almost everyone requested 82nd... did all of them want to play at a disadvantage???

[Ammond]

Opinion based upon direct observation. The issue could be finally settled via full exposure of the statistics or weekly team swapping.

Mbuna, don't take this personally, but you seem resistant to the idea of team swapping. Is that the case?

all a matter of opinion. in my opinion i actually like the US weapons better. The G36C is the best gun in bf2 in my opinion.Plus it was silenced and the Ak-74 was not. Didnt effect PLA much...  I also like the m4 better than the S12k... and afterall, they are all identical in damage,range,kick etc... i have heard that the j-10 is unbalanced but i have also heard people saying it would be fixed...

[Mbuna]

actually if you remember i liked your idea about playing half the campaign as 1 team then switching and playing as the other, but i really dont like the round by round swapping. i like to get in the zone and if i see an enemy uniform (or even something of that color) moving- i kill it. swapping sides every round slows my reaction time down very slightly but it still effects my gameplay. another aspect is having to formulate 2 strats instead of 1. i would go for playing half the campaign as US then switching over China, The only downside to that is if we play the same maps again, it would get quite repetitive. When it comes down to it though- i don't see a problem. Infact, i am hoping to be on the US side this campaign so i can use the weapons i prefer.

[Mbuna]

question- has the chinese side won every campaign? im not sure about this... NAW started off as NAW 0 and we are up to NAW 5 so that is, NAW0,1,2,3 and 4 as data.

[Ammond]

Good question. I don't know. Perhaps the TAs have the stats. I'm only familar with 3.7 through 3.9.

Does anyone have this history stored somewhere?

question- has the chinese side won every campaign? im not sure about this... NAW started off as NAW 0 and we are up to NAW 5 so that is, NAW0,1,2,3 and 4 as data.

[Ammond]

I've also been meaning to add this comment.

Having one side softer is probably OK as long as everyone knows and agrees to the condition.

It's interesting having a map favor a team. It's also interesting knowing that one side is softer than the other. But all parties should know that and agree to it.

[Ammond]

I thought of that too. If the maps were played at different times in the tournament I think the boring part of playing the same map would abate. Cycling weekly helps preserve morale.

Perhaps the most difficult part in my mind is what the hell would we call the teams? Blue and Gold. Cat and Dog? Maulers and Muggers? Rats and Snakes? Team Periwinkle and Team Gladiola? I'm sure we could come up with some great and funny names.

actually if you remember i liked your idea about playing half the campaign as 1 team then switching and playing as the other, but i really dont like the round by round swapping. i like to get in the zone and if i see an enemy uniform (or even something of that color) moving- i kill it. swapping sides every round slows my reaction time down very slightly but it still effects my gameplay. another aspect is having to formulate 2 strats instead of 1. i would go for playing half the campaign as US then switching over China, The only downside to that is if we play the same maps again, it would get quite repetitive. When it comes down to it though- i don't see a problem. Infact, i am hoping to be on the US side this campaign so i can use the weapons i prefer.

[Mbuna]

if that would be the case, i think either the general should make the team name up (something non offensive of course  ) or just have it as Red Team vs Blue Team.

[Ammond]

I was thinking of something close to that myself. Generals are by their nature strategic. This is a tactical game. Probably the highest rank should be colonel. The colonels could name their team.

if that would be the case, i think either the general should make the team name up (something non offensive of course  ) or just have it as Red Team vs Blue Team.

[RF|Приватно.GTO69]

I'll give you gaili over the mp5 of the AT kit at a distance the gaili (excuse me if I misspell the weapons name but you all know what I'm saying) is way better, but I'd have to say the jackhammer is better than the dao 12.

and the SVD is a semi automatic but the m24 sights are true (true as in put the dot on the guys head and he goes to sleep) for a longer distance, the svd takes some getting know where the sights fire, just as you can make 350 meter shot with the 50 cal if you know how it fires.

Ak 47 is a better weapon than the m16. but I'll take the american specops over any other any day of the week.

I won't comment on the j10 cuz I don't know.

the bradley is way better than the chinese vehicle, better armor, better missle lock, and easier to drive.

either way I think its fairly balanced and these latest maps are very even I think.

Give me us give me the non us I don't care I just want to play without hackers, in a team community.

[RoadKill]

Some thoughts on the tourney,

BF2 was created with map and army differences with a purpose. It allowed for a more dynamic content set and provided a direction and focus for map flow and something in the way of organized objectives. I did find a spec sheet that provided all the data on the weapons and ammo although NAW has made it's own customizations.

Anyway here's a link to the weapons stats for stock BF2:
      http://wiki.bf2s.com/weapons/comparison

In BF2 you were free to play any kit / army / vehicle / map you wanted as much as you wanted. The game has a point system and medal / ribbon rewards system in place to help lend playing the many different offerings a purpose. The whole game was built with a strict  intent in mind and a tournament competion is obviously not the first choice.

The NAW community has attempted to bring a much sought after play environment to the players of BF2. It is a MOD and a Tournament at the same time. Unfortunately overcoming some of the prominent foibles built into the original BF2 game design are so centrally located and fundamental that, unless the players themselves are able to surmount them to create the kind of play environment an actual competion the NAW tourney is designed to be, that things may forever be stuck as they are now.

I am not seeing the problem some players have mentioned about switching sides during a match so that it's a team competion of team against team on a map in a game, instead of the map itself that is being fought against. The BF2 game is in fact played by most players playing all armies, kits and so on. Saying that you only want to play one kit and one map and one location on that map so a “zone” can be found or because it's just to hard to manage or because you don't know how or that it's to much to do all at once leads me to think perhaps this game is just not your style. Or maybe it's me and this isn't the place for me to find enjoyment.

BF2 was created with opening up game play and increasing the scope and maps sizes while adding a map pace over that of other combat games in the same class. While I agree that playing a different map every other round while switching sides in between map changes would be a little daunting, just playing both sides and armies during a match would maximize all the map and mod have to offer to all those in the tournament.

I personally like the NAW community and environment and really enjoy playing regular sessions in a tournament, I always have. I have several years expierence playing several MMORPGs / RTS / FPS and this community and environment here at NAW  is just the ticket for fun. We have all the pieces and parts needed for a truly competitive game expierence, now all we need is the content we as players need to create. I quit playing on the public servers do to the extensive presence of smacktards, greifers, and point addicts. I found that the team effort for the win or everyone working together to reach the goal was most enjoyable in my time with previous games. Whether we succeeded or failed we still had fun figuring out what to do how to do it and working together to implement those plans.


I'll stop editorializing now.... I don't seem to post all that often... maybe that's why my posts are so long.

[Smagma Dactyl]

Ammond and Roadkill are right in areas of balance and yes they WILL be fixed technically. Tadi has found a program that runs through your mod and gives to stats as Ammond suggested. Once I have this the corrections will be made so that no confusions will exist. Some weapons may lose their uniqueness due to this but this is the only way to adjust balance. The Ak74u is now silenced to match the g36c on the us side. And both sniper rifles have been adressed (both finish clip before reloading).

[Hotlips]

as i can remember it was
NAW 1 US won
NAW 2 US I THINK BUT CAMPAIGN FINISHED EARLY FOR UNFAIR SIDES
NAW3 DPRK
NAW 4 PLA BUT FINISHED EARLY

If i am wrong then someone edit my post but i am sure thats what it is

[Ammond]

Thanks!   

Ammond and Roadkill are right in areas of balance and yes they WILL be fixed technically. Tadi has found a program that runs through your mod and gives to stats as Ammond suggested. Once I have this the corrections will be made so that no confusions will exist. Some weapons may lose their uniqueness due to this but this is the only way to adjust balance. The Ak74u is now silenced to match the g36c on the us side. And both sniper rifles have been adressed (both finish clip before reloading).