![]() |


|
|||||||
| Battlefield 2142 - General Discussion General discussion for Battlefield 2142 |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#31 (permalink) |
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,491
|
Re: Mines and FF
I don't think any TG'er will be using APM's anymore. While a fellow TG'er accidentally TK'ed by an APM will forgive, a pubby is more likely to punish the TK.
It's just good to know now what the server settings are and perhaps add it to the server MOTD. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 (permalink) |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,641
|
Re: Mines and FF
You can always add to the server rules something like:
"APM mines can kill you and your teammates! Dispatch them with caution." or "APM mines can kill you and your teammates! Punishing others because you walked over friendly mines is not tolerated" |
|
|
|
| Sponsored links | |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 (permalink) |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 30
Posts: 4,294
|
Re: Mines and FF
Guys, please read each post in this thread carefully.
MINE FF ONLY AFFECTS APMS AND EMP MINES. This means you need to be careful about APM placement, just like in BF2. It prevents ludicrous APM spam. Recon players should only be placing APMs where there is less likelihood that friendlies will step on them. They can be defused and will not go off if you are moving slowly. EMP mines are easily avoided and cause little harm if run over by friendlies. Motion Mines DO NOT track friendlies. So, get used to the fact that you can't spam APMs in heavy traffic areas anymore. I know it's sweet to pick up a few extra kills in heavy infantry maps without having to actually do any work for them, but them's the breaks. No more Recon players using APMs like grenades when under fire. No more spamming them in high-traffic areas. I agree with SARC though, this should have been broadcasted and I will work on that now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 (permalink) |
![]() Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 3,581
|
Re: Mines and FF
In a game that relies upon your acumulated score (ie ranked), your score for a round is important and allows you to unlock all of this stuff that increases teamplay. In a game like this where most people are the random pubbie, you can see the complaining that goes on about a simple start timer before the round. And that doesn't even affect gameplay. FF being on completely changes gameplay for the Recon kit, and most pubbies won't recigonize it. The people on the recieveing end of the blast get one death, the ones placing that mine get -3 I believe, not counting punishes.
As for not using them in high traffic areas, you can't even use them in low-traffic areas. For all the pubbies that get kicked for not playing as a team because they don't read the loading messages or the scrolling server messages ingame, do you think they will see this message before they run into a mine and punish? Now, don't get me wrong, I fully support having FF on, but having it on a ranked pubbie-filled server, it isn't going to be obayed by all members. A few misfits can run over all the mines in the world and do their damage before they are reported, and the damage is done. On a server like PoE2 or TacMod, we have teamplaying pubbies that listen and enjoy our rules, and same with 2142, just they are a much lesser consentration on the 2142 server compared with the passer-bys. Those teamplaying pubbies enjoy realism, and that is why they make the trip to our unranked servers. Here they still make the trip because of the amazing teamplay, just we get a much bigger mix of players as a result of going ranked. FF on unranked = great FF on ranked pubbie-heaven = great if it everybody knew about it, horrible if people don't. I'm up for trying it and wouldn't have a problem if everybody understood it, but I stay skeptical that it will be accepted by the masses that inhabit the server. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 (permalink) |
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 972
|
Re: Mines and FF
I agree with Acid except I believe this will cause more problems then it will solve.
It will make a lot of mine tactics unavailable like using APMs to defend a flank or stopping buggie rushes with an APM wall. It wont stop players from running into groups of the enemy and dropping mines like grenades or spamming them all over the Titan. I wont get to try it until at least Friday.
__________________
![]() |
|
|
|
| Sponsored links | |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 (permalink) | |
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Emerald City
Age: 23
Posts: 53
|
Re: Mines and FF
Quote:
I have no problem with this, once there is a discernable way to tell friendly mines from enemy mines. Playing POE2, I never had a problem avoiding friendly claymores or AT mines because of the hovering red skull and crossbones. But in 2142, that symbol seems to randomly appear over friendly and enemy mines alike, which will lead to a lot of irritated players.
__________________
To oppose something is to maintain it -Ursula K. Le Guin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 (permalink) |
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Emerald City
Age: 23
Posts: 53
|
Re: Mines and FF
I know, my point is that leads to even more TKs. You're supposed to have the advantage of being able to spot friendly mines from a safe distance, it wasn't such a big deal with claymores in BF2 but given the larger blast radius of APMs, it is an issue. I say this because I tend to run into enemy mines alot, and they can be hard to spot in such a fast-paced game. Combine that with no friendly indicator, and there's going to be a ton of TKs.
__________________
To oppose something is to maintain it -Ursula K. Le Guin |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 (permalink) |
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 326
|
Re: Mines and FF
I think it's pretty clear that FF on mines is going to stay for the time being. We'll just have to see how it goes.
__________________
2142: |TG-Irr| Silverfish BF2: |TG-Irr| Maus ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
| Sponsored links | |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 (permalink) | |
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,491
|
Re: Mines and FF
Quote:
It could be possible that a friendly vehicle ran over the EMP mines and the motion mines detonated too. I'm not sure why they would. Maybe the EMP mines make them detonate as a side effect but it doesn't seem logical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 (permalink) |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 30
Posts: 4,294
|
Re: Mines and FF
I too have noticed some inconsistent behaviour from the motion mines and even got a teamkill myself. I am still at a loss to explain what makes them do this, since most of the time they obviously avoid friendlies.
I suspect it has to do with getting into a vehicle previously occupied by an enemy, but haven't tested it. If we can't observe consistent behaviour from the motion mines, then our inclination will be to turn FF Off. |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 (permalink) |
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Georgia
Age: 27
Posts: 2,187
|
Re: Mines and FF
Last night 3 of my motion mines exploded on a friendly to destory him. As I've been saying all along, this game's mine system is still too buggy to have mine FF on.
I was also killed by 4 friendly APMs because the stupid HUD not once told me a friendly mine was in the area. Sorry, but if your APM blows me up I'm punishing because I want you to stop placing APM mines since FF is on and the HUD system is buggy ![]() Oh, and if we're leaving mine FF on, PLEASE include that text on the load screen. Most servers have it off and I see no easy way of telling if a server has mine FF on or off unless the admin states so.
__________________
Telorn |
|
|
|
| Sponsored links | |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Mine Placement Strategies | TheFatKidDeath | Battlefield 2142 - Tactics and Missions Discussion | 9 | 11-16-2006 05:49 PM |
| Mines/C4/Claymores | Thierry | Battlefield 2 - Tactics and Missions Discussion | 11 | 11-11-2005 11:09 AM |
| Sooooo.... claymores and mines are useless now? | Thierry | Battlefield 2 - Tactics and Missions Discussion | 12 | 10-17-2005 05:24 AM |

