Should Commander be disabled unless a team has 9 or more players?

blud · Post by **blud** » 2007-05-08 00:01

The discussion has been brought up that perhaps Commander is very lame in small games of PR, such as 8v8 (or less) infantry on 16 player maps, since there are so few troops to keep track of that the commander is able to communicate fairly precisely to his people where the enemy is at all times.

If you needed 9 or more people on your team to have a commander, then you could at least have yourself two fully functioning squads of 4+ and a commander to command them.

Jimmy_Smack · Post by **Jimmy_Smack** » 2007-05-08 01:40

I have no opinion...This seems like a weird idea...Why would you want to play with 9 people.

Blackhawk 5 · Post by **Blackhawk 5** » 2007-05-08 01:41

NO because sometimes the team needs commander for supplies or arty whatever, and with 0.6 commander feature whats there not to love!!!!!!!!

bigbossmatt · Post by **bigbossmatt** » 2007-05-08 01:44

Im against the 2 man games with a commander watching the other player.

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-05-08 02:03

You don't need a CO when there is 1 squad to watch. or call arty on the entire other team!

Deadmonkiefart · Post by **Deadmonkiefart** » 2007-05-08 02:58

Why would you ever want to play with so few people?

Army Musician · Post by **Army Musician** » 2007-05-08 07:58

you are probably wait for the server to fill up.

blud · Post by **blud** » 2007-05-08 18:55

Deadmonkiefart wrote:Why would you ever want to play with so few people?

People do do it. Like for example there are some dedicated small servers that run 16 player maps. Also, as that other guy said, when you are waiting for a server to get more full and stuff.

.:iGi:.U.G.H. · Post by **.:iGi:.U.G.H.** » 2007-05-08 20:33

Jimmy_Smack wrote:I have no opinion...This seems like a weird idea...Why would you want to play with 9 people.

Have you never heard of something called clan matches?

6v6/8v8 etc matches on 16p size maps are great fun!

zeroburrito · Post by **zeroburrito** » 2007-05-08 20:34

i find the game unplayable with like less than 48 players.

Blackhawk 5 · Post by **Blackhawk 5** » 2007-05-08 20:41

Deadmonkiefart wrote:Why would you ever want to play with so few people?

Some people prefer to play with less people, mabye to get a chance to fly or drive something or other training purposes.

JohnnyPissoff · Post by **JohnnyPissoff** » 2007-05-08 20:58

Coming from BF42/DC/EOD/FH, I guess I'm a purist of the form and have always highly disliked the commander addition to the BF franchise. In particular the ability to suppress stealthy troop movement in battle. In my opinion it dumbed the game down a lot. So any farther limiting of the commander or commanders ability is more than fine by me.

I'm too lazy to counter any argument from my post so:
Why couldn't EA/Dice have let the Commander's role been simply to rally squads and direct via way points? As far a supply drops are concerned; I see no reason why supplies can't be gotten from the vehicles. Artillery?...hah, biggest joke in the game (Ubergod-kids raining fire down from the heavens). Old bf42 had player controlled artillery...oh yea maybe it would have been a chore to calculate trajectories.

[T]waylay00 · Post by **[T]waylay00** » 2007-05-08 21:02

JohnnyPissoff wrote:Coming from BF42/DC/EOD/FH, I guess I'm a purist of the form and have always highly disliked the commander addition to the BF franchise. In particular the ability to suppress stealthy troop movement in battle. In my opinion it dumbed the game down a lot. So any farther limiting of the commander or commanders ability is more than fine by me.

I'm too lazy to counter any argument from my post so:
Why couldn't EA/Dice have let the Commander's role been simply to rally squads and direct via way points? As far a supply drops are concerned; I see no reason why supplies can't be gotten from the vehicles. Artillery?...hah, biggest joke in the game (Ubergod-kids raining fire down from the heavens). Old bf42 had player controlled artillery...oh yea maybe it would have been a chore to calculate trajectories.

+1...That is the reason why BF2v didn't impress me much. The gameplay just wasn't the same...

blud · Post by **blud** » 2007-05-08 23:50

zeroburrito wrote:i find the game unplayable with like less than 48 players.

I find it less playable with more than 48 players heh. Maybe cuz my computer is just too shitty or something. I start to get lag.

Sandy_Beret · Post by **Sandy_Beret** » 2007-05-09 04:42

NO NO NO NO F**KING NO...

commander is too useful...

blud · Post by **blud** » 2007-05-09 05:44

Really? What do you use it for mostly in 8v8 (and less) games? I'm curious cuz of the passion of your answer lol

Wasteland · Post by **Wasteland** » 2007-05-09 06:06

I always feel so cheap in a 4 person game or whatever (when TG's full, I haven't the heart to play Al Basrah, and there's nothing else with decent ping) and go commander. But the thing is, I *know* someone on the other team's doing it, so if I don't I'm at a disadvantage.

I definately think this is a good idea. The commander (especially in a game small enough that the commader's actually "playing") is just an EA provided hack.

.:iGi:.U.G.H. · Post by **.:iGi:.U.G.H.** » 2007-05-09 09:08

JP*wasteland.soldier wrote:I always feel so cheap in a 4 person game or whatever (when TG's full, I haven't the heart to play Al Basrah, and there's nothing else with decent ping) and go commander. But the thing is, I *know* someone on the other team's doing it, so if I don't I'm at a disadvantage.

I definately think this is a good idea. The commander (especially in a game small enough that the commader's actually "playing") is just an EA provided hack.

Yeah likewise I think it's a bit lame. No problem on big games, but when there's just 12 or so on it feels like a bit of a hack. Saying that though, it can have is advantages and disadvantages as we've seen in clan matches.