Operation Blue Pearl Feedback

[SFSSnake]

Bjorn:

- Add some ships in the center of the canal close enough to allow for US snipers to take out Chinese soldiers at the temple and to provide cover for the ribs and APC:s moving across. Placement should allow for US but disallow for Chinese sniping. This could be used in combination with the first three ideas.

NO. Attacking needs to be encouraged, not setting up an offshore base for snipers. Snipers cannot exactly provide cover when any AT soldier who gets killed can be revived by hordes of medics.
This is what happens on Jalalabad (if you play it on IO), and often the US never even get beyond their uncap.

- Remove the first control at the temple (PLA would have to constantly “refill” the front to hold it, giving the US a really good chance at landing. On the other hand, if US don’t succeed in capping the flag at the Old town square they’re going to have to restart at the home base again)

Good idea, however, it is open to failure like you say. Artillery would also kill off the US ground forces and SL's :P

- Start the temple flag as neutral (PLA would have to race and capture it and if they manage to it’s going to be tougher for the US to push them back. In this case the US will have one “window of opportunity” on taking the flag. This could result in an interesting experience and urgency for the US to cap it on the first try. On the other hand, it they don’t succeed where at where the map is right now.)

Almost there...see below

- The temple flag belongs to US at beginning (We miss out on the beach landing part of the flag)

Changing the whole concept of the map, a beach landing, at this point is shambolic. It is what the map is designed around, and it can be made to work if we work at it. Ive said it before (perhaps not on these forums), and Ill say it again: Temple, Old Square & Market should start as neutral.

Keep the boat landing, its interesting, and have the map as a double assault. The US can land and capture Temple and perhaps Market, whilst under-fire from the PLA advancing forwards from Yard and Fish Market. This would give the US 2 flags to capture from the outset, which they would have to do urgently to prevent themselves from being over-run by PLA, and would open up two ways of attacking the rest of the "city".

This would work on both 32 & 64map sizes.

[FrankCastleITA]

Nice map, too much gray, but it's not the problem. The actual problem is the great number of glitches.

[acid343211]

i do agree with some in here about
USA getting over to the china side put (1)Helicopter on the USA side Only and this should take care of the Unbalance.

[Flea3355]

As a medic, I was the only one in a boat that was getting fired upon. As the bulletlalalala me, I was healed instantly. Is that an intended change or a bug? I liked it at the time, not sure the guys shooting at me did however.

Never noticed anything like that previously ... maybe I have never been a medic in a boat by myself before???

[Scribsss]

Originally Posted by Bazajaytee

So Bjorn has looked at your feedback and the map and this is the response:

I saw Kitteh’s layout earlier and seeing that clans would like the possibility to play the map without vehicles this is something I’m not opposed to. I’ll definitely look into doing a “non-vehicle dependent” layout for 16 players.

Kitteh’s setup might be umbalanced though seeing that while US has a choke point to both flags China doesn’t.

Maybe this layout could work better. This way US has 2 ways out, both across chokes but both chokes are close to their home base so they should be able to control them rather easily.

I've gotta hand it to Bjorn, that's is a better idea and i love it, thanks for the update bazza! and to Bjorn, nice idea and thanks for taking this into consideration.

I agree tho this is more balanced and its setup is similar to Mashatuur.

Well placed spawn points and it looks a more fair to both sides.

[the real adelkhf]

From what I've played, it's a pretty decent map but the fog makes it really dull and uninteresting to look at.

Also, Infantry only is almost impossible with AT guys shooting out boats.

[Frankelstner]

I'd prefer swampy terrain from US main to temple. Make it so that soldiers can barely walk, add lots of holes so you can't shoot after a wrong step (I'm not sure about the ratio between holes and walkable terrain), add a small hill with a small hut anywhere between these two flags and add some reed (not too much though; I just hope it will render far enough), remove one APC for the US. Initally the US will still be inferior as you can't revive, but actively attacking is more fun than sitting in a boat dying a few times in a row until you or your driver are lucky enough to get through. Plus the US won't have such an armor advantage later on.

I know, this doesn't work that well story-wise with the large harbor (who would build one on swampy terrain?), but noone cared for the story in bf anyway.

[Dangerdoggie]

Add in an air drop spawn to the US forces side, much like in Special Forces Warlord.

I hate beach landing maps, the watercraft in BF2 is too fragile, what people are doing is skirting the edge of the top of the map to go for the back-cap. A long, tedious and boring boat ride which usually ends in disaster. The APC's are sitting ducks in water, and again just a slow, tedious, boring ride to your death. Then you have people driving off in boats and APC's by themselves wasting resources while you stand around waiting for an artillery barrage from the Chinese side.

If you added in an air-drop spawn then the map might stand a chance at ending up in rotation, leave it as a strict beach landing map and it'll be a server population killer.

[Winsrp]

Landing is way to hard..

Solutions:

For 64 players

Make three flags neutral, temple, market, old square... since if you only leave temple neutral, china can cap it too fast.

Make available the est part of the harbor office, and the part under market and yard, so us has a better place to land and not get owned to fast, the more land to cover the hardest is for china to actually prevent us from getting in.

For 32 players and 16

Make two flags neutral, temple and old square

[LoGiCalDrm]

I have read some of the suggestions made before me and this contains some of them.

Firstly, theres two approaches to allowing US to get better start for the fight. One's to, yes this has already been suggested but I have some additions later, set USMC base to Temple. This let's both teams to have tighter matches without superrape. This kind os setting would require 2 gey flags (maybe as pointed by kitteh). The other way is to leave USMC base to Harbor but add them APC or two to help on attack. Now PLA would of course need something fight against these APC's (or APC). A tank. Since map is this tight vehicles don't have superiority as we have seen in Jalalabad. This isn't so good idea considering infantry games.

Like I said before, when both teams start on mainland we need some fixes to keep the game interesting in conquest. This means adding hardware to both teams. Something like tanks. Like said before they won't get superiority in this kind of map. Another thing bugging me in this maps is destroyable bridges and lack of ladders and stairs. Like noted another post, adding USMC base to shore would create situation where PLA could get locked in their bases (or USMC for that matter). Becides adding ladders and stair around map to help climbing, briges crossing deep waters should be undestructable. I think this would even the odds.

There you go

[Bazajaytee]

Originally Posted by Dracomonus

Well I don't know why, but if i play OP Blue Perl all the sandbacks at flags or elsewhere are like goldencrome. I have also seen this bug on the screenshots in the battlefieldwiki is that normal ? o.O

(Ps: It's also happening at OP Harvest)

Hey, no thats not normal and will be fixed before final release.

[Bazajaytee]

Originally Posted by FrankCastleITA

Nice map, too much gray, but it's not the problem. The actual problem is the great number of glitches.

Bring them up, with screen shots/videos if possible so Bjorn can work on closing up the glitches. We need all your help guys to make this work

[RaptorUK]

At this rate we want see an official patch until next summer, any ETA on the next 1.50 build??

[KEIOS]

First i like to thank the DICE Team to get into so much personal contacts and listening to Feedback. Especially Baza, who spent his birthday with us, instead of his GF. I know that this high level can´t be held up after the final 1.5 Patch, but this should set a new standard for further Releases, since this is the best way to get to know, what the Community and so your Customers do want and what they are willing to buy...

My Suggestion for the 32 and 64 size Map would be, to broaden the corridor, where the US can enter the City, by removing larger parts of the red zones to the north and south. If they would have the chance to avoid being in range of the Temple Antitankparty, they could fall in from more directions and could sneak into the western part, forcing the Chinese to fall back.

The 16size Maps are both good ideas (Kittehs and Björns).

[xXdReadx]

I think the out-of-bounds needs to be less of a bottleneck (possibly widen it so at least the boats could stay out of view) as its extremely difficult for US to land at the moment. The majority of it is spent being blown out of the water by the 64 anti-tanks on the other side. Apart from this, I do really like the design. Tight buildings in places is good. Its just that to get the fight on land is more than half the trouble a lot of the time...

[mpiazza911]

The following comment in the beta announcement is ludicrous!

GAMEPLAY TWEAKS
- Changes made to both the J10 and F35B to make them more balanced. Please note that the J10 is a superior dogfighter to the F35B and as such these two aircraft will never be equally matched.

Where do you get this ridiculous information? The J10 is a mediocre, current-technology fighter and the F35B Joint Strike Fighter is still only in prototype. The F35B will have capabilities far beyond the J10. I know as my company is building the F35. So please don't state facts about info you cannot possibly have and therefore is based solely on speculation in order to make up for the poor aircraft modeling.

[Binx9]

Very nice map!

Have not run into any bugs/glitches. This map is aiming to be the next best thing.
Actually I think the fog effect is better in this map, compared to others. Comparing to my stay at a "certain" area in china (asia for that matter), the map devs has made a very good capture of the foggy mood . A+

Greets

[Y3DY4]

Bring Back Dolphin Diving,make the guns on boats more effective maybe TOW's on boats or a 50.CaL.

Oh and Gj on preventing hacks
YouTube - HelioS Framework BF2 1.5 BETA Ownage

[PHR CHMEE]

Originally Posted by mpiazza911

Where do you get this ridiculous information? The J10 is a mediocre, current-technology fighter and the F35B Joint Strike Fighter is still only in prototype. The F35B will have capabilities far beyond the J10. I know as my company is building the F35. So please don't state facts about info you cannot possibly have and therefore is based solely on speculation in order to make up for the poor aircraft modeling.

Interesting, means, that the Wiki Entry to the Fighter is wrong ?!
Seems, that you're a USA-Fanboy. #leering at your name#

[KViriato]

Don´t know who´s version is better, if Kitteh or Bjorn but i´m happy to know there is a good possibility to make the conquest 16 version with 4 flags in the city.

This is already good news for the competitive community and Lars is right about Bjorn version, it really seems like Mashtuur

[pahkiller]

I have played O.B.P. maps and think they are very good considering from memory this is what a lot of players wanted something hard.
As it is a Chinese map not US the idea is for US to take it.
But agree that one of 2 things would make it fairer? a neutral flag and or 1 small chopper that carriers 2 or 3 people (so squad leaders can be spawned off) AA on the other side so if your not high enough you get shot down.
or you can try this, 1 or 2 tunnels (from the US side only) leading to say 3 points on the Chinese side.
No APC's just jeeps
Make the maps a little larger except for the 16 player one
The Fog is a good idea stops a lot of snipers picking you off too early.
I have also managed to get in a boat and go up the sides (USMC) and get passed the chinese fairly easily so it really not too hard

[zakmanjones]

Hi All at Dice. ( love your work guys )
and the community.
I have purchased all the pc Battlefield titles so far.
Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam , Battlefield 2 and 2142 and absolutely love them.
I also got the European Forces Booster pack for BF2 and recently downloaded and installed the 1.5 patch for BF2.
Brilliant, nice new maps and fixes.

However as a "casual Gamer" I cannot play for weeks on end and we simply dont have enough ranked servers in Australia here to get all the unlocked Weapons.
So after now basically 3 years and a lot of playing by the community, why dont you simply allow global unlocks for everyone.

I think we have all spent enough time and are all wanting the basic same weapons and deserve to now have them all.
It would be a nice gesture on behalf of Dice to those of us that have been loyal for so long.

Interested in you thoughts and await some feedback please.

Bob Jones Australia.
robert.jones@thq.com

[pahkiller]

Originally Posted by zakmanjones

Hi All at Dice. ( love your work guys )
and the community.
I have purchased all the pc Battlefield titles so far.
Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam , Battlefield 2 and 2142 and absolutely love them.
I also got the European Forces Booster pack for BF2 and recently downloaded and installed the 1.5 patch for BF2.
Brilliant, nice new maps and fixes.

However as a "casual Gamer" I cannot play for weeks on end and we simply don't have enough ranked servers in Australia here to get all the unlocked Weapons.
So after now basically 3 years and a lot of playing by the community, why dont you simply allow global unlocks for everyone.

I think we have all spent enough time and are all wanting the basic same weapons and deserve to now have them all.
It would be a nice gesture on behalf of Dice to those of us that have been loyal for so long.

Interested in you thoughts and await some feedback please.

Bob Jones Australia.
robert.jones@thq.com

Well put
There will be more servers in Australia soon any day in fact I will have at least 6, so that would make it easier and if successful another 6 after that (bf3.com.au) server name aussie assassins
I have been pushing for Australian servers besides gamearena and Internode for 3 years now as they are ok but never looked after
anyway all unlocks would be a fair remark what do you DICE guys say?

[GreyMouserJS]

Was able to get onto a Operation Blue Pearl server this morning (EST time.) Liked the map. Close quarter alley fighting.

One positive, the number of shipping pallets leaning up
against 1 story buildings. I have not noticed them in other maps, but it allows player to run and jump/climb to the roofs. I hope that was intentional because the vertical aspect is what I really like about SF.

The USMC approach could be widened. Or I like Bjorn's idea of a ship in the channel to give a sniping / alt staging point.

[Codez23]

Originally Posted by SFSSnake

Bjorn:

Changing the whole concept of the map, a beach landing, at this point is shambolic. It is what the map is designed around, and it can be made to work if we work at it. Ive said it before (perhaps not on these forums), and Ill say it again: Temple, Old Square & Market should start as neutral.

Keep the boat landing, its interesting, and have the map as a double assault. The US can land and capture Temple and perhaps Market, whilst under-fire from the PLA advancing forwards from Yard and Fish Market. This would give the US 2 flags to capture from the outset, which they would have to do urgently to prevent themselves from being over-run by PLA, and would open up two ways of attacking the rest of the "city".

This would work on both 32 & 64map sizes.

The fact is that it isn't a beach landing map. There is no beach, and there are one or two bottleneck points where it is impossible to get up anyway. You basically have to drive your vehicle up the right hand side under a bridge and then ditch it and jump onto the land. Its ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that the wooden bridges are too low to drive under, or when you do get under you get wedged and it takes Armour away from the apc.

Putting this much emphasis on teamwork on USMC part and not on PLA is very imbalanced. At least on J-bad and Kark you don't have the extra limitation of water (we all know how terrible the APC turn in the water) and its very very very hard (I know other maps have water, but you have choppers and jets to get out of the uncap as well).

My suggestions:

1. Decrease the fog; there isn't this much fog in any other map. What's with all the PLA maps with fog anyway? Decrease or remove it, if people havn't upgraded their 5000 - 7000 series cards then they need to get some loose change (like $80 AUD) and get a 8000 series card, its not too expensive.
2. Widen the channels of the river so that there is a way for the boats and apcs to get across without being seen by PLA. I like it how the tanks can only really go in certain places because of all the clutter. Once you get a foothold its almost like karkand in a way (vehicles get pwnd). Although that would lead to everyone becoming AT .
3. Move the flag in the left hand bottom corner further into the corner so that it takes advantage of that awsome complex with the crane. It seems wasted to me (except for a sniper).
4. Make the wooden bridges like an inch or two higher so APCs can pass under them without damaging themselves.