Calm discussion of CP jet-stealing

[StrikeFear]

This thread:
http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlefield-2-after-action-reports/58989-good-rounds-8-29-a.html
... got out of control.

But there is a worthwhile discussion underneath the hood. Let us renew that discussion, under different terms and attitude, shall we?
Let's start with some ground rules - some of which may be obvious, but we'll state them nonetheless:

• No names or past negative actions by players are important here. Let's not confuse the ISSUE with ATTITUDE (like bragging, or whatever is thought to have happened)
• Accusations are not helpful here.
• Everyone's on equal ground - we all have valuable input
• No need to become excited - we're just discussing how the issue fits into TG mindset
• Don't assume bad attitude behind anyone's post
• Don't put questionable attitude or tone in yours
• Feel free to express your opinion - respectfully
• Feel free to re-post previously expressed opinions (reworded, if necessary)

I'll begin, since I'm making this post.

Background:
We have a rule against UCB asset stealing.
We have a rule against spawn-camping (UCB or CB).

The rules are in place to prevent un-fun activity on our servers.
"Fun" is a tricky word. And, fun for A can be un-fun for B. Nevertheless, we aim for fun for all.
"Winning" is the goal of the game, one could argue. In some cases, winning can conflict with fun, particularly for the team which is not. The degree to which that team is not winning can be directly proportional to the amount of fun they're not having.
It can be inversely proportional for the other team.
This is tricky area. Let's step away from all the abstract stuff for a minute, ok?

Let's say we're all about winning. If your team is sufficiently skilled and coordinated that you can surround the enemy UCB and rape them as they spawn, you will win. If so, you deserve your win; you have earned it.

Let's say we're all about fun. If any team gets an advantage that causes an imbalance of fun for the other team, they'll happily give it up so that everyone is having equal amounts of fun. The game may end in a tie, perhaps not, but everyone will have the same amount of fun.

At TG, we draw a line - and it's somewhere between those two. We all play this game for fun, and we respect each other enough to not steal each other's fun. However, we also acknowledge the goal (and satisfaction of attaining it) of winning. And while we all want to have fun, we have silently agreed that each team will try to win, even if that means the other team gets deprived some of their fun (cuz they'd rather not lose). We have agreed that as much as we all love each other, we will destroy each other (within the rules) for the sake of 'teh win'. Right, brother?

And it's ok. So, we have a framework.

Here's my thoughts on the specific issue:

Let's not extend our restrictions too far. UCBs are understandable (even if you disagree) - you can't capture them, so just let them be. But a capturable base - let's not make a rule that if you happen to walk by one you must capture it.

Choosing to capture a CB is a valid strategic decision.
Choosing to utilize an asset at that CB without capturing it is an equally valid strategic decision. Taking a bomber could just as well be done to give your team an advantage for 'teh win' as it could be to pad your stats. I think most TG gamers are aware that our stats live as long as the map does, and no more. If it's a bomber, for instance, the strategic advantage of controlling that asset is so undeniably huge (suppressing enemy vehicles helps your ground forces - arguably more than holding that CP), that it's clearly a better choice to do so rather than attempt to take the CP and hold it as a lone pilot.

If your team can, through skill and coordination, take an advantage, you have earned the right to use it. The game started with both teams knowing the risks and rewards. They knew the high ground, they knew the critical points. They knew the enemy's strengths and his weaknesses. The terrain was a known quantity - some points can be taken; others not. The battle was accepted and joined on these terms - whatever may come.

There are certainly decent arguments against this.
Some have said that enemy vehicles should not be drivable. Not a bad idea. But until it's implemented in a mod, it's a pretty academic discussion. Unless we're willing to make a rule (or agreement) about it across the board, it's not relevant.

Another argument is that totally overwhelming the opponent reduces his fun. No kidding. I think we all have felt that pain. And we know it can be a gruesome sight when your entire team is spawning repeatedly. But think how quickly the map will end! Seriously, remember the silent, but loving agreement to destroy each other? Just how far do we have to draw the line?

Total enemy air supremacy is horrible. If they can win in the air 2 vs 2, it's powerful. If our team doesn't do what is necessary to prevent that, it is the inevitable consequence of our inaction. We know that. Further, if the problem is not that we man our jets and they aren't good enough, but that we have the means (2 perfectly good jets) with which to defend ourselves - and don't... then we have certainly made our bed in hell. There are many ways to overcome the enemy's advantage. If we don't make use of it, it's not within our rights to blame our opponent for pushing the advantage.

[Santa]

i pretty much agree with everything you said there. I do see the point that it causes less fun for the victims, but so does losing a tank in a base you occupy, yet thats completely acceptable. If your in a map where one sides' jets spawn at bases that arent UCB, then you really need to keep your pilots in those planes at all times or keep a few guys defending the hangers. The mec fighter is easy to defend as the squad that defends the main can defend that as well. The mec bomber is easy to defend as well because a friendly base is right next door, and one person in a fav can defend it. You will also have the 2 man bomber group spawning there before the plane itself spawns. There are many things that can potentially make you have less fun. But the great majority of them are within your control. At least this is how i see it.

PS just as clarification on the other thread because i dont want anyone mad at me, the jet squad was not laughing at the other team for being bombed, but rather at the fact that someone said the mec had a ucb. If it came across that we were laughing at the mec for being bombed a lot, im sorry.

[Pokerface]

Originally Posted by StrikeFear

Choosing to capture a CB is a valid strategic decision.
Choosing to utilize an asset at that CB without capturing it is an equally valid strategic decision. Taking a bomber could just as well be done to give your team an advantage for 'teh win' as it could be to pad your stats. I think most TG gamers are aware that our stats live as long as the map does, and no more. If it's a bomber, for instance, the strategic advantage of controlling that asset is so undeniably huge (suppressing enemy vehicles helps your ground forces - arguably more than holding that CP), that it's clearly a better choice to do so rather than attempt to take the CP and hold it as a lone pilot.

I'll start by saying I disagree. Just so you know where this is headed.

Capping the CP to get use of its assets is a good strategy, but just taking the vehicles is pretty lame. Yes, a lone pilot could help his team more by swiping a bomber instead of futilely capping a flag, but my question to you would be "Why is there only one pilot at that CP?"

If it's a CP, then efforts should be made to capture it. My personal view on "The TG Way" is that the efforts come BEFORE control of the assets is turned over. The alternative smacks a little too much like the Counter-Strike argument of "Well of course I'm helping my team if I'm killing the other team by rushing their spawn!". Winning is one thing; playing right is another.

[Ludlow]

I think the point was missed on the earlier discussion.

Anyway...

Either way I am against the taking of assets, air assets especially, unless I'm using it to capture an objective.

While yes it's perfectly "legal" does it really represent the type of gaming that TG is known for? The odds are stacked against any team without a UCB to begin with, so why steal their jets in the first place?

Now you make some valid points. "Fun" is in the eye of the beholder. No one person can nor should decide what is fun for everyone. That's the beauty of TG, admins listen to the players and enforce the rules. In theory it should always be fun for everyone. Though we all know that will never happen.

For the most part the gamers I have met here at TacticalGamer are a great bunch of guys. They even put up with me over VOIP when I lose my cool! If this was a vote I would clearly make a mark in the sand and say no taking of enemy air assets.

Thanks for listening
-Ludlow

[asch]

Poker has a valid question there.... "Why is there only one pilot at the CP?"

From what I gathered, the pilot had the INTENTION to steal the aircraft. It wasn't a matter of thinking that they were outnumbered and had no chance to capture the CP. By all rights, in that situation I would expect the player to try and escape with their tail tucked between their legs.

So while I would agree that if someone was trying to make a retreat from a capture point that was well defended, take the vehicle and escape. But if the SOLE reason for being at that airfield is to steal a vehicle, to me that doesn't sound right.

The objective of the game is to capture and hold flags in the hopes of causing ticket bleed or eventually completely removing the enemy from the map. Yes, having the extra aircraft can help accomplish that, but I would tend to agree with Poker again here.

Originally Posted by Pokerface

If it's a CP, then efforts should be made to capture it. My personal view on "The TG Way" is that the efforts come BEFORE control of the assets is turned over. The alternative smacks a little too much like the Counter-Strike argument of "Well of course I'm helping my team if I'm killing the other team by rushing their spawn!". Winning is one thing; playing right is another.

[Arf]

I think it would be unbalancing to allow one team a safe zone for assets as important as jets while making the other team defend their jets. It's a little one sided to say that you can drop onto their base if they don't use their jets but they wouldn't be allowed to do the same if your jets were unused because you have a UCB.

Personally I'd prefer that some attempt at capturing the airfield before jets get stolen just as a matter of fairness. That said if the airfield is undefended and nobody is using the jets and they get stolen I think of it as akin to loosing the game because of the lack of a Commander.

[StrikeFear]

Originally Posted by Arf

I think it would be unbalancing to allow one team a safe zone for assets as important as jets while making the other team defend their jets.

I hear what you're saying, but that's just part of the map. Take that up with the mapmakers. They created the UCB.

Originally Posted by Arf

It's a little one sided to say that you can drop onto their base if they don't use their jets but they wouldn't be allowed to do the same if your jets were unused because you have a UCB.

Again, I hear what you're saying, but take THAT up with the admins - not stealing from a UCB is their rule.

So, since we can't use assets at a UCB (a rule WE added to BF2), should we now not be able to use assets anywhere?

[><JohnGalt><]

I firmly believe, and have since bf1942, that Attacking and taking vehichle from UCBs is part of the game. If the enemy does not want protect their assets then it is their own fault. Of course, there are those that take it too far and that can be quite anoying.

[jepzilla]

Well, I didn't think the other discussion was getting out of control, but whatever...

Originally Posted by StrikeFear

If your team can, through skill and coordination, take an advantage, you have earned the right to use it. The game started with both teams knowing the risks and rewards. They knew the high ground, they knew the critical points. They knew the enemy's strengths and his weaknesses. The terrain was a known quantity - some points can be taken; others not. The battle was accepted and joined on these terms - whatever may come.

The most important argument against this, is that players are assigned to teams more or less randomly. You generally don't pick which team you're going to be on, and when the server is full you can't switch.

If the game is unbalanced then it isn't very fun for the disadvantaged team. And if the USMC is going to be actively attempting to steal the planes from team without a UCB, I think it does make the game significantly unbalanced. Those one UCB maps are already unbalanced enough as it is without the jets being stolen.

The problem is we artificially (i.e., not enforced by the game itself) ban the MEC from using the same tactic as the USMC through the no-UCB-camping rule. So as long as stealing USMC jets is against the rules (which I think is a good rule), I think the TG players should restrain themselves from stealing MEC jets on Clean Sweep and similar maps.

[Legato895]

ill just throw my already worn opinion into the mix. i don't think an air squad is as cut and dried as a normal squad. usually there are more occupants than there are assets to fill them so some may take choppers, and others may man AA or go out semi-solo. saying that having one guy away from his squad is a no-no, i think falls short when dealing with speciality squads. did i bale out of the bomber to take the other bomber? yes i did, but think about it, the pilots who had it, spawned 15-30ish seconds before it spawns so they are already there, my parachute down is another 4-5 seconds of slow decent... a bomber crew should have 2 pilots and those 2 pilots should have no problem capping me as i slowly drift down, and this is on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. ideally there should be part of a squad there only a short distance away from the rest of their group (as hangers are distanced from the flags)

another flash point is the amount of times we did it. its not like we had lines of our jet-less squad members waiting in the shadows of MEC bases, and intentionally not capping them just for the jet, on occasion another and i once our bomber was shot down literally blackhawked (new word bonus +1) from the USMC UCB all the way to the second airfield. this is not a fast transit and again, we were unopposed. like many have said, this is a very controllable aspect of the game, and is completely preventable. this is also akin to taking the chopper on top of the dam, but making no run at the base. part of the fun is fighting uphill battles. trust me, i have been on the receiving end of complete air supremacy many a time, and i just buckle down and tell my squad to avoid armor at all costs. you just need to shift your tactics, wait till it gets shot down, and pounce on it when it respawns.

[Santa]

Originally Posted by asch

Poker has a valid question there.... "Why is there only one pilot at the CP?"

From what I gathered, the pilot had the INTENTION to steal the aircraft. It wasn't a matter of thinking that they were outnumbered and had no chance to capture the CP. By all rights, in that situation I would expect the player to try and escape with their tail tucked between their legs.

So while I would agree that if someone was trying to make a retreat from a capture point that was well defended, take the vehicle and escape. But if the SOLE reason for being at that airfield is to steal a vehicle, to me that doesn't sound right.

The objective of the game is to capture and hold flags in the hopes of causing ticket bleed or eventually completely removing the enemy from the map. Yes, having the extra aircraft can help accomplish that, but I would tend to agree with Poker again here.

That i can agree with. Maybe this could be the happy medium between both sides of the argument? If not we should come to a happy medium somewhere.

[Pickle]

I know I am relatively new here but I hope that my two cents are welcome.

Originally Posted by StrikeFear

Total enemy air supremacy is horrible. If they can win in the air 2 vs 2, it's powerful. If our team doesn't do what is necessary to prevent that, it is the inevitable consequence of our inaction. We know that. Further, if the problem is not that we man our jets and they aren't good enough, but that we have the means (2 perfectly good jets) with which to defend ourselves - and don't... then we have certainly made our bed in hell. There are many ways to overcome the enemy's advantage. If we don't make use of it, it's not within our rights to blame our opponent for pushing the advantage.

Agreed. If I fail to safeguard my assets I deserve to lose them.

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Yes, a lone pilot could help his team more by swiping a bomber instead of futilely capping a flag, but my question to you would be "Why is there only one pilot at that CP?"

But if it is a tank it is okay? I don't think that is fair. I think that the biggest reason people have an issue with the plane being "stolen" is that a plane can do so much more damage in skilled hands than a tank or other vehicle. Like a jeep that one needs for speedy transportation.

Another reason is that taking a tank and then using it to cap the flag is a valid tactic. It is easier and quicker to take a flag with a tank than a plane. Both can help cap the flag quicker. The plane is just more of a support role.

Originally Posted by asch

From what I gathered, the pilot had the INTENTION to steal the aircraft. It wasn't a matter of thinking that they were outnumbered and had no chance to capture the CP. By all rights, in that situation I would expect the player to try and escape with their tail tucked between their legs.

So while I would agree that if someone was trying to make a retreat from a capture point that was well defended, take the vehicle and escape. But if the SOLE reason for being at that airfield is to steal a vehicle, to me that doesn't sound right.

The objective of the game is to capture and hold flags in the hopes of causing ticket bleed or eventually completely removing the enemy from the map. Yes, having the extra aircraft can help accomplish that, but I would tend to agree with Poker again here.

But how do we determine intent? Maybe the intent was/is to capture the base but the situation becomes too volatile and the player elects to make a hasty retreat.

I have heard on this forum from many people (I have spent the better of two weeks perusing almost every topic) that they want a more realistic game. Or rather a game that mimics real life combat. And I think that is what EA was going after. If you can get some of your men behind enemy lines and steal their assets I think it falls into that category. Prone bunnyhopping doesn't. UCB camping doesn't either because it is uncapturable. We are talking about capturable bases and therefore capturable assets. It has happened to me before and I just smacked my forehead as the tank drove away with me running helplessly behind it. Doh!

I think that the rules are great as they stand. Very fair and in the spirit of the game. But I also think there comes a line that can get crossed here where adapting and overcoming are pushed aside for ultimate fairness. At what point is it determined that blowing up artillery pieces is unfair? Or that a buggy and transport can be taken but not a tank or plane? How is that enforced?

Edited for spelling and grammar

[Pickle]

Great topic and good discussion BTW.

[FishRoy]

I've always wondered why vehicles weren't locked. I think that all vehicles should be locked to team only. I mean, who in there right mind isn't going to lock up a tank or a jet in the event of major combat? If this ever was implemented (it'll come right after the patch where they fix all the bugs lol) maybe there could be a way to circumvent this, say an Engineer could hotwire a jeep, but not a tank or plane.

Also, if vehicles were to be locked then when the base is taken all vehicles should unspawn and spawn the varient of the team that took the base, except maybe planes, depending upon how many active airplanes there are.

Just my 2 cents on grand theft jet.

[asch]

Originally Posted by Pickle

But how do we determine intent? Maybe the intent was/is to capture the base but the situation becomes too volatile and the player elects to make a hasty retreat.

It is very hard to determine intent and is one of the many reasons we don't have certain rules. However, in the original example it was clearly stated that the intent was to steal the aircraft.... several times.