Playing TG?

[Zoraster]

Okay, so I'm pretty new to BF2, but I've been playing BF2142 on TG's server for about 8 months now. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I thought maybe I should query here and see if I'm insane or what.

Today I was playing in the POE2 server. there were about 8 people on. I forget what the map was called, but one of the flags was "hamlet house" and another was "statue." Anyway, after playing a while I was told off repeatedly for trying to capture any flag except the middle (statue) flag. These weren't pubbies from the looks of it. They were all wearing TG tags of one sort or another.

So I guess my question is this: am I crazy to expect that objective based play should be used on TG's server? Am I crazy that I think I should be able to try and bleed my opponent out? I understand that with fewer players this leads to less contact, but if all you wanted was contact, it seems to me a different community would be better suited to you.

However, I am new to POE2, so if this is what's generally expected on the server, I'm happy to play by the official rules, but it seems odd to me. I'm sorry if I was cross with anyone -- I got a little frustrated by these exchanges.

[Drizzid]

It's a possibility that there might have been some prearranged rules due to the low population on the server. Your team mates should have informed you of those rules when you joined. Examples of these rules is only attack this flag and that flag and leave the rest alone until the population increases. We used to do this in vanilla during the late night, low population times. If that was the case they should have informed you of those rules

[Beatnik]

Sounds like you ran into an unofficial "small teams rules" situation. Of course, those rules are never rules, just a general gentleman's agreement of sorts to concentrate small pop games on one or a couple flags to focus the action. It's been a controversial arrangement ever since bf2's popularity (and 24/7 full server population) started waning, since people would invoke the word "rules" when someone new logs in an unwittingly starts doing things previous players had agreed not to do.

So no, you didn't break any rules, but generally those small team agreements (others have included not using armor, arty, etc) make for better games when there are less than ~20 ppl on the server.

edit: dammit, drizzd beat me to it.

[Drizzid]

Ok I beat Beatnik to the punch be he said it much better than I did

[WhiskeySix]

What they said ^^^


On a full server, bleeding the opponent (holding more than 1/2 the flags) is the #1 way to win. On a server with small teams however, things can be a little different. If there's 3 flags and 6 players, it's easy to spend the whole round running/flag-hopping instead of really "playing".... thus the "only battle over one flag" agreement between players. It usually makes things pretty fun and lets squad vs squad tactics play out.

That being said, there are plenty of problems with this. (If you search for "small teams", you'll find a LONG thread about it.) It almost always causes headaches because new people join and don't know there's any agreement in place; and eventually, as more and more people join, there's just too many people on for it to work and the agreement collapses (frustrating those that still want the agreement in place).


Note: Players have no right to expect a small-teams agreement to be obeyed or sustained as new people join the server. The agreement only holds so long as EVERYONE on the server agrees to it. If anyone "tells off" someone for not following an ad hoc agreement, please PM an admin.

[Beatnik]

Some history/context:

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...enjoyable.html

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...eam-rules.html

[machowner]

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

What they said ^^^


On a full server, bleeding the opponent (holding more than 1/2 the flags) is the #1 way to win. On a server with small teams however, things can be a little different. If there's 3 flags and 6 players, it's easy to spend the whole round running/flag-hopping instead of really "playing".... thus the "only battle over one flag" agreement between players. It usually makes things pretty fun and lets squad vs squad tactics play out.

That being said, there are plenty of problems with this. (If you search for "small teams", you'll find a LONG thread about it.) It almost always causes headaches because new people join and don't know there's any agreement in place; and eventually, as more and more people join, there's just too many people on for it to work and the agreement collapses (frustrating those that still want the agreement in place).


Note: Players have no right to expect a small-teams agreement to be obeyed or sustained as new people join the server. The agreement only holds so long as EVERYONE on the server agrees to it. If anyone "tells off" someone for not following an ad hoc agreement, please PM an admin.

I'm new as well and after reading Zor's experience I was a little worried but I can agree to this.

[icky]

The bottom line is that when there are 8 people on the server it is impossible to have a serious competition with more than one flag. It is normal for someone to say "let's leave the back flags alone". Usually, if you join a game in progress, someone in your squad will let you know when you wander off to cap an undefended flag that you shouldn't be there.

[Braidedheadman]

Ermmm.... regarding the application of the term "rules" to the gentlemen's agreement in question. Suppose that an SL has placed a command marker on the contested flag (under said agreement). As far as any of his SMs are concerned, any gentlemen's agreement is superseded by TG rules regarding CO/SL orders, correct?

I’ve observed that once the population exceeds six players per side that is typically the point where the agreement is dissolved - unless someone under the agreement forms a new squad to take on the new players and keep the ball rolling. But at that point, it doesn’t bother me since I look at it as the gentlemen’s agreement having fulfilled its purpose - to encourage people to stick around and seed the server in order that more people come and join in.

For my part, where the frustration sets in is when I have someone on my squad who needs to be told a dozen times over VoIP and even text to, "Please get off that flag, we're leaving it for the other team and only fighting over [Flag_X]," and the run in and cap it out anyway. What really turns my crank is when they pipe up and say, "Gee, I didn't know." My response to that would be, "Well, yes you did. I told you a dozen times while you were running over there and I've marked on the map where you ought to be headed in the first place."

While I accept that we get visitors from time to time whose primary language is not English, I have yet to run into such an individual (or at least find someone whose command of English isn’t top notch) while on my watch as SL and playing under low-pop rules like those we are discussing here. You can bet that I've informed my entire squad - frequently - and have a command marker in place. "I didn't know," simply hasn't been a valid excuse in my squad to date and likely never will be.

I realize the thing to do here is to inform new guys of the SOPs to acquaint them of our rules and report those characters who do know them if they persist, and that my post is perhaps a little pedantic. But I thought it's important to point out that following SL orders, particularly those regarding command markers, are in fact fixed house rules irregardless of any prior gentlemen's agreement in place at the time. SMs should look to those for directions right off the bat rather than assuming that there's an enemy flag that needs capping so let’s go cap it, "Solo if I must."

[WhiskeySix]

Good point braided. Following SL and CO orders is ALWAYS mandatory, whether there's 3 people on or the server is full. If you, as SL, order them to attack/defend a flag, they're required to do that. If they disobey orders, report them, and they'll be subject to the standard warn/kick/ban treatment.

If no admin is on at the time to resolve it, and the other guy doesn't want to abide by the agreement, then sorry - the ad-hoc agreement goes out the window.

Players have no right to expect a small-teams agreement to be obeyed or sustained as new people join the server. The agreement only holds so long as EVERYONE on the server agrees to it. If anyone "tells off" someone for not following an ad hoc agreement, please PM an admin.

I realize it can be frustrating and may not sound fair that one person can ruin the fun of many others. (You can see why even allowing 'small-teams agreements' in the first place has been a controversial topic). Just remember to keep your cool and show them what TG is about... Explain to the other team (global chat) what the situation is and adapt accordingly.

[icky]

If everyone just remembers to be mature and civil, these things usually go fine.

[Zoraster]

this is fair enough. if that's the generally accepted way to play when there are only a few on that's fine. I'm really not out to spoil people's fun... it just baffled me as we've got nothing even resembling that in BF2142 and leaving flags open made me cringe. I understand that you have to do what you can to make things fun when you seed a server.

but if you're prearranging flags, if there are 3 cappable flags, why not let each side cap one and then fight over the middle one? that way at least there's bleed and a reason to fight.

[FBmantis]

Originally Posted by Zoraster

but if you're prearranging flags, if there are 3 cappable flags, why not let each side cap one and then fight over the middle one? that way at least there's bleed and a reason to fight.

Usually that is how it works...if not...suggest it.

As for the 2142 comparison. Its a different beast. The maps are more push style and not setup for that type of focused play. Not to mention on ranked servers the playerbase is coming in and out too fast and you will never get that type of easy cooperation.

[Zoraster]

oh i agree. i wasn't trying to say that bf2142 is superior to poe2 or anything like that. I'm just saying that's why the idea of this type of truce seems foreign and -- at least at first -- a bit repulsive.

[jb4]

I got on the game you referenced today just a little before you came on.
As others have stated, there were only a few on the server and as people came on, typically someone told them. After playing here a while, when I get on a game with only a few players, I automatically ask my SL if there are center flag rules, or like today they wanted "knives only" for a while. On big maps with few players, we could have ended a map in just a few minutes either way if they did not call out "low population rules" Ususally after more people join it goes into a regular game or until someone can't resist pulling out a shotgun after they get repeatedly knived..or like today..killed with the katana from 10 feet away. I don't recall anyone getting rude from our side. Usually each side looks after their own. Hope you have a better experience in the future because it is a great place to play.