Re: Prisoners of War (TG Ethics and Practice Question)

**BarnesBL0278** · 11-19-2009, 11:25 AM

Prisoners in game are something I'm all for, myself. In ACE, we're going to have wounded, unconcious men on the ground after we've cleared a position. What are you supposed to do then? Shoot them? That's unfair to that player, if you ask me. Just take away his weapons and treat him. Voila, prisoner.
Prisoners do not equate to uniform inspections, making your rack, or blousing your boots. That's like saying that since we have a boy scout camp, why stop at that? Let's build a military base! Its completely irrelevant.
What's more, is TG strives for a realistic experience. Realistic how?

Some random schmuck that may or may not know jack diddily crap is in charge of you, and your comms are filtered.

That's not realism. And TG promises more than that. Real is far far away from what we have now, and as long as people say "well its just a game" we never will reach that goal.
We NEED to have standardized training. We NEED to have standardized, controlled comms. We NEED to have some sort of standàrdized way of identifying good squad leaders.
That's what we need. What would be damn nice is having EPWs that can rearm, and if we have them, we NEED to follow the Geneva convention and the Rules of Land Warfare.

**Dredge** · 11-19-2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

Prisoners in game are something I'm all for, myself. In ACE, we're going to have wounded, unconcious men on the ground after we've cleared a position. What are you supposed to do then? Shoot them? That's unfair to that player, if you ask me. Just take away his weapons and treat him. Voila, prisoner.
Prisoners do not equate to uniform inspections, making your rack, or blousing your boots. That's like saying that since we have a boy scout camp, why stop at that? Let's build a military base! Its completely irrelevant.
What's more, is TG strives for a realistic experience. Realistic how?

Some random schmuck that may or may not know jack diddily crap is in charge of you, and your comms are filtered.

That's not realism. And TG promises more than that. Real is far far away from what we have now, and as long as people say "well its just a game" we never will reach that goal.
We NEED to have standardized training. We NEED to have standardized, controlled comms. We NEED to have some sort of standàrdized way of identifying good squad leaders.
That's what we need. What would be damn nice is having EPWs that can rearm, and if we have them, we NEED to follow the Geneva convention and the Rules of Land Warfare.

*Begins The Slow Clap*

**Boondocksaint** · 11-19-2009, 05:12 PM

That's my 2ic repping it hard lol nag good post barnes

**1longtime** · 11-19-2009, 07:07 PM

Regarding the topic of this thread (prisoners), alot of what you are discussing is not within the scope of this game.

Think long and hard about how you will deal with prisoners. In a coop game, you're going to treat AI? We slaughter those guys wholesale. In a versus game, are you actually going to devote fighting resource to prisoner removal? Besides, stopping to treat an enemy will get you killed in a versus game. Human enemies are way too wiley to miss an opportunity like someone stopping and crouching over a body. Maybe after the enemy is wiped out you can sweep the battlefield for survivors, but at that point all of the enemy is bleeding out or unconcious and the mission is won... are you going to spend another 15 minutes after the mission to clean up bloody bodies? Waste of game time, and boring.

Arma doesn't have a proper mechanism for prisoners, so while this whole Geneva exercise has been interesting, you really should think about it realistically: within the confines of Arma 2, none of this makes sense.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

Some random schmuck that may or may not know jack diddily crap is in charge of you, and your comms are filtered.
That's not realism. And TG promises more than that. Real is far far away from what we have now, and as long as people say "well its just a game" we never will reach that goal.
We NEED to have standardized training. We NEED to have standardized, controlled comms. We NEED to have some sort of standàrdized way of identifying good squad leaders.
That's what we need.

Ok, here we go.

This is all off the topic of the thread, but there are two things there that I see here which I do not agree with:

1) Dismissing someone who doesn't have training.

It is wrong to dismiss a player because they haven't been in a TGU class or do not have real life military training. Much respect to real life training, but this is a game. Much respect to TGU training, but some players have logged more hours than anyone can count in their own training (flying/shooting) and have already been playing with TG as a group for months or years doing in-game group training (formations, response drills). We also have new players coming from other groups who already have a surprisingly large amount of OFP/Arma experience.

In other words, just because you don't recognize the name or haven't personally instructed them, don't assume they aren't good Arma 2 players. I've seen completely new names drop in and fit like clockwork.

Training is optional, and it should stay that way. This looks like it is leaning toward player certifications, which is essentially a ranking system. I was under the impression that TG does not use a ranking system. There are lots of amazing players in TG who can't make it to training classes for various reasons.

I encourage "some random schmuck" to step in and take charge. It's SOP to ask the group for a volunteer to lead. That volunteer can be anyone, and leading styles will differ like a fingerprint. So what makes someone a schmuck?

I haven't seen a CO "schmuck" yet. I can recall a few first-time COs that asked for help halfway through the mission, but it worked out in the end and they did fine. Wait actually, I was one of them. What's wrong there?

As for military training, I have never been in the military and at this point I would need about 10 waivers just for medical reasons alone. I won't apologize for that, I'll just say I have a tremendous respect for people who do serve in the military.

However, this is tacticalgamer.com not tacticalmilitary.com. There are lots of sharp gamers here who are familiar enough with procedures WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ARMA 2 to play this game very well. I sincerely hope players are not being dismissed because they don't have a military background.

2) This is just a game

It's a fact that must be acknowledged.

I see this as being something where we can all agree to disagree. Like Dredge said, "We just play it different than some" which is your prerogative. His level of real is more extreme than mine.

But Barnes, when you say:

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

That's not realism. And TG promises more than that. Real is far far away from what we have now, and as long as people say "well its just a game" we never will reach that goal.

...then we have a problem. I think we all like to play Arma 2 very seriously, but I'm not going to struggle fitting a square peg into a round hole. Arma 2 doesn't have a mechanism for prisoners, and ACE2 probably won't either, so it doesn't need to be a part of TG training. TG is not failing in any way by leaving that out of its goal of "realism." Using a map marker rather than calling out map coordinates is not TG failing some goal of realism. Neither is giving a grunt a map, or allowing respawns, or killing an enemy rather than calling a medevac.

We all respect the game, but I don't like seeing rigid "realism" rules being pushed when they don't make sense, and I really don't like any hint of elitism rearing it's ugly head, particularly in the name of training.

**Boondocksaint** · 11-19-2009, 07:28 PM

hmmmm lets stay on topic guys, I see where Long is going from, We all paid for this game, and we supporting members all have a say in how its done, I feel this and think both parties will agree, there is somethimes I want to play respawn and there are somethimes I dont, there are sometimes, I want to be supper real and sometimes I don't. The bottom Line is here at TG we offer all of that and thats cool. If it aint in the scope of the missions design don't escape if it is then try but I am terminating you with extreme prejuduce. lol (Spelling)

**BarnesBL0278** · 11-19-2009, 07:32 PM

Pardon my French, longtime, but that's ****ing ridiculous. There is no elitism involved in saying "we play hardcore.". None. And there will be unconcious players laying around after a firefight in ACE. And you should not just pull your M9 and scatter their brains on the ground.
Look. Let me tell you what TG sells:
Realism and teamwork.

Read it. When I get home, I'll quote it. I'm sorry you don't like it. Really. Too bad for you. But I'm not gonna play five minute missions involving gamey goals on a game that's designed for militaries to train on just because you want to.

And if that's what you want then leave. If you want realism, then how's about DOING it. Instead of playing CS: ArmA, using fancy comms, and calling it real.

POWs would add an interesting, viable experience that would INCREASE the realism experience.

Quit making fun and realism seperate. They're one and the same, and it's that mindset that produces TG players. And you aint it right now, if what you're saying is what I think it is.

Sorry. But pal, a spade is a spade, and you sound like you want CS:ArmA.

To quote you on another post.

"I think missions should be 30 minutes or less, because people don't like waiting."

Now: who can tell me when they get the most fun out of this game? Is it in a half hour long killfest?
Or is it the three hour mindbender, where you've got comms going nuts, and the formations are perfect, and you're calling in mortars to keep the illum up so you can see that one damn sniper, and when you get him, you realize your mouth is dry and your heart is racing.

And then you hear someone give a contact report and realize it was you, and you were just lost in a gaming experience that put you back in uniform for a few seconds?

Cause for me, the second one is why I come to TG.
If you want your brand of "fun" there are lots of other servers that do it better.

Barnes, Brandon L.
Former USMC, OIF 8 vet.

**LowSpeedHighDrag** · 11-19-2009, 07:43 PM

First of all, Tiggr. Allow me to appologise if my previous post was misunderstood by myself and others and if it was understood by you as condescending or demeaning in anyway.
That is/was not my intention. That certainly is not following the TGs Ethics and practices. For what it's worth. My applogies.

Second, to further explain my previous post. Since it obviously didn't portray the right statement as I intended.

Originally Posted by Dredge

and the way WE play has left open a few questions about ROE's and the like. Thats all he was getting at.

I agree with you, Dredge. With your post, I am much clearer on tiggrs intent and his outcome of this thread.

Originally Posted by Dredge

What this actually boils down to is how the game is played by each individual.

When I first played in TG's public server year plue some time ago, as I am sure with the new members here would agree. That I was attracted to the way Arma was played in TG server(s). It was mature, repected other players, and had a structured rules to follow. Which prevented alot of grief which one would experience from other public servers.

I also like to think that I "switch on" (or try to) when I do play few games online. This is not to say that I will be following whatevercountryhere's doctorine to the T. But transitioning from an Arma "game" player to "tactical simulator" from time to time.

However, should I have wanted to be in an environment where proper "simulation" was to be played. I would've stuck with VBS and it's attached simulator(s).

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

Prisoners in game are something I'm all for, myself. In ACE, we're going to have wounded, unconcious men on the ground after we've cleared a position. What are you supposed to do then? Shoot them? That's unfair to that player, if you ask me.

I'm going to have to disagree to agree here with you Barnes.
At it's current state. ArmaII without ACE2, the percentage of such encounters will be zero.
With the exception of the game engine exploit(s), i.e. Falcons mission with POW camp respawn.

Also, although very informative on your previous post (page1). But how many situations are we going to have when we actually will be following them? In cooperative missions, we are fighting against AIs, so this type of play is immediately disregarded.
The only other type of missions such events will occur is when we're playing team vs team scenarios.
Even then, in our experience in current servers. Did we ever get to actively use them?
Also, if I remember correctly. Back during the ArmaI/ACE1 days. The chance of capturing a POW was very slim at best. Everyone shoots to kill, heck with the wounding system. We even had to double tap them. For some time playing as a fireteam leader, I had to actively tell each of the guys checking the bodies to use the built in action menu to check the bodies rather shooting them. That is how the players played with agression in TvTs.

Following your statement, if one would teach POW class. Would you leave out the aggression and its intent in the class? I do not believe so, since this would result in going against the TG's own ethics and practices.

Have we also thought about what the POW's point of view / experience would be like. What his/her reaction would be after being "told" to follow your orders following the proper procedures via the mic? Such "procedure" will not be appreciated by the visiting players to our servres and this certainly would not go down well in TG, I'd imagine.

Don't ge me wrong Barnes, having people like you step up and hold TG classes are very much appreciated by myself and others alike. It just that to me personally, this "realism" was going out of hand.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

That's like saying that since we have a boy scout camp, why stop at that? Let's build a military base! Its completely irrelevant.

I was trying to find/probe if you will, where the line stops between "realism" & "gameplay."
I think you have totally absorbed the wrong outcome of my previous post.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

We NEED to have standardized training. We NEED to have standardized, controlled comms.

Agreed fully. There is a reason why some online squad kick the doors down better than others. I'm sure TGs In House Squads will excel in that department. As opposed to the semi-regular player here at TG. Personally, I'm looking forward to these guys in action.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

We NEED to have some sort of standàrdized way of identifying good squad leaders.

Again, I will have to agree to disagree here. We NEED people to allow to have their accesses to mission failures. Period. Specially as squad leaders.
Otherwise, no one will learn nor step up in the future. That is what AAR's are for and we are using them well. I hope. We are all mature players here. We give credit where its due and provide constructive critism when required/needed.

Identifying players as good squad leaders and "pushing" to be such all the time (which usually happens) is stressful to that person.
Not to mention the new players who wants to learn by just starting as fireteam leader or playing squad leader do not get the chance.
Whether due to lack of experience, or worried that he cannot carry the role due to the "invisible barrier" which keeps him as a grunt.

Hope this post was clearer than the previous one.
Again, my appologies to anyone who misunderstood my previous post as anything other...at best "question with a hint of constructive criticism"

**BarnesBL0278** · 11-19-2009, 08:08 PM

Yes, that was much clearer. And I appreciate the tone. Alright.

I can see where you disagree with needing to have a standardized way of identifying good squad leaders. HOWEVER, and this is for longtime too:

Player A likes playing on TG. Player A has 26 years military experience, is a Navy Cross winner, and has a mic. He says "Hmm. I want to be a squadleader." He steps up, and the admin says "Yeah, slot into bravo lead." He does so, does well, and things are grand. he posts an AAR, some people congratulate him, others remark on how to improve his next experiences, and life goes on good and grand. Player A does not see this for four weeks, however, because Player A has been in the military for 26 years, and things get busy when you're a Sergeant Major.

Player B is a high school dropout who works at Burger King. Player B cannot lead very well, but would like to. He has a lot of spare time, because he works at burger king, and thusly, he spends it playing ArmA, because Player B realizes he was an idiot his whole life, and dreams of greater things. In fact, he just joined the military, and is waiting to ship out.

Player B would love more than anything to try his hand at leading. He's got confidence issues, though, so he contacts a TGU instructor and requests a leadership course. The instructor says "Sure, man. Show up on Saturday, and we'll go over some stuff." He does this for three weeks straight, spending four hours every saturday in game, and studies every spare moment the material that the instructor provided. I mean come on. The guy needed serious work, this isn't an overnight thing.
Despite Player B's obvious mental problems and slacker syndrome, he finally passes squad leader course. He's proud. Really proud. he spent over 100 hours working on this, and he's learned everything about leadership a man could learn. He KNOWS, just KNOWS that he can kick ass and take names with a squad. He logs onto TG.

Guess what. Three guys speak up. Player A is one of them. Player A knows he can do well, because he's been doing it his whole life. And he just needs that squad lead fix. Players C and D are random joes who just logged on for the first times in their lives and don't even know the controls yet. Admin says "Player A, Player C, and Player D get to be squad leads, cause they already spoke up." Is this fair to player B? **** no.

That's elitism. Only it's reversed. You're saying that the little guy is more important than the guy who lives his life for TG. And that's wrong. The guy who WORKS FOR IT should get the credit. And if you disagree with that, stop and think about it. Seriously.

Does that mean nobody can be a sqaud lead who wasn't in the training? No. But that means the guy who took the time to do it deserves the recognition. If that offends you, take the damned training.

/lay in the machine gun behind Dredge's deployed sandbags and stack the magazines and grenades on the firestep

**LowSpeedHighDrag** · 11-19-2009, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

Yes, that was much clearer. And I appreciate the tone.

Finally, I got through. Thank goodness.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

That's elitism. Only it's reversed. You're saying that the little guy is more important than the guy who lives his life for TG. And that's wrong. The guy who WORKS FOR IT should get the credit. And if you disagree with that, stop and think about it. Seriously.

Does that mean nobody can be a sqaud lead who wasn't in the training? No. But that means the guy who took the time to do it deserves the recognition. If that offends you, take the damned training.

That is why TG has its own Tactical Gamer Basic Rules and Procedures / Primer and TG ArmA SOPs. Adding to that the silent "honor code" as I like to think.

Leaves note on the sandbags..."Basically, don't stir $h*t. It will smell more." followed by a pound cake.

**Boondocksaint** · 11-19-2009, 10:16 PM

the real question is why havn't we had penut butter jelly time on our servers yet

**1longtime** · 11-19-2009, 10:28 PM

Barnes, you have ignored the points that I was making and instead taken this to a "just go away and play CS" argument. You've done it with a tone that is way out of line.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

Look. Let me tell you what TG sells:
Realism and teamwork.

Read it. When I get home, I'll quote it. I'm sorry you don't like it. Really. Too bad for you. But I'm not gonna play five minute missions involving gamey goals on a game that's designed for militaries to train on just because you want to.

You don't have the authority to declare what TG "sells."

Your tone here comes off like a personal attack. However, I'll take your advice and I'll quote something you may have missed:

"1) Create an environment conducive for mature gamers to enjoy the games they play without the everyday interference from the less-than-mature gamers.

2) Create an environment where there was mutual respect for your fellow gamers and where all members would be working together to advance the enjoyment of their hobby.

3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team.

While these principles seem very easy to understand on the surface, the implementation of them is considerably more complex."

What you may have missed: Near-simulation. Considerably more complex. In other words, there may be many different ways to interpret those three points. NEAR SIMULATION may mean different things.

You don't have the authority to determine what is proper "realism." Your decisions to what is "hardcore realism" are not law. You are getting way ahead of yourself.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

And if that's what you want then leave.

You don't have the authority to tell me to leave if I don't agree with you.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

Quit making fun and realism seperate. They're one and the same, and it's that mindset that produces TG players. And you aint it right now, if what you're saying is what I think it is.

Sorry. But pal, a spade is a spade, and you sound like you want CS:ArmA.

You don't have the authority to determine what TG realism is. You are getting way ahead of yourself. At this point, you've begun to show disrespect towards me.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

To quote you on another post.

"I think missions should be 30 minutes or less, because people don't like waiting."

Misquoted, but basically true. I prefer no-respawn missions, and shorter missions work better for that.

You don't have the authority to say my opinion is wrong. It's my opinion. I'm not suggesting it as TG policy.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

Now: who can tell me when they get the most fun out of this game? Is it in a half hour long killfest?
Or is it the three hour mindbender, where you've got comms going nuts, and the formations are perfect, and you're calling in mortars to keep the illum up so you can see that one damn sniper, and when you get him, you realize your mouth is dry and your heart is racing.

And then you hear someone give a contact report and realize it was you, and you were just lost in a gaming experience that put you back in uniform for a few seconds?

You do realize that the grunts don't hear "the comms go nuts" right? Sometimes I think certain missions are favored because they keep the CO occupied more than the platoon. Grunts receive an order to set up defenses and scan a sector, in this case staring at the dark. I play both parts frequently, so I know which missions I prefer to play: the ones that move the entire team. That's my preference.

As for your personal combat memories, that sounds intense. I don't have any real world military experience/memories. HOWEVER, I'm a survivor here on planet Earth and I've lived through my own stories, some involving guns and violence too.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

Cause for me, the second one is why I come to TG.
If you want your brand of "fun" there are lots of other servers that do it better.

Barnes, Brandon L.
Former USMC, OIF 8 vet.

You do not have the authority to determine the "brand" of TG fun. I would argue that no individual does. This is an organic group.

You seem intent on trying to lead this group because I suspect you are a natural leader. You should show some respect and I will give it back tenfold.

**MarineSeaknight** · 11-19-2009, 11:28 PM

[media]http://www.mcfd2.com/images/Fire%20Ext.jpg[/media]

This is directed towards everyone viewing, replying, and even if you're just thinking about this thread, and not at any single individual or group of individuals. And also, WARNING: May or may not contain 0.02% of humor, depending on how you read it.

While I generally enjoy stimulating and productive discussion on topics such as interpretation of TG's purpose, the Primer, and the TG community as a whole, I would like to take this opportunity to ask everyone to keep their replies on topic (that is, POWs and their part in missions at TG) and in your most respectful tone of voice.

Also, I would like to make it clear that while there are those who will be clearly seen as large contributors to TG in terms of leadership, content, classes, etc... give them the reputation and respect that they deserve, but also remember that we are a community open to all players of all backgrounds. A player does not "out-rank" another because of a military background they may or may not possess. The only "limits" being that players here abide by the rules, Primer, and behave maturely. If you enjoy the hard-core 'mil-sim' stuff, and get a real kick out of using bastardly cool-looking military formations while sending out 'locstats', 'sitreps', and organizing a 'casevac', then so be it. That is your fun, it will be respected and you can run it that way when you lead missions on the server. However, keep in mind that some relatively more laid-back players are also regulars at our community, and the same respect for their ideals is also expected.

You may interpret TG's goal in any way you please, but in the end, you should not be imposing this on players who may believe differently.

**tHa_KhAn** · 11-19-2009, 11:33 PM

TG promises nothing more than a set of servers where "getting the highest score" is not the focus. ArmA has many ways to play and be enjoyable. TG tends to side on the realism versus the run and gun, but in no way do we enforce training or specific requirements beyond simple SOP's to play or lead here.

That being said, if a group of players would like to run ultra realistic events, then by all means schedule a time and do so and you will have full backing of the admins. However, the pub servers are just that, pub servers and only require people to follow some basic SOP's like mature behavior and simple communication.

**Boondocksaint** · 11-20-2009, 12:26 AM

This will fix all [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8MDNFaGfT4[/media]

**BarnesBL0278** · 11-20-2009, 01:07 AM

Longtime, take this however you want, but look me up on TS when you get a chance. I'm burning to discuss this with you. Nothing personal, but this fear of elitism is really starting to get out of hand in my eyes. Your points are stated, but due to the omniscience of the admins, I've decided that it's best to heed their words and return to topic like the rest of us.

That said, I'll return to topic lest I ramble more.

Tigger asked about POWs. Their practicality or probability aside, they DID occur. They MAY occur again. We answered his question, he came back with another, and it was in turn answered. I deem this mission accomplished. Starting a new thread for our current argument.

Tigger, I apologize for my part in hijacking your thread. I hope you'll forgive me. And one vet to another, I'm sorry these civillians saw fit to tell you you were crazy for seeing EPW's when none can possibly exist. =D Sorry. Couldn't resist. Alright, new thread.

Thread Tools

Display