Nemesis

First off, I want to apologize to Rincewind for C4ing his jet out of the UCB tonight. (7/26) I apologized in game as well, but I know how easy it is to miss stuff in the heat of battle. For some reason I had a brain fart on that one and I'm truely sorry for the rule break there.

My fault, my responsibility. Though I'm not sure I 100% agree with the rule, it doesn't make it ok for me to break it.

However I do take issue with something that happened on Oman a bit later. My SL and I also got chewed out for something that I did yet I'm a bit confused as to the methods and reasoning behind it.

First off, let me state that I agree with the "No stealing vehicles out of a UCB" rule. However, in this instance I think there's a distinct case of Letter of the Law and Spirit of the Law.

The situation was we were playing as a Spec Ops squad with the intention of taking out the USMC assets. To be clear, that didn't include vehicles. However, in the process of taking out some Arty, an enemy player drove by me in an APC, hopped out and jumped in the attack helo. My SL said he was probably going to hunt us down because he took a sniper shot at him before he got in the helo.

So I jumped in the abandonded APC and shot up the chopper as the guy was taking off. I then hopped back out of the APC and went on my way. Soon after I was told by my SL that he was getting ripped because I just did that.

Ummmm, sorry but WTH is up with that? Yes, there is a rule involved here:

Now what part of that rule did I break?

He wasn't disoriented, nor spawning.
My intent wasn't to steal any vehicles. And I didn't even actually move the vehicle one inch.
I Didn't drop any bombs.
The only C4 that was layed was on Assets.

So what exactly was the point of chewing out my SL and seeming to give me a warning about the rules? If we're going to enforce these things without any logic then that's one thing....but I do think that common sense should apply above all else.

I guess my queston here is where does the UCB zone extend to? And at what point does a vehicle become fair game? Also, if the intent isn't to steal, how is that breaking the rule? Or is it the simple fact that I used it against the enemy considered stealing?

The player in question abandonded his vehicle for another even though it was undamaged. I didn't stop him from taking it, and my INTENT in being in the UCB wasn't to steal vehicles for my own/teams use. So where is the issue?

If this happend just outside the UCB gates, would it have been ok? Or how about 50 feet from the gate? 100 feet? See what I'm getting at? The rule is in place to prevent UCB camping....which, again, I think is valid. However, this instance shows a flaw in how some people interpret it. If you try and go by the letter and not the spirit in which it was created you're going to have problems.

IMO, if you really want it cut and dried then there should be no asset killing. Period. Yet we do allow asset killing but then limit the ability of those doing the killing from defending themselves. I'm not sure I understand how we can do one but not the other.

See, if we go by the Letter of the law, no OP4 should be able to use C4 to defend themselves in a UCB. According to some, even if he/she is engaged first. (IE: someone spots you, jumps in a Tank and chases you....your teammate shouldn't be allowed to sneak up and place C4 on the tank to kill it.) How is that correct? Or because there was no original intent to do just that, then it's ok?

After tonight, I don't know anymore. And if what I did is considered to be wrong, then I'll have to say I won't be doing anymore asset killing missions in a UCB. Doesn't seem to be much point...especially considering that most times, the USMC side has on and the Op4 doesn't.

Thoughts? Opinions? Disagree?

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

Pokerface

From your description (and your description alone, mind you) I don't believe you did anything wrong.

The line that we're treading here is the one we've been over before regarding letting people get out of their UCB. Your 50-100-150 foot arguments are the closest thing to a counterpoint saying you messed up, as we have determined that supply ways out of UCBs are fair game, but not the UCB itself.

From your post, your intention was clear enough, but letting the chooper get more airborne would have only bolstered your side of the argument.

It's an icky line, for certain, and I can't say that my assessment is clear, nor is it in any way final. It's merely a reaction to the events as you (and you alone) described them

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

Nemesis

I agree 100% in that it's an icky line Poker. Which is where the main problem is. Because who's Say so counts here? And how exactly does one prove another's "Intent"?

Is it totally dependant on who is Admin at the time? Or is there an overall standard applied? Because I'm pretty sure that if my SL didn't stand up for me, I would have been booted from the server. (Judging by his reaction to the response it got over TS.)

Yet the person booting me would have had only ONE side of the arguement.

As far as letting the chopper get more airborne....I'm not sure I agree. We're supposed to let ourselves be at a serious disadvantage first? I guess I'm not 100% sure myself to be honest. Which is why I'm really starting to not like this rule in general.

It's far to open to a he said/he said situation. Or a "who do you trust more" arguement. I also realize this has been discussed before and probably will be again. It's just a pretty slippery slope....you can kill assets but not vehicles. You can shoot if you're shot at....yet you can't use their vehicles to defend yourself. You can shoot the chopper/plane down yet you have to let them take off first which pretty much means you're dead anyway......

Let me also add that I can see the reason for the rule and even agree with a good part of the thoughts behind it. I personally hate base camping....yet I see a solid need to taking out enemy assets.... So I'm torn myself.

I do appreciate your take on the matter however and I would like to hear how the people that talked to my SL saw things.

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

=Sarc=

This rule is a little grey with your situation. The intent of entering the UCB was not to steal the APC but it was stolen in an act of defense and was an unforseen opportunity.

The UCB rule should clarify how far players can go to defend themselves in a UCB. Can they steal vehicles? Can they pounce on vulnerable enemies before they become a serious threat?

__________________
JO Guides & Tutorials
Team Element - It's who you game with.

Telorn

This is only my opinion, but I see absolutely no issue with what you did and I would have done the same. All you were doing was 'self-defense'. I'd have shot that chopper before he left the ground too. it's him or me..and damn if it's going to be me. I would have even shot at the helo before he got to it if I determined that is what he was running for.

It would have been an issue if you placed C4 on the chopper and hid in the distance to wait for someone to hop in and take off, and then detonate. That is UCB camping. Nothing you said you did would suggest you were UCB camping. It's my opinion the guy in the chopper was just a sore loser and got pissed and wasn't thinking straight.

I had a similiar situation when I grabbed a BH on Oman because i accidentally spawned on the carrier instead of with my squad. I'm not that great of a flyer, but no one was around to use the BH, so I decided I'd hop in it and temporarily use it to get to my team. Well, my flying wasn't so great and while trying to land I lost control and ended up at the heli pad at the MEC UCB. I saw that an individual had just hopped in the MEC attack helo and was starting to fire missiles at me...I promptly jumped out of the BH, because it was close enough to the ground and sprinted for the APC just 20 feet away...I hopped in the APC and fired the rocket before the chopper was able to get more lift, and I killed him. Was I going to wait for him to react to my sudden suicidal run for the APC? Hell no! I lived because I surprised him.

I don't see my situation much different than yours, and I'd do it again if I had to.

__________________
Telorn

asch

There will always be mistakes in-game, especially with grey areas. We could attempt to write down every possible situation and a rule, but that will only lead to more "what-ifs". That also leads people to not read the rules because of the shear size of them.

As far as Nemesis' situation, attacking the chopper before it was completely airborne is pushing that line, especially since it wasn't firing upon you. You probably didn't need to jump into the APC, but you didn't appear to be stealing it.

We need to keep these rules as simple, short and clear as possible. We could create exceptions that if the enemy drives the vehicle up to you and jumps out that you can jump in.... or this... or that. All of those exceptions make it hard to remember and even harder to admin. There will be times that your intent will be questioned... possibly even kicked first, questioned later. Occassions like this will hopefully be rare however.

The admins and players are human... except for Wyzcrak who's some mutation from the NS game.

With BF1942 we restricted being in the UCB. BF2 introduced assets so we've adjusted that rule. The squad moving in to destroy the enemy assets can defend themselves, but only once fired upon. If a tank is attacking them and they drop c4 to take out the tank, so be it but they shouldn't c4 the tank in anticipation that it may or may not be occupied later.

If the squad has difficulties defending themselves, they should probably demo the assets and make their way out.

I may need to make a clarification on laying c4/mines in the UCB. The intent should not be to sabotage vehicles/airstrips/etc., however if the squad is under attack by a tank and drops some c4 on it to defend themselves that is ok. They should not be placing the c4 on the tank when it is empty either.

__________________
| My Maps

Gaming Videos by Tactical Gamers

Fear the Frog! | Kill the Frog! | An Inconvenient Truth

"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." -- Tactical Gamer Primer

asch

The helo probably should not have been fired upon until...

a) has left the UCB
b) engaged the squad

__________________
| My Maps

Gaming Videos by Tactical Gamers

Fear the Frog! | Kill the Frog! | An Inconvenient Truth

"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." -- Tactical Gamer Primer

Pokerface

Agreed. At the very least, these two things would make the situation FAR less "open to interpretation".

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

Telorn

If the man running for the helo fired upon me before heading for the chopper, then I would not hesitate to take out the chopper before it lifts off. He is obviously a threat at that point in time and coming for me. If he showed no intent on coming after me, then I would have hid and let him leave.

I think we're all taking this UCB rule a little too far. We're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Just don't spawn camp or vehicle camp. Leave it at that.

__________________
Telorn

leejo

I don't think any of it's a problem if a spec ops team is in the base destroying assets. Of course they should protect themselves. This includes taking out clear and imminent threats like helos and apcs and tanks that have people in them. It's suidical for infantry to wait for a helo to start shooting at them.

In a hit and run mission, that's common sense. If you're there to blow up the radar or some arty. Get in, kill what you must to stay alive, then get out.

The whole UBC rule is kind of a farce: either the player "gets it" or the player doesn't "get it". It sounds from your tone and the reasons you cite that you're a player who "gets it". Instead of going around and around about the line and concerning ourselves with each possible scenario, we should focus instead on the people. A player who demonstrates good teamwork and a good attitude can shoot pretty much anything he or she pleases and no-one's going to complain too loudly. A player who is a jerk all the time can obey the UCB rule and still be a pain.

If a player is a problem, TG should take steps to get rid of him. If a player doesn't fall into that category, we should all be willing to give him a free pass if he does something that we think crosses the line and remember it's just for fun. My $.02.

asch

Agreed.

(This is a general statement not directed at anyone) There are tendancies for players to try and push rules to accomplish more. Many times we have to train ourselves with new habits that may be counter to common sense to make the game more playable and admin-able. Such is the life with online games in public servers.

__________________
| My Maps

Gaming Videos by Tactical Gamers

Fear the Frog! | Kill the Frog! | An Inconvenient Truth

"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." -- Tactical Gamer Primer

Nemesis

Appreciate the responses by everyone. And let me say that I'm really not trying to stir a hornets nest here. Even though I knew the rules, I was still seriously confused over where the line is with regards to being in a UCB after the reactions I got in game.

It's not easy to make rules that everyone is going to like and/or agree with. And it's going to be impossible to cover every aspect without things getting out of hand and having a rule book 20 pages long. The addage "keep it simple stupid" seems to apply here pretty well. Which is why I talked about the "Spirt" of the Law/rule.

On the flip side however, with regards to being in a UCB, there are some pretty large grey areas. Which is why I suggested keeping Assets off limits. In that, there could be no margin for error....though game tactics would be seriously effected.....so I'm not sure if that should even be an option.

I'd have to concede here that because I did just that to Rincewinds plane earlier probably brought undo attention to myself and my motives. So I do take that into account. I just don't think that one action/dumb move should color a player over a full night of playing. But as you said, we're all human. (Wyz excluded of course. )

Again, I appreciate the replies and POV's on the matter. The more I read, the less I'm sure if there's a "perfect" solution here. Because, overall, I agree with no base/spawn camping, yet I'm not sure I agree that you shouldn't be allowed to use what's available to defend yourself and accomplish your mission.

So I think I'm going to make it easy on myself and take a pass before doing any Special Ops in the near future.

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

icky

I don't agree with this. When I am a spec ops heading into an enemy UCB, I do so ONLY to hit the assets. I don't engage ANYONE unless they chase me out of the UCB.

The problem is that I could go in there with the intent of spawn camping and later claim otherwise. I could run in and put C4 on every vehicle, just in case they used those vehicles to come after me. I don't think it has to be a grey area at all. The rule should simply be "no engaging people in the UCB". If this makes the commander assets impossible to destroy on a given map, then so be it. That component of the game really isn't important on all maps.

Tempus

When it comes down to it at the end of the day, the UCB is an unimportant target. The enemy can't take the flag, and destroying vehicles in there only keep them destroyed for ~30 seconds. If you kill someone there, you are doing nothing other than getting a kill.

If it were not for the fact that commander assets were in the base, it would be completely off-limits.

There is no more room for discussion on this.

__________________
Battlefield 2/2142 Game Officer
Contact me with server/player/admin issues.




-- Suits are what you wear when doing things you shouldn’t want to do anyway.

FROM THE TACTICAL GAMER PRIMER.
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.

Apophis

Here's some insight into why things are the way they are....

In the situation described, a spec ops team has moved into the UCB to take out the commanders assets. (Note: COMMANDERS assets, not the team assets). A SL or player has identified what is going on and boards a helo to use as a spotting/elimination tool for the spec ops team.

At this point it is KNOWN that the spec ops team is in the UCB. Any SL worth their salt will relay this to the CO if the CO doesn't already know himself.

If you take out a helo with C4 the players in it will die. They will re-spawn and get in another helo or vehicle and continue their hunt for your elimination. Are you going to continue to C4 every vehicle that will be used against you realizing that they will NOT stop until you are dead? Will this not just turn into an ongoing UCB engagement until the spec ops team is dead or has withdrawn from the UCB?

So you grab a BDRM or other vehicle and take down the chopper. Won't the opposing team grab a tank or other vehicle and now go after your BDRM? At what point does this engagement stop? At what point does the spec ops team stop directly engaging the enemy in their UCB?

Even if you get in a vehicle to take down a potentially dangerous vehicle trying to take you out and then get right out again, the cycle is just going to repeat over and over and over again until the spec ops team is dead.

Staying in the UCB is a deathwish as you will ultimately NOT survive. As a spec ops team, your cover has been blown and you are no longer going to be effective in your objective.

Keeping enemy assets down is important, but if you think through the ramification of your actions, considering alternative tactics and strategy may very well keep you alive and able to continually complete your objective.

If I was leading a spec ops team I would move in and have two members place C4 on the command assets. Have one member blow the assets and then have the team fall back to a vantage point well away from the UCB. When the assets come back on-line again, the second team member can blow their C4 charges and take the assets right back down without having to worry about direct engagement in the UCB. This keeps your spec ops team safe and allows you to complete your objective without escalation into an unwinnable UCB firefight.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.