Dark Viper

Isn't the objective to win the battle? I think that using planes to kill the opposite team does more for the team than capturing flags on a map with no ticket bleed. It is not a ranked server, so I do not see what personal benifit has to do with anything.

If they are that powerful, do you not think it would be wise to atleast try to defend them a little bit. I mean just 1 AT rocket can take out a plane. If just 1 AT guy stayed a little distance away from the hanger to shoot the plane just incase it got stolen, the other team would probably only try once to get it then give up if it was guarded.

Pokerface

No. It's not debatable. TacticalGamer play isn't about having the most tickets at the end of the game; it's about completing game objectives. If what you say were true, spawncamping and suicide ramming blackhawks would be accepted tactics, and they're not.
That'd help mitgate the circumstance somewhat, but it doesn't change my belief that the CP where the jets are spawning should be of paramount concern.
Apophis took about 90 minutes one day not too long ago and beat into my head that realism was -- and is still -- a major factor in the TacticalGamer philosophy. What happens in real life has EVERYTHING to do with how we play here, and realism very much deserves to be part of the discussion.
If your objective is to have your team have more tickets at map end, you're missing the point of playing here.
Admit what? That a person in an AIRSUPPORT squad that isn't doing air support shouldn't be in the squad? That it's not germane to the discussion? The former you'll not hear me say, for certain; the latter I'll freely admit, to a point at least -- I was responding to a part of Legato's post to which I disagreed. I can think of a dozen different things one could be doing with two extra men on the field (getting orders designed for those in the field) instead of waiting to rotate assets (and getting orders designed for those in the air). Maybe they could be part of a bigger squad and cap an airfield CP!
And yes, you are accusing. Saying that you're not doesn't make it so that you're not.

__________________

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

Mateo

Agreed. To which, I'd add that any rationalization is simply trying to justify behavior that does not belong at TG.

Apophis

Disregarding flag capture points in lieu of being able to rack up kills isn't going to win the game quicker than actually focusing on the objectives, securing all MEC spawn points, and then clearing the map of the remaining MEC forces.

How does using the planes to repeatedly kill respawning MEC troops do more for the team than actually focusing on the objectives and securing their spawn points?

As for the personal benefit. Some people just insist on being at the top of the scoreboard and do what they need to do in order to maintain that position. Their focus is on their score and doing whatever it takes to be top dog, rather than doing what is best for their team.

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

Dark Viper

It probably would be faster to just kill the MEC, considering how hard it is to take every single flag.

I never said to spawn kill with the planes. But take out armor that is heading for friendly squads would be an example of helping the team. Taking out a jeep that is heading for a friendly flag would be another.

So basically you think that jet squads aren't that helpful to the team because they do not capture and hold flags?

StrikeFear

No, it's a fair statement. A vehicle is a vehicle. If the rule can't be made on principle because a vehicle shouldn't be taken, then you're making an inconsistent rule, and it's in question.

Whether we're trying to bring in realism or not, this has already been covered. If you bring this point up, you also bring up the point that the enemy helos, tanks and apcs will all have unfamiliar controls - not to mention that the keys are not in the ignition. There's only so much you can do for realism, and BF2 is really not a realistic game. To argue that a jet can't be stolen because of unfamiliar controls is to argue the same thing for several other vehicles.

It's absolutely fair. The MEC team earned their consequences by not defending their assets. As stated already - it takes a GREAT deal of laziness to fail to protect them. Said differently, it's EASY to prevent jet theft.

If we must talk about game designer intent, then we must talk about actions that the game designers implicitly or explicitly made possible in-game. There's not other valid assumption we can make about what they 'intended'. These actions would include:
1. Spawn camping
2. Bunny-prone hopping
3. ALL vehicle stealing
4. IVC/N
5. Blackhawk w/3 engineers

Would you say, then, that since the designers intended those, that we should allow them? So then, even if you're right, we've already agreed that we don't necessarily go by designer intent. However, I maintain that since bailing and stealing a jet is possible, it was intended. And then - who cares?

[quote=oldredminer]1. From the perspective of an obsessive medic who hardly ever touches ANY asset ...
2. Please, how can you even compare stealing a tank to stealing a jet? No, really, flyboy bias aside
1. From the perspective of the guy who started the gentleman's agreement thread...
2. Because they're both vehicles, and if a (hypothetical) rule or agreement will stand, it must stand on the principle of the issue, not the severity of the act. Societies do not make stealing cars illegal while allowing the theft of $100 simply because it's not as bad.
3. Absolutely! Thanks for posting.

1. YOU say that. Clean sweep, like any other map, is about highest ticket count at map end. That's what the game uses to determine who wins.
2. What?? Since when did we need a license to ignore objectives? Who required me to go capping ANYTHING? There are lots of situations where we deliberately choose not to cap an objective. This assumed rule of yours does not exist.
3. And stealing an enemy jet directly contributes to those objectives.

1. If it were simple, there would've been, like, 2 posts, and the thread would have died because it was so obvious. This is anything but simple, and I'd say, is as close to 'the line' as any issue we've discussed here at TG.
2. Yes - that's what brought it to light. But currently, I fully intend to keep stealing enemy jets whenever possible and within the rules. If I'm not the only one, then this issue is possibly on a grand scale.
3. Didn't I mention at the top that accusations were not helpful? Also, that statement is a ridiculous generalization, and I can't believe you posted it after reading the posts I've made. It is clearly possible to steal a jet for the purpose of supporting a team rather than whatever personal benefit you think that jet-thief will get.
4. Well, we agree on that.

1. Call it what you will. There is a line where you draw the final border around the rules and say, "No more. From here out, anything goes." And both teams agree to that, both teams know the risks and rewards, and that's the battleground. It's easy to prevent jet-theft.
2. YOU say it's questionable. No one has given any good reason to claim that there is ANY amount of unfairness.
3. Absolutely. What is the opposing team supposed to do, say, "Oh, MEC? What's that? Oh, you say it was an accident? You didn't mean to leave that jet unattended and unused? You didn't mean to fail to protect that CP? Oh, well, in that case, here, have your jet back. That's ok... no run along and play! " We don't draw the line way back there. The line between fair and war is drawn on the other side of it, where we say, "Oh, USMC? What's that? You took our jets? Ugh. We should have protected that, eh? I suppose we'll do better next time. Meanwhile, give us what we have coming to us."
4. Gimme a break. Jets are not invincible. Remember in the clean sweep example that started all this? The bomber they stole got shot down about 5 times. No one bothered to cover it between spawns.
5. I appreciate you sharing your opinion.

1. Our gameplay is modified to be more fun and fair - but once those boundaries are established, winning IS still the goal, yes? If so, then using a jet to help win by eliminating enemy armor (instead of capping that flag, particularly if you can't) is a good application of the resource within the TG mindset.
2. Yes, but your belief must be substantiated by more than feeling if you're going to convince me that you're right, rather than convince me of what you feel.
3. I think I wasn't clear. Realism is important here at TG. The problem is that it doesn't always translate. The reason your question wasn't fair was that in real life, the reasons a commander would have for taking the airfield don't apply within BF2. If he had it, he'd have a place to land, repair his jets, in theater, etc. In the game, they already had one. IRL, you CAN'T take a jet - you don't know how to fly it.
4. Again - that's how you win the map. That IS still our goal, isn't it? We DO still try to win, yes? And the game never declares a winner based on CPs owned.
5. Pokerface - OMG. Go read the threads about what to do with extra players in your jet squad. There are good reasons to have them. Besides, are you going to suggest that during free-play time on our servers that, if a player wants to man up AA all game, cuz he either feels like it or wants the practice or wants to see how it works, that he shouldn't be allowed to do that, because in your opinion, it's not the best use of his time in-game?

1. That's arguable. Winning the game is tickets, not CPs owned. If you can get more kills by taking the jet than by taking the CP, you are doing better. Taking the whole island would take forever, on the other hand.
2. Now you're putting words in our mouth. No one said spawn killing. And you're being ridiculous! How can anyone in a vehicle be spawn-killed??? Jets attack vehicles. Players are not disoriented if they've found their way into a vehicle.
3. Again with the accusations! Do you think I play that way, Apo? And yet I'm all for taking the jets, and I'm all for limiting the restrictions on players actions in-game.

Whew! I'm hot! Please pardon me if I get outta hand.

__________________
"You live and learn. Or you don't live long."
- Lazarus Long

CymBa

Ok just spent 15 mins reading this entire thread and some good points were made.

Here are some of my random thoughts.

Part of this problem is artificially created by TG rules themselves. We're not allowed to steal UCB assets. Now I personally think this is a good rule, however as stated before the imbalance that this rule causes is maps with only one UCB.

I don't know about the jets because I really don't fly them but I have from personal experience seen an enemy squad come and steal our MEC/PLA chopper and use it against us while their chopper sits at their UCB. However, because of the UCB rule I can't go over there and commandeer their helicopter.

Now at least as stated before the helicopters, if they're being used properly to engage the enemy, have a good chance of beng shot down. However the best and only way to shoot down a Jet is with another Jet. So how is the PLA/MEC team supposed to get back their assets if the only effective counter has been stolen? Also, this hasn't been done yet, but on 1 UCB maps its quite valid for the USMC air squad to find their way to the MEC/PLA base, steal the jets and use them exclusively for the rest the map while their own jets sit at their UCB base unused. What recourse would MEC/PLA have then?

Someone stated before that this was a defect of the map. Not really, in standard BF2 play even though the US base is UCB, MEC/PLA can still walk in there and take whatever they want. So its actually a side effect of the TG rule.

I also read in the other thread however that they stole the jets multiple times, that means that even tho they had all the jets, they still died due to their own action. So in some ways MEC/PLA was at fault for not securing the airfield (even tho its kinda unfair that they're the only ones that have to do that) to ensure they reclaim the jets.


In summary :

The Ban on stealing UCB vehicles is a kinda unfair on 1 UCB maps. It artificially puts one team at a disadvantage, even on maps with no air assets. Look at Karkand. Lotsa times USMC will make a beeline for the MEC main armor spawn and take it first and freely leave their own armor back at their base undefended because THEY have a UCB. However I'm not sure what really can be done about this in the rules.

I agree with the poster above that stated it may not be against the rules etc, but its kinda lame to take the enemy's jets w/o at least capturing the CP first. If they lose the CP then its really MEC/PLA's fault. But at least then they have a recourse to get their assets back, take back the CP. When the jets are just stolen outright. There is no recourse except to wait for the ENEMY pilot to mess up and crash. That's unfair. Sure someone could argue that they should just defend the jets. But sometimes all it takes is just a couple seconds and some luck for someone to get past an entire defending squad and steal a jet especially when that squad is split between defending the jets AND the CP. It takes a lot more effort and less luck to take the CP. But if you do take the CP then u deserve to take those assets.

I'm not necessarily saying make it a rule , maybe just an agreement, like Helo-Capping. Don't take the enemy's non-ucb jets unless u're willing to go thru the effort of capturing the CP. MEC/PLA are already at a disadvantage because of ur immune UCB. Don't compound it.

Apophis

Yes. I say that. But I also say that TG was founded on team orientation, objective focus, and honorable conduct. The objective in clean sweep is not racking up kills. Deliberately ignoring an objective for no other purpose than being able to rack up kills is something I do have an issue with.

I have read the posts you have made, but I also have my own voice and free will and simply don't agree with all of your points. Essentially telling me I should be quiet because YOU posted isn't going to get you anywhere.

I also do not believe that ALL cases of jet-theft and activity that is being described have similar intent. My issue is with those players whose intent IS to focus on their personal scores rather than objectives. There are different styles of players and not all of them perform the same action for the same reasons.

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. If you re-read my post you will not see me reference "spawn killing". My reference is to killing re-spawning MEC troops. IE: The troops will re-spawn if left with a point to spawn from. By removing their ability to spawn from that capturable flag, you are removing their ability to spawn there. By securing ALL flags, the MEC team has no more fixed spawn points.

And no. I do not believe you play in the manner I described. Your conduct and actions in game have not come under question at all. I did not say "all members of all jet squads that have ever played", I said "some people". And yes. I do believe that some people DO play with their personal scores as their primary focus.

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

StrikeFear

Wow! Excellent insights, Cymba. I really appreciate your post.

Apo - roger that. Seems I misunderstood some of your wording. Which leads me to...

I have to bow out of this discussion. I'm on the border of violating my own ground rules. Anyway, I've said plenty, and unless more players like Cymba come up with new insights, I THINK it's all been said for both sides - certainly for my part. I'm not gonna clutter with more of my repetitiveness.

I gave out good and bad rep as a result of this thread. So those of you who got bad, I want you to know 2 things:
1. I also handed out good.
2. I believe that the rep I passed had NOTHING to do with whether I agreed or disagreed with the poster, but with HOW they posted.

__________________
"You live and learn. Or you don't live long."
- Lazarus Long

Apophis

It would be REALLY fast to just box up all the MEC into one flag and surround it with armor mowing down everything that spawns. But I don't think the discussion needs to focus on what is necessarily "faster".

I wasn't referring to spawn killing, but more to allowing the MEC forces to respawn at all by NOT taking over a flag point. If the MEC team has no place to spawn and the CO is doing their job, it's not that difficult to sweep the map and clear up any remaining MEC forces. I also think that taking out the armor heading for friendly squads is very important and I do feel that jet squads are VERY helpful to their team PROVIDED their size is proportionate to the amount of resources the squad has available. A 6 person air support team is wasteful if a map only has 3 air support "positions".

The key point which can NOT be separated in my argument is that players should not ignore valid objectives in lieu of kills or stealing enemy assets.

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

Dark Viper

Isn't just taking over every single flag and ending the map in 2 minutes even less fun for everybody than just stealing jets?

I want to know what you consider the objective of air squads then. I consider it to be getting kills because they cannot capture flags. But you said that it is your key point to go for objectives and what exactly is the objective of air squads then?

Mateo

To support the ground forces in achieving their objectives.

DigitalAssassin

Right on Apo! I am consistently in the bottom 15% of my team as far as score but I like to believe it's because I'm playing SL quite a bit. Especially when I'm doing that, my personal score is of no concern to me, my concern is keeping my squad focused on their current objective and informed of any resistance. Also, I'm a conservative SL so I typically stay clear of the action in order to provide a good respawn location, which translates to few kills.

__________________

Apophis

When you exaggerate for the point of building a straw man argument, I'm not sure how to respond. But let me put things back into a realistic perspective.

If taking over every single flag and ending the map after 20-30 minutes is possible. It should be done. Is it less fun? Probably not. If the losing team can not hold their assets then the map should end with the winning team continuing their focus on the objective. Denying the losing team of air and ground assets while refusing to focus on their remaining flag point prolongs the inevitable loss for that team while prolonging the obvious advantage and one-sided game for the winning team.

I think the objective of air squads is to maintain air superiority. I do not feel that their objective is to "get kills". This very phrase irks me because it *IS* part of the problem with the questionable behavior and DOES show personal preference in gaining points rather than supporting the ground troops.

The air squads objective should be to provide air support for ground troops focused on their objectives and to keep enemy aircraft from completing their own bombing/assault runs. I also feel that the air squads should be locked after the number of available air seats has been filled. I certainly don't feel the secondary objective of air squads is to fly over enemy airfields, ditch their aircraft and steal the opposing teams assets.

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

Pokerface

Winning is the goal, but how you get there is just as important -- if not MORE so -- than if you get there.
Fair enough, I suppose, but none of this discussion (on either of our parts) is more than what we're feeling at present.
In the game, taking the CP is paramount. You can call swiping the planes "neutering their defenses" or make some other justification for not capping the CP outright, but it's all rationalization to me. Take the CP, and you've got no more issues with the opposition's planes AND you've explicitly completed a map objective.
Tickets acheive the win condition. HOW you win is some