Legato895

i will rephrase, for me, it ISN'T about losing. im sorry i forgot about the fun factor, but as state above, fun is hard to quantify. i reform what i said to agree that fun is the highest of the things we strive for, but i don't think you can say nobody cares about winning. even if you know you are going to lose, or if it comes down to the wire, everybody (in my squads at-least) just gets more and more heightened and more and more "we can comeback and win this"

i agree, thats why dice made some guns worse than others and made a m1a1 equal to a t90, but this isn't warcraft 2 where everything is cut and dried. its the fluctuations in the balance that give one team an advantage over another no matter how short lived. if this was breaking a rule we set up to help balance i would have no grounds to do it, but as it stands we are determining through debate if we should make a rule on the subject.

not using them and not defending them are different. in this case, they had a jet squad actively in the air for the first half of the game, and when up until a magical point i hadn't seen jets in the hangers. this isn't just about if the team was or wasn't using them, it was if the team was or wasn't defending them. when my squad is trying to take a base or is holding a base, i get a guy in every apc and tank that re-spawns. our team may be getting raped by air, but us having it and dying in it is better than a squad sneaking up on us and taking it. we may have no intention of using it and often readily hand it over to outbound squads, but leaving it there is never a solution. on the 2-3 maps where all of this even applies, part of the map is defending the main base, and while the UCB shield is in place mainly (imo) to prevent spawn camping, certain teams in certain maps don't have this luxury, and dice has balanced the map to account for this.

__________________
|TG-Irr|Legato

cabledawg1

Stealing jets is like not tipping a prostitute, its wrong but not against thre law......ok, that one might be against the law.

asch

I'm crying over here! I can't take it anymore!

__________________
| My Maps

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

CymBa

You see here is the crux of the matter. Yes Dice has tried to balance this but our rule about not stealing UCB assets tips the balance unfairly. My only problem with stealing jets is that we as TG players are honor-bound NOT to do the same to USMC. That's what I consider unfair. If our various UCB rules weren't in effect MEC could storm the USMC base and fly off with the jets. This is essentially the same thing USMC can do now to the non-UCB PLA/MEC base. THIS is where the unbalance comes in, and unbalance generally is not fun for the victimised side.

Now there are a couple ways to address this imbalance:

1) Do away with the rule. This is not unacceptable because the only time it is a problem is with maps with only 1 UCB.

2) Treat the MEC/PLA base as a UCB as well. Now that would solve this particular problem but it goes against the design of the map. Which is that its possible for MEC/PLA to lose all their bases and USMC has to fight to get all the CP's.

3) Cancel the UCB Asset theft rule for 1 UCB maps. This one doesn't seem so bad because it does level the playing field but still upholds the checks and balances employed by Dice for the map. But I'm not really big on 'rules with exceptions'

4) Don't steal non-UCB Jets from enemy bases w/o capturing the flag. Yes this is an artificial limiter but if you want the jets out of action, capturing the base is a valid tactic. If u want to use the jets against the enemy, u can STILL capture the CP and just grab 'em. Again tho this seems a little underpowered to require a whole new rule. So I would rather just make it an agreement.

However I reiterate, that the only reason I see this as a problem is that MEC/PLA can't do the same thing to USMC.

P.S. At the same time , considering how important the Jet Assets are. PLA/MEC really should ensure that they're protected. Yes I'm being rather 'Sitting-on-the-fence'ish but I can see both points of view and I've been on both ends of it.

Lagomorph

0_o.......

Is everyone still too caught up in their rapid roundabout debate to even read my long first post here? Can I at least get a "No, Lago, that's stupid."???

__________________
Combat is very simple, there is a first place and a second place. Second place is laying face down in the mud...sometimes, so is first place.
[age-c1]
[eng][air]

cabledawg1

All Im sayin is, prostitution should be legal. Granted, Ive only had 1...it was right out of boot camp and my best friend,s father came down for graduation and he threw 3 of us a surprise party with 3 girls. Does it count if I didnt pay for it?

oh, and jet stealing is bad.

wushuhero

you were the victim man
you didnt do anything

those prostitiutes came up on you, and you were like whoa im a law abiding citezen and this is wrong, then you went into the back room to talk more

__________________
"The Taoist sage has no ambitions, therefore he can never fail. He who never fails always succeeds. And he who always succeeds is all- powerful." -- Lao Tzu

ingame name: Zuiquan1

Pokerface

Humorous, yes. Germane, no.
Back to the topic, kids.

__________________

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

John CANavar

I guess we are pretty close to conclude it. It is quite natural to have difference in opinions but at some point we have to compromise and put an end to discussion.

Speaking for myself, as long as there is a standard regulation agreed upon, I have no problem.

I guess the source of frustration was mainly because of the lack of such agreement. Our jet squads are among the best in battlefield community and their power multiplied when they used enemy assets. I am sure they didnt mean any harm (other than the destruction they caused in the game ) but they probably didnt experience being on the receiving end of such a devastating power and werent able to symphatize with poor ground units as much as we expected them to do so.

On the other hand, ground units (including myself) were too quick to put all the blame on air force, probably out of frustration, forgetting the fact that defense does not only involve the CP but also all assets within the CP, use them or not.

in my humble opinion, we should have a simple solution. Such as:

1) No air assets stealing (UCB or CP)
or
2) Stealing allowed (CP)

In either case, I will adapt (in the case of 2, placing C4s on unused assets) and will continue to have great time in this great community.

I would prefer to leave this decision to our community leaders (admins). They did an excellent job so far building and expanding TG, keeping us together and organized. I trust their judgement and fairness.

Karkianman101

I've read most of this, and I have to say I don't even see how there can have been argument at all over it, much less one as redundant, drawn out, and clear as this one.

If not capturing a base in leu of stealing a jet is fine, then not capturing a UCB, which cant be captured, and stealing a jet would also be fine. The mere fact that when the USMC take over another airfield that jets dont spawn there seems to me proof enough that the devs did not intend for the USMC to have 4 jets in the air. If you were destroying an actual asset like radar, and decided to use the jet to escape, then thats fine. As long as you bail out.

How about that only the number of jets a side spawns with are allowed to be permanently in the air for that team? I mean, this is so simple. You've had practically (if not literally) every BF2 admin in here saying that under those circumstances and apparent intent that the course of action taken was wrong in some way. You have the guy who created this community saying that its unneccessary and not focusing on the map objectives. To me, it seems like a few people are just looking for loopholes or whatever, sticking to the letter but evading the spirit of TG. It's like the people in CS that say they were "defensively flanking", or trying to whittle down the enemy. Its like people that say The ends justifies the means. But TG was kinda based on the diametric opposite of that phrase. Here, it is far far better to lose a game while staying true to TG spirit than to get a crushing win through a couple things that arent rules yet, or arent part of the gentlemens contract yet.

I think that its a great testament to the patience of the admins that this discussion has been allowed to go on for so long without any of them blowing up or punishing people, though I havent read page 4...

Santa

Hmm, didnt see it like that before. It does seem true that the sole fact that the jets dont spawn after you steal a CP implies that the devs didnt want that. I spose they made that mistake as easily as they made the blackhawk mistake. i guess the only reason ea hasnt noticed the jet problem is because its not as widespread as the blackhawks.

[/quote]
You've had practically (if not literally) every BF2 admin in here saying that under those circumstances and apparent intent that the course of action taken was wrong in some way. You have the guy who created this community saying that its unneccessary and not focusing on the map objectives.[/quote]
Were still allowed opinions and discussion. Thats one of the purposes of the forums.

anyway i still dont agree with the objective of the maps. In the pre game message it says word for word, "The force that causes the opponents tickets to reach zero wins. The defending force can reduce the attacking force's tickets gradually by holding all the CPs. The attacking force can gradually reduce the defenders tickets by holding all of the CPs". The first line clearly states that tickets are the main objective. It then goes on to tell that one avenue to approach is control of all the CPs. However its a poor decision by a CO to actually go for the goal of getting all the CPs because to do that you would have to attack with too many squads, thus leaving your back door open for a swift retake of most of your previously captured CPs. This is why most people sigh and say "Ah dang, seems the CO wants every flag this round..".

i havent been around TG for very long, but from what ive gathered the idea is that people use teamwork to get the objective completed (if im wrong, please do tell me). The objective dictated by the devs is that the team with no tickets loses. I dont see how tactically advantageous it is to go after every flag because it leaves huge gaps in your supply lines. Im gettin off topic so ill just end the post with the word Jet

jepzilla

I think we're reading from the same page, CymBa, and I think your #4 is the best course of action. Unless it becomes a chronic problem and destroys the gameplay on those maps, I think a general understanding that it's unfair and a consensus to avoid it would be more than sufficient. A jet being stolen occasionaly isn't the end of the world.

My $0.02 CDN.

Pokerface

Here's where the confusion sets in. I saw it happen with CS:S, and it's happening here now too.

The confusion seems to surround win conditions. You WIN if your team gets the other team to zero tickets. The game will pop up "<Your side> won the round 100-0" and the map will change. That's a win condition.

TacticalGamer is not about win conditions, it's about objectives. The OBJECTIVE in a given BF2 map is to take and hold as many CPs as possible (or in the case of maps where ticket bleed happens when you have >50% of the CPs, take and hold as many as feasible). It's not merely getting to the win condition that matters here; it's all about how it's done.

__________________

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

Karkianman101

I know, and thats why I didn't say this topic should be locked :P

But yeah. Pokerface hit the nail on the head right there. TG takes the game, and applies its own rules. There arent many servers where spawn camping or bunny hopping are illegal, and then arent many places that enforce squads. So its only natural to assume that this place also has its own way of winning, which is through nondirectly death related objectives. In CS thats rescueing hostages or blowing a bomb. Sure you can win by killing the other team, but thats not TG. Likewise in BF2 the objectives are to use fair methods to eliminate the other team, without exploiting things. Bunny hopping is an exploit, crackjumping is an exploit, prone diving is an exploit, and then some other things arent exploits, but they should be, such as noob tubing, blackhawk ramming, and ignoring the other teams CP to make off with their jet.

StrikeFear

Ok, I'm back.

1. Yeah, it's gone on for a while. But players on both sides have had good points. It may look simple to you. To some others, it looks simple also, but the opposite side. To yet others, it appears complex - a tricky problem to solve. Remember that your perspective is just that - yours. Don't judge others and assume they just can't see what's "obvious."

2. That's not a fair assessment. Read Legato's posts. Those are very rational posts, made not by a stat whore, but by a known TG-minded player. One of the other proponents of "the other side of the argument" is me. Whatever else I might be considered, I think most would agree that I have the TG spirit in me.
To suggest that we are motivated in this discussion to get what we want even if it's wrong is unthoughtful.

True. I've always felt that while a UCB should not be "camp-able" by the enemy, they SHOULD be allowed to take whatever assets they find, whether it's to escape or to keep and use against some enemy elsewhere. And I've felt they should be able to do mean stuff at the UCB, like mining airstrips, C4ing BH's, etc.
Well, since they can't, it seems like an unfair advantage. But if you think about it, defending against what happened on clean sweep is easy. Realize how lax the MEC had to be to allow the USMC to get in their jet not once, not twice, but 5 times. It's not really much of a disadvantage when it's so easy to protect against and you have to be really uncareful to allow it to happen.

to pokerface and Karkianman101:
If CPs are the objective, then who won at the end of a map? How do you decide?

to others
I don't think anyone's considering making a rule at this point. It's just discussion. There doesn't seem to be a need for a rule. The situation happens very infrequently - mainly because it's so easy to prevent.

to Bommando:
I dunno about repent, homey. I mean, just because some people disagree with me doesn't mean they're right and I should change my mind. I could be right, and they need to repent. Seems sort of crazy that you expect that if 9 people posted they disagree with me and 4 people posted they agree, and 6 people posted "on the fence" posts that I should repent of my ways? (Numbers estimated)

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