Fracture in the TG community...

[Wyzcrak]

Great post, BHack. You've hit the nail on the head, and I say that having been here longer than most.

[experiment626]

I've read all the posts...is it just me or do they prove my point? Not that I'm sure i really have a point, but something is wrong...I just can't put my finger on it. SOrry guys, I tried. I'm just going to drop this and hope for the best Thanks for your comments, signed, discouraged.

[Mateo]

Originally Posted by BHack

So is TG trying to be a general PC gaming community? Or is it trying to be a tactical simulation gaming community? I get the impression it started off the latter and is experiencing growing pains as it moves towards the former.

Good question, and one which the Officers are struggling with.

On the one hand, we are Tactical Gamer, and that is a brand that means a certain style and philosophy of gaming: on the other hand, the dearth of servers that play Battlefield 2 the way the developers intended it led to an explosion of growth in both the General Community here, and in Supporting Members.

I don't think we were prepared for that, really. We've done an admirable job of managing the growth, but as the Community gets bigger, it makes it more difficult to manage, and the costs start to escalate.

Apophis has said, on more than one occassion, that Tactical Gamer is not designed to appeal to everyone: this is as it should be, since it is our rules, structure, and philosophy that sets us apart from the 50,000 other servers and communities out there. If we appealled to everyone, we would be no different from them.

The BF2 team, to their credit, has not adopted a hardline stance towards new players, giving them ample opportunities to learn "the way we play". They have also done a great job in managing the disparate views of how to play the game that we see around here.

It really comes back to the Primer. It's not a Bible, but a guide, to how we play and what we expect. With every game, there is a balance to be achieved:

Player's Responsibility v. Near Simulation Environment v. Developers intent

When we find the right balance, that is the Tactical Gamer way to play. Sometimes, we don't get that right at first: our understanding of the game and the game engine tends to evolve over time. So we tinker. We discuss. We reach consensus. We mod. Eventually, we get there.

You are right, BHack, that some games just lend themselves to a certain way to play: Ghost Recon, Operation Flashpoint, SWAT4 among them. Others are a little more fluid, like CounterStrike Source and Battlefield 2.

What we need to recognize, however, is that every person that reads the SOPs and the Primer comes away with a different understanding of the way we play: for Battlefield 2, that means 64 different interpretations on any given night on a server.

What we need to be aware of is that these titles that allow more than one type of tactical gameplay means that we need to be conscious of the diversity of players we are recieving, and "double down" on our maturity and respect for each other as we negotiate our way thorough integrating all these players into our community.

[Backlash-7]

Originally Posted by experiment626

I've read all the posts...is it just me or do they prove my point? Not that I'm sure i really have a point, but something is wrong...I just can't put my finger on it. SOrry guys, I tried. I'm just going to drop this and hope for the best Thanks for your comments, signed, discouraged.

Go light one up, start a conversation with "knock-knock" and you'll be right where you need to be, with the 33rd.

[Red]

Originally Posted by experiment626

I've read all the posts...is it just me or do they prove my point? Not that I'm sure i really have a point, but something is wrong...I just can't put my finger on it. SOrry guys, I tried. I'm just going to drop this and hope for the best Thanks for your comments, signed, discouraged.

I Agree. There is something about the whole following the simulation path "Holiness" going on with BF2 right now. I think it might come from the disappointment in more simulation games that was released recently GRAW and Red Orchestra to mention the latest.

My long rant about this follows..

Why can’t we both have games that strictly follow the simulation environment and games that are a little less of a simulation? I for example sometimes like more realism, but on the other hand some days I just want to play tactical and have fun at the same time. I truly think we play BF2 as it’s meant to be played even a little bit better at times. I also think BF2 is a good entry point into the more simulation genre.

I think we have a good way to do this with the tac-mod. You can’t do all the enforcement with game play rules but you can enforce game environments that promote behavior. I suggest we focus on enforcing environments for this and if the people like the game they will come, as we see with tac-mod. But I also think that I am not alone believing that too much of simulation could remove a big chunk of the enjoyment of everyday play and with that the everyday players.

We have an amazing group of people here. We have people that are showing up night after night to play. We don’t get experience points; we can’t sell our characters on e-bay. We are sometimes ignoring our wife’s / kids /dogs or grandmothers to play. We all are mature gamers with something in common, we like to have more tactical game play and at the same time play with friends that have the same view. It’s just the variance of how much simulation we want at a given time.

I think we have acknowledged that we have two general types. Pure-Simulation gamers and less Pure-Simulation gamers. Can TG support both? I believe so that’s why TG supports more than one game.

Now on a more serious note.

I don’t think it would be wise to change too much with the BF2 formula. Let’s keep the hardcore simulation in those other games. It’s a shame they did not deliver but don’t try to change BF2 to a hardcore simulation because of this. And we still might get GRAW up to par soon and then we can get the pure simulation environment desired.

BF2 + TG have had and still have the amazing effect on drawing you in to just play one or two hours without too much effort or pressure, this is perfect for an everyday game. I believe this kind of games is the corner stone that can keep this bigger community together and allow for growth into more simulation centered games.

[Tempus]

I don't understand what you guys are complaining about. Have we put any new rules in place for bf2? Have we punished people for things we didn't use to before?

The game is still played today the way it was 6 months ago. We got rid of the obvious stuff like bunnyhopping and UCB camping. The Gentleman's Agreement listed a bunch of other stuff that had a lameness factor to it. But nothing's changed lately.

[Trooper]

If you want something different why not branch out and try the other games at TG. You want tactical SWAT AA GR. You want simulation BF2. It only seems to be a few players that are actually "seeing" a fracture in the community, maybe its their view on the game itself thats fractured

[icky]

I'm happy.

[matt_g_geier]

We all know it doesn't take much to please you icky .. LOL Good fun!

[Trooper]

Originally Posted by icky

I'm happy.

Well thats all that really matters, as long as icky is happy we are all happy...


Just seems like every desicion that happens in this game, which i think if you know the admins they arent just gonna do things to piss people off, well JMJ might. They take alot of time and effort to keep things going smooth and what not, then those who are "wronged" by the situation, which are ussually the minority, just get all pissy and these kinds of posts pop up. We get atleast 2 a week. Just play the game, thats what this place is for, gaming....hell its either this or pubs

[Drizzid]

Originally Posted by BHack

The conflict is more with the game. Read the TG primer carefully, the part about simulation - then go play BF2. I'm an advocate that a game should be played the way it was intended to be played by the developers. I think the simulation part of the primer creates an extremely difficult and ogrish grey area in this game. You either play laid back to have fun, play competitvely using the devices and constructs of the game world (matrix?), or you play it as a simulation. The latter being the way you are technically supposed to play on a TG server.

You get these three, I think, opposing, viewpoints into the server together and you start hearing words like "cheap", "lame", "unsubordinate", "lone wolf", "run n gun", "distracting", "newb". These are words used by one viewpoint to describe another.

I stopped playing BF2 completely because of the frustration that came from me not being able to play the way *I thought* the game should be played. I'm not saying I wanted to be running the bomber over the UCB wasting everything below me, but some of the things that were "frowned upon" in a game of this type were a damn stretch. It got old.

But now you get a game like GRAW, for example, similar in gameplay to its predecessors - ghost recon. I believe ghost recon was one of the most popular games at TG and I can see why. Because, in this case, the TG Primer ethos of simulation play not only makes the gameplay more fulfilling and more rewarding, but I think it directly parallels the developers intent on to how the game should be played. Not only that, but playing this game using real world military tactics actually leads to success in the game. This is something I can get behind, and thus enjoy playing on TG.

I think the failure is getting these three opposing gamers into a server together in a game where the TG Primer, again in my opinion, goes against the grain of the gameplay itself.

My take is that 1 of 2 things should happen. Either you edit the Primer to less emphasize simulation play and the restrictions on "gaming the game" or you be more selective on the games you support. As an outisder of BF2 (now), I believe TG should stop supporting vanilla completely and ONLY play the tac mod. I say this because vanilla play just creates too many 'grey area' situations and gives a battleground for these opposing view types to butt heads.

So is TG trying to be a general PC gaming community? Or is it trying to be a tactical simulation gaming community? I get the impression it started off the latter and is experiencing growing pains as it moves towards the former.

A good post indeed Bhack but if I may interject. Tactical Gamer became a general gaming community the day it decided to host a WoW guild and a D&D Online guild. I don't think BF2 is the sole cause for this possible transformation. The TG primer also states that every game has its limitations and BF2 and Tac Modhas those limitation as well as I am sure Ghost Recon does also. BF2 probably has more limitations than any other game here at TG but that doesn't mean we don't play it right or wrong. The Primer is a guide along with the gentlemans contract that we all try to adhere to and with those two guides I think that TG is the sole place in the gaming communities that play BF2 the way the developers intended.

Can real world tactics be used in BF2? Hmmm some I think but surely not all. We have people who fly with wingmen, isn't that a real world tactic? We have squads that will use flanking manuevers to take CPs. We don't do jet insertions. We do try our best to play the game the way it was intended.

If everything has to be ultra simulation here at TG then it definitely wouldn't be for me. I try to play my best and to adhere to the fallosophies of TG but if I am not an ultra simmer does that mean I am not a Tactical Gamer?

I personally don't think the Primer should be changed and I think that if the quality of play is being questioned in BF2 then maybe we should tighten things up a bit and start kicking people who aren't following the TG fallosophy in game and out of it. People will come around to increasing their quality of play and if they don't then they can move on.

But in closing I do have one question, When BF2 first came out was it not tactical then? I mean when the game was first released were there any of these questions around then? Just curious on what has changed.

Thanks for your time

[Evo<^|SiNz|^>]

I've played on the BF2 server many times, and have never felt any anomosity. Your BF2 experience is what you make of it.

[John CANavar]

As one of the active voices in BF2 related tactical simulation discussions, I would like update my position on several important issues. This topic seems to be the proper place.

I want to start with self criticism. Looking back at my TG forum posts (not only BF2), I spot occasional opinion forcing, intolerance to criticism and quick temper in some of the posts I made. I deeply regret these and have strong determination not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.

Identification of The Problem

Originally Posted by experiment626

I would love to help fix the problem, but i can't seem to nail down where the problem lies.

The problem is the misconceptions about the identity of Tactical Gamer Community and Primer.

Tactical Gamer Community

Originally Posted by experiment626

I have noticed there are some people who take this game very, very seriously and want to adhere to the "TG PRIMER" as a commandment.

1st MIP was founded on "military role-playing" concept and I am one of those people who takes gaming very seriously. For us reading, learning, discussing, implementing and practicing real world military tactics is a part of the game. This may sound very contradictory to some of you but that's how we define fun.

I was under the wrong impression that our type of serious military simulation gaming was also the objective of Tactical Gamer. The name and roots (Ghost Recon) of the community, detailed SOP sections for all supported games and Tactical Gamer primer were the elements convincing me that 1st MIP was playing the BF2 as it was meant to be played here. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by John CANavar

Considering the compatibility between Tactical Gamer Primer and Tactical Mod features, Tactical Mod is certainly more TG than vanilla

I am taking back this statement I made in "Add Another Tac Mod Night" topic. Recent forum discussions helped me to clearly see the fact that Tactical Gamer is a team-play oriented general gaming community in which a wide spectrum of games from the most arcade to the most hardcore sim are welcomed as long as team-play element is there. Basically, TG is about maturity, sportsmanship and friendship. Simulation gaming is only a sub category under the TG roof.

Originally Posted by BHack

So is TG trying to be a general PC gaming community? Or is it trying to be a tactical simulation gaming community? I get the impression it started off the latter and is experiencing growing pains as it moves towards the former.

As far as I can see, it is not a question of trying. TG IS a general PC gaming community in its current state. Drizzid also pointed out to this with the following:

Originally Posted by Drizzid

Tactical Gamer became a general gaming community the day it decided to host a WoW guild and a D&D Online guild. I don't think BF2 is the sole cause for this possible transformation. The TG primer also states that every game has its limitations and BF2 and Tac Modhas those limitation as well as I am sure Ghost Recon does also. BF2 probably has more limitations than any other game here at TG but that doesn't mean we don't play it right or wrong. The Primer is a guide along with the gentleman’s contract that we all try to adhere to and with those two guides I think that TG is the sole place in the gaming communities that play BF2 the way the developers intended.

Some other good comments I took a note of:

Originally Posted by Drizzid

It's just growing pains that's all and any borderline argument you might read always ends with the utmost in respect for the fellow TGer. I know because I have been in a few and they are definitely heated but always respectful
of the others views and that is what TG is built upon.

Originally Posted by Mateo

Over time, it can get out of hand, with players thinking that their way is the only way to play the game, or that there is only one definition of gameplay under the aegis of Tactical Gamer. That is incorrect. We cater to those that want teamwork, maturity, and respect from their fellow gamers and are willing to give the same-but really, the rules are simply there to set minimal ground rules for your participation.

Originally Posted by Mateo

Ever since I have been with Tactical Gamers, is simple: mature people teach others, not belittle them. Anyone that thinks that running around and criticizing people is part of the solution is really part of the problem.

TG Primer

Originally Posted by BHack

The conflict is more with the game. Read the TG primer carefully, the part about simulation - then go play BF2. I'm an advocate that a game should be played the way it was intended to be played by the developers. I think the
simulation part of the primer creates an extremely difficult and ogrish grey area in this game. You either play laid back to have fun, play competitively using the devices and constructs of the game world (matrix?), or you play it as a simulation. The latter being the way you are technically supposed to play on a TG server.

I partly agree with you BHack. The game should be played as close as possible to the way is was intended to be played by the developers. On the other hand, game mechanics may allow things that developers didnt intend to include (Ex. SL switching which was corrected with a patch). Therefore for a community like TG where maturity and sportsmanship are important, rules and regulations are necessary. But they should be kept to a minimum. If certain things are needed to be changed, the best way to do it is to mod the game and make those changes a part of the game mechanics.

Originally Posted by BHack

But now you get a game like GRAW, for example, similar in gameplay to its predecessors - ghost recon. I believe ghost recon was one of the most popular games at TG and I can see why. Because, in this case, the TG Primer ethos of simulation play not only makes the gameplay more fulfilling and more rewarding, but I think it directly parallels the developers intent on to how the game should be played. Not only that, but playing this game using real world military tactics actually leads to success in the game. This is something I can get behind, and thus enjoy playing on TG.

This is an excellent advice for someone who is looking for simulation experience.

Originally Posted by BHack

My take is that 1 of 2 things should happen. Either you edit the Primer to less emphasize simulation play and the restrictions on "gaming the game" or you be more selective on the games you support. As an outsider of BF2 (now), I believe TG should stop supporting vanilla completely and ONLY play the tac mod. I say this because vanilla play just creates too many 'grey area' situations and gives a battleground for these opposing view types to butt heads.

I would suggest option 1; editing Primer to less emphasize the simulation play and restrictions to allow any kind of team-play based game enjoyed here at TG in a mature and friendly environment. Leave the simulation restriction to the game itself.

Battlefield 2 and Tactical Mod

BF2 is not a military simulation game. It wasnt intended to be one. Although closer to a simulation game, Tactical Mod is also not one. You can play both of these as a fast-paced arcade shooter or simulation game. From personal experience, I think your effectiveness and success will be severely hampered if you choose the latter while others on the server dont. Important lesson I learnt and want to share here with you is that: Dont expect the others play the game as you do assuming that it is the TG way of playing the game. Both of these, arcade and simulation, are equally TG as long as BF2 is concerned.

I agree with RedBane's following suggestions.

Originally Posted by RedBane

I think we have a good way to do this with the tac-mod. You can’t do all the enforcement with gameplay rules but you can enforce game environments that promote behavior. I suggest we focus on enforcing environments for this and if the people like the game they will come, as we see with tac-mod. But I also think that I am not alone believing that too much of simulation could remove a big chunk of the enjoyment of everyday play and with that the everyday players.

Originally Posted by RedBane

I don’t think it would be wise to change too much with the BF2 formula. Let’s keep the hardcore simulation in those other games. It’s a shame they did not deliver but don’t try to change BF2 to a hardcore simulation because of this.

Originally Posted by RedBane

BF2 + TG have had and still have the amazing effect on drawing you in to just play one or two hours without too much effort or pressure, this is perfect for an everyday game. I believe this kind of games is the corner stone that can keep
this bigger community together and allow for growth into more simulation centered games.

Conclusion

We cannot deny it. There is/was indeed a fracture in the TG BF2 community but it can be fixed if the problem is correctly identified and addressed. For this, we need an agreement on a) what Tactical Gamer stands for and b) the nature of Battlefield 2 game.

Related Topics

Tactical Gamer is more than just teamwork!

Add Another Tac Mod night?

[Drizzid]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to John CANavar again.

Great post John, sorry I can't rep you for it.

[icky]

Good post John. The only thing I disagree on is the way you make the black and white distinction of "arcade and simulation". It is a wide spectrum, and BF2 definitely does not fall squarely in the "arcade" realm if you consider the whole spectrum of games and play styles. BF2 provides many of the key elements of a tactical simulation game, but obviously doesn't provide the complete package. No large-scale game does, yet.

Can you play BF2 simulation-style? Yes, but you can't expect it to give you an advantage. Why? Because the game doesn't enforce any value on a player's life. Like a well dug-in and solidly trained group of soldiers facing 100 charging attackers, you may kill lots of them, but you are going to lose.

The question of whether it is even possible to simulate a large and realistic battle and still make it fun remains unanswered. It is clear that DICE isn't going to try to answer that question, and I'm ok with that.