Fracture in the TG community...

[experiment626]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks John, the whole thing gives me a lot to work with. It helps clear up some of my frustration , and expresses a lot better than i was doing. + props man

[Beatnik]

Originally Posted by John CANavar

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.

That hits the nail on the head concerning my perspective, almost. I don't think we need to necessarily edit the TG Primer, but we (admins) should produce some clarification about how BF2 may deviate from 'near-simulation' in certain respects that enrich the tactical environment, despite not being completely 'realistic'. If we limited each person to 1 life per game (Team Survivor style), that would answer a bunch of the 'questionable' tactics, and make people value their lives much more, but we'd also have an empty server. Either way, we still have a great community of players on the server(s) who make this the single best place to play BF2 on the net.

Great post, John. + reppage.

[dirtbikem1987]

I am very new to T.G. and just as new to battlefield 2, but I have been extremely impressed by the way the game is played in this community. Honestly, I have no idea what I am doing out on the battlefield but I cannot think of one time when I have felt like someone didnt want me around. As long as people are trying to follow orders, regardless of skill level they are accepted here and the community has done a GREAT job of creating a friendly enviornment. There may be times when the gameplay on BF2 does not conform to the goal of a simulation, but the fact that people are trying makes the game as a whole much more enjoyable.

[MasterEditorInChief]

I definitely see a change in the community since the introduction of the packs. The general reaction for Special Ops is negative, and it is well founded. But as for the expansions EF and AF, I definitely see some good feedback and negative criticism. However, this shouldn't be because TG is becoming fractured. I don't own either expansion pack so I can't really say anything, but I think TG still upholds the very words it's primer lays out. It's more like the primer hasn't been done wrong at all.

No one's at fault here. Those who bought Spec Ops are skeptical of the expansion packs (I was at first), but since you guys show some interest in them, I want to get them now. But it's unfair for those who don't have those maps to be booted everytime they're played.

[AzrealDarkmoon]

Negative reaction to SF, honestly SF and the new maps are very enjoyable!

Az

[Trooper]

Originally Posted by MasterEditorInChief

But it's unfair for those who don't have those maps to be booted everytime they're played.

Why not? Those people who spent the money should be allowd to play. Thats the reason we have 4 servers for BF2. Server 1 is the main BF2 server, server 2 can be used for what ever you want, just ask an admin.

I still am not sure why people are complaining cause the TG primer is to hard or doesnt go far enough. You joined TG for its game play. I think the Primer and Guides are for those who dont think of gaming as tactical first. Gives them some sort of idea of what we are. Those who play Tactical and simulation already have that in mind anyway so whats the problem. BF2 might not be the best choice for simulation type play. Thats what AA GR OFP are for.


Why do i even post here i dont even play this game, and this post is alot of why i dont. To many people complaining cause they arent getting their way. Players need to remember that non members can read this stuff and might get a bad sense of TG by reading these posts week after week.

[Drizzid]

Why do i even post here i dont even play this game,

I don't know maybe it's because you care like a lot of other people do around here.

[Jusb]

Originally Posted by Bonehead

Good point Trooper, might be wise to consider moving this thread to a members only forum.

hiding disagreements and discussion around here is a terrible idea.

[E-Male]

It is perfectly normal for any community to engage in an ongoing debate about what the community's values and future should be like. Anthropologist refer to this as the normative debate -- the debate over what should constitute normal. So long as we engage in the debate with a spirit of friendship and mutual respect, disagreements should and will flourish without harming the TG community. Indeed, the manifestation of debate is a sign of an active community.

Aside from occasional misunderstandings and strongly held opinions, I can see no sign of dangerous fracture (although I am far from omniscient!). I have seen no in-game nastiness, aside from some occassional bunning hopping and using vehicle drops as weapons.

As many others have said, this is perhaps the best BF2 clan -- I myself have found nothing that comes close to it (which is rather surprising, given the existence of approx 900 public clan servers). This is an extraordinary testimony to something within TG that itself is extraordinary -- exceedingly mature game playing and excellent sportsmanship.

We have all seen non-TGers finish a game with us and comment that this is the way BF2 was meant to be played. Given this, we should excercise extreme caution before changing anything in TG's written code/primer. The Admins, along with the community, have achived something worthy of scholarly investigation -- a successful form of online community within an otherwise childish and anarchic environment.

E-Male

[Acid]

Not a clan, not a clan.....

Disagreements in my opinion are fine as long as they don't affect the gameplay level on the servers or the friendships on the forums.