Re: Removing Crosshairs

**Nikolas** · 08-31-2006, 11:13 PM

For the love of all that's holy, make a TacMod POE:2 without crosshairs and leave "Vanilla POE:2" alone.

**Wimpinator** · 08-31-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

For the love of all that's holy, make a TacMod POE:2 without crosshairs and leave "Vanilla POE:2" alone.

I agree 100%. When I want to play an arcade game I play BF2 (or POE2 now). When I want simulation I play tac-mod. There is plenty of room for both.

**Joebar** · 09-01-2006, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

For the love of all that's holy, make a TacMod POE:2 without crosshairs and leave "Vanilla POE:2" alone.

Agreed

**Mirfee** · 09-03-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by thebleakaffinity

Basically, what I'm saying is, join the military if you want intense, immersive action without visual aids like the HUD and crosshairs, and leave the videogames to those of us that just like to relax and shoot some stuff in a hassle free manner

This sort of argument angers me enormously. Every debate I've seen on what realism tweaks/features, etc should/shouldn't exist in a FPS has always been topped off by someone passing off this sort of comment as a trump card in order to shut down the realism players.

This is like telling a racing sim player to get an SCCA license instead of hoping for something less gamey than Need For Speed. However, there actually *do* exist hardcore, ultrarealistic racing sims for the market that wants them (and is buying them them enthusiastically again). So this means that the arcade racers are happy with their toys, and the sim racers are happy with their realism.

So why must FPS players be told that their choices are arcade game or real military? That's insulting.

While I support TG developing its own realism mods, and as hardcore as possible, I am not suggesting pushing this onto a community outside TG (nor even to push it on TG... there's clearly room for vanilla *and* TG-mod choices of the same game).

However, this is *Tactical Gamer.* Our own Primer has this little gem to clearly differentiate us from the arcade crowd (to *attract* a non-arcade crowd in fact)...

3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment.

So while you may argue the pros or cons about crosshairs, I urge you to refrain from making posts like yours in lieu of a considered (and considerate) argument. Telling people to "join the military" in order to get a more realistic experience is not a sign that you much care for what TG stands for. Nor does saying that the realism crowd (that's TG, btw) should "leave the videogames to those of us that just like to relax and shoot some stuff in a hassle free manner."

**Boot** · 09-03-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Mirfee

... I urge you to refrain from making posts like yours in lieu of a considered (and considerate) argument....

Woah... refrain from making posts? Without debate these threads would be pretty boring...

Realism crowd=TG? Last I checked bleak was an SM. So am I. I get to play maybe 2-3 rounds a night. I like the slower paced games, but I prefer the faster simply because I can get in and out faster. And when I want to get a bit of game fix, TG is my first choice.

The primer's great, but TG lives and breathes as a result of the members that joined. Darn near every one of us joined because of some game or another that was supported. If TG isn't looking for a mix of player styles, then we should not have supported games like BF2 vanilla or PoE, period. That way we can keep the recruiting down to only realism crowd=TG.

I'm not trying to debate the interpretation of the primer or whether or not we should have a TacMod version of PoE, but everyone needs to recognize that we have grown through the games we've supported to be more than strictly realism focused. To be the size we are, we have to have to be willing to allow for all size shoes.

**Drizzid** · 09-03-2006, 01:34 PM

I think Strag and Bommando are on the right track here. Use POE as a portal to try and bring in people who enjoy TG's style of play. The community needs these people to stay strong and prosperous. Once people become comfortable here at TG and sees what we offer then if they decide to develope into the hard core simulation then they should be able to find it.

If the game content people want to work at putting out a Tac Mod version of POE then go for it but don't jam it down everybodies throat. Have a 2 night a week for the Tac Mod version like it is for Vanilla and keep the regular POE out to attract more new TGers. I think it is a fine line to walk with the primer and certain games. Remember it says "3) Support game play in a NEAR-simulation environment." I think the words "NEAR" in that line are very important to that fine line that needs to be walked in making decisions like this. Just my opinion

**Mirfee** · 09-03-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by bootstrap

Woah... refrain from making posts? Without debate these threads would be pretty boring...

Please reread what I wrote. I did not say to refrain from making posts. And I did say that I support debate (which Bleak's final comments in fact suggest to stifle by way of marginalizing one side of the issue... so who is seeking to end debate?).

Realism crowd=TG? Last I checked bleak was an SM. So am I. I get to play maybe 2-3 rounds a night. I like the slower paced games, but I prefer the faster simply because I can get in and out faster. And when I want to get a bit of game fix, TG is my first choice.

I think it's terrific that both of you are SM's. I thank you for it. I also respect and support your right to enjoy the games that TG provides, *even if our preferences differ.*

The primer's great, but TG lives and breathes as a result of the members that joined. Darn near every one of us joined because of some game or another that was supported. If TG isn't looking for a mix of player styles, then we should not have supported games like BF2 vanilla or PoE, period. That way we can keep the recruiting down to only realism crowd=TG.

I'm not trying to debate the interpretation of the primer or whether or not we should have a TacMod version of PoE, but everyone needs to recognize that we have grown through the games we've supported to be more than strictly realism focused. To be the size we are, we have to have to be willing to allow for all size shoes.

I'm not debating this either. In fact, I support it as a means for keeping a richer and more varied community enthusiastic about this place and all it offers to both ends of the gaming spectrum here.

After all, I did say that I'm fine with vanilla *and* TG-mod gameplay co-existing.

It all comes down to Bleak's message - suggesting that realism players should give up their 'realism' and let the videogamers dictate the gameplay for everyone else. His words are dismissive of a significant segment of TG's memberbase (its founding and intended base, no less).

You point out that TG should be willing to allow all shoe sizes as counterpoint to what you seem to think is me seeking to have realism dominate the community. Yet, while I have already posted that I support breadth and depth of gameplay here, and have encouraged debate, my post directed at Bleak's comment is perceived as trying to marginalize a segment of the community here. When in truth, it is Bleak's post that openly and deliberately sought to do just that in the opposite direction.

Is his post still acceptable?

EDIT: I did look at my original post. I correlated the realism crowd with TG et al. That is an overgeneralization that I shouldn't have made. A holdover from my time in TG predating BF2 and the community expansion. However, just because TG has grown and become more flexible in its adherence to sim/realism intents, it shouldn't veer so far away that it loses its uniqueness in the gaming world. TG was founded and exists to serve a specific audience. One that wants more demanding, challenging and structured gameplay than can be found on dozens if not hundreds of servers worldwide. So when I say TG = realism, I mean that it is *more* realistically focused than most and should remain so. Oversimplified, yes. Innacurate, I don't think so.

All that said, this has gone so far off on a tangent that I nearly regret even opening my mouth in the first place.

**thebleakaffinity** · 09-03-2006, 04:27 PM

See, this is just my interpretation, but TG has always been more about encouraging teamwork and a more inviting environment than other game servers have to offer. Tactics and teamplay come first, and I don't necessarily think altering games until they're more "realistic" has very much to do with that. Games like World of Warcraft and the upcoming 2142, for which there's no "real" comparison to be made, can still be adapted to TG because they facilitate teamwork and communication. I don't think taking crosshairs out is going to improve teamplay or have a noticeable effect on the tactical gameplay that we all love. Fundamentally, it's still a game, with silly things like respawns and health packs and external camera views. And, I think rather than trying to force a game like BF2/PoE to be something that it's not (simulation), it'd perhaps be beneficial to search for games that are designed to fit your personal playing style.

edit: Also...

'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, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team.'
This, to me, seems to be less about trivial things like crosshairs, and more about approaching the actual planning and execution of orders in a complex and thoughtful manner. This is more about doing things like providing cover fire for squadmates than whether or not you're using your iron sights or the crosshairs to do it. The less we get hung up on petty things like crosshairs or AT v. infantry or whatever, and the more we focus on creating an environment that breeds innovative, tactical gameplay, the better things will be on our servers.

**Boot** · 09-03-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Mirfee

Please reread what I wrote. I did not say to refrain from making posts. And I did say that I support debate (which Bleak's final comments in fact suggest to stifle by way of marginalizing one side of the issue... so who is seeking to end debate?).

Reread and understood. I meant my comment more throwaway than that so should have put a

or

behind it.

Originally Posted by Mirfee

EDIT: I did look at my original post. I correlated the realism crowd with TG et al. That is an overgeneralization that I shouldn't have made. ... So when I say TG = realism, I mean that it is *more* realistically focused than most and should remain so. Oversimplified, yes. Innacurate, I don't think so.

And my comment was not only directed at you alone Mirfee, rather the opportunity was there to respond to your post. This is something I have been thinking through other parts of this thread and other threads over the last few months. We agree, and all is well in happy land.

Originally Posted by Mirfee

All that said, this has gone so far off on a tangent that I nearly regret even opening my mouth in the first place.

Originally Posted by bootstrap

Woah... refrain from making posts? Without debate these threads would be pretty boring...

**asch** · 09-03-2006, 05:46 PM

I think there's some confusion in terminology here.

Simulation != realism.

Understanding that may help people understand how TG can support a wide variety of games.

Each game / mod creates it's own semblance of realism as a framework. Some games offer crosshairs and some don't. Some offer respawns and some don't. These are all elements of realism that the game dictates we live in.

Each person will have different preferences for how much realism is in the game engine. Each feature can be argued for or against realism. Very few features will be perfect in implementation. It's up to the game designers to weigh the pros/cons of each.

Simulation is how we play the game. We're trying to simulate the purpose and storyline of the game. In a game like WoW, we're simulating a fantasy world. In a game like BF2 we're simulating a modern-day war between organized armies.

Because TG does support a wide variety of games that touch on modern day and historical storylines, realism does come into play quite a bit. But again, the game dictates the realism features and simulation dicates how we play.

Here's a good quote I found a while back that touches on simulation. I personally feel that we should be trying to match our game play style to pretty close to this quote.

In essence the mentality is this, if you wouldn't do it in real life, it's running and gunning. Putting yourself in a mindset that you really are in a firefight, that your survival is a key element of your teams victory, that the weapon you use has limitations that must be mastered, will all set the tone for how you move your character. You're not a hero, there is no glory in getting killed, you're an average soldier who is scared to death, but you have a mission to accomplish and your team mates are depending on you to help win the battle. You will have to run at times, but you're not going to run headlong into gunfire through an open field, because you're not a superhero. You're not going to risk injury because you are going to need to be able to move as fast as you can when the need arises. You cannot win if you're dead and watching the battle from spectator mode complaining that you're bored. We should move and fight in a similar manner as a veteran soldier would do in real life.

---

In summary, TG was created to play games in near simulation. We're not here to cater to the larger crowd, even if they are SMs. We're not here to play arcade games with arcade behavior. We're unique in that we try to play arcade games in near-simulation.

We also do not want to create a bunch of "what-if" rules to say a player can or cannot do something. We want to use the primer as a guide. Think about the action you're taking and make your best guess at it. We'll all have different opinions and that's fine. We should be able to have a mature discussion and come to a conclusion.

**Mirfee** · 09-03-2006, 06:13 PM

Right on Bootstrap. No harm no foul.

Bleak, saying that crosshairs are trivial is one thing. Telling supporters of realism/simulation to go elsewhere so the videogamers can play flies in the face of who created TG, and why and how.

**thebleakaffinity** · 09-03-2006, 06:24 PM

I think you misinterpreted my tone.

**Hambergler** · 09-03-2006, 06:51 PM

I think we should create a mod where when you get killed your computer blows up and sends you to the hospital. And if you want to respawn your just going to have to buy another comp once they put you back together again (if your still alive). If you don't like this idea of simulation then you are not what TG is all about and you need to give up trying to play here and learn to be a man.

Just my 2 cents!

**Strag** · 09-04-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by thebleakaffinity

See, this is just my interpretation, but TG has always been more about encouraging teamwork and a more inviting environment than other game servers have to offer. Tactics and teamplay come first, and I don't necessarily think altering games until they're more "realistic" has very much to do with that. Games like World of Warcraft and the upcoming 2142, for which there's no "real" comparison to be made, can still be adapted to TG because they facilitate teamwork and communication. I don't think taking crosshairs out is going to improve teamplay or have a noticeable effect on the tactical gameplay that we all love. Fundamentally, it's still a game, with silly things like respawns and health packs and external camera views. And, I think rather than trying to force a game like BF2/PoE to be something that it's not (simulation), it'd perhaps be beneficial to search for games that are designed to fit your personal playing style.

Bleak, it's important to realize that some folks find immersion an important aspect of a game. Things like crosshairs or AT vs. infantry may not make much of a difference to you, but for others they can mean the difference between being immersed in a game or being pulled out of it. For folks who put an emphasis on immersion, these things can mean the difference between enjoying a game or not enjoying it. And sometimes, folks who HAVE been in the military or law enforcement want a deep level of immersion in their games, because that's what they expect based on their real life experiences.

In other words, I'm saying the enjoyment of a game, like many things, is a subjective thing. What works for Bleak may not work for Strag. In this community, there are folks who dislike things like crosshairs (especially when iron sights for the weapons are also modelled) and infinitely reusable parachutes; they pull us out of the game. So, instead of completely disregarding a game, we'd rather modify it to "fix" those things and make the experience more enjoyable for us. Perfect examples of this at TG would be vanilla Tac Mod and Call of Duty 2. I'd love to see a PoE:2 version of Tac Mod, and I hope it can be realized.

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 09-04-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Hambergler

I think we should create a mod where when you get killed your computer blows up and sends you to the hospital. And if you want to respawn your just going to have to buy another comp once they put you back together again (if your still alive). If you don't like this idea of simulation then you are not what TG is all about and you need to give up trying to play here and learn to be a man.

Just my 2 cents!

ROFL!!!!

Now that is humor.

Thread Tools

Display