Modify the Server Rules. - Page 3

fuzzhead · 03-26-2008, 12:52 AM

This is a good thread I think to get a discussion going about the rules. Something a bit off topic but I think needs to be addressed ASAP is the way TG has been handling the public display of PR rules on these forums.

Lets face it - TG does not play Vanilla BF2 anymore and hasnt for quite some time. So why is there one global set of rules that enforces for VBF2/PR/POE2, when all 3 are almost completely different games and each of them demand their own unique rules? Of course the basics of the TG "charter" applies to all games TG plays, but the problem is that the 'standard' ruleset created for vbf2 has not been updated for all the complexities that PR has added, and its really confusing to read all the different types of rules, some of which contradict and no clear directive of which to follow.

My suggestion - get rid of the vanilla bf2 "standard operating procedures" and "rules" section and put all relevant information into the POE2 and PR forums, cause thats where people are gonna look when trying to find that stuff.

You know if I wasnt pointed to the rules section on these forums by an admin, I would have NEVER found all those little outdated threads. Im sure a large majority of regulars who play on the PR TG server have NEVER even seen the rules/SOPs posted, and dont intend to read them because they dont seem relevant to PR, are not updated and only speak about vbf2 gameplay mechanics, which most PR players dont even care for.... Reading through these old rules is also a real pain cause alot of the information is based around the gameplay mechanics of vanilla BF2, which just flat out dont fit with PR. So its not only confusing, but it doesnt give the whole story for PR rules.

So to sum up I think - split the rules and drop the vanilla BF2 rule section cause TG doesnt run a vanilla BF2 server anymore.

Then create ONE thread (not a bunch of small ones) and get all the relevant information into an easy to read Server Rules and Guidelines. And make sure you keep it up to date with the latest info.

Anyways, on the topic - You need to define "UCB" and "Main Base" in the rules. Every Uncaptureable Base in PR is in a dome of death, meaning no rules need be applied cause you will die if you try to go there anyways. Exception being Al Basrah Airport, which is intentional by the map designer, cause although it cannot be capped, suicide attacks are a fact of live in RL al basrah and the mapper wanted to reflect that in the map and keep the players on their toes.

So:
Uncaptureable Base - A base that cannot be captured from the enemy and has a dome of death applied, which means you will die shortly after entering.

Main Base - The last base in the capture order, contains fixed spawnpoints for your team and all your teams heavy assets.

I think the rule "you cannot attack a Main Base until its in the capture order" is a good rule, the sabotage rule is stupid, you can do plenty of sabotage elsewhere you dont need to go inside the mainbase, that is a waste of resources IMO, ESPECIALLY because according to that rule you cannot destroy vehicles which would be the main purpose. Like CC said the command post is not even a big target, is easily replaceable, and often is not even deployed in the main base to begin with! Sabotage squads would be far better off targetting enemy bunkers and firebases or mining key roads/bridges, instead of just tard rushing the mains in hope to catch a commander off guard...

As for Anti Tank weapons, that is a much harder choice but I definitely agree with Light AT being used for ANYTHING you see fit. You only have 5 on a whole team, and only 1 avaliable per squad. That means if you waste the shot on an infantry, like DH says murphys law usually has a way of repaying the favor with a vehicle riding up on your whole squads position and your squad leader screaming "FFS WHERE IS MY AT MAN!?!?"

HAT is a whole nother monster, I think giving him a rifle was a good choice but it remains to be seen if its still a kit that cna be exploited to hell. I think its too powerful now and the tracking timer needs to be bumped up again like v0.7, especially now that the warning lights are gone.

Catraphact · 03-26-2008, 02:55 AM

About the LAT/HAT business:

Well, I do not really post much, but I will say this: BF2 has limitations. Public Players, who are new (As we once were) need simpler rules. The LAT "rule" is just too confusing (Not for us on the forums perhaps, but to someone looking at it from the outside).

I advocate a LAT free for all. This would wipe out a lot of the conflict which goes like this:
"He shot me in the open"
"No, you were behind that tree/rock/hill/etc"

Also, since the LAT only gets one shot, the user of the LAT has to do a cost/benefit analysis. In my opinion, if you see a squad running in the open, you should even be able to "HAT them", let alone "LAT them". (The verbs "To HAT" and "to LAT" are now officially coined by me). If you run into an APC 30 seconds later, tough luck, you should have used the LAT more efficiently.

So, I believe the question of "To LAT or not to LAT" should be left to the kit holder and his squad leader. So, if a Squad Leader feels that the one random guy running around like a headless chicken in the middle of the desert is worth using a LAT on, let him.

Also, (and I know some will disagree), I advocate a HAT free for all in much the same fashion. In short, I advocate a free for all.

**uk-warrior** · 03-26-2008, 03:54 AM

Ban the LATE & HATE Bring on more tow Humbees two reasons 1, Increased crew transport, 2, A weapon that requires skill.

Just a thought!!

Don't shout it's rude

Elwenil · 03-26-2008, 06:03 AM

The problem with allowing free L-AT and H-AT fire against anyone is the fact that it is just another form of grenade spam and will be overused way more than the situation of them being penalized by running into a APC or tank in the next few seconds. It will become an all powerful tool to wipe out a whole squad attacking a defended position. I think the name of the weapon should be sufficient evidence that they are not intended to be used against infantry. They are in essence a larger "gun" for use on larger targets. As for those posting videos and testimonials of soldiers using them against infantry, I fail to see how economical in real life it would be to use such a weapon against an infantry squad when 6 bullets would do the same job with less cost and a better chance of success. I do agree that the RPG-7 can be and is used against infantry but this is due to the different warheads available to the RPG-7. Since there is no warhead available in game other than the HE round, then it should also be limited to the anti-tank role. Its a lot simpler to make and enforce a rule that tells a player to use the weapon for it's real intended purpose.

**snooggums** · 03-26-2008, 08:22 AM

Allowing the shooting of people on a hill is the stupidest part of the current rules for AT.

"Hey Jim there's some guys over there, can I shoot them with my LAT?"
"Well bob, they are heading for that slight rise over there, wait till they start climbing, then shoot them because the rules for LAT are based on the slope of the ground"

The rules have to be much simpler or we will continue to have people complain because there are exceptions and conditions that complicate things to the point that good players won't do acceptable things because they might be wrong and bad players go ahead with uncertain situations.

Easy as pie: all AT can be used for anything.
Easy as cake: AT can be used against vehicles, man made structures, and buildings (not rocks and natural features).

Rules that simple won't be hard to enforce, won't cause confusion and will be easy to explain in game.

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 03-26-2008, 09:12 AM

3.14159265

**Scyatic** · 03-26-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snooggums

Allowing the shooting of people on a hill is the stupidest part of the current rules for AT.

"Hey Jim there's some guys over there, can I shoot them with my LAT?"
"Well bob, they are heading for that slight rise over there, wait till they start climbing, then shoot them because the rules for LAT are based on the slope of the ground"

The rules have to be much simpler or we will continue to have people complain because there are exceptions and conditions that complicate things to the point that good players won't do acceptable things because they might be wrong and bad players go ahead with uncertain situations.

Easy as pie: all AT can be used for anything.
Easy as cake: AT can be used against vehicles, man made structures, and buildings (not rocks and natural features).

Rules that simple won't be hard to enforce, won't cause confusion and will be easy to explain in game.

I think this is the best solution, black and white rules.

squadexodus · 03-26-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elwenil

The problem with allowing free L-AT and H-AT fire against anyone is the fact that it is just another form of grenade spam and will be overused way more than the situation of them being penalized by running into a APC or tank in the next few seconds.

Im in full agreement there

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

Uncaptureable Base - A base that cannot be captured from the enemy and has a dome of death applied, which means you will die shortly after entering.

I was thinking of that, but i think the dome of death should only be on main ucb. What if there are still soldiers trying to grey the flag, to prevent the enemy from rolling on to the next unprepared base?

**Charity Case** · 03-26-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0

3.14159265

I got it, did you?

Elwenil · 03-26-2008, 12:18 PM

It's easy as...

**TheSkudDestroyer** · 03-26-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snooggums

Allowing the shooting of people on a hill is the stupidest part of the current rules for AT.

"Hey Jim there's some guys over there, can I shoot them with my LAT?"
"Well bob, they are heading for that slight rise over there, wait till they start climbing, then shoot them because the rules for LAT are based on the slope of the ground"

The rules have to be much simpler or we will continue to have people complain because there are exceptions and conditions that complicate things to the point that good players won't do acceptable things because they might be wrong and bad players go ahead with uncertain situations.

Easy as pie: all AT can be used for anything.
Easy as cake: AT can be used against vehicles, man made structures, and buildings (not rocks and natural features).

Rules that simple won't be hard to enforce, won't cause confusion and will be easy to explain in game.

We have a winner!

Maybe I'm alone here...

But doesnt anyone count their blessings with this mod? Do none of you remember .5? One of the primary kits (ones you dont have to request...)...

Was LAT.

Complain all you want about LAT spam, but too many of you didn't play .5 so it seems.

squadexodus · 03-26-2008, 04:10 PM

I go for the cake option

westyfield · 03-26-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

We have a winner!

Maybe I'm alone here...

But doesnt anyone count their blessings with this mod? Do none of you remember .5? One of the primary kits (ones you dont have to request...)...

Was LAT.

Complain all you want about LAT spam, but too many of you didn't play .5 so it seems.

I remember that, I started PR in 0.5. Spec Ops was a default kit as well, there was so much SLAMming and rocket sniping.
With the whole 'You're on a slope, I can LAT you' and the 'You're behind a rock, I can LAT you' topic, I agree with Snooggums. Most maps in PR have slopes, some are steep like Jabal, some are gentle slopes like Basrah. How do you define a slope? I can't imagine it being particularly easy to measure gradients in PR...
If someone is behind an object, why LAT them? If you can't shoot them, use a grenade or just sneak up on them. With the shiny new suppression effects, it only takes a few bullets to their feet to make flanking ludicrously easy.

"Hey, you LAT sniped me!"
"No, you were hiding behind that big rock."
"I was 20m behind the rock..."

Would it be possible to restrict Anti Tank weapons on maps with no vehicles? Say, a map with no vehicles = no Anti Tank. A map with only light vehicles (jeeps, transport choppers, CO trucks) = LAT only.

imnotacanadian · 03-26-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charity Case

I got it, did you?

immediatly.

I played .5

I recall squads going 2 or 3 L-AT kits at a time...maybe more.... if a tank rolled up. The SL would hide till all his squad mates respawned and took out the tank.

google · 03-26-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charity Case

I got it, did you?

Yes, cheesy math humor all the way!

03-26-2008, 12:52 AM	#31 (permalink)
fuzzhead Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 579	Re: Modify the Server Rules. This is a good thread I think to get a discussion going about the rules. Something a bit off topic but I think needs to be addressed ASAP is the way TG has been handling the public display of PR rules on these forums. Lets face it - TG does not play Vanilla BF2 anymore and hasnt for quite some time. So why is there one global set of rules that enforces for VBF2/PR/POE2, when all 3 are almost completely different games and each of them demand their own unique rules? Of course the basics of the TG "charter" applies to all games TG plays, but the problem is that the 'standard' ruleset created for vbf2 has not been updated for all the complexities that PR has added, and its really confusing to read all the different types of rules, some of which contradict and no clear directive of which to follow. My suggestion - get rid of the vanilla bf2 "standard operating procedures" and "rules" section and put all relevant information into the POE2 and PR forums, cause thats where people are gonna look when trying to find that stuff. You know if I wasnt pointed to the rules section on these forums by an admin, I would have NEVER found all those little outdated threads. Im sure a large majority of regulars who play on the PR TG server have NEVER even seen the rules/SOPs posted, and dont intend to read them because they dont seem relevant to PR, are not updated and only speak about vbf2 gameplay mechanics, which most PR players dont even care for.... Reading through these old rules is also a real pain cause alot of the information is based around the gameplay mechanics of vanilla BF2, which just flat out dont fit with PR. So its not only confusing, but it doesnt give the whole story for PR rules. So to sum up I think - split the rules and drop the vanilla BF2 rule section cause TG doesnt run a vanilla BF2 server anymore. Then create ONE thread (not a bunch of small ones) and get all the relevant information into an easy to read Server Rules and Guidelines. And make sure you keep it up to date with the latest info. Anyways, on the topic - You need to define "UCB" and "Main Base" in the rules. Every Uncaptureable Base in PR is in a dome of death, meaning no rules need be applied cause you will die if you try to go there anyways. Exception being Al Basrah Airport, which is intentional by the map designer, cause although it cannot be capped, suicide attacks are a fact of live in RL al basrah and the mapper wanted to reflect that in the map and keep the players on their toes. So: Uncaptureable Base - A base that cannot be captured from the enemy and has a dome of death applied, which means you will die shortly after entering. Main Base - The last base in the capture order, contains fixed spawnpoints for your team and all your teams heavy assets. I think the rule "you cannot attack a Main Base until its in the capture order" is a good rule, the sabotage rule is stupid, you can do plenty of sabotage elsewhere you dont need to go inside the mainbase, that is a waste of resources IMO, ESPECIALLY because according to that rule you cannot destroy vehicles which would be the main purpose. Like CC said the command post is not even a big target, is easily replaceable, and often is not even deployed in the main base to begin with! Sabotage squads would be far better off targetting enemy bunkers and firebases or mining key roads/bridges, instead of just tard rushing the mains in hope to catch a commander off guard... As for Anti Tank weapons, that is a much harder choice but I definitely agree with Light AT being used for ANYTHING you see fit. You only have 5 on a whole team, and only 1 avaliable per squad. That means if you waste the shot on an infantry, like DH says murphys law usually has a way of repaying the favor with a vehicle riding up on your whole squads position and your squad leader screaming "FFS WHERE IS MY AT MAN!?!?" HAT is a whole nother monster, I think giving him a rifle was a good choice but it remains to be seen if its still a kit that cna be exploited to hell. I think its too powerful now and the tracking timer needs to be bumped up again like v0.7, especially now that the warning lights are gone. __________________

03-26-2008, 02:55 AM	#32 (permalink)
Catraphact Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 100	Re: Modify the Server Rules. About the LAT/HAT business: Well, I do not really post much, but I will say this: BF2 has limitations. Public Players, who are new (As we once were) need simpler rules. The LAT "rule" is just too confusing (Not for us on the forums perhaps, but to someone looking at it from the outside). I advocate a LAT free for all. This would wipe out a lot of the conflict which goes like this: "He shot me in the open" "No, you were behind that tree/rock/hill/etc" Also, since the LAT only gets one shot, the user of the LAT has to do a cost/benefit analysis. In my opinion, if you see a squad running in the open, you should even be able to "HAT them", let alone "LAT them". (The verbs "To HAT" and "to LAT" are now officially coined by me). If you run into an APC 30 seconds later, tough luck, you should have used the LAT more efficiently. So, I believe the question of "To LAT or not to LAT" should be left to the kit holder and his squad leader. So, if a Squad Leader feels that the one random guy running around like a headless chicken in the middle of the desert is worth using a LAT on, let him. Also, (and I know some will disagree), I advocate a HAT free for all in much the same fashion. In short, I advocate a free for all.

03-26-2008, 03:54 AM	#33 (permalink)
uk-warrior Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Ipswich Uk Age: 42 Posts: 235	Re: Modify the Server Rules. Ban the LATE & HATE Bring on more tow Humbees two reasons 1, Increased crew transport, 2, A weapon that requires skill. Just a thought!! Don't shout it's rude

03-26-2008, 06:03 AM	#34 (permalink)
Elwenil Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Covington, VA USA Age: 34 Posts: 1,227	Re: Modify the Server Rules. The problem with allowing free L-AT and H-AT fire against anyone is the fact that it is just another form of grenade spam and will be overused way more than the situation of them being penalized by running into a APC or tank in the next few seconds. It will become an all powerful tool to wipe out a whole squad attacking a defended position. I think the name of the weapon should be sufficient evidence that they are not intended to be used against infantry. They are in essence a larger "gun" for use on larger targets. As for those posting videos and testimonials of soldiers using them against infantry, I fail to see how economical in real life it would be to use such a weapon against an infantry squad when 6 bullets would do the same job with less cost and a better chance of success. I do agree that the RPG-7 can be and is used against infantry but this is due to the different warheads available to the RPG-7. Since there is no warhead available in game other than the HE round, then it should also be limited to the anti-tank role. Its a lot simpler to make and enforce a rule that tells a player to use the weapon for it's real intended purpose. __________________ \|TG\|Elwenil StullUnlimited.com Offroad Parts and Fabrication

03-26-2008, 08:22 AM	#35 (permalink)
snooggums Join Date: Sep 2006 Age: 31 Posts: 573	Re: Modify the Server Rules. Allowing the shooting of people on a hill is the stupidest part of the current rules for AT. "Hey Jim there's some guys over there, can I shoot them with my LAT?" "Well bob, they are heading for that slight rise over there, wait till they start climbing, then shoot them because the rules for LAT are based on the slope of the ground" The rules have to be much simpler or we will continue to have people complain because there are exceptions and conditions that complicate things to the point that good players won't do acceptable things because they might be wrong and bad players go ahead with uncertain situations. Easy as pie: all AT can be used for anything. Easy as cake: AT can be used against vehicles, man made structures, and buildings (not rocks and natural features). Rules that simple won't be hard to enforce, won't cause confusion and will be easy to explain in game. __________________

03-26-2008, 09:12 AM	#36 (permalink)
d1sp0sabl3H3r0 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Suburban Chicago Age: 42 Posts: 1,844	Re: Modify the Server Rules. 3.14159265 __________________ \|TG-X\|d1sp0sabl3 An Admin of One 10th Tactical Guard \| PR Server Rules \| The TG Primer \| Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST! \| Contact an Admin \| Nominate someone for a ribbon here Bypassing the ambush is just what the ambushers expected us to do.

03-26-2008, 12:18 PM	#40 (permalink)
Elwenil Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Covington, VA USA Age: 34 Posts: 1,227	Re: Modify the Server Rules. It's easy as... __________________ \|TG\|Elwenil StullUnlimited.com Offroad Parts and Fabrication

03-26-2008, 04:10 PM	#42 (permalink)
squadexodus Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Give you a hint. They sell bacon here. Posts: 296	Re: Modify the Server Rules. I go for the cake option __________________ I am the leader Of the Zombie Defense Militia. We hold think tanks on how to live in a zombie apocalypse. Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links