d1sp0sabl3H3r0

There isn't a problem with blowing up bridges outside the main to restrict/impede vehicles and reinforcements.

The rule regarding restricting egress from the enemy main is meant to prevent players from mining across the exits from the enemy main. Most mains are fenced areas with one or two exits for vehicles, so mines may not be placed there, nor may they be placed under vehicles that have spawned in the main - this is essentially camping the main and is not allowed.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

We had a guy on the server the other day who insisted it was ok to place c4 on vehicles in a main so long as you didnt detonate until they had left the area.

Also sitting by a main bridge and blowing it up while vehicles pass over is not ok? Im thinking biming it wouldnt be since its too close but for jabal, al kufrah bridges its ok to ambush & camp it

__________________

d1sp0sabl3H3r0

It is in the rules you cannot C4 vehicles in the main, so that would be regardless of when it is detonated. This violates the rules against attacking the main.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3

Paine

I got kicked yesterday from Road to Kyongan Ni for returning fire on the PLA UCB.

My squad was flanking the town from the NW, crossing that clearing that is in the kill zone of the bunker up on the hill. PLA soldiers opened fire. I had an M14, and i was going to cover my squad as they crossed. My squad crossed safely, 4 PLA players had holes in their heads.

Needless to say they started QQ'ing in all chat about server rules, when they clearly didn't know them. Neither did the admins apparently, as i was kicked and missed the rest of the round.

My question is, why don't the ADMINS know the rules about UCBs?

Sonic

Paine this is NOT the place to post this...
you should know that.

Post here

WDT_Alpha_s9

Not sure if that's true or not... The UCB rule is a fickle beast.

Last night we had people surrounding a UCB when it wasn't in play. Sure they weren't attacking, but they set up two chopper drops on both flanks of the UCB, all probably about 101m from the UCB. Rally was set (I'm assuming) and as soon as the base was in play we were under assault.

I asked about the tactic before our UCB was in play, and I was told that there wasn't anybody in the UCB. Sure, they're not IN the UCB.

The UCB rule is a great rule... but it is very wishy washy. Sometimes it's ok to set up to be a real pain for the other team, and other times it's not. Seems like it depends on whether or not it's a TG/regular doing the set up, and who's on admin patrol. No offense intended here, but it is my understanding that those with the TG tag should be held to a higher standard than those without... and it just seems to be the other way around lately on this particular rule.

This isn't a rant so much as a call for a clearer definition and more consistent enforcement on how close and how soon people can get set up for an assault on a UCB that is not in play.

When you see two squads drop in behind the UCB when it's not in play, you are forced to make a choice of trying to clear them out or to try and stop the flag flip on the flag in front of the UCB.

This falls into the "rushing east beach" mentality, but east beach isn't a UCB. I seem to remember a post earlier about how you shouldn't even be NEAR the UCB until it's in play. I've also seen squads that were set up on pig farm, but not firing into the base... that were told to leave the area and that they shouldn't even be close to pig farm because it's not in play. Surprisingly this was a non TG squad.

So I guess my question is: How close is too close? Is there a definition for this? Can we get an official call on whether or not you can set up on the UCB when it's not in play (without firing into it of course)? And once that call is made, can we get the admins to enforce it universally? Keep in mind that if this is ruled "ok" then if a squad wants to set up on the UCB at the beginning of the round and drink coffee until it's in play that's between them and their commander. (I think we can all agree this would be a waste of resources so early in the round)

I've seen more and more "preemptive" attacks on flags not in play. (I'm not talking about UCBs here) I think it adds a whole new dynamic to the game, and makes for some interesting gameplay. On that same note however, if you have a team pushed all the way back to... or one flag away from... having the UCB in play I really don't think it's that neccessary to get squads in place on the UCB prior to it being in play. Then again, it does make the map go faster.

When you have a group as coordinated as TG stacked on one team, against a bunch of pubbers and a few regulars on the other team... things like this happen more and more because of the lack of coordination on one side. Nobody commands, everybody just sort of gives up. This can make it very easy to get carried away with the "advanced assault" on flags not in play. Almost every time I've seen this happen, the round ends with 5-10 less people on the losing side than the winning side due to player drops. Sure they fill up pretty quick... it's TG after all. But to me this indicates an extreme inbalance in gameplay resulting in only one team having fun on a round instead of a closer battle all the way through.

I realize that not all rounds are going to be close and as competitive as most of them are... but it seems to have been a little extreme lately.

Thoughts?

d1sp0sabl3H3r0

The UCB rule is fickle, and it's about to get more so in the next day or so.

Here's the crux of the problem:

• On some maps, routes to some flags take you near the enemy main where there is a higher probability of contact and therefore you are bound to have fire into and out of the main
• Teams do try to position squads close to flags that may be coming into play soon in order to 'blitzkrieg' the other team. This happens on Qwai quite often, and with the main flags cappable at some point, it is only a matter of time until there is contact in the main early.
• If we define a certain radius around a main where you cannot camp - a safe zone - then the enemy is just going to camp right outside that radius and players are going to complain about being camped. The radius could be 100m, it could be 200m, it could be 300m - it wouldn't make a difference and the resulting argument will always be that they are too close or they are far enough away. It's a no-win situation, period.

The UCB rule is good because it does protect assets such as tanks, jets, etc. that are vital to a team and have a long spawn time. If they get lost in the field then so be it, but they shouldn't be neutralized as soon as they spawn in. Additionally, players in their main base shouldn't be sniped or engaged waiting for assets, etc. This is just bad for game play. Sure, there are people that object to this, and I might as well to a certain extent, but the rule works for the betterment of the overall experience on the server and it's not going to change.

With .8 there really isn't a reason to go to the enemy main until it is in play. The CP doesn't need to be deployed to build assets, and there isn't anything else to take out at the enemy main. Kits that have explosives are going to be reduced and therefore needed in the field to help the team secure objectives, so taking them to the enemy main to do essentially nothing is just a waste. Having a spotter observe movements out of the enemy main is still a viable tactic, but you don't need to be in it to do the job, and firing is only going to give away your location.

So, bottom line is this: starting with .8 the main should be off limits entirely, with one notable exception which will be posted in the rules tomorrow.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3

WDT_Alpha_s9

I agree on the distance thing... there will always be argument over whether or not you're in the proper "range" of the UCB. I guess my biggest gripe is the consistency of which this rule has been enforced.

Can't wait for .8 changes... the rally point stuff scares me but I guess we'll see.

Thanks for the response... hopefully .8 will make this rule a little easier to maintain.

d1sp0sabl3H3r0

The UCB rules are the worst ones to enforce for a bunch of reasons that I won't go in to.

We try to do the best we can with the information we have at the time. We're not perfect.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3

Paine

sonic my intention in the reply was to point out the realities of the UCB rules as they are - thought this was the right place for it given what is said in the OP.

If admins can only rely on what players, who may very well be ignorant of the server rules, say happened then how can there be any real enforcement of such a nuanced rule? maybe a simple question should be asked by the admin -

admin : "Did you initiate contact while he was outside of the UCB?"

Road to Kyong ni is specifically an issue because two flanks of the town are covered by killzones from uncapables.

d1sp0sabl3H3r0

Paine - appreciate your input. If you have an issue, use the proper thread to report it.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3

Dirtboy

This rule is going to be revised for v0.8. More to come!

__________________
|TG-6th|Dirtboy

Paine

no issue here boss, wrong kicks happen, cant really get around it. only thing im trying to get across is that alot of players simply dont know the rules, or think they do and really dont.

SGT.NERFY

I am SGT.NERFY and i was ban about 3 to 4 months ago and i was woundering when i am going to be unban im am really sorry for my actions on the sever and 0.8 is coming out tomorow i thought mabye we could have a fresh start.

MarineSeaknight

Totally not the place to post this dude. Refer to the BF2 Contact an Admin Forum for Ban Appeals. Make sure you read the sticky at the top of that link on how to make appeals first.

__________________
|TG-X|MarineSeaknight - --->Are YOU Tech Savvy? Help Marine Out!<---