asch

To help understand out player-base and get an idea of what types of events to plan, I wanted to guage the type of players we have visiting our forums.

Please answer the poll that best describes your preferred style of play.

__________________
| My Maps

Gaming Videos by Tactical Gamers

Fear the Frog! | Kill the Frog! | An Inconvenient Truth

"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." -- Tactical Gamer Primer

Portable.Cougar

"I simply need solid competition"

vBF2 is too easy, same with 2142 and other mods. (exception being CQB)

While every option on the poll would have applied I picked the one that jumped out at me.

__________________
|TG-X| Portable.Cougar

Server Rules and SOP | Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST!
Contact an Admin | Nominate your teammates for a ribbon

XCliPsX

Teamwork is what makes the world go round

__________________





Quote from the Tactical Gamer Primer:

Within Tactical Gamer, ANY activity that capitalizes on the limitations of a game to provide the advantage rather than that advantage coming from superior teamwork, strategy and tactics, is frowned upon. We all want to win when we play, but the focus at Tactical Gamer should be one of winning with some sort of dignity, honor, and skill, not because you were able to out-exploit the other team or box them into a corner built on technological weakness that gives you the advantage.

Sam Hoy

"Simulation & Realism"

There is little more appealing to me then the 'As real as it gets' scenario, now that we have a system where a fairly close reproduction of battlefield conditions is possible in Battlefield 2, I'm all for the utilization of realistic tactics.

I've heard of some role playing servers utilizing the .6 beta, any chance we may see some of this on TG?

Jeepo_SAS

Other.....

Aspects of all really, HATE losing, but i realise it happens, but when it can be prevented......

Sim+realism for sure, its the whole reason behind PR IMHO.

Same goes for Teamwork, it just doesnt stand up without it!

And everyone likes a little friendly competition so at the end of the round when you check scores and are beating crombo again, you can laugh at him on TS!

__________________
|TG-22nd|Jeepo

Atomic Dog

I voted Other for the reasons Jeepo did essentially.

I play for an experience that combines all of the above.

__________________

Braidedheadman

I think that there is much that can be disputed here. But to keep it short, my preferences run toward games that offer a combination of:

1. "Simulation and Realism" in so far as all aspects are correctly modeled insofar as it is possible. Once that is established, then call it "reality". This is an all or none option here, gentlemen. It's either correctly labeled "arcady" or its "realism", not something somewhere in between with biased, preferential treatment leaning to one particular side or toward one school of thought. With respect to Sam Hoy's comments, and I don't mean to pick on him, but rather the prevailing attitude that PR offers, "As real as it gets scenarios," is simply false in just about every way, with the exception of simulated infantry-on-infantry only combat, which is done quite well in that respect. Everything else, however, appears skewed heavily in favor of this one model and is not representative of "reality" in the least degree. Vehicle modeling with respect to vs. Infantry confrontations and other scenarios is where the model begins to fall apart, IMHO. It seems as though people draw the line at where they want reality to begin and end in combat simulations but are still willing to slap a label of "realistic" on the whole thing when the dust settles at the end of the day. I feel that this needs to be disputed. It's just not "reality" if realism extends only as far as the foot soldier’s iron sights.
2. Teamwork where everyone contributes toward a common goal with no consideration given toward individual performance above that of the group. Even the most skilled player will never achieve his highest potential if the team he plays with/for will not support him to those heights. The man with the most touchdowns won't hold the records he does if his blockers aren't doing their jobs. Teams like the 1st MIP have been a real treat to play with as they appear to have this level of teamplay worked out down to a science.
3. A mature atmosphere above all, although the odd teabagging here and there to lighten spirits now and then certainly helps as well. Give me a casual environment with all of the above and I'm as happy as a pig in mud.

I do not disagree with what PR is trying to accomplish in principle. But there are aspects of it that tend to lead me to believe that its current appellation is not suitable given how it is currently played.

__________________

Belhade

All the choices are good ones, but Sim&Realism is the most important - if I wanted fast/twitch/futuristic combat, there's 2142, Quake#, vBF2, etc.

__________________

Sam Hoy

You make points which are quite valid, however I think you are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

There is little doubt that the modification itself, just like any video game can only create the many dynamics of real world combat so well. Just as Project Reality nails some elements perfectly it is lacking in others. My point isn't that firing up Project Reality for a round is akin to really engaging in a firefight, but I do think we should treat it as such.

A game has limitations to how realistic an experience it can create, however it is the players that truly define how the game is played. Just as you can lone wolf around in Armed Assault you can play Quake as though it were an expensive military grade simulation.

The extent of Project Reality's success in developing a truly realistic game is debatable, however the play style which I enjoy most, and hence my vote is not and is only a reflection of my personal preferences, not of the medium I choose to express them in.

EBODude

For me, it's all about the teamwork. Especially very, very high levels of teamwork. Like the teamwork the 1stMIP uses. That gets my adrenaline pumping, and makes me more aware to my surroundings.

Don't get me wrong though, realism and maturity are important, but above all, the teamwork is the best. Just like Sam said, you could be playing CS:S and use great teamwork and it would be fun.

asch

Folks... let's try to stick to the topic here.

I understand and fully expect many players to want to pick multiple options, but I'd like players to pick the option that best describes them. Use the other if none of those fit.

__________________
| My Maps

Gaming Videos by Tactical Gamers

Fear the Frog! | Kill the Frog! | An Inconvenient Truth

"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." -- Tactical Gamer Primer

Betterdeadthanred

Simulation and realism, doesn't get much better than that. Teamplay kind of fits into that catagory anyway.

khaerus

The teamwork part is my favorite part. I respect the idea of using teamwork to create a more immersive game and that's what I'm playing the game for. And video games are getting more immersive all the time. But for now, the idea of using tactics necessarily tailored for an infantry shooter video game and calling them "realistic, sim-wise" seems more...silly. My goodness, my field of vision, game-wise, is maybe 10% of reality, with maybe 3% acuity. Three finger taps raise a shattered man from the dead....

In a similar vein, I would actually be interested in a mod where you get shot down and don't get back up... We should do a scrim like that some night... You could measure the level of teamwork on the server by the number of "live" players at the end of the game...

I call it a game, and I need (mature) teamwork to win within the context of the game, and it's a lot more fun with buddies playing. At the same time, I am looking forward to more and more accurate "simulation" within the genre as time marches on..

Please note that I am so far into the "to-each-their-own" camp that it's not even funny.

Braidedheadman

Fair enough. And again, I wasn't trying to pick on you or anything you might have expressed.

/poke

__________________

John CANavar

It was quite difficult for me to pick between "teamwork" and "simulation/role playing". But I chose teamwork because no matter how you play the game, you need people ... like-minded friends around you to make it a great experience. Without them, how can I simulate/role play? What brings me here every day is that "teamwork" spirit. Improving as a team, not as individuals only, working towards common objectives, developing procedures/tactics, testing and revising them, again and again. Being here at TG is much more than playing a game. Game is just a tool and tip of the iceberg...