Why we have to go through this, every now and then?

Why people are not mature and do not understand?

Well said Eroak, I admire your efford to write these things again and again.

Why people do not understand?

Originally Posted by asch

State of the Union Address

Tactical Gamer has grown by leaps and bounds over the past few years. Throughout this period we have experienced our ups and downs. We've received and read a lot of questions and comments about our growth, direction, benefits, and issues. We wanted to try and address some of these questions and concerns community-wide and open up the communication channels throughout the community. So let us start with our first State of the Union Address.

As some of you are aware, Tactical Gamer has surpassed the 20,000 registered user mark We are also approaching the 750,000 posts mark. It is great to see the growth and activity of our community. With this growth we have had the opportunity to reach out to a more diverse group of players. This has changed the dynamic of Tactical Gamer but it has not changed our focus. Recently we've had questions asked about what the niche of Tactical Gamer is. Some folks have even mentioned that they do not fit within a perceived niche. We'd like to help clarify this.

Tactical Gamer's niche is mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives.

Many of you will question where "realism" fits into this niche. When Tactical Gamer was much smaller in size and supported fewer game servers, we traditionaly hosted games like Ghost Recon, America's Army, and Operation Frontlines. These games themselves contained more features focused on realism. This inherently led to folks believe that Tactical Gamer was only about "realism". This is not the case. While we do want to promote "realism", we want to promote it in games where it applies.

This belief that Tactical Gamer was only about realism often led to questions about our support for game titles that definitely did not fall into this realm. We'd like to direct you back to the earlier statement of what our niche is. Mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives. A while back we put together the Tactical Gamer primer to try and address this but there is still some confusion over the matter. We've adopted the term "simulation" so let me explain this further.

Simulation does not equate only to realism.

When we refer to simulation, we speak of playing the game within the confines of the world the game creates. Simulation in a game like Armed Assault relies heavily on the realism aspect. When we refer to a game like World of Warcraft, we're speaking of a world where elves and wizards and other fantasy elements exist. In both cases the players should immerse themselves in the world created by the game. In both cases our niche is still mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives.

The two games mentioned above offer two opposite ends of the spectrum. We have quite a few games that fall somewhere in between. These games include BF2, CoD4, Frontlines, etc. All of these games will cater to the mature, teamwork oriented gamers with a focus on the objectives. Some of these servers will incorporate game modifications that cater to those who enjoy a more realistic approach to gaming while others will retain an emphasis on the vanilla settings. And in some cases we will be able to support multiple servers that cater to both.

There will be differences of opinion and preferences and that is perfectly ok. What we do expect out of our players is that they handle these differences in a mature and respectful manner. It is not wrong to differ in opinion but it is wrong to belittle each other for differing opinions. There should be a mutual understanding of these different preferences instead of a chasm between the varying groups of players.

To facilitate this we are working to get all of our administrators on the same page. A round-table has been created for our administrators to participate in and discuss issues like this that are seen throughout Tactical Gamer. These administrators can then work with their players. This should help make the transition from one game to another and from one preference to another. We ask that the players discuss perceived issues and provide feedback to these administrative teams. We have recently created "Contact an Admin" sub-forums for most games to make this communication easier and more efficient. Utilize these communication channels and speak with your administrators.

With this growth and the wide range of personalities we do understand that there are going to be issues. Issues with servers, with players, with administrators, and decisions. We can't guarantee that everything is going to be perfect right out of the gate. We can't guarantee that everything is going to be perfect down the road. What we can do is promise that we will listen to the feedback of our players and attempt to learn from the past. This means that we need the feedback from our players. There are a multitude of communication channels for our players to reach out. These include the "Contact an Admin" forums, teamspeak, PMs, emails, instant messenger, and so forth. Each individual should be able to be reached through one of these channels.

Tactical Gamer has adopted a certain level of organizational structure to make this communication more efficient. When dealing with game specific issues or player issues within a specific game, a player may contact the game's administrators. The "Contact an Admin" sub-forums are a great way to do this. If there are issues with the game administrators the next contact point is the game officer. For issues with game officers or issues that are outside of a specific game, a player may contact the Tactical Gamer administration. We do want to open these communication channels with the community.

Originally Posted by Apophis

The breakdown of respect within our community.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the past few days we have seen some relatively unsavory behavior from some members of our community. Threads have been locked, admins and players alike have been ridiculed, and efforts to resolve the very issues that were the subject of it all have been set back in order to deal with the behavior that followed.

We have a policy at Tactical Gamer for dealing with game or admin issues. If you have issues bring it them an admin PRIVATELY. If the admin can’t help you, bring it to the Game Officer PRIVATELY. If the Game Officer can’t help you, then come directly to me PRIVATELY. Bringing this type of negativity and cancerous attitude into the forums is not an acceptable solution.

Over the past couple years the Battlefield franchise and associated mods have caused Tactical Gamer to grow by leaps and bounds. In many cases the admin teams have been struggling to keep up. Activity seems to move in cycles with the various mods and in recent weeks our Project Reality server was subject to one of those cycles. There ARE issues with some players on the server, and these players need to be dealt with. We DO need a stronger admin presence on the server and this is also being addressed. What we DON’T need is self-styled crusaders trying to undermine the entire structure from underneath the admin team. Unfortunately; this is what has been happening in recent days.

I have paid attention to all the complaints that have popped up lately and it may shock you to know that I am working on them. I’ve been looking at potential solutions for many of these issues for the past couple weeks. In some cases, participants in these events were aware that I was working on these issues yet still chose to turn this into a crusade against the admin team and Game Officer.

I have issued temporary bans as a result of this ordeal. I don’t expect all of you to understand or agree with those bans, but there is a history here that you are most likely not aware of. I will say that banning someone that I consider to be a friend from Tactical Gamer is a VERY difficult thing to do and probably one of the worst moments in my management history of the Tactical Gamer community. Do NOT think I take this sort of thing lightly.

Managing the Battlefield franchise is not an easy task. While some of you may have issues with Tempus and his apparent day-to-day involvement with your mod of choice, he has a lot of responsibility on his shoulders and was NEVER expected to be playing every mod every day. That’s what he has an admin team for. The best Game Officers that Tactical Gamer ever had spent most of their time delegating responsibility to their admin teams and managing key admins within those teams. All things considered, Tempus has done a very good job with this.

Does that mean the situation is perfect? No. Can things be improved? Certainly.

Managing the Battlefield games is considerably different than managing smaller population games such as Counter-Strike, Natural Selection or Call of Duty 2. I am not saying that managing those games is easy, but it is different from managing a game with 64 players. In the case of the Project Reality mod, the situation becomes more difficult with the fact that it’s hard to identify players in many instances. In order for the admin team to be able to effectively do their job, they need the help of the player base. It is greatly helpful to the admin team if you report problem players to the admins and benefits the community as a whole. I realize some of you feel that it’s not your responsibility and that the admins need to shoulder the all the responsibility for identifying and removing the problem players, and I beg you to reconsider that line of thinking. If you really want to help resolve the problems, your participation is extremely important.

I am more than willing to discuss suggestions and ideas for improvement for the Battlefield franchise, and I know that the admin team is interested as well. The key is to provide some sort of constructive ideas and not just complain about what’s wrong and look to place all the blame on the other party. The situation we have here is the direct result of failings on both the part of the admin team as well as the player base. No one here is innocent and everyone here needs to work to improve the situation.

Tactical Gamer is a community focused on providing a positive gaming environment for mature gamers. We demand respect for our fellow gamers, our admins, and the players. Please don’t forget that.

Originally Posted by Apophis

Tactical Gamer Primer

Tactical Gamer has been through many incarnations over the years. The community was originally built back in 1996 around the popular game Quake 2, running the LMCTF mod. In the years following, we began hosting more games and underwent the re-branding that turned us into the Tactical Gamer you see today.

Tactical Gamer was founded with a few very simple principles:

1) Create an environment conducive for mature gamers to enjoy the games they play without the everyday interference from the less-than-mature gamers.

2) Create an environment where there was mutual respect for your fellow gamers and where all members would be working together to advance the enjoyment of their hobby.

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.

While these principles seem very easy to understand on the surface, the implementation of them is considerably more complex.

The principles upon which Tactical Gamer was built need to be taken into account together, rather than on a singular level. The first two are essential in creating an environment conducive to the success of the third. The very nature of the community depends on the configuration settings for our games, and the rules that are put in place, and the inherent understanding from the players regarding what we are trying to accomplish. Without all of these factors working together, Tactical Gamer can not achieve its mission.

The third principle is the most complex to understand and the most difficult to maintain. With so many viewpoints and interpretations as to what it means, people can become clouded as to what the overall objective is for our community.

Tactical Gamer is here to support a particular style of game play. Only through enforcement of our rules and principles are we able to continue to support this style of play. We are not here to cater each of our supported games to the popular demands of the broader gaming public, but to provide an environment that fits our target audience.

Not all players who come to Tactical Gamer will find what they are looking for. Some people seem to be more interested in highly-competitive play where winning is the most important objective. Others value teamwork, strategy, and tactics but view exploiting weaknesses in a game engine as acceptable because it helps them achieve their goal in winning. As long as both teams are mutually exploiting these weaknesses, they feel as though it’s acceptable.

All of the games we host depict a situation in which there is a conflict between two or more parties. These conflicts are presented through the use of various game engines. All game engines have limitations due to the simple nature that they are games and produced largely for their entertainment. How you interpret these limitations will determine if you truly do understand why Tactical Gamer is here and if you support our goals.

Most all of our games have specific rules about attacking the primary spawn points where players enter the game. In Counter-Strike Source, these rules are imposed by not permitting a defensive team to simply run to the offensive team’s spawn. It serves a dual purpose in that the defensive team’s objective is to defend an asset, either a group of hostages or a set of defined bomb points that the offensive team is trying to reach. In Battlefield 2, these rules are imposed by restricting a team’s ability to enter an uncapturable base for the purpose of killing players who are just spawning or entering the game.

So why do we have these rules? It’s quite simple. In the case of Counter-Strike the purpose is to keep the players focused on their primary objectives rather than padding their own personal scores.

In Battlefield 2 it becomes a bit more complex; when a player enters into a game they lack any form of situational awareness. They are not able to determine the situation to which they are entering and do not have the opportunity to mount a proper defensive reaction. In the real world, reinforcements would be transported in and would arrive with their situational awareness intact. An offense could be assembled in an area not currently in conflict, and a push could be made to re-take regions that have been overrun. By restricting the assaults on uncapturable bases it allows this occurrence to happen in spite of the game’s limitations. It allows both teams to organize and present themselves in a strategic and tactical manner without having their lack of situational awareness exploited by the opposing team.

Most players understand that wall hacking, giving yourself the ability to see through walls and artificially increase your situational awareness (SA), is highly frowned upon. Almost all gaming communities and gamers consider wall hacking to be a cheat and will kick and/or ban any player caught. Unfortunately, in some game engines the maps have flaws that allow you to see through solid structures due to glitches in the actual design of the map. This is not an intentional feature of the map and should be considered just as bad as intentional wall hacking.

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.

Tactical Gamer requires teamwork because only through working as a team can we complete the objectives we are assigned. The reward for winning through superior strategy and tactics is far greater than the reward for winning through exploitation and oppression.

Over the years there have been many debates about why our rules are the way they are. Our rules exist to preserve the environment the way it was originally intended and to protect the integrity of what Tactical Gamer stands for.