Re: a new trend? Bunny Flop

**Lorax74** · 09-30-2009, 01:23 PM

Regarding how the admins can or will deal with a report on this, I'd say probably the same way we deal with reports on bunny hopping, SLs and SMs not following orders and "fighting commanders."

Could a rule like this create false reports? Sure, any rule can. For example, we get many inaccurate bunny hopping reports. If someone sights someone in and their target jumps, often people see it as a bunny hop, but rotate their point of view 180 degrees and you'll see their target was tossing something (motion mines, grenade, IDS, whatever). It happens more than I care to admit.

Should our rules be rigid and black and white? No, some can be subjective - take the rule about COs fighting, COs CAN fight, the rule does not say they can not. It is then up to the reporting player and/or admin to interpret. It comes down to intent. Was the CO fighting to keep a back flag that is vital to the overall plan or is the CO hopping in a gunship without a thought about teamwork?

So how could a rule about bunny flopping work? First, you have to understand the action of the bunny flop and what's going on. A bunny flop is a bunny hop with a different key. If you see someone moving around and using prone to throw off targeting in a unrealistic manner, then it is no different than a bunny hop. If you argue it's not, then to me you are also arguing that bunny hopping should be allowed. It is the same thing. How do you interpret a bunny flop from effective use of the prone position? If I look at a player and it looks like they are substituting the prone key for the jump key, that's a problem.

**LordKelvin** · 09-30-2009, 01:55 PM

This far outdoes any argument yet. Eloquent and to the point. Here it is from the man himself. May I dare to hope the admin team is considering action?

**Aumen1** · 09-30-2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Superfast

Please tell me how we can get better teamwork out of more bunny-flopping.

Hey Super I was thinking of I-pigs post re: teamwork

Originally Posted by ionpig-A

Not for nothing but we've got enough rules.

I think the appropriate counter for the current level of bellyflopping I've seen is to q-spot the dorks that engage in that kinda horse-pucky and see how they deal with SIX guns blazing away in their direction. If we can't get our squads all shooting in the same direction then I think we've got bigger problems than a bunch of 80's rejects doing "the worm".

IF the bellyflopping gets out of hand then maybe re-visit this thread later.

Just my $0.02.

(no offense to the folks building good arguments for a rule against an admitted annoyance but I don't see the issue as being critical at this time)

**MrJengles** · 09-30-2009, 02:14 PM

Well I still feel "borderline" flops will be a huge occurance, and that those examples arn't quite as subjective... someone follows orders or they don't, someone throws something or they don't. CO is more subjective than the other 2, but usually it is checked in TS and a general "COs should really only fight to defend themselves" is percieved the norm. And whether they shot first or their opponent did is easy to tell.

False reports where the reporter percieved a rule breaking but were corrected by an unknown factor - such as bunny hopping actually being a thrown grenade - aren't quite what I was commenting on personally.

False reports where the admins view on the situation differs from the person reporting, again and again, is my concern. As well as admins having a consistant view on this themselves. If it works, however, then that's all good news.

Just to reiterate a point I made in my first post on this topic: perhaps testing this rule out for a couple weeks would help?

**LordKelvin** · 09-30-2009, 02:21 PM

Now THAT would cause confusion. A temporary rule? Non-server regulars would be utterly bewildered by the rules changing twice within a week or two.

**MrJengles** · 09-30-2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Now THAT would cause confusion. A temporary rule? Non-server regulars would be utterly bewildered by the rules changing twice within a week or two.

Lol, I know... it's not perfect, but it'd certainly give us a true example of whether the rule would work or not. Besides, a simple "temporary, 2 week rule" being added at every mention should lower confusion...

**Zoraster** · 09-30-2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by MrJengles

Well I still feel "borderline" flops will be a huge occurance, and that those examples arn't quite as subjective... someone follows orders or they don't, someone throws something or they don't. CO is more subjective than the other 2, but usually it is checked in TS and a general "COs should really only fight to defend themselves" is percieved the norm. And whether they shot first or their opponent did is easy to tell.

That might be seen as the norm, but it isn't the correct application of the rule. There are ways for a CO to fight constructively and actively. It's certainly not that a CO has to wait for someone to shoot him to fight. If I see someone in my UCB destroying assets, I'll probably try and kill him. If I see someone trying to capture command center on cerbere, I'll probably try to kill him. I've done other things that have raised eyebrows, but seem to me at least to be perfectly within the reasonable confines of the rule. For example, I've spawned in on Tunis on PAC as CO, hopped in the buggy's back seat, started commanding, as the buggy went for power, I hopped out at the fence line northwest of eastern. At my first downtime (usually when a UAV is running), I throw out motion mines and emp mines then hide. This makes it harder later for a buggy to do the outside route from EU base and catch my eastern defense guys unaware. Simple, doesn't distract from commanding, and it is effective. I usually get at least one person saying, "uhh... zoraster?" when I do it, but it's usually quickly cleared up.

Originally Posted by lorax

A bunny flop is a bunny hop with a different key.

I agree mostly with the rest of your post, but I think you've oversimplified here. The two are different. There's a reason why bunny hopping was banned early on in TG and prone-diving wasn't.

**MrJengles** · 09-30-2009, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Zoraster

That might be seen as the norm, but it isn't the correct application of the rule. There are ways for a CO to fight constructively and actively. It's certainly not that a CO has to wait for someone to shoot him to fight. If I see someone in my UCB destroying assets, I'll probably try and kill him. If I see someone trying to capture command center on cerbere, I'll probably try to kill him. I've done other things that have raised eyebrows, but seem to me at least to be perfectly within the reasonable confines of the rule. For example, I've spawned in on Tunis on PAC as CO, hopped in the buggy's back seat, started commanding, as the buggy went for power, I hopped out at the fence line northwest of eastern. At my first downtime (usually when a UAV is running), I throw out motion mines and emp mines then hide. This makes it harder later for a buggy to do the outside route from EU base and catch my eastern defense guys unaware. Simple, doesn't distract from commanding, and it is effective. I usually get at least one person saying, "uhh... zoraster?" when I do it, but it's usually quickly cleared up.

Certainly, that's why it is subjective at times. But those sorts of things are a lot more obvious -shooting people that attack assets, and putting down mines that everyone understands can sit around and be a threat for way longer than the mere seconds it took to place them- than some sort of "proning repeatedly".

As to being shot first, I meant if a CO is sitting there and they get shot first then it is clear that they are allowed to shoot back. So not always subjective, and when it is, it would most likely be to a lesser extent than the proposed rule = my view.

**LordKelvin** · 09-30-2009, 02:48 PM

Forgive me, Jengles, but I read this past post of yours three times and I still can't make heads nor tails of it. The only thing I saw was that you appear to have contradicted yourself in whatever it was you were trying to say, because you say at first it is subjective but end by saying it isn't. (Whatever 'it' is.)

**LordKelvin** · 09-30-2009, 02:53 PM

Also, I remembered something. For those of you claiming to want an exact definition of 'repeatedly' and 'in quick succession', I daresay that if I were to slap you across the face with my full strength 'repeatedly' and 'in quick succession' you'd learn pretty darn fast what those terms mean.

If you want to define them, look it up in the dictionary.

**MrJengles** · 09-30-2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Forgive me, Jengles, but I read this past post of yours three times and I still can't make heads nor tails of it. The only thing I saw was that you appear to have contradicted yourself in whatever it was you were trying to say, because you say at first it is subjective but end by saying it isn't. (Whatever 'it' is.)

Originally Posted by Lorax74

Regarding how the admins can or will deal with a report on this, I'd say probably the same way we deal with reports on bunny hopping, [..] not following orders and "fighting commanders."

Originally Posted by MrJengles

CO is more subjective than the other 2

Originally Posted by Zoraster

It's certainly not that a CO has to wait for someone to shoot him to fight. If I see someone in my UCB destroying assets, I'll probably try and kill him.

Originally Posted by MrJengles

Certainly, that's why it is subjective at times.
[...]
As to being shot first, I meant if a CO is sitting there and they get shot first then it is clear that they are allowed to shoot back. So not always subjective, and when it is, it would most likely be to a lesser extent than the proposed rule = my view.

No worries Kelvin. Fighting COs can be subjective, but not always. No contradiction.

**Crux** · 09-30-2009, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

If you want to define them, look it up in the dictionary.

This sentence is full of win. I've ignored the repeated calls for 'clear definitions' of words that are already clearly defined in the dictionary. There's even one online at www.m-w.com for those of you who don't own one yourselves.

**Zhohar** · 09-30-2009, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Crux

Hypocrisy, Zhohar be thy name.

It was a joke, following reaper's joke. Not a trolling attempt, or flame bait.
One is a minor minor diversion, the other destructive to the conversation at hand.

**Razcsak** · 09-30-2009, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by MrJengles

Well I still feel "borderline" flops will be a huge occurance, and that those examples arn't quite as subjective... someone follows orders or they don't, someone throws something or they don't.

How do you feel about our bunnyhopping rule? Why is that obvious, clear, and a workable rule while the exact same action using a different key is subjective?

**SilentSunshine** · 09-30-2009, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax74

A bunny flop is a bunny hop with a different key.

By this definition, going prone once, "unrealistically" ought to be an offense, correct?

Originally Posted by Crux

Shirley, you can't be serious.

Shirley, I was Jany-Eyre serious, Professor... al-Villette after reviewing my post I realize it was unconstructively and repetitively asking "what do ya mean?" I'm sorry about that: I was only trying to make you consider that those terms weren't quantified. Even dictionaries vary on the acute meaning of words, and some of us would have liked to know yours.

As a player I want to be fully in line with the server rules at all time. Unless a ratio of prones per seconds OR a defined manner of one, such as out in the open, is given, I would feel unsure of myself on the field. I have read all the rules and feel confident with them currently.

Thread Tools

Display