UCB Poll - Page 2

**Namebot** · 10-13-2009, 02:06 PM

Kind of depends on whether you consider the rorshes in the main just like other rorsches on the map or part of the compliment of UCB vehicles.

Of course they dont see all that much use by the team whos UCB they are in, do they?

Hrmmm...

**Superfast** · 10-13-2009, 02:23 PM

I think the current rule is too open for confusion. It's all very subjective in how we all view the "engaging"-bit. I view it as players who have noticed me and is moving in my direction. Granted they can be moving towards jeeps, first time in the game or loads of other reasons so i can be wrong in so many ways on that assumption.

We should therefore restrict it to fired upon only in my opinion. It's easier for everyone to respect and for admins to rule on.

EDIT:

And another thing. The can't engage the CO bit. I understand it's all in place to avoid confusion and lots of spawn camping borderline stuff. But in a realistic manner, taking out the commander gives your team an advantage on the field, so isn't he really a proper target? If Dice wanted him to not be, they would've built him a CO post like in PR don't you think? So taking out the CO is like taking out assets, it's a tactical way to weaken the other team. What do you think about that?

**Zoraster** · 10-13-2009, 02:39 PM

Q: Why is the UCB general prohibition on killing people, especially the CO, in the UCB good?

A: In the case of the CO, it allows them to continue to command in peace without having to constantly worry about dying. That leads to more cohesive teamplay in TG, which is a definite good for our server. For others, it stops them from getting bogged down in fighting pointless battles in the UCB when TG hopes to emphasize objective based game play. For the people assaulting it's a good rule because it keeps players from entering the base with the intention of just killing people and hampering the full battlefield experience.

I think by following a player, even in Damonte's situation, he's given up the right that comes from being a "reinforcement" not to be shot at by asset squads (as stated in the rule) and become a "combatant." He is no longer using the UCB "to spawn-in, coordinate, and launch attacks." (see the full rule)

-Str!ker- · 10-13-2009, 02:48 PM

Personally if someone is running at me with the knife, I should be able to shoot them, not wait and hope they miss in order to engage. I do understand that this will have to be something taken as good faith as it will be almost impossible to regulate effectively but I trust most people on TG to be mature and fair about it.

**spiff913** · 10-13-2009, 02:54 PM

2 points, both very much IMO, with multiple smilies, etc. -

1. Skulking around in the UCB is for sissies.

2. Destroying assets is rarely worth it, outside of a full-scale, organized scrim.

Conclusion, get out on the field and fight - problem solved.

**jazy2** · 10-13-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiff913

2. Destroying assets is rarely worth it, outside of a full-scale, organized scrim.

I see assets as a great target if your team has no commander and the enemy has. Even things up a little. If only for a short time. Plus defenders will be called back to get you out and repair assets.

Never underestimate the fun and tactical usefulness of an assets run. Also an assets run can be coupled with taking a buggy and grabbing a back flag!

**DrBeat** · 10-13-2009, 03:46 PM

While pursuit does make sense, it just widens the gray area. We all know that once engaged you are allowed to fight back. Simple. Once the bullets start flying. With pursuit, I see to many instances of "I had no intention to engage" and so forth. Even if this is true, I personally think it would be too hard to moderate.

**soggywaffle63** · 10-13-2009, 06:43 PM

I remember one time there was someone destroying assets in my UCB and I decided to approach him with a knife, knowing he wouldn't fire at me. He just sat helplessly on the ground while I took his tags. I felt like I had exploited the rule a bit, even though I didn't break it. It should probably be changed so I can't do that again.

**Onoobiwan** · 10-13-2009, 07:58 PM

If they are following then they are aware. To me its the same as initiating an engagement and therefore you should defend yourself.

**Harlequin** · 10-13-2009, 08:55 PM

A problem could arise since vehicles are scattered around the UCB as the assets themselves are. So were you actually "being followed", or did you just so happen to be between the UCB spawner and the vehicle he wants to get into? He may just want to get in the tank and be on his way, or he may want to get in it and put a shell up your nose, you'll have to wait and find out. Someone spawning in the UCB with the intention of taking a piece of armor back to the front lines shouldn't have to concern themselves with whether or not their movements around their UCB could be construed as "following" or "lining up for a good shot" when they may not even be aware of your presence. You want to take the risk of going in the UCB for a mission, then you assume the risk of "only returning fire when fired upon" that goes with it.

**HellHarry** · 10-13-2009, 09:08 PM

Just a heads up. I always taked for granted that someone entering the UCB for asset destruction is fully aware that he is doing so at a disadvantage... He needs to be shot at to retaliate (in case of knife I would gladly take the kick and talk to the admin about it so it's clear that it was a knife assault that I was preventing). The rule is there to prevent any sort of base rape.

Because allowing someone to defend themselves on their interpretation of an other person intention is not viable. Also that would mean that if I enter the UCB kill one asset I can then camp the asset and kill anyone coming in that direction since they are coming at me, searching for me or they are going to repair it... pretty lame. I don't see anyone here doing it but someone coming on the server could do it and the admin couldn't do anything cause he would be in is right by the rule to defend him self on the basis of his interpretation of the enemy intention.

**Housekeeper** · 10-13-2009, 09:13 PM

I agree that if they are following, like clearly following and like someone said not simply running for a vehicle that happens to be near you, then they are engaged. This specific rule, like the UCB rule in its entirety of course falls under grey areas as interpretation of someones action is never 100% accurrate.

As for the effectiveness of asset runs, well thats a discussion in itself, of course it's pointless in a 10v10 game with no commander, but in 23v23 matches with two commanders, regardless if it's an organized scrim, sure it can be effective as long as the resources being expended by the enemy outweigh the resources your team is dedicating to the enemy's assets.

**MrTango** · 10-13-2009, 09:24 PM

interesting topic.
I know we all like to parse litte details apart, but what we really should be asking in this case is, " What is the purpose, the underlying intent, of the rule".
from the primer:

"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."

with the clarification of:
"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"

and the short version is what Harry just said: to prevent base rape.

I think this is one where its just gotta be a judgement call on your part. gut check yourself - did I just shoot that guy unfairly? (because, of course, you shot first THEN asked!) If the answer is yes, then fess up, apologize, and don't do it again.

It all comes down to principle number one of TG:
Create an environment conducive for mature gamers to enjoy the games they play without the everyday interference from the less-than-mature gamers.

**Arithea** · 10-13-2009, 09:24 PM

You know, this--among the plethora of other rules-related topics--is as hard to moderate as we make it. If you're in the UCB for whatever reason, it's up to you to make your purpose there clear. If you're spawning to head to another point, head to another point, whether you're grabbing a vehicle or not. If you're blowing up assets, head for the assets. If your assets are under attack, defend your assets, then move on. It's up to us to be sure the other team knows we're there with a purpose.

**Zhohar** · 10-13-2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damonte

Someone following you around when in an enemy UCB doesn't necessarily indicate intent to engage.

Quote:

Granted, part of this is due to his admin role and he may be choosing to ensure that UCB engagement rules are being properly followed.

You need to find a new way to enforce the rules: there is no way I can distinguish an admin from another player.
If someone is obviously following me, regardless of their weapon or item of choice in hand, I consider that to be engaged.