UCB Poll - Page 5

SharinganTH1422 · 10-14-2009, 07:11 PM

Sure, but I'm saying that the amount of fighting in the UCB may increase if this new interpretation is implemented, which I'm guessing is not what we want.

As always I'm just putting ideas out there for consideration that I've not seen anyone else mention.

**Zoraster** · 10-14-2009, 07:25 PM

alternatively, it might make it less likely to occur because COs will be less likely to spend their time trying to pursue, knowing that their pursuit could lead to them being shot.

In any case, we're not trying to introduce more fighting, but we are trying to talk about a rule that makes sense and doesn't allow COs or others to bend the rule by doing what we've been talking about.

SharinganTH1422 · 10-14-2009, 07:56 PM

In terms of an abuse in the system, I'm more concerned with people spawning into the UCB who are unaware and running around, and who may just run near/into/past some attackers accidentally, as opposed to the asset squad who know the dangers of being in the enemy UCB:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harlequin

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HellHarry

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.

As (If I'm not mistaken) you said earlier though, if this interpretation is to be implemented, the "asset destroyer" needs to be pretty damn sure before they engage that they are actually being followed by someone who has an intent to attack them.

**Fruvous** · 10-14-2009, 08:20 PM

It's usually pretty clear who has hostile intent.

Most people will spawn in a battlefield flag. People who spawn in the UCB do so because they want a vehicle.

There is a pretty obvious difference between,
"Hey, I see enemies all the way over there. Oh well, I don't care very much, time to get in the buggy"
and
"Hey, I see enemies all the way over there. Let's go out of our way to shoot them." I mean, you will see a visible change in the soldier's behavior.

Similarly, there is a pretty obvious difference between a group that is intent on baserape and a group that is intent on destroying assets.

**Crux** · 10-14-2009, 09:44 PM

One could say the difference is far less obvious than that between someone who is bunnyflopping and someone who is not bunnyflopping

**HellHarry** · 10-14-2009, 10:11 PM

Well making sure the assets are down by camping them is not base rape and is still the job of the asset squad, but I could consider anyone coming toward that asset (if not in the way of a vehicle spawn) and getting close to it someone that would either repair it or is trying to find me witch is kinda trying to kill me and so I would get the possibility of killing him even thought I'm freaking camping in the UCB. Asset squad that come in and go out are rarely caught cause they are not there long enough they blow two asset simultaneously and they leave.

But the new way people want the rule opens a new way of doing things. Me and my friend go recon and support for asset squad (RDX and supplies) we set up in the ucb. We kill all asset and then the support set up camp and let the recon bait people after him in the trap where they die. But he was following me...

I don't see how someone can be sure they are camping the place and not just doing asset without falling in the trap multiple time. Even with battle recorder the recon can look like is running around making the assets are down and he returns to the support for supplies.

Just an hint on asset. Assets go in the negative with their life. The moire RDX you blow up on them the longer it takes to repair. With this said a recon placing is rdx on a destroyed asset is perpetuating is job and can roam for a very long period of time.

The rule is already gray enough for me making the new change will either complicate it too much or make it grayer.

**Zoraster** · 10-15-2009, 12:40 AM

Sorry, Harry. What do you think is the "new" way of understanding it? I'm not sure anyone is arguing for a new rule or interpretation of the rule, even.

**Sluggo78** · 10-15-2009, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Forgive me, but I am HIGHLY skeptical that even on a non-TG server there would be 3 squads wasting time to find you (Sluggo) in the UCB. On the TG server, its a flat out falsehood. Be careful with your hyperbole, please.

No, no not really, i may have exagerated a bit with three... Maybe 2 but there were more than 6 people trying to find me, after i kept taking out their assets. This was on a TG server on a Tunis Harbor game.

**Sluggo78** · 10-15-2009, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiff913

You make a worthwhile point, however, Sluggo said "3 FULL SQUADS". I mean, that is a direct quote. That's 18 people. Out of a possible 23. Even if the server was completely full, that's close to being the ENTIRE team.

Forgive if I'm skeptical as well.

On the other hand, he prolly killed 'em all with his Herzog, so it's OK.

I had a Lambert equiped with somebody spotting for me and another person resupplying me, you guys can be skeptical about it, but I was there. For the record, I died ALOT.

**ThaDoctah** · 10-15-2009, 07:40 AM

The poll wasn't defined clearly enough for my tastes. I'm suspicious of the whole thing.

**WhiskeySix** · 10-15-2009, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoraster

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruvous

It's usually pretty clear who has hostile intent.

Most people will spawn in a battlefield flag. People who spawn in the UCB do so because they want a vehicle.

There is a pretty obvious difference between,
"Hey, I see enemies all the way over there. Oh well, I don't care very much, time to get in the buggy"
and
"Hey, I see enemies all the way over there. Let's go out of our way to shoot them." I mean, you will see a visible change in the soldier's behavior.

Similarly, there is a pretty obvious difference between a group that is intent on baserape and a group that is intent on destroying assets.

[admin hat off]

I fully endorse both of these posts

**spiff913** · 10-15-2009, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sluggo78

I had a Lambert equiped with somebody spotting for me and another person resupplying me, you guys can be skeptical about it, but I was there. For the record, I died ALOT.

Yes, but you - just - admitted that it wasn't "3 full squads".

That's the whole point that Kelvin and I were trying to make.

No hard feelings, but you really can't make a wildly exaggerated claim then cry foul when somebody calls you on it.

Shane · 10-15-2009, 12:31 PM

If I am repairing my AC unit and some1 I dont know starts running around in my fenced in back yard with a weapon I am going to hit him with my big ass monkey wrench.

Just trying to apply it to real world situation.

**Zoraster** · 10-15-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane

If I am repairing my AC unit and some1 I dont know starts running around in my fenced in back yard with a weapon I am going to hit him with my big ass monkey wrench.

Just trying to apply it to real world situation.

How about if he has his engineering tool out?

**Axis_Sniper** · 10-15-2009, 04:29 PM

It depends if he is red or blue