Refinding our community principles around vehicle assets

[asch]

I did not try to imply otherwise. Only that our SOP should not endorse taking a named asset squad's vehicles without CO consent. I think by saying that a TG member "should" start waiting in line for vehicles does not promote goal oriented game play because in part it can create people just hanging out in the uncap.

It would be great if named asset squads used their assets once and then made a new non-named asset squad so someone else could eventually make one and have their turn. Unfortunately there isn't going to be an ideal solution. Waiting in line is the fair solution to all players.

I agree that vehicles can sometimes be used in squads effectively... though some do it better than others. A gunship in a 6 person squad is pretty useless. A walker can be useful in some situations.

Effectiveness is subjective and situational. We try to avoid making rules that restrict options. Rules are there to enforce a mature, respectful, teamwork-based, objective oriented environment.

But they are a great way to "coordinate and have teamwork" none the less - at the end of the day, shouldn't that be supported?

Just because something is a great way to do something doesn't mean it is the only way. So while we support the use of asset squads we don't support entitlement of assets to asset squads.

(back to the original purpose of this thread) Everyone needs to learn to play nicely together in the same sandbox. How we handle these situations are in part what separates us from most other servers.

[INSUNABULA]

I understand there are a few issues on the table here but I don't feel I need to state my case any more than I have.

[Zoraster]

It would be great if named asset squads used their assets once and then made a new non-named asset squad so someone else could eventually make one and have their turn. Unfortunately there isn't going to be an ideal solution. Waiting in line is the fair solution to all players.

Meanwhile, a team is shorthanded while several of their members are just sitting around waiting for various armor to spawn.

Yes, it sucks for people who have slower computers who miss out on armor squads with some regularity. But the answer surely isn't something that stresses armor entitlement over an overall teamwork perspective.

Because the idea that everyone should have a turn with armor if they want it in any given game is also about feeling entitled to play with a piece of armor.

Do I want to maintain fairness? Yeah. Do I hope that people with slower computers will get a chance to play in their chosen piece of armor? Yeah. Do I think the server as a whole suffers when we start to have lines waiting for armor? Absolutely.

Effectiveness is subjective and situational. We try to avoid making rules that restrict options. Rules are there to enforce a mature, respectful, teamwork-based, objective oriented environment.

Perhaps I should have been clearer: I don't want a rule that says we should only pick what's most effective. But I wanted to set up the point that while armor in squads sometimes makes sense, it does not always.

And I especially wanted to make the point that those participating in the discussion who primarily have experience with BF2 should realize that it is not the same as 2142 for several reasons listed.

I know that there's been some talk that goes along the lines of: "isn't it unfortunate that people can't seem to figure out how to incorporate armor into squads? that's what's causing them to dislike armor maps."

This viewpoint, while valid, has some weaknesses. Namely, it's not that 2142 players are somehow inferior to those in games past. It's that armor in 2142 lends itself not as well to incorporation because of:

1. CO EMPs
2. EMP grenades
3. Railguns that do huge damage
4. Motion mines
5. Easily hit weak points on some pieces of armor.
6. Maps that are not designed to allow both infantry and armor to support each other.

That's not to say it's impossible. And that's not to say I blame anyone who tries to incorporate it; I hope they succeed. But this SOP to me seems to generate from a wish to recreate BF2 style armor engagements as much as a wish for fairness.

(back to the original purpose of this thread) Everyone needs to learn to play nicely together in the same sandbox. How we handle these situations are in part what separates us from most other servers.

I can agree with this.


Again, since I seem to be misinterpreted, I'm not arguing for a rule prohibiting anyone taking armor that's "called" by named squads. I'm arguing against a SOP that expressly suggests creating situations where people should sit around waiting in line for pieces of armor. The SOPs are non-binding, but they profess to suggest what people should generally strive for. I do not think we should strive for this.

For the record, I very rarely start named armor asset squads. I don't really like the idea of them. I'd be fine if they were completely abolished. But if we have armor asset squads, the SOP seems off the mark.

[Lyramion]

[media]http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e36/Korietsu/1250304948168.jpg[/media]

[Deterhek]

On the subject of asset squads (armor/gunship), if every SL had to ask the CO beforehand if it was okay for him to create an asset squad, the CO could either say no, OR he could allow this, and tell the entire team that only the asset could enter and pilot/gun in this asset, or it would be breaking the rule of "you must follow ALL CO/SL orders." I think that would alleviate a lot of the problems.

[Zoraster]

On the subject of asset squads (armor/gunship), if every SL had to ask the CO beforehand if it was okay for him to create an asset squad, the CO could either say no, OR he could allow this, and tell the entire team that only the asset could enter and pilot/gun in this asset, or it would be breaking the rule of "you must follow ALL CO/SL orders." I think that would alleviate a lot of the problems.

If we had a CO who would give verbal orders like this for every game, it'd work really well!

Unfortunately, sometimes TGers won't step up to do the duty, and sometimes Pubbies immediately go CO before any TGer can do it.

[asch]

Meanwhile, a team is shorthanded while several of their members are just sitting around waiting for various armor to spawn.

I understand your point, however from my perspective I feel that a lack of organization is due to an empty CO seat. In the absence of the chain of command, we'll fall back to fair use. It is great if the players not in the named squad allow the named squad to use the asset. But if they want to utilize it in their squad they do get the option.

Perhaps I should have been clearer: I don't want a rule that says we should only pick what's most effective. But I wanted to set up the point that while armor in squads sometimes makes sense, it does not always.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. My follow up sentences are geared more towards adding information for all readers.

And I agree that assets in non-specialty squads do not always make sense.

I also understand we're talking about 2142 and not BF2, however that doesn't change the situation.

Again, since I seem to be misinterpreted, I'm not arguing for a rule prohibiting anyone taking armor that's "called" by named squads. I'm arguing against a SOP that expressly suggests creating situations where people should sit around waiting in line for pieces of armor. The SOPs are non-binding, but they profess to suggest what people should generally strive for. I do not think we should strive for this.

For the record, I very rarely start named armor asset squads. I don't really like the idea of them. I'd be fine if they were completely abolished. But if we have armor asset squads, the SOP seems off the mark.

With or without asset squads there needs to be some guide to utilizing assets. Taking turns is the fair option without the chain of command. The SOP simply explains how to utilize a named squad if one so chooses to create one but expresses it is not an entitlement.

The SOP also doesn't say a player has to wait in line. They have the option to return to battle. I may be wrong but I can't imagine a string of players sitting there all waiting for their turn in the asset.

[Smachin007]

The SOP also doesn't say a player has to wait in line. They have the option to return to battle. I may be wrong but I can't imagine a string of players sitting there all waiting for their turn in the asset.

And why not? If people are told that they can wait at the spawn point and receive that piece of armor when it spawns, then I can easily see it happening. I'm going to use the gunship as an example because that's where I see it most often. Life expectancy in a gunship can be rather short depending on who is on the other team. So if I feel/know that whoever is in the gunship is going to get shot down within 60 seconds of takeoff, I could easily decide that I'm going to wait at the spawn so that whoever is flying it cannot beat me to the front of the line and therefore have the right to the gunship. This leads to 2 people sitting at the gunship spawn for a minimum of 2 minutes that it takes for the gunship to spawn. And depending on how long the gunship is in the air that wait could be much longer. That's taking 2 people out of the fight. It happens.

[asch]

And why not? If people are told that they can wait at the spawn point and receive that piece of armor when it spawns, then I can easily see it happening. I'm going to use the gunship as an example because that's where I see it most often. Life expectancy in a gunship can be rather short depending on who is on the other team. So if I feel/know that whoever is in the gunship is going to get shot down within 60 seconds of takeoff, I could easily decide that I'm going to wait at the spawn so that whoever is flying it cannot beat me to the front of the line and therefore have the right to the gunship. This leads to 2 people sitting at the gunship spawn for a minimum of 2 minutes that it takes for the gunship to spawn. And depending on how long the gunship is in the air that wait could be much longer. That's taking 2 people out of the fight. It happens.

I can understand one crew waiting in line. I was referring to multiple crews waiting in line.

And if a crew does wait in line then it is their decision to do so, possibly at the detriment of the team. Without the chain of command to organize the team this is a possibility. Just as with any other action a player takes in-game they'll have to weigh the value of waiting vs the value of being engaged vs the value of defending... etc.

[Mordona]

What it really boils down to. Even if the admins, Mantis and Asch wanted to restrict use of vehicles based on squad names. There is a breach of ELUA for ranked server via restrictions weapon and tools clause. We are not able to tell any players what they can or cannot use as a server rule. We can enforce teamwork which braches from orders. But a server rule stating that vehicles are off limits to certian players is a ranked violation.

There are some things that will go like I already said such as teamwork via orders. But limiting use of vehicles till a certian low population and limiting UCB stealing are such rules that do not breach these terms. If a player was intended to clear have access to a tool. They must be given clear access to it in the rules. UCB vehicles are not ready access vehicles to the non-occupying team.

[INSUNABULA]

What it really boils down to. Even if the admins, Mantis and Asch wanted to restrict use of vehicles based on squad names. There is a breach of ELUA for ranked server via restrictions weapon and tools clause. We are not able to tell any players what they can or cannot use as a server rule. We can enforce teamwork which braches from orders. But a server rule stating that vehicles are off limits to certian players is a ranked violation.

There are some things that will go like I already said such as teamwork via orders. But limiting use of vehicles till a certian low population and limiting UCB stealing are such rules that do not breach these terms. If a player was intended to clear have access to a tool. They must be given clear access to it in the rules. UCB vehicles are not ready access vehicles to the non-occupying team.

If this is the case (and I'm not disputing you Eroak) then I'm wondering why this wasn't brought up before - this is the 5th page we're on since yesterday afternoon.

Could you please copy/paste the section for me to look over mate - like I said: I am not in any way disputing you Eroak, I just want a look to see the specific wording here.

If you're right then there is nothing more to be said as far as I can see.

[Mordona]

Give me a bit, this is a agreement between the server owners and rentors. I don't where its located anymore, but i'll find it. Its the same clause that doesn't allow pistol and knife servers to survive.

Edit: found it, Its the EA Rules of conduct for all BF series.

Server Administrators are in violation of the EA Online Terms and Conditions if they enforce server rules on ranked servers that prohibit or severely limit players from using any roles, kits, weapons, vehicles, or other features of the game while playing on their server. Examples of such rules that would violate the EA Online Terms and Conditions include:

• Preventing players from being Commander or Squad Leaders
• Preventing players from using certain vehicles such as jets, helicopters, or tanks
• Running knife / pistol-only servers
• Preventing players from using all commander assets (artillery, vehicle drop, UAV or scans). If using the Infantry-only server-side option, this should be clearly stated in the game's loading screen
• Preventing players from using certain weapons or items (such as flash bangs or C4) or enforcing a "pistol only" or "knife only" server rule

This service must be agreed upon before the ranked server is rented by the rentor. These terms are on display at WolfServers.com, TOS page.

If this is the case (and I'm not disputing you Eroak) then I'm wondering why this wasn't brought up before - this is the 5th page we're on since yesterday afternoon.

I apologize I didn't get this to you sooner. I been extremly busy moving into my new home and getting this mess of boxes cleaned up. I try and keep upto date on all the legal issues and terms (even with my dislexia I somehow understand contracts, EULA's, and TOS's well).

[Zoraster]

only because I can... and not (as I've stated) because I believe we need or should have a rule on the subject:

Preventing players from using certain vehicles such as jets, helicopters, or tanks

given the latitude that EA gives TG on its other potentially problematic rules (e.g. we enforce rules that can lead to people being restricted -- such as CO and SL orders to go a certain kit, etc.) there's an argument to be made that the same latitude will be afforded enforcement of named armor squads.

After all, we wouldn't be preventing any player from using assets (anyone can make an asset squad, after all, including pubbies), we would just be enforcing a rule to better create an atmosphere of teamplay and cooperation. The rule is in place to prevent clans from monopolizing gunships, etc. on their servers. Of course, this rule might have to be spelled out in either the auto-admin or server description (or both) to give pubbies fair warning, but it would probably suffice.

Again, not arguing for a rule. Just saying that the agreement probably is not violated by such a rule.

Is our description altered on infantry nights to warn people about it?

[Mordona]

only because I can... and not (as I've stated) because I believe we need or should have a rule on the subject:

given the latitude that EA gives TG on its other potentially problematic rules (e.g. we enforce rules that can lead to people being restricted -- such as CO and SL orders to go a certain kit, etc.) there's an argument to be made that the same latitude will be afforded enforcement of named armor squads.

After all, we wouldn't be preventing any player from using assets (anyone can make an asset squad, after all, including pubbies), we would just be enforcing a rule to better create an atmosphere of teamplay and cooperation. The rule is in place to prevent clans from monopolizing gunships, etc. on their servers. Of course, this rule might have to be spelled out in either the auto-admin or server description (or both) to give pubbies fair warning, but it would probably suffice.

Once we allow all players to effectivly take control of this said rule in question, this would limit out items/tools/weapons to a high degree and be considered a major change to the game system. Since player must be given the right to play with the intended content, we cannot restrict usage at the server level, but we can under the command structure since it's not 100% garenteed to lock out players round after round or even minute by minute.
Again, not arguing for a rule. Just saying that the agreement probably is not violated by such a rule.

Is our description altered on infantry nights to warn people about it?

There is a line that we cross once we make a rule directly involved restricion of a said tool. Teamwork can cascade into many branches and there are some thingse we cannot allow. A CO can't tell his team to exploit and make it legal. But a CO can pass orders he sees fit. But that also comes at a price in itself. A CO who consisently gives assets to a player round after round, night after night can be considered a assistent to stat padding and the player who takes said asset is a stat padder. While it's not as defined as kill, revive, kill, revive. Any action to gain exploitive advantage to obtain points or awards is stat padding. This would be an exploit of the command system EA allows as a minor change to the game system and as intended content as per teamwork structure.

[Zoraster]

Yes it would be stat padding and exploitive. But that only reinforces the point. The rule against preventing players from taking assets is largely due to a desire to prevent people from stat padding or generally monopolizing assets. A rule against taking assets from named asset squads seems to fall squarely into what's been allowed by EA already.

People would, theoretically, be free to form all the named armor squads they want. They don't have to be TGers, they don't have to be anything.

Oh, and we already restrict tools. Gunships can't transport people. Beacons can't be put onto rooftops. RDX can't be put onto buggies, run into walkers, and then blown up. These rules make sense, but they're clearly restrictive of the tools.

--
Just another disclaimer: I'm not actually arguing for a rule that makes asset squads get priority on assets. I'm just interested as more of a casual, theoretical matter.