Refinding our community principles around vehicle assets

[Mordona]

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.

But we can't restrict that player to a tool/item access but can restict its use. Gunships and beacons are restricted in how they are used by players, but they can be used by everyone at anytime. Same goes for any item in the game. Players must have access to these at all times with the exception of current use. Saying a player cannot use X because of a squad's name is a violation. Saying a player can't use X because of CO/SL orders is OK even though that is thin ice but we can get away with it as long as exploits are watched for. If CO "Y" keeps ordering a squad to a tank every round for 2 nights, there is an issue of possible restriction. Even the teamwork rule isn't immune to the TOS because of exploits.

This is were TG steps in and gets it done right with a bit of self-moderation on a few fronts. Frist the CO, The CO must note whos getting what assets under orders. How often is he giving this player assets and denying the rest of the team. Is it helping the team or only helping fuel points? Then the players need to keep in mind what other players have access to. Can other players throughout the night have steady access to said assets? If you in a tank 5 rounds in a row and no one else had a chance. Then you need to question yourself and ask your team if its benifiting from it or if its just for yourself.

If you have any doubts about players in these positions these are very importent topics and serious violations since its not server rules being borken, but TOS terms being violated.

Yes I used to play in the gunship a lot, but it usally didn't end up more then 2 rounds a night. That gave many other rounds for players to have a chance to use the gunship.

[Zoraster]

But we can't restrict that player to a tool/item access but can restict its use. Gunships and beacons are restricted in how they are used by players, but they can be used by everyone at anytime. Same goes for any item in the game. Players must have access to these at all times with the exception of current use. Saying a player cannot use X because of a squad's name is a violation. Saying a player can't use X because of CO/SL orders is OK even though that is thin ice but we can get away with it as long as exploits are watched for. If CO "Y" keeps ordering a squad to a tank every round for 2 nights, there is an issue of possible restriction. Even the teamwork rule isn't immune to the TOS because of exploits.

This is were TG steps in and gets it done right with a bit of self-moderation on a few fronts. Frist the CO, The CO must note whos getting what assets under orders. How often is he giving this player assets and denying the rest of the team. Is it helping the team or only helping fuel points? Then the players need to keep in mind what other players have access to. Can other players throughout the night have steady access to said assets? If you in a tank 5 rounds in a row and no one else had a chance. Then you need to question yourself and ask your team if its benifiting from it or if its just for yourself.

If you have any doubts about players in these positions these are very importent topics and serious violations since its not server rules being borken, but TOS terms being violated.

Yes I used to play in the gunship a lot, but it usally didn't end up more then 2 rounds a night. That gave many other rounds for players to have a chance to use the gunship.

While that's an interpretation, it's not the most literal or obvious one from reading the text of the rule.

Again, all players would have access to the vehicles. It wouldn't be all the time, but nothing in the rule suggests that all players should have access all the time . Saying that those who want the vehicles can start a vehicle squad is as much administrative (keeps people from getting in disputes) as it is anything else.

Players must have access to these at all times with the exception of current use.

You've inserted your own reading as the rule. The rule actually states: "Preventing players from using certain vehicles such as jets, helicopters, or tanks." The rule doesn't say you can't create system to manage who gets the armor assets at any point other than to say you can't prevent any particular person from getting it. That can easily be read as overall.

A system of first-come-first-serve for armor is how it normally works on public servers anyway. The difference here is that it's first-come-first-serve in the squads, and obviously lasts a round. That could be a crucial difference -- the one is a one time use and the other is a round long -- but the rule doesn't actually say this. It's a inferential leap.

And every inferential leap has to be questioned. Is there a good, alternative to that leap? The answer is yes, there is: every person has a chance to form an armor squad. This includes pubbies and TGers alike. Nothing, to exactly meet the rule's language, "prevents" anyone from forming these squads and playing with the armor.

Because, as has been discussed, what the rule DOESN'T say is, "restrict players using certain vehicles such as jets, helicopters, or tanks."

Again, same disclaimer: I don't want a rule enforcing armor squads. I only discuss this because I think it's fun, and it's possible it's informative in the decision making process.

---

I'm going to return to practicality for a moment as I've been discussing things purely because I find such things fun.

When you start to suggest that COs should start to try and divy things up because EA's rules might be in violation, I think you're stretching. Maybe they are; maybe they aren't. But EA has shown no inclination whatsoever in reprimanding TG for the way it does business that I know of... despite somewhat frequent attempts by people who don't like the way we play. When it becomes abusive, there's a problem. But as CO, I'm going to give my walker to people I know will handle it well in the same way I'm going to send my top squads in important missions. My job as CO is not to try and get equal playtime for all participants.

If you think EA's policy says differently, then we're going to have to seriously reevaluate what playing TG means and the chain of command in 2142, and I don't think anyone really wants that.

[Zhohar]

If I make a gunship squad, and a pubbie takes the gunship, I can either a) get pissy, or b) be helpful to the team in another way.

That's as simple as it gets.

[Zoraster]

i like your sig as well.

[Repaq]

If Zhohar made a gunship squad and a pubbie took it. That pubbie just helped his team. great teamwork pubbie!

[Zhohar]

If Zhohar made a gunship squad and a pubbie took it. That pubbie just helped his team. great teamwork pubbie!

Heck yeah! If he had let me have the gunship, all I'd do is spot enemy light poles and trees all round

I guess what I'm getting at is ... if you're getting angry and destructive over these things, the only person you're really detracting from is yourself.

Not only that, you're not getting anything done. Being pissy at people doesn't make them better teamworkers and it doesn't make them genuinely reconsider where you're coming from.

It's better to invite them into your squad, show them smart things to do, get them to help the team, be constructive -- change failure into success.

And that's hard -- it's not easy to be constructive and mature when we're bombarded by people who do stupid and rude things all the time. It's not easy, but it is the right thing to do.

Then it's a question of ... how many stupid and rude things do you have to witness before you break down and start acting out of emotions, start being destructive?
Everyone's got a different breaking point -- everyone's got their own devils to fight. But let's please not skirt the issue: we're expected to be the bigger men here, to be constructive and mature to people who are jerks and rude. That's what TG stands for.

[sproge]

i think like this.
is it matur to take an asset when you have a asset squad on your team?
is it good teamwork to take asset when you have a asset squad on your team that can use it up to 5 times as effective as you?, how much will you help your team by leaving a 2 man engy squad to w8 for the asset to respawn in the UCB, whilst the asset gets destroyed because of the lack of team work?
when i log on the the server i see in big text "TEAMWORK AND MATURITY REQUIRED"
am i the only one seeing this???
/sproge /the crazy swede\

!Admins, look over here!!! sproge got solution to your problems!!!!

kick them for immaturity and lack of teamwork, EA cant say anything about that!

[Lorax74]

!Admins, look over here!!! sproge got solution to your problems!!!!

kick them for immaturity and lack of teamwork, EA cant say anything about that!

Please re-read the posts by asch.

[asch]

Alright let's get this thread back on track.

We simply need to do a better job of dealing with other players in a respectful and mature fashion. Whether you're a member of an asset squad or not.... whether you're an SM or not... whether you're an IHS member or not... we have do demonstrate better character.

[Lyramion]

Maybe you could join us in 2142 for a bit and give us a good example on how to

[asch]

Maybe you could join us in 2142 for a bit and give us a good example on how to

I haven't gamed since little asch was born. :-/

[Zoraster]

I haven't gamed since little asch was born. :-/

Little asch told me he has no moral qualms against you playing games, and would rather not be used as an excuse. How can you expect to raise supergamer if you don't set the examples, asch?

[PennyFlame]

I don't mind asset squads. I just mind that it's usually the same people in them round after round, and those people don't invite anyone except their buddies. I stay away from them for the most part since I have low skill with anything except the apc noob cannon, but I'm sure there's a lot of unspoken angst over the subject that this thread is doing a good job of addressing. Just my two cents.

[sproge]

I don't mind asset squads. I just mind that it's usually the same people in them round after round, and those people don't invite anyone except their buddies. I stay away from them for the most part since I have low skill with anything except the apc noob cannon, but I'm sure there's a lot of unspoken angst over the subject that this thread is doing a good job of addressing. Just my two cents.

if somone ask me if he/she can get an invite, i vill give it to them, if not this round, then the next round.

[Fruvous]

I have a question..
what is the discussion trying to achieve?

If it's said and done, why fret? Everyone had their bit to say, all arguments have been noted.