Refinding our community principles around vehicle assets

[FBmantis]

For a while now the admins have been noticing a disappointing trend in regards to how we are treating players around valued vehicle assets. Respectful behavior is not being shown and the inviting and friendly atmosphere we expect is being lost. We have seen yelling, bullying, false reporting, poor language and other behavior that is instigating problems. At times some players are even acting like children as they try to literally fight over 'their' toys. So I would like to remind the community on two of the main founding principles here at Tactical Gamer - we need to re-find these principles as soon as possible and you can expect the admins will be cracking down hard as part of this effort. For the majority of you this is hopefully a reminder you don't need but I still ask that you help guide/correct those who do need it.

Originally Posted by Primer

Tactical Gamer was founded with a few very simple principles:

1) Create an environment conducive for mature gamers to enjoy the games they play without the everyday interference from the less-than-mature gamers.

2) Create an environment where there was mutual respect for your fellow gamers and where all members would be working together to advance the enjoyment of their hobby.

For those who need a reminder on the SOPs/rules regarding vehicle assets we have posted a slightly revised SOP and I also urge you to reread our ruleset.

[INSUNABULA]

If one of the definitions of "Mature Game Play" is to give no credence to a named and dedicated squad for one full round then so be it.

Signed and understood.

[Zoraster]

I, of course, endorse the primer's goals. I just have one comment: the SOP mentions inviting someone to your squad while you "sit out" a gunship turn, so to speak. I think the intention is good here -- we don't want this pointless bickering around assets, and asset squads have acted as if they have a god given right to the asset -- I have to question the practical value of this.

If we have people waiting in line for things like gunships, it's going to make the battlefield even less populated. Armor maps already suffer from people sitting back and lone-wolfing in armor; removing two people from play and creating a queue while they wait seems contrary to what we really want to encourage. It seems to deemphasize the goal-oriented atmosphere we generally strive to attain.

Overall, of course, I support the message here. I just wanted to point out the one small (and it is pretty small) aspect that seemed a bit off to me.

[Lorax74]

Originally Posted by INSUNABULA

If one of the definitions of "Mature Game Play" is to give no credence to a named and dedicated squad for one full round then so be it.

Signed and understood.

I disagree.

When I started playing 2142, I had a pretty ancient machine with horrible load times. I rarely saw more than 30 seconds of the initial 1:30 pre-round start timer. More often than not squads were already formed by the time I finished loading. I saw many rounds go by with the same folks in assets squads. If I wanted to play in the asset, I had to either A) wait for them to leave and attempt to make my own squad or B) just deal with the fact that I wasn't ever going to play in those assets. Most often it came down to option B.

Another point of view: I believe that a walker works well in a six person squad. A few months back we were playing 16p Suez Canal with vehicles. During the countdown timer I asked the SL if I he minded me taking the walker to support the squad. He cleared it with the CO and said yes. We spawn in and I grab the walker (very lucky spawn) and pick up a gunner. I take a few hits of small arms fire (1 hp if that) and keep going, being used to it from pub players. A few seconds later a TG player joins our squad and tells me that I took his asset. This person had created an asset squad and felt it was his, not mine. We cleared it through the CO, he didn't. Who was right and who was wrong?

[Zoraster]

If you cleared it with the CO, then of course you were in the right. But I think insun is talking about those times where you don't? That's far more frequent.

It seems to me that as a matter of courtesy, though not rule, that the non-asset SL should have the onus to get the matter cleared with a CO before taking a "claimed" piece of armor. I'll agree that frequently (though probably not the majority of the time, depending on the piece of armor), armor helps within a full squad more than in a separate one. Walkers in particular are good squad members. APCs somewhat less so, tanks a little less, and finally gunships hardly ever.

I sympathize with those who load in later and don't get into an armor squad that they want (this is especially frequent for those who love to fly gunships).

[Smachin007]

I have tried to run 6 man squads around armor, and as long as I am not in the armor it can work. The SL cannot be in the armor, while the rest of his squad is infantry, it makes it close to impossible for him to pilot the armor and keep control of his squad. Which leads to the fact that players instead make a locked squad for an asset b/c it gives them the knowing that they have a better chance of getting to play in that piece of armor. So that means that if I wanted to pilot a piece of armor and still be in a full squad, I need a SL that is going to work with me to do that. I believe that if we did this, it would take the server to a new level/style of play then where it is right now. The problem is you don't see this, b/c the way that armor has been and is now selected is by running an asset squad. As long as that continues, you won't see squads trying to incorporate armor into their squads.
I don't believe the waiting in line thing is going to fix anything.;

[MrJengles]

Originally Posted by FBmantis

For those who need a reminder on the SOPs/rules regarding vehicle assets we have posted a slightly revised SOP and I also urge you to reread our ruleset.

Just a quick question...seeing as SOPs are the advised ways to play on TG, to what extent do they count as rules? Not that I intend to go against them. But as for reporting others for not waiting in line for example...should I or shouldn't I?

[Zoraster]

I'm pretty sure you cannot unless ordered by the CO.

[MrJengles]

Mmm thought so...it's just a named asset squad can be mature and wait in line if someone got there first and doesn't give up the spot when requested. But when the named asset squad is waiting first and someone else decides to jump the queue and take it...ah, oh well.

Just for those times there isn't a CO anyway...

[Smachin007]

As far I know, You can report players for not waiting in line. And that's the way that I read the wording in the rule also.

[BeSiege82]

This also leads me to a question. What is right and what is wrong concerning the existence of locked squads for armor assets?

The other night, I remember some new guy on TS reporting and complaining about 2 locked armor squads. A small squabble started and I abruptly butted in and said to the affect 'Who cares.' Soon after the attention was turned away from him and I was made to look like the bad guy, since I asked this new 'voice' what his player name was (because I did not recognize it)...

[FBmantis]

Lots of questions around the SOP/rules that we will try to answer but this topic was more about improving how we interact and talk with each other. We do very well in regular squads and here on the forum but for whatever reason with limited "toys" to play with some players lose their heads and start down the wrong path. All the yelling, bickering and other nonsense just needs to stop. It just enflames situations and turns off those new to our server who probably would relish the level of coordination we strive for here if we just made an attempt to involve them in the process by talking to them like adults.

For real world examples - we see chatter like this in numerous variants way too often.

|TG| example1 Global [21:57:31] WTF
|TG| example1 Global [21:57:34] GET OUT OF GUNSHIP
|TG| example1 Global [21:57:38] ITS FOR GUNSHIP SQUAD

[14:46:11] lTGl example2 -> LEAVE TANK FOR TANK SQUAD
[14:46:32] lTGl example2 -> admin publicplayer not respecting other squads

Other things we have seen/dealt with: Intentional TKing, False reporting, bullying - 'you will be reported' , poor language , warning shots or unloading full clips of light weapons, EMP locking friendly vehicles and holding vehicles still while yelling at the player until he gets out.

Incidents are being enflamed to levels where public players who are not used to our server are naturally going to fight back and get themselves in trouble. We are presenting them with the same unfriendly and selfish server environment seen on most other servers instead of the environment demanded in our founding principles that sets us apart.

In all my time here through the various BF titles I have rarely seen anyone not respond favorably if you just be friendly and try to work things out like adults. Less yelling, less demands, less of an ownership mentality and instead more invites, more friendly chatter and more proactive attempts to resolve these minor conflicts. The vast majority of players will relish being treated in such a friendly manner or being shown how good an asset can be when coordination is involved.

Originally Posted by Jengles

But as for reporting others for not waiting in line for example...should I or shouldn't I?

We have no interest in babysitting a line system nor should we on a TG server. The community should be able to work out these issues on their own. Certainly if there is a player that is consistently proving be selfish or immature then we will step in but otherwise we don't want to hear about it unless chain of command is involved.

[Lyramion]

The bad thing about certain vehicls is that they are part of a ""plan" that needs to be executed quickly to turn the round.

Sidi: Get Transport, go middle flag, secure Gunship
Berlin: Get PAC APC and make it useful / let people pod into crossroads
Minsk: PAC Gunship to clear Frontline Armor quick
Pushmaps in General: Buggys for initial rush


It´s all very painful to have random people take those assets on game start and then having to see your team suffering hard for it in the process. Thus I think many people get angry over that and look for a way to report them to get rid of em

[Lorax74]

Originally Posted by Lyramion

The bad thing about certain vehicls is that they are part of a ""plan" that needs to be executed quickly to turn the round.

Sidi: Get Transport, go middle flag, secure Gunship
Berlin: Get PAC APC and make it useful / let people pod into crossroads
Minsk: PAC Gunship to clear Frontline Armor quick
Pushmaps in General: Buggys for initial rush


It´s all very painful to have random people take those assets on game start and then having to see your team suffering hard for it in the process. Thus I think many people get angry over that and look for a way to report them to get rid of em

True, but we've also seen TG folks EMP lock some of those very same vehicles at the start of rounds so they can have the asset instead of someone else.

[Superfast]

This "behaviour" comes from the regulars on the server who know the rules, who have played the game for some time, who know what needs to be done to get that fast flag capture for the win or to just play awesomely great in some way towards winning.

When one of those opportunities are missed they become frustrated and can loose their patience sometimes. So since this is involves vehichles they report it or act out silly. This is also sort of the same reason why regulars play together, they want the best fun game and to win.

But what's important here is to remember that the newcomer on the server you are reporting or harrasing probably doesn't know the rules and doesn't understand. So trying to be a bit polite and informing them about the rules would be the right thing to try first. Or mixing up your gameplay and trying something else like inviting them to your squad or join their squad. Or balance the team out with for example an infantry squad.

Offcourse if all fails, then you have to report them so the admins can inform or take appropriate actions.