Thesleeper01

There has been a few people that have sudgested that:


I believe that this is against the TG primer because it is takeing advantag of the game engine.

With it being used often one person that keeps on spamming the same few areas could keep many people spotted nearly as well as an IDS with out haveing an idea that there is someone there. Takeing it a step further a single sniper with a good vanatge point could keep most enemy spotted almost as well as the commander could and reduces the value of support/IDS.

I don't take issue with reasonable use of spotted ie. useing it on people you know are there because it is designed to be used as a method for the commander to let everyone know where enemy's the commander knows about are at.

__________________

Bomber

In response to the first quote, how can that possibly help your team if you have a few more random people spotted more so than if you could use the time spotting people getting past defended flags with the use of sat track and zooming
Sleeper, if you spam your going to be blocked as Daithi1 already wrote up in his CO notes which is terrible if you're trying to help a squad break through or take out a squad that broke through so it is not like ids at all

Thesleeper01

If the commander is doing it in the areas that a squad could use to get past flags that is when it provides advantage.

Also while as a commander you can sometimes click near an enemy and it will not result in a spoted enemy it will only give you a question mark. If someone is chaseing a cloaked SL and uses the spotted function but is not in line of sight to them so can not target it near them they will get a question mark. By not responding to question marks you set up your team to fail to respond to players fololowing squads that are makeing a break.

Is the question mark you see a commander one or someone following the enemy.

But my problem with it is more over if it is against the TG Primer, dolphin diveing and Jihad jeeping can help you win but nither is ok with the Primer so we don't do them.



By spam I mean the use of spotting areas you dont know if there is an enemy in.

__________________

daithi1

I'm not really seeing your argument. Is it Misticx point specifically or the whole I can spot in a place vaguely close to an enemy and they get spotted.

To me it seems like a 'short cut'. If I want I can zoom on any area of the map and look. As for the spamming thing I dunno, it's a bit of a silly idea. If you want to keep someone spotted you spot once every 5 seconds (not spamming). If you want to check a back flag is clear then spot once or twice on the flag. The way I think about it is Misticx example is the least of your worries he's just found a way of getting across a message without a mic.

EDIT:
This is a bug rather than by design. It mostly happens with vehicles but happens to infantry from time to time. It has nothing to do with line of sight etc.


There is a difference between those two and what were talking about. Those two you could very conceivably do in a real battles but you just wouldn't. Where as in a real battle if you could use that you would. You are arguing that this thing doesn't exist rather than you wouldn't (I think).

As a commander I have basically cameras or whatever everywhere and I can see everything if I want. You could imagine that random spot checks etc. is like a computer program scanning the images I'm receiving and finding the enemy troops.

__________________

Lorax74

No, this is not against the primer.

__________________

Thesleeper01

It is not against the primer but I think it is a cheesey use of the ability.

I understand where your comming from D but it's not reaily a short cut its a way to do something that you other wise could not because so many areas have cover from the top or a cloaker can not be spotted by a com easy when zoomed in.

It's a way to lock down the enemy better and on many maps that's something we have way too much of already.

__________________

Shurikane

Rule of thumb: the smaller it is, the easier it can be spotted.

Yup! o_O

So in practice: you can click a mile away from an infantry and manage to spot him. While an armor or other moving vehicle, you need to pretty much click the driver seat if you want any hope of reporting the spot.

__________________

RudeBoy

this thread confuses me. are you for or against =/. also, theres no point in trying to outlaw it. its too difficult for an admin to notice, and frankly restricts commander freedom. you can see everything if your the commander and you zoom in...

__________________

Zhohar

Sleeper's argument is that blind spot checking is an abuse of the game engine:
- bunnyhopping allows players to take no damage in a firefight (whereas they would have normally taken damage),
and equally,
-blind-spot checking allows players to gain nearly limtless, free intel (whereas they would normally have to wait a specific amount of time for a UAV and deploy that UAV in a single location)

In this respect, I can see that Sleeper is right.
At the same time, I have to be honest. I have used and I have called for Spot-Checking for such a long time, it feels wrong to suddenly condemn it. From this dis-inclination to change, we receive some (extremely) silly arguments written in this thread.
For a lot of us who have CO'd and SL'd, spot checking is about as natural as asking for a UAV or a Sat-track update. Suddenly taking that away feels wrong and people are bound to get indignant.

There is, however, a valid argument for spot checking, besides just bull-headed indignation.

Who is to say that 134 years from now, a UAV is not a 3 billion dollar satellite (slow, costly, easily damaged if deployed) and a spot check is a 500 dollar misslile (fast, cheap, expendible)?
What if the spot checks were built into the game to reflect that sort of reality? Now, obviously, spot checks aren't missiles and UAVs aren't satellites, but how does a tank hover and have limitless ammunition?

I think a valid argument could be made that spot checks are a fast way to get location-specific information on the future battlefield.

Above all, as Shakespeare put it, to thine own self be true.
In truth, I am trying to come up with a sound reconicilliation to this issue because I don't want to give up spot checking. I know Sleeper is right but I don't want to lose an ability that seems second hand right now.

That is the truth as I see it.

__________________
Pfft, how can you call it suicidal if we lived through it?

Shurikane

They don't have unlimited ammo!

</offtopic>

__________________

YdoUwant2know

Secondary guns do.

On topic.

What is confusing me sleeper is how you describe "spot checking". If I understand your argument, what you are basically arguing is that it is not appropriate to spot on the chance you may find someone. Verses using it when you know someone is there.

I guess if that is your argument, I agree. It is a bit cheep to spot at random in hopes of finding something. As commander, I can say I don't think I have ever used this tactic. I only spot when I know, or have very good reason to believe, there is someone there.

After all, the design of the "Spotted" feature is to alert team members that you have seen someone or something, it is not designed to find out if you see someone or something.

Thesleeper01

Yes thats it exactly though there are IMHO other problems that is the biggest one for me. Theres a lot of great commanders in TG that I resepect a lot, I would not blame any of them for useing it though I made a choice not to a long time ago.

__________________

Zhohar

That's either a lie or you haven't SL'd/CO'd enough to know what you're talking about. It's rare to meet a CO worth his salt who doesn't use the blind spot check to check the back flags when Sattrack is down, to spot check ahead of squads, etc.

Spotting things you know are there is micromanagement because you need to be zoomed in enough to know that soldier is there. Let's face it, "reasonable cause to believe someone is there" is guessing and that's chance -- exactly what Sleeper is condemning. You need to SEE the enemy with the highest zoom as CO in order to spot him legally. And that kind of micromanagement just doesn't happen. It's too time consuming and doesn't accomplish anything. If that contact is even important, the SL probably already has an Otus or, more commonly, an IDS, and can see it.

__________________
Pfft, how can you call it suicidal if we lived through it?

YdoUwant2know

Zhohar I have over 50 hours of CO, CO gold, and have been complemented for my commanding by more TG members than I can count.

And in all that time it NEVER even occurred to me that you could use the spot feature as a poor mans sat-track. As I said, I only spot when I know someone is there. Or have good reason to believe they are (report from squad, last sat-track, etc.)

In all honesty, last night is the first time I ever remember trying this tactic, and it is something I don't think I will ever use again. It was an inefficient waste of my time when I can wait 5 seconds and use sat track. I think blind spotting is exploiting a game mechanic and no better than bunny hopping.

Shurikane

It doesn't help that the average soldier does not know of spot-checking in the first place.

In all my 80 or so hours of commanding, I have never heard a SL ask me for a spot-check. And when I'm the one asking, I got the appropriate response perhaps once or twice in my entire career. Five times, I believe, I was asked what this meant. Out of those five times, two COs caught the meaning. The others didn't understand. The rest of the time, I got completely ignored.

__________________