Re: C4 on A Atacama Desert 2 stage

**HellHarry** · 05-12-2010, 06:25 PM

Just to put it up here, if you put C4 on one side of an indestructible wall in one of the destructible building (say white pass at B) and stand on the other side you get 0 damage... if it was meant through the frostbite engine that the damage would bleed through then this would kill you.

**Tllyx** · 05-12-2010, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

Believe it or not, TG is not about points or winning. Your score is not indicative of the TG way - only how "well" you are playing by the game's standard. And to me, with the amount of controversial threads in this forum, this game was not designed with mature, well-rounded, balanced play in mind. So it's up to TG to make it fit the TG image.

Your score is a good gauge over time on your effectiveness on the battlefield. What I am refering to are the players who come in, get killed by the same weapons over and over again and whine about it saying it should be banned. It angers me that these people will blame the game instead of realizing that they need to adapt and counter.

I don't achieve my scores because I sit and pout about getting killed by a gustav or an m60. I change my tactics to make the enemy less effective in using them.

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

Being in an IHS, you should be conscious of what you're doing may take away from the enjoyment of others on the server. You should also be very aware that not everyone is the same skill level, especially in a twitch based game such as BC2. So next time you're on the server "pwning noobs" or "owning pubbies," think about whether you play to have a good time or to beat the living crap out of the other team and win at all costs.

Yes, I play to beat the crap out of the other team, as long as the matches are within 10 tickets. In fact, I would prefer to run into squads, throw them into a blender and make a bloody mess on the ground. Then move onto their flag or MCOM and take it from them. This is my enjoyment.

What makes me angry about what you said though is at all costs. The 70th does not play to win "at all costs". We will use effective legitimate tactics but nowhere close to tactics described as "At all costs".

**Zhohar** · 05-12-2010, 08:04 PM

Just to clarify -- looks like Alvin tested this more than me. The damage that bleeds through indestructible walls only hurts MCOMs and not regular buildings. That's inconsistent behaviour, and it's a glitch.
Hence, this isn't fair play in my books.

When I made the thread in the tactics forum, I naively assumed what damaged an MCOM would surely hurt the infantry. This is likely a bug and we ought to raise it up with DICE.

**Harlequin** · 05-12-2010, 08:04 PM

Reminds me a whole lot of the whole Piluming on the Titan thing in 2142. There was a lot of the same arguments for and against when it was discovered and we see what the final ruling was on that. Just something to consider.

I would also like to ask a question. I've asked it before and never got an answer. Why is it that some of you resort to name calling when you are arguing your point? Just because YOU don't agree with what is being discussed by MANY others, do you really need to resort to insults to state your case?

**Ferris Bueller** · 05-12-2010, 08:06 PM

Let me point out a few things:
1. Skud has a very valid point. Winning isnt everything. The Rush scrim was a great illustration of this. Both teams had a great deal of fun, regardless of how far they were able to get on the maps.
2. The idea presented that score is an accurate gauge of your effectiveness on the battlefield is preposterous. Both 2142 and BF2 have proved this in the past. You can rack up a massive score for doing relatively little. You can rack up a low score by playing team-integral roles. The effectiveness of a player is rated on an individual basis over much longer periods of time than individual rounds. Take our relative scores, for example. You have millions of points, a 1.48 k/d ratio and by a little math, an average round score of 2738 points. My statistics, by contrast, are just over 192k points, a .52 k/d ratio, and an average round score of 1361. Does that make me less effective than you? What if my low score was due to the fact that I spend 99% of my time NOT shooting, but running around with nothing but paddles out, attempting to keep the team alive and pushing forward momentum? Bottom line: score as a player defining characteristic follows the GIGO law.

As far as the overall issue of this topic, I'd put in that it's not a tactic i'd engage in, anymore than any of the other semi-questionable tactics in the game that we have seen. Why? BECAUSE ITS QUESTIONABLE. The fact that we have a three page long discussion over whether or not it's fair to play involving some very veteran members of the community is quite enough disconcerting evidence to make me stay away from using it. It's simply smart money NOT to toe the line.

My final thought: people need to remember what bugs and exploits are. A bug is an unintentional side effect of the way a game is coded. An exploit is when a bug is utilized in in unfair advantage. If people are defending an MCOM in a closed room against frontal attacks and people are able to attack the MCOM from outside the structure without firing a shot (or weapon, or explosion, or any other damaging munition) at them or having to actually face them, that's a bug. If people are using this tactic, regardless of whether or not "teamwork" is involved by the fact that an entire squad is doing it simultaneously, THAT is an exploit. Think about it.

**Zhohar** · 05-12-2010, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

Being in an IHS, you should be conscious of what you're doing may take away from the enjoyment of others on the server. You should also be very aware that not everyone is the same skill level, especially in a twitch based game such as BC2. So next time you're on the server "pwning noobs" or "owning pubbies," think about whether you play to have a good time or to beat the living crap out of the other team and win at all costs.

Definitely, we can all agree that the TG primer isn't about stacking teams or winning at all costs. I think you're either intentionally misconstruing or misunderstanding what Tllyx is saying.
He's writing about people who would rather complain about an overpowered weapon (M60/etc) instead of adapting their tactics to counter that method.

Think about it in larger terms -- instead of immediately whining about "10th and 6th is all on the enemy side, wtf, nice way to stack guys" ... instead, analyze what the 10th and 6th commonly do, then either best them, avoid them, flank them, counter them, and find a way to win the round.

One of TG's corner-stones is tactics, and adapting to new tactics and new situations is what TG does best. Heck, we adapted pretty quick to tactics brought forward by communities we've never interacted with (such as Texas Teamplayers).

The issue Tllyx is talking about is a refusal to adapt -- not about stacking teams or winning at any cost.

It's not so much about TG, but it's an insult to a person as a human being that they would win with a completely unfair advantage of a stacked team.

Frankly, what I got out of your post was "the 70th teamstacks and wants to win at any cost". Whether you intended that or not, that's sure how it came across.

I don't like that, and I don't think it's a constructive attitude.

**Skud** · 05-12-2010, 09:26 PM

Because I said "teamstacking" correct?

Somebody is on edge..

Look, the bottom line is whether or not it should or should not be in the rules is not important. Rules? Screw rules. Follow the primer. If you have several old-school TG guys who think this tactic is in question, even though it's not an "exploit" or not "against the rules," doesn't that mean anything to you? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

From my understanding, so far, the problem is this:

C4 can be used to destroy the MCOMs, but not even wound the players defending it inside.

So at that point, what's the point of even defending the MCOM if they can just run up, throw C4 on the roof/second floor, and destroy it, without even laying eyes on it.

Is that really good gameplay? We had this same problem in PR with insurgent caches. The Blufor would just wait, for 45 minutes to an hour, just to drop artillery on a cache that was, "eh, somewhere in that village. We don't know where." It was crap tactics and crap gameplay. What's the point of defending an objective if the enemy team can just destroy it with some stupid, while within the rules, tactic?

The Developers, in their infinite wisdom, thankfully corrected this. Arty does not destroy caches anymore.

Now I'm not saying C4 should be used this or that way - That would be a bit hard to enforce, eh?

But when players are using a problem with the game engine to achieve an objective or get kills, that sounds like an awfully big exploit.

For example...

There are 6 guys underground in PR, in an underground tunnel. We can't penetrate their defense. So we guess where they are and drop a Fire Base on top of their position, killing them all. The Fire Base is not intended to kill people that it lands on, but it does. Usually it's an accident. But we achieved victory through using something wrong with the game engine. It's crap.

Alright. So. Back to the C4...

Originally Posted by Exploding_Silver

In this fine video Silver shows us how to get C4 in to some good places. Great stuff. But now, with this knowledge, I could run up, throw a C4 into the second story, repeat, and destroy the MCOM without ever killing the defenders on the 1st Floor.

Likely? Not very. Could it be abused to destroy MCOMs? Yes.

But wait, there's more:

Originally Posted by Rule Set

Bunnyhopping is a term we use to describe ANY jumping that you wouldn't see in real-world combat.

If I am throwing C4 in real life, do I jump? Nope. Same applies for grenades.

So, in conclusion:

This C4 thing could easily be abused. Not only that, but we've now shown how to get C4 in second story windows. So now players can just walk-jump-throw C4 into the second story and destroy MCOMS. This is just purely poor gameplay.

**Skud** · 05-12-2010, 10:10 PM

Is there a way for the server/admins to tell who destroyed the MCOM and with what?

**Zhohar** · 05-12-2010, 10:34 PM

From my understanding, so far, the problem is this:

C4 can be used to destroy the MCOMs, but not even wound the players defending it inside.

Nope, it's not. Far as the 70th is concerned, at least, the C4 through indestructible walls is a glitch. It doesn't make sense that damage should affect an MCOM but not infantry.
This is obviously a glitch.

I read the rest of your post, and it seemed to hinge on that point so -- I think we're in agreement. It's a mistake or a bug, plain and simple.

**Bisclaveret** · 05-12-2010, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Exploding_Silver

.

I just imagine all the admins sitting with their feet up having a cup of tea and then this thread arrives and the biscuits go flying up in the air !

.

This also happens.

And then Whiskey goes:

**asch** · 05-12-2010, 11:24 PM

Folks... let's all breathe.

It sounds like those that were using C4 in the way described by the OP believed they were playing the way the game was designed. After some discussion and testing more details came to light about what really happens in the game engine and many have changed their opinion on whether this is an exploit or not.

Sounds like the thread was being productive.

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

Because I said "teamstacking" correct?

Somebody is on edge..

Scud... you misconstrued five words from Tllyx's post and then took the thread off-topic and put words into Tllyx's mouth. Your post is the one coming off as antagonistic. I appreciate your passion but let's be careful.

**Greasy Mullet** · 05-12-2010, 11:30 PM

Sounds like everyone agrees it is an exploit then? So should we no longer expect to see TG members doing this lame tactic then?

**zebra.actual** · 05-13-2010, 12:22 AM

If a player standing on the objective cannot be hurt by the explosions and it hurts the objective it's not legit.
If a player standing on the objective can be hurt by the explosion and it hurts the objective then it's good to go.
/Opinion

Offtopic: This thread should be a lot less about IHS and more about the topic at hand. IHS guys/gals are not the only ones that play on the server.

**sc1ence** · 05-13-2010, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by zebra.actual

If a player standing on the objective cannot be hurt by the explosions and it hurts the objective it's not legit.
If a player standing on the objective can be hurt by the explosion and it hurts the objective then it's good to go.

The admin team is in agreement with the above statement. We would like to thank the community for their investigation into the legitimacy of what turned out to be an exploit. We also thank you for a heated but productive discussion on the topic.