LpBronco

I feel I need to add to this discussion. While understanding that different maps require different strategies, the size of the maps on server1 generally require the defense to set up quickly or not at all. Securing a site also includes the surrounding territory and, with the number of people in the server, changes to be able to accommodate the squad. Different players bring different skills to the team and an assault class player will post longer than a sniper.
What I miss on the CoD4 server is the lack of a squad leader for each round. Yes I know the bomb carrier becomes the squad leader but by the time this is known the team has been forced to try and secure the immediate choke points. Defensive teams mostly scatter to announced locations.
If we could use a delayed timer and a procedure for deciding team leadership before each round I believe we would have included the best of TG intentions for quality of play. I'm in my 2nd year as a supporting member and hope to put in 20 here. I'd love to say I make the community stronger and bring its best values to the game (even if I don't shoot so straight).

Pat "LpBronco" Henny

__________________
Forewarned is Forearmed

P.Drona

Technically the bomb carrier is the squad leader and folks need to follow their instructions and protect them.

The between round timer is not working for some reason. We are trying to get this figured out because it would help a lot.

As far as defenders go, too many folks rush out to engage, rather than secure their sites. The rules state:

"Defenders are to defend their objective and its immediate chokepoint entryways. Defenders are not allowed to go on hunting parties and aggressively eliminate the enemy"

For instance, here's Strike with the immediate chokepoints shown as green triangles. For the initial defense set up, there's no reason to push out much beyond them. Defenders shouldn't be rushing out of B to the rose shop right at the get go. Basically, until you need to reinforce the other objective, you should stay on the bombsite side of the streets.

__________________

Dead_Meat

do you have a picture like that of all the maps?
that could really clarify what is to far up.

P.Drona

The maps are made in GTactix, just as an fyi. http://www.gtactix.com/

Great program. We have a few more maps that some of the other admins made. I would like to get a few of them posted here, so stay tuned.

__________________

ikonic

Here is the full rule detail regarding Attack/Defend:

Attacker / Defender Roles:

The role of an attacker is to attack an area of interest and fulfill their primary in-game objective. Defenders are to defend their objective and its immediate chokepoint entryways. Defenders are not allowed to go on hunting parties and aggressively eliminate the enemy; however, this does not exclude them from moving from one objective to another to assist in defending it. The primary purpose of this is to reduce the amount of lone wolfing and to maintain consistent team-play.

Note that it does not restrict defenders on what route they take to get to said objective. Although I have stopped playing COD4 reguarly, I disagree on the restriction of movement as Drona has mapped out. This will give attackers the advantage as they have 100% freedom of the map while defenders are restricted to predictable locations.

Additionally: Vanilla COD4 will always have the arcade features, fast pace and in HC S&D -- a Counter-Strike feel. TRM provides a more "tactical" and "team-based" oriented experience compared to vanilla.

__________________

P.Drona

Ikonic, here's part of what I said: "Defenders shouldn't be rushing out of B to the rose shop right at the get go. Basically, until you need to reinforce the other objective, you should stay on the bombsite side of the streets.".

Please make a note that once it's obvious the other objective needs to be reinforced, the defenders are and have been free to get there by any route they choose.

Folks need to stop rushing out to engage the attackers right out of the gate and work together to set up a strong defense of the objectives.

Rushing out to engage rather than defending is hunting, and folks will be kicked for it.

You can go play run and gun if you want, but not here.

__________________

Grieg

If you interpret "however, this does not exclude them from moving from one objective to another to assist in defending it" as I can go where ever I want / whenever I want, then IMO that would be incorrect.

For example, running to the flower shop, around the far building near attacker's spawn, and into the A site from behind... thats not protecting A, it is hunting. Furthermore, if you try to do this before the defenders know where the actual attack is taking place, then you're definitely lone wolfing.

The 2 previous parts of the rule back this up by saying "Defenders are to defend their objective and its immediate choke point entryways. Defenders are not allowed to go on hunting parties and aggressively eliminate the enemy... "

Keep in mind: Attackers have freedom of movement, but Defenders have an equally large advantage of having only a few specific choke points to cover, and (usually) well defend-able positions. I see this to be especially true in the Strike scenario.

__________________

LpBronco

It still remains that you can get booted for aggressively defending an immediate chokepoint as was evidenced by me Saturday night.So it still begs the answer to how do we influence the pace of play so an immediate rush by the offensive team can be countered and becomes less productive (and there are several maps where this comes into play) so that tactics and teamplay doesn't have to take a back seat to the bomb rushing to be planted.

__________________
Forewarned is Forearmed

P.Drona

Bronco, there are plenty of other ways to deny the plant on Countdown than continuing past the objective and rushing to get kills. There are only 2 entrances the attackers can use to get into A after all.

__________________

KillDaddy

making those two the "immediate chokepoints"

__________________

ikonic

The issue at hand is the politics with the rules. The COD4 community has become so diluted and disillusioned with the current rule set that it affects everyone's enjoyability of the game. Ultimately, it ends up playing down to these types of debates and personal gameplay opinions and trying to force it onto others. The more rules regarding gameplay dictation as opposed to common sense ones (racism, gross disrespect, cheating, bunnyhopping, etc), gameplay will suffer as a result. Granted, it weeds out players that may not like the TG gameplay, but I know many TG people that used to play here and no longer play due to the erosion of the community, gameplay, other TG games, and from overall burnout. It really is a shame that these people were also the ones that were trying to improve and expand it, but ultimately gave up because it was apparent the direction were in the different interests of the majority of people. Case in point: the removal of the mixed modes and total removal of the non-HC server. Sure the majority of players now don't like HQ/Dom/Sab, it is only like that because the rest were turned away because of the lack of consistent support. That is one major facet of potential SMs and new community members turned away. Yes, the server was almost empty for the most part, but it was nice to have a TG server that supported it regardless of the popularity. Servers and communities don't instantly become filled overnight, it takes a commitment and effort on "selling" it. Alas, COD4 is now primarily S&D (and one server still stays empty most of the time) and my other gamemode fixes were played on non-TG servers; a lot may not know this, but S&D is my least favorite gamemode, but you saw me on the servers all the time. Why? Because I supported the community regardless of my personal gameplay preferences. The whole "we can't please everyone" card can only be played so much until it negatively impacts the community.

Here is a small snippet of a message I received from a player that doesn't play COD4 as often:

Unless there is a shift in policy where the community is content and the player base learn that the gameplay shouldn't be based on a complex foundation of restrictive rules, but on a foundation of fundamental rules that are straightforward and improves gameplay without the sweeping and broad restrictions of gameplay and style. Unfortunately, I personally believe that this concept will not embraced here and that the community will only continue depend and lobby on restrictive play-style rules.

__________________

HAZMAT

Why cant the rules that govern PCS be adapted to fit the COD4 server?

If you look at S&D it is the same mission that happens on the Counter Strike games and those rules and players play well there.

I am curious why its so stressful here but I would like our rules for COD4 resolved and would also like to see 1 standard that is enforced by all admins.

Ikonic and Drona both have good points.

But I am a firm believer that COD4 can only be a "limited" tactical shooter and if you continue to force a square peg into a round hole its going to get really messy. There has to be a common ground at some point for COD4 to be a great game to be enjoyed by everyone if there wasn't a long list of rules that are interpreted by all 17 admins in a different fashion.

I wish the Gaming Officers good luck in getting this ironed out but have total faith they can get it done!

__________________

P.Drona

There's no politics involved in the attempt to implement the rules fairly for everyone. There has been an open discussion among the admin team on the proper interpretation of the rules. The rules now are the same as they were 4 months ago. I'm pretty sure most if not all of the admins are on a similar page now as far as the application goes.

__________________

Barnaby

That's probably my present stand point Ikonic and I too am not on as often as I was mainly because of the frequent shouts ref I was shot from spawn or that nade was 1 sec too early or your hunting.
Got real fed up with it I have.

Maybe PD's point is where it's at in saying it's down to the INTERPRETATION of the rules.
That for me is the problem the rules seem to be constantly interpretated differently and still are.

I'm not really interested in debating it anyway as my option now is to drop of server and visit other servers that I have found.
I only mention it here to bring to peoples attention that there is a problem without a solution existing just presently.

I think Bronco makes some sensible points too as there is a danger at times of making the game too restrictive by rules and thus removing the realism/ tacical aspect from the game.
I'll all for a realism/ tactical approach and that is the way I always try to play.

__________________
"I like a man who grins when he fights"
Sir Winston Churchill

Long Bow

Well my take on things is this:

The rules are in place because there were problems. There was a lack of TG style play and people became fed up with playing that way. Rules were put in place with the best interest of the TG community at the root. At the end of the day the rules are there to try and create a somewhat level playing field. We want people to enjoy their experince on the server. The course taken is to restrict some of the initial freedom of movement. Is it fair to say that moving further up as a defender would allow you to defend better? Of course. The point though is to allow the attackers to have a bit of room to breath at first. All we want is to allow for some tactics and fun to play out each round.

We can, and have, argued to death the fine details of defenders tactics. I agree with those that that say we need to allow movement and freedom, to a degree. We all know that there are better points to defend from if given the whole map right from the start. But it all comes back to trying to level the field a bit and make for enjoyable rounds. Yes the rules are currently restrictive in some areas but in the end they are creating an arena of equal opportunity for both defenders and attackers. If the field is leveled then the team with better tactics and communication should preval more times then not.

These are just my personal opinions, not the necessarily the opinions of the admin team or Bubba. I'm open to changing the rules and hold no illusions that the admin team is perfect (though Bubba might be ). But the admins are trying hard to work together on enforcing the rules as they stand now.

__________________