(Epic post is epic...)
Hello Xen,
I'm Vortex and I've been a 2142 player since the game came out and a member of the
TG community now for over 18 months, with SM status for about 14 of those months. I've played at a number of other 2142 servers in my time before settling down here at
TG. I did so because I felt that
TG brought a far more tactical mindset to the table than any other servers and the people who frequently populate this server are quite intelligent and mature.
Introduction out of the way, I want to address the points you've brought up, particularly regarding Battlefield 2142. I'll admit that I am not as veteran as some people here in
TG - two years is really a baby compared to some of our founders, so if my inexperience and lack of veterancy in the servers is a detriment, I humbly apologize in advance. I know that most will listen to a person regardless of their veterancy, but some do not and I never know which I will be addressing when I speak before a group of people, especially when some of those people helped create and maintain a community I have come to enjoy and cherish over my time here.
I have always admired the Battlefield series for their ability to be fairly realistic, all things considered. From the inclusion of VOIP to a centralized command structure, EA has done some interesting and unique things with the game. What's important to note is that the game has always been designed for gamers of most classes, so there are always going to be things that get left out and are included in mods, etc. Battlefield 2142 is a bit of a change-up, in part due to having to make assumptions about the future. It is very difficult (believe me, I say this as a meteorologist) to predict the future with any degree of accuracy. The reduction of kits, changes in weapons, all have been created and maintained with certain assumptions in mind.
Now, you state that you feel that the BFx series is close to "run and gun". As some have stated, if you look at most COD4 servers these days, you will find there the true meaning of "run and gun". (I do not necessarily say this about our servers, bear that in mind) I have witnessed 2142 games that take a good deal of time to resolve because of a good set of tactics being used on either side, and games that have taken no time at all because one team effectively shuts down the other through superior tactics. Believe me when I say this, but the
TG 2142 server is not as close to "run and gun" as you may believe it to be. It may not be the same as some other games that you have played, but we have received many accolades from new players to the server, and I have to believe that is due in no small part to the vast differences in gameplay and style between our server and another server.
The situation of a medic is one that I think will be argued on forever, whether it is real-world or not. Now, you provided point 3 out of the Primer, which talks about leveraging exploits. I think, though, that you need to pay attention to this phrase: "regardless of the level of advantage...it gives over the opposing team." (I removed a small part to simplify my point a bit). Let me be rather clear here - the use of a defib AT ALL is unrealistic. Doesn't matter if it's
BF2 or
BF2142, the ability to automatically revive someone and have there be no ill effects is about as unrealistic as it comes. So, too, is COD 4's tendency to allow you to wait awhile and shrug off injuries. Yet we accept this and move on. Why? This is not a rhetorical question, it is the logical question that must be asked in reference to your question about medics.
We could also speak about the ability, in either COD 4 or BFx of soldiers to "respawn". That's pretty unrealistic - we don't have soldiers appearing at a random point to continue the fight, do we? Again, if we are going to speak towards realism then we cannot accept one unrealism while ignoring another. If you want the perfect game, as close to simulation as possible, then you have a game with no medics whatsoever (save healing wounds that are not serious (trust me, if you suffer a bullet wound, you can't just patch it up and fight on)) and where you are done if you die. Yet these are not mentioned in your post, so I assume that there are valid reasons for their presence, or that you feel they provide the game with something.
Each game is designed differently, with different objectives and different audiences in mind. If BFx and COD 4 were designed more like CS:S, I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the reality is that they are not, and to that end and degree we work with what they have.
BF2 can be modified fairly extensively - and given how popular it still is almost 5 years after it's creation, that's saying something for the series. I get the impression (and I may be wrong) that 2142 is much harder to mod in the PR or POE methods. Thus, to that end, we work with the game mechanics as best we can and strive to not use exploits that favor one side and not the other.
That, I think, is the most important thing. What are "real-world combat strategy and tactics"? How do we apply them to a game like 2142? The statement itself is so broad that it's fairly open to interpretation. Flanking an enemy position with a squad of soldiers armed with LMGs and supported by medics is an example of this. Penetrating an enemy's line with a single sniper and opening up a second front in the enemy's rear is another. Both of these are utilized regularly. There are many more out there that are utilized regularly as well.
But we need to consider this also: "rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team." Take the statement as it stands, and what we're looking at here is a matter of using the game engine to give an unfair advantage to one side or the other. Why is it that we do not call respawning or medics into question? Because they do not provide an unfair advantage to one side or the other. They are neutral ground.
Lastly, there's a statement from point 3 that was not bolded in your initial statement. "Support game play in a near-simulation environment". What is near-simulation? If the founders of
TG wanted us to play using full real world examples, they would have said "simulation" as opposed to "near-simulation". A simulation is only as good as the game model it uses to create the simulation. Game models can be altered to a degree, things added and removed. But again, as I've pointed out, there are things that are not realism but are in the game model and are advantage-neutral to both sides. I am sure that if our founders did not want 2142 or
BF2 or COD4 here they would have chosen not to set up servers for the game. But the servers are here, the games are played.
I know this post is long, I apologize for that. If you ask my 2142 friends they'll tell you that I don't know much about the word "brevity".
If I have missed something covered in a later post I do humbly apologize - I tried to read through three pages of discussion before writing this but things do get missed.
I understand, Xen, your desire for discussion here and I hope I have given you some food for thought and some fodder for further discussion.
