A needed discussion... - Page 4

**DrakenViator** · 11-20-2008, 02:18 AM

I just finished writing a rather lengthy (almost two pages) story of why I play 2142 and how I came to be here at |TG| and so on and so forth. I may still post my work at a later point in time, but right now I feel that this quote says all there is to say. I should also note that I took the liberty to highlight what I view as two very important sections pertaining to this situation.

~ Draken

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

Tactical Gamer Primer

Tactical Gamer has been through many incarnations over the years. The community was originally built back in 1996 around the popular game Quake 2, running the LMCTF mod. In the years following, we began hosting more games and underwent the re-branding that turned us into the Tactical Gamer you see today.

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.

3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics 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.

While these principles seem very easy to understand on the surface, the implementation of them is considerably more complex.

The principles upon which Tactical Gamer was built need to be taken into account together, rather than on a singular level. The first two are essential in creating an environment conducive to the success of the third. The very nature of the community depends on the configuration settings for our games, and the rules that are put in place, and the inherent understanding from the players regarding what we are trying to accomplish. Without all of these factors working together, Tactical Gamer can not achieve its mission.

The third principle is the most complex to understand and the most difficult to maintain. With so many viewpoints and interpretations as to what it means, people can become clouded as to what the overall objective is for our community.

Tactical Gamer is here to support a particular style of game play. Only through enforcement of our rules and principles are we able to continue to support this style of play. We are not here to cater each of our supported games to the popular demands of the broader gaming public, but to provide an environment that fits our target audience.

Not all players who come to Tactical Gamer will find what they are looking for. Some people seem to be more interested in highly-competitive play where winning is the most important objective. Others value teamwork, strategy, and tactics but view exploiting weaknesses in a game engine as acceptable because it helps them achieve their goal in winning. As long as both teams are mutually exploiting these weaknesses, they feel as though it’s acceptable.

All of the games we host depict a situation in which there is a conflict between two or more parties. These conflicts are presented through the use of various game engines. All game engines have limitations due to the simple nature that they are games and produced largely for their entertainment. How you interpret these limitations will determine if you truly do understand why Tactical Gamer is here and if you support our goals.

Most all of our games have specific rules about attacking the primary spawn points where players enter the game. In Counter-Strike Source, these rules are imposed by not permitting a defensive team to simply run to the offensive team’s spawn. It serves a dual purpose in that the defensive team’s objective is to defend an asset, either a group of hostages or a set of defined bomb points that the offensive team is trying to reach. In Battlefield 2, these rules are imposed by restricting a team’s ability to enter an uncapturable base for the purpose of killing players who are just spawning or entering the game.

So why do we have these rules? It’s quite simple. In the case of Counter-Strike the purpose is to keep the players focused on their primary objectives rather than padding their own personal scores.

In Battlefield 2 it becomes a bit more complex; when a player enters into a game they lack any form of situational awareness. They are not able to determine the situation to which they are entering and do not have the opportunity to mount a proper defensive reaction. In the real world, reinforcements would be transported in and would arrive with their situational awareness intact. An offense could be assembled in an area not currently in conflict, and a push could be made to re-take regions that have been overrun. By restricting the assaults on uncapturable bases it allows this occurrence to happen in spite of the game’s limitations. It allows both teams to organize and present themselves in a strategic and tactical manner without having their lack of situational awareness exploited by the opposing team.

Most players understand that wall hacking, giving yourself the ability to see through walls and artificially increase your situational awareness (SA), is highly frowned upon. Almost all gaming communities and gamers consider wall hacking to be a cheat and will kick and/or ban any player caught. Unfortunately, in some game engines the maps have flaws that allow you to see through solid structures due to glitches in the actual design of the map. This is not an intentional feature of the map and should be considered just as bad as intentional wall hacking.

Within Tactical Gamer, ANY activity that capitalizes on the limitations of a game to provide the advantage rather than that advantage coming from superior teamwork, strategy and tactics, is frowned upon. We all want to win when we play, but the focus at Tactical Gamer should be one of winning with some sort of dignity, honor, and skill, not because you were able to out-exploit the other team or box them into a corner built on technological weakness that gives you the advantage.

Tactical Gamer requires teamwork because only through working as a team can we complete the objectives we are assigned. The reward for winning through superior strategy and tactics is far greater than the reward for winning through exploitation and oppression.

Over the years there have been many debates about why our rules are the way they are. Our rules exist to preserve the environment the way it was originally intended and to protect the integrity of what Tactical Gamer stands for.

**Xen** · 11-20-2008, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vortex421

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.

I will say this, the style of play is vastly different now then when 2142 was first brought to the TG servers. The attitude toward the game changed in the matter of 10 months. I remember many games where there would be standstills and time would finally decide the winner. Watching as one or two medics charged around reviving people in key places. This was in part due to the mixing of various kits within the game. Once it was determined that missile spamming/insta reviving was the fastest way to take objectives, the birth of the run and gun in 2142 started taking hold. You don't have to be accurate with rockets, you can suppress the enemy while charging at them because, who wouldn't be ducking for cover when you have 18 rockets flying at your position? If one in the front dies one of the guys behind him switchs to defib and poof now your back to 6. It becomes run and gun the moment you stop needing to use cover to complete your objective. I used to watch this happen on every map, it got really, really old. Specially when your a recon with a squad on defense. All you could do is drop RDx or APM, and pray they bunched up at that point. It was no longer tactical to hold objectives because everyone was always sprinting to one point or another rocket spamming as they went. There was no point in playing an other kit unless it was an armor map. Sometimes I would see 5 medics and a support, so they could always be at full ammo. What fun is there toting around ammo for the other five guys? Don't get me wrong, I unlocked support first, then fell in love with the Recon kit, then I left for 10 months. Came back, started playing recon again and all I ever caught was flak for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vortex421

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.

3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics 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.

I put this here again, because of the issue over one phraze. If any. This means to me, regardless of the advantage to either team or both, using a game's flaw to complete an objective is frowned upon. It doesn't have to be an advantage at all, it just has to break the near simulation. I'll go to CS:S for my point, people are not allowed to fire while standing on a rail. It breaks the near simulation ethic that #3 provides. Yet there are a few maps that standing on the rail gives an advantage to both teams. The second line also reinforces my reply above, "Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real work combat strategy and tactics..." You can argue all you like about it being the future, but future combat tactics evolve from the failed tactics of the past and present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vortex421

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.

Spawning can be thought of as your another soldier arriving on the battlefield, it's even put in that way with the ticket system. That doesn't break near simulation. I do agree that the medic system is broken, but as there is little chance of ever seeing that fixed or modified in any way, I must concede that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vortex421

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.

In the end, it's not about right or wrong, it's about thinking it through and talking it out.

**CingularDuality** · 11-20-2008, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catman1975

TG was definitely founded on awesome principals and I personally am glad that TG was created and these rulesets were put into place.

No too long ago there was a restructure on the forums and a State of the Union Address post was made by Asch.

A big point from that post is: "Simulation does not equate only to realism."

"When we refer to simulation, we speak of playing the game within the confines of the world the game creates."

From Asch's post:

Quote:

When we refer to simulation, we speak of playing the game within the confines of the world the game creates. Simulation in a game like Armed Assault relies heavily on the realism aspect. When we refer to a game like World of Warcraft, we're speaking of a world where elves and wizards and other fantasy elements exist. In both cases the players should immerse themselves in the world created by the game. In both cases our niche is still mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives.

The two games mentioned above offer two opposite ends of the spectrum. We have quite a few games that fall somewhere in between. These games include BF2, CoD4, Frontlines, etc. All of these games will cater to the mature, teamwork oriented gamers with a focus on the objectives. Some of these servers will incorporate game modifications that cater to those who enjoy a more realistic approach to gaming while others will retain an emphasis on the vanilla settings. And in some cases we will be able to support multiple servers that cater to both.

There will be differences of opinion and preferences and that is perfectly ok. What we do expect out of our players is that they handle these differences in a mature and respectful manner. It is not wrong to differ in opinion but it is wrong to belittle each other for differing opinions. There should be a mutual understanding of these different preferences instead of a chasm between the varying groups of players.

It appears that some of you overlooked Catman's (and therefore asch's) post on this topic.

Please read it.

**Superfast** · 11-20-2008, 05:56 AM

Good discussion this.

I think you guys have touched so much. I'm gonna be brief and simple.

Each game is different. Some benefit from rules that simulate real-world tactics, some don't. If you add the wrong rules to a game, it's not fun anymore.

Everyone at TG is here for a different reason. Some enjoy realism, some enjoy fun more. But we all agree on basic rules that we don't want in any game.

That's what's great about this place. It's a mature community with so many different gaming habbits and players it's insane.

Here the other night they released the World of Warcraft expansion. I noticed that the teamspeak channel for WoW was packed. And that's an entirely different kind of game not even mentioned here, think about that.

I love the diversity, but that's me! Maybe others in here are different. Let's respect that.

**YdoUwant2know** · 11-20-2008, 06:33 AM

Taking CingularDuality's advice, I went back a re-read asch's post. Part of it was cut out of Catman's quote that I found of particular relevance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asch

...Tactical Gamer's niche is mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives.

Many of you will question where "realism" fits into this niche. When Tactical Gamer was much smaller in size and supported fewer game servers, we traditionally hosted games like Ghost Recon, America's Army, and Operation Frontlines. These games themselves contained more features focused on realism. This inherently led to folks believe that Tactical Gamer was only about "realism". This is not the case. While we do want to promote "realism", we want to promote it in games where it applies.

This belief that Tactical Gamer was only about realism often led to questions about our support for game titles that definitely did not fall into this realm. We'd like to direct you back to the earlier statement of what our niche is. Mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives. A while back we put together the Tactical Gamer primer to try and address this but there is still some confusion over the matter. We've adopted the term "simulation" so let me explain this further.

Simulation does not equate only to realism.

When we refer to simulation, we speak of playing the game within the confines of the world the game creates. Simulation in a game like Armed Assault relies heavily on the realism aspect. When we refer to a game like World of Warcraft, we're speaking of a world where elves and wizards and other fantasy elements exist. In both cases the players should immerse themselves in the world created by the game. In both cases our niche is still mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives...

I would highly recommend reading asch's post in its entirety to anyone that has posted or is thinking about posting on this subject.

**black_Mirror** · 11-20-2008, 09:06 AM

I´m not going to offend anyone.. but the question that popped at at first was...
if the non-realism of Bf2142 bothers you.. why not complaining about World of Warcraft, Eve online, Team Fortress, Crysis and other.. How realistic is that?
It was said before but i´m gonna repeat it.. you can just be as much realistic as much the game would let you.

I´m just a BF2142 player.. but i have to say that i joined the community and enjoy every damn day on our great server BECAUSE i got sick of public servers.
You say we are not far away from being another pub server where people "run and gun"?... i have to disagree.
I played pub server before i joined TG ( just like 80% of everyone else in here ) and i got sick of the whole game and just put it away for like 5 month. then i started playing again and found this server.. and was addicted.
why? easy to say..
this is NOT a random pub server and i´m damn sure it´s never gonna be one. We have great admins in here doing a hell of a good job.
A pub server in my opinion is a server where you can do whatever the games allow you to do. Like bunny hopping, suicide tactics like RDX-Jeeps or what not. You can spawn camp cause only you K/D matter, you can lone wolf as long as you want to because no one cares about what you are doing.
All of this is not allowed in our great server because it is TG! And we play by the rules as long as i can remember.
Even at scrims we rather die by the rules then win by abuse the game mechanic.

Just my two bottles of rum... now go ahead and call my a newbie to the community or whatever you want to.. that's how i learned TG and that's what i´m fighting for every day in the year of 2142

**Superfast** · 11-20-2008, 09:41 AM

I actually think many initially join TG because of the talking teamwork, excellent rules enforced by hard-working admins and a fun mature community.

It's only later they maybe start getting into tactics and realism more. So TG is sort of like a journey and your view depends on where you are on that journey.

So focusing only on the realism part seems wrong, since this is only one part of what is TG. TG maybe was based on that back in the day, but not only that anymore. It's talking teamwork and fun that's most important now i feel. The community has grown into that.

Long Bow · 11-20-2008, 10:44 AM

I'm just re-etirating what others have said but here goes.

I have played a variety of games here at TG over more years the my join date would indicate. I have enjoyed a variety of titles from different ends of the spectrum and enjoyed them all.

I think TG applies a flavour or an essence to a game, it doesn't however force every game into the exact same shape. The most important factor is the people, the "real" TG'ers that make each game enjoyable. I have played with extreamly gifted players in games and didn't enjoy it as much as playing with a guy who was terrible but was a "real" TG'er.

To apply the rules of COD4 into ArmA would be absurd, it would ruin ArmA and destroy the server. To open up COD4 to the point that ArmA is would do the exact same. As Hazmat stated, in time the COD 4 crowd will thin (like my hair) and the kill-hunters will move on to greener pastures, leaving the TG players to play how we see fit. Perhaps then we will change the rules? I assume this would be a similar story to how PCS came about?

I join in for a game of ArmA knowing that it is a simulation, it takes time and communication. I join COD 4 for some faster paced fire fights, teamwork and fun. The two games can't be approached in the same way, but in the end I enjoy each of them for what they offer, it just depends on what I prefer that night. But you can bet it's always a TG server.

To close I would like to offer up my thanks to TG brass, officers and admins. They all are working towards providing the right environment in all the supported titles, no easy task.

Trooper · 11-20-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by black_Mirror

I´m not going to offend anyone.. but the question that popped at at first was...
if the non-realism of Bf2142 bothers you.. why not complaining about World of Warcraft, Eve online, Team Fortress, Crysis and other.. How realistic is that?

Your missing his point. Those MMOs dont even use TG servers. TF2 tried to start up being a nice tactical game and had tons of potential but the players who wanted to play, and have since left, complained and complained because they dint agree with using TG rules and mind set in that game. Crysis, they have done all they can with in the game mechanics to play it TG style.

**black_Mirror** · 11-20-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooper

Your missing his point. Those MMOs dont even use TG servers. TF2 tried to start up being a nice tactical game and had tons of potential but the players who wanted to play, and have since left, complained and complained because they dint agree with using TG rules and mind set in that game. Crysis, they have done all they can with in the game mechanics to play it TG style.

I don´t complain about those games. Cause i think you can play nearly every game out there TG style. And if you use a TG server or not does not really matter, causer after you add the tag via Guild or nickname.. you have to follow the Primer.
And you last sentence is what i´m talking about. We do what the game mechanics allow us to play a game the TG way. Name it CoD-X / BF-X/ Counter Strike or even World of Warcraft. What counts in the end is the spirit of those gamers and the will to work together as a team so the everyone wins in the end and not just the single player.

Trooper · 11-20-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by black_Mirror

I don´t complain about those games. Cause i think you can play nearly every game out there TG style. And if you use a TG server or not does not really matter, causer after you add the tag via Guild or nickname.. you have to follow the Primer.
And you last sentence is what i´m talking about. We do what the game mechanics allow us to play a game the TG way. Name it CoD-X / BF-X/ Counter Strike or even World of Warcraft. What counts in the end is the spirit of those gamers and the will to work together as a team so the everyone wins in the end and not just the single player.

Thats the problem with alot of the players, including many SMs. They are out for the score not the team effort.

**Vortex421** · 11-20-2008, 01:35 PM

We cannot read the minds of people, Trooper, or their true motivations for joining TG. But I think that the characterization of "alot of the players, including many SMs" is incorrect. I'd bet if you did a poll among the various games of SMs and regular players, you'd find that a great many are here for the very reason this community exists - to promote a more tactical and teamwork-based mindset.

Trooper · 11-20-2008, 01:38 PM

regardless of that mindset. Many still are in it for their score. You can join any server and the first thing alot of people will look for is who is winning. any game at TG that has a ranking or unlocking system in the game, that is the mindset. Get the most points and quickest unlocks so i can be better. You can say they dont all you want but it happens alot more then you think.

**Vortex421** · 11-20-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooper

regardless of that mindset. Many still are in it for their score. You can join any server and the first thing alot of people will look for is who is winning. any game at TG that has a ranking or unlocking system in the game, that is the mindset. Get the most points and quickest unlocks so i can be better. You can say they dont all you want but it happens alot more then you think.

I do not like to talk about things in abstract or generalization. To say that "most people say this" or "most people do this" or even "most people think this", does not do anything to improve a position - it only detracts from it.

Trooper, I have no doubt that you feel strongly about this. But you are not helping the discussion by making generalizations such as this. Saying that "it happens a lot more than you think" does not tell me just how many feel this way or how many do this. Saying that "that (score, not team effort) is the problem with a lot of players, including many SMs" does not offer up any useful quantitative evidence to back your claim.

Let me also offer this up: Our servers are public servers, because this community exists as a public community. We exist to better others who come to join us, and we exist to help teach others the value of our way of doing things. Yes, players are going to come to our public servers who have the mindset you have detailed, but how many retain that when all's said and done? How many change their minds and their ways after playing with us for awhile? I can tell you honestly that I was once like that but I changed my mindset when I started playing here regularly.

Food for thought.

Clefspeare · 11-20-2008, 03:04 PM

I know I am not as experienced as some of you here, so I am just going to say a couple things.

I just finished reading this entire thread... and I am very glad that the pointing fingers and such was put to a stop. This community is meant for maturity, communication, and teamwork. That goes for in the forums and between games as well. I am not pointing fingers at all, I am just saying that I am glad it got worked out.

Also, I personally don't understand how the original post was taken so badly, but I suppose if someone started talking trash about our Counter Strike server, I would be a bit defensive, because I have been playing there for a almost two years now.

As has been said previously, Counter Strike PCS does not have many of the problems that these newer games have because it has been around longer, allowing for more time to grow and expand to what it is now.

All that being said, if you want a true blue, teamwork and heart wrenching experience in a FPS, stop by the CSS server on Fridays and Saturdays during lockdown. I wish I was able to be on more during those days, it is one heck of an experience.

As for other games... I have no opinion, because I have not played these other games on TG. Maybe I will stop by and play for a bit one of these days.