Re: Questionable tactics?

**BHack** · 10-06-2005, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Pokerface

I think it's pretty clear where the line's drawn, actually.

Is taking a jet (solo), hopping out and having it crash into the wilderness the manner in which the vehicle was intended to be used? Of course not. It's incredibly wasteful and egotistic.

What about someone else flying it, and having you hop out? And the plane continues to remain in the air, functioning in its support role? Maybe not an obvious intention, but something still FAR more grounded in reality than the previous suggestion. And game-wise, if it's jet-squad SL who's flying, the second seat can be filled in the air by a spawner, so the (very real) possibility exists that you aren't wasting the asset at all.

I'm still a little confused as to where our disconnect is on this.

Our disconnect is in the adherance to this rule asch posted. I don't even really care if it's allowed to use the jet as transport or not. I'm just using this point to argue the fact that, if we are going to have a rule like #3, then you have to follow it all the way.

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 superior real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging advantages provided to players by the design of the game engine.

By definition of that rule, your use of a bomber as a transport is not allowed.

it is not a "real-world combat strategy" to jump out of a bomber. A real world combat strategy would be to limit the use of bombers to 2 man bombing crews.

And you are also doing exactly what the last part states not to: you are "leveraging an advantage provided by the design of the game engine." The game engine allows you to jump out of a jet bomber, the real world (that particular model) jet does not.

**Acid** · 10-06-2005, 04:10 PM

the purpose of a spawn point is also so the players have an objective to caputure and complete. it also does simulate a reinforcement point for backup. As i said above, the purpose of TG is to provide a realistic community of gamers that likes to use and deploy real world tactics and vheicles to do battle. Communication is the key and by putting CP's in the game, that allows for a good communication and cooperation for the capture of those points. using vheicles helps in that objective but using them just for the sole purpose of getting to a location first, and then trashing them in a river or something just so your squad can spawn, that is not a good use of them (specifically the air assets).

**asch** · 10-06-2005, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bhack

Our disconnect is in the adherance to this rule asch posted.

I think you mis-read the primer. What I quoted was one of the main principles the Tactical Gamer was founded on. It's not a rule. Rules are implemented to help focus players on these principles.

**Trooper** · 10-06-2005, 04:22 PM

just my thoughts as a CO, if i do see someone doing this and the Jet squad is waiting...like Mateo said TS and an admin will be called.

**BHack** · 10-06-2005, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by asch

I think you mis-read the primer. What I quoted was one of the main principles the Tactical Gamer was founded on. It's not a rule. Rules are implemented to help focus players on these principles.

Ok, should a rule be implemented then?

Why not have more rules also. Such as, you MUST be in the appropriate air squad to use an air asset. Above this post Trooper states he would call an admin if he saw someone using a jet for the tactic described while the air squad is waiting. Well what grounds would he have for doing that? There are no rules against that. Unless he specifically stated before round start that you must be in the air squad to use an air asset. It doesn't seem to me they did anything wrong.

What if I was CO and at round start specifically TOLD the air squad to NOT use the FIRST spawn of the jets so some other squad I ordered could employ this tactic. In this case I could actually call an admin on the air squad if they didnt' follow my order.

**Malum** · 10-06-2005, 04:35 PM

C'mon those are valid tactics. Its not as if in reality you have a FOOT RACE to get a chopper for your squad...and people in OTHER SQUADS will take up your space on the chopper for your squad..

OR, its not like people won't be there until some magic moment when all of them appear in your helicopter....

I think its fine. In reality, he'd have his own chopper and crew right with him anyway. Whats the difference?

**Iamthefallen** · 10-06-2005, 04:47 PM

Using a jet as simple transport across the map is cheap plain and simple, and as such it's not in the TG spirit as I understand and interpret it.
Much like UCB camping it comes down to intent, if you're flying missions and you see that you can drop out of the gunners seat to take out a commanders assets or steal a flag, go for it. If you get in a jet with the intent to bail out... that's a different story imho.

Applying liberal amounts of common sense and sportsmanship removes the need for defined rules that cover every possible situation.

My cent and a half.

**Trooper** · 10-06-2005, 04:51 PM

the reason for that is the Jets are used as air defence and offence no so you can have the better spot on the map, so you can get ahead. if there was a transport jet or the black hawk(thats what its used for) go for it...but not a single person jet....seriuosly

**Virigoth** · 10-06-2005, 05:37 PM

Imho its very simple, you only need to ask your self one question:

'Within the game mechanics, is the figher jet meant to transport a whole squad at high speed across the map?'

If you're using a BH to drop of 6 squads in succession in a single flight, that imo would still be OK though not exactly the cleanest of game-tactics. After all the BH is meant to be transport, has its own vulerabilities due to that role and is 'balanced' in its usefulness.

A fighter jet has defensive capability and mobility unsuited to a transport vehicle. Hence it should not be used in such fashion.

**asch** · 10-06-2005, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bhack

Ok, should a rule be implemented then?

I don't think so. We don't want to create rules for rules sake. Too many rules can have a negative side effect. We want a few, simple, clear rules that move people in the right direction. We will provide additional rules when they're called for.

Why not have more rules also. Such as, you MUST be in the appropriate air squad to use an air asset.

Too many rules, and rules such as this can make the game too restrictive. We hope and expect players to be able to manage themselves be able to judge situations on their own.

In some cases you will see Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) created to help guide players.

Above this post Trooper states he would call an admin if he saw someone using a jet for the tactic described while the air squad is waiting. Well what grounds would he have for doing that? There are no rules against that. Unless he specifically stated before round start that you must be in the air squad to use an air asset. It doesn't seem to me they did anything wrong.

Most likely nothing would be done by an admin.

**Pokerface** · 10-06-2005, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bhack

Ok, should a rule be implemented then?

Why not have more rules also. Such as, you MUST be in the appropriate air squad to use an air asset. Above this post Trooper states he would call an admin if he saw someone using a jet for the tactic described while the air squad is waiting. Well what grounds would he have for doing that? There are no rules against that. Unless he specifically stated before round start that you must be in the air squad to use an air asset. It doesn't seem to me they did anything wrong.

What if I was CO and at round start specifically TOLD the air squad to NOT use the FIRST spawn of the jets so some other squad I ordered could employ this tactic. In this case I could actually call an admin on the air squad if they didnt' follow my order.

Why are you still picking this fight?

What if my squad needed a medic, and a medic from another squad was right there, and I TKed him to take his medic kit?

(for those familiar with my PCS rants... get ready for this, you're about to be floored

)
We have rules. We have guiding principles. We have enough that we feel the framework for "What TacticalGamer Is" is apparent and obvious without bogging down the game in an endless spiral of what-ifs.

Truthfully, if you're even CONSIDERING something like "What if I, as commander, instructed my jet squad not to use the jets so other people could crash them?" then you're missing the point. The reason we don't have a rule for that is because something like that shouldn't even occur to a player who understands how TacticalGamer operates. It's also why someone like Trooper would call an admin to the scene, as there's definitely a player who isn't grasping what we're about. Is there a rule being broken? No, not technically. Is that how we play here? No, not at all.

**icky** · 10-06-2005, 06:48 PM

Rules are for keeping the basic parameters of the gaming environment sane. They make it very easy for us to root out players who don't play well with others. Once those players are eliminated, we don't have to worry about defining little rules for every element of how the game is played.

So with that in mind, I can say: Bhack, please don't use the jets as a taxi. Let the pilots have the jets.

I understand exactly where you are coming from in this whole thread though. It is more about competitive spirit. You want the rules defined, and then you want to outsmart your opponent within those rules. Unfortunately, I think it is impossible to do so in this game without sucking the fun right out of it. So the alternative is to think of things to do and see if they pass a basic cheeziness test (TM). You know the jet taxi is cheezy or you wouldn't have started the thread, so it fails the test. If it's cheezy, it doesn't really fit the TG environment.

Another trick which would be cool if coordinated would be to have one transport chopper leave the carrier with all of the SLs, dropping them at flags, to have their squads spawn with them. For ME, this passes the cheeziness test. It isn't wasteful of resources, and it incorporates a high risk and reward. It is somewhat realistic, since a real transport chopper can carry quite a few more than 6 men. (I think the BH can carry 15 or something... not sure about the transport)

**AbeRioGunman** · 10-06-2005, 07:13 PM

I can see both sides, but I really like the way Icky puts it. Those are the kind of tactics that make me not want to play on other servers.

**=Sarc=** · 10-06-2005, 07:51 PM

What about suicide jeeps? It's forbidden according to the Gentleman's contract but not in the rules. This tactic is not popular with many players. Is it a real world tactic? Yes, suicide runs have been used before. Why is this tactic unpopular if it is modeled after a real world tactic? Players think it's cheap because the suicider can respawn, often in the same area. Is it fair? I think so because both teams can use it and it doesn't always ensure a win.

I firmly stand that we shouldn't be 100% about realism. It shouldn't always be the first thought to what TG is about. Fair game play and fun game dynamics should be a big part of what TG is about too. Would BF2 be fun if we modded it to have no respawns? No, it's been designed as a game, not a simulation. Spawn camping, especially UCBs, falls under fair game play. It isn't realistic to forbid players to attack an area. We have this rule to ensure players have a fair and fun game.

Has anybody tried Bhack's tactic? A few people are saying it won't work but maybe it really should be put to the test.

These questionable tactics fall under the concept of emergence. They may not have been intended to be available or possible in the game yet they are. Players find ways to accomplish tasks and often using methods that are considered out-of-the-box. Bunny hopping wasn't intended but it has been a tactic that emerged and transfers to many games. Jeeps are quite effective against helos. It might not have been intended but players are discovering that in the absence of SAM sites, a jeep makes a worthy substitute. Arguing that a tactic was not intended by the developers is not very strong. Developers thrive on the fact that a game offers opportunities for players to discover new methods of playing and enjoying the game. Call it "gaming the game" but emergence is a big part of video games.

**Shiner** · 10-06-2005, 08:25 PM

Suicide jeeps are a matter of honor and is thus in the gentleman's contract. I've even led a squadie that was using this tactic. I didn't say anything to stop him and defended him against those that thought it was a rule...
Now that being said you will NEVER EVER find me or IMHO most TG's that follow the primer using that tactic. It fails the "Icky Cheeze Test" and doesn't seem like an appropriate method to obtain a kill (again only in our opinions).

Bhack's tactic is as effective in the short term as it is self-defeating in the long-run. I remember the "bad" days of bf42 when someone would use the planes as personal and disposable transports to get to a point fast. The other team would subsequently dominate the air controlling the map and ultimately win a decisive battle. My personal opinion is DON'T be that *&*% that ruins the map for everyone else because you want to get somewhere 60 seconds faster.

Thread Tools

Display